Karl

Shooting straight under pressure is more useful I would think in a gunfight, certainly second to having a loaded, working and accurate weapon and being able to use it. It's one of the skills I would like to learn and if it wasn't such an onerous process in the UK then I would definitely have a gun. I think it's important to know how to defend yourself should the need arise. We do like to go on about our lack of gun 'culture' over here, but when the TV shows pictures of fragile old people raped, then beaten half to death in their own homes, I can't help thinking they would have been safer with a weapon. I thought the same when all those tourists were shot on the beach in Tunisia-fish in a barrel-the gunman didn't care about gun laws except that it made him powerful and the rest defenceless victims.

Firstly you must own your body and mind, then those things that you have worked on which are the product of body and mind. It is the only way in which you can trade with another person. If you do not own it then you cannot give it to anyone as they are free to take it, but as anyone is free to take it, then there is no point producing anything. Just wait for someone else to produce something and then take it. Here there are no moral values and it really is dog eat dog. This is why man has the ability to reason and to impart ownership as a necessity for survival. Of course it does mean that from necessity that one has the right to defend ones property with as much force as deemed necessary, mostly though, that force is simply the adoption of a fence to show what is considered owned. This is respected by all but the thief. It is reason which prevails and not force. It is the 'reason' we developed language simultaneously in order to argue verbally before preceding to physical action. Mostly a thief is repelled by simply a warning shout. The implied threat is enough. No one really wants to go to the point of physical damage to their own property 'mind and body'. Killing and war is a natural facet of a failure to communicate. It's only recently that it has become as bloody and destructive as it has. The reason here is that 'ownership' has been subverted to defence of the state. It is a very few men who have convinced the vast body of men that they are to sacrifice themselves for the good of all. They use fallacious argumentation such as 'your country needs you' and 'every man shall do his duty'. This then is a product of transferral. The vast body of men are no longer 'owners' of their bodies, minds or productive effort and are property of the state. The taking of 'land and resources' is really a lie. In the short term of course you can take crops and animals that have already been produced, but you are then stuck with working the fields for yourself, feeding the livestock, digging the ore etc. someone must then take ownership and risk the same attacks as the previous owners. This is patently unstable and returns to an idea that no one owns anything. Sometimes the inhabitants are press ganged into working for the thieves, but then, we see that the thief must keep control of the inhabitants which is 'ownership' again. I did not say the 'emotion' was the only decider, it is necessary to trigger thought and moral action through reason. It is not simply that one should not steal that is implied because of bad emotion, but that stealing will be result in the 'no ownership' that you believe in. If no one produces because the result is theft, then the thief goes hungry as well. It's this knowledge that will always mean that thieves will be in the minority and fences will be necessary. If you have no ownership of self then you can't have reason, or moral values and are less useful than a jackal.

Ah the 3 degrees Oh come on, someone had to

It's our colloquial word for a sandwich. Hence referred to as the 'butty' because it's buttered bread with some filling, but usually it's a common thing such as cheese, fried egg ( known as the banjo butty because when you bite into it the egg runs down the tie followed by a banjo action to try and remove the offending hot yolk), bacon, jam, spam, ham. Posher fillings such as cream cheese and smoked salmon wouldn't be referred to in that way of course.

Oh and juicing is good once over the binge. Carrot, Apple, celery.

Nope. Sugar addiction is nasty and it fights back. With insulin kicks and gut flora. Even carbs will set it off. You will have to go cold turkey and give up everything sugary or carby for at least a couple of weeks until you stabilise then it's gets easier. Don't try sugar substitute drinks as they make you hang onto the addiction. It's as bad as trying to quit smoking, maybe even harder. Remember that alcohol, fruit and many foods such as bread contain hidden sugars so give them as well for the two weeks and then see where you are. It's hell. I have a sweet tooth and even if I start eating bread, pasta or rice it will kick me back into craving. I only eat wholemeal bread and rice and avoid pasta - which I would have eaten 3 to 4 times per week. Wholemeal seems to retard the process. If you can't face being completely without alcohol then drink a small glass of red wine. Snack on almonds and eat healthy fats like coconut oil, advocado, eggs. Make sure you are properly full otherwise the craving will really go punchy.

Your are giving me an overwhelming desire to kick puppies and steal babies comforters. I feel the madness coming on. Arf arf ahh oooow

Bring down the pain on its ass. Take revenge on speelchucker and its software ilk.

I get that when the bacon butty guy puts tomato sauce on instead of brown. "You've wronged me sir" I say, whilst slapping him liberally around the face with one half of the sauce soaked butty. That seems to help a bit.

You can't have it all ways. If you are just grousing well that's fine, but if you are at the end of your tether then that needs a specific rethink. Do something that you want to do means you might need to adjust your lifestyle to a lower standard of living-it could happen anyway with a sudden illness or accident. As I said, if you can't think of what you want then do nothing until it becomes imperative that you do something. I'm not suggesting dropping out, just a hiatus until you can figure out what you would prefer. Doing something that you enjoy isn't work, but it might take a while to establish the new career. If you have support during that time then it's easier, but everybody is in different circumstances, it might require you to cut your hours, go part time or find a less time dependent job to make some income. Grousing is one thing, but a life of working misery isn't necessarily your destiny. There are no guarantees you will achieve anything and you might end up poorer for it, but, essentially, if you already have your skill sets, experience and good references you can always pick up the old career again. That's my 2 cents worth. Something to ponder that's all. I'm certainly not going to be your life coach-well not for free anyway :-)

There is video footage-which was unavailable at the time-which shows the severe damage done to building 7 from the impact of the plane that had showered debris and fuel onto the building. It's clearly a raging inferno inside a very badly damaged building. I would ask the same questions as NIST: surely someone would have noticed a team of engineers laying cutting charges. It's not simply a matter of the charges either, it's the wiring and packing needed to ensure the columns go out accurately without causing excess damage to other columns. I've watched engineers doing this to a building and it really isn't a couple of days kind of job. The alternative would be a fuel air bomb or something similar which would reach that temperature-and realistically a 300mph 500 ton aircraft loaded with thousands of gallons of Avgas would do a pretty good imitation of just that kind of explosion. The volume of air to liquid would have been just about perfect. The sides of the twin towers have gone completely where the aircraft impacted. There is no metal structure at all for several floors. The shock of the impact was never foreseen by architects and the most they thought possible was a 150mph wind gust. I also read that due to age, the fire proofing on the beams had fallen off so there would have been little to no protection. We unfortunately now have an examples of what is left of a jet airliner when it collides with a mountain. It's just tiny pieces. This was a big chunk of fragmenting aluminium and subject to intense heat and in tiny fragments it would have likely added to the burn. Then there are the office furniture, paper, plastics, wall coverings and higher wind forces feeding the flames. I think it's more likely that the government is covering incompetence and some connections with Saudi Arabia that they would prefer stayed hidden. A government and all its resources failed to prevent a plot developing that should have been easy to spot. In fact it was reported many times, they knew the men. It was easier to push the people to into accepting greater security then directing a war against the Middle East. Much better than millions of people wondering why the hell the state had failed to protect them. The implication here is that the state was involved in a plot, but I think that's missing the real plot, that they got away with failure and incompetence by directing the publics anger towards Iraq. I noted today that George Osbourne-our chancellor-blames ISIS for the death of the little boy washed up on the beach. Yet it was the coalition of UK/EU/US forces that created the monster, they even trained and armed them. Governments will deflect blame wherever and whenever they can to cover just how bad they really are at doing all the things they promise to do very well.

Apparently he also said to build an orangery and put in a hot tub.

Do something you want to do rather than something you think you have to do. If you don't know what to do, then do nothing at all, then it will come to you what has to be done is quite different to what you think must be done.

Which means petitioners to support the application. Those I know about have most definitely been asked to join which I would assume is the first petitioner ? Like you I don't know much about it, but the fancy do's are excellent. I was casting an eye over many celebrities of stage and screen.

Yes, Buddhism and now I find Taoism has the same framework. Both are mentioned within the video. It was the Hebrews that seem to have put it all together. The problem with both Eastern religions is the interpretation. First 'eyes to see them' and 'lips that we might tell'. However, I think everyone here is pretty much trying to find the same thing in a uniquely individual way. As it says on the video, there are those in the pyramid structure and those who are wandering about in the desert. Most of us are having our 40 years in the desert and some of us still have a foot in the platonic pyramidal hierarchy as shown on the dollar bill. "Buying a stairway to heaven" so to speak. So become the rock and not the roll. There are two paths you can go down...even though there is a sign on the wall but, it's words can have two meanings.

I've come at this from the ground up so my understanding is via the Trivium and Quadrivium. I knew and studied a lot of the mystery school stuff prior to finding the Trivium. I discovered that the mystery schools are mostly obsfucations of their true form. It became very frustrating trying to pick the way through multiple contradictory to explanations. There is such a fragmentation that it becomes clear that either the whole thing is just a big pile of mystic woo woo, or the key to seeing it has been omitted. The church holds the key, but they have reversed the Trivium method in order to conceal understanding by putting logic before grammar. If you go at this piece meal fashion or get involved in lower order cults then you will not find clarity, at worst it is will be confusion and at best it will be cult control.

Did you watch the video I posted ?

What do you want to find out ? As a kind of intro but it's really a bit of the symbolism of the mystery schools vs what underlies the symbolism. I think this is pretty much universal. I'm guessing you recognise the symbolism has a deeper meaning, so, at risk of having my tongue cut out etc.... :-)

In my opinion. From research I have done I deem it unlikely that you will be initiated into anything particularly mysterious, but, so what, life is for new experiences so why not give it a go anyway ? At worst you will meet some people you aren't particularly in tune with, at best it might open new doors and opportunities. I think you can go along to meetings under a chaperone to see if you want to join.

I discovered mental chaos is all about holding two opposing concepts. These are often sneakily subtle and will keep morphing into new arrangements. They lie in the shadows that your mind casts over them. 'Letting go' or 'accepting' are two sides of the same coin. The bush whacker in this little parlour game is 'letting go of the idea of letting go' or 'accepting that you won't accept something'. Instead of 'letting go/accepting' helping it simply adds an additional dimension to the internal turmoil. Best then not to add it, because effectively what you are saying to yourself is that you wish to feel 'other' than you are feeling. That if you could only let go, or accept things then it would be better, but then you wonder at your inability to let go and accept things and see that as the new feeling of not being good enough. Better, when the little nagging voices come, to treat them as the voices of your own internal idiot or child. Like when you are trying to do some very involving task and someone is calling your attention 'yeah, yeah, I hear you but I've got things to do first'. Then set out the task and do it. The voices won't ever go away, but neither pander, ignore, accept or try and dis-attach from them because you cannot-they are you. The turmoil can then go into a nice holding pattern whilst you sort out what you need to get sorted.

I've been to a couple of big 'family' oriented open nights through a master of a lodge in London. It seems to be more of a club than anything else and a good place to network. I was never witness to anything ceremonial of course, just food, alcohol and dancing. Never been asked to join as I don't imagine I fit the profile- far too independent and incorruptible for any club that would have me :-) I've known a few masons and I've never been asked, but it's not my scene. It's not as if it's a big cult thing and I doubt you will see much of the mystery school element in the lower order, local lodges. Like many of these clubs, the high seats are reserved for those who already hold power/prestige. You will probably end up doing a bit of charity work and some mild socialising.

I believe it's by invitation only.

In many cases the reverse of theory to technology is true. Often the theory is added after inventing the technology. A light switch is a Good example, as is virtually everything electrical. We didn't need quantum theory to build a laser, though we might well utilise the theory to build a better version at some point. I'm certain slings and gravity were utilised before Issac Newton appeared. In fact isn't most science really 'how does this work'. Then it gets cute in helping better and easier design. It would have been much harder to build a steam engine without some knowledge of pressure, materials and thermodynamics but it wouldn't have been impossible. Once science got to work then steam engines quickly improved performance. Interesting thought that we could have had an entire catalogue of theological descriptions in science though. Would make a pretty good idea for a book.

You have a very weird view of life. You can pontificate if you wish, but this isn't how you experience life so why pretend that some other thing is true. "Violent enforcement" is very emotive. We respect others and don't steal their stuff so how is that violent enforcement ? Our emotions tell us if we are doing things that don't accord with our values. You seem to make the same assumptions that man is an uncontrollable animal bent on violent appropriation. This is the cry of every socialist, anti-capitalist, environmentalist and feminist. Man has no self ownership and therefore should accept the collective ideology in which the self is sacrificed to the needs of the greater good. Yet, despite everything you will stand there arguing your point which is in complete opposition to your ideology of non ownership. It's a hypocritical stance and you should see through it and find out why you have chosen to force that belief on your self. It is this belief that has led to mass murder under communism- for the good of the people. We had to destroy the people to save the people is clearly not a good rationale.

Hey that's me...