Chang

I do not think that "the killer instinct" is really required to protect ourselves from aggression. What we need to develop is confidence and presence. The bully and aggressor will pick on the easy target and once the target no longer looks so easy it gives the aggressor pause for thought. It need not necessarily be ability in martial arts that is required but may simply be a case of how we stand and move. As your son is only three and a half years of age however it is probably best to make your concerns known to the daycare staff. At that age the reasoning behind retaliation could be a difficult for his young mind to grasp and could start to lay up problems for the future.

You may find this link useful> if you read down to the bottom you will find a link to recipes. http://www.seahorsearts.co.uk/chang-ming-diet.php

If at first you don't succeed, try, try--------give up.

Yes, thank you I have read it now.

I have never heard mention of Gurdjieff curing elephants of insomnia or for that matter partaking of long distance Yak (or even yack) killing. Please elucidate.

Do not do unto others as you expect they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same. George Bernard Shaw

ST George he was for England. And before he killed the dragon He drank a pint of English ale Out of an English flagon. For though he fast right readily In hair-shirt or in mail. It isn't safe to give him cakes Unless you give him ale.

****************************** Moderator Message************************************ A reminder to keep posts on topic and not to attempt to derail the O.P. with posts or attachments which you may consider amusing but which add nothing to the discussion and will cause bickering and derailing of the topic. Thank you for your understanding in this matter. Chang for Mod Team.

There is a lot of talk here of the end of the world so please take note. This is the way the world ends This is the way the world ends This is the way the world ends, Not with a bang but a whimper. T.S. Eliot The Hollow Men

Today the people of Scotland vote on whether to remain part and parcel of the United Kingdom or go it alone. It is an emotive business and the outcome is uncertain.

Scotland would have had to join the E.U. as it would be incapable of standing alone, being a small country which is deeply divided along sectarian lines. Whilst the Scots hatred of England and the English is well documented they would soon have found themselves hating the Europeans even more. Such is the nature of these things.

And a bowl of Scott's Porage Oats in the other hand.

Wisest remark of all:-

“Oh, come with old Khayyám, and leave the Wise To talk; one thing is certain, that Life flies; One thing is certain, and the Rest is Lies; The Flower that once has blown for ever dies.”

Alas. The Church of England has tried to be so many different things to so many different people for so many years that it has long since ceased to be anything to anybody. It would not surprise me in the least to hear that the Archbishop of Canterbury had decided to become a Muslim; in which case he had best keep silent regarding his doubts on the existence of God.

What this thread needed was a real Scots views on independence. Well better late than never.

The great problem with the democratic process is that lunatics and idiots are also allowed to vote. In the case of Scottish independence more idiots have voted to remain in the union than to leave it. For this I am grateful. It also appears that the English may at last be granted more say in our own affairs. For years to describe yourself as English has been tantamount to being a racist. On official documentation in the UK, when describing your ethnic origins, the closest tick box to English is "White British" which is about as descriptive as calling yourself a European.

Yes this sums it up very nicely.

My Mother was a Scot but I consider myself an Englishman. I fear that the vote will be emotion rather than reason driven.

Hello and welcome Bud. You will find no shortage of likeminded persons with whom to discourse here. Good luck and best wishes, Chang.

I prefer aware but unconcerned, as advised in the Gospel of Thomas. Jesus said, "Be passersby." But we are both describing the same state of sagehood as described in the Gospel of Matthew. "Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Unaware or unconcerned?

Does the sage care if he is considered, or indeed if he is, useless?

The problem with understanding is that it is a building with many stories. Our understanding will grow with our consciousness and this holds true for the simplest of things.