Messages

Could someone explain this game to me because I have always wanted to play it but I don't know anything about it.

Back again,

I have now read through about 6 pages of the Zeta thread and the Reptilian thread.

I am really not very impressed with it.  However, that may be because I have had to deal with people with Dissociative Identity Disorder a number of years ago when I was running support groups and telephone counselling.  You haven't lived until you are talking with someone who has several alter-personalities and threatening to commit a murder-suicide! [:O]  

For those who don't know anything about this disorder, I will give a short, general description.  Basically, a child experiences some trauma, often abuse, and can not escape this trauma, so it trances out which insulates its sense of 'I' from the traumatic scene and then creates 'others' who adopt the memory and emotions of the trauma.  The initial personality becomes something of a host while the other fragmented bits of personality become alter personalities.  It is very possible to have an alter who deals with anger, another with sex, etc, with little memory of these events or communication between alters/host.  There is a story I remember of a woman who would take 7 contraceptive pills a day, one she actually took and then each alter would come 'out' and take one as well.  As there often is little awareness between the alters and between the alters and the host, each alter did not know that the others had taken a pill.

One of the interesting thing about this disorder is that often people who have this disorder have alters who are angels, aliens, demons, etc.  They are not angels, aliens or demons, but parts which have been given the jobs of being helpers or persecutors, etc.  With treatment, the original personality or host, begins to experience the emotions and memories, that they split off and integrate them into a more meaningful whole or I.  It is difficult because one of the reasons that people develop this disorder is to avoid pain, fear, etc, so it is hard to keep them in therapy and if they are challenged they will often do a runner.

The way that the Channellers communicate is exactly the same as someone suffering from the above disorder.  You will of course see it as being different but having experienced people with this disorder means that I have a viewpoint which allows me to make this comparison fairly easily.  I read how people were requesting some kind of proof, that is the channellers were challenged and with that the channelling ended.  It would have been easy for these 'aliens' who seemed genuinely concerned about humanity to prove their existence and that what they had to say was true.  Since David Icke seems to know these aliens then it would be easy for him and them to provide us with proof.  Since they are more advanced than us, they could provide us through Icke with a simple technological proof.  They could give Icke a design to some kind of technology which will save humanity from the forcast destruction.  Something which is so advanced that we could not think it up ourselves, at least not in our time.  Easy.

Maybe someone has already suggested this, so sorry if I am going over old territory.

Like I said, I wasn't impressed with it.  As far as I could determine, it had nothing to do with demons, negs, aliens, etc, just a lot of very confused individuals requiring psychological help.  There has to be a point when we stand up and say that it is nice and fair to say that people have a right to their beliefs, but in the face of evidence to the contrary, we have to be strong enough to say that some beliefs are nothing more than superstitious nonsense.  That doesn't mean I don't feel for these people.  I do, I feel enough for them to tell them that they are deluding themselves.  It brings me no pleasure or joy to be so blunt.  I know I am hurting people, I don't like that feeling.  But I would be joining in the delusion and be patronising to join in, nod my head and say, 'really, tell me more'.  

If you think I am a hardcore skeptic, you would be wrong.  I have had a number of spiritual and psychic experiences but I always demand of these experiences some level of evidence, otherwise, I put them in the 'Undecided' basket.  

Look, I will leave this matter open.  If I can be shown some evidence of what David Icke has to say, then please go for it.  Maybe someone can produce a picture of Bush shapeshifting or something, then again, anyone with half a brain can see what a snake he is.[}:)]

[]

NLC,

From your replies, I don't feel like you did understand my meanings, I don't want to keep going over them however, so lets move on.

You're right about my not knowing about those Zeta Channelling threads, although I have a vague feeling of passing by them a few months ago.  I will check them out and reply at a later date.

I don't believe in Utopias.  The idea that smaller groups or communities would somehow function any better than our current situation I think probably comes from some romantic notion of the past, where people lived in villages, etc.  However, it ignores that there use to be many feudal wars between community groups.  Unless you can ensure that there adequate supplies, in every part of the world that house these communities, they are going to compete for resources, wars and egos will take over.  My parents originated from villages, I know the mindset of people who come from smaller communities.  Its narrow, simplistic, black and white, ego driven, social protocol driven, etc, however, it also has some good qualities, like more cooperation and generally, the fear of shame keeps people honest.  In large city like communities, it also has its bad points, however, the thing I like about multicultural large groups, is you can disappear because there are so many different people from different cultures, that no one cares who you are or where you come from.  When I was growing up and Australia was still young in terms of European settlement, I was a wog, now no one sees me as being different because we have become so massive.

I guess what I am trying to say is that reality and life are messy, the fact that we still exist on this little planet should make us realise that we already live in Utopia.  Here is something that most ancient spiritual traditions try to teach.  As long as you believe the world that you inhabit is imperfect you will struggle because you will be driven to make it perfect.  If you accept the world as being perfect as is, then the struggle ends, suffering ends.  It is the difference between a witch and a saint or mystic.  One attempts to bring about change, to manipulate the environment, the other looks at the environment and tries to change themselves by seeing it for what it is.  We have nothing to change, God does not need us to change, save, etc the world.  However, if you wish, you may offer assistance, compassion, etc, not because you have to, just because you like to.

Okay now I am blah, blahing.  I will read some of the Zeta Channelling threads that you mentioned and get back to you.

[Mondo, its true that I have not read any of his books, but I have been to his official website and it was enough for me to think it of little value and bizarre, and to not bother any further with him. I look after two elderly parents and two small children, I can't manage to get past 150 pages of Roberts book, its taken me some four months just to get there. I don't have time to read and have to be very selective. I am not about to read Icke's books, since I feel I would benefit better if I read someone elses who can give me the lowdown on corruption in the government, etc, without resorting to reptiles. You mentioned reptiles being mentioned in ancient traditions. It is true, however, that does not mean that we just accept it at face value. There is a thing as symbolic truths and just plain fantasy. For example, in India, they still believe that cows and monkeys are sacred, Godlike creatures. Not many people would agree that that is a true representation of the truth, at least not by the number of butchers around. These creatures, represent symbolic truths for these people. Fair enough.In the late part of the 1800's, it became a craze in genteel society in England to drink the ground up remains of Egyptian mummys. It was believed that the powder had healing powers for everything from migrains to syphilus. Plain fantasy. However, it was widely believed and this form of cannibalism, was prescribed by doctors. People who should have known better, were the first to be convinced.So you see, because the ancients had it painted on their walls does not equate with truth or reality.However, I thank you for your reply. I mean that honestly. Your comments are fair.]

quote:Originally posted by MONDO

Atlanta,

I take it you have not read any of David Icke's books. If you have, or you have knowledge of the subjects he discusses, please provide information to prove what Icke writes about is wrong. Please do not just assume that his information is incorrect because it does not fit your belief system or because you have the thought that Icke is full of it because most other people think that to, without actually ever having read any of his books. That doesnt make sense to me.
Also, the reptillian theory is not a new one and is not solely Icke's idea. The 'gods' are described in many ancient cultures as being of the serpant race or dragon headed people. There are many many books on this subject. I'm not saying Icke or anyone else is correct in the rep theory, only that it does warrant some serious thought.
Icke's latest book 'Tales from the Timeloop' is his best IMO, as he discusses in depth the nature of reality, quantum mechanics, holographic theory and how we create our reality individualy and collectively. This information, as you may know is very very old and has been understood and explained using various models, the latest being particle physics etc.
If you dont want to give Icke your money, get one of his books out of your local library, if you wish to have a more solid grounding in which to debate the information that is. If they dont have any, request one and I'm sure they will do what they can to get any Icke book you want. If you are'nt all that interested, simply say that you do not know whether the information is correct or not as you havent read any of the books.
Best wishes to you..

Mondo, its true that I have not read any of his books, but I have been to his official website and it was enough for me to think it of little value and bizarre, and to not bother any further with him.  

I look after two elderly parents and two small children, I can't manage to get past 150 pages of Roberts book, its taken me some four months just to get there.  I don't have time to read and have to be very selective.  I am not about to read Icke's books, since I feel I would benefit better if I read someone elses who can give me the lowdown on corruption in the government, etc, without resorting to reptiles.  

You mentioned reptiles being mentioned in ancient traditions.  It is true, however, that does not mean that we just accept it at face value.  There is a thing as symbolic truths and just plain fantasy.  For example, in India, they still believe that cows and monkeys are sacred, Godlike creatures.  Not many people would agree that that is a true representation of the truth, at least not by the number of butchers around.  These creatures, represent symbolic truths for these people.  Fair enough.

In the late part of the 1800's, it became a craze in genteel society in England to drink the ground up remains of Egyptian mummys.  It was believed that the powder had healing powers for everything from migrains to syphilus.  Plain fantasy.  However, it was widely believed and this form of cannibalism, was prescribed by doctors.  People who should have known better, were the first to be convinced.

So you see, because the ancients had it painted on their walls does not equate with truth or reality.

However, I thank you for your reply.  I mean that honestly.  Your comments are fair.

For No Leaf Clover
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NLC, the thing is that we don't need David to tells that governments are corrupt, we all are to some degree.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Thats absolutely no excuse for a corrupt government.

NLC, you mistook what I meant.  I meant that corruption as well as good qualities, are part of the human experience.  We are all corrupt and honest.  I think you would find it hard to find someone who believed that any government was squeaky clean.  I meant, I don't need David to tell me that we have a corrupt government.  There is no such thing as an honest government on this planet, since we are all to some measure corrupt and corruptable.  However, that is not excuse, as you say, to not keep an eye out and try and aim for the least corruption possible in our own selves as well in politics.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have plenty of socially, environmentally and politically conscious people who are telling us day in and out what the government is up to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And I guess you will believe whatever they tell you without looking into things yourself. Listening to people from the government to find out what kind of things are going on at the moment that we aren't aware of is sort of ignorant to begin with imo.

Again, you misunderstood what I meant.  I meant that there are some people honest enough both inside politics and outside politics as well as environmentalists, law makers, etc, which help to expose corruption and stem the possibility of corruption.  However, of course, it still goes on, we can only try.  By the way, you are talking to someone who does know how the government can be corrupt as I have had reason to fight the government myself and had cause to take the government to the Human Rights Commission.  You see, I have looked into things myself.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is there to recommend this person as someone who is credible, even if he is talking about world peace and love.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I find it humorous that you would require someone to have credibility before you would listen to anything they would have to say about being peaceful and loving. I wasn't implying that people that go to the convention should take everything he says as true, but that it might get the people that attend to think about our current situation more and for themselves. Thinking for themselves meaning both not taking Icke's opinions as their own, nor taking official or unofficial statements from the government or its members or former members as their own, since, after all, they're the ones in question here.

If I need to learn quantum mechanics and I have a choice of learning it from David Icke or from a world famous scientist who breaths and lives the theory, you are right I would prefer to learn it from the more highly credible source.  Chances are I will get a straighter explanation.  Chances are that a footballer who believes himself a messiah is not going to explain quantum mechanics in quite the same way.

I will also tell you why I have this bias, ie, why credibility is so important to me.  You see I suffer from a number of health problems.  I has spent years going to gp's who were hopeless and as hopeless as the specialists they sent me too.  I have descovered however, over the last few years that the best way to handle a problem is look for someone through the internet and journal searches who really knows their stuff.  It has proved successful for me.  I no longer wade through a sea of incompetence.  Credibility for me is valuable, cause it usually, not always, but usually cuts through the crap.

It is true that some of Ickes messages involves love, caring both social and environmental, etc.  But we get information like that everyday from many sources.  In this regard, he has nothing new to say.  If you get love from a partner or a child, you have heard the saner part of his message.  If you have gone into any religious institution, whether its Christian, Buddhist, etc, you will have heard the message of love.  If you switch on your tv, chances are you will hear about how we need to conserve and why and how the government is corrupt, etc.  Given this, why would I need to see David Icke?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a thought, spend the day that you would going to David Icke, working with the disadvantaged instead. It would be more fruitful, and the money that will be wasted on him, save it and give it to the organisations that help those who suffer the corruption of major governments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Shouldn't helping the 'disadvantaged' more the job of organizations like the UN, and, here's a thought, our government?, the institution created to organize, protect, support, and represent us? Governments aren't supposed to be for collecting taxes, limiting freedoms and starting wars with other countries just because there's a possibility they might be dangerous.  Wouldn't it be nice if we just solved the problem itself rather than just fixing what the problem causes?

It is indeed the job of organisations like the UN and governments to meet the needs of their citizens, both healthy and disadvantaged.  However, it is also our responsibility.  It is ridiculous to assume that any government can fill every crack, make laws to cover everyone, etc.  For those that slip through the cracks there are charities and community groups.  I find it amusing that you think that we can 'fix' the 'problem', by which you imply the government.  How exactly do you intend on doing that?  With who would you replace government officials with?  From the beginning of our history, there hasn't been a single government of any political persuasion which fullfilled every citizens' needs and none that were not corrupt to some degree.  I would like to know what you envision as Utopia and how do we get it?  Another revolution?

Having said all this, I did have a vision type dream once that I was taken into an underground chamber by a reptile looking gent, resembling something straight out of a hierglyph.  So who knows.  Maybe I have it all wrong.  Its been known to happen. []

Take care.

NLC, the thing is that we don't need David to tells that governments are corrupt, we all are to some degree.  We have plenty of socially, environmentally and politically conscious people who are telling us day in and out what the government is up to.  

Just this morning there was a ex-military intelligence person who quit the Howard government as advisor because he says that we have no business being in Iraq.  That the whole thing was a deception of gigantic proportions.  He even said in the interview when asked by the host about his opinion about John Howard, that he felt that he was the single most irresponsible politician he knew.  This person in my books has credibility to talk about right and wrong, about corruption, etc.  David Icke is from memory a footballer - I mean, A FOOTBALLER!  What is there to recommend this person as someone who is credible, even if he is talking about world peace and love.  Lots of people talk about love and peace without talking about reptiles from out of space.

Here's a thought, spend the day that you would going to David Icke, working with the disadvantaged instead.  It would be more fruitful, and the money that will be wasted on him, save it and give it to the organisations that help those who suffer the corruption of major governments.

1. A photographic memory.
2. Very high intelligence to use the info I remember.
3. The wisdom to know when to not use the information I remember.

One more...

4. Mental, spiritual and physical health, including a long life.  Otherwise its not much use having the above if you don't live long enough or are to sick to use it and make a difference in this world.

Good question.  []

Must be a fool moon out!

[xx(]

Dang, I just tripped over my long green tail!  For the suggestible, I am only kidding!

I wish you well at your gatherings, but sorry, I just can't get serious about this guy.  I am a fairly openminded person but there is nothing to recommend this person or his statements.  If whoever is out there wanted to really help us figure out what was going on a save ourselves, etc, you would think they would have chosen someone like a nobel prize winner or a leader, etc.  Its all we need now, one more fanatical messiah and several thousand zombies to follow him.

All I can do is pray that our government adds psychology, statistics and philosophy to the school curriculum, in the hope that we can innoculate our children against such cults.

I have never taken such a negative stance against anyone or ideas, my motto is everyone is entitled to explore and discover for themselves what they believe.  I am about the most gentle, easygoing, liberal thinking person you can find but this is just too overly the top stupid to take seriously.  I just can't believe that something this far-fetched is being taken seriously and that makes me believe that this is a psychological phenomenon, not an esoteric one.

David, man, damn, I just wish I had thought of this myself first, I'd be rolling in money and adoration.

[Portugal - 0 Greece - 1!!!]

Let me educate you Kazbadan.

Greeks ARE just as passionate about their players and soccer.  For Greeks there is no other sport.

As for their abilities...Portugal - 0  Greece - 1!!!

Everything you have said is true but one.  We are not alone in our experience.  When you are feeling alone in this experience, try and expand your awareness to remember that you live in the same space/time as Jesus, Ghandi, Mohammad, Buddha, angels, saints, prophets, ancestors, etc... who all fought the same fight you are going through or are present to you and your experience.  

Some people think that the struggle for spiritual mastery means that we have to suffer a kind of madness.  Its almost as if madness becomes a kind of indicator of how spiritual we have become and in a distorted way it becomes almost revered in spiritual circles.  Madness is an indicator of someone who refuses to experience painful, often opposing forces.  In trying to control these opposing forces, they experience a type of neurotic suffering.  As long as they are attempting to work through this madness/suffering then it is indeed a spiritual journey.  However, if they stay in this madness as if it is a right of passage, they will suffer unnecessarily, and they will fail in their spiritual quest.  The underworld is to be visited, not be made of as a permanent address.

A saying of mine when I feel like I am going off the rails is, "we are sewn into the very palm of God, where can we go where God is not."  It reminds me that I had better get on with it because there is no hiding place, there is no use avoiding the pain, just go through it.

I have heard of people reacting in unusual ways to death and grief.  Some people for example, have been known to laugh at the funeral of a loved one, etc.

This is only a guess as to why this happens.  I think that most people are walking about these days disconnected to their emotions.  We are all so busy and haven't time to be quiet, introspective, emotional, intimate sexually and sensually, etc.  Instead, we drag ourselves through life acting tough and totally disconnected from each other and our inner world.  So that when something traumatic happens and some emotional release occurs, then it sort of opens the flood gates to all emotions and instincts.  It just sounds like your sexual instinct has been activated.  

EOL007 I think is totally right about what to do with this energy.  You haven't done anything wrong morally or psychologically or spiritually.  This is not an issue of morality anymore than say, having to eat to survive is.  Its just a bodily instinct that has become strong at the moment and will subside with time.  Hopefully, with EOL007 advice you will be able to gain some control over this more quickly.

I wish you well and am sure that your mother is safe and well.  Your loss is only a temporary physical one, you have not lost your mother's presence, love or spirit and one day you will be reunited.  Be gentle on yourself, she would not wish it otherwise.

Positive thinking does help a lot.  It can change brain chemistry to help you feel happier, etc.  If you are positive it also means you are more clear thinking and can see more opportunities than if you are depressed.

Bravo on displaying so much courage as to talk about it so openly.  I am really pleased that you did that.

The only thing I would add is that people who do go to see therapists or take medications are not wrong to do so, or that they are not just being negative and not trying hard enough.  Everyone has different levels of coping and some people simply can't get out of their situation without help.  Sometimes its just faster to get over things by talking with someone than trying to just be positive.  For example, if a person has been attacked or abused as a child, no amount of positive thinking is going to make that turn around.  They need to vent, to cry, to process, etc before letting it go, if they ever can.  If you ever had to see a therapist, I certainly would not think less of you or anyone.

Kazbadan, I am not clear on what you mean because of the language differences.

In science, generally, the way something is studied is to pose a hypothesis, its a kind of combination of a question and announcement of belief of what the outcome will be if the question is tested.  For example, families of low incomes have fewer educational opportunities, etc.  Then an experiment is designed and run.  The results and a discussion of those results follow.  For example, the results indicate that families of low incomes do have fewer educational opportunities.  The hypothesis is therefore, accepted or in some cases it could be rejected.

What follows then are reviews by other scientists who may agree or disagree with the experiment.  They may for example look for faults in how an experiment was designed.  Maybe there was some bias by the experimentor, etc.  New experiments to look at the former experiment are produced and maybe these new experiments my back up the experiments or expose problems in the experiment.

What James Randi and other hardcore skeptics do, from my understanding, is they claim that whatever positive results come up were as a result of mistakes in an experiment, or the experimentor is duped or the psychic is cheating in some way.  When they can't disprove the results, they try to discredit the experimentor, making personal attacks on him/her.  They minimalize, ignore, lie, etc, anything to make the positive results go away.

Susan Blackmore of CSICOP said in Reader's Digest, a couple of months ago, that over all the years that she has been researching the area, all she found was that parapsychological experiments were faulty.  She said that yes there were positive results but she could explain them away.  This is most important and something which most people who do not know statistics will miss.  You see, in science, no one talks of or should talk of absolutes.  There is not a single experiment which has ever been run which 'absolutely' proves anything.  The reason for this is because if a scientist was to say for example, there are absolutely no green cows, unless he has met every cow, he can not make an absolute statement.  There may be a green cow in some never been to place on this earth.  For this reason science and experiments are based on approximations of Reality.  In experiments you should always hear words like, 'the results suggest', 'the result may indicate' and never, 'the results prove...'.

What Susan Blackmore and others like her do, is say, okay, I have to acknowledge that there are positive results because not to do so would throw her credibility into questions, but because there is this gap in science between results and Reality, all I will do is argue that there must have been some other reason for the positive results.  Maybe a reason we may as yet not know about.  On the whole, science doesn't do that.  Scientists run their experiments and assuming there is no problems with it, the results are generally accepted.  However, it doesn't happen with parapsychology.

I was sort of skeptical myself, eventhough I have had my share of paranormal events.  However, when I read that little bit in Reader's Digest, it made me believe that there really was something going on because I recognised in her words, someone who was desperate to find reasons why positive results should not be accepted.

What Victor Zammit and others have done, is say to these skeptics, you can't go around doing that anymore.  Put up or shut up.  We are not asking you to prove the negative, we are asking you to prove the positive.  In a number of years now, none of them have done that, eventhough everyone in CSICOP and Randi knows of this million dollar offer.  I don't agree with everything that Victor says, in fact we have had a number of arguments over different subjects but in this I think he is spot on.

I don't know if this explains it any better.  I hope if there are any scientists out there please correct me as its been several years since I have studied stats.

Sorry about that, I was being lazy.

http://www.aiprinc.org/index.html

http://www.parapsych.org/members/m_thalbourne.

You may wish to have a look at Victor Zammit's site where he actually challenged Randi and any materialist hardcore skeptics to disprove any of the positive paranormal experimental tests for $1 millions.  Its been several years now and dispite the fact that Randi and CSICOP know of this offer none of them have taken it up.

Victor is a barrister in Sydney and he has written up the contract in such a way as to mirror that of the one Randi has.  He tells me that the two reasons that the skeptics won't take up the challenge is because they can't disprove the positive experimental results and because the contract is written up in such a way that even if they could disprove it they would still lose the deal.  No matter how well psychics do, Randi has fixed the contract so that they will lose in the end.

The other point I want to make about this which is often forgotten in terms of science is that because someone can duplicate an event doesn't mean that the original event was a hoax.  Because Randi can copy what Uri Geller does or any of the other psychics doesn't mean that they aren't producing the real thing.  Finally, Randi depends on a single test.  The psychic is tested and if they fail they have to admit to the world that they are not psychic.  However, it may be that they didn't make a hit on that particular day, doesn't mean they won't make hits at significant levels at other times.  

I know that I find it difficult to get things if I have any experience of anxiety, or headache, etc.  Anything can stop me, including trying to make money from this.  Even if Randi was offering 10 times that money, I don't think I could do it, I would be too anxious.  Yet this year, of approximately 30 bits of information I have given people the only couple of errors I have made related to time, seeing things that were in the past as present and getting double exposure images, ie, seeing two separate buildings where the features are superimposed on each other so it can be confusing as to which belongs to what, etc.  This is a very high hit rate but if I was to be tested, maybe the anxiety of it would be enough to get it all wrong.  Thats why I don't work as a clairvoyant, psychic, etc.

Nay, he sounds good.  What does he think of harems and polygamy?! []

Kodemaster,

I am glad you mentioned this about women and money.  I wasn't sure if I had made myself clear and I had been wondering what people might think about that.

I wanted to clarify that I don't think that women look just for money in a guy.  I use to have this argument with my sister.  I would not marry anyone if I wasn't in love with them.  However, if I had a choice of being in love with a financially secure person, who is hardworking and works as a professional or someone who is uneducated, has no ambition, a daydreamer and poor, I would choose the first.  I think most women would but that doesn't make them gold diggers.  You may fall in love with a daydreamer and that is fine, but you will have to accept that your life is going to be a difficult one.  You will have to go without, you will have to pick up the workload that he isn't willing to do, you will have to put up with a life-time of broken promises and commitments, etc.  

There is an old Marilyn Munroe film, I think it was called How to marry a Millionaire.  Marilyn and a couple of other women move to the city, rent an expensive apartment and begin to hunt for rich guys.  Marilyn ends up with a rich guy and when she meets his reluctant father she says something like this to him.  She says to him that she is an orphan but if she had a father, she is sure her father would want her to have the best, so what is wrong with her wanting it and demanding it for her self.

There is a lot of sociologists out there blaming all sorts of things for society's problems, in my mind there is a single reason why things have gone downhill.  Women don't believe they are worthy of love, security or happiness.  Our families use to demand it for us.  They would make sure that our future husbands came from 'good stock'.  Then with the revolution when women suddenly had choice, they didn't know how to demand the best for themselves.  They could demand the best in terms of work and education but for some reason not in relationships.  Relationships are in certain ways like contracts.  For some reason women think its okay to get a lesser deal.  In any other situation the lawyer would have been fired.  

Love is great, but diamonds are a girls best friend...[:X]

Isn't this strange.  I was just about to look at your thread and as I was entering, I was thinking to myself, what it would feel like to be able to just say the words, 'I am Buddha' and really mean it, to use the words, Buddha and not Little Buddha.  Then I looked at your first sentence...

"has anyone here seen little Buddha."

...is this a warning by Buddha, that I am still too little to take him on? []

I have two lists of 'to live is'...

1. To live is... to survive, avoid danger, keep safe, control people/events, hide, etc.

2. To live is... to experience self-awareness and awareness of the world outside the self and to be aware enough to apply meaning to it.  Painful or happy is not important, meaning is.

Give you one guess which one I am living and which one I am trying to live!  [B)] [}:)]

You are not alone.  I love HP.  I was so cynical about the whole thing at first, wouldn't read the books or have anything to do with it because I hated the hype.  However, my sister bought the first book for herself and her daughter and one boring afternoon I started to read it.  Well I couldn't put it down.  Now I have all the books and I am hoping to see the movie before the end of June.

I think that the movie is probably more dark because the stories are getting darker as well.  I think the first book or two was about discovery but now its more complex, less obvious.  I read somewhere that Hermione lets Malfoy have it, can't wait.  I am a bit like her in terms of personality so I identify with her.

I am guessing but I think that in the end that everyone comes back to life once Voldemort is dead and something to do with time.  I think that Snape will finally get the Defense of Dark Arts job.  Hermione and Weasley will finally get together and Potter will move on to become an - what did they call them - Auro-something.

So do you think it would be too weird if I, a 40 year old, went as a witch dressed up in Gryffindor colours to the cinema! []  I so wish Hogwarts was real.

Kazbadan, I think women are attracted to different things in guys at different times.  If you are just going out for fun, you may be 70% interested in looks and 30% personality.  However, if you are searching for a life partner it may be 70% personality and 30% looks.  It depends on what you want and I think that goes for guys as well.  

I think also for women who want a serious relationship, unless they, they women, have a lot of money or are professionals, I think that most women in the back of their heads still look for someone who is financially secure.  They don't have to be rich but not broke either.  You can't blame women for that though because if you think about it, they are most likely to stop working because of illness or babies and then where is the money going to come from.  

I know of one woman who married a guy who is really lazy, they now have two children and she works to support him and the children.  That is a woman's nightmare.  For myself, I suffered illnesses some time ago which stopped me from working and then my father had a stroke so I started to look after my parents, niece and nephew so my sister could work.  So in my particular case, finding a partner who is healthy, hardworking and a professional person is important.  I don't have the strength to look after one more person, I need someone to take care of me for a change.

The reason I say this is to say that each case is different.  People have weaknesses and they look for someone who has complimentary strengths to balance things out a little.  Its hard to make blanket statements.  Not all women want rich guys, or smart guys, or deep spiritual guys, etc.  It depends on what your situation is and what attracts you.  

By the way, when I was making the remark about being a half rabbit, its funny because I had an image of a big fluffy white rabbit!  You must be psychic Kazbadan! [8D]  You can follow the white rabbit Kaz but theres no guarrantee that you won't get bitten.  [][]

Just don't visit my place, its a mess!

I haven't tried that but I have had flying dreams and there is something that you have said which struck a cord.  I have also noticed that during my flying dreams if I realise that I am flying, I seem to float back down.

Interesting.

[I think there are times when we want to be deep and meaningful and other times when we just want to go at it like rabbits with no emotional connections, remorse or guilt afterwards.]

Kazbadan, in a couple of posts back when I was replying to you I said,

I think there are times when we want to be deep and meaningful and other times when we just want to go at it like rabbits with no emotional connections, remorse or guilt afterwards.

So I was picking up on that and joking about it.

A hare eh, my mother told me to stay away from hares.  She said something about them being too cheeky, too fast and she didnt trust those long ears.  Then again, who ever listened to their mothers! []

Sorry Birm, I can't help it, you see...gosh, this is so hard to talk about...I will finally reveal a deep dark secret about myself.  Not many people know this, I have kept it secret.  Well, you see I am part human and part animal.  From the waist up I look just like everyone else but from the waist down, I'm, I'm, a...rabbit!  [:O] []  []

See you in the fields.[:X] [}:)] []

Kazbadan, now you are talking some real stuff!  Now you are sounding more attractive.  Sorry Birm and Kiauma, Kazbadan has finally got my attention!  []

Kazbadan, I wouldn't worry too much about wanting alone time.  I think everyone goes through phases like that.  I would have been happy to be a nun if I could have done it for two or three years.  I think there are times when we want to be deep and meaningful and other times when we just want to go at it like rabbits with no emotional connections, remorse or guilt afterwards.  I think alone time gives you a chance to process your life experiences, your emotions, thoughts, etc.  

This is what I meant about having to make a choice, risking being alone in order to achieve a higher self.  Because you can have a lot of shallow relationships and you will be just as alone.  You will probably know of people who got married just for the sake of not being alone and are now miserable.  To use one of your quotes, it may be great to reign over hell but hell has an expiry date.  In the end your soul is extinguished and no one will remember you even existed.  Developing your higher self will attract a person who is looking for someone to really share a physical, emotional and spiritual life with.  It will bring out the worst and the best in you, but more than anything you will know you are alive and real.  Not many people get to feel that.

To answer Gwathren, what Kazbadan has written this second time is what I think women want.  They want a person with emotional and spiritual depth.

Kazbadan,

I think what you are referring to is not 'playing games' but 'teasing'.  People do tease each other in a playful sexual way in order to highten the sexual experience.  In that regard also I think you are right that you will get more women if you act like someone who is confident, successful, etc.  I don't think it has to do with passing on genes, but more to do with not wanting to be around a whining, negative, troubled and troublesome person.  Life is hard enough.  What you said about Di and Mother Theresa is true but I don't think you can compare like that.  If I had the chance while they were alive, I would have liked to spend time with both of them.  With Di because I would like to understand her and her experience of her worldly riches, etc, and Mother Theresa for her spiritual riches.  Each woman offered something very different so you can't compare.

I am going to say something to you but I want to say first that I am saying it out of spiritual sisterly concern.  I don't want to hurt you but more to make you aware in the hope that you will understand yourself better.  I have an interest in psychoanalysis, so I will give you my impression of what I hear you saying.  It doesn't mean it is right and of course you can reject it.  

Here's the thing, you talk about yourself as someone who was unattractive and not confident and that now you fixed yourself up and 'act' bolder, more confident, etc and you are more successful with women.  You see, to me, you come across as someone who is still not confident and lamenting that.  I have been reading your posts in this and in a similar type of thread before and you have always come across in the same way to me, as lacking confidence and self love.    

Your statements have this underlying message of, I am not handsome, I am not happy, I am not sure of myself, I am not lovable, the proof being that I don't get attention from women.  Therefore, I have to put on a big act, like a peacock, in hope that I will confuse women with my act and they will be attracted to me.  When they are you have confirmation of two things, 1. That you are indeed a horrible person who is not lovable unless you act like Bond, and 2. that women are these creatures that you must control or be destroyed by (ie, that your sense of ego will be destroyed).  In this scenario, women are weak and foolish if they are attracted to you because they can't see how you are tricking them.  If they aren't interested, then they are these horrible creatures that are worthy of your spite because they can't recognise your real inner self.  Either way, you lose and women lose.  

You will of course confuse women and you will get more women in bed but you will never be fulfilled with this scenario because you will never be your true self and you will always feel hate for yourself and these women.  The only way out of this paradox is to risk having no partners by being your true self until somone who truly sees you comes along or accept that you will live an empty emotional/interpersonal life but will get layed a lot more.  I hope you will choose the first but human nature being what it is, I think you will most likely choose the second, because you have found something that works for you even if it is not a self-actualising, normal or right way of thinking.  Prove me wrong, choose the first option.

You are not alone in this, we all experience a measure of these insecurities, myself included.