Fwd: [Dreamkeeper] Fwd: [] WHY THE CHICKEN
CROSSED THE ROAD!
From: golden3000997
Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 4:27 pm
Subject: Fwd: [Dreamkeeper] Fwd: [] WHY THE CHICKEN CROSSED THE
ROAD!
OH, I'm gonna roast in hell for this one!
Diana's answer:
There is absolutely NO scientific evidence
that the chicken crossed the road in the first place. Or if there
is, SOMEONE needs to forward me the supporting report.
From: -Shiva-
Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 2:19 pm
Subject: [Dreamkeeper] Fwd: [] WHY THE CHICKEN CROSSED THE ROAD!
To: [email protected]
George Bush's Answer: We don't really care why the chicken
crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our
side of the road or not. The chicken is either with us or it
is against us. There is no middle ground here.
Al Gore's Answer: I invented the chicken. I invented the
road. Therefore, the chicken crossing the road represented the
application of these two different functions of government in
a new, reinvented way designed to bring greater services to the
American people.
Bill Gates' Answer: I have just released eChicken 2003,
which will not only cross roads, but will lay eggs, file your
important documents, and balance your checkbook - and Internet
Explorer is an inextricable part of eChicken.
Martha Stewart's Answer:
No one called
to warn me which way that chicken was going. I had a standing
order at the farmer's market to sell my eggs when the price dropped
to a certain level. No little bird gave me any insider information.
Dr. Seuss' Answer: Did the chicken cross the road? Did
he cross it with a toad? Yes, the chicken crossed the road, But
why it crossed, I've not been told!
Ernest Hemingway's Answer: To die. In the rain. Alone.
Martin Luther King Jr's
Answer: I envision
a world where all chickens will be free to cross roads without
having their motives called into question.
Grandpa's Answer: In my day, we didn't ask why the chicken
crossed the road. Someone told us that the chicken crossed the
road, and that was good enough for us.
Barbara Walters' Answer: Isn't that interesting? In a
few moments we will be listening to the chicken tell, for the
first time, the heart-warming story of how it experienced a serious
case of molting and went on to accomplish its life-long dream
of crossing the road.
Ralph Nader's Answer:
The chicken's
habitat on the original side of the road had been pollutedby
unchecked industrialist greed. The chicken did not reach the
unspoiled habitat on other side of the road because it was crushed
by the wheels of a gas-guzzling SUV.
Jerry Seinfield's Answer: Why does anyone cross a road? I mean,
why doesn't anyone ever think to ask, "What the heck was
this chicken doing walking around all over the place anyway?"
Pat Buchanan's Answer: To steal a job from a decent, hard-working
American.
Jerry Falwell's Answer: Because the chicken was gay! Isn't
it obvious? Can't you people see the plain truth in front of
your face? The chicken was going to the "other side."
That's what they call it -- the other side. Yes, my friends,
that chicken is gay. And, if you eat that chicken, you will become
gay too. I say we boycott all chickens until we sort out this
abomination that the liberal media whitewashes with seemingly
harmless phrases like "the other side.".
John Lennon's Answer: Imagine all the chickens crossing
roads in peace.
Aristotle's Answer: It is the nature of chickens to cross
the road.
Saddam Hussein's Answer: This was an unprovoked act of rebellion
and we were quite justified in dropping 50 tons of nerve gas
on it.
Captain Kirk's Answer: To boldly go where no chicken has
gone before.
Bill Clinton's Answer: I did not cross the road with THAT
chicken. What do you mean by chicken? Could you define chicken,
please?
The Bible's Answer: And God came down from the heavens,
and He said unto the chicken, "Thou shalt cross the road."
And the chicken crossed the road, and there was much rejoicing.
Albert Einstein's Answer: Did the chicken really cross
the road or did the road move beneath the chicken?
Sigmund Freud's Answer: The fact that you are at all concerned
that the chicken crossed the road reveals your underlying sexual
insecurity.
L.A.P.D.'s Answer:
Give me ten minutes with the chicken and I'll find out.
Richard Nixon's Answer: The chicken did not cross the
road. I repeat, the chicken did not cross the road.
Buddha's Answer: If you ask this question, you deny your
own chicken nature.
Joseph Stalin's Answer: I don't care. Catch it. I need
its eggs to make my omelette.
Louis Farrakhan's Answer:
The road, you
will see, represents the black man. The chicken crossed the "black
man" in order to trample him and keep him down.
The Pope's Answer: That is only for God to know.
Emily Dickenson's Answer: Because it could not stop for
death.
O.J. Simpson's Answer: It didn't. I was playing golf with
it at the time.
Colonel Sanders' Answer: I missed one?
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 4:38 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: [Dreamkeeper] Fwd:
[] WHY THE CHICKEN CROSSED THE ROAD!
Thank you Christine for giving me such a delightful
belly full of chicken laugh - oh shit let me try that again sometime,
I seem to have lost my keyboard touch for the moment... Thanks,
anyway. All those chicken quotes kept me on the edge of my seat
- no, that's even worse. My muse is out to lunch. How about a
Bradford chicken quote?
Tarjei
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 3:33 am
Subject: Do it on-list, mr. SH.
A person who calls himself Steve Hale writes
to me off-list. I don't like to be contacted off-list by strangers,
especially not by wannabe moderators.
"Steve Hale" refers to my comments
on Christine's chicken-crossing-road and writes:
Taz, it is getting to be alot
of bullshit, isn't it? Consider Steiner saying: What does all
this mean!! Is that what you had in mind? Does Anthro_Tomorrow
have a chance with all this hyperbole? Christine, try relating
to what really matters.
There is a forum in the works that seeks to relate to what really
matters. It will be called, Spiritual Science Today.
Steve Hale
And I respond politely:
I appreciate your concern, but it is Sophia's
task to criticize what others post when and if necessary. She
is the moderator.
Tarjei
But then "Steve Hale" decides to
bug me once more and writes:
She is the moderator? I guess
I didn't know this. Why would I know this? Why would I care about
this forum?
I only suspect exasperation on your part. Maybe I'm wrong, but
forwarding "horsepucky" seems ridiculous, considering
the prevalent issues. I know that I should keep my nose out of
it unless I join. My apologies.
I don't know why you're writing me off-list
like this, but from now on, I'll Duganize you, i.e. publish everything
you send to me.
I have my doubts about the future of a forum
run by someone throwing eggs through private email, but I wish
"Steve Hale" and his "Spiritual Science Today"
all the luck in the world.
(Incidentally, I have not forwarded anything,
and I am not exasperated either.)
God bless you pal,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 6:42 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Do it on-list, mr. SH.
Hi Taz et al!
This person, Steve Hale aka Sardisian has
been communicating with me, Dottie (she asked me about him) and
someone on the Steiner Group list, too (by his statement). He
used me when starting to contact Dottie by saying that I "knew"
him. She was trying to verify this because she felt uncomfortable.
I told her that I had corresponded with him a few times, but
didn't "know" him or who he was or what his agenda
was.
I have to say that I have felt VERY uncomfortable
with many things that he has said in our "conversations."
I told him so. I wanted to forward to the group, but also wanted
to protect his privacy. He hasn't criticized anyone else on the
group with me, but he has said things about the Jews that I didn't
like and I told him so and why.
Just like in the Steiner Group, where I was
burned at the stake for being a sexual witch, there are many
Anthroposophists who have Rudolf Steiner in their back pockets
and feel they can dictate what is and what is not appropriate
conversation. They should all get together and start a Fundamental
Anthroposophy group.
I understood at the start of Anthroposophy
Tomorrow that the conversation would be open to everything, politics
included. I have found that the folks in the Anthroposophy Group
are just as cool. I'm not sure why there are two groups - probably
some past history that I really don't care to know. But I often
pass things on and speak to both groups and I say that I do because
I feel I have "loved ones" on both lists. (And I can't
remember who is on which list) (remember Dory the fish?)
Anyway, I have also signed up for several
other groups and I find lots of similar ideas and information
pertaining to things we are discussing here also.
I also think that the people that I have "met"
here have a great sense of humor and I try to pass along things
I think y'all would enjoy.
To me, the exciting part of Rudolf Steiner
and his work is his RELEVANCE, both to the world that he lived
in and to the world as it is now. As I have said before, he could have sat literally up in a high tower
and written a whole library of books and left it up to others
to find the applications, but he didn't. He was very involved
in the political and social and practical concerns of his day
and gave us ideas and practical work that is still totally relevant
today. Of course, as he himself said, it is up to us to adapt
these ideas to fit the reality as it changes
around us. This is the creativity involved. There are no Anthro-Robots.
There is no Anthro-Borg. I have never met anywhere else in
the world such a disparate collection of eccentric
individualists as I have in Anthro and Waldorf communities.
In my own makeup as an individual, I feel
that I have had a wide and varied life experience so far. I came
into contact with Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy at age 16
and, although I have read lots of other philosophies and
spiritual paths and even participated in various
spiritual things like the Catholic church and the Krishna temple,
I always use Steiner as my "yardstick." So far, I
have never found anything that even comes close
to the breadth and depth of his world view and knowledge of the
spiritual world and his ability to make both clear to others.
But there are sparks and pieces of the puzzle spread out everywhere
in the world and it is exciting and wonderful to me to find them
and bring them home and add another bit to the picture. Like
Mike finding a greeting card from God on a rubbish heap, so there
are treasures and messages from the Angels and others sprinkled
about everywhere if we keep our eyes, ears and hearts open.
In my opinion, the wonderfulness of this kind
of forum is exactly that - to share these bits and pieces of
treasure, whether from Steiner himself or others. There will
be tragedy and comedy involved as long as we are discussing anything
that pertains to human beings. I admire the Amish for their (supposed)
dedication to a spiritual point of view and lifestyle. But the
way they meet together without humor and color (at least, as
they are portrayed to the rest of us)
is a horror to me. The idea of a humorless and colorless "heaven"
is a horror to me. Dante's circles of Hell and Purgatory were
streaks ahead of those boring circles of Heaven.
As long as a person views the world and the
spiritual world with an "us and them" attitude. Wrong
and Right - Good and Evil. Then, that person is failing to see
him or herself as a complete human being. The Statue of the Representative
of Man does not show the Christ Being slaying either Lucifer
or Ahriman. He is striding forth, with the Power to keep each
in his rightful place. Obtaining knowledge of the Light and the
Darkness - bringing what lives in the Darkness into the Light
- redeeming the Darkness through the Power of Light - this is
my definition of the Spiritual Battle. Trying to lock the Darkness
away in a cupboard is not very effective when you turn out the
light at night. We must each be a Strider in both the Light and
the Darkness.
So, my point is that if an entire group (or
most of it) wants to set up definitions of what will and won't
be shared or discussed, that is to be respected. Otherwise they
would all be "Yahoo Everything Groups." If a group
says "we only wish to study Rudolf Steiner's books and lectures
and to stay on a particular topic." that is certainly acceptable.
But if a group says "we wish to explore
the world and ourselves in the light of Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy"
then there is a given openness to information coming from the
world through various sources.
I personally could never sit in a face to
face study group with a bunch of Anthroposophists who did not
want what they were reading to be connected to the outside world
(except as criticism). I have no use for people who want to study
the Bible that way either. I want to be connected with a group
of people who see the world around them and inside of them as
a fit subject for study in the Light of Rudolf Steiner and the
Anthroposophy that he gave to the world.
What I am so grateful for is that I have "met"
so many people here (on both groups) that seem to feel the same
way.
Thank you!
Christine
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 10:47 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Do it on-list, mr. SH.
What a beautiful post Christine, I kinda hated
to snip some of it because it all flowed so nicely. I just watched
"Under World" last light, and I can identify with not
locking our dark sides in the closet. In Hesses's book "Damien"
There was a guy that tried to become a saint, and it drove him
to attempt suicide.
I love this group because it is a free speech forum. I think
there is room for everyone that way. I loved my Steiner study
group too, in which we studied the POF. But at times it seemed
that the "small dogs" had trouble participating. Not
all of us can expound eloquently about "Kant soup"
and the like. And what is Anthroposophy anyway? except what we
each experience it to be as individuals, in a hopefully evolving
way. And no two people read the same sentence that same way.
So how in the heck can anyone expect anyone else to experience
it the same way-- sounds like a recipe for Dogma to me. However
our experiences do have something in common, but to me that is
kind of a homeless thing.
So here we are on the AT list where almost anything goes -- Trauma
and drama, trolls and scrolls of ancient wisdom, Love and light
and arrogance and ignorance, all in the same boat.
I'm very grateful too.
Truth and Love
Mike
So, my point is that if an entire group
(or most of it) wants to set up definitions of what will and
won't be shared or discussed, that is to be respected. Otherwise
they would all be "Yahoo Everything Groups." If a group
says "we only wish to study Rudolf Steiner's books and lectures
and to stay on a particular topic." that is certainly acceptable.
But if a group says "we wish to explore
the world and ourselves in the light of Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy"
then there is a given openness to information coming from the
world through various sources.
I personally could never sit in a face
to face study group with a bunch of Anthroposophists who did
not want what they were reading to be connected to the outside
world (except as criticism). I have no use for people who want
to study the Bible that way either. I want to be connected with
a group of people who see the world around them and inside of
them as a fit subject for study in the Light of Rudolf Steiner
and the Anthroposophy that he gave to the world.
What I am so grateful for is that I have
"met" so many people here (on both groups) that seem
to feel the same way.
Thank you!
Christine
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 3:25 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Do it on-list, mr. SH.
Christine wrote:
This person, Steve Hale aka Sardisian has
been communicating with me, Dottie (she asked me about him) and
someone on the Steiner Group list, too (by his statement). He
used me when starting to contact Dottie by saying that I "knew"
him. She was trying to verify this because she felt uncomfortable.
I told her that I had corresponded with him a few times, but
didn't "know" him or who he was or what his agenda
was.
Hey Steve,
Steve, I think you had some interesting thoughts
to the posts here and I think it would be better served if you
brought them here on list. It was through your conversation,
even that I was a bit uncomfortable not knowing who you are,
that allowed me to sift through to where the differences were
with my understanding of the John stream discussed here on list.
I would like to say that I do think if one
contacts a person off list it would be good to introduce yourself
first and then head into the conversation. And then again it
would be good if you were on list to start out with. A little
trust issue seeps in when either of these things have not been
handled. (Left or right makes no difference:)
Steve, I have a question: Are you the same
Steve that has written for the Church in Tennessee? In looking
to see whom I was conversing with I was directed to this page
and found a few conservative writings regarding womens role in
the church. Are you that same Steve Hale?
Interesting thing having ones writings on
the web. A lady I met on the train told me she looked up my name
and found a Peak Performance quote that I had never seen before
and then that I was mentioned with Waldorf. Now being mentioned
with Waldorf I was a wee bit worried what she had read due to
the fact that Dan Dugan reprints and makes available archives
all over the web. Luckily for me it was something positive with
other pro Steiner students and their quotes to the critics. Whew.
Anyhow Steve, join the list and introduce
yourself. Its a great list as you can see.
Peace,
Dottie
p.s. And why must Ishtar die?
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 4:21 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Do it on-list, mr. SH.
At 00:25 01.02.2004, Dottie wrote:
Steve, I have a question: Are you the same
Steve that has written for the Church in Tennessee? In looking
to see whom I was conversing with I was directed to this page
and found a few conservative writings regarding womens role in
the church. Are you that same Steve Hale?
Maybe Steve Hale is supercybertroll Theodor
Grekenquist, but who gives a damn?
Tarjei
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
January/February
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy