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: Dreamkeeper@yahoogroups.com

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

Search this site powered by FreeFind