Throw away lines

[Guest guest]

Dear Skinbags, et.al,

 

At the risk of appearing pedantic or confrontational, I would like

to share my limited experience and thoughts on Power...its use, balance and

misuse. We all have power in varying degrees of expression, and an

obligation to use it responsibily. The old adage 'And it Harm None' is

applicable.

The moral outrage that followed Clintons' 'indiscretion', was purely

his misuse of power. Would Monica be on her knees if Bubba were the garbage

collector?. I think not!.

When we work with and for others we are bound by a Professional Code

of Conduct. Andrew, you have recently announced your intention to become a

Professional Astrologer and I wish you well. You now have a moral and

ethical responsibility to lead by example and serve all to the best of your

ability. Your mischievous sense of humour is often a breath of fresh air,

but there is a fine line between 'taking the mickey' and plain offence. To

suggest the services of a prostitute to a lonely man is not only tactless

and indicative of poor judgement( orgasm is not a panacea!) but offensive to

women.

Women are also informed consumers. Given the choice for a reading,

does she PAY a sexist or a holy man?.

Please be true to your nature, but also recognise you have the power

to heal or harm.

Sincerely,

Ann.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/11/2000 11:14:20 AM Eastern Standard Time,

skinbags writes:

 

<< The moral outrage that followed Clintons' 'indiscretion', was purely

his misuse of power. Would Monica be on her knees if Bubba were the garbage

collector?. I think not!.>> (Anne's point)

 

<< Is Monica a "victim"? I wonder if she herself feels she was the victim of

the "misuse of power"? Or, is it just a case of a young and impressionable

woman being infatuated with a powerful >>....<< man. >> (Andrew's comment)

 

To me, Andrew has just obfuscated a bit by asking the irrelevant question

about victim versus the point being made, however in the last part of his

statement quoted above, he has underlined Anne's point precisely; power of

the elected, as something to worship, power of the elected as something to

abuse--is repugnant to many of us.

Anne further goes on to ask for a bit of circumspection when writing to a

mixed audience. I recall Das has asked you for the same thing.

I find it not an abridgement of your personal self expression, but an

enhancement of your own creativity, for ideas to be expressed creatively in

terms chosen to minimize offense. As for your suggestions regarding

prostitues, these do not need to be broadcast to a mixed audience, but can be

expressed privately if you would have your freedom of expression. The mixed

audience on this list, not seeing such attitudes, will be grateful for your

posts not needing a control-alt-deleting, as well as for those astrological

themes and ideas you express to all which are quite welcome on this list.

[Guest guest]

Dear Anne do not take the following comments personally or feel as if I'm

attacking you.

 

The moral outrage that followed Clintons' 'indiscretion', was purely

his misuse of power. Would Monica be on her knees if Bubba were the garbage

collector?. I think not!.

 

Is Monica a "victim"? I wonder if she herself feels she was the victim of

the "misuse of power"? Or, is it just a case of a young and impressionable

woman being infatuated with a powerful and highly sexed man. As I understand

the story it was another sticky beak (a woman) who leaked the story to the

media and we probably would never have heard anything about it otherwise.

What exactly is "moral outrage"? Most of this "outrage"seemed to come from

sour and bitter feminists or other assorted wowsers with some axe to grind.

Most men I know in private say good luck to Clinton, his only crime was

getting caught out. Clinton has Mars and Venus in conjunction, I would be

more shocked if he wasn't playing around with women! My old Pundit always

refers to Clinton as the "Stud Bull." He was calling him this long before

the Monica story broke. It wasn't that long ago a mans fitness as leader was

judged on his sexual strength. In some African countries now, the King is

expected to have a couple of hundred wives, if he doesn't, he is seen as a

dud. The fertility of the whole country is governed by the fertility of the

ruler. It is really a matter of perspectives. One countries sexual misfit is

another countries sexual legend.

 

When we work with and for others we are bound by a Professional Code

of Conduct.

 

Now this is an interesting idea! What is the code? Who wrote it? Who has the

"moral" right to enforce it?

 

 

Andrew, you have recently announced your intention to become a

Professional Astrologer and I wish you well. You now have a moral and

ethical responsibility to lead by example and serve all to the best of your

ability. Your mischievous sense of humour is often a breath of fresh air,

but there is a fine line between 'taking the mickey' and plain offence. To

suggest the services of a prostitute to a lonely man is not only tactless

and indicative of poor judgement( orgasm is not a panacea!) but offensive

to

women.

 

There is no difference between the man who goes to church seeking

gratification and the man who goes to a brothel seeking gratification.

However, the man who goes to the brothel is much more likely to get what he

wants than the man attending church. Being raised a catholic I saw nothing

but lies and hypocrisy in the church. Having been in a lot of brothels I

have met some of the most honest people you could hope to meet anywhere..

 

 

 

Women are also informed consumers. Given the choice for a reading,

does she PAY a sexist or a holy man?.

 

The term "sexist" is another term I need explained to me. It seems to be a

term used exclusively by women in the modern world when complaining about

men. If I am not supposed to see a woman as a sexual object, then what I

am supposed to see as an object for sexual gratification? What is a "holy

man"? Recent history shows a woman or child for that matter, is at far more

risk of being sexually abused by a "holy man" than a man like myself.

 

 

Please be true to your nature, but also recognise you have the power

to heal or harm.

Sincerely,

Ann.

 

Below is part of a dialogue sent to me just today from Gurudeva. He is

saying very clearly what I believe, that is, women and men are unable to

understand how each other feel inside and should seek advice from others of

the same sex and not sticky beak into the other sex's problems. I for one,

get sick of women telling me how I feel, or how I "should" feel and act. To

me this is like the blind man trying to describe an elephant.

 

For harmony to exist between a man and a woman, he has to live fully

> within his own nature, and she has to live fully within her own

> nature. Each is king and queen of their respective realms. If each

> respects the uniqueness of the other, then a harmonious condition in

> the home exists.

>

A good rule to remember: the man does not discuss his intellectual

> business problems with the woman, and she does not work outside the

> home. He solves his problems within himself or discusses them with

> other men. When he has a problem, he should go to an expert to solve

> it, not bring it home to talk over. If he does, the forces in the home

> become congested. The children yell and scream and cry. A contemplative

> home where people can meditate has to have that beautiful, temple-like

> vibration. In just approaching it, the sushumna current of the man should

> withdraw awareness from the pingala current deep within. That is what

> the man can do when he is the spiritual head of the home.

>

> Most of the "moral outrage" we see in the newspapers about mens behaviour

like Mick Jagger comes exclusively from women and other self appointed

social saviours. In general there is a deafening silence from men. Below is

a letter I sent to the local newspaper about a story previously published by

a Dr of sociology who was pontificating about the appalling behaviour of

Australian men according to her own personal biases. This letter sums up my

cynicism of academics and social engineers so common in modern society.

>

Dear Readers

>

In the article "Death of the Ocker" Dr Darian-Smith claims amongst another

things that attitudes such as racist comments, overt masculinity, anti

intellectualism and hanging out with the men more than women are no longer

tolerated socially. Just who is she talking on behalf of? The majority of

Australians, or a select group of over-educated, self-appointed social

messiahs like herself, who having spent a few years studying, feel it is

their God given right to pontificate to us poor unsophisticated souls who

are so socially backward, so socially undesirable, we would dare enjoy

socializing with our male friends or share a crude joke. These comments

could only be made by somebody who has spent far too much time at a

university. What our society desperately needs, is to be rescued from the

politically correct saviours like Dr Darian-Smith who are constantly telling

us the way we should live as aposed to the way we actually do live. The

multi-cultural, egalitarian, non-sexist utopia they enthuse about, only

exists inside their pointy heads. With record youth suicide, record crime

rates, record drug use and record homelessness we indeed have become a

sophisticated society Doctor.

 

 

I know I am in for a terrible kicking from women for my comments, but I live

in Australia not communist China and we should respect each others rights to

express ourselves. If people find my comments offensive, first push Ctrl. A

keys and then the delete key. I am not a "hope salesman" there is enough of

them around already. Lets just stick to astrology

 

Skinbags