Deafness | Losing Hearing

Category: Deafness

Catheter configuration

Question:

Many decades ago, (70s?) they discovered that long-term neosporin use could be related to deafness (I think with children). I don’t know if this correlation even held up under further scrutiny. I don’t think that this would be at all comporable to 2 weeks of cath lubrication, but I can see how a nurse, who worked in the field back when, could recall "Neosporin is bad" without any specifics. Read the cautions on the label. Just don’t slather your kids in it for months on end. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "KenA" wrote.. if you remember why the VA nurses recommended against [lubing the catheter], I’d be interested in knowing. I Googled up my original post on that. The senior nurse I asked gave no reason for not using an ointment. The only aspect of it she gave a reason for was not NOT using alcohol to clean it, as it erodes tissue. I’d tend to go with what works for others, plus asking one’s own nurses. The VA has a huge statistical base, but also a lot of inertia. I.P.

Response:

I used the large bag exclusively except when I went out (and I went out a lot w/ it – even to the bar!) and I wore regular pants from the get-go. My hose was long enough (oh, come on, guys!) that it simply exited the bottom of the pants leg and I still had a couple of feet. I took a coat hanger, straightened it out, and hooked it to the bag – I could then walk around w/ the bag down low but w/ the "handle" at hand level. Standing up cooking – hand the closed end over a cabinet knob; I put one of those big metal clips on the edge of my desktop and hung the whole thing on it. I promise you – I am the poster boy for the catheter – I had NO trouble whatsoever. I also wore boxer briefs to keep the catheter from moving around and tugging on the business end. Bill Denton RP 2/12/02 PSA .67 Memphis

Response:

"Tom" <wrote All cath bags strap to your leg and pants of any kind are worn over it. I’m not sure what you mean by external. Basically the tube comes out of your penis and goes right into the bag. All clothing is worn over it, tube, bag and all.

Once the tube leaves my body, where it goes is MY choice, as long as it doesn’t go above its upper opening inside my bladder. I found the bag-in-a-bucket approach extremely convenient at home and in the car. I hardly used the leg bag at all. I.P.

Response:

Frank, I read all of the advice and it was all great. I’ll tell you mine…being in Chicago, I found basketball ’snap-pants’ (I had Michael Jordan pants…with a ‘23′ and Bulls logo on them Like I.P., I used the BIG night bag all the time and kept it in a bucket. Never the leg bag. I went out and carried the big bag in a bucket (covered by a towel or T-shirt). It came out thru the snaps at any level. If you use sweats…just cut a hole in them and thread the tube out where you wish. About lube…great advice. I used bacitracin, but Neosporin is fine too. Slide the penis up a bit…and lube the cath LIBERALLY with the ointment. (You can’t use too much). Then, when the penis slides back down…it will be lubed. I thought that it was better to use the ‘big bag’ than to switch to a leg bag and straps. Your wife doesn’t really need to sew velcro in…the slit is fine. You’ll have it for 10 days or so…and it will be OK. Any questions…just ask. My best wishes, Ron B. Chicago

Response:

I asked my VA nurses, who see PC pts by the hundreds locally and the VA collects PC data by the thousands, about lubing the catheter with antibiotic ointment. They emphatically said not to do it. If they gave a reason, I’ve forgotten it. I.P.

Response:

I used a leg bag during the day after reading Walsh’s warning about the possible consequences of an accidental pull on the cath. I didn’t like the idea of a long tube hanging out there. Of course, I did have a puppy in the house at the time. Tom

Response:

Right from the get-go I noticed a burning, painful sensation whenever I moved around a bit. After a few days I discovered I could replicate the sensation by manually sliding the tube in and out a centimeter or so. Close inspection revealed a dried splotch of blood on the underside of the tube that was acting like a rasp every time the tube slid one way or the other. Scraped the splotch off and all was well for the duration. No ointment or lube needed. Just thought I’d mention one more thing to look for if everything doesn’t seem quite right. I’m also one of those with the tube going down the pantleg and back up the outside. I carried the bag in a cloth tote with a handle. I’d drop the bag down the pantleg and then put on the pants. Went walking at the mall and around the neighborhood proudly displaying my satchel and cranberry gradually changing to lemon juice filled tube. Either nobody noticed or they were too polite to make it obvious. I did use the leg bag once or twice but the big bag was more convenient for me. I thought of going without a bag, just the tube dangling below my shorts when out barefoot in the yard (it was summer at the time) but my doctor wife was horrified and nixed the idea claiming that would compromise the sterility, etc., etc.. No matter, you will get used to whatever suits you best and you will do fine although the day it goes will be one of your better days. Dave Perry

Response:

Went walking at the mall and around the neighborhood proudly displaying my satchel and cranberry gradually changing to lemon juice filled tube. Either nobody noticed or they were too polite to make it obvious.

Their skin was crawling in disgust! Or maybe they thought it was ricin and didn’t want to offend you. Maybe they were just relieved it wasn’t a colostomy bag. Or the older half of the crowd have been there, the younger half didn’t even see it because it didn’t have Brad’s or Angelina’s picture on it, and the Birkenstockers just thought, "Cool camelback, dude!" And, of course, author Joseph Heller just smiled and thought of Yossarian. I.P.

Response:

Thanks for the suggestions. I have decided to get a pair of sweat pants, make a slit in one leg, and my wife will add a few velcro tabs.

I seem to be in the minority but I found the leg bag to be just fine during the day. It’s true the overnight back holds more but if you just wear baggy pants you can pull the pant leg up past your knee and get to the drain valve. I could easily just go in a stall at a rest room, pull up the pant leg, bend my leg a little and it was just like peeing including shaking the end of the valve after I closed it to get the last drops off. My leg back strapped to my thigh. I’ve heard of some that strap down by your ankle.

Response:

Since I feel that use of an antibacterial ointment *significantly* minimized my cath. discomfort, if you remember why the VA nurses recommended against it, I’d be interested in knowing. It seemed such a logical thing to do with at least the 3 benefits I mentioned that I could think of. It leaves me quite puzzled as to what the disadvantages would be, especially since it (Neosporin/Polysporin, etc) contains an antibiotic. Has anyone else done this and had any negative effects? KenA

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I asked my VA nurses, who see PC pts by the hundreds locally and the VA collects PC data by the thousands, about lubing the catheter with antibiotic ointment. They emphatically said not to do it. If they gave a reason, I’ve forgotten it. I.P.

Response:

"KenA" wrote.. if you remember why the VA nurses recommended against [lubing the catheter], I’d be interested in knowing.

I Googled up my original post on that. The senior nurse I asked gave no reason for not using an ointment. The only aspect of it she gave a reason for was not NOT using alcohol to clean it, as it erodes tissue. I’d tend to go with what works for others, plus asking one’s own nurses. The VA has a huge statistical base, but also a lot of inertia. I.P.

Response:

It had been mentioned here long ago that some nurses said not to use the OINTMENT cuz it might eat into the cath rubber tubing. They thought a water-based lube would be better…but it DRIED too fast. I asked about that when I had my surgery and they said that ‘these days’, most of the tubing used can handle the Neosporin or Bacitracin (which I was given 6 tubes of . Dave (judamd) mentioned a great point about a dried spot of blood on the cath tube that acted as a ‘rasp’ on the penis. Good point…uh…BAD point, actually. :) And Jim talked about the leg bag…indeed it works OK…but after the production of the surgery…I didn’t want to be switching ANYTHING. About the ‘cranberry to lemon’ colored tube peeking out of the bag…I used an old shirt sleeve to sorta cover it. Best to all, Ron B. Chicago

Response:

A couple of things. First, the concern about the tube getting tugged is a real one but I solved that one by shaving my thigh and using the surgical tape I scarfed from the hospital to completely secure the connector to my thigh – it was not going anywhere. Second, the reason I advocate boxer briefs is to minmize the catheter moving in and out of the penis – if you use loose pants that thing is going to be swaying w/ every step and movement. There is just no need to slit pants or sew anything; I don’t get that. I wore regular pants (like Dockers), even over the leg bag, and no one ever knew a thing when I went out. Before surgery I prepared my bedroom for an invalid but the morning after getting home I just got up, showered, dressed, went downstairs, and had my usual coffee and paper. From then on it was a breeze. My brother, who had surgery the same day as I, is married and his wife doted on him and he stayed in bed like an invalid – and he took far longer to get over the whole thing than I did. Bill Denton RP 2/12/02 PSA .67 Memphis

Response:

Frank, All cath bags strap to your leg and pants of any kind are worn over it. I’m not sure what you mean by external. Basically the tube comes out of your penis and goes right into the bag. All clothing is worn over it, tube, bag and all. Tom

Tom, What he means is he wants to use the internal bag he had in the hospital. It’s not a leg bag. Don

Response:

Thanks for the suggestions. I have decided to get a pair of sweat pants, make a slit in one leg, and my wife will add a few velcro tabs.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I am scheduled to have an RRP in less than three weeks and am trying to get my logistics in order. This newsgroup is a real godsend. I appreciate your efforts to make other people’s lives easier. I am trying to determine what to wear while the catheter is in. I would like to keep my legs warm so the circulation is good. Several posts recommended sweat pants and that sounded good to me. However, I plan to use the external urine bag only and it isn’t clear to me how I would get the catheter tube from my leg to the external bag. Can the tube come from my leg back up my pants and then out? If you have suggestions other than sweat pants, I would love to hear them. Thanks. Frank

Response:

I am scheduled to have an RRP in less than three weeks and am trying to get my logistics in order. This newsgroup is a real godsend. I appreciate your efforts to make other people’s lives easier. I am trying to determine what to wear while the catheter is in. I would like to keep my legs warm so the circulation is good. Several posts recommended sweat pants and that sounded good to me. However, I plan to use the external urine bag only and it isn’t clear to me how I would get the catheter tube from my leg to the external bag. Can the tube come from my leg back up my pants and then out? If you have suggestions other than sweat pants, I would love to hear them. Thanks. Frank

Response:

Snap-on warmup pants! Since the entire side is closed by snaps, you have many choices of where to have the tube emerge. Or just cut a slit in some thick sweat pants. You don’t want any part of the drain system above the internal parts of the system because that would risk backflow (unless you trust an anti-backflow valve 100%). Tape your catheter to your thigh (the GOOD tape in the catheter kits will stay in place for weeks yet pull off hairy legs painlessly), run the tube down to the opening in your warm-up pants, lay your bag in a bucket with a handle, and you’re completely mobile. If you want to go to the mall, substitute the leg bag for the big bag and press on. I.P.

Response:

Hi Frank! I’d also highly recommend keeping the cath. tube and tip of your penis coated with something like Neosporin ointment to be more comfortable. For me, it: 1. Significantly minimized the discomfort/negative effects of the tub rubbing at the tip of the penis. 2. Protected the sensitive penis head skin for any ‘urine burns’ caused by urine leakage around the cath. 3. Provided some small degree of antibiotic protection at the end of the penis. I feel this one thing helped me significantly deal with the cath. The one time I forgot to re-apply, I was rudely awakened by a very uncomfortable tube chaffing against the opening of my penis at about 3:15am one morning. A quick dab of Neosporin eliminated the chaffing and I went back to sleep. HTH, KenA ===== – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am scheduled to have an RRP in less than three weeks and am trying to get my logistics in order. This newsgroup is a real godsend. I appreciate your efforts to make other people’s lives easier. I am trying to determine what to wear while the catheter is in. I would like to keep my legs warm so the circulation is good. Several posts recommended sweat pants and that sounded good to me. However, I plan to use the external urine bag only and it isn’t clear to me how I would get the catheter tube from my leg to the external bag. Can the tube come from my leg back up my pants and then out? If you have suggestions other than sweat pants, I would love to hear them. Thanks. Frank

Response:

Deafness

0 RESPONSES

purrs for FIL tomorrow morning, please

Question:

Belated purrs coming over for your f i l. Sorry, I’m a bit behind.. Tweed – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My father in law is going in for bypass surgery tomorrow morning, 7:30am Arizona time. He doesn’t like cats, but now’s not the time to quibble. He got a heart stress test on Wednesday. He didn’t have any weird symptoms and wasn’t sent by a doctor; he just thought it would be interesting. Well, they scheduled him for angioplasty Thursday morning. The prospect scared him quite a bit, and DH flew in to be with him. The angioplasty revealed much more serious obstruction than was initially anticipated, so they’ve scheduled open heart surgery for tomorrow morning. Scary as it is, we think he’s quite lucky; if he hadn’t decided to take this test, he most likely would have had a heart attack in the near future.

Response:

On 2005-07-22, Monique Y. Mudama penned: My father in law is going in for bypass surgery tomorrow morning, 7:30am Arizona time. Purrs have worked! He just got out of surgery having had four bypasses. Apparently the operation went well.

YAY! I’m *SO* glad it went well, what a relief! Hugs, CatNipped – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

Response:

My father in law is going in for bypass surgery tomorrow morning, 7:30am Arizona time. Here’s hoping all turns out well. helen s

Purring for FIL..Best wishes. MLB

Response:

My father in law is going in for bypass surgery tomorrow morning, 7:30am Arizona time.

Purrs on their way for your FIL. — Marina, Frank and Miranda. In loving memory of Nikki. marina (dot) kurten (at) iki (dot) fi Pics at http://uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/frankiennikki/ and http://community.webshots.com/user/frankiennikki

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My father in law is going in for bypass surgery tomorrow morning, 7:30am Arizona time. He doesn’t like cats, but now’s not the time to quibble. He got a heart stress test on Wednesday. He didn’t have any weird symptoms and wasn’t sent by a doctor; he just thought it would be interesting. Well, they scheduled him for angioplasty Thursday morning. The prospect scared him quite a bit, and DH flew in to be with him. The angioplasty revealed much more serious obstruction than was initially anticipated, so they’ve scheduled open heart surgery for tomorrow morning. Scary as it is, we think he’s quite lucky; if he hadn’t decided to take this test, he most likely would have had a heart attack in the near future.

Purrs on the way. These days it’s actually a pretty "simple" procedure. Scary, yes, but at least they caught it early. Jill

Response:

My father in law is going in for bypass surgery tomorrow morning, 7:30am Arizona time.

Purrs on the way — Steve Touchstone, faithful servant of Sammy, Little Bit and Spot with loving memories of Rocky (RB) Home Page: http://www.sirinet.net/~stouchst/index.html Cat Pix: http://www.sirinet.net/~stouchst/animals.html

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My father in law is going in for bypass surgery tomorrow morning, 7:30am Arizona time. He doesn’t like cats, but now’s not the time to quibble. He got a heart stress test on Wednesday. He didn’t have any weird symptoms and wasn’t sent by a doctor; he just thought it would be interesting. Well, they scheduled him for angioplasty Thursday morning. The prospect scared him quite a bit, and DH flew in to be with him. The angioplasty revealed much more serious obstruction than was initially anticipated, so they’ve scheduled open heart surgery for tomorrow morning. Scary as it is, we think he’s quite lucky; if he hadn’t decided to take this test, he most likely would have had a heart attack in the near future. — monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

Purrs are on their way. I’ve heard many, many stories of successful bypass surgery. Joy

Response:

Yep. My LLL had quadruple bypass surgery in January, 2004. 8 weeks later he was back out there working the art show circuit. I’m glad I’m able to help him sometimes since it’s very strenuous physical work. Jill

Response:

He doesn’t like cats, but now’s not the time to quibble. He got a heart stress test on Wednesday.

Non-sectarian purrs for your FIL from the boys, who don’t mind making a conversion. Gordon & the TT(FF)

Response:

He doesn’t like cats, but now’s not the time to quibble.

Smokey is pleased to purr for anyone who’s got food. Purrs. –Fil

Response:

My father in law is going in for bypass surgery tomorrow morning, 7:30am Arizona time.

Many purrs are on their way. Hoping all turns out well. Jeanne

Response:

Wow, good thing he decided to do that! Purrs on the way that sugery goes well. Hugs, CatNipped – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

Response:

Mega purrs on the way for your FIL’s surgery to go well with no unexpected complications. Purrs and Hugs, Nan

Response:

On 2005-07-22, jmcquown penned: Yep. My LLL had quadruple bypass surgery in January, 2004. 8 weeks later he was back out there working the art show circuit. I’m glad I’m able to help him sometimes since it’s very strenuous physical work.

That’s amazing. Gives me hope that DH’s dad will come through with flying colors. — monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

Response:

On 2005-07-22, jmcquown penned: Purrs on the way. These days it’s actually a pretty "simple" procedure. Scary, yes, but at least they caught it early.

Apparently in most cases they don’t even stop the heart — just work with it as is. Amazing stuff. — monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

Response:

Purrs and healing thoughts, from one who has been there, done that, and has the cardiac rehab T-shirt.

Response:

On 2005-07-22, jmcquown penned: Purrs on the way. These days it’s actually a pretty "simple" procedure. Scary, yes, but at least they caught it early. Apparently in most cases they don’t even stop the heart — just work with it as is. Amazing stuff.

"Minimally invasive" bypass, when they don’t stop the heart, really does give a lower rate of complications, but can be used only when there is a lesser number of points to bypass, and they are relatively easy to reach. Given that they have angiograms (X-rays of the coronary arteries), they probably have a pretty good idea, but there are times the surgeon can’t tell without actually looking. I don’t want to call it a "complication", but something that the doctors rarely mention, but that has been my own experience and that of many people I’ve known that have had the procedure, is that if they strip a vein from the leg to use in bypasses, the leg tends to hurt much longer than does the chest. It’s something for which one should be prepared — lots of people assume the chest will be worse.

Response:

On 2005-07-22, Howard C. Berkowitz penned: "Minimally invasive" bypass, when they don’t stop the heart, really does give a lower rate of complications, but can be used only when there is a lesser number of points to bypass, and they are relatively easy to reach. Given that they have angiograms (X-rays of the coronary arteries), they probably have a pretty good idea, but there are times the surgeon can’t tell without actually looking.

I don’t know. I’m under the impression they’re doing three bypasses, but of course I don’t know *where* they are. The doctor apparently said something like 98% of patients don’t need to have their heart stopped. He said he prefers not to because stopping the heart tends to cause short-term memory loss in the first few weeks. I don’t recall, though, if it was the actual cardiac surgeon who said this or another doctor involved. I don’t want to call it a "complication", but something that the doctors rarely mention, but that has been my own experience and that of many people I’ve known that have had the procedure, is that if they strip a vein from the leg to use in bypasses, the leg tends to hurt much longer than does the chest. It’s something for which one should be prepared — lots of people assume the chest will be worse.

Interesting. The doctor also said that they can typically make an incision at the top and bottom and pull it out, rather than having to cut all along the leg. Was yours the former or the latter? — monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

Response:

Purrs for all to be well for your FIL, Monique. Ginger-lyn Home Pages: http://www.spiritrealm.com/summer/ http://www.angelfire.com/folk/glsummer (homepage & cats) http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~summer/index.htm (genealogy) http://www.movieanimals.bravehost.com/ (The Violence Against Animals in Movies Website)

Response:

Don’t be alarmed if they wind up doing more. In general, the original estimate is based on the number of arteries that need bypass. I had three occluded vessels, but wound up with four bypasses. It turned out that after they did the first bypass on the right coronary artery, they found a second downstream blockage and bypassed that. The number of bypasses, with modern surgery, doesn’t have much to do with the severity of the operation – just increases the time. The doctor apparently said something like 98% of patients don’t need to have their heart stopped. He said he prefers not to because stopping the heart tends to cause short-term memory loss in the first few weeks. I don’t recall, though, if it was the actual cardiac surgeon who said this or another doctor involved.

Short-term memory loss isn’t common, but, realistically, going on external bypass increases the probability that there will be complications. In my case, some debris or a micro-clot went to my left ear and destroyed the auditory nerve, completing total deafness there. I’m not trying to suggest that external bypass isn’t safe and effective for the vast majority of patients – it is. I don’t want to call it a "complication", but something that the doctors rarely mention, but that has been my own experience and that of many people I’ve known that have had the procedure, is that if they strip a vein from the leg to use in bypasses, the leg tends to hurt much longer than does the chest. It’s something for which one should be prepared — lots of people assume the chest will be worse. Interesting. The doctor also said that they can typically make an incision at the top and bottom and pull it out, rather than having to cut all along the leg. Was yours the former or the latter?

The latter. Adding to the problem, stripping the leg vein is often done not by the primary surgeon, but by an assistant who may not be as careful. Your doctor is describing what sounds reasonable, but is new. Also, there’s much more use made of the left internal mammary artery in the chest. It may increase postoperative discomfort to have had additional surgery in the chest, but arterial grafts are MUCH superior to venous grafts. Basically, arterial grafts won’t reblock. There just isn’t enough artery to do multiple bypasses.

Response:

On 2005-07-22, Monique Y. Mudama penned: My father in law is going in for bypass surgery tomorrow morning, 7:30am Arizona time.

Purrs have worked! He just got out of surgery having had four bypasses. Apparently the operation went well. — monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

Response:

Wow. Scary. Ever since Pearl’s diagnosis I’ve wondered if all people just shouldn’t have heart tests done, no matter how they feel. Purrs. for FIL

Response:

Smart man, and a lucky one. Thank goodness he took that test. Don’t blame him for being anxious, open heart surgery is no joke. I hope he’ll come through splendidly and recover quickly. Melissa

Response:

My father in law is going in for bypass surgery tomorrow morning, 7:30am Arizona time.

Here’s hoping all turns out well. helen s

Response:

My father in law is going in for bypass surgery tomorrow morning, 7:30am Arizona time. He doesn’t like cats, but now’s not the time to quibble. He got a heart stress test on Wednesday. He didn’t have any weird symptoms and wasn’t sent by a doctor; he just thought it would be interesting. Well, they scheduled him for angioplasty Thursday morning. The prospect scared him quite a bit, and DH flew in to be with him. The angioplasty revealed much more serious obstruction than was initially anticipated, so they’ve scheduled open heart surgery for tomorrow morning. Scary as it is, we think he’s quite lucky; if he hadn’t decided to take this test, he most likely would have had a heart attack in the near future. — monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

Response:

Deafness

0 RESPONSES

In me

Question:

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, Vera Lexi wrote: > David wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 levelerman2…@yahoo.com wrote: > >>I noticed myself that smile of ecstasy > >>which appears on the face of a woman at the beginning of penetration. > > She’s laughing at you. With me they feel a stretching pain. > That would be called a ‘grimace’, David!

Not if they could bear to get within an *arm’s* length of my mug already. Once one can manage to keep down one’s lunch I’m rather easy to take. D. — "Winter is i-cumin in, Lhude sing goddamn!" …………………………………………………………. (C) 2004 TheDavid^TM | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221

Response:

On 21 Jan 2005 15:34:38 -0800, "fox" <foxdunwur…@aol.com> wrote: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->levelerman2…@yahoo.com wrote: >> >It says I must not covet >> >Another person’s wife, >> >But I expressly covet >> >Another person’s life. >> You scare me man, adultery is certainly better than murder >> >Her warmth and luminescence, >> >Her beauty and her grace, >> >Her lively effervescence >> >That shimmers through her face >> I know what you mean here. >> I noticed myself that smile of ecstasy >> which appears on the face of a woman at the beginning of >penetration. >It doesn’t count when you’re only watching porn, lev. She’s not >smiling at YOU. >>. >> You will need medicare. >> Hopefully you do not live in Canada because otherwise you are >> in trouble. >ROFLMAOHSTITF Lev, you are becoming a parody of yourself. This is too >funny. Its like the knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail who gets >all his limbs chopped off but just keeps on going – you just block out >reality. Priceless. Your level of ignorance is so stunning Im >starting to think you are doing it on purpose.

Ilya likes attention.

Response:

<ilya_shambat2…@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1106340958.569424.140010@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> It says I must not covet > Another person’s wife, > But I expressly covet > Another person’s life. > Her warmth and luminescence, > Her beauty and her grace, > Her lively effervescence > That shimmers through her face > Its heavenly resplendor > And like a sunset sky > Refracts in pearl and amber > The how, the where, the why. > I covet all about her – > Yes, even her loss and pain, > Even her rage and heartbreak, > And in me shall remain > Her spirit, bright and restless, > And her delightful mind > Making me hear through deafness > And see by going blind. > She’ll give me her white splendor > And her unending joy, > Burn me until mere embers > And all the lies destroy, > Sending her love and sweetness > And tenderness and peace > Her passion and completeness > And her delightful bliss. > I want her whole being > To live within my chest > To me the truth revealing > And never, ever rest – > I want to have within me > All that she is and was, > To torture and to spin me, > And on the rocks to toss > All that is not impassioned > All that is not of light > And in its repercussions > Set everything to right – > I want all that she knows > To live within my soul, > Like, in a vase, a rose > Whose leaves will never fall > But each day will inspire > Gratitude and delight > And make the mind soar higher > To meet the timeless light – > To meet, in its quintessence, > The universe in all > And in her luminescence > To stumble and to fall. > It says I must not covet > Another person’s wife > But God himself will know it > I want another’s life > To be with me forever > And share with me her soul > >From now until the never – > Until the sun will fall – > To take me into starlight > And throw me on the ground > To share, from dawn till twilight, > The splendor that I found. > It says when one I treasure > Is with me no more, > She will remain forever > If I keep loving her > And as I live inside her > And she inside of me > Our souls will become brighter > And set the fancy free > To roam like holy fire > Across the starlit sky > And soar forever higher > And never, ever die > But burn with inspiration > And passion for all time > And bring reification > Of everything sublime > And bring, never-forsaken, > That which has come to pass: > The beauty that awakened > The universe in us, > Sharing the light and bringing > Good fallen in misuse > That through unbridled feeling > Attains the higher truth, > The truth of cosmic process > That burns in all that lives > And never dies or pauses, > But brings all to their knees. > I’ll follow you to heaven > And walk for you in death, > With you I’ll run and travel > Along the narrow path, > I’ll bathe in your delight and > Send you all light and warm, > Your days and nights I’ll brighten > And shield you from the storm, > And if I cannot covet > What is not meant to be > I’ll reap what you have sowed: > All of your life, in me. > Ilya Shambat.

ouch. make it stop. Renay

Response:

On 21 Jan 2005 12:55:58 -0800, ilya_shambat2…@yahoo.com wrote: >It says I must not covet >Another person’s wife, >But I expressly covet >Another person’s life.

Yes yes. We all know that you want to be me.

Response:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 levelerman2…@yahoo.com wrote: > I noticed myself that smile of ecstasy > which appears on the face of a woman at the beginning of penetration.

Response:

David wrote: > On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 levelerman2…@yahoo.com wrote: >>I noticed myself that smile of ecstasy >>which appears on the face of a woman at the beginning of penetration. > She’s laughing at you. With me they feel a stretching pain. > D.

That would be called a ‘grimace’, David! Regards, Vera Lexi

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -levelerman2…@yahoo.com wrote: > >It says I must not covet > >Another person’s wife, > >But I expressly covet > >Another person’s life. > You scare me man, adultery is certainly better than murder > >Her warmth and luminescence, > >Her beauty and her grace, > >Her lively effervescence > >That shimmers through her face > I know what you mean here. > I noticed myself that smile of ecstasy > which appears on the face of a woman at the beginning of

penetration. It doesn’t count when you’re only watching porn, lev. She’s not smiling at YOU. >. > You will need medicare. > Hopefully you do not live in Canada because otherwise you are > in trouble.

ROFLMAOHSTITF Lev, you are becoming a parody of yourself. This is too funny. Its like the knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail who gets all his limbs chopped off but just keeps on going – you just block out reality. Priceless. Your level of ignorance is so stunning Im starting to think you are doing it on purpose.

Response:

It says I must not covet Another person’s wife, But I expressly covet Another person’s life. Her warmth and luminescence, Her beauty and her grace, Her lively effervescence That shimmers through her face Its heavenly resplendor And like a sunset sky Refracts in pearl and amber The how, the where, the why. I covet all about her – Yes, even her loss and pain, Even her rage and heartbreak, And in me shall remain Her spirit, bright and restless, And her delightful mind Making me hear through deafness And see by going blind. She’ll give me her white splendor And her unending joy, Burn me until mere embers And all the lies destroy, Sending her love and sweetness And tenderness and peace Her passion and completeness And her delightful bliss. I want her whole being To live within my chest To me the truth revealing And never, ever rest – I want to have within me All that she is and was, To torture and to spin me, And on the rocks to toss All that is not impassioned All that is not of light And in its repercussions Set everything to right – I want all that she knows To live within my soul, Like, in a vase, a rose Whose leaves will never fall But each day will inspire Gratitude and delight And make the mind soar higher To meet the timeless light – To meet, in its quintessence, The universe in all And in her luminescence To stumble and to fall. It says I must not covet Another person’s wife But God himself will know it I want another’s life To be with me forever And share with me her soul >From now until the never –

Until the sun will fall – To take me into starlight And throw me on the ground To share, from dawn till twilight, The splendor that I found. It says when one I treasure Is with me no more, She will remain forever If I keep loving her And as I live inside her And she inside of me Our souls will become brighter And set the fancy free To roam like holy fire Across the starlit sky And soar forever higher And never, ever die But burn with inspiration And passion for all time And bring reification Of everything sublime And bring, never-forsaken, That which has come to pass: The beauty that awakened The universe in us, Sharing the light and bringing Good fallen in misuse That through unbridled feeling Attains the higher truth, The truth of cosmic process That burns in all that lives And never dies or pauses, But brings all to their knees. I’ll follow you to heaven And walk for you in death, With you I’ll run and travel Along the narrow path, I’ll bathe in your delight and Send you all light and warm, Your days and nights I’ll brighten And shield you from the storm, And if I cannot covet What is not meant to be I’ll reap what you have sowed: All of your life, in me. Ilya Shambat.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -ilya_shambat2…@yahoo.com wrote: > "I am monarch of all I survey. > My right there is none to dispute." > In truth, I’m a dull popinjay, > So really, now, who gives a hoot? > Ilya Shambat.

Response:

>It says I must not covet >Another person’s wife, >But I expressly covet >Another person’s life.

You scare me man, adultery is certainly better than murder >Her warmth and luminescence, >Her beauty and her grace, >Her lively effervescence >That shimmers through her face

I know what you mean here. I noticed myself that smile of ecstasy which appears on the face of a woman at the beginning of penetration. >Its heavenly resplendor >And like a sunset sky >Refracts in pearl and amber >The how, the where, the why.

Refraction at sunset is not significant. Most of the spectular effects of the sunset are due to the phenomenon of dispertion of light. >I covet all about her – >Yes, even her loss and pain, >Even her rage and heartbreak, >And in me shall remain

Well, that’s your problem, I like women only when they are playfull and joyfull not when they throw hysterical tantrums. >Her spirit, bright and restless, >And her delightful mind >Making me hear through deafness >And see by going blind.

You will need medicare. Hopefully you do not live in Canada because otherwise you are in trouble. >She’ll give me her white splendor >And her unending joy, >Burn me until mere embers >And all the lies destroy,

Amen

Response:

Deafness

0 RESPONSES

Researchers link gene to deafness

Question:

Well, let’s see. This subject was last posted to about three weeks ago. You just posted (quoted in its entirety) : " youOn 06 Feb 2005 04:08:25 GMT, hea…@aol.com (HEARA1) wrote: >GREAT IDEA SERPENT, LETS ALL REGAIN OUR HEARING & DIE WITH TUMORS. >Thanks, no thanks,"

So, of course I have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you think I started this thread and posted the link? I didn’t. With Newsgroups, you really should learn to quote a bit of the topic for anybody to figure out what you are trying to say.

Response:

Source: HearingExchange WASHINGTON (AP) — Researchers have identified a gene that prevents the regeneration of inner ear cells that are critical to hearing, a discovery experts say is the first step toward finding a way to correct the most common form of deafness among the elderly. http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/01/13/hearing.gene.ap/index.html

Response:

GREAT IDEA SERPENT, LETS ALL REGAIN OUR HEARING & DIE WITH TUMORS. Thanks, no thanks,

Response:

Hooray for the mice! On 14 Jan 2005 15:25:26 GMT, hhiss…@aol.com (HHIssues) wrote: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->source: HearingExchange >WASHINGTON (AP) — Researchers have identified a gene that prevents the >regeneration of inner ear cells that are critical to hearing, a discovery >experts say is the first step toward finding a way to correct the most common >form of deafness among the elderly. >http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/01/13/hearing.gene.ap/index.html

Response:

On 14 Jan 2005 15:25:26 GMT, hhiss…@aol.com (HHIssues) wrote: >source: HearingExchange >WASHINGTON (AP) — Researchers have identified a gene that prevents the >regeneration of inner ear cells that are critical to hearing, a discovery >experts say is the first step toward finding a way to correct the most common >form of deafness among the elderly. >http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/01/13/hearing.gene.ap/index.html

is loss of inner-ear hair cells considered "sensorineural"? I’m wondering if most sensorineural losses might be due mostly to hair-cell damage, or, if most sensorineural losses are just flat-out nerve damage. my sensorineural loss is supposedly due to antibiotics/ototoxicity. made worse by aging. hence my curiousity

Response:

source: HearingExchange WASHINGTON (AP) — Researchers have identified a gene that prevents the regeneration of inner ear cells that are critical to hearing, a discovery experts say is the first step toward finding a way to correct the most common form of deafness among the elderly. http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/01/13/hearing.gene.ap/index.html

Response:

Deafness

0 RESPONSES

Early morning caller

Question:

On 2004-12-24, Mark Edwards penned: [snip cute story] I most certainly not be whispering any secrets within fifty feet of Senyah from here on out (grin). If it makes you feel better / more secure, I think that there’s definitely a selective hearing thing that goes on. Parents can often hear a distressed child when other noises won’t wake them. I know that the sound of a dog whining or cat mewling will wake me up, but in particular the sound of a dog about to hurl will propel me out of bed with uncanny speed =P

So true. Thunder, husband, sirens or loud neighbors don’t wake me up but a cat’s quiet "meowm?" or a kitty about to hurl will have me instantly alert — Elise (supervised by Gossamer & Jeeves)

Response:

So true. Thunder, husband, sirens or loud neighbors don’t wake me up but a cat’s quiet "meowm?" or a kitty about to hurl will have me instantly alert LOL, I used to be the same way. Slept soundly through humungous thunderstorms right over my house, but the sound of my roommate tiptoeing up the hallway in her slippers would wake me up – go figure. I say "used to be" that way, because it all changed when I discovered the wonder of Elective Deafness Through Earplugs. Joyce

Response:

On 2004-12-24, Mark Edwards penned: [snip cute story] I most certainly not be whispering any secrets within fifty feet of Senyah from here on out (grin).

If it makes you feel better / more secure, I think that there’s definitely a selective hearing thing that goes on. Parents can often hear a distressed child when other noises won’t wake them. I know that the sound of a dog whining or cat mewling will wake me up, but in particular the sound of a dog about to hurl will propel me out of bed with uncanny speed =P — monique, who is sometimes allowed to pet Oscar, a grey^H^H^H^Hblue-cream DLH with an attitude!

Response:

Deafness

0 RESPONSES

Last chapter

Question:

"Daniel" <Tai…@netscape.com> wrote in message <news:ibOfd.57640$CT6.32919@sam.nntpserver.com>… > Well I have some good and bad news. > The good news is I don’t have to take any more shots! > help others also. I’ll be decloaking into lurk mode now, but I’ll be around. > Thanks again all. > Daniel

Daniel, I wish you many brilliant sunrises and the serenity of a thousand dazzling sunsets. You are correct about quality versus quantity, but never give up hope. The strength of your spirit can do amazing things. Love your partner every day and know that there are others out here caring and praying for you. Warmest Regards, xo Boston Jean

Response:

Well I have some good and bad news. The good news is I don’t have to take any more shots! The bad news is that after 38 shots I found out yesterday the the virus is not responding to tx. The numbers are actually going up instead of down. Strangely I was almost releived to get the news. I have been sort of sitting back since yesterday watching myself in a detached objective way. Observing my reactions. I immediately ran the whole gamut of feelings. Though I had tried to prepare myself for this, I don’t think you can until it actually happens. I even took a long walk by myself by the river, even though it was so cliche.(read: like an ABC family movie). I have so many other issues going on. The deafness, the AIDS, the diabetes. I needed for my own peace of mind to KNOW that I had at least done what I could do. When you walk a road like I am walking there IS going to come a time when even though your doing all you can you are still going downhill. I have spent the better part of a year fighting tooth and nail with beaurocracies, the Govt, State medical insurance companies, Dr’s, labs etc. It had actually become my life. I feel now that I would more than anything else just like to live this last chapter of my life on MY terms. I truly feel that I would rather live 2 or 3 years happy doing what I want, when I want, than fight, fight, fight to get another extra month or a year and be miserable. Bottom line, even if the tx had worked and I cleared, I’m still looking at all the other things. I’m not being morbid, I’m truly trying to be practical. I’m fortunate enough to have found that there is not going to be several more chapters to my life, this is the last one. Many people don’t get that opportunity. When you reach the point where it is all going to be downhill, you can spend your remaining time fighting gravity, hopelessly trying to garner more time, or you can just kick back, remove all the stress and just enjoy the ride. The hardest part for me yesterday was telling my partner. We’ve been together for 25 years. He was always there for me throughout all the boozing, the detox centers, jails, the hospitals. I had tried to temper him to the fact that the tx might not work. But I had to watch as his face fell, he looked so helpless, so all alone, I amost wept. It was then that I REALLY realized that this tx wasn’t just about me. I’m sorry to have to bring bad news to the group, I even debated just not saying anything, but I think you all have the right to honesty and the honest truth is this tx doesn’t allways work. The honest truth is that we ALL are going to have a last chapter. But try to arrange it so when yours comes your calling the shots (pun intended). For me passing is going to be like a graduation, I’ll be going to a different level. I am pleased with that but aware that my passing will be painful for others who may not share my spiritual outlook. So folks for me it’s full steam ahead. Were going to go places and do things and write this last chapter our way. I feel like I have a repreive! I want to thank the group for being here. It really helped me. And I know you help others also. I’ll be decloaking into lurk mode now, but I’ll be around. Thanks again all. Daniel

Response:

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:19:09 -0700, "Daniel" <Tai…@netscape.com>, in message ID <ibOfd.57640$CT6.32…@sam.nntpserver.com>, in the newsgroup alt.support.hepatitis-c wrote:

Sorry to hear what’s going on for you Daniel. I hear what you say about acceptance. Often the hardest part is getting to that point. I hope you have many more years of reasonable health. Who knows. You may outlive me (cliches about buses springing to mind). Best wishes – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Well I have some good and bad news. >The good news is I don’t have to take any more shots! >The bad news is that after 38 shots I found out yesterday >the the virus is not responding to tx. The numbers are actually >going up instead of down. >Strangely I was almost releived to get the news. I have been >sort of sitting back since yesterday watching myself in a detached >objective way. Observing my reactions. I immediately ran the >whole gamut of feelings. Though I had tried to prepare myself for >this, I don’t think you can until it actually happens. I even took a long >walk by myself by the river, even though it was so cliche.(read: >like an ABC family movie). >I have so many other issues going on. The deafness, the AIDS, >the diabetes. I needed for my own peace of mind to KNOW that >I had at least done what I could do. When you walk a road like I am >walking there IS going to come a time when even though your doing all >you can you are still going downhill. I have spent the better part of a >year >fighting tooth and nail with beaurocracies, the Govt, State medical >insurance >companies, Dr’s, labs etc. It had actually become my life. I feel now that >I >would more than anything else just like to live this last chapter of my life >on MY terms. I truly feel that I would rather live 2 or 3 years happy doing >what I want, when I want, than fight, fight, fight to get another extra >month or a year and be miserable. >Bottom line, even if the tx had worked and I cleared, I’m still looking at >all the other things. I’m not being morbid, I’m truly trying to be >practical. >I’m fortunate enough to have found that there is not going to be several >more >chapters to my life, this is the last one. Many people don’t get that >opportunity. >When you reach the point where it is all going to be downhill, you can >spend your remaining time fighting gravity, hopelessly trying to garner more >time, or you can just kick back, remove all the stress and just enjoy the >ride. >The hardest part for me yesterday was telling my partner. We’ve been >together for 25 years. He was always there for me throughout all >the boozing, the detox centers, jails, the hospitals. I had tried to temper >him >to the fact that the tx might not work. But I had to watch as his face >fell, >he looked so helpless, so all alone, I amost wept. It was then that I >REALLY realized that this tx wasn’t just about me. >I’m sorry to have to bring bad news to the group, I even debated just not >saying anything, but I think you all have the right to honesty and the >honest >truth is this tx doesn’t allways work. The honest truth is that we ALL are >going to have a last chapter. But try to arrange it so when yours comes >your calling the shots (pun intended). For me passing is going to be like a >graduation, I’ll be going to a different level. I am pleased with that but >aware that my passing will be painful for others who may not share my >spiritual outlook. >So folks for me it’s full steam ahead. Were going to go places and do >things and write this last chapter our way. I feel like I have a repreive! >I want to thank the group for being here. It really helped me. And I know >you >help others also. I’ll be decloaking into lurk mode now, but I’ll be around. >Thanks again all. >Daniel

– Paul Use the reply by email facility in your newsreader to send email

Response:

Deafness

0 RESPONSES

Elijah the Tishbite to Prime Minister of Israel Ariel Sharon, 10 October 2004

Question:

You replied… and this is my last post on the stuff.

Thank you. Zoid

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Again, "taste" is subjective. That means that it’s a little different for everybody, and we all get to decide for ourselves what we like, a concept that may be a bit too advanced for you. To talk about "taste" on a guitar newsgroup, a better definition might make more sense along the lines of a multiple choice test. (Whoever’s) playing was so incredible during that song: [ ] I cried [ ] I grinned from ear to ear [ ] I got out the guitar and started practicing every day for the next 3 years trying to match it note for note. Else, if all you guys on alt.guitar are talking about, is background players, what’s the point? These are descriptions, not definitions. Furthermore, they are YOUR descriptions, though you apparently think that, because they are yours, they are definitive. Has it occurred to you that there might be other ways of looking at things, other than in your rather limited terms?

Ya, but in all the time playing with guitar players, they tended to be about the same. They either really liked the song they’re practicing, or it was just background stuff… and who would show up on a guitar newsgroup to talk about background playing? ??? So given that, you’d have to be talking about the best songs and best players… unless you’re a wannabe player and haven’t figured it out yet. "The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself." -Sir Richard Francis Burton Nah. That’s the same answer you had to the historical fact that Christians have often slaughtered other cultures they considered inferior: Muslims, Jews, American Indians, etc.

I think Muslims bring it on themselves. You can see Muslim’s DAILY, today, hacking off the heads of innocent people, they’ve been taught to do that… and their prime victems are Jews and Christians. What did you expect? There are many other books of history than just the Bible. Human history didn’t stop with the book of Jude, and not all of the future was prophesied in Revelation. You should read some, and find out how unlike Christ Christians can be.

I never said everyone was perfect. You’re I guess, claiming that if someone is Christian, that they "must" be perfect. Jesus didn’t say that, he said that there is no one good but God. You apparently agree with him. Any enjoyment you got out of playing guitar, or listening to it, you got that from God. I don’t think he needs the credit. Though I’ll bet you would gladly accept any royalties due him, on his behalf, of course…

I’m happy when God gets credit for what he did. He deserves it, he’s God, he’s the creator of it all. Take a little time every now and then to thank him for it. Oops! You slipped up there, pal, not capitalizing "him." If you believe in God’s divinity, you’re supposed to capitalize "he" or "him" when referring to "Him," right?

Is God’s name "Him"??? Bit of a Freudian slip there? I think you’re really talking about yourself, and want people to thank YOU for all of God’s goodness. You tell yourself that you’re bringing light to the ignorant masses, when all you’re really doing is campaigning for worship yourself, based on books written in ancient times by people who were doing the very same thing you’re doing now.

God’s own words prove he is the source of his creation. You not believing him, that is your choice, but you’re really missing out if you ignore what he’s said. God made it all, Jesus died for our sins. If God made it all, then he made sins as well, didn’t he? Which means that he killed Jesus, ultimately for his own pleasure. I’m not buying it, and neither should anyone else who has one more brain cell than you do.

God defined what is good, in doing so, he’s also defined what is evil in that it’s not good. God told them the messiah would die and sins would end WHEN he showed up, even told them WHEN Jesus would show up and said THEY wouldn’t believe him… said it several times too, over CENTURIES. How is it that God could know it, tell them, and they STILL did what he said they’d do? God knew, they didn’t. God said it… but you ignore it. If God wants you to know, he’ll draw you to what he said. If God doesn’t want you to know… oh well. Proof God described the planet density profile BEFORE science did: http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm (see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis) If God "got it right," than why were there light, days, evenings and mornings, when he didn’t create the sun and moon until the fourth day? It’s perfectly obvious the true author of Genesis didn’t know any better than anyone else, that the Earth was a round planet, in orbit around the sun, not the other way around.

Day 1 is a LONG period of time. At the start of the big bang… it’s DARK… understand? At the start of stars forming… it’s light… understand? That’s day 1 in a nutshell. Day 2 continues… it matches as well… billions of years, and God even told them HOW he formed our solar system, told them in Genesis, Job, Ezekiel and Revelation. The Genesis 1 account has been detailed and matches the TIMING, TERMS and PHRASES of the science account: http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/genesis.htm Even so, science admits they still don’t know how the solar system formed. They have the data, but they don’t have the understanding. That’s going on today, even now… you’re missing out guy. God was right all along. Water-firmament-water (gives) "away what the final density profiles of the planets should appear as?" Proof? The only thing it proves to me is how desperate you are to convince people that the Bible is 100% literally correct, which it isn’t.

It is. When you eventually find that they admit there’s an exploding out RING from planet forming stars… you will then have confirmation that God was right all along… from them. God already said how he did it…. science is catching up. Genesis 1:14: "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years…" "For signs?" Is this biblical proof that astrology is valid science?

God described pillars of smoke in the heavens… they’ve seen that in deep space photos. God said at the foundations of the earth that it’s as the womb waters gushing out, and the DUST CLOUD… guess what… that’s what science says too. Look up DUST DISK… science says it… God said there were bands and openings there… there are… look up water and such in stars… "waters" are the elements being formed in stars. You’re missing out guy… God was right in Genesis, Job, Ezekiel and Revelation. Let’s move back a bit. Genesis 1:3: "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."

Big bang. God "said?" Why did he say it, and who did he say it to, when there was no one else around to hear him? What language did he use? It couldn’t have been been King James’ English, because that language didn’t exist yet. Did he say it in Hebrew? Greek? Latin? German? Yiddish?

God is a SPIRIT, not physical… ENERGY… an extremely high frequency spectra of energy. God saying it into being, he’s putting his ENERGY into forming MATTER. Energy to matter conversion is well known. God said it, and a universe formed. Assuming he did say it, by it’s very nature, whatever he said only exists for our ears today to hear and understand by virtue of interpretations through the years, performed by mere mortal human beings. Now, you can probably quote me chapter and verse that the Bible was written "by inspiration of God" and that the original authors were thus allowed to write God’s words and thoughts perfectly.

Look at Job, God told Job that Elihu was WRONG in saying the "solid glass sky dome"… who else other than God would know that? ??? Everyone else at the time thought there was a solid glass sky dome at the time, and there’s God saying THEY ARE WRONG, that they didn’t understand what God had told them. God’s words made sense, but NOT if you try to attach their understanding at the time… they didn’t know, but God did. God was telling them that the elements formed in the HOTTEST process, the beating of elements together, FUSION, to form the elements. The words God told them, they confused to be a "solid glass sky dome"… but that’s not what he was saying. The "waters" are those elements God was forming by FUSION. But where in the Bible does it say that all the subsequent translations would be perfect?

It doesn’t say that. So, it is indisputably correct that God did not, in fact, literally say "Let there be light." The best you can do is to say that he said something that we would interpret today as "Let there be light." And that inevitably makes the Bible SUBJECTIVE; open to interpretation.

All "big bang" discussions, they’re looking at LIGHT to guage it. What’s the issue with God saying "let there be light"??? MY interpretation, no more or less blessed by God than anyone else’s, is that Moses created God in HIS image, and attributed very human features to him, in order to be palatable to Moses’ fellow human beings at the time.

The words God gave Moses, are known present day to be correctly given. Moses couldn’t have known the proper TIMING, PHRASES, and TERMS for our solar system formation. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It was unthinkable at that time that any ruler could possibly be anything other than male, so that’s how Moses wrote it. It was also unthinkable that the earth rotated around the sun, so the sun rotating around the earth is how Moses wrote it. And it was unthinkable at the time that astrology wasn’t a valid science, so that’s

Response:

== ==

== == Again, "taste" is subjective. That means that it’s a little different for == everybody, and we all get to decide for ourselves what we like, a concept == that may be a bit too advanced for you. == == To talk about "taste" on a guitar newsgroup, a better definition == might make more sense along the lines of a multiple choice test. == == (Whoever’s) playing was so incredible during that song: == == [ ] I cried == [ ] I grinned from ear to ear == [ ] I got out the guitar and started practicing every day for the == next 3 years trying to match it note for note. == == Else, if all you guys on alt.guitar are talking about, is background == players, what’s the point? == ==These are descriptions, not definitions. Furthermore, they are YOUR ==descriptions, though you apparently think that, because they are yours, they ==are definitive. Has it occurred to you that there might be other ways of ==looking at things, other than in your rather limited terms? == == "The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never == worshipped anything but himself." == -Sir Richard Francis Burton == == Nah. == ==That’s the same answer you had to the historical fact that Christians have ==often slaughtered other cultures they considered inferior: Muslims, Jews, ==American Indians, etc. There are many other books of history than just the ==Bible. Human history didn’t stop with the book of Jude, and not all of the ==future was prophesied in Revelation. You should read some, and find out how ==unlike Christ Christians can be. == == Any enjoyment you got out of playing guitar, or listening == to it, you got that from God. == ==I don’t think he needs the credit. Though I’ll bet you would gladly accept ==any royalties due him, on his behalf, of course… == == Take a little time every now and then to thank him for it. == ==Oops! You slipped up there, pal, not capitalizing "him." If you believe in ==God’s divinity, you’re supposed to capitalize "he" or "him" when referring ==to "Him," right? == ==Bit of a Freudian slip there? I think you’re really talking about yourself, ==and want people to thank YOU for all of God’s goodness. You tell yourself ==that you’re bringing light to the ignorant masses, when all you’re really ==doing is campaigning for worship yourself, based on books written in ancient ==times by people who were doing the very same thing you’re doing now. == == God made it all, Jesus died for our sins. == ==If God made it all, then he made sins as well, didn’t he? Which means that ==he killed Jesus, ultimately for his own pleasure. I’m not buying it, and ==neither should anyone else who has one more brain cell than you do. == == Proof God described the planet density profile == BEFORE science did: == http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm == (see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis) == ==If God "got it right," than why were there light, days, evenings and ==mornings, when he didn’t create the sun and moon until the fourth day? It’s ==perfectly obvious the true author of Genesis didn’t know any better than ==anyone else, that the Earth was a round planet, in orbit around the sun, not ==the other way around. == ==Water-firmament-water (gives) "away what the final density ==profiles of the planets should appear as?" Proof? The only thing it proves ==to me is how desperate you are to convince people that the Bible is 100% ==literally correct, which it isn’t. == ==Genesis 1:14: "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the ==heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for ==seasons, and for days, and years…" == =="For signs?" Is this biblical proof that astrology is valid science? == ==Let’s move back a bit. Genesis 1:3: "And God said, Let there be light: and ==there was light." == ==God "said?" Why did he say it, and who did he say it to, when there was no ==one else around to hear him? What language did he use? It couldn’t have been ==been King James’ English, because that language didn’t exist yet. Did he say ==it in Hebrew? Greek? Latin? German? Yiddish? == ==Assuming he did say it, by it’s very nature, whatever he said only exists ==for our ears today to hear and understand by virtue of interpretations ==through the years, performed by mere mortal human beings. Now, you can ==probably quote me chapter and verse that the Bible was written "by ==inspiration of God" and that the original authors were thus allowed to write ==God’s words and thoughts perfectly. == ==But where in the Bible does it say that all the subsequent translations ==would be perfect? == ==So, it is indisputably correct that God did not, in fact, literally say "Let ==there be light." The best you can do is to say that he said something that ==we would interpret today as "Let there be light." And that inevitably makes ==the Bible SUBJECTIVE; open to interpretation. == ==MY interpretation, no more or less blessed by God than anyone else’s, is ==that Moses created God in HIS image, and attributed very human features to ==him, in order to be palatable to Moses’ fellow human beings at the time. == ==It was unthinkable at that time that any ruler could possibly be anything ==other than male, so that’s how Moses wrote it. == ==It was also unthinkable that the earth rotated around the sun, so the sun ==rotating around the earth is how Moses wrote it. == ==And it was unthinkable at the time that astrology wasn’t a valid science, so ==that’s how Moses wrote it. == ==(No, I don’t have any proof that Moses actually wrote the five "Books of ==Moses," but according to the story, he was raised by Egyptian royalty, when ==practically all the other Jews around him were slaves, so I’m thinking that ==he was, at the very least, one of a select few that had the necessary ==literary skills. Close enough to use his name metaphorically, I think.) == ==And I haven’t gone any farther than King James’ Genesis 1:20 here. How ==perfect is your Bible? Would you like to go on? == =="The information is simply my opinion based on how I perceive the content ==discussed. Anyone reading such should use their own judgment as to whether ==or not the information has any value to them." == ==Indeed! "Proof" itself is an entirely subjective term. Something is only ==proven when someone is convinced, and not by any amount of evidence. Your =="proof" only convinces you in this case. It is therefore, more correctly ==described as opinion, and by no means defined, as "proof." == ==Please stop cross posting to alt.guitar. If you wish to continue this ==discussion with me, you may email me directly. I don’t read bible ==newsgroups; too many people there who have been brainwashed by their parents ==into believing that all the world’s answers are contained in the dogma ==surrounding subjective interpretations of fanciful texts that are thousands ==of years old. == ==These texts and their concepts allow themselves to be neither corrected nor ==improved upon. They consider evolution to be impossible, not only within the ==context of how the universe came to be, but in that nothing worthwhile to ==humanity has ever been learned since they were written. ==Zoid Well said, Zoid. Very well said. — It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. -Bertrand Russell

Response:

These are descriptions, not definitions. Furthermore, they are YOUR descriptions, though you apparently think that, because they are yours, they are definitive. Has it occurred to you that there might be other ways of looking at things, other than in your rather limited terms? "The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself." -Sir Richard Francis Burton Nah.

That’s the same answer you had to the historical fact that Christians have often slaughtered other cultures they considered inferior: Muslims, Jews, American Indians, etc. There are many other books of history than just the Bible. Human history didn’t stop with the book of Jude, and not all of the future was prophesied in Revelation. You should read some, and find out how unlike Christ Christians can be. Any enjoyment you got out of playing guitar, or listening to it, you got that from God.

I don’t think he needs the credit. Though I’ll bet you would gladly accept any royalties due him, on his behalf, of course… Take a little time every now and then to thank him for it.

Oops! You slipped up there, pal, not capitalizing "him." If you believe in God’s divinity, you’re supposed to capitalize "he" or "him" when referring to "Him," right? Bit of a Freudian slip there? I think you’re really talking about yourself, and want people to thank YOU for all of God’s goodness. You tell yourself that you’re bringing light to the ignorant masses, when all you’re really doing is campaigning for worship yourself, based on books written in ancient times by people who were doing the very same thing you’re doing now. God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.

If God made it all, then he made sins as well, didn’t he? Which means that he killed Jesus, ultimately for his own pleasure. I’m not buying it, and neither should anyone else who has one more brain cell than you do. Proof God described the planet density profile BEFORE science did: http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm (see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)

If God "got it right," than why were there light, days, evenings and mornings, when he didn’t create the sun and moon until the fourth day? It’s perfectly obvious the true author of Genesis didn’t know any better than anyone else, that the Earth was a round planet, in orbit around the sun, not the other way around. Water-firmament-water (gives) "away what the final density profiles of the planets should appear as?" Proof? The only thing it proves to me is how desperate you are to convince people that the Bible is 100% literally correct, which it isn’t. Genesis 1:14: "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years…" "For signs?" Is this biblical proof that astrology is valid science? Let’s move back a bit. Genesis 1:3: "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." God "said?" Why did he say it, and who did he say it to, when there was no one else around to hear him? What language did he use? It couldn’t have been been King James’ English, because that language didn’t exist yet. Did he say it in Hebrew? Greek? Latin? German? Yiddish? Assuming he did say it, by it’s very nature, whatever he said only exists for our ears today to hear and understand by virtue of interpretations through the years, performed by mere mortal human beings. Now, you can probably quote me chapter and verse that the Bible was written "by inspiration of God" and that the original authors were thus allowed to write God’s words and thoughts perfectly. But where in the Bible does it say that all the subsequent translations would be perfect? So, it is indisputably correct that God did not, in fact, literally say "Let there be light." The best you can do is to say that he said something that we would interpret today as "Let there be light." And that inevitably makes the Bible SUBJECTIVE; open to interpretation. MY interpretation, no more or less blessed by God than anyone else’s, is that Moses created God in HIS image, and attributed very human features to him, in order to be palatable to Moses’ fellow human beings at the time. It was unthinkable at that time that any ruler could possibly be anything other than male, so that’s how Moses wrote it. It was also unthinkable that the earth rotated around the sun, so the sun rotating around the earth is how Moses wrote it. And it was unthinkable at the time that astrology wasn’t a valid science, so that’s how Moses wrote it. (No, I don’t have any proof that Moses actually wrote the five "Books of Moses," but according to the story, he was raised by Egyptian royalty, when practically all the other Jews around him were slaves, so I’m thinking that he was, at the very least, one of a select few that had the necessary literary skills. Close enough to use his name metaphorically, I think.) And I haven’t gone any farther than King James’ Genesis 1:20 here. How perfect is your Bible? Would you like to go on? "The information is simply my opinion based on how I perceive the content discussed. Anyone reading such should use their own judgment as to whether or not the information has any value to them." Indeed! "Proof" itself is an entirely subjective term. Something is only proven when someone is convinced, and not by any amount of evidence. Your "proof" only convinces you in this case. It is therefore, more correctly described as opinion, and by no means defined, as "proof." Please stop cross posting to alt.guitar. If you wish to continue this discussion with me, you may email me directly. I don’t read bible newsgroups; too many people there who have been brainwashed by their parents into believing that all the world’s answers are contained in the dogma surrounding subjective interpretations of fanciful texts that are thousands of years old. These texts and their concepts allow themselves to be neither corrected nor improved upon. They consider evolution to be impossible, not only within the context of how the universe came to be, but in that nothing worthwhile to humanity has ever been learned since they were written. Zoid

Response:

Again, "taste" is subjective. That means that it’s a little different for everybody, and we all get to decide for ourselves what we like, a concept that may be a bit too advanced for you.

To talk about "taste" on a guitar newsgroup, a better definition might make more sense along the lines of a multiple choice test. (Whoever’s) playing was so incredible during that song: [ ] I cried [ ] I grinned from ear to ear [ ] I got out the guitar and started practicing every day for the next 3 years trying to match it note for note. Else, if all you guys on alt.guitar are talking about, is background players, what’s the point? "The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself." -Sir Richard Francis Burton

Nah. Any enjoyment you got out of playing guitar, or listening to it, you got that from God. Take a little time every now and then to thank him for it. God made it all, Jesus died for our sins. Proof God described the planet density profile BEFORE science did: http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm (see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis) Mirror site at: http://For-God.net

Response:

Hey, biblebozos… Please stop crossposting to alt.guitar. I don’t care if you think you’re the second coming of Beelzebub, it’s spam, it’s rude, and not appreciated. Keep your holyhardons to yourselves. BoyD – It’s a deal if you will stop the loud obscene guitar banging and musical masturbation that is replacing music.

Forget it, pal. No deal. You don’t get to tell everyone else what music or religion they can subscribe to. Musical tastes are subjective, and not dictated by your bible or delusions of religious grandeur. Fire and lights, smoke and mirrors can never take the place of music meant to soothe.

Unless, of course, they are used in a bible story… The commercial music world is a farce of jungle drums

"Jungle drums?" You mean, as in "black" music? Letting a tendency to stereotype minority groups slip into your holy rant there? Gee, I’m impressed. and poorly played guitars with electrical amplification required.

You must be very frustrated with the number of churches that use them today, huh? Your ilk are promoting gutter taste and deafness.

Wow! What a cool name for a band! "Ladies and gentlemen! Give it up for …ILK!" Again, "taste" is subjective. That means that it’s a little different for everybody, and we all get to decide for ourselves what we like, a concept that may be a bit too advanced for you. As for my hearing, I can still hear up to around 15-16Khz, which ain’t too shabby for someone who is 52 and has been playing rock’n'roll for 40 years. I don’t think I’m the one in this argument who is trying to limit what others can hear. Harsher criticism to follow.

No, no! Not that! Not harsher criticism! Please! Have mercy! Allow me to get on my hands and knees, kiss your holy feet, and humbly beg your forgiveness! (snigger – snigger – snark) (In writing your next sorry ditty please note that no obscenities are necessary for coherence, only as an inadequate substitute for any evidence of education)

Ahhh! There, you see? You obviously considered my "biblebozos" and "holyhardons" terms as obscene, but not your own term "musical masturbation." That would be an example of being "subjective." I encourage you to continue your education; a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. I think we’re making some real progress here! Now, if you’re going to post strictly religious rants, please don’t post it to alt.guitar. It’s truly off-topic, and inappropriate here. You may have noticed that I didn’t post my previous "sorry ditty" to alt.guitar. But if you’re going to post more on "The commercial music world is a farce of jungle drums and poorly played guitars with electrical amplification required"…"promoting gutter taste and deafness," please continue! There are undoubtedly many people in this NG that will find it highly entertaining, on-topic, and worthy of their own opinions. Zoid "I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do." -D. Dale Gulledge "You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." -Anne Lamott "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." -Mohandas Gandhi "The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself." -Sir Richard Francis Burton

Response:

Hey, biblebozos… Please stop crossposting to alt.guitar. I don’t care if you think you’re the second coming of Beezebub, it’s spam, it’s rude, and not appreciated. Keep your holyhardons to yourselves.

BoyD – It’s a deal if you will stop the loud obscene guitar banging and musical masturbation that is replacing music. Fire and lights, smoke and mirrors can never take the place of music meant to soothe. The commercial music world is a farce of jungle drums and poorly played guitars with electrical amplification required. Your ilk are promoting gutter taste and deafness. Harsher criticism to follow. (In writing your next sorry ditty please note that no obscenities are necessary for coherence, only as an inadequate substitute for any evidence of education)

Response:

Ps.. To issue warnings of repentance is to prepare the way. That is all.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Mr John, The Two Witnesses are 2 Angels of the LORD sir. Mans pride gets in the way when we begin to feel the power of God. This earnest man who calls himself Elijah is to prepare the way for the 2 witnesses who prepare the way for the coming of the LORD. He must repent as I have. –Shaqad Get a FREE e-Bible from www.e-sword.net it works on/off line and has many other helpful features. the Sword of the Lord with an electronic edge. FW: Elijah the Tishbite to Prime Minister of Israel Ariel Sharon, 10 October 2004 10 October 2004 Prime Minister of Israel Ariel Sharon, I THE ALMIGHTY ELOHIM AM NUMBERING YOUR DAYS AS LIKEN YITZHAK RABIN WHO I ALLOWED HIS DAYS TO BE NUMBERED AS A TRAITOR TO THE ISRAELITE PEOPLE BY SIGNING THAT DAMNABLE OSLO ACCORD WITH THAT MURDERER OF MY PEOPLE, NAMELY YASIR ARAFAT. NOW YOU PERSIST TO REMOVE THE ISRAELITE PEOPLE OFF THE LAND I PROMISED TO THEM ALONE AS THEIR ALMIGHTY ELOHIM, TO AGREE TO GIVE THIS LAND TO THESE MODERN DAY PHILISTINIAN PEOPLE WHO ENGLAND ALLOWED TO INTRUDE IN MY LAND OF PROMISE TO MY PEOPLE ISRAEL ALONE TO DWELL SO TO PLEASE THESE PEOPLE OF THIS NEW WORLD ORDER OF WHICH PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH REPRESENTS AND HAS YOU AS ANOTHER C.F.R. PUPPET LIKEN SHIMON PERES, ANOTHER TRAITOR TO THE ISRAELITE PEOPLE AND AS A BUSINESS PARTNER TO YASIR ARAFAT. WELL, BEST BE CAREFUL MR. PRIME MINISTER ARIEL SHARON, FOR AS HE HAD ONE OF HIS ASSASSINS MURDER YITZHAK RABIN, YOU COULD BE HIS NEXT VICTIM, ALLOWED TO BECAUSE OF YOUR SELLING OUT THE ISRAELITES FOR YOUR SELF INTEREST AS AN EGOTISTICAL PERSON OF SELF-INTEREST, NOT CARING FOR THE INTEREST OF THE ISRAELITE PEOPLE IN GENERAL. WELL, I WILL BRING A CHANGE IN THE LEADERSHIP OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL AS SOON AS I ALLOW YOU TO BE REMOVED AS A TRAITOR TO MY PEOPLE OF ISRAEL AND MORE SO TO I THE ALMIGHTY ELOHIM WHO GAVE YOU TO BE THE HEAD OF ISRAEL GOVERNMENT. SOON YOU’RE GOING TO SEE ALL THESE SO BRAVE SEEMINGLY MEN OF THE GOVERNMENT OF AMERICA UNDER GEORGE BUSH RUN FOR THEIR UNDERGROUND SAFETY HAVENS THEY HAVE BUILT FOR THEMSELVES ALONE, LEAVING THE PEOPLE WHO PAID FOR THESE MASSIVE UNDERGROUND CITIES UNKNOWN TO THEM TO DIE BY THE MILLIONS WHEN THIS GREAT OBJECT PASSES BETWEEN THE SUN AND THE EARTH, NAMELY PLANET X OR NIBIRU, WHICH IS JUDGMENT TO THIS WHOLE EARTH THAT I AM AS THE ALMIGHTY ELOHIM TO BRING GREAT DESTRUCTION UPON THIS EARTH TO A WHOLE EARTH FULL OF REBELLIOUS PEOPLE LIKEN MR. GEORGE BUSH AND YOU, PRIME MINISTER ARIEL SHARON. YOU WILL SEE AND HEAR OF THIS MASS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER PEOPLE TO FLEE TO THEIR BUILT SAFETY HAVENS ALL OVER AMERICA THAT WILL EVENTUALLY BECOME THEIR TOMBS AS LIKEN THE PHARAOH OF EGYPT DID IN THE PAST. OH WHAT A SIGHT TO SEE THE U.N. BUILDING AS OTHER BUILDINGS FALL INTO THE ATLANTIC OCEAN TO NO MORE EVER TO BE SEEN OF THESE EVIL CORRUPT PEOPLE OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER. THE ROTHSCHILDS, THE ROCKEFELLERS AND THE BILDERBERGERS ALL GOING DOWN IN THEIR UNDERGROUND SEEMINGLY SAFETY HAVEN BUT END UP AS THEIR TOMBS. DOWN THEY GO ON THEIR WAY TO THE HELL’S FIRE AS EVIL GREEDY CORRUPT MEN WHO USE PEOPLE LIKEN GEORGE BUSH AND YOU, ARIEL SHARON, TO DO THEIR DIRTY WORK AS TRAITORS TO YOUR OWN PEOPLE. SO BEST BE CAREFUL WHERE YOU GO. THERE WILL BE PEOPLE AWAITING TO DO WHAT THEY DID TO THAT OTHER TRAITOR, YITZHAK RABIN, BY THAT SENT ASSASSIN BY YOUR OLD FRIEND SHIMON PERES. OH, HE WOULD LIKE TO BE PRIME MINISTER AGAIN AS HE WAS AFTER HE HAD YITZHAK RABIN REMOVED. THINK ABOUT THAT. LIKE I HAVE STATED BEFORE, YOUR DAYS ARE NUMBERED AS THE KING IN THE PAST. DANIEL 5:26 Thus saith the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Elohim Servant Prophet, Eliyahu the Tishbite Elijah the Tishbite PO Box 53702, Main Post Office – Gladstone Street Limassol CYPRUS 3317 Messages of G-d servant prophet Eliyahu are on internet at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TwoOliveTrees/ http://two-olive-trees.org/ To subscribe to this group, send an email to: — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG antivirus software. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

— Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG antivirus software. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

Mr John, The Two Witnesses are 2 Angels of the LORD sir. Mans pride gets in the way when we begin to feel the power of God. This earnest man who calls himself Elijah is to prepare the way for the 2 witnesses who prepare the way for the coming of the LORD. He must repent as I have. –Shaqad Get a FREE e-Bible from www.e-sword.net it works on/off line and has many other helpful features. the Sword of the Lord with an electronic edge.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – FW: Elijah the Tishbite to Prime Minister of Israel Ariel Sharon, 10 October 2004 10 October 2004 Prime Minister of Israel Ariel Sharon, I THE ALMIGHTY ELOHIM AM NUMBERING YOUR DAYS AS LIKEN YITZHAK RABIN WHO I ALLOWED HIS DAYS TO BE NUMBERED AS A TRAITOR TO THE ISRAELITE PEOPLE BY SIGNING THAT DAMNABLE OSLO ACCORD WITH THAT MURDERER OF MY PEOPLE, NAMELY YASIR ARAFAT. NOW YOU PERSIST TO REMOVE THE ISRAELITE PEOPLE OFF THE LAND I PROMISED TO THEM ALONE AS THEIR ALMIGHTY ELOHIM, TO AGREE TO GIVE THIS LAND TO THESE MODERN DAY PHILISTINIAN PEOPLE WHO ENGLAND ALLOWED TO INTRUDE IN MY LAND OF PROMISE TO MY PEOPLE ISRAEL ALONE TO DWELL SO TO PLEASE THESE PEOPLE OF THIS NEW WORLD ORDER OF WHICH PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH REPRESENTS AND HAS YOU AS ANOTHER C.F.R. PUPPET LIKEN SHIMON PERES, ANOTHER TRAITOR TO THE ISRAELITE PEOPLE AND AS A BUSINESS PARTNER TO YASIR ARAFAT. WELL, BEST BE CAREFUL MR. PRIME MINISTER ARIEL SHARON, FOR AS HE HAD ONE OF HIS ASSASSINS MURDER YITZHAK RABIN, YOU COULD BE HIS NEXT VICTIM, ALLOWED TO BECAUSE OF YOUR SELLING OUT THE ISRAELITES FOR YOUR SELF INTEREST AS AN EGOTISTICAL PERSON OF SELF-INTEREST, NOT CARING FOR THE INTEREST OF THE ISRAELITE PEOPLE IN GENERAL. WELL, I WILL BRING A CHANGE IN THE LEADERSHIP OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL AS SOON AS I ALLOW YOU TO BE REMOVED AS A TRAITOR TO MY PEOPLE OF ISRAEL AND MORE SO TO I THE ALMIGHTY ELOHIM WHO GAVE YOU TO BE THE HEAD OF ISRAEL GOVERNMENT. SOON YOU’RE GOING TO SEE ALL THESE SO BRAVE SEEMINGLY MEN OF THE GOVERNMENT OF AMERICA UNDER GEORGE BUSH RUN FOR THEIR UNDERGROUND SAFETY HAVENS THEY HAVE BUILT FOR THEMSELVES ALONE, LEAVING THE PEOPLE WHO PAID FOR THESE MASSIVE UNDERGROUND CITIES UNKNOWN TO THEM TO DIE BY THE MILLIONS WHEN THIS GREAT OBJECT PASSES BETWEEN THE SUN AND THE EARTH, NAMELY PLANET X OR NIBIRU, WHICH IS JUDGMENT TO THIS WHOLE EARTH THAT I AM AS THE ALMIGHTY ELOHIM TO BRING GREAT DESTRUCTION UPON THIS EARTH TO A WHOLE EARTH FULL OF REBELLIOUS PEOPLE LIKEN MR. GEORGE BUSH AND YOU, PRIME MINISTER ARIEL SHARON. YOU WILL SEE AND HEAR OF THIS MASS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER PEOPLE TO FLEE TO THEIR BUILT SAFETY HAVENS ALL OVER AMERICA THAT WILL EVENTUALLY BECOME THEIR TOMBS AS LIKEN THE PHARAOH OF EGYPT DID IN THE PAST. OH WHAT A SIGHT TO SEE THE U.N. BUILDING AS OTHER BUILDINGS FALL INTO THE ATLANTIC OCEAN TO NO MORE EVER TO BE SEEN OF THESE EVIL CORRUPT PEOPLE OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER. THE ROTHSCHILDS, THE ROCKEFELLERS AND THE BILDERBERGERS ALL GOING DOWN IN THEIR UNDERGROUND SEEMINGLY SAFETY HAVEN BUT END UP AS THEIR TOMBS. DOWN THEY GO ON THEIR WAY TO THE HELL’S FIRE AS EVIL GREEDY CORRUPT MEN WHO USE PEOPLE LIKEN GEORGE BUSH AND YOU, ARIEL SHARON, TO DO THEIR DIRTY WORK AS TRAITORS TO YOUR OWN PEOPLE. SO BEST BE CAREFUL WHERE YOU GO. THERE WILL BE PEOPLE AWAITING TO DO WHAT THEY DID TO THAT OTHER TRAITOR, YITZHAK RABIN, BY THAT SENT ASSASSIN BY YOUR OLD FRIEND SHIMON PERES. OH, HE WOULD LIKE TO BE PRIME MINISTER AGAIN AS HE WAS AFTER HE HAD YITZHAK RABIN REMOVED. THINK ABOUT THAT. LIKE I HAVE STATED BEFORE, YOUR DAYS ARE NUMBERED AS THE KING IN THE PAST. DANIEL 5:26 Thus saith the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Elohim Servant Prophet, Eliyahu the Tishbite Elijah the Tishbite PO Box 53702, Main Post Office – Gladstone Street Limassol CYPRUS 3317 Messages of G-d servant prophet Eliyahu are on internet at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TwoOliveTrees/ http://two-olive-trees.org/ To subscribe to this group, send an email to:

— Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG antivirus software. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

Deafness

0 RESPONSES

Is it possible to raise one's own natural libido?

Question:

"BottleRocket" > Thoughts and perceptions certainly change something.

<snip> > I made a conscious choice to do what it took to enjoy myself. In spite > of the weather, it was a beautiful setting. There was also a lot of > fun things to do, -not necessarily things I had expected to be doing > on that vacation, but things I enjoy nevertheless. > Anyway, I took a short nap to shake off the headache and from that > point on I had a good time. I could have just as easily chosen to > wallow in what that vacation was not doing for me. > Confidence and attitude are the keys to success and happiness.

Blood pressure can be affected by mental attitude too. Amy

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -bottlerocket0…@yahoo.com (BottleRocket) wrote in message <news:5e149db8.0409082157.689aeaac@posting.google.com>… > I’m not sure I completely understand what you’re saying so let me take > a crack at it. Sex has a symbolic importance in a marriage that’s > separate from the physical act. My wife once told me that she could > care less if she ever had sex again. She didn’t physically value sex > at that point but she still placed great importance on the symbolic > value. If I had approached her with idea of my having a one night > stand just to take the edge of the fact that *we* weren’t having sex, > she wouldn’t have been happy to say the least. > When we got married, sex is something we agreed to reserve for each > other. There are few other activities for which we have that kind of > arrangement and I think that’s something we have in common with most > marriages. By having that one night stand I’d be violating one major > tenets of our marriage. In that sense, sex has a great symbolic > importance. > So is it fair to say that at least in that way, sex is fairly > important in your marriage? > Now, I don’t want to get into the whole "duty" discussion again, but > at least for me, I was happy to live within that arrangement but the > assumption was that my wife would be a willing lover. So when Shania > makes it plain that she wants a little lovin from Bottle (who could > blame her?), I’ll say no, but I’ll sure resent it if my wife never > says yes. > Ok, sorry for the Shania tangent. > What I’m trying to say is that in 90% of marriages, sex is very > important in one way or another. Like you said, Jen had reached a > point that wasn’t even close to "never". But she recognizes that sex > is import to her relationship and she didn’t like the general trend so > she took steps to change it. I think that’s great.

Thanks, Bottle. And for the record, I don’t ever want to get to the stage where I feel like I’m doing it out of "duty." I want to want to do it as much as he does! jen

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -whans…@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes: > Jen wrote: > >DF and I are past the early infatuation stage and I have noticed a > >slip in my libido. Our relationship is still rock solid so it has > >nothing to do with what’s going on outside the bedroom. > >At first it made me depressed, but then I got to thinking, "Do I have > >to settle for this? Do I have to accept that everyone has a certain > >setpoint and that’s that? Or do I have control, within my own mind, to > >raise my natural libido?" > >I got to thinking about when we were first dating, and I had this > >epiphany: my desire wasn’t going through the roof solely because of > >what DF did and how he courted me back then. Sure he was romantic, > >attentive, attractive, and made me feel attractive, and none of that > >hurts. He’s *still* all those things and does all those things … yet > >my desire slowly started to slip. > >I asked myself, what is the difference, if it’s not him? And it’s me. > >I was not working as hard, in my own imagination. I was not spending > >hours in delicious anticipation. I was not fantasizing about him. I > >was not taking care how I dressed for our dates, and was starting to > >feel unattractive myself (despite what DF insists). I was not making > >the effort to find time when I wasn’t too tired. > >*I* was getting lazy, not him! And it was all in my mind. > >So this is what I’ve been working on and experimenting with myself, > >and it does take work to re-train the thought process, but I can > >happily say that it works. The trick, I think, is not accepting the > >idea that a lowering of natural libido is inevitable for relationships > >and women in particular. It takes a major attitude shift. > >It’s been a revelation for me, and an empowering one. > >jen > I guess I take a totally different perspective on this. > Yes, I do believe there are ways to increase your libido — at least in the > sense of racheting it up a notch or two, at least in the short term. > However, I also think that it is perfectly normal, in the course of a > relationship, for the hormones and lust to be high initially, and to generally > drop down, with some fluctuations due to lifestyle changes (early parenthood > vs. empty nest, for instance), stress levels, and other environmental changes. > For me, this is why I chose a partner with whom sex was not the only — or the > most primary — attraction… because I believe that there are times in ones > life and relationship where sex is not the most driving influence. During these > times, the fact that we share interests, that we enjoy being together, that I > find him a very *good person* is what I focus on.

This all makes sense, and yet. Most of us continue to see sex as being very important to our relationships. For evidence of that see the recent thread about the possibility of one or the other partner have sex (one time!) with someone outside of their ordinary lives, and how few people are comfortable with that. And, although lots of us are comfortable with variations in libido and frequency of sex, many of us would be troubled were the frequencey of sex to go down to "never, for the rest of our lives." So as much as it is true for you (and for me, and no doubt for Jen and others too) that sex isn’t the _only_ attraction, I think most of us have written things that suggest it is an _important_ attraction for many of us, and one to be nurtured and nourished if possible. Doug

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -"Amy Lou" <amylou…@bigpond.com> wrote in message <news:HxM%c.24078$D7.21102@news-server.bigpond.net.au>… > "shinypenny" <shinypenny0…@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:c8cb5319.0409080423.65e9ec62@posting.google.com… > > Sorry for the new thread – Google’s acting weird this morning. > > Michaela posted: > > "I change my thoughts and or perceptions and my > > life changes." > > I have been testing out a new theory lately, and it plays into the > > advice I’ve been suggesting to Amy: if by changing my thoughts and > > perceptions, can I raise my own natural libido? > In other words can thoughts and perceptions change biology? Doesn’t seem > possible but its worth a try, Jen. > Amy

Thoughts and perceptions certainly change something. My family and I recently went on vacation. The weather was terrible, the accommodations didn’t even come close to what was pictured in the brochure and on the third day I found myself inside a crowded building with a headache doing "crafts" with the kids. I’m not a "crafts" guy. My wife, who had planned the vacation and chose this destination over one I had lobbied for, looked at me and said, "I’m sorry, I can tell you’re not having a good time". I wasn’t, but it was because I was focusing on all those things that hadn’t lived up to my expectations instead of all the things that that place had to offer. I made a conscious choice to do what it took to enjoy myself. In spite of the weather, it was a beautiful setting. There was also a lot of fun things to do, -not necessarily things I had expected to be doing on that vacation, but things I enjoy nevertheless. Anyway, I took a short nap to shake off the headache and from that point on I had a good time. I could have just as easily chosen to wallow in what that vacation was not doing for me. Confidence and attitude are the keys to success and happiness.

Response:

"DrLith" <drl…@hotmail.com> writes: > "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:tgllfk5s13.fsf@ethel.the.log… > > Perhaps. Can you name one thing (not a spectrum of things like > > "personality" or "physical affection") that is as important. To test > > that thing (say you’ve said "conversation"), as yourself if you’d let > > your husband have a conversation with Shania. > That’s only one measure of "how important" (and not a very good one, IMHO). > Instead you might ask yourself: how long could I go without sharing "X" with > my spouse and still feel reasonably satisfied, overall, with our > relationship? I suspect most people would be able to forgo sex for a period > of a few weeks without despair, but a few weeks of their spouse not talking > to them would be much more distressing.

Yes, it certainly isn’t the only measure. But I wonder why you think it is a bad measure?

Response:

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:rfoekge4r3.fsf@ethel.the.log… > whans…@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes: > I suggest that is because sex _is_ actually something fairly special > in a romantic relationship, and not just another little thing which is > no more or less important than any other little thing.

to some people.

Response:

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:tgllfk5s13.fsf@ethel.the.log… > Perhaps. Can you name one thing (not a spectrum of things like > "personality" or "physical affection") that is as important. To test > that thing (say you’ve said "conversation"), as yourself if you’d let > your husband have a conversation with Shania.

That’s only one measure of "how important" (and not a very good one, IMHO). Instead you might ask yourself: how long could I go without sharing "X" with my spouse and still feel reasonably satisfied, overall, with our relationship? I suspect most people would be able to forgo sex for a period of a few weeks without despair, but a few weeks of their spouse not talking to them would be much more distressing.

Response:

whans…@aol.com (WhansaMi) wrote in message <news:20040908182801.08741.00000308@mb-m13.aol.com>… > >> But, Doug, that is kind of what struck me about Jen’s post. She wasn’t > even > >> CLOSE to talking about "never, for the rest of our lives". > >No, I brought that up because I thought you were asserting that sex is > >not one of the primary things for you in your relationship. > >Mightn’t it become more primary if there wasn’t any more, or if your > >husband wanted to spend just one night with Shania? > I’ve asked myself if I would stay married if my husband was impotent. Heck, HE > asked me that, because we knew of the discreprancy in our libidos. The answer > would be an unqualified "yes".

Sex is pretty important to me but I would stay married to my wife if she were seriously sick or injured and couldn’t have sex. There is a world of difference, however, between "can’t" and "won’t". > The "one-night stand" question is more difficult for me to address, because I > don’t see it through the same lens as others seem to. I would not want to be > married to someone who would seriously consider a one-night stand. At this > point in my life, I don’t want someone who views sex in that way.

I’m not sure I completely understand what you’re saying so let me take a crack at it. Sex has a symbolic importance in a marriage that’s separate from the physical act. My wife once told me that she could care less if she ever had sex again. She didn’t physically value sex at that point but she still placed great importance on the symbolic value. If I had approached her with idea of my having a one night stand just to take the edge of the fact that *we* weren’t having sex, she wouldn’t have been happy to say the least. When we got married, sex is something we agreed to reserve for each other. There are few other activities for which we have that kind of arrangement and I think that’s something we have in common with most marriages. By having that one night stand I’d be violating one major tenets of our marriage. In that sense, sex has a great symbolic importance. So is it fair to say that at least in that way, sex is fairly important in your marriage? Now, I don’t want to get into the whole "duty" discussion again, but at least for me, I was happy to live within that arrangement but the assumption was that my wife would be a willing lover. So when Shania makes it plain that she wants a little lovin from Bottle (who could blame her?), I’ll say no, but I’ll sure resent it if my wife never says yes. Ok, sorry for the Shania tangent. What I’m trying to say is that in 90% of marriages, sex is very important in one way or another. Like you said, Jen had reached a point that wasn’t even close to "never". But she recognizes that sex is import to her relationship and she didn’t like the general trend so she took steps to change it. I think that’s great. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> So, I guess > the answer is, if he seriously brought this proposition to me, it would be over > anyway. He could then do what he wanted. > >> She was talking > >> about the fact that she isn’t panting when he walks through the > >> door. > >And she is talking about nourishing the sexual feelings she _does_ > >have so that her libido doesn’t fall below a certain level. > Perhaps. But, what I am responding to is that she was depressed about the fact > that they weren’t screwing like rabbits. > Frankly, I look back on that time in DH’s and my relationship, and there were > areas of my life I neglected due to the focus on sex. I was a less than > stellar mother at times, for instance. I was not as good a friend to my women > friends. I did not develop my own personal interests as much. I was totally > consumed by the sexual part of our relationship. I think that was normal, > then. I think it is also healthy to have significant other aspects of one’s > life. > >> See, for me, that is just normal, after a certain period of time. > >Sure it’s normal. Did anyone assert otherwise in this thread? > Okay, I think it is even good, for the reasons I mention above. > >> It doesn’t > >> bother me at all that we aren’t screwing in the car in the airport parking > lot > >> every time he’s away from me for two days. I really have no interest at > all in > >> trying to recapture or maintain that, either. > >But is there _some_ level you’d like to maintain, or is it fine if > >things just gradually become less and less sexual? > I rather expect they will. Shoot, they HAVE. And, no, it doesn’t really > bother me. We have spates of time where, because of the circumstances, we are > more romantic and sexual, but they tend to be short-lived (a few days) because > our lives are filled with all kinds of things. > However, we are closer, emotionally, than we’ve ever been. > >> Sex is important, but there are > >> plenty of things that are equally important. > >Perhaps. Can you name one thing (not a spectrum of things like > >"personality" or "physical affection") that is as important. To test > >that thing (say you’ve said "conversation"), as yourself if you’d let > >your husband have a conversation with Shania. > I don’t think that is a good test. It doesn’t follow for me. > Sheila > > Doug

Response:

"WhansaMi" <whans…@aol.com> wrote in message

news:20040908180414.08741.00000307@mb-m13.aol.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> But, Doug, that is kind of what struck me about Jen’s post. She wasn’t > even > CLOSE to talking about "never, for the rest of our lives". She was > talking > about the fact that she isn’t panting when he walks through the door. > See, for me, that is just normal, after a certain period of time. It > doesn’t > bother me at all that we aren’t screwing in the car in the airport parking > lot > every time he’s away from me for two days. I really have no interest at > all in > trying to recapture or maintain that, either. Sex is important, but there > are > plenty of things that are equally important. > Sheila

I prettymuch understand where you are coming from, and feel the same way. I’ve had and enjoyed a lot of sex in my life, with a lot of different people. I’ve come to view it as a part of life, not any more important than a lot of other things I do or did. For example, I don’t go to the bar as much as I did when was younger, and my wife and I don’t have as much sex as we did during that first six months. Neither bothers me in the least.

Response:

"Calinda" <calindasinclairREM…@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:Xns955ECDD61684D19599491@130.133.1.4… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Amy Lou wrote in news:R3N%c.24111$D7.3591@news-server.bigpond.net.au: > > "WhansaMi" <whans…@aol.com> > >> Wait, again, Jen did *not* say her sex life was unhappy. Her sex > >> life — > > as > >> far as I know, *IS* happy. It was the *thought* of it declining that > >> was making her unhappy. > > I remember thinking the same thing a week after the birth of our first > > child. Even with a dreadfully torn perineum I engaged in sex because I > > didn’t like the idea of our sex life not being perfect. I was willing > > to put up with the pain because of some perception that our sex life > > was more important than my physical comfort! > Good lord, Amy! That your DH (loathe to call him that, in MY mind!).. > initiated sex one week after birth, while you are still torn and healing > is disgusting to me.

Of course he could have been more sensitive but that’s not really the issue. The issue is that I could not and would not stand up and say "No. My needs are more important at the moment". Amy

Response:

Amy Lou wrote in news:R3N%c.24111$D7.3591@news-server.bigpond.net.au: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "WhansaMi" <whans…@aol.com> >> Wait, again, Jen did *not* say her sex life was unhappy. Her sex >> life — > as >> far as I know, *IS* happy. It was the *thought* of it declining that >> was making her unhappy. > I remember thinking the same thing a week after the birth of our first > child. Even with a dreadfully torn perineum I engaged in sex because I > didn’t like the idea of our sex life not being perfect. I was willing > to put up with the pain because of some perception that our sex life > was more important than my physical comfort!

Good lord, Amy! That your DH (loathe to call him that, in MY mind!).. initiated sex one week after birth, while you are still torn and healing is disgusting to me. The more things you say about him, the more I wonder what it is about your self esteem that keeps you married to him. I just don’t get it. I am almost wondering if you stay married to him, because you’re afraid to do otherwise? Cal~

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->WhansaMi wrote in news:20040908194443.08741.00000312@mb-m13.aol.com: >>>> I was totally consumed by the >>>> sexual part of our relationship. I think that was normal, then. >>>Maybe. >> I believe it was. I believe it is biological. I believe it is also >> perfectly normal — and okay — for it not to be that way after eight >> years. >Last year I read an article that I’ve not been able to locate since, that >detailed this phenomenon. The author called it "Luminance" (or something >like that..) >Basically, what the author suggested is that we are biologically wired to >have this three-year time frame in a new love, and then we start to settle >into a different kind of love completely. I’ve looked for the original >article and also looked for a reference to it online, but I’m obviously >spelling the word incorrectly or mis-remembering it, because I get a big >fat nothing.. even changing the spelling around doesn’t help me. >It was quite interesting, with the theory being the only way to continue >with the euphoria of this "luminance" was to keep breaking up and hooking >up with new lovers. That it’s a hormonal reaction we get from a new >exciting lover that abates over time and other than changing partners there >is little that can be done to overcome the waning excitement. The author >did say that long distance relationships extend the excitement somewhat due >to not being together all the time. >This is why some people continually break up and move on, so they can >always have that Rush of Excitment. >Cal~

I expect that is true. I once likened it to being on a rollercoaster — and decided that while being on a rollercoaster is fun, I wouldn’t want to live on one. ;-) What was interesting was when my gay friend J. settled down with his partner (now of 16 years), he said our discussion about that was something he thought about in making the decision to come into a monogamous relationship. He felt that living on a rollercoaster probably wasn’t the best thing either. Sheila

Response:

WhansaMi wrote in news:20040908194443.08741.00000312@mb-m13.aol.com: >>> I was totally consumed by the >>> sexual part of our relationship. I think that was normal, then. >>Maybe. > I believe it was. I believe it is biological. I believe it is also > perfectly normal — and okay — for it not to be that way after eight > years.

Last year I read an article that I’ve not been able to locate since, that detailed this phenomenon. The author called it "Luminance" (or something like that..) Basically, what the author suggested is that we are biologically wired to have this three-year time frame in a new love, and then we start to settle into a different kind of love completely. I’ve looked for the original article and also looked for a reference to it online, but I’m obviously spelling the word incorrectly or mis-remembering it, because I get a big fat nothing.. even changing the spelling around doesn’t help me. It was quite interesting, with the theory being the only way to continue with the euphoria of this "luminance" was to keep breaking up and hooking up with new lovers. That it’s a hormonal reaction we get from a new exciting lover that abates over time and other than changing partners there is little that can be done to overcome the waning excitement. The author did say that long distance relationships extend the excitement somewhat due to not being together all the time. This is why some people continually break up and move on, so they can always have that Rush of Excitment. Cal~

Response:

"WhansaMi" <whans…@aol.com> > Wait, again, Jen did *not* say her sex life was unhappy. Her sex life — as > far as I know, *IS* happy. It was the *thought* of it declining that was > making her unhappy.

I remember thinking the same thing a week after the birth of our first child. Even with a dreadfully torn perineum I engaged in sex because I didn’t like the idea of our sex life not being perfect. I was willing to put up with the pain because of some perception that our sex life was more important than my physical comfort! This is all very similar to growing old gracefully. Some people can’t stand the idea of going bald or getting wrinkles but it is all very natural and shouldn’t be viewed as ugly. Amy

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -WhansaMi wrote: >>> But, Doug, that is kind of what struck me about Jen’s post. She wasn’t even >>> CLOSE to talking about "never, for the rest of our lives". >> No, I brought that up because I thought you were asserting that sex is >> not one of the primary things for you in your relationship. >> Mightn’t it become more primary if there wasn’t any more, or if your >> husband wanted to spend just one night with Shania? > I’ve asked myself if I would stay married if my husband was impotent. Heck, > HE asked me that, because we knew of the discreprancy in our libidos. The > answer would be an unqualified "yes". > The "one-night stand" question is more difficult for me to address, because I > don’t see it through the same lens as others seem to.

Really? Like who? Who sees it so differently? > I would not want to be > married to someone who would seriously consider a one-night stand. At this > point in my life, I don’t want someone who views sex in that way.

Who does? > So, I guess > the answer is, if he seriously brought this proposition to me, it would be > over anyway. He could then do what he wanted.

But isn’t this what MOST people feel, anyway? (I sure hope so)

Response:

whans…@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes: > >> But, Doug, that is kind of what struck me about Jen’s post. She wasn’t > >even > >> CLOSE to talking about "never, for the rest of our lives". > >No, I brought that up because I thought you were asserting that sex is > >not one of the primary things for you in your relationship. > >Mightn’t it become more primary if there wasn’t any more, or if your > >husband wanted to spend just one night with Shania? > I’ve asked myself if I would stay married if my husband was impotent. Heck, HE > asked me that, because we knew of the discreprancy in our libidos. The answer > would be an unqualified "yes".

Well, again, I think this illustrates my point that sex is actually _very_ important. So important that you had to ask yourself that question. Among questions I bet you didn’t bother to ask yourself were "would I stay with my husband if he became deaf" for example. > The "one-night stand" question is more difficult for me to address, because I > don’t see it through the same lens as others seem to. I would not want to be > married to someone who would seriously consider a one-night stand. At this > point in my life, I don’t want someone who views sex in that way. So, I guess > the answer is, if he seriously brought this proposition to me, it would be over > anyway. He could then do what he wanted.

Another interesting illustration of how important sex is. Your husband’s attitude toward this specific thing is so important that it would cause you to completely reevaluae the way you felt about him. > >> She was talking > >> about the fact that she isn’t panting when he walks through the > >> door. > >And she is talking about nourishing the sexual feelings she _does_ > >have so that her libido doesn’t fall below a certain level. > Perhaps. But, what I am responding to is that she was depressed about the fact > that they weren’t screwing like rabbits. > Frankly, I look back on that time in DH’s and my relationship, and there were > areas of my life I neglected due to the focus on sex. I was a less than > stellar mother at times, for instance.

Well, I’ve been a less than stellar father at many times, unfortunately. Though for me the reasons had nothing to do with sex. Maybe I’m confused. I thought you had written in the past that you were celibate through much of your first marriage including many or most of the years your children were young. > I was not as good a friend to my women > friends. I did not develop my own personal interests as much. I was totally > consumed by the sexual part of our relationship. I think that was normal, > then.

Maybe. > I think it is also healthy to have significant other aspects of one’s > life.

Certainly. I hope no one would disagree with that. > >> See, for me, that is just normal, after a certain period of time. > >Sure it’s normal. Did anyone assert otherwise in this thread? > Okay, I think it is even good, for the reasons I mention above.

Well, I think sex is one of the important ways people maintain their relationship; no not the only one, but a big one. And I think there are a lot of important reasons (including being good parents) why couples should maintain their relationship in good shape. > >> It doesn’t > >> bother me at all that we aren’t screwing in the car in the airport parking > >lot > >> every time he’s away from me for two days. I really have no interest at > >all in > >> trying to recapture or maintain that, either. > >But is there _some_ level you’d like to maintain, or is it fine if > >things just gradually become less and less sexual? > I rather expect they will. Shoot, they HAVE. And, no, it doesn’t really > bother me. We have spates of time where, because of the circumstances, we are > more romantic and sexual, but they tend to be short-lived (a few days) because > our lives are filled with all kinds of things.

So are you saying it is fine with you if your sex life gradually diminishes to nothing, or to the point where one or the other of you is unhappy with it? See to me, that is something to be resisted. > However, we are closer, emotionally, than we’ve ever been.

How many couples with an unhappy sex life are close emotionally? Surely some, but I’d bet not many. > >> Sex is important, but there are > >> plenty of things that are equally important. > >Perhaps. Can you name one thing (not a spectrum of things like > >"personality" or "physical affection") that is as important. To test > >that thing (say you’ve said "conversation"), as yourself if you’d let > >your husband have a conversation with Shania. > I don’t think that is a good test. It doesn’t follow for me.

I suggest that is because sex _is_ actually something fairly special in a romantic relationship, and not just another little thing which is no more or less important than any other little thing. Just the fact that we may be willing to live without it doesn’t make it unimportant either, as illustrated by our relucttance to let our spouses have sex with other people. Doug

Response:

"shinypenny" <shinypenny0…@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:c8cb5319.0409080423.65e9ec62@posting.google.com… > Sorry for the new thread – Google’s acting weird this morning. > Michaela posted: > "I change my thoughts and or perceptions and my > life changes." > I have been testing out a new theory lately, and it plays into the > advice I’ve been suggesting to Amy: if by changing my thoughts and > perceptions, can I raise my own natural libido?

In other words can thoughts and perceptions change biology? Doesn’t seem possible but its worth a try, Jen. Amy

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> >> But, Doug, that is kind of what struck me about Jen’s post. She wasn’t >> >even >> >> CLOSE to talking about "never, for the rest of our lives". >> >No, I brought that up because I thought you were asserting that sex is >> >not one of the primary things for you in your relationship. >> >Mightn’t it become more primary if there wasn’t any more, or if your >> >husband wanted to spend just one night with Shania? >> I’ve asked myself if I would stay married if my husband was impotent. >Heck, HE >> asked me that, because we knew of the discreprancy in our libidos. The >answer >> would be an unqualified "yes". >Well, again, I think this illustrates my point that sex is actually >_very_ important. So important that you had to ask yourself that >question. Among questions I bet you didn’t bother to ask yourself >were "would I stay with my husband if he became deaf" for example.

Again, HE was the one who asked me that, in the early years of our relationship. I’ve always known, and only "asked" myself that because he asked me. Moreover, I *have* asked myself about blindness, prompted by my sister’s lamentation about her husband going blind. No one has questioned me about deafness. In both of these instances, I did not ask myself spontaneously, but prompted by circumstances. >> The "one-night stand" question is more difficult for me to address, because >I >> don’t see it through the same lens as others seem to. I would not want to >be >> married to someone who would seriously consider a one-night stand. At this >> point in my life, I don’t want someone who views sex in that way. So, I >guess >> the answer is, if he seriously brought this proposition to me, it would be >over >> anyway. He could then do what he wanted. >Another interesting illustration of how important sex is. Your >husband’s attitude toward this specific thing is so important that it >would cause you to completely reevaluae the way you felt about him.

As would him lying under oath, his stealing from his job, or assaulting someone. I’m talking about his character now. One night stands in one’s youth (IMO, of course) indicate recklessness and immaturity — neither of which I find attractive anymore. At mine and my DH’s age, I would see it as indicative of even less attractive character traits. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> >> She was talking >> >> about the fact that she isn’t panting when he walks through the >> >> door. >> >And she is talking about nourishing the sexual feelings she _does_ >> >have so that her libido doesn’t fall below a certain level. >> Perhaps. But, what I am responding to is that she was depressed about the >fact >> that they weren’t screwing like rabbits. >> Frankly, I look back on that time in DH’s and my relationship, and there >were >> areas of my life I neglected due to the focus on sex. I was a less than >> stellar mother at times, for instance. >Well, I’ve been a less than stellar father at many times, >unfortunately. Though for me the reasons had nothing to do with sex. >Maybe I’m confused. I thought you had written in the past that you >were celibate through much of your first marriage including many or >most of the years your children were young.

My kids were still young (six) when DH and I got together. It is that year or so that I was not as attentive to them as I should have been. >> I was not as good a friend to my women >> friends. I did not develop my own personal interests as much. I was >totally >> consumed by the sexual part of our relationship. I think that was normal, >> then. >Maybe.

I believe it was. I believe it is biological. I believe it is also perfectly normal — and okay — for it not to be that way after eight years. >> I think it is also healthy to have significant other aspects of one’s >> life. >Certainly. I hope no one would disagree with that.

Well, I couldn’t do that nearly as well when I was in my highest libidinous mode. >> >> See, for me, that is just normal, after a certain period of time. >> >Sure it’s normal. Did anyone assert otherwise in this thread? >> Okay, I think it is even good, for the reasons I mention above. >Well, I think sex is one of the important ways people maintain their >relationship; no not the only one, but a big one. And I think there >are a lot of important reasons (including being good parents) why >couples should maintain their relationship in good shape.

I’d go so far as saying it isn’t necessarily an essential one — or at least, I would hope not, for the sake of those who develop chronic illnesses, just growing old and fragile. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> >> It doesn’t >> >> bother me at all that we aren’t screwing in the car in the airport >parking >> >lot >> >> every time he’s away from me for two days. I really have no interest at >> >all in >> >> trying to recapture or maintain that, either. >> >But is there _some_ level you’d like to maintain, or is it fine if >> >things just gradually become less and less sexual? >> I rather expect they will. Shoot, they HAVE. And, no, it doesn’t really >> bother me. We have spates of time where, because of the circumstances, we >are >> more romantic and sexual, but they tend to be short-lived (a few days) >because >> our lives are filled with all kinds of things. >So are you saying it is fine with you if your sex life gradually >diminishes to nothing, or to the point where one or the other of you >is unhappy with it? See to me, that is something to be resisted.

No, I’m not talking about one being unhappy. You are taking this into a different realm. Jen wasn’t talking about being unhappy, either — she was talking about slipping into comfortableness, and being unhappy with *that*. I see that as very, very different. As far as I’m, personally, concerned, we are in a place in our lives where sex is occurring at a **very** small fraction of the time it used to, even a couple of years ago (if I were some of the posters in here, I’d say "NEVER", but given that we’ve discovered that never doesn’t mean never at all ) I’ve come to terms with it. I love him, and I feel sure he loves me. We enjoy one another’s company. We laugh together, a lot. We enjoy talking, and we enjoy the silences. Sure, it would be nice if, at some point, there was an upswing again — and I rather expect it will, but I won’t expect it to be consistent. I know a couple who used to love to travel. He was an executive type, and travelled a lot; she quit her job and became a consultant so that she could make her own hours and accompany him. Their Christmas newsletters told of all their trips — I believe in one year, they took at least a dozen. They were avid collectors of "stuff" and their house was filled with items from their travels. Then they had a baby. They don’t travel now. He took a job (in the same company) that doesn’t require it. When I go to their house, and admire something that they bought abroad, I can tell they really do treasure the time they travelled — they tell stories, and their eyes light up as they recount tales. But, their eyes also light up as they talk about the child. Both insist that they aren’t really interested in travel now — one trip a year, as a family, to such mundane locations as DisneyWorld, is plenty. They, from what I can tell, are quite happy with their lives NOW. It doesn’t in any way discount their lives then; they really loved it. But, this is a different stage, and they love that too. I feel pretty much that way in my marriage. My marriage now is very different than my relationship with my DH was 7 years ago. But, both are ***GOOD***. >> However, we are closer, emotionally, than we’ve ever been. >How many couples with an unhappy sex life are close emotionally? >Surely some, but I’d bet not many.

Wait, again, Jen did *not* say her sex life was unhappy. Her sex life — as far as I know, *IS* happy. It was the *thought* of it declining that was making her unhappy. Sheila

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> I guess I take a totally different perspective on this. >> Yes, I do believe there are ways to increase your libido — at least in the >> sense of racheting it up a notch or two, at least in the short term. >> However, I also think that it is perfectly normal, in the course of a >> relationship, for the hormones and lust to be high initially, and to >generally >> drop down, with some fluctuations due to lifestyle changes (early >parenthood >> vs. empty nest, for instance), stress levels, and other environmental >changes. >> For me, this is why I chose a partner with whom sex was not the only — or >the >> most primary — attraction… because I believe that there are times in >ones >> life and relationship where sex is not the most driving influence. During >these >> times, the fact that we share interests, that we enjoy being together, that >I >> find him a very *good person* is what I focus on. >This all makes sense, and yet. >Most of us continue to see sex as being very important to our >relationships. For evidence of that see the recent thread about the >possibility of one or the other partner have sex (one time!) with >someone outside of their ordinary lives, and how few people are >comfortable with that. >And, although lots of us are comfortable with variations in libido and >frequency of sex, many of us would be troubled were the frequencey of >sex to go down to "never, for the rest of our lives." >So as much as it is true for you (and for me, and no doubt for Jen and >others too) that sex isn’t the _only_ attraction, I think most of us >have written things that suggest it is an _important_ attraction for >many of us, and one to be nurtured and nourished if possible. > Doug

But, Doug, that is kind of what struck me about Jen’s post. She wasn’t even CLOSE to talking about "never, for the rest of our lives". She was talking about the fact that she isn’t panting when he walks through the door. See, for me, that is just normal, after a certain period of time. It doesn’t bother me at all that we aren’t screwing in the car in the airport parking lot every time he’s away from me for two days. I really have no interest at all in trying to recapture or maintain that, either. Sex is important, but there are plenty of things that are equally important. Sheila

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -whans…@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes: > >> I guess I take a totally different perspective on this. > >> Yes, I do believe there are ways to increase your libido — at least in the > >> sense of racheting it up a notch or two, at least in the short term. > >> However, I also think that it is perfectly normal, in the course of a > >> relationship, for the hormones and lust to be high initially, and to > >generally > >> drop down, with some fluctuations due to lifestyle changes (early > >parenthood > >> vs. empty nest, for instance), stress levels, and other environmental > >changes. > >> For me, this is why I chose a partner with whom sex was not the only — or > >the > >> most primary — attraction… because I believe that there are times in > >ones > >> life and relationship where sex is not the most driving influence. During > >these > >> times, the fact that we share interests, that we enjoy being together, that > >I > >> find him a very *good person* is what I focus on. > >This all makes sense, and yet. > >Most of us continue to see sex as being very important to our > >relationships. For evidence of that see the recent thread about the > >possibility of one or the other partner have sex (one time!) with > >someone outside of their ordinary lives, and how few people are > >comfortable with that. > >And, although lots of us are comfortable with variations in libido and > >frequency of sex, many of us would be troubled were the frequencey of > >sex to go down to "never, for the rest of our lives." > >So as much as it is true for you (and for me, and no doubt for Jen and > >others too) that sex isn’t the _only_ attraction, I think most of us > >have written things that suggest it is an _important_ attraction for > >many of us, and one to be nurtured and nourished if possible. > But, Doug, that is kind of what struck me about Jen’s post. She wasn’t even > CLOSE to talking about "never, for the rest of our lives".

No, I brought that up because I thought you were asserting that sex is not one of the primary things for you in your relationship. Mightn’t it become more primary if there wasn’t any more, or if your husband wanted to spend just one night with Shania? > She was talking > about the fact that she isn’t panting when he walks through the > door.

And she is talking about nourishing the sexual feelings she _does_ have so that her libido doesn’t fall below a certain level. > See, for me, that is just normal, after a certain period of time.

Sure it’s normal. Did anyone assert otherwise in this thread? > It doesn’t > bother me at all that we aren’t screwing in the car in the airport parking lot > every time he’s away from me for two days. I really have no interest at all in > trying to recapture or maintain that, either.

But is there _some_ level you’d like to maintain, or is it fine if things just gradually become less and less sexual? > Sex is important, but there are > plenty of things that are equally important.

Perhaps. Can you name one thing (not a spectrum of things like "personality" or "physical affection") that is as important. To test that thing (say you’ve said "conversation"), as yourself if you’d let your husband have a conversation with Shania. Doug

Response:

>> But, Doug, that is kind of what struck me about Jen’s post. She wasn’t >even >> CLOSE to talking about "never, for the rest of our lives". >No, I brought that up because I thought you were asserting that sex is >not one of the primary things for you in your relationship. >Mightn’t it become more primary if there wasn’t any more, or if your >husband wanted to spend just one night with Shania?

I’ve asked myself if I would stay married if my husband was impotent. Heck, HE asked me that, because we knew of the discreprancy in our libidos. The answer would be an unqualified "yes". The "one-night stand" question is more difficult for me to address, because I don’t see it through the same lens as others seem to. I would not want to be married to someone who would seriously consider a one-night stand. At this point in my life, I don’t want someone who views sex in that way. So, I guess the answer is, if he seriously brought this proposition to me, it would be over anyway. He could then do what he wanted. >> She was talking >> about the fact that she isn’t panting when he walks through the >> door. >And she is talking about nourishing the sexual feelings she _does_ >have so that her libido doesn’t fall below a certain level.

Perhaps. But, what I am responding to is that she was depressed about the fact that they weren’t screwing like rabbits. Frankly, I look back on that time in DH’s and my relationship, and there were areas of my life I neglected due to the focus on sex. I was a less than stellar mother at times, for instance. I was not as good a friend to my women friends. I did not develop my own personal interests as much. I was totally consumed by the sexual part of our relationship. I think that was normal, then. I think it is also healthy to have significant other aspects of one’s life. >> See, for me, that is just normal, after a certain period of time. >Sure it’s normal. Did anyone assert otherwise in this thread?

Okay, I think it is even good, for the reasons I mention above. >> It doesn’t >> bother me at all that we aren’t screwing in the car in the airport parking >lot >> every time he’s away from me for two days. I really have no interest at >all in >> trying to recapture or maintain that, either. >But is there _some_ level you’d like to maintain, or is it fine if >things just gradually become less and less sexual?

I rather expect they will. Shoot, they HAVE. And, no, it doesn’t really bother me. We have spates of time where, because of the circumstances, we are more romantic and sexual, but they tend to be short-lived (a few days) because our lives are filled with all kinds of things. However, we are closer, emotionally, than we’ve ever been. >> Sex is important, but there are >> plenty of things that are equally important. >Perhaps. Can you name one thing (not a spectrum of things like >"personality" or "physical affection") that is as important. To test >that thing (say you’ve said "conversation"), as yourself if you’d let >your husband have a conversation with Shania.

I don’t think that is a good test. It doesn’t follow for me. Sheila – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Doug

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Jen wrote: >DF and I are past the early infatuation stage and I have noticed a >slip in my libido. Our relationship is still rock solid so it has >nothing to do with what’s going on outside the bedroom. >At first it made me depressed, but then I got to thinking, "Do I have >to settle for this? Do I have to accept that everyone has a certain >setpoint and that’s that? Or do I have control, within my own mind, to >raise my natural libido?" >I got to thinking about when we were first dating, and I had this >epiphany: my desire wasn’t going through the roof solely because of >what DF did and how he courted me back then. Sure he was romantic, >attentive, attractive, and made me feel attractive, and none of that >hurts. He’s *still* all those things and does all those things … yet >my desire slowly started to slip. >I asked myself, what is the difference, if it’s not him? And it’s me. >I was not working as hard, in my own imagination. I was not spending >hours in delicious anticipation. I was not fantasizing about him. I >was not taking care how I dressed for our dates, and was starting to >feel unattractive myself (despite what DF insists). I was not making >the effort to find time when I wasn’t too tired. >*I* was getting lazy, not him! And it was all in my mind. >So this is what I’ve been working on and experimenting with myself, >and it does take work to re-train the thought process, but I can >happily say that it works. The trick, I think, is not accepting the >idea that a lowering of natural libido is inevitable for relationships >and women in particular. It takes a major attitude shift. >It’s been a revelation for me, and an empowering one. >jen

I guess I take a totally different perspective on this. Yes, I do believe there are ways to increase your libido — at least in the sense of racheting it up a notch or two, at least in the short term. However, I also think that it is perfectly normal, in the course of a relationship, for the hormones and lust to be high initially, and to generally drop down, with some fluctuations due to lifestyle changes (early parenthood vs. empty nest, for instance), stress levels, and other environmental changes. For me, this is why I chose a partner with whom sex was not the only — or the most primary — attraction… because I believe that there are times in ones life and relationship where sex is not the most driving influence. During these times, the fact that we share interests, that we enjoy being together, that I find him a very *good person* is what I focus on. Sheila

Response:

JWB <jwb3333rem…@excite.com> wrote: > I firmly believe we are largely in control of most aspects of our lives, > from our emotions to our moods. Of course, from time to time things happen > that jar us, but you can choose how you react, and to a large extent, how > you feel. > The problem is, like you stated, it’s not easy and takes hard work. Leaving > most people out. > Obvious exceptions for things like depression, where the brain is lacking > chemicals and such.

Even there, it is usually up to the depressed person whether to get well or not. Most people can get better if they take their meds and work on themselves. It’s *harder* because depression saps your motivation, but it can be done (disclaimer for the rare person who is treatment resistant and really can’t get better).

Response:

Sorry for the new thread – Google’s acting weird this morning. Michaela posted: "I change my thoughts and or perceptions and my life changes." I have been testing out a new theory lately, and it plays into the advice I’ve been suggesting to Amy: if by changing my thoughts and perceptions, can I raise my own natural libido? DF and I are past the early infatuation stage and I have noticed a slip in my libido. Our relationship is still rock solid so it has nothing to do with what’s going on outside the bedroom. At first it made me depressed, but then I got to thinking, "Do I have to settle for this? Do I have to accept that everyone has a certain setpoint and that’s that? Or do I have control, within my own mind, to raise my natural libido?" I got to thinking about when we were first dating, and I had this epiphany: my desire wasn’t going through the roof solely because of what DF did and how he courted me back then. Sure he was romantic, attentive, attractive, and made me feel attractive, and none of that hurts. He’s *still* all those things and does all those things … yet my desire slowly started to slip. I asked myself, what is the difference, if it’s not him? And it’s me. I was not working as hard, in my own imagination. I was not spending hours in delicious anticipation. I was not fantasizing about him. I was not taking care how I dressed for our dates, and was starting to feel unattractive myself (despite what DF insists). I was not making the effort to find time when I wasn’t too tired. *I* was getting lazy, not him! And it was all in my mind. So this is what I’ve been working on and experimenting with myself, and it does take work to re-train the thought process, but I can happily say that it works. The trick, I think, is not accepting the idea that a lowering of natural libido is inevitable for relationships and women in particular. It takes a major attitude shift. It’s been a revelation for me, and an empowering one. jen

Response:

"shinypenny" <shinypenny0…@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:c8cb5319.0409080423.65e9ec62@posting.google.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Sorry for the new thread – Google’s acting weird this morning. > Michaela posted: > "I change my thoughts and or perceptions and my > life changes." > I have been testing out a new theory lately, and it plays into the > advice I’ve been suggesting to Amy: if by changing my thoughts and > perceptions, can I raise my own natural libido? > DF and I are past the early infatuation stage and I have noticed a > slip in my libido. Our relationship is still rock solid so it has > nothing to do with what’s going on outside the bedroom. > At first it made me depressed, but then I got to thinking, "Do I have > to settle for this? Do I have to accept that everyone has a certain > setpoint and that’s that? Or do I have control, within my own mind, to > raise my natural libido?" > I got to thinking about when we were first dating, and I had this > epiphany: my desire wasn’t going through the roof solely because of > what DF did and how he courted me back then. Sure he was romantic, > attentive, attractive, and made me feel attractive, and none of that > hurts. He’s *still* all those things and does all those things … yet > my desire slowly started to slip. > I asked myself, what is the difference, if it’s not him? And it’s me. > I was not working as hard, in my own imagination. I was not spending > hours in delicious anticipation. I was not fantasizing about him. I > was not taking care how I dressed for our dates, and was starting to > feel unattractive myself (despite what DF insists). I was not making > the effort to find time when I wasn’t too tired. > *I* was getting lazy, not him! And it was all in my mind. > So this is what I’ve been working on and experimenting with myself, > and it does take work to re-train the thought process, but I can > happily say that it works. The trick, I think, is not accepting the > idea that a lowering of natural libido is inevitable for relationships > and women in particular. It takes a major attitude shift. > It’s been a revelation for me, and an empowering one.

I firmly believe we are largely in control of most aspects of our lives, from our emotions to our moods. Of course, from time to time things happen that jar us, but you can choose how you react, and to a large extent, how you feel. The problem is, like you stated, it’s not easy and takes hard work. Leaving most people out. Obvious exceptions for things like depression, where the brain is lacking chemicals and such.

Response:

Deafness

0 RESPONSES

SMC anyone?

Question:

Are we communicating yet? :-)

Not as long as you do that infernal top-posting crap. — Ty Who is mostly just a slightly skewed Donna Reed

Response:

On 10-Jul-2004, Michael Strickland Hmmm. If I understand you correctly, then you feel if someone is making money, that’s enough to indicate you shouldn’t do business with them?

If someone is making money, you should do what *they* do to make money. What you should *not* do is take the part of the job that there’s no profit in, and allow them to keep the profitable part. That’s really the whole principle behind ebaY. They take some computer time that cost them a fraction of a cent and charge you to use it. Then, if in the process of using it, you make some money, they get a cut of that. If they help you move that money from point A to point B, they get another cut. Except in the nebulous sense of wanting you to make enough money that you will continue to use their services, ebaY couldn’t care less whether you make money or not. Whether you sell at a profit or a loss, or not at all, they still make money. They win no matter what the outcome is for you. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do business with them, but make sure that you’re making money out of the deal, too. Meg didn’t become a billionaire by selling stuff on ebaY, and neither did any of the rest of them. In fact, if someone has even become a millionaire by selling on ebaY, they haven’t advertised the fact anywhere I’ve noticed. — Outgoing mail is certified bollocks

Response:

Hmmm. If I understand you correctly, then you feel if someone is making money, that’s enough to indicate you shouldn’t do business with them? Really don’t mind if you sit this one out My words but a whisper your deafness a shout Know the title of that song?

Great, now that song is playing in my head. Dave <digs out the mp3 player — We are the US military. Your asses will be kicked. Resistance is futile. US Army Signal Corps! www.geocities.com/davidcasey98

Response:

Meg didn’t become a billionaire by selling stuff on ebaY, and neither did any of the rest of them. In fact, if someone has even become a millionaire by selling on ebaY, they haven’t advertised the fact anywhere I’ve noticed.

You only have to sell one aircraft carrier…

Response:

I am just wondering if anyone has any experience selling on eBay with products from SMC (the wholesale company that has Tom Bosley doing its infomercials) — ?? Thanks, Michael

Sorry, never heard of them. SMC to me make network interface cards. — It will be a great day when our schools have all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a car boot sale to buy a new bomber. – It will be an even better day when schools teach children to read and write.

Response:

I am just wondering if anyone has any experience selling on eBay with products from SMC (the wholesale company that has Tom Bosley doing its infomercials) — ?? Thanks, Michael

The ONLY reputable wholesaler/dropshipper for eBay is http://www.norfolkandwaay.com See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/ebaysell.pdf — Many thanks, Don Lancaster Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 Please visit my GURU’s LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

Response:

Hmmm. If I understand you correctly, then you feel if someone is making money, that’s enough to indicate you shouldn’t do business with them?

Correct. By jove, I think he’s got it! Because it is one too many fingers in the pie. There is simply no room in eBay economics for the supplier to make a profit, the seller to make a profit, and the buyer to still get a really good deal. And certainly no room whatsoever for a fourth distributer or dropshipper to horn into the cascaded chain. Under no circumstances should the source you are buying from (for eBay resale) derive a profit directly from the value of the merchandise being offered. See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/ebaysell.pdf — Many thanks, Don Lancaster Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 Please visit my GURU’s LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

Response:

On 10-Jul-2004, Michael Strickland I have a $20 product. It costs me $10. By the time I’m done with ebaY and PayEnemy fees, I net $16, ….

No way. This indicates you do not have the faintest clue what your real fully burdened and fully accounted expenses are. Taxes alone clearly make the above not even wrong. See the tutorials at http://www.tinaja.com/auct01.asp — Many thanks, Don Lancaster Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 Please visit my GURU’s LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

Response:

… so long as it is not a Disney replica and includes Microsoft software. — Many thanks, Don Lancaster Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 Please visit my GURU’s LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

Response:

I am just wondering if anyone has any experience selling on eBay with products from SMC (the wholesale company that has Tom Bosley doing its infomercials) — ?? Thanks, Michael

20 years ago, with no Ebay or net, and the flea market business higher end SMC had some decent prices Now with the net, Ebay and the 1000s of Asian whholesalers around the country SMC is too high Do not get involved in their drop ship program – unless they have changed they were famous for being out of stock As to their party plans, catalog pass outs, sub wholesalers, etc forget it SMC is great at marketing themselves

Response:

It has been many years since I have seen an SMC catalog, but I remember seeing a lot of stuff in it I could buy for about the same price at Wal-Mart.

Response:

"Titus A Ducksass – Gran stopped chastising me so I changed back."

It will be a great day when our schools have all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a car boot sale to buy a new bomber. – It will be an even better day when schools teach children to read and

write. And an even better day when terrorists stop trying to kill us, so the kids can have a free country to become adults in.

Response:

I am just wondering if anyone has any experience selling on eBay with products from SMC (the wholesale company that has Tom Bosley doing its infomercials) — ?? Thanks, Michael

Thanks, everyone, for the excellent education. I love newsgroups! Michael

Response:

I am just wondering if anyone has any experience selling on eBay with products from SMC (the wholesale company that has Tom Bosley doing its infomercials) — ?? Thanks, Michael

If you look up any of the SMC products on eBay, you’ll find that there are dozens of sellers already offering them for close to the SMC wholesale price, and nowhere near the suggested sell price they tout. There are even a few sellers offering these items for less than the SMC price. Maybe that’s where SMC gets them.

Response:

Hmmm. If I understand you correctly, then you feel if someone is making money, that’s enough to indicate you shouldn’t do business with them?

Really don’t mind if you sit this one out My words but a whisper your deafness a shout Know the title of that song? Quit top posting. Consider smelling the coffee. Buy my CD. Lumpy — Silver Donuts For Your Ears http://www.digitalcartography.com

Response:

On 10-Jul-2004, Michael Strickland I get your point, but maybe not really. Are you saying that SMC is also selling direct on eBay?

No, and the reason they’re not is because it’s not profitable to do so. If they are that’s one thing — and SMC should be avoided, but if they aren’t selling directly to buyers on eBay (in other words, if no one CAN buy direct from them without putting out the $300), then your question is moot.

Only in the sense of not having the option to deal directly with them. However, the reason you can’t do so it because they have found it is not worthwhile to pay someone minimum wage to do the job of the guy buying $300 worth of stuff. Let me approach it from another angle. I have a $20 product. It costs me $10. By the time I’m done with ebaY and PayEnemy fees, I net $16, because I don’t sell one with each ad, and I can only get $18 for them on ebaY. For each hour spent listing, writing, etc, I sell one, and make $6 an hour. If I have to pay an employee minimum wage, it costs me more than $6 an hour to have him show up for work, not counting overhead. Instead, I dropshit for you. I charge you $12 each, and make $2. You, in turn, sell them for that $16 net, and make $4 an hour. Congratulations, you just bought yourself a sub-minimum wage job for $300. Step two: Since I’m not paying you that $4 an hour out of my pocket, I’ll be happy to have however many "employees" like you I can find. So I’ll set up a hundred other sellers with the same deal, and sell 100 of these an hour, making $200 an hour. Meanwhile, you find that you can no longer get $18 and net $16, but only get $16 and net $14. Fine by me, because I still get my $2 profit on each, whether you make anything on them or not. You, however, are now making $2 an hour. This is what I mean when I say if it was worth doing, SMC would hire someone and do it themselves. Of course, if they offered people $2 an hour to work for them, no one would take the job, but they’ll be happy to become a dealer and work for themselves for $2 an hour. Are we communicating yet? :-)

I hope so. — Outgoing mail is certified bollocks

Response:

Too many people already sell that stuff – not enough profit – other people are selling it who can get it truly ‘wholesale’ and not through a broker like SMC – skip it and find something that interests you if you want to make any money selling on eBay JMHO Teresa – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I get your point, but maybe not really. Are you saying that SMC is also selling direct on eBay? If they are that’s one thing — and SMC should be avoided, but if they aren’t selling directly to buyers on eBay (in other words, if no one CAN buy direct from them without putting out the $300), then your question is moot. Are we communicating yet? :-)

Response:

Hmmm. If I understand you correctly, then you feel if someone is making money, that’s enough to indicate you shouldn’t do business with them? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – …Are you saying that SMC is also selling direct on eBay? If they are that’s one thing — and SMC should be avoided, but if they aren’t selling directly to buyers on eBay (in other words, if no one CAN buy direct from them without putting out the $300), then your question is moot. Are we communicating yet? :-) Apparently not. It’s a pretty sure bet that SMC is HUGE money maker. Lumpy — In Your Ears for 40 Years http://www.lumpymusic.com

Response:

Thanks for the straight answer, Teresa. :-) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Too many people already sell that stuff – not enough profit – other people are selling it who can get it truly ‘wholesale’ and not through a broker like SMC – skip it and find something that interests you if you want to make any money selling on eBay JMHO Teresa I get your point, but maybe not really. Are you saying that SMC is also selling direct on eBay? If they are that’s one thing — and SMC should be avoided, but if they aren’t selling directly to buyers on eBay (in other words, if no one CAN buy direct from them without putting out the $300), then your question is moot. Are we communicating yet? :-)

Response:

…Are you saying that SMC is also selling direct on eBay? If they are that’s one thing — and SMC should be avoided, but if they aren’t selling directly to buyers on eBay (in other words, if no one CAN buy direct from them without putting out the $300), then your question is moot. Are we communicating yet? :-)

Apparently not. It’s a pretty sure bet that SMC is HUGE money maker. Lumpy — In Your Ears for 40 Years http://www.lumpymusic.com

Response:

On 10-Jul-2004, Michael Strickland . However, SMC costs $300 minimum to get started. Do you think this is enough of an operational boundary to mitigate the point of people preferring to deal direct — especially on small items?

In the real world, that wouldn’t get you a table at the county fair or pay the deposit on the electric bill for a storefront. What I mean by dealing direct is that if SMC hired people and your choice was to buy from a seller who SMC was dropshitting for, or buy direct from SMC via the same product being offered by an employee, wouldn’t you buy from the company directly? — Outgoing mail is certified bollocks

Response:

I get your point, but maybe not really. Are you saying that SMC is also selling direct on eBay? If they are that’s one thing — and SMC should be avoided, but if they aren’t selling directly to buyers on eBay (in other words, if no one CAN buy direct from them without putting out the $300), then your question is moot. Are we communicating yet? :-) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – On 10-Jul-2004, Michael Strickland . However, SMC costs $300 minimum to get started. Do you think this is enough of an operational boundary to mitigate the point of people preferring to deal direct — especially on small items? In the real world, that wouldn’t get you a table at the county fair or pay the deposit on the electric bill for a storefront. What I mean by dealing direct is that if SMC hired people and your choice was to buy from a seller who SMC was dropshitting for, or buy direct from SMC via the same product being offered by an employee, wouldn’t you buy from the company directly?

Response:

I am just wondering if anyone has any experience selling on eBay with products from SMC (the wholesale company that has Tom Bosley doing its infomercials) — ?? Thanks, Michael

Response:

On 10-Jul-2004, Michael Strickland I am just wondering if anyone has any experience selling on eBay with products from SMC (the wholesale company that has Tom Bosley doing its infomercials) — ??

Thousands of people. It’s a great way of making money. If you’re SMC. Ask yourself a simple question. If it was really worthwhile to sell SMC stuff after paying all ebaY fees, etc, wouldn’t it make sense for SMC to just hire some employees to do it for them? Do you think the bidder really cares whether he buys directly from SMC or someone acting as a middleman that SMC ships for? If anything, I would think he’d prefer to deal direct. — Outgoing mail is certified bollocks

Response:

Yes, all your points are good ones, and I had pretty much thought the same things. However, SMC costs $300 minimum to get started. Do you think this is enough of an operational boundary to mitigate the point of people preferring to deal direct — especially on small items? Thanks, Michael – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – On 10-Jul-2004, Michael Strickland I am just wondering if anyone has any experience selling on eBay with products from SMC (the wholesale company that has Tom Bosley doing its infomercials) — ?? Thousands of people. It’s a great way of making money. If you’re SMC. Ask yourself a simple question. If it was really worthwhile to sell SMC stuff after paying all ebaY fees, etc, wouldn’t it make sense for SMC to just hire some employees to do it for them? Do you think the bidder really cares whether he buys directly from SMC or someone acting as a middleman that SMC ships for? If anything, I would think he’d prefer to deal direct.

Response:

Deafness

0 RESPONSES

Miniature Dalmation

Question:

I recently got a puppy and was told that the mother was a Jack Russell Terrier and the father is a Miniature Dalmation. I have scoured the web for info on mini dalmations, but can’t find anything. Does anybody out there have any info on this breed? I was told by the vet that it is a legit breed, but not a recognized breed. If anyone has any info, please send it along…better yet, please send any web sites that have info in this breed. Thanks! Rob

Response:

I was curious so I went to Ask Jeves and found this web site. It isn’t much but it proves that it is a breed. http://www.miniaturedalmatians.com/

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I recently got a puppy and was told that the mother was a Jack Russell Terrier and the father is a Miniature Dalmation. I have scoured the web for info on mini dalmations, but can’t find anything. Does anybody out there have any info on this breed? I was told by the vet that it is a legit breed, but not a recognized breed. If anyone has any info, please send it along…better yet, please send any web sites that have info in this breed. Thanks! Rob

Response:

@posting.google.com: If anyone has any info, please send it along…better yet, please send any web sites that have info in this breed. Thanks!

Nope. I highly doubt there is anything like a miniature dalmation. If there is, it is that someone has been purposely breeding undersized dalmations to each other in order to get smaller ones. To try to fill a niche market, so to speak. Here is the AKC listing on dalmations: http://www.akc.org/breeds/recbreeds/dalmati.cfm and here is the AKC breed listing page for breeds that start with M: http://www.akc.org/breeds/recbreeds/breeds_m.cfm As you can see, there are a number of miniatures, but no dalmations in there. Marcel

Response:

I was curious so I went to Ask Jeves and found this web site. It isn’t much but it proves that it is a breed. http://www.miniaturedalmatians.com/

Ummm no. Doesn’t prove that it is a breed. All it proves is that there is someone out there who is breeding small dalmations to small dalmations in an attempt to create teeny tiny dalmations. Marcel

Response:

Good Gawd! What a combination…that would be one hyper energetic determined dog! I hope you work out regularly!! *G*. I did find this site: http://www.miniaturedalmatians.com/ but these look nothing like a Jack cross. I would be getting your dog into flyball as fast as you can. Good Luck! HeatherM

Response:

I was curious so I went to Ask Jeves and found this web site. It isn’t much but it proves that it is a breed. http://www.miniaturedalmatians.com/

No, it doesn’t do that. It shows someone is breeding dogs and calling them miniature dalmatians. But there is no indication that these dogs will breed true, nor that there is any standard to breed toward. This site is particularly yucky in the description of the breeding program. It sounds very much like to dogs are treated as livestock rather than companion animals. And boy, talk about over priced! At least if what they are breeding is *healthy.* Many actual purebreds are in that price range precisely because they are NOT healthy. And thus it takes quite a bit to get a healthy litter on the ground and to the ready to rehome stage. Virtually all of the high priced purebreds are high priced because of medical problems, small litters and similar impediments. — Diane Blackman http://dog-play.com/ http://dogplay.com/Shop/

Response:

Many actual purebreds are in that price range precisely because they are NOT healthy. And thus it takes quite a bit to get a healthy litter on the ground and to the ready to rehome stage. Virtually all of the high priced purebreds are high priced because of medical problems, small litters and similar impediments. — Diane Blackman http://dog-play.com/ http://dogplay.com/Shop/

I don’t believe all high priced purebreds are high priced because of impediments etc. Some high priced purebreds are highpriced because of careful breeding and a committment to healthy great temperment puppies and rarity of breed. Also, supply and demand. I agree with you on that Dalmation site. It seemed a bit off track. American Breeding Club? Anyway..just my two cents… toodles HeatherM

Response:

Definitely this is not a "breed". It’s undersize Dals with all their inherent medical and behavioral problems…. probably magnified because of a small gene pool selected for abnormally small size. This guy is just trying to get rich quick. Let’s see… bladder stones (uroliths), deafness… hip dysplasia…. hyperactivity… low training potential. Take what you have been told with a grain of salt. Dad was possibly just a small Dal. Jo Wolf Martinez, Georgia

Response:

Deafness