Conference hydra::dejavu

    re .12,
    
    <<Obviously I'm not in the clique.>>
    
    There is no 'clique' in this conference, that is the beauty of it.
    It is a community where no person is excluded.  As a 'frequent' reader
    of this conference, I'm suprised you didn't *know* that.
    
    Ro
    

>    There is no 'clique' in this conference
>    It is a community where no person is excluded.

  Oh, I don't know about that. People of the "physicalist" persuasion
  who don't succeed in couching their comments or criticisms of
  "spiritual" opinions in an adequately non-judgmental tone (or even a
  pro-"spiritual" tone) are roundly subjected to heaps of abuse and made
  to feel decidedly unwelcome. Excluded, maybe not. Unwelcome, most
  definitely.

  The only such person I've seen whose comments are tolerated is Topher,
  and that's because he goes way beyond bending over backwards to make
  sure his remarks are as "friendly" as possible, and he also provides
  scads of interesting information. This is certainly not a conference
  where I feel that a comment which I have to offer will receive the
  same treatment as a "spiritual" comment which may be, in the final
  analysis, just as negative, destructive, and lacking in love. 

  It's appropriate to criticise destructive replies, but only if that
  criticism is even-handed, and not meted out more heavily against those
  who've chosen science or conventional religion as their religion.
  There's strong evidence against even-handedness in this conference.

    
    I think that perceiving a clique-like atmosphere in here is a sign of
    low self-esteem.
    
    Granted, any specialized conference is likely to attract a lop-sided
    following - but, it is up to each and every individual to express their
    own viewpoint and make it heard.  Assuming that one's viewpoint will 
    always be agreed with is an expectation that is doomed to disappoint-
    ing the assume-er.......
    
    Some viewpoints are going to be harder to defend in here.  Defend yours
    with enough verbage and tact, and you may make a difference.  If you
    don't, you'll at least learn something.
    
    Peace.....
    
    
    guy

    re: .15, Mike,
    
    	Oooh, I love meta-noting.  :-)
    
    	I think you make some good points, Mike.  I believe it's a function
    of the media and the topic, though, and not a personality issue.
    The most I can perceive as far as personality issues is a very
    complex group dynamic involving some very dynamic and complex
    people.
    
    Then again, just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean everyone isn't actually 
    out to get me. ;-)
    
    Why not try to launch a new pro-physicalist topic (whatever that 
    means ?) and see what happens ?   Might be interesting !
    
    	toddy

re. 16

	Very nicely put Guy.  Every notefile I have in my directory has
it's share of differences...that is what makes them special. 

	After all if everyone agreed with everyone - there would be nothing
to note about....\')

	By the way, I do agree with .15 that Topher has alot to offer..8-)

	Peace, 
	
	Meredith

        Well here it is 2:35 A.M. EST on the 16th...hope all is still calm
    in the Mid-east.  Maybe we could all create a DIS.LIST listing everyone
    we know and send a message that says "Think Peace" written in BIG
    letters on and send it simutaneously....well, it was just a thought!
    ;-) ;-) ;-)
    
         Seriously, out of the 20 or entries in my notebook, this is the
    non-judgmental, all-accepting conference I read.  The only time I ever
    see anything remotely hostile is when statements like, "...you're being
    naive" or "...can't you see you're a sinner" pop up.  Now if you said
    that in SOAPBOX.....
    
                                                             Peace,
      
                                                             Capt. Scott

  Well I didn't have to wait long for someone to prove my point:

>          <<< Note 1413.16 by BTOVT::BEST_G "love is strong enough" >>>
>    I think that perceiving a clique-like atmosphere in here is a sign of
>    low self-esteem.

  That looks an awful lot like an ad hominem attack to me. "You have low
  self-esteem, therefore your comments lack credibility".
    
>    Assuming that one's viewpoint will 
>    always be agreed with is an expectation that is doomed to disappoint-
>    ing the assume-er.......   
>    Some viewpoints are going to be harder to defend in here.  Defend yours
>    with enough verbage and tact, and you may make a difference.

  At least that's an honest appraisal of the atmosphere of this
  notesfile. It stands in sharp contrast to the claims that all
  constructive and loving replies will be supported, while all
  destructive and hateful replies will be chastised. The record shows
  that this is not true. It shows, as M Best stated, that some
  *viewpoints* will be supported, while others will be ridiculed, the
  positive or negative effect being of secondary importance. If I am to
  make a physicalist comment and hope that it will not be ridiculed, I
  will have to make an extra special effort to couch it in as positive
  language as possible. The same requirement doesn't apply to a
  spiritualist comment.

  I just wanted to make that clear: the claim that all constructive
  comments are welcome in this notesfile, and that all destructive
  comments are unwelcome, is not supported by the evidence on record.
  The record indicates that spiritualist comments are welcome, while
  physicalist comments are not. almost entirely without regard to the
  constructive/destructive nature of the reply.

  By the way, for the record, I have an unshakeable belief (and private
  experience) in the *duality* (spiritual and physical nature) of man
  and the universe. That's why I read and, for the most part, enjoy this
  conference. But I don't reject, deny or dislike the physical nature,
  and in that aspect of my philosophy, I feel unwelcome here.

   re: 
    
>Note 1413.20                A proposal for January 15                   20 of 20
>ENABLE::GLANTZ "Mike 227-4299 DECtp TAY Littleton M" 39 lines  16-JAN-1991 08:57
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Well I didn't have to wait long for someone to prove my point:

>>          <<< Note 1413.16 by BTOVT::BEST_G "love is strong enough" >>>
>>    I think that perceiving a clique-like atmosphere in here is a sign of
>>    low self-esteem.

 > That looks an awful lot like an ad hominem attack to me. "You have low
 > self-esteem, therefore your comments lack credibility".
  
     I didn't say that.  And I wasn't attacking you.  I was referring to
     my own experience when I was a read-only, and then later when I 
     started writing.  I perceived a clique at first.  The longer I've
     noted, the more I've learned that there *is no clique*.  Those
     feelings arose only from expectations about how my replies would
     be received by other readers/noters in this conference.  

  
>>    Assuming that one's viewpoint will 
>>    always be agreed with is an expectation that is doomed to disappoint-
>>    ing the assume-er.......   
>>    Some viewpoints are going to be harder to defend in here.  Defend yours
>>    with enough verbage and tact, and you may make a difference.

>  At least that's an honest appraisal of the atmosphere of this
>  notesfile. It stands in sharp contrast to the claims that all
>  constructive and loving replies will be supported, while all
>  destructive and hateful replies will be chastised. The record shows
>  that this is not true. 

      Who made these claims?  You are making the assumption that a
      few individuals in the "clique" speak for everyone else here.
      That just isn't the case.  We're all distinct individuals who
      disagree vehemently on a lot of issues, but have tried to 
      call a truce of sorts in this file.


>  It shows, as M Best stated, that some
>  *viewpoints* will be supported, while others will be ridiculed, the
>  positive or negative effect being of secondary importance. If I am to
>  make a physicalist comment and hope that it will not be ridiculed, I
>  will have to make an extra special effort to couch it in as positive
>  language as possible. The same requirement doesn't apply to a
>  spiritualist comment.

       It's hard to imagine that if you thought this was so, that
       you *weren't* trying to incite a specific (i.e. negative)
       reaction in your first reply to this string....


>  I just wanted to make that clear: the claim that all constructive
>  comments are welcome in this notesfile, and that all destructive
>  comments are unwelcome, is not supported by the evidence on record.
>  The record indicates that spiritualist comments are welcome, while
>  physicalist comments are not. almost entirely without regard to the
>  constructive/destructive nature of the reply.

     I disagree.  That all depends on who's reading the replies in
     question.  Some people will welcome such replies and others 
     will not.  There is no hidden, underlying code for who is 
     allowed to express their opinions here, or what those opinions
     should be.

     I will say this though:  It's my opinion that much of the stuff
     that is discussed in this file is of a subjective nature.  Subject-
     ive things are necessarily very hard to prove, to measure, and to
     express.

     Talking about objective things in that sort of atmosphere can 
     make it hard to the subjectivists to keep their balance, espec-
     ially if they are new to their own inner processes.

     Did you ever have anyone knock over your tower of blocks as a kid?
     Some are more vulnerable than others in this respect.

>  By the way, for the record, I have an unshakeable belief (and private
>  experience) in the *duality* (spiritual and physical nature) of man
>  and the universe. That's why I read and, for the most part, enjoy this
>  conference. But I don't reject, deny or dislike the physical nature,
>  and in that aspect of my philosophy, I feel unwelcome here.

     I share a good degree of your beliefs here.

     Why don't you just start discussing your beliefs (both spiritual
     and physical here) instead of debating whether or not a clique
     exists?  If you do this without expectation about how your ideas
     will be received you may be surprised.

guy
     
       

  Guy -

  You're right in saying that I expected negative reaction to my
  original reply. For the most part, I try to avoid comments which will
  draw negative reaction, simply because I'm trying, as an exercise, to
  avoid causing strife. But I just couldn't let the comment pass that
  there is no clique or "band of regulars" who largely determine the
  tone of the conference and which viewpoints will or won't be accepted.
  This is, incidentally, true of all human communities, and it's not
  necessarily a bad thing, provided that people don't fool themselves
  into thinking that it can't or doesn't happen. And, as you say, there
  are also individuals who are regulars but don't belong to the "clique"
  of "anti-physicalists". But there is most definitely an "anti-
  physicalist" tone which pervades (though not dominates) this
  notesfile.

  As to discussing my beliefs, if I've learned one thing from this
  conference, it's that there are other participants who share my
  beliefs who are far more articulate than myself, and from whom I
  generally gain new insight. When I see something which would make me
  want to comment, either critically or in support, I usually don't have
  to wait long for one of these more articulate people to say what I
  wanted to say, only better. So in this conference, I'm far from being
  someone who can make useful contributions. In other conferences closer
  to my areas of expertise, I can contribute useful information, and do.

  Another thing I've learned, precisely from the opportunity to debate
  with the "anti-physicalist" tone of some of the more vocal
  participants, is that sometimes, being right isn't the best thing.
  That is, it may very well not serve any constructive purpose to defend
  a physicalist position "to the end", even if there is a possible
  "victorious end" (which there usually isn't, and, besides, I accept
  the spiritual nature, too). Being right is sometimes less constructive
  than being tolerant or being positive (the truth in the old adage "if
  you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything"). I accept
  this, and keep quiet sometimes. Just not this time :-).

    re: Mike
    
         One of the things that has been bothering me lately is that
    I am becoming more and more aware of the results of apathy.  I learned
    nearly a decade ago that apathy is the opposite of love.  And yet,
    I believe that not a day goes by that apathy isn't somewhere in 
    my decision-making process.  OF course, in the realm of physical
    reality as we have it, it is impossible to be involved in all aspects.
    Herein, however, is where the inner worlds ("the spiritualist world")
    come in exceptionally timely.  For by taking conscious control of
    the inner worlds, from which I believe all physicality comes, then
    consciousness can be turned over to sub-consciousness, e.g.  This
    then allows for responsibility, without apparent active participation.
        What does this have to do with what you are talking about?  Well,
    it seems to me that you and Guy (mostly, in these last few replies)
    are discussing perceived groups...and making judgements based on
    your perceptions.  This is understandable; however, I believe that
    there are lots of people who read these things who never verbalize
    anything, if much (and the reasons undoubtably vary.)  But it is
    easy to say that just because of the apparent apathy, that everyone
    agrees with what has been stated.  I, for one, do not agree with
    everything I read in here (and, believe it or not, I also don't always
    fully agree with everything I *write* in here...;-) ) but don't feel
    like arguing or don't have time or have already previously discussed
    it here or elsewhere or...   and therefore may keep mute (and I'm 
    one of the more "vocal" in here, I suppose.)
         Speaking for myself, this is why I often come down on those
    who don't share my views:  1.  I grew up with lots of those views
    and now reject them, *but* I am angry that I held them so long
    and angry that so much of my consensus does, I am angry because
    I have not totally assimilated my own fledgling beliefs, I am 
    angry because I know my beliefs have not solidified into knowingness
    and resent those who are constantly "testing" what I want to 
    believe.  2.  Often I see individuals come in here with the sole
    purpose of manipulation and domination...i.e., they have specific,
    stated beliefs that do not allow for the reality most of us like
    to discuss in here and wish to "convert the heathens."  When this
    happens, I become un-apathetic.  3.  A part of me believes that
    even some of the skeptics are here with genuine interest in more
    than a mundane acceptance of the "obvious" world.  In their fear
    (often) of giving up a known for an unknown, they conflict and
    test and try those who express other views.  They learn a great
    deal about their beliefs that way.  Unfortunately, those of us
    (again speaking for myself) who have already had most of those
    battles, tire of them and would prefer to discuss something else.
    Our (my) patience runs dry and then it shows.  
         And I'm sure there are other reasons.  But, in general, as
    has been stated, gentle inquiries and a non-combative attitude
    always seem to go farther (yes, I'm listening to myself as I 
    write this...;-)  )  But as has also been stated, this conference
    is for discussing things beyond the usually accepted realms...
    most in here already have some background in this other arena.
    Let those who wish to play a different way, find another playground,
    for this is "our" playground.  As long as we have it set up this
    way here in notesfiles-land, then it should be accepted as such.
         Anyway, I don't know if I've added much.  However, I will admit
    that since I believe that the outer reality reflects the inner, that
    I can only conclude that there is still a great deal of dissent, doubt,
    misunderstanding, etc. within my inner reality...otherwise, none
    of those things would exist outwardly.  So where does this leave me? 
    :-)
    
    
    Frederick
    

    
    re: .22 (Mike)
    
    From what I read, seems like you have a lot of valuable things to
    say.  I may not agree with all of it, but it does add value to the
    conference - maybe *moreso* if some people disagree.
    
    Note on....
    
    guy

  Frederick -

  I'm not quite sure what points you wanted to make, though I think I
  understand what you said, and generally don't disagree with it. It
  would be worth noting, though, that apathy (which you rightly
  criticize) can't always be inferred from silence. Silence can be, in
  fact, an expression of the most sincere and thoughtful concern. And
  even more interesting, highly vocal behavior can be an expression of
  severe apathy.

  Anyway, I'm not sure what relevance this has to whether or not this
  conference is unbalanced in an "anti-physicalist" direction. If you
  were agreeing that there might be some imbalance and were offering an
  explanation, then I think that's a very positive step. I'm not so
  naive to think that we're all perfect enough to eliminate all
  destructive imbalance, but recognizing that it exists is very
  constructive. Wanting to do something about it is a possible next
  step. From that point on, the rest would be easy.

RE: .2 (Mike)

    Thank you for the kind words Mike.  Although I know what you are
    refering to, I don't think of myself as "going way beyond bending over
    backwards to make sure [my] remarks are as 'friendly' as possible".
    I don't care whether they are perceived as friendly or not -- what I
    take pains to make clear is that any disagreement I have is only a
    difference in opinion and does not imply disrespect for the person who
    holds those ideas which differ from my own.  People who express a
    belief in psychic phenomena or various spiritual beliefs are frequently
    emotionally beat up about it outside this conference.  They are
    therefore understandably sensitive about anything which even looks
    like the familiar "you have to be crazy to believe something like that"
    routine.  A little reassurance goes a long way.

RE: .5 (Meredith)

    Thank you also ... I am glad you appreciate me.

				    Topher

    Mike G.
    
    Your replies have given me a lot of food for thought.  I will reflect
    on what you have said to learn what truth there is in it for me.  
    Mainly I'm concerned that some people have felt 'unwelcome' here.  If I
    personally,  have in some way made anyone feel that way, I apologize.
    
    Ro
    

                                                             
    There was a similar discussion (problem?) back in August, 1987.  At
    that time I happened to come upon a book entitled "The Different Drum -
    Community-Making and Peace" by Scott Peck which was published earlier
    that same year.
    
    In topic 457.0-.3 are excerpts from that book, along with one excerpt
    from "Christianity - And Paths to Dialogue with Buddhism, Hinduism, and
    Islam", edited by Hans Kung.
    
    If you are participating in this topic, please read the entries. 
    Perhaps they will shed some light on what is currently going on.  Your
    comments are welcome, either here or in that topic itself.
    
    Cindy

      
    Mike G.,
    
    In college I studied engineering and hold an A.S. degree in Engineering
    Science.  I was also raised a Christian.
    
    Today neither frames of reference contain in totality that which I
    perceive to be true from my personal direct experiences.  Yet I cannot
    shun or criticize either, for in many ways they are a part of me and
    *do* explain a lot about my life.
    
    The problem is that I actually had this guy who wanted to marry me (as
    I found out later), who was a hardcore skeptic to the max, but decided
    to 'win me over' by giving me crystals, offering his stereo set to listen
    to my many tapes, and so on and so on and so on.  But, bless my
    intuition, I *knew* something was very wrong, so I progressed VERY
    slowly with the relationship.  It was a good thing, because
    finally after much discussion, this guy finally admitted that, "No, I
    don't respect your scientific training because in spite of them you
    remain a spiritual person."  My ex's approach was about the same, which
    is why we divorced several years ago (and that event is written in this
    file somewhere, because the people here were, and are, the most
    supportive and kind group people I know on this net, even today).  
    
    From the Christian community, well...I participated in that conference
    for a couple of years and although many people there are my friends and
    I've attended several of their gatherings, it's just not the same - I
    am not an orthodox Christian and therefore do not feel at home there,
    primarily because my beliefs threaten the beliefs of others there, and
    this was made quite clear.  It's a long story...(;^)
    
    In short, I feel no need to believe as anybody else does in DEJAVU, and
    that's why I'm here - to be myself.  And I hope that is why many others
    are here too.  
    
    So...if I, or anybody else, want to arrange a peace meditation in this 
    conference, I see no reason whatsoever for anyone, no matter what their
    beliefs, to come along and criticize it.  Nor will I criticize anyone
    here if they decide to do something that doesn't happen to fit in my
    belief structure as long as it has a loving intent attached to it.
    
    If you have not signed in in the Sign In note, then may I extend an
    official DEJAVU welcome to you.  
    
    Be in peace.
    
    Cindy

  Re pointer to 457, thanks, Cindy, I'm sure I'll find it very
  worthwhile reading.

  Question: I didn't understand what point you were trying to make by
  mentioning the right of someone to arrange a peace meditation. This
  topic is, in principle, about the alleged existence of an anti-
  physicalist clique, not the meditation.

  Re "I'm here - to be myself", yes, that's the basis for my statement
  that this conference has been represented as a place where all are
  welcome. I support that goal, and hope that it will be a goal of most
  participants. But we can find numerous examples of instances where
  people who make a physicalist statement (and not necessarily a
  negative one) are made to feel most unwelcome. Clearly, not everyone
  is here for the same reason. Some are here to be themselves and
  welcome all others with support and understanding. Others are here to
  provoke and ridicule "those New Age idiots". And others are here to
  denounce physicalist and conventional religious belief systems in any
  form. And, of course, there are many other reasons, some honorable,
  some not.

  Re Ro: it would do no harm for you to review statements made by
  yourself and others, but please understand that I was not intending to
  single you out as "the perpetrator" of the "anti-physicalist" tone in
  this conference. If you or anyone else got that impression, I really
  apologize. I was purely reacting to the statement that "there is no
  clique". It's up to all of us to understand what our positions and
  agendas really are, not just the few who may feel singled out by a
  particular criticism (there are always a few, whether they deserve it
  or not).

    Let's look at what took place in 1413 -- at least as I see it.

    In the base note Gloria proposed a group meditation for peace.

    In .2 "Funky Chicken" expressed his/her belief that such an action
    would not be effective and proposed some other actions which (s)he
    believed would be a better use of time.  This was not expressed with
    much tact, but at root was simply an expression of personal belief and
    a positive counter-proposal.

    In .4 Frank responded in a similar but opposite vein to Funky Chicken's
    proposal.  In .6 Bruce questioned Funky Chicken's motives -- basically
    saying that .2 was posted with sadistic intent.  In .8, Funky Chicken,
    now seemingly annoyed, expresses (again less than diplomatically) a
    concern that some people might feel that they had to some extent done
    their part when they had, in "fact" ("fact" in Funky Chicken's opinion)
    done nothing useful to world peace. In .10, Phil wrote a fairly
    sensible note expressing his confidence that DEJAVUers would not in
    fact act that way (note that if we accept .4 as literal, Frank, at
    least feels that such action is useless), but then ended it with a tag
    line indicating that he was feeling intense anger.  In .11 Funky
    Chicken says that (s)he has been made to feel like an outsider ("I'm not
    in the clique") and that people seem to be dumping a lot of assumptions
    about what his/her beliefs, motives and knowledge of DEJAVU is.  Then
    things took off on this tangent.

    Funky Chicken did not express him/herself very tactfully, it is true.
    What Funky Chicken did do, however, basically, was to express an
    opinion contrary to the majority opinion, express some concern that the
    base proposal might have a *negative* impact overall (by replacing what
    Funky Chicken considers more useful activity) and give some positive
    suggestions as to what could be done.  This was, of course, critical of
    the *proposal* in the base note.  It was not critical of anyone in
    particular.  (S)he was greeted by anger and personal attacks.  Why?

    As an exercise, let me propose a hypothetical situation, and think
    about how your reaction would have differed.  Post your reactions or
    not as you wish, but *think* about it as honestly as you can.

    What if the base note had been Funky Chicken's proposal for physical
    action, and .2 had been Frank's critique from .4, along with Gloria's
    proposal?  Would you have felt that Frank was just being "critical"
    and would you have felt the same anger?  Or would you have seen it as a
    proper and positive response?  Maybe somewhere in between?  Why is it
    any different (if it is different for you)?

				    Topher

                             
    Topher - I'm going to skip over your reply....because it appears you 
    have no problem with the situation.
    
    Hi Mike G.,
    
    From 1413.2, the statement by whoever wrote it (still undetermined):
    
    >The inner eye and the power of thought might be a pleasant way to
    >relax, but to believe that it will bring about peace in the Middle East
    >is somewhat naive.
    
    This person is clearly imposing their physical realm belief on the
    people who support the meditation, and implying that those who
    participate in it are somewhat naive.
    
    I didn't find that particularly friendly, open-minded, or in line with
    this conference intent at all, particularly when the person has not
    made an introduction in the conference. 
    
    >Sorry to be a kill_joy .
    
    I found this statement to be patronizing at best.   
    
    As to the person's suggestions that we write letters, etc., I entered 
    a note stating that we *HAD* in fact done this, and would the person 
    please add the address of their own government to the note topic (which 
    the person still has not done).  So I see this person as not only being 
    critical, but hypocritical as well...in their own belief system at that.
    
    In the end, I would never go into a conference as a complete unknown 
    and imply that the people's beliefs there, for whatever reason, were 
    naive under any circumstances.  I expect the same consideration in return.
    
    Cindy

  Re .18 (Topher)

  > What if the base note had been Funky Chicken's proposal for physical
  > action, and .2 had been Frank's critique from .4, along with Gloria's
  > proposal?

  OK, I'm biased but I didn't view .2 as being a "proposal for physical
  action", I saw it as an unnecessary, cynical and condescending criticism.
  My response was on the same level as the second half of the note and the
  title and was itemised by the three 'positive' points to show why I viewed
  the base note as a worthwhile attempt.

  Re .18 again (Topher)
  > (note that if we accept .4 as literal, Frank, at least feels that such
  > action is useless)

  There have been many letters, protests, marches and other activities
  without noticeable effect, so in this case I felt that repeating the action
  was useless. The base note's suggestion was worth a try even if not
  acceptable to some readers, simply because I believe it is better to fail
  through not succeeding rather than to fail through not trying. (FWIW on
  previous [though unrelated] occasions I've found that a letter to the
  various organisations (eg., Greenpeace) to add to their backing is far more
  effective than a single, spontaneous letter direct to the government or
  other official body).

  Re. 1413.12/1414.19 (Cindy)
  As both SUBURB and COMICS are in the UK, separated by about 15 miles or so,
  I could have posted the address of our common government but, as stated,
  I had no faith in yet another piece of paper at that time. [ I didn't see
  the earlier note requesting addresses until it was mentioned later in the
  discussion - one of the penalties of having several hundred 'unseen' in a
  notebook is that I can only sample occasion recent notes while working
  forwards through the rest ].

  As the matter is somewhat academic as of early this morning, I'll back out
  with an apology : yes, perhaps I was less than tactful but did not (and do
  not) consider anything in 1413.4 as rude or inflamatory. I did not intend
  *anyone* to feel "an outsider" - if that was the way people read it, I'm
  genuinely sorry and will try to keep quiet rather than add another apparently
  strident voice to mask the more interesting contributions.

  Frank

    Clique or not, I think the past few responses (.18,.19,.20,.21) have been 
    demonstrating that individuals with strength of character can express 
    themselves skillfully and effectively on touchy subjects during stressful 
    times without engaging in battle, or propagating stereotypes and
    sweeping generalizations.   I thank you for your wisdom.

  Re Cindy (.19) I'm with you 100%. I supported the initial proposal for
  meditation, and deplored the insensitive tone with which it was
  criticized by the anonymous noter (though I support letter-writing, as
  well). I just wasn't sure how we got back to the meditation in this
  topic, since, up to your note, it hadn't been discussed. Anyway, since
  we're back on it, no problem -- that's the way discussions go :-).

  One thought: it's my hope that a place which provides a supporting
  atmosphere for people who've been beat up for unorthodox beliefs
  outside this conference need not be a place where people who hold more
  traditional beliefs get beat up. But maybe I'm naive: it's been my
  experience that groups which provide support for people who've been
  victims of some form of persecution often end up resorting to
  denigrating the persecuters as an integral part of the healing
  process. Maybe it has to be that way. It certainly is very common for
  it to be that way.

>  denigrating the persecuters as an integral part of the healing
    
    Well said.  I was just thinking the same thing.   And trying to figure
    out which group I might belong to today ... ?
    
    	Todd