Sebastian has made a comment in his now epic journal entry "How we agree to do and be" (the journal entry which is, I am sure, destined for number one on the PoF website Top 10 next month!):
As discussed there is a competitive element to the cultural realm. One recent comment (Joel's I think) recently indicated a sense of "even in the cultural realm" as if the cultural realm is the loveliest realm. What I feel we are facing here is the competetive aspect of the Cultural Realm that is veering towards rivalry.
Now we have touched on this before, as Sebastian said, and I am interested in exploring with others the idea that competition is the essence of how the healthy cultural realm should work.
Or to go back to Steiner's formulation Liberty - Cultural/Spiritual Realm, Equality - Rights Realm, Fraternity - Economic or Needs Realm.
So one way of approaching this question might be, to what extent does the exercise of true freedom involve competition?
For me, I can start by trying to reflect on some (rare) occasion when I feel that I acted out of true freedom. I think of an example where I was faced with a difficult choice and no matter how many times I thought it through I couldn't come to a conclusion. My feelings did not give me a clear answer. My moral principles as I understood them could be used to argue either way. The reactions of others to what I did and their opinions were not the essential thing to me, though they were of course part of the situation I faced.
What happened? Well I felt I had to be creative - I had to create my own deed and thus make it right because it was a decision out of my own essential being. I felt that I had actually risen above these lower aspects of my being, at least for a time, to enable me to act freely.
But then doesn't that mean that any person can call what they do right because they do it out of their own being? You are probably aware that this area of moral life and freedom is addressed extensively by Steiner in the second half of PoF.
I am reminded of the following from the Gospel of Matthew:
By their fruits ye shall know them. Do `men` gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Matthew 7:16-20
This seems to me to be a good yardstick - does the deed bring forth good fruit? It might take a long time, but truly free and therefore truly moral deeds surely must eventually bring forth good fruit.
If you read the Gospels you will find again and again images that point to a kind of a competition - servants being given money (talents) to invest, then the master returns and demands a reckoning, sheep and goats, weeds and good crops, seeds being sown in various locations and so on. Typically this is given an apocalyptic flavour and related to the end of the age, but if there is a sifting going on then perhaps it is focussed on the cultural realm in society.
The images clearly point to a kind of competition - perhaps these well-known Christian images were even in a way drawn upon when Darwin and others came up with the idea of natural selection - now there's an interesting thought, Christianity creating its own worst enemy, humanist/evolutionist Darwinism!
But isn't the cultural realm all about art, and truth, and beauty and goodness and so on? Yes I think it is, and I think it is most of all about spirit - that which enables us to act freely. To be a bit more concrete, I am constantly amazed at how the moral element is consistently present in the most profound works of art, for example novels, plays and even paintings.
And to look at the element of truth for a moment - science has come a long way on the back of utility or being of service to humanity (by their fruits...) but people are beginning to realise that science itself as it is currently practiced is blinkered - Steiner thought and wrote extensively on this again as many of you would know. And Genies like nuclear energy, electricity, genetic modification, digital technology etc. have all been released from their respective bottles now for better or for worse...
So... fractured feelings, terms of abuse, despair, anger, elation, humour, the heavens opening, devils hurled into the abyss, fire from the heavens - all of these may be part of the spiritual path and reflected in the Cultural realm. Not that we institutionalise or encourage violence, abuse or unfairness but neither do we seek to enforce, legalise and encode goodness, beauty and truth... for that way lies the path of the Pharisee, at least as that sect is depicted (I am sure somewhat unfairly) in the Gospels.
Others' thoughts and comments are very welcome, or on the other hand please feel free to ignore and rubbish everything I've said and get on with your own stuff!
Rivalry and sexism
Rivalry leads to annihilation - the removal of the rival.
Which is what has happened, with Cisco, whose contributions are always valuable, and now feels unable to participate any more. This web site provides a collaborate forum for us to try to work out our individual paths. In the process we do compete with each other in trying to establish agreed ideas, but we also support each other on our paths of knowledge. However, if one person, in the name of the rights realm, insists that his idea is the only true way, then clearly an attempt is being made to limit and curb everyone else. In the name of principle of equality an attempt is being made to curb the principle of freedom.
The name of the thread was “How we agree to do and to be” and the experience of the thread was a breakdown in the agreement of doing and being which has led to a member of the community being expelled (admin note: no one was expelled, cisco "now feels unable to participate any more" as stated above).
Fears around gender and sexuality, submission and dominance are in our faces and they are only just beginning to be named. This thread has revealed deeper more fundamental issues.
Someone was offended by something someone said and the response was to deny their right to be offended and to suggest the way they were engaging as wrong and they should behave differently. Two wrongs don't make a right, but three wrongs certainly don't! I don't mind Carl and his views being expressed, and I don't mind Patri's reaction either, but I do mind the attempt that was then made to suppress Patri's reaction.
Patri, I note that you have mentioned you found the post sexist, what struck me as utterly sexist was the refusal to acknowledge your reaction as valid. It was as if the response was invalid because it was emotional. However the emotions were triggered, in my view, by the emotions in Carl's post which were disguised behind all those long words.
I think this is a critical Rights Realm issue - sexism, and gender assumptions, are about equality. I wonder if anyone else noticed this, or what reactions people have to my comments?
The Rights Realm issue and Sexism
Hi Sebastian,
Thanks much for your insightful offering on the Rights Realm and Sexism. When I became a member of the PoF website I was looking to explore the Philosophy of Spiritual Activity, as I feel it to be one of Dr. Steiner's most important contributions to humanity. I thought there would be like minded people on same, and that the men on the site would be beyond being sexist and supporting sexist language or speech. As a woman, I avoid like the plague anything that smacks of sexism or what I term "the Abuse of Power" by some towards others. When I first read Carl's posts on your Rights Realm thread, I immediately recognized it for what it was, Blatant Sexism. Carl took no thought of the fact that there might be women reading his post who would be offended by his pathetic sexist comment, but then, he probably didn't care. What really surprised me was that only you and Cisco recognized what his post was and supported my stand against same. All the other men on the website and some of the women, just accepted (consciously or un-consciously) Carl's sexist comments in the name of so-called “Goethean Conversation” and some even delighted in same. When I answered Joel's comments, I stated that I was reacting to Carl’s words and the intent behind his words. What was that intent: Carl's need to shock, to aggravate, and to try and dominate an online conversation through sexist thinking and offensive language. Plus, after a review of what he had written, I found his views to be fascist, which I also find repulsive. How could a website about freedom, your own and the respect of the other’s tolerate Carl’s conduct?
Love to you and yours,
patri
A couple principles come to
A couple principles come to mind over the issue of disagreements. Personally, I'm not big on censorship or deciding someone has a bad idea that should not be expressed. Rather, it seems we should be more interested in understanding the intention of those involved and let them live.
But the disposition and attitude of soul are important and may be an area where the community can self-correct a situation. One of the main objectives of this web site is to facilitate individual expression. Expression is encouraged through an attitude of the listener. Openmindedness is required. I would say every possible view you can express will upset someone. Some views will upset most.
Does a person have a right to sincerely hold a view that is reviled by the majority? It seems to me they do. But maybe we need standards of what is called "flaming" or something of the sort. That is to inflame a conversation so that free expression is squashed.
Each person needs to hold to a "disposition and attitude of soul" that "expresses the ideal of human dignity." That would include speaker and listener. I am sure we can all agree on the value of this disposition. Perhaps we can remind each other in an appropriate manner if it appears someone is not striving for this attitude respectful of the views of others. It seems to me that this may require further conversation rather than cutting off conversation, but within the proper respectful attitude that lifts the conversation.
I am hoping to bring more focus on contemplative conversation to the web site. A community of individuals can't survive, in my opinion, without the knowledge and practice of ascending conversation.
very much agree, Tom
n/a
Hi Sebastian, I didn't
Hi Sebastian,
I didn't think cisco was expelled, but rather decided to leave. There could have been several reasons for that, including the desire to simply end the debate. He knows very well that he can come back whenever he chooses.
Hi Lori, What you say is
Hi Lori,
What you say is absolutely true.
However, I think it is also true to say that he would not have made that decision if the thread hadn't developed as it did?
He was in-effect expelled.
We bear some of the responsibility, don't you think?
S.
I don't think so. I may
I don't think so. I may have missed some of the exchange between him and caryn, since Lord knows the chain got so totally tangled up that it was hard to follow, but it seemed to me that he opted out just out of irritation with her posts, and his doing so had the interesting effect of making her look as if she'd chased him out. Though I certainly don't know if that's what he intended. It just seemed to me that he went off in a snit. Which was doubly interesting since I do believe he had expressed, in an earlier post, the desire to see a little more conflict on the site.
I'm interested in your idea that "we bear some of the responsibility." What do you mean by that? Isn't it possible to decide at some point that an exchange of barbs, finger-pointing and self-justification has gone on long enough and simply want to drop out of the discussion? I know you're a compassionate, sensible and honest person, which is why I'm interested in your views.
And, again, I don't see how his choice to leave, rather than just ignoring the posts that irritated him, amounted to an expulsion by any stretch of the word.
He's not anybody's victim that I can see!
Sexism and the rights realm
Hi,
Tom's quite right. There was no expulsion. However just because someone left of their own "free will" rather than being expelled doesn't mean that they wanted to go. That's why there is such a thing as constructive dismissal.
We bear some of the responsibility because we are the community to which Cisco belongs and from which he has departed. It takes two to tango.
The level at which the thread was abusive, domineering and offensive was at the feeling level. At the feeling level, first women were attacked by languge that was aggressively masculine and everyone was attacked by a determined attempt to insist that there is only one way and this is it.
The picture was quite different at the intellectual level where everything seemed rather eloquent and the language passionate.
Would anyone say that POF discounts feelings? They are absolutely vital. However it is to be hoped that they will be used as evidence in forming a decision about what to do, rather than to direct the will.
In a sense Patri's "Hogwash" comment was an action impelled by a feeling and this was picked up on. The error of her ways was pointed out by many people. She had sound intellectual reasons for her comment too. For instance, the brevity of her answer was in proportion to the sense she though Carl was making. However, the emotional aspect of her comment was picked up on quickly.
What frustrates me is that the point where the conversation was overtaken by emotion wasn't Patri's response, it was Carl's orgasm assertion. Carl's piece was highly emotional but the emotion was hidden by intellectual language.
Instead of supporting Patri by finding out what lay behind her emotions, she was swept aside in a tide of intellectual pseudo-superiority.
That, from my experience of marriage and the workplace, is a (the?) root of all sexism. A woman, aware of and sensitive to the emotions in play (but probably semi-hidden) won't let a situation move on. The men, in love with their safe and secure rationality pour scorn and ride rough-shot.
My experience of a work place where the emotional layer is given air-time as well as the intellectual is that women and men are as emotional and as intellectual as each other. It is only when one layer or the other is given preference that trouble sets in.
In other words, the consciousness that we are all trying to develop in ourselves, to give us space to separate thinking, feeling and willing so that they can be brought in to harmony and we can act out of freedom needs to be extended. It needs to be extended to create a space between the people who are in relationship to each other. We are all in a relationship through this site, and there is a consciousness between us. That consciousness needs to extend to the feeling as well as the thinking otherwise the willing will become disharmonious.
I think that this really gets to the heart of what it takes to create a Rights Realm based on equality.
Does this make sense? For me I see the whole POF thing folding in to the 3-fold thing and it is beautiful.
S.
Hi sebastian
I didn't feel attacked by Carl's article on sex and conversation.
The Discharge Principle
Dear friends,
All of the excitement about sex here is missing the point about an important natural law at work in conversation. The law is that moments of spiritual self-consciousness are numerically unique physical events. They carry energy, they don’t repeat and they are surprising. They are like the discharge of a battery or an electrical capacitor connected to a novelty generator.
This at least is true of the moments of spiritual self-consciousness that occur early in the application of anthroposophical exercises. Initial contact with the Guardian of the Threshold is usually like this – horrible, fascinating and utterly alive. Later, as one begins to settle into the spiritual world and one’s astral body becomes purified, moments of spiritual self-consciousness become somewhat more sustained and the discharge and surprise a more sustained, habituated and pleasurable affair.
But so far as Goethean conversation is concerned, where simultaneous spiritual self-consciousness is the requirement (identical content, identical feelings, identical willing), the analogy to the male orgasm is the best one. In general, we should not expect any Goethean conversation, which generally will last for an hour to an hour and a half or more, and will be composed of a diversity of strong-willed individuals, to yield more than one moment of intense and universal self-consciousness. There may of course be pleasurable and systematic fallout from the event, but no repetition of an analogous event.
This claim about the mechanism of spiritual self-consciousness both in men and in women is no more sexist than the uncontroversial claim that women and men are built differently, think differently and value different social goods and different kinds of social relationships.
With all best wishes,
Carl
Shakespeare's cheese sandwich
Hello Carl,
Carl, do YOU understand what you write or are you making this up as you go along. In your Discharge Principal post I see a lot of fancy words but have absolutely no idea what you could possibly mean by some of your terms such as universal self-consciousness, and spiritual self-consciousness. And then to even make the water more murky you talk about simultaneous spiritual self-consciousness. Pardon my ignorance, but I had thought you were about to make a point about communication and I see a monologue in it's own unique language.
Further what "claim of mechanism of spiritual self-consiousness" are you referring to. I have never heard any of these terms mentioned by Steiner of any other anthroposophist. Could you assist me by directing me to where this comes from so that I can try to see a point.
Your sentence, "The law is that moments of spiritual self-consciousness are numerically unique physical events". This sound vaguely similar to an explanation that the tragedy in Hamlet was a direct result of Shakespeare eating a cheese sandwich.
In keeping with your own analogies it sounds a lot more like masturbation than foreplay or sex. Cannot say I know where you are coming from or going with this but happy trails. I would be happy if you could answer the context which those phrases which I have highlighted above may be found anywhere in occult literature, references or knowledge.
Curious & Respectfully,
Cisco
A New Order of Men and Women
Yo Cisco,
Thank you for posting these questions. They provide real material for discussion.
I am trying to build up an analytic picture of how anthroposophical conversation has to work. I’m trying to describe how everything contained in the term “anthroposophical” and everything contained in the term “conversation” come together to add up to a practice that the right sorts of people can internalize, accept as true or probably true and apply out of their own understanding to cultural moments in real time called “anthroposophical conversations.” I’m doing this because I think anthroposophical conversations have the potential to transform human life into something closer to angel life, and in that process to make the world a better place. I think a.c.’s have the potential to get certain human beings (human beings who want to) to enter the cosmic hierarchies as a new type (a new species, a new race) of man and woman.
I am using terms that have precise analytic meanings, or are supposed to, and are drawn from Steiner as well as from modern science and modern logic. In the above post, “spiritual self-consciousness” is supposed to refer to what a human being in high meditation, or in an exalted dream, or in a moment of contact with the Guardian of the Threshold experiences. Yes, I have familiarity with these states. Any anthroposophist should. They are the lynchpin of the concept “anthroposophy.”
The term “universal self-consciousness” is supposed to refer to spiritual self-consciousness possessed by or attributable to everyone. In the case of conversations, the term refers to everyone in the conversation. An anthroposophical conversation is a social situation in which there is universal spiritual self-consciousness, at least at certain moments. “Simultaneous spiritual self-consciousness” is more or less the same thing, and is supposed to refer to a moment in a Goethean conversation in which everyone’s mind is in direct contact with the same part of a higher world.
Now, since I am trying to describe how this condition can arise, I appeal to scientific language. Thus, the notion of “mechanism.” This term is used frequently by Steiner to describe movements in the mind, in the higher bodies and in the cosmos. It’s a term any anthroposophist should be comfortable with.
The idea behind the Discharge Principle, which is a terribly important principle for people to understand if they are going to bring the right attitude to a conversation, is “numerical uniqueness.” What it means is that nothing repeats exactly. There is a tension between the scientific conception of “mechanism,” which is a legitimate one to employ in this context (we are, after all, trying to get a science of conversation) and the Principle or Law that nothing in the mind or in the spirit ever repeats itself exactly. This is different from a man-made mechanism like a steam engine, where each cycle is an exact duplicate (a numerical duplicate) of the one preceding.
This is a sincere, serious effort in anthroposophy to accomplish something of tremendous importance for individuals and for human societies. It's something everyone on this website can participate in and contribute to. If you’ll try to understand what the people on this website are each trying to do, with varying degrees of success, I think you’ll agree with me about this.
All best,
Carl
Communication lost in conversation
thanks Carl,
I will read this more closely and I will attempt to understand what you are saying but from my own experience universal self-consciousness is still theoretical mysticism and loosely Hegelian. I have a problem with the invention of language. This mostly due to my overbearing, consdescending philosophy student friends who believe as long as they speak so no body understands them they are appearing so much smarter and, so-called, winning, the debates. If I were to criticise your presentation with my limited intellectual capacities my first response is you confuse people in the hopes that they will do the work required to understand you. That is repellent as opposed to attractive which I believe is the type of analogy you attempted with your sex debate. Which definelty had a repellant reaction.
You say "I’m doing this because I think anthroposophical conversations have the potential to transform human life into something closer to angel life," What is to accomplish here? Anthroposophy has been doing that for me without attaching any new criteria, for years. Besides if one pays attention to normal discourse and the actions and deeds of people around them in modern everyday life and has very limited awareness of anthroposophical thought the truths seem to emerge on their own as if begging to be discovered.
While what you are attempting may seem to you an approach to conversation there are those of us out there that think, excuse me, believe, there must be an element of communication in order to accomplish anything worthy of putting the name Goethean in front of it. I do consider myself an anthroposophist [with shortcomings] and being comfortable with the term "mechanism" falls very very short of my understanding and/or in acheiving of a Spriitual consciousness let alone spiritual self-consciousness.. These concepts that you speak of, as far as I know, are still theoretical and experimental. I have read some of your other posts on the internet and have no idea what you are talking about. That is either because I am too stupid, too stubborn to learn your language, or you speak far above the average reader which is not a realm I comfortably consider as being community.
Like my other post says 'show me the money'. I have never seen a lecture where Steiner makes 'comfortable conversation refering' to the mind in a mechanistic manner, in fact just the opposite. I will now browse the RSArchive for mention of the term in context. Last night I only found one actual reference in a Steiner lecture to spiritual self-consciousness on the whole site and that was in reference to the time between Death and rebirth. Which in that context negates it from this Goethean Convesation unless of course we are extending this conversation to the dead.
I think what you propose as Goethan Conversation is more sincere in your theoretical work than in anthroposophy in general. I for one would drop interest in Goethan conversation immediately if in fact you are remotely accurate in this convoluted definitiion. I have stopped getting together with people I know, personally, because I do not find communication thru over intellectuallizing and most certainly find that intellectualizing kills the entry of the spiritual in the dialogue. I avoid those who approach everything from a mechanistic view, partiiculalry the Richard Dawkins types out there. I call them literalists and they want scientific proof for every word one utters and tend to argue semantics until ones coffee gets cold or they are drinking alone.
Which reminds me of a friend of anthroposophy who is writing 'Richard Dawkins reasoning jokes'. here is one. I could not be a Christian because I knew one once, and now he lives in Moose Jaw [a city in Saskatchewan Canada]. funny if you've been to Moose Jaw.
I must depart for the Canadian US border right now where the dialogue is one direction, question, answer, Buzzer: Wrong answer, proceed inside. I'll be back.
thanks for the response and I hope you can find some common support for your ideas.
Cisco
Lori, it's good you didn't
Lori, it's good you didn't feel offended, that doesn't mean everyone didn't though. Everyone has different points of view and one of the opportunities we have on this site is to explore this and pracice taking up other points of view. You often create fictional situations to do this with, or explore previous situations, both of which are very effective, but I think that sometimes there are opportunities to practice for real, like this situation for instance.
S-)
Thanks, Sebastian!
Thanks for reminding us what we're supposed to be doing here: Learning, not just to tolerate, but to embrace all different points of view, rather than freaking out and making all kinds of accusations, or engaging in hyper-intellectual putdowns!
That is true, Sebastian, that "he would
That is true, Sebastian, that "he would not have made that decision if the thread hadn't developed" but the way you initially presented it could easily be misunderstood as that the web site administrators expelled cisco which isn't true. So we just need to be clear, otherwise you make a good point.
Hungry for truth
Hi follks,
Like a clever little Terminator, I have been following the thread further but need to clear up something so I don't see others doing my thinking [that would be very traumaitc for them] and telling the world the reasons I left in a huff, not a snit. I could not see any other way to bring to a conclusion what I deemed as folly, and useless finger pointing and 'do as I say not as i do'. I am saying I am guilty but not responsible,. In my mind [and obviously my heart as well] clearly the thread needed to go in a different direction. and yes... I was angry.... and no good can come of communication when one is angry so a departure was necessary to make a dramatic point. Right or wrong my method was somewhat effective in detouring the conversation, for better or worse, stay tuned for next weeks episode when the villain is.....
I am not claiming to have viewed the situation correctly, nor that anything I said holds water. I was, myself , defiant that assumptions were expressed that it is wrong, impolite, rude, childish, whatever, to stand and be defiant when one is clearly offended. Rather than analyse, who is to blame for what, the one thing I am in agreement here was pointed out above by Sebastian, If someone thinks something said is sexist, racist , or condescending then speak out please. Let your voice be heard. I am a male, if there are any doubts, and I am just as offended, if not more so, by sexual analogies, inuendos or flat out challlenges for debates of a sexual nature, After reading some Owen Barfield I have come to distain the word 'sexy' But.. ...one is still entitled to one's opinion and as visible here, free to speak.
Words do get twisted but it is easy to look back and check. I do not recall ever encouraging more conflict on the site, if so please point it out to me so I can learn. Again I am guilty, but not responsilbe. I did learn a tremendous amount from reflection over the last few days without feeling the need to respond directly until today . I awoke this morning after having a very interesting dream and one of the characters in the dream was calling itself [gender neutral] Oriphiel. I was requested to ask you who read this to google or look into the symbolic meaning of the Archangel Oriphiel. I did and felt like I was hit over the head with a hamma, then I thought I would check up on all you characters.
I enjoy the discussion between Bryn and Joel currently and am exictied to see which is really the antogonist or protagonist. They are both accurate with delivery and I am not sure how far from aggreement, and funny too. The problems with the internet is you have thousands of protagonsits and antagonists and very few heros to save the day. So I will end with a quote from one of my many hero's
"In order not to arouse the suspicion that we believe life to begin merely at the level of the aristocracy of the intellect, let us start with a purely animal need, Hunger"- Rudolf Steiner
On that note I gotta run and get a bite..I hope the above quote is accurate. i memorized it years ago for effect in conversations. Much better delivered by voice in person.
Joel thanks for the tip on the book "The Spiritual Event of the Twentieth Century" I ordered it this morning.
Lovingly,
Cisco
I hope that you don't feel
I hope that you don't feel that I am thinking for you.
Your behaviour is a fact in the system, a consequence of yours and of the whole group's behaviour.
My point doens't depend on why you left, only on that you did.
It is tempting to investigate why you left because that could alleviate guilt or discomfort others are feeling.
However, I really don't want a debate about why you left to distract from:
S.
Welcome back, cisco
if you are back! You're right, you didn't actually encourage conflict on the site, but merely agreed with remarks made by Bryn that included, among other things, a criticism that there wasn't enough conflict on the site and that this showed spiritual cowardice. But you may not have been agreeing with that particular part of that multi-faceted remark! So I apologize for lumping you with Bryn as rabble-rousers!
What is the difference between a huff and a snit, by the way?
We missed you!
L.
Rabble Rousers unite
hello Lori,
Back, right, front, left who knows where the heck I am . Thanks for the kind words. Hello,...I must going..
I quess you would have to see the Canadian animation the "Big Snit" to get that one. Where is Owen Barfield when you need him? Snit sounds like snotty whereas Huff sounds more like SunBears post huffing and puffing. Glad you asked though. You folks all crack me up.
And Sebastian I was speaking generally and you are very correct when you point out "that the feeling and thinking went in to disharmony and there were consequences." It is a very important point. In making the last post i was thinking about the ideas in 3 or 4 posts combined which is one way i have of following a conversation. That is why i stated i am guilty but not responsible. Where does conflict begin and does it have an end. If one looks at the Middle East one would be inclined to rename peace talks; peace disagreements. My favourtie is "the Peace talks have broke down" like they are referring to an automobile. the great mechanistic deception, Don Cruse where are you when we need you?
We have the right to diagree but the responsiblity to not go to war over it unless the ideas put forward infringe on personal freedom, I think in today's culture there is a lacking of insight into the responsibility of freedom. it comes at a price, or as you state Sebastian, there are consequences.
When people talk left-wing, right wing I think they are talking about hockey.
Cheers,
Cisco
Snithuff
I wonder if it is possible to be in a snit and a huff at the same time then? Could come out sounding like a sneeze...
Politically I lean towards full forward but am a closet right back. Usually I'm on the bench in any case so it's all a bit academic :-)
Sorry had to get that out of my system somewhere along the line!
Indubitably
I am a ..'Be right back" .....Nothing more to add but I do like the word indubitably a real lot. It seems so anthroposophical. Indubitably!
Alway enjoy your posts Tim,
Indubitably yours,
Cisco