Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

MagicBag Grow Bags
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]
Re: Questions & Answers [Re: Swami]
    #2139815 -

So, if I were to come across something I read in a book, and loved it, loved the inspiration that it gave me so much, that I decided to share it with everybody I can...you would call that THEFT?

Oh boy, I guess all the people here who've quoted from books, and such sources are all thieves!
Might as well deem all the religious bible-thumping folks who live by book quoting verses from this and that and hell, even priests and reverends, all thieves!
lol gimme a break...this guy even credited the whole thing to Ms Browne in the first place...

I guarantee you, Sylvia Browne, whom I'm actually quite familiar with, would in fact, praise Lord of Fungus, for spreading her words of higher truth to other people...
As a matter of fact, I'm gonna look up her website, (if she has one) and see if I can actually write to her about this, and see what she thinks about it :smile:   


--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Questions & Answers [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #2139836 -

So, if I were to come across something I read in a book, and loved it, loved the inspiration that it gave me so much, that I decided to share it with everybody I can...you would call that THEFT?
If I loved your car so much that I decided to share it with my friends without your permission would you call it theft?

Oh boy, I guess all the people here who've quoted from books, and such sources are all thieves!
A quote is acceptable; entire chapters are not.

lol gimme a break...
Why? What else do you take that you justify?

this guy even credited the whole thing to Ms Browne in the first place...
When I share your car with my friends, I will give you credit for your good taste in wheels. That will make you feel much better about it's being gone.

He said: "I spent hours typing so none of you would have to buy the book."

I am sure she is glad to lose sales to such a high-minded person.

I guarantee you, Sylvia Browne, whom I'm actually quite familiar with, would in fact, praise Lord of Fungus, for spreading her words of higher truth to other people...
You can guarantee nothing. Sylvia writes books to make money from her efforts; not to have her work given away.

As a matter of fact, I'm gonna look up her website, (if she has one) and see if I can actually write to her about this, and see what she thinks about it
I will wager $$$ ahead of time that she will NOT appreciate it.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Copyright law in brief [Re: Swami]
    #2139855 -

Simple and straightforward:

In order for a book to go online, either

1. the copyright holder (usually the author) has to give permission, or

2. the book needs to be in the public domain (i.e. copyright on the material has expired), or

3. there must be a special legal exemption allowing whoever puts the book online to do so without permission of the copyright holder. (This last case is quite rare; in the US, it may apply to libraries and archives with respect to some out-of-print books from 1923 through 1927.)


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Questions & Answers [Re: Swami]
    #2139895 -

Quote:
Swami said:
So, if I were to come across something I read in a book, and loved it, loved the inspiration that it gave me so much, that I decided to share it with everybody I can...you would call that THEFT?
If I loved your car so much that I decided to share it with my friends without your permission would you call it theft?

You're comparing apples and oranges here. 

Oh boy, I guess all the people here who've quoted from books, and such sources are all thieves!
A quote is acceptable; entire chapters are not.

So if I bought a book, and read it all, and liked it so gosh darn much, that I gave it to my friends, to share the knowledge of it all, and so on, that wouldn't be any different from what Lord of Fungus did? That would be "unacceptable"? 

lol gimme a break...
Why? What else do you take that you justify?

this guy even credited the whole thing to Ms Browne in the first place...
When I share your car with my friends, I will give you credit for your good taste in wheels. That will make you feel much better about it's being gone.

Again, apples and oranges. 

He said: "I spent hours typing so none of you would have to buy the book."

I am sure she is glad to lose sales to such a high-minded person.

Lemme ask you; ARE you familiar with Sylvia Browne? Are you a fan of hers? Do you read all her books? Do you watch her regularly on Montel Williams, or on Larry King Live, Unsolved Mysteries, and so many more of the media-forms which she's been profiled in? Do you go to her lectures? Do you have phone sessions or readings in person by her? Are you deeply familiar with her? I think the obvious answer is, No, because if you WERE, you would know for sure, that she would, in fact commend someone for sharing her book that she knows would help so many people in life, which is the primary REASON why she wrote her books in the first place, not just cuz she can get some mo' bling bling y0! If she was all about money in the first place, she wouldnt be donating the majority of her money to worthy causes, (which you would know if you read her books), she COULD be living large and all super-starish, but the fact is, she only makes about 30k-40k a year, the rest of her money goes to the Society of Novus Spiritus Organization which she founded. So, the bottom line is, does that sound like someone who's gonna bitch about a fan of hers sharing one of her many many many books to his/her friends, family, pets?

I guarantee you, Sylvia Browne, whom I'm actually quite familiar with, would in fact, praise Lord of Fungus, for spreading her words of higher truth to other people...
You can guarantee nothing. Sylvia writes books to make money from her efforts; not to have her work given away.

Read the above 

As a matter of fact, I'm gonna look up her website, (if she has one) and see if I can actually write to her about this, and see what she thinks about it 
I will wager $$$ ahead of time that she will NOT appreciate it.
   
I wrote a letter to the  Novus Spiritus Organization The letter I wrote:

"Hi, I'd like to start this email firstly by saying I'm a very avid fan of Sylvia and her work and I'm grateful for what truth and happiness she brings amongst the world today =).
The basic premise of this email is in regards to a certain confliction I've came across a certain message board on the internet that I frequent. The deal is, that another person, also apparently a major fan of Sylvia, made a topic based on a book he purchased from Sylvia's line of work, "Conversations with the Other Side". Apparently he loved this book so deeply that he actually spent days typing up the whole entire book, and showed it to the message board, which I thank him for, as I'm sure so many people have benefited and will continue to benefit from Sylvia's words of higher truth, be it from her fans spreading her words, or from finding it on their own. The confliction that rised afterwards though, was that one of the message board members claimed that the whole act was highly immoral and unethical, deeming it as "Theft". I felt outraged by this particular reaction, as I and everybody else knows the fan of Sylvia only wanted to share the wisdom of the truth of life and such to everybody, out of love and care for humankind; just as Sylvia does. So I stated my opinion on the matter, and proposed to write to Sylvia herself and see what she has to say about it, as I'm sure she would only praise someone for spreading the knowledge of higher-truth. =)
So, my inquiry to you, is I wanted to know, What Sylvia herself, would have to say about this? I am now aware that Sylvia doesn't respond to emails, as I just found out before I wrote this email, but I hoped to find some valid response from the people who work in her organization. =) I hope to hear from you soon, and thank you for taking the time to read this. Much love and God Bless."

So, how much money you wanna wager? :grin:


     


--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Questions & Answers [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #2139977 -

If I loved your car so much that I decided to share it with my friends without your permission would you call it theft?

You're comparing apples and oranges here.
Not at all Skorp, you tried to rationalize theft because you "loved the item". Motivation is irrelevant of the act.

So if I bought a book, and read it all, and liked it so gosh darn much, that I gave it to my friends, to share the knowledge of it all, and so on, that wouldn't be any different from what Lord of Fungus did? That would be "unacceptable"?
Please read up on copyyright law so that I don't have to asnwer evry one of your questions. Loaning a book is fine.

When I share your car with my friends, I will give you credit for your good taste in wheels. That will make you feel much better about it's being gone.

Again, apples and oranges.
Once again your argument lacks merit. You brought up the point of giving credit which is only relevant in printing single line quotes not entire chapters.

Lemme ask you; ARE you familiar with Sylvia Browne? Are you a fan of hers? Do you read all her books? Do you watch her regularly on Montel Williams, or on Larry King Live, Unsolved Mysteries, and so many more of the media-forms which she's been profiled in? Do you go to her lectures? Do you have phone sessions or readings in person by her? Are you deeply familiar with her?
More irrelevant blather. Prior permission is what is required no matter how you dance around it. Whether or not you can read the author's mind has zero bearing.

I think the obvious answer is, No, because if you WERE, you would know for sure, that she would, in fact commend someone for sharing her book that she knows would help so many people in life, which is the primary REASON why she wrote her books in the first place, not just cuz she can get some mo' bling bling y0! If she was all about money in the first place, she wouldnt be donating the majority of her money to worthy causes, (which you would know if you read her books), she COULD be living large and all super-starish, but the fact is, she only makes about 30k-40k a year, the rest of her money goes to the Society of Novus Spiritus Organization which she founded. So, the bottom line is, does that sound like someone who's gonna bitch about a fan of hers sharing one of her many many many books to his/her friends, family, pets?
Whether or not she "bitches" is once again irrelevant as to the fact that the law was viloated. This simple fact seem beyond your grasp. Apparently it is impossible for you to either stay on track or to think logically.

I guarantee you, Sylvia Browne, whom I'm actually quite familiar with, would in fact, praise Lord of Fungus, for spreading her words of higher truth to other people...
You can guarantee nothing. Sylvia writes books to make money from her efforts; not to have her work given away.

As a matter of fact, I'm gonna look up her website, (if she has one) and see if I can actually write to her about this, and see what she thinks about it
I will wager $$$ ahead of time that she will NOT appreciate it.

Apparently he loved this book so deeply...
Motivation is once again, irrelevant.

that he actually spent days typing up the whole entire book, and showed it to the message board, which I thank him for, as I'm sure so many people have benefited and will continue to benefit from Sylvia's words of higher truth, be it from her fans spreading her words, or from finding it on their own.
I am sure that she hopes are her books are illegally reproduced by, if not unethical, then those ignorant of the basic copyright laws which I clearly displayed. She would probably love to see her book sales greatly diminished.

The confliction that rised afterwards though, was that one of the message board members claimed that the whole act was highly immoral and unethical, deeming it as "Theft". I felt outraged by this particular reaction,
Outrage at someone knowledgeable of basic copyright law? I see the "higher teachings" have had a positive effect on your emotional control.

So, my inquiry to you, is I wanted to know, What Sylvia herself, would have to say about this?
If she believed as you do she would have made the books in the public domain.

If she believed as you do she would have made the books in the public domain.

If she believed as you do she would have made the books in the public domain.

This is simple and straightforward.

So, how much money you wanna wager?
I will wager that this is in clear violation of copyright laws inasmuch as the poster did Not have prior permission. END OF STORY no matter how much you wiggle.




--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Questions & Answers [Re: Swami]
    #2140004 -

Okay, so *technically* and "Lawfully", Lord of Fungus's actions may be "unethical". Sure, you can go ahead and rant all you want about that, however valid it may be....

But you cannot judge with 100% conviction that Lord of Fungus's actions, were spiritually "unethical". Don't get Spiritual ethics and the US Government?s ethics mixed up and confused here.


--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Questions & Answers [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #2140028 -

Keep dancing.

I did a post a few months ago from a Buddhist perspective that clearly explains what is and what is not theft.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Questions & Answers [Re: Swami]
    #2140038 -

So only Buddhists can say what is theft and what isnt? C'mon...a wee bit narrow-minded isnt it? :grin:
Do I detect a cold bitter tone btw? c'mon Swamster..no hard feelings here buddy, it's fun to argue isnt it? Cheers mate. :wink:   


--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Questions & Answers [Re: Swami]
    #2140148 -

From my poiny of view, copying the text is illegal, but not unethical, as such, because it is illogical to assume that one can copyright an idea. Seeing as two people can have the same idea, they can hold the same spiritual views.
The application of an idea can be copyrighted or patented, to allow for the first person to think of it to reap the financial benefits. However, there are clear cases when a patent is unethical, because the application thought of could benefit a lot of people. In any case, 'stealing' a person's text can't be considered universally unethical.
Concerning copyrights, let's draw a parallel to music. In medieval times, copying music, or covering an existing piece wasn't considered theft, it was a way of honouring the original performer/composer. Today, capitalism rules our minds, and we feel everything, even original thought, can be owned. The way you look at it is in part dependant on the times you live in.
A copyright in these times is just another method of charging money for an idea. If this Sylvia Browne is truly spiritual, and considers her message to hold Truth, she would indeed not mind if her work was copied, because if you feel you have an important message to spread, you don't charge people to hear about it.

Personally, I think copying entire chapters is a bit over the top, but I can hardly say it's universally unethical.


--------------------
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

- Aristotle

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Questions & Answers [Re: Swami]
    #2140208 -

I read this book, and it had such a deep impact on me as well as other books by Sylvia regarding the nature of life, death, and afterlife...that I felt so driven and compelled to share this in hopes that it brings others the happiness that it did for me, in hopes that it will make at least one life breathe easier, to help at least one other person see life in a new light and prevent them from spiraling down a path of negativity and darkness. And some may wonder, "well, why didn't you just recommend the book?" Heh, if I made one lil post saying how much I recommend this book and provided the link, I very sincerely doubt many people would've actually bought it. I'm far more positive that far more people would've read it if it were at hand for them to read, so therefore I sacrificed my own time and energy into typing up a 148 pg long book, which some of I left out (meditation and relaxation techniques by Francine, which I may post later), so that I could offer at least one other person the same possibility of having the same positive impact from this book that I know not only me, but so many other's have recieved from this. I feel much better knowing that I shared the knowledge that brought me this happiness to others, and for all I know, I might've prevented someone from committing suicide with what I posted from the book, (if you read it all, you'd know what I'm talking about). So to judge my actions immoral, unethical, unspiritual, is just...beyond me.
I'm sorry you feel the need to be Mr.-Technical-Law-Prick and assert your negative intellect regardless of what good intentions are at hand.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Questions & Answers [Re: Alan Stone]
    #2140272 -

Alan Stone said:
From my poiny of view, copying the text is illegal, but not unethical, as such, because it is illogical to assume that one copyright an idea. Seeing as two people can have the same idea, they can hold the same spiritual views.



It is like I suggested. An idea is formless, it has no boundaries. However, while an idea has a gift of flow, it also tends to take form in our own mind. If an idea doesn't flow in your head and take on your personal fingerprint, if you don't treat the idea as your thought, and it doesn't sink in and connect to all of these other thoughts, than the new idea can't really be claimed by you, let alone it being almost pointless to work like that.

There is nothing wrong about sharing an idea with a few people that you wish to share it with. This is why the movie companies don't hunt everyone down that invites a few friends over that get baked and watch the movie that only one of them paid for.

The difference here is that the texts were presented in basically their entirety. While I don't necessarily disagree with someone taking so much time to share ideas with people that they think will be interested in them, it just makes me wonder if they took the time to digest the material themselves. *shrugs*
Peace.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Questions & Answers [Re: fireworks_god]
    #2140326 -

It'd say Alan Stone hit the nail on the head.

And I think the apples and oranges Skorp was refering to were intellectual property laws vs. material property laws. Maybe I'm wrong.


--------------------
Don't worry, I'm wrong.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Questions & Answers [Re: Panoramix]
    #2140370 -

Yes, basically, that's what I was referring to, ty


--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Questions & Answers [Re: Panoramix]
    #2140399 -

I'm sorry you feel the need to be Mr.-Technical-Law-Prick and assert your negative intellect

You are way too funny! I am a "prick" now because you don't like to face the truth. Is name-calling what you have learned from the higher "teachings"? Disrespect for another's property is holy now?

My legal point is hardly technical, it is quite broad and specific.

BTW, intellect is neither negative nor positive it is a quality. Can someone have negative blue eyes?


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Questions & Answers [Re: Panoramix]
    #2140403 -

And I think the apples and oranges Skorp was refering to were intellectual property laws vs. material property laws. Maybe I'm wrong.


You are. Stealing someone's painting (a mere arrangement of pre-existing colors and subject matter) is no different than stealing an arrangement of words.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Questions & Answers [Re: Swami]
    #2140456 -

I'm not too surprised that's the only part of my post you took out to debate further with :smirk:
The word STEAL in this case is just bullshit. Unless like I said, you want to get all technical about copyright laws and rules and regulations, then sure, go ahead and scream all you want about me "stealing" this and that. Like the supporters of this thread are saying, spiritual morality and ethics is one thing. U.S. Gov't illegalities and laws and rules are one thing. Don't get em mixed up. You used the word Spiritual and Moral in your first post, insinuating that you had in mind some type of spiritually moral and ethic violation in mind, and then you shifted your position to enforcing the strict copyright violations, saying that according to such and such, I was "stealing". You went from one point of defense, to another...sounds like backpeddling to me.
Read Alan Stone's post, he said it all.
I bought the book, read it, loved it, shared it. Simple as that. So for someone to come outta the blue and deem me a thief for doing that, isn't negative?
Intellect can be negative if you only use it to put down someone's intentions, regardless of whether your belief has law and truth on it's side or not.
Are you arguing because you actually truly feel upset by my "lawful infringement?" Because I violated copyright laws? You're willing to ignore all what positive intents I had in sharing what I read from this book, and only focus on what ever you could possibly find that you think is bad about my post, be it copyright violation? Are you really arguing for that?
Or are you just arguing to defend your ego, despite how it makes you look?
Swami, lighten up.



And Alan Stone really did hit the nail on the head. I'd like to see what you have to say about his post :smile: 


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Questions & Answers [Re: Lord_of_Fungus]
    #2140515 -

go ahead and scream all you want about me "stealing" this and that.
No one is screaming. Do you frequently exaggerate and distort to defend your actions?

Like the supporters of this thread are saying, spiritual morality and ethics is one thing. U.S. Gov't illegalities and laws and rules are one thing.
Their opinion means nothing. Get the opinion of the author.

I bought the book, read it, loved it, shared it. Simple as that.
So if I enjoy a piece of jewelry that I steal, then it is OK? Your tangential emotions have no bearing.

Intellect can be negative if you only use it to put down someone's intentions, regardless of whether your belief has law and truth on it's side or not.
So now truth can be negative?

Are you arguing because you actually truly feel upset by my "lawful infringement?"
I don't get upset.

Because I violated copyright laws? You're willing to ignore all what positive intents I had in sharing what I read from this book, and only focus on what ever you could possibly find that you think is bad about my post, be it copyright violation?
Intent has nothing to do with it - that is lame rationalization. "I took the blueberry pie because I wanted to see the joy on my family's face on Thanksgiving." So what?

Like the supporters of this thread are saying, spiritual morality and ethics is one thing. U.S. Gov't illegalities and laws and rules are one thing. Don't get em mixed up.
I am not mixed up at all. If you steal a car because you need to quickly visit your sick mother, be sure to use the "mix-up" defense.

So for someone to come outta the blue
Huh?

and deem me a thief for doing that, isn't negative?
How is a fact negative? You took someone else's work without permission.

Swami, lighten up.
I am quite light, thank you.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Questions & Answers [Re: Swami]
    #2140567 -

If you see someone trying out for Cheerleading, whos a lil overweight and not in good shape, but has the willpower and positive attitude to try out for it, are you gonna tell her "hey! you can't do that, you're a frickin fat ass! Get outta here!" ?
That's an example of how you can be negative, with "truth".

And you tried to judge his actions spiritually immoral, with truths regarding copyright laws, c'mon get real here. He didnt hurt anybody, jesus christ, -insert major eyeroll here-
yea, by sharing spiritual knowledge he gained happiness from, he broke a copyright law, oh my! Whatever shall we do?? We have a criminal on a hallucinogenic-drug message board in a spirituality and philosophy forum!! Gosh darn it! We should ban him!! He is detrimental to all of us! Oh dear! Somebody stop that bad bad man!  :rolleyes:   


--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Questions & Answers [Re: Lord_of_Fungus]
    #2140703 -

Did you really type all that ??  :eek:


That sure must have taken a long time..


I've scanned most of it.


Many of the concepts within the writing are very good.  Some are a little fuzzy.


I'm glad that you made the post though. 


For those who have read it, you may notice that the details of the entire text will be "fuzzy" in the end  [unless you have a special gift of photographic memory].. 

What you will be left with is somewhat of a back-bone concept.

The details you don't recall have been filtered by your own personal 'data filter'...  And that is totally ok.


In my opinion, this was a very uplifting post!  Thanx for sharing LoF ! 

:thumbup:





 


--------------------


Dei Gratia de integro,

Veni Vidi Vici:

In Nomine Domini..

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Questions & Answers [Re: Deiymiyan]
    #2140938 -

Yes, I agree, it's a lovely set of ideas.  I think the sharing of the charming spiritual concepts on a spirituality and philosophy forum outweigh any of your stupid little laws.  But just to make you happy I'll quote from something that is public domain. :wink: :tongue2:

The Tao that can be described in language is not the constant Tao; the name that can be given it is not its constant name.

Nameless, it is the origin of the myriad things; named, it is the mother of the myriad things...

These two emerge together but have different names; together, we refer to them as mystery: mystery of mystery and gateway to all subleties...

Stepping aside keeps one's wholeness intact.
Being empty makes one full.
Being worn out keeps one new.
In this way, the sage embraces the Tao and becomes a model for all the myriad things.
He does not flaunt himself, therefore he shines.  He does not insist that he is right, therefore his rightness is manifest.  He avoids self-importance, thus long he endures.  It is because he does not contend that none contend with him.

Those are from two of my favorite chapter/peoms in the Tao te Ching.

By the by, for those of you who were sharpening their witty sticks, yes, this does mean that I admit that I'm wrong.  Don't worry, I am.


--------------------
Don't worry, I'm wrong.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Shroomism i need a question answered
( 1 2 3 all )		 johnnyfive 5,506 47 10/06/02 09:07 PM
by johnnyfive
* Christian Rationalism. An answer ? MAIA 1,372 2 08/04/02 05:08 AM
by MAIA
* Analogies of Consciousness CosmicJokeM 2,354 10 05/30/01 08:15 PM
by fun_guy
* The Answers Are Here, Read For Yourself...
( 1 2 3 all )		 fireworks_godS 4,600 44 07/29/14 08:39 AM
by moonzo
* Is a straight answer possible?
( 1 2 3 all )		 Swami 3,843 53 04/22/02 04:48 AM
by JustFootsteps
* the answer
( 1 2 all )		 Kemist 1,619 36 10/21/02 04:30 PM
by Sclorch
* A question about God...
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 JohnnyRespect 6,621 76 05/13/03 11:20 AM
by 3MJ3
* reality created by consciousness
( 1 2 all )		 Lallafa 4,003 31 02/22/02 11:47 PM
by ArCh_TemPlaR

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
10,892 topic views. 1 members, 0 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.037 seconds spending 0.012 seconds on 18 queries.