Shanti Sena part 8

Shanti Sena – part 8

a wonderful sister or ours who many of you know loving dove recently was surprised to find several pictures of her posted on a website which i do not wnat to provide here. she asked me to tell you especially sisters who are naturists at gathereings that some people will take your picture even up close and then post it on various websites. she said she knew she was having her picture taken but never expected that to happen and she will never be nude at a gathering again and may never even go again. i say lets always gather and rejoice but always remember there is no privacy anymore from pictures.

“Tamara” <twilli...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:k1F3e.13434$S46.12321@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

> she said she knew she was having her picture taken but never expected that to happen and she will never be nude at a gathering again and may never even go again. i say lets always gather and rejoice but always remember there is no privacy anymore from pictures.

another whiner

Tamara wrote:

> a wonderful sister or ours who many of you know loving dove recently was surprised to find several pictures of her posted on a website which i do not wnat to provide here.

there have been others who didn’t want their pictures on web sites and had them removed by telling the folks at the web site they didn’t want them posted. it doesn’t always work but it is seems worth a try.

has there been any attempt to have them removed?

chuck b:-)

dove tried to do this and she went to talk to a laywer and was told that its perfectly legal and nothing can be done. she doesnt have a computer and i dont think theres any way to do this from anybody elses computer except the person who took the pictures and emialed them or what ever or who ever has the website. also she thinks theres other websites with her on them too but we couldnt find what the are.theres so much smut out there its terrible but she knows we have to try to be happy anyhow since there is nothing we can do about lots of things in life. :)

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 22:29:36 +0000, Tamara wrote:

> a wonderful sister or ours who many of you know loving dove recently was surprised to find several pictures of her posted on a website which i do not wnat to provide here.

A few years ago, the Elvis Presley Estate Was able to prevent a photographer from printing several pictures of Elvis in an article the Estate found objectionable. The Estate did not own the copyright to the photos. (Typically, the Photographer owns the copyright, unless working under a contract that gives the copyright to some one else ...) The Estate had legal claim to the photos, and no legal standing in determining their use, However, it was successfully argued that Estate had domain over the ‘image’ of Elvis Presley and could prevent it from being used in certain ways it those uses were contrary to the best interests of the Estate. The standing is limited. They can not stop some one from using photos of Elvis in a legitimate biography, and they have no real control on the specifics of how any given photo is used (unless they own the copyright), but they can stop images of Elvis from being used in, for instance, an Elvis themed porn site. It is an unusual ruling, a bit of a quirk in Intellectual Property Law. Many Lawyers, even IP lawyers, may not be familiar with it. But it could potentially be used to stop people from using photos taken at Gatherings on porn sites unless they get express permission from the person(s) in the photo. It would take a decent lawyer to get it going in the courts. Some one would probably need to collect funds to secure the services of a good lawyer, but over the coarse of a couple gatherings, that could probably be achieved ...

“Tamara” <twilli...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:k1F3e.13434$S46.12321@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

> a wonderful sister or ours who many of you know loving dove recently was surprised to find several pictures of her posted on a website which i do not wnat to provide here.

Would you please answer these questions;

Why would you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a group of 10-20,000 people?

Why do you run to a lawyer about somebody taking a picture of you or your friends tits but there’s a special order from the FS banning nudity in the area? It’s alright for you to break the law whenever you please, right? But when you don’t like something you run right to the law for protection? By the way, I don’t believe in the law. If you’re not going to live by the law don’t expect the law to protect you.

So, your friend decides that her tits just must be free in this group of 10-20,000 people. Why? Don’t play nieave and innocent.

Also, is it really a life altering event to see a set of tits on the internet? We hear about this shit constantly here on the AGRO. What’s the solution? Keep your fucking shit on, or don’t give a fuck who sees your tits.

Logan

Now this is from Thorne.

I am Logan’s wife. I type almost all of his longer replys to AGRO so when I have something that I don’t agree with or have to add I usually do.

This is what I have to say about the whole “tits on the internet thing.”

I have walked around the gathering topless myself and I look at things this way. If I didn’t expect people to look at my tits I wouldn’t walk around without a top on. It’s that simple.

The FS is also walking around taking pictures of tits, and whatever. So, most likely a whole bunch of FS officials and pigs have seen your tits too. Hell, they might even be passing them around a masterbating over them as we speak. And even if they are how does it really effect you.

It’s simple. If you don’t want pictures taken of your body don’t walk around naked. If you can’t make the association, then you deserve to be exploited.

Thorne

"Tamara" <twilli...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:k1F3e.13434$S46.12321@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

> she said she knew she was having her picture taken but never expected that to happen and she will never be nude at a gathering again and may never even go again.

The solution to this is obvious: Tell her to say to the photographer, “Strudlesmith, you may take all the nude pictures of me you like but only if you promise not to post them on the internet, OK?” After that everything will be utopia in her perfect little world again.

Rufus

nah....

carry some minearl or car oil on you and swab it on the camera lens...if the camera guy continues to take pictures without your approval...

just kidding

logan & thorne wrote:

> another whiner

OK. There is a Vision. Apparently there are quite a few people who have not seen it.

I’m not specifically intending to address that subject, but I would like to talk around it, by explaining the way I see the gatherings.

They are a chance for a relatively small amount of people (compared to all those, say in North America) to *escape* from the city for awhile. To escape from violence, from routine invasion of privacy, to escape from callous insensitivity.

They are a chance to create a community of positive ‘vibes’ if for only a few days.

Here’s what I see they are NOT: Not a party in the woods. Not a place where anyone can come and do whatever they want, IF what they want infringes upon others privacy or peace of mind.

gaia

Heyia Logan:

Do you only reply to posts when they give you an opportunity to speak of ‘tits’, ‘shit’, and/or ‘fuck’, are they key topics of interests, or are these words essential to your core vocabulary?

Do people in your circle find such language cute or refreshing, inspiring or clever, or what? Have you ever considered that gross vulgarity, esp. gratuitous toilet/locker-room talk, is heavily weighted with the psychological vocabulary of disrespect, hostility and abuse? Many people find such language rude or shocking or even belligerant. Is your use of such words meant to be deliberately offputting, or is it just incidental? I stopped referring to women’s breast’s as ‘tits’ when I understood that many women found the term crude and demeaning.

skye

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 20:19:10 -0800, gaia007 wrote:

> They are a chance for a relatively small amount of people (compared to all those, say in North America) to *escape* from the city for awhile. To escape from violence, from routine invasion of privacy, to escape from callous insensitivity.
> They are a chance to create a community of positive 'vibes' if for only a few days.

The problem here is that this all occurs in a very public place. It is on public land. Inside a tent you may have a reasonable expectation of privacy, provided the tent is opaque, but outside of that you are in a space that for all technical purposes is probably more public than Time Square.

Even in your own home, if you don’t want some one to seen you, you have to close the curtains, draw the shades, or some how cover or obstruct vision threw the windows. It is perfectly legal for some one to stand on the side walk or street and look threw the window, even if you happen to be prancing by the window naked, waving incense, or doing what ever else. Some places have laws or ordnances on voyeurism, but they are rarely used because you must prove they had ‘perverse’ intent, or something to that effect, and that is very difficult. Usually the person is just busted for trespass since they are almost never on the sidewalk, especially if they had perverse intent. If you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in front of an open window in your home, you certainly do not have in in the middle of a public forest.

That being typed, i do think there should be some restriction. A person probably should have some control over their own image, and be able to prevent its use in an unauthorised manor, it that use could cause harm to the person (having it posted on a porn site, when the person never even agreed to have their picture taken in the first place for instance). But that is relatively unexplored legal territory, and would likely involve a lot of very subtle distinctions...

“Tamara” <twilli...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:k1F3e.13434$S46.12321@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

a wonderful sister or ours who many of you know loving dove recently wassurprised to find several pictures of her posted on a website which i donot wnat to provide here.

ya, the guy we caught in MT2000 had a Shoulder bag. with a hole in it. and a Video camera. on a remote control in his Pocket..after I saw him , follow a few topless Sisters.and aiming the bag at them.. I saw a small hole and a Lens.. in it... we called a council, Approached the brother asked to see his bag..he refused. got his Camera bag Snatched out of his hands. he went Nutz, and attacked us.. so we DuctTaped him up for bit..and smashed the VCR tapes in his bag and Camera.. same guy...I bet..should of smashed his camera too...but, that would be Destroying Private property..and we could goto jail or get ticketed for that...always best to call a council of folkz together when approaching folkz with Camera’s ..they can go off on ya..like this wing nut did..on us..when ya snatch their film away....peace out

SpunDance/SunDance wrote:

> we called a council, Approached the brother asked to see his bag..he refused. got his Camera bag Snatched out of his hands. he went Nutz, and attacked us.. so we DuctTaped him up for bit..and smashed the VCR tapes in his bag and Camera..

Congratulations! What you have just confessed to is assault, unlawful arrest and detention, felony theft, and because the guy was required to do or promise not to do something to obtain his release
KIDNAPPING. http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/c500-599/5650000110.htm
You may of course try to raise “but we held a council!” in defense of your vigilantism at trial. “Consensus” = everyone consents (or at least doesn’t object). Your “council” foisted its ruling violently. Peace is not violence.

The jurisdiction of a Rainbow Counsel DIES at the edge of the CIRCLE. Rainbow Counsel is a Peace-able discussion group, NOT a legislative body or court of law with authority to rule over others without their permission! Please try to distinguish between society and government, for the two are not only different but have different origins...
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1776-1800/paine/CM/sense02.htm

Not to worry. Any prosecutor that wanted to pursue your felonies in court would have to look your victim up and obtain some evidence or corroboration, and that’s too much like work..... You can always say your confession (supra) was a lie to make yourself look important and powerfully protective of “rainbow women” in the hope of getting laid....

Loving Light,
Sanity Clause RE

gai...@earthlink.net wrote:

> OK. There is a Vision. Apparently there are quite a few people who have not seen it.

Saw it once... I think the last time I witnessed it was back in 2002... seems I saw some pholks following that vision in Michigan back then.

> I’m not specifically intending to address that subject, but I would like to talk around it, by explaining the way I see the gatherings.
> They are a chance for a relatively small amount of people (compared to all those, say in North America) to *escape* from the city for awhile. To escape from violence, from routine invasion of privacy, to escape from callous insensitivity.

Hmmm, are you sure it’s not the opposite ?? I know for myself I experience less of these things in my daily personal life than I do at Gatherings.

> They are a chance to create a community of positive ‘vibes’ if for only a few days.

The only time things are positive in my world at Gatherings is when I am at either Bread of Life or Jerusalem camp... maybe occasionally at Turtle Soup and Montana MUDD... but that is a small fraction of a percentage of the Gathering.

> Here’s what I see they are NOT: Not a party in the woods. Not a place where anyone can come and do whatever they want, IF what they want infringes upon others privacy or peace of mind.

Yup, that is what I thought “gatherings” were supposed to be... seems there is a whole different animal out there posing as Gatherings.

one of us wrote:

> there have been others who didn't want their pictures on web sites and had them removed by telling the folks at the web site they didn't want them posted. it doesn't always work but it is seems worth a try. has there been any attempt to have them removed?

when i was just a kid someone told me to never do anything i would not want published on the front page of the local newspaper...that sentiment has stayed with me for many years

:-)^2

logan & thorne wrote:

> Also, is it really a life altering event to see a set of tits on the internet? We hear about this shit constantly here on the AGRO. What’s the solution? Keep your fucking shit on, or don’t give a fuck who sees your tits.

I like my titties with beer. (thanx to Zappa for that one)

Shava_X wrote:

> The problem here is that this all occurs in a very public place. It is on public land. Inside a tent you may have a reasonable expectation of privacy, provided the tent is opaque, but outside of that you are in a space that for all technical purposes is probably more public than Time Square.

Boy, finally some sane and rational input.

> Even in your own home, if you don’t want some one to seen you, you have to close the curtains, draw the shades, or some how cover or obstruct vision threw the windows. It is perfectly legal for some one to stand on the side walk or street and look threw the window, even if you happen to be > prancing by the window naked, waving incense, or doing what ever else.

Actaully, in some cases you could be charged with indecent exposer if someone chose to file a complaint... and if a minor child was the person that sees such they might tell their parents and they might file a complaint... at which time you could be charged with sexual misconduct against a minor.

SO, even in your home you need to take precautions.

> Some places have laws or ordnances on voyeurism, but they are rarely used because you must prove they had ‘perverse’ intent, or something to> that effect, and that is very difficult. Usually the person is just busted for trespass since they are almost never on the sidewalk, especially if they had perverse intent. If you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in front of an open window in your home, you certainly do not have in in the middle of a public forest.

My question is why do people walk around naked any way ?? I did it for 2 years back in the 80s... then I thought “why am I doing this” ?? and stopped when I could not come to a rational answer within myself for my actions.

AND, what do people expect from doing this ??

> That being typed, i do think there should be some restriction. A person probably should have some control over their own image, and be able to prevent its use in an unauthorised manor, it that use could cause harm to the person (having it posted on a porn site, when the person never even agreed to have their picture taken in the first place for instance).

This brings to mind to mind the Dr. Laura Schlessinger case... she worked with this guy back in the 50’s when she was young and hot looking... she posed for some pictures that he never intended to post to the Internet... hell, back then the only “internet” was used by the military and there were no porn sites.

Well, the co-worker sold the pictures back about 5 years ago to a top notch porn site... they posted them... in fact this site has been sued by every celebrity from Aniston to Zane for nude picture... and every time the site owners won.

They won against Dr. Laura as well... even if you give verbal OK for a picture that is good enough... and if in public the person taking the picture does not have to ask if it is OK.

Solution: if you do not want pitcures of you taken in the nude... then keep your clothes on.

> But that is relatively unexplored legal territory, and would likely involve a lot of very subtle distinctions...

Public is public... hell, if pushed far enough the person that is photographed in the nude could be charged with public nudity... then what ??

Hint: grow up, put your clothes back on and wise up.

skye wrote:

> Heyia Logan:
> Do you only reply to posts when they give you an opportunity to speak of 'tits', 'shit', and/or 'fuck', are they key topics of interests, or are these words essential to your core vocabulary?

Hmmm, class can anyone pick out the anal retentive buttwad on this group ??

Tha Preacha Bill wrote:

> Public is public... hell, if pushed far enough the person that is photographed in the nude could be charged with public nudity... then what ??
> Hint: grow up, put your clothes back on and wise up.

ever go skinny dippin’?

:-)^2

Sanity Clause wrote:

> Congratulations! What you have just confessed to is assault, unlawful arrest and detention, felony theft, and because the guy was required to do or promise not to do something to obtain his release KIDNAPPING. http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/c500-599/5650000110.htm You may of course try to raise “but we held a council!” in defense of your vigilantism at trial.

Wow, thanx for posting this... I was gonna say something but I think this says a lot... boy, and pholks wonder why the USFS wants to control Gatherings ?? one look at this post and there is the answer in a nutshell.

> “Consensus” = everyone consents (or at least doesn’t object). Your “council” foisted its ruling violently. Peace is not violence.

Which has been a point I have made before... it seems that pholks have this misconception that a council called in such cases are some sort of law making body... last I check there is not one member of Congress that attends Gatehrings... and last I checked it is still only Congress that passes laws... not a handful of stoned and whacked out hippies on a crusade.

> The jurisdiction of a Rainbow Counsel DIES at the edge of the CIRCLE. Rainbow Counsel is a Peace-able discussion group, NOT a legislative body or court of law with authority to rule over others without their permission! Please try to distinguish between society and government, for the two are not only different but have different origins...

Maybe the duct taped guy was in the middle of the circle ??

> Not to worry. Any prosecutor that wanted to pursue your felonies in court would have to look your victim up and obtain some evidence or corroboration, and that’s too much like work..... You can always say your confession (supra) was a lie to make yourself look important and powerfully protective of “rainbow women” in the hope of getting laid....

I hope that there are no sisters out there that would fall for such bullshit.

Terry Richards wrote:

> ever go skinny dippin’?

Yup, the last time was back in NC87... cleaned up off of drugs and alcohol and such things became trivial to me... what is the fascination with this shit ?? I mean this is something bored teenagers do to push the boundries set upon them by their parents... not something adults do... unless they are still children.

Pictures are for those without viable memories.

“SpunDance/SunDance” <NoSpam@FU.org.> wrote in message news:82fbd$424fa8b7$944021aa$30935@STARBAND.NET...

Thats a great idea for people we don’t like. Just ducktape them! A few people in here need to be ducktaped a little more often IMO.

Bud Jr.

gai...@earthlink.net wrote:

> I'm not specifically intending to address that subject, but I would like to talk around it, by explaining the way I see the gatherings.
> They are a chance for a relatively small amount of people (compared to all those, say in North America) to *escape* from the city for awhile. To escape from violence, from routine invasion of privacy, to escape from callous insensitivity.

I think we need to be careful not to perpetuate any illusion that might result in new sisters thinking they have escaped Babylon or whatever. There is a distressing lack of prevention that goes on at gatherings. When walking where there may be broken glass why not just wear shoes and save calm some bandages?

The gatherings can’t both welcome everyone and exclude partiers or even voyerists with digital cameras. This is a reason for sister circles, to educate each other about issues of safety and how to prevent abuse and exploitation. I sense the pain of the sister who is the origin of this thread. It would be nice if not too many more sisters had to learn this lesson the hard way.

metta (lovingkindness)

Tha Preacha Bill wrote:

> > Not to worry. Any prosecutor that wanted to pursue your felonies in court would have to look your victim up and obtain some evidence or corroboration, and that's too much like work..... You can always say your confession (supra) was a lie to make yourself look important and powerfully protective of "rainbow women" in the hope of getting laid....
> I hope that there are no sisters out there that would fall for such bullshit.

I’ve noticed that a whole lot of humans would rather follow loud noises and bright colors than think, regardless the results.

Sanity

You don’t have to defend the photographer, O’Looney... there will still be plenty of porn for you to whack off over. It’s about the closest you can get to a real woman, so I can see why you may feel threatened about losing your porn source.

“Bud Lite” >hatc...@netcontacts.com> wrote in message news:zq%3e.3400$44.891@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...

> A few people in here need to be ducktaped a little more often IMO
> Bud Jr.

Hi Bud - er, I mean, ‘Rufus McPiddlegump’ - er, I mean, ‘Strudelsmith’ or whatever your “handle” is today. Why do you misbehave so pathetically? Is your life so devoid of meaning that you must get your jollies trolling newsgroups? Why don’t you take a second look and ask yourself why life has lost all significant meaning for you and consider how morbidly pathetic it has become?

Give it a rest. Maybe a light bulb will go off in that pointy little head.

*stella* wrote:

> I sense the pain of the sister who is the origin of this thread. It would be nice if not too many more sisters had to learn this lesson the hard way.

Many a time when I have seen people shooting film of naked sisters, I try to explain to them the potential downside to this sometimes the sisters get what I’m telling them and we tell the person filming to stop.

But just as often, the sisters says she doesn’t care who’s filming her.

My motto is, if I’m getting a picture taken when I’m naked, it’s only OK if it’s my personal friends. Otherwise, permission must be asked and will not be granted. And if I saly no, and someone dosn’t respect that, I’ll be yelling Shanti Sena real loud and my family will be there to help me.

Love,
Karin

“Karin Zirk” <kz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:42514319.1519@earthlink.net...

> My motto is, if I’m getting a picture taken when I’m naked, it’s only OK if it’s my personal friends. Otherwise, permission must be asked and will not be granted.

good answer Karin

I wish people had enought respect to ask before takeing picks, but thay don’t Hence my answer

logan

the elder two glass brothers, seymour and ... and... and.. or, darn. Well, the elder two glass brothers a la jd salingers novels and short stories, told their little sisters to always always be ladies. To be ladies even when they were alone in a room by themselves. <R>.

you know....i was thinkin’....all these brothers here that are sayin’ “what’s wrong wid a lil titties” hmmmmm.....what would THEY say if a nude photo of them ended up on a gay site????

hmmmmmm........

give ‘em hell sisters,

namaste;
bodhi

“Thunder” <thunder5...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:yp64e.1284$qD2.311@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

> Hi Bud - er, I mean, 'Rufus McPiddlegump' - er, I mean, 'Strudelsmith' or whatever your "handle" is today. Why do you misbehave so pathetically? Is your life so devoid of meaning that you must get your jollies trolling newsgroups?

Yes, I’m also Harvey Diddlesquat and about 8 or 10 others here over the years and it looks like my game is finally over on this NG. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. My agenda was just to help some people in here think for themselves a little and maybe even connect with reality a little better - not sure it happened but again, it was fun so thanks!

Sherlock

Harvey DiddleSquat wrote:

> My agenda was just to help some people in here think for themselves a little and maybe even connect with reality a little better - not sure it happened but again, it was fun so thanks!

As for me, you’re welcome!

Sanity RE

“Sanity Clause” <Sanity...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:bnk4e.518593$w62.118375@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

> As for me, you’re welcome!

Do you think Bud and Strudelsmith and Harvey and all those could have been Fred Fartalot too? Who else do you think they were?

Fred

“Thunder” <thunder5...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:yp64e.1284$qD2.311@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

> Give it a rest. Maybe a light bulb will go off in that pointy little head.

Good going thunder, you just silenced a lot of interesting fictitious characters on this newsgroup!

“Harvey DiddleSquat” <tom...@excite.com> wrote in message news:qqj4e.3894$44.1611@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...

> My agenda was just to help some people in here think for themselves a little and maybe even connect with reality a little better - not sure it happened but again, it was fun so thanks!

Sure, any time at all. I reckon you’ll reappear from time to time under any number of other monikers, so who ya kiddin, kiddo? Am I supposed to believe this was all a public service over the years? Gimme a break, eh?

Or don’t. Don’t take it personal ‘n’ all, after all, Howard St*rn, don’t exactly float my boat either. I don’t even like uttering his name. What is the point and the usefulness of stirring discontent and spreading disrespect?

Same old me. (Thunder)

“Tom Levigne” <tom...@excite.com> wrote in message news:lFk4e.293$go4.59@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

> Good going thunder, you just silenced a lot of interesting fictitious characters on this newsgroup!

You mean you? If so, I find many of your posts extremely offensive and rude. Do you post links to websites of nude Rainbow sisters in order to convince them not to go nude at gatherings since they might end up having their images up on the internet? You might just succeed with some...

Besides, if you silence yourself, that’s *your* call, not mine. Sheesh!

Anyhow, I think vaseline would be a little too easy to clean off an image recorder’s lens. Better something a bit more tenacious.

Thunder

Tha Preacha Bill wrote:

> > ever go skinny dippin’?
> Yup, the last time was back in NC87... cleaned up off of drugs and alcohol and such things became trivial to me... what is the fascination with this shit ?? I mean this is something bored teenagers do to push the boundries set upon them by their parents... not something adults do... unless they are still children.

what is wrong with being child like? gigling, rolling on the ground and simply having fun. when i go in a sauna, i prefer to be nude too and i really don’t like bubbles forming in my bathing suit when at the hot springs. there is nothing wrong with being naked as far as i can see. is there something wrong with all the girls who go topless on the beach? the funny thing is they can do w/o their bottoms more than their tops. it’s not like you can see anything < as opposed to men >

:-)^2

Fred Fartalot wrote:

> Do you think Bud and Strudelsmith and Harvey and all those could have been Fred Fartalot too? Who else do you think they were?

Ida no Fredzo. All them nutty Usenet handles blur together sometimes.

Sanity

Terry Richards wrote:

> what is wrong with being child like? gigling, rolling on the ground and simply having fun.

Nothing, but when I grew up I put childish ways behind me.

> when i go in a sauna, i prefer to be nude too and i really don’t like bubbles forming in my bathing suit when at the hot springs. there is nothing wrong with being naked as far as i can see.

there is nothing wrong with it... BUT, if you are nude in public and your picture is taken don’t get all bent out of shape about it.

> is there something wrong with all the girls who go topless on the beach?

Nope, BUT, those girls realize that if their picture is taken (especailly now-a-days) it just might end up on the Internet... if they did not want their picture taken as such they would not walk around as such... it all comes back around to a matter of persoanl responsibility... you know that stuff grown ups do.

> the funny thing is they can do w/o their bottoms more than their tops. it’s not like you can see anything < as opposed to men >

It all depends on the girl... PLUS, with Girls Gone Wild now they are more than willing to expose for the camera... BUT, even those girls have to take responsibility for their actions.

My whole thing in this is that the person in question KNOWINGLY did something that they knew would garner attention... and now that it has they are in a tizzy over that attention... where is this persons responsibility in all of this ?? it’s not like anyone held a gun to her head and told her to take her clothes off.

Remember, don’t sweat the petty things.
And don’t pet the sweaty things.

Tha Preacha Bill

Tha Preacha Bill wrote:

> My whole thing in this is that the person in question KNOWINGLY did something that they knew would garner attention... and now that it has they are in a tizzy over that attention... where is this persons responsibility in all of this ?? it’s not like anyone held a gun to her head and told her to take her clothes off.

i know there are sisters who don’t want to walk around showing their privates but will strip to the bone to take a dip with others. i personally don’t like my picture “taken” wet or dry. this is my normal

:-)^2

Tha Preacha Bill wrote:

> > what is wrong with being child like? gigling, rolling on the ground and simply having fun.

> Nothing, but when I grew up I put childish ways behind me.

i wish i never did grow up. i wish i was forever young. i don’t want to be concerned with “adult” things. things like, well...adult things. when i was about 8 years old i told myself that i was peaking intelectually. i knew that from that point on i was going to be inuated with more and more bs. like having to say columbus discovered america. when it wasn’t even called that until americus vepucious named it. forget the fact that ever picture i ever seen of columbus landing had folks standing in the bushes. forget the fact that eric the red had already been here. which brings me to another bone of contention...the entire bs of native indians. folks who are “native” but also came here across the bering straits. duh. something there doesn’t add up. indians, native americans, first nation people, indiginous people. people are people. and what happened to the giants...http://home.bellsouth.net/p/pwp-sysipus click below the pict of tara and the choose land of giants

:-)^2

Terry Richards wrote:

> when i was about 8 years old i told myself that i was peaking intelectually. i knew that from that point on i was going to be inuated with more and more bs. like having to say columbus discovered america. when it wasn’t even called that until americus vepucious named it. forget the fact that ever picture i ever seen of columbus landing had folks standing in the bushes. forget the fact that eric the red had already been here.

or that tobacco and coca were found in the hair of 3000 year old Egyptian mummys; two things that are only found in the “new world”

I think it’s funny that men like Preacha Bill HAS to chime in with his opinions whenever this subject comes up.

Fact is, men can’t really have an opinion on this subject because they don’t live in a society where there are pictures everywhere of their gender’s private parts hanging out like slabs of meat, where a walk down a dark street alone could be grounds for rape. Where every male’s “kindness” is a come-on for sex and cannot be trusted. Where every magazine, T.V. commericals, and billboards, flant sexuality, desire, and self-loathing.

Sisters want to be nude at a rainbow gathering to escape all this babylon neurotic nonsense...and here comes Fred Farts Alot hiding behind a bush with his camera taking pictures..... Bill says, if you don’t like it - tough! But what if Bill was doing time at a nasty prison where all the inmates were homosexual. In every cell there was photos of nude men, and walking down the tier the men would whistle and blow kisses at Bill and offer him sex ina humilating and degrading manner. Guys would line up and watch as Bill took a shower, and at night Bill would have to worry coming back from the rec yard for fear that somebody don’t grab him, bend him over, and “tag dat ass” (rape).

Boy, would you hear the Preacher complaining THEN!!! But ask any sister out there....and the situation i just described wouldn’t come close to the humilation, fear, shame, and self-loathing that sisters have to put up in society from half-wit males like the Preacha.

My advice to the sisters who find themselves being photographed without permission - yell SHANTA SEANA, pick up a hefty rock, and teach Fred Farts Alot a lesson in women’s impowerment in a male dominated society!

namaste;
bodhi

http://psychedelictourist.blogspot.com

“bodhi” <The_Psyched...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1112730050.562885.96650@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> I think it's funny that men like Preacha Bill HAS to chime in with his opinions whenever this subject comes up.

and what babylon neurotic nonsense Is Not at a gathering ?

logan

The local fucking moron wrote:

> I think it’s funny that men like Preacha Bill HAS to chime in with his opinions whenever this subject comes up.

I responded to a sister that was speaking rationally to the situation... in which she spoke of personal responsibilty... something you know nothing of.

> Sisters want to be nude at a rainbow gathering to escape all this babylon neurotic nonsense...and here comes Fred Farts Alot hiding behind a bush with his camera taking pictures..... Bill says, if you don’t like it - tough!

That’s not what I said... that is what you think I said... 2 totally opposite things... what I said was that if people want to do such that is their choice and therefore have to take responsibilty for their choices... simple as that.

> But what if Bill was doing time at a nasty prison where all the inmates were homosexual.

I have been in prison... did 18 months... not all the men there were homosexuals... are you saying that all men in prisons are homosexuals ?? your homophobic attitude is showing.

> In every cell there was photos of nude men, and walking down the tier the men would whistle and blow kisses at Bill and offer him sex ina humilating and degrading manner.

You watch too much TV... not all men in prisons are gay... OR, maybe this is your secret fantasy ?? Hmmm, the truth comes out.

> Guys would line up and watch as Bill took a shower, and at night Bill would have to worry coming back from the rec yard for fear that somebody don’t grab him, bend him over, and “tag dat ass” (rape).

Hmmm, and how long have you ahd these fantasies ?? boy, for someone that claims not to be gay you sure have an active gay imagination.

> Boy, would you hear the Preacher complaining THEN!!!

NOPE, becuz “IF” I were in such a place it would have been of my own doing... one does not end up in prison unless they broke the law... so, it would be a matter of personal responsibilty on my part... PLUS, you would not hear such becuz there would be no Internet to post with.

> But ask any sister out there....and the situation i just described wouldn’t come close to the humilation, fear, shame, and self-loathing that sisters have to put up in society from half-wit males like the Preacha.

Uhm, maybe you missed the post from the sister I was responding to... seems that not all sisters view it as you say... some actaully see it as a matter of personal responsibility... again, something you know nothing about.

> My advice to the sisters who find themselves being photographed without permission - yell SHANTA SEANA, pick up a hefty rock, and teach Fred Farts Alot a lesson in women’s impowerment in a male dominated society!

Yup, promoting more violence... typical... yup, then this person presses charges against the sister for assault with a deadly weapon and they get arreseted and sent to jail... smart choice.

Remember, don’t sweat the petty things.
And don’t pet the sweaty things.

Tha Preacha Bill

logan & thorne wrote:

> and what babylon neurotic nonsense Is Not at a gathering ?

At permit parties they keep all such stuff out... how they accomplish this is anyones guess.

Remember, don’t sweat the petty things.
And don’t pet the sweaty things.

Tha Preacha Bill

Tha Preacha Bill wrote:

> The local fucking moron wrote:

That was as far as I read. I don’t know who is dumber, this alleged and unknown “local fucking moron” or someone trying to get him/her to see the Light of reason by being insulting. This is really sad, IMHO of course.

Sanity

sorry that you would see a perfectly good analogy as a “gay fantasy”. We know how homophobic you are, so placing you in a situation where you would be exploited for your sex is the closest I can come up with a sister being nude at a Rainbow gathering and then seeing her image later on “Rainbow Girls Gone Wild”.

Being nude is natural. Taking pictures of nudity for the sole intent of commerical exploitation is not natural, and I would’ve thought you might have caught the drift iof this thread.... oh well...

maybe you’ll reincarnate as a woman next lifetime in order to understand the above.

namaste;
bodhi

logan & thorne wrote:

> and what babylon neurotic nonsense Is Not at a gathering ?

I think that was the whole point of the original post--that sisters should not expect this to be “Safe Space.”

Such places do exist, and the gatherings very definitely used to be “safe space.” You said it yourself awhile back, Logan--the gatherings were once one of the safest places to be, and now it’s one of the least safe.

Don’t get me wrong--it’s still one of the few places on earth I can walk alone at night without looking over my shoulder, without fear that someone will hurt me. For the most part, the gatherings are still pretty safe as far as personal safety is concerned. Not that Babylon doesn’t enter in to some degree, even there, of course. But by and large, people at gatherings, as a community of individuals, watch out for each other. I haven’t seen that ethic change much over time.

Property theft? Yes. That is certainly more prevalent than it used to be, but still not of Babylonian proportions. Common sense still holds true. Trust in Allah, but tie your camel. Camp in neighborhoods. That sort of thing.

I realize, Logan, that the safety you were talking about was the safety from the intrusion of the virtual police state that exists in most places in America. It was slow in coming to the National Forests, but it has a strong foothold now. Permit issues and national politics aside (War on Drugs, Patriot Act), it was only a matter of time before the sight of a cop at a gathering would become so frequent that there is a whole generation of kids who has never been to an annual gathering where there weren’t cops everywhere.

Yes, that is a huge change in the vibe and I think does fundamentally change the degree of freedom people feel at a gathering. To me, that is a painful thing. I wish it could go back to the way it was.

Another fundamental change is less easy to identify or name, but it does have to do with the nudity thing and safety. Time was that everyone could walk around naked and most people did to some degree. It was completely safe to do so. By that I mean that nobody made rude remarks to the sisters, nobody took their pictures and later posted them publicly and/or commercially.

The nudity had the innocence of childhood. It was an incredible freedom, very similar to the one that we enjoyed without cops. The freedom existed in the respect it was given. It was not sexualized.

What has happened over the years is that nudity at the gathering has become sexualized. It’s about loss of respect, and for all your protestations to the contrary, I know you know exactly what I’m talking about. The attitude towards nudity now is not a safe one. Sisters are at risk of being harassed and exploited if they take their clothes off. So most of us just don’t any more. And for some reason, most of the brothers don’t, either. It’s just not comfortable, all the way around.

It’s a huge loss, Logan, and one that I grieve. I don’t expect Bill to be able to get that, but you should, because you were there when that innocence was still alive. You can’t deny you were touched by it, as were we all. As cynical as you pretend to have become, you can’t deny it was part of the rainbow magic that captured our imaginations way back then.

Safe space. Rare and precious.

Tamara wrote:

> a wonderful sister or ours who many of you know loving dove recently was surprised to find several pictures of her posted on a website which i do not wnat to provide here.

What she can do is let me know of the web address and I can find out who owns it and then she can report them to the FCC because if there is ANY nude content they have to make ot to where kids cant get in and that means making passwords.

“Carla” <ca...@efn.org> wrote in message news:42534290.4A707766@efn.org...

> It’s a huge loss, Logan, and one that I grieve. I don't expect Bill to be able to get that, but you should, because you were there when that innocence was still alive. You can't deny you were touched by it, as were we all. As cynical as you pretend to have become, you can't deny it was part of the rainbow magic that captured our imaginations way back then.

Carla,

I agree with you 1000%. We’ve lost a lot of wonderful things and I feel we have just about 0% chance of recreating them in the US.

A safe, free space? Basic innocence and mellowness? No. We have to be concerned with constant servailence, interdiction, harrassment and just generally being fucked with for being ourselves. Tits is just the surface of the issue. At least she was able to go without risking her entire trip.

We just sent the last payment on our diesel coach. It’s going to take me a year or two to really get it together now. Risk that? As I stand here holding my 2 month old, Can’t do it.

NEWS FLASH: We Lost.

Are people trying to fight a holding action now? Stretch it out a few more years before we finally get fucked? I think I’ll take my fight to a different country where at least we won’t get bothered. Even hard core, old family that I know admit to me that gatherings that they’ve attended outside the United States have been very mellow. Like they were during the ‘70’s and early ‘80’s.

The RCMP’s quote about Rainbow is “that they are not concerned”

I have to look at what’s best for my children. Someone endangering my children would have a very high penalty to pay. All it takes is three words at a national gathering at this point to endanger my children. Even though lots of old family say, “Logan, you need to go to a gathering, please,” I say, “sure, just not inside the US. It’s not safe.” So I think I’m going to end up doing a stratigic withdraw to a place that’s more on to our general line of thinking. Going to where the water tastes like wine.

Logan

Carla wrote:

(amongst other things):

> it was only a matter of time before the sight of a cop at a gathering would become so frequent that there is a whole generation of kids who has never been to an annual gathering where there weren’t cops everywhere.

Great argument for trying to implement multiple, well-populated and simultaneous gatherings. When it starts costing many millions to effectively police gatherings, maybe they’ll figure it out then.

Thunder

Carla wrote:

> Don’t get me wrong--it’s still one of the few places on earth I can walk alone at night without looking over my shoulder, without fear that someone will hurt me.

Are you so sure ??

> For the most part, the gatherings are still pretty safe as far as personal safety is concerned.

I lived in Harlem for a year and in the worst part of DC as well... and I felt safer there than at what now poses as “gatherings”.

> Not that Babylon doesn’t enter in to some degree, even there, of course. But by and large, people at gatherings, as a community of individuals, watch out for each other. I haven’t seen that ethic change much over time.

That used to be true... now a days pholks would more than likely help others scam and steal form one another if the cut is right.

> Property theft? Yes. That is certainly more prevalent than it used to be,

Ya think ??

> but still not of Babylonian proportions.

ACTUALLY, if you take into account that even if 1,000 people get ripped off at a “gathering” with an attendance of 10,000 that is 10% of the total attndance... and lets not forget the violence... which is more prevelant at “gatherings” than theft.

> Common sense still holds true. Trust in Allah, but tie your camel. Camp in neighborhoods. That sort of thing.

It’s every man (and woman) for themselves now... even in “neoghborhoods” you can still get ripped off... just promise whoever sees you doing it a good cut and no worries.

> I realize, Logan, that the safety you were talking about was the safety from the intrusion of the virtual police state that exists in most places in America.

Not for long... keep signing permits and supporting those that do and there will be no more safety.

> It was slow in coming to the National Forests, but it has a strong foothold now. Permit issues and national politics aside (War on Drugs, Patriot Act), it was only a matter of time before the sight of a cop at a gathering would become so frequent that there is a whole generation of kids who has never been to an annual gathering where there weren’t cops everywhere.

Uhm, having been around for quite some time now (since 1979) it is my opinion (and take it for what it is worth... but others have voiced the same exact thing) BUT, the police started showing up in force even more so over the past 2 year at what posed as the “annual gathering” becuz there was a permit signed giving them free reign over the events.

NOW, maybe if pholks would stopp signing them “gatherings” could go back to business as usual.

> Yes, that is a huge change in the vibe and I think does fundamentally change the degree of freedom people feel at a gathering. To me, that is a painful thing. I wish it could go back to the way it was.

then do something about it... first you need to jump down off that fence you so aptly have have had your ass perched on for the past 3-4 years. Another fundamental change is less easy to identify or name, but it does have to do with the nudity thing and safety.

Ya know, here is the thing... if I know something is not “safe” and that if I do it something “not right” or “bad” will happen I will most likely NOT do it... BUT, if I do I need to... no, MUST TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR MY ACTIONS !!! no if, and or buts about it.

> Time was that everyone could walk around naked and most people did to some degree.

Yup, I’ll admit it... I used to... then I stopped using drugs and that all changed.

> It was completely safe to do so.

That’s funny... the only time I thought it was OK was when I was tripping... no real big worries then... or when I was drunk... hell, I figured everyone else around me was equally fucked up and didn’t really care... then I stopped using drugs... since then I have kept my clothes on.

> By that I mean that nobody made rude remarks to the sisters,

I personally have never made rude remarks about sister that were nude.

> nobody took their pictures and later posted them publicly and/or commercially.

My question is why wait until you are in the middle of the woods to shed your clothing ?? hell, if you feel that strongly about it walk down Main St. USA in your birhtday suit.

OH, that’s right public nudity is against the law... and if you chose to do it you could get arrested and thrown in jail... or fined... so, out in “babylon” taking personal responsibilty for ones actions is the norm... but God forbid that one should take such responsibilty while at a “gathering”.

> The nudity had the innocence of childhood. It was an incredible freedom, very similar to the one that we enjoyed without cops. The freedom existed in the respect it was given. It was not sexualized.

Yup, but then the NRMT came along and shit started changing... and Carla is one of the first people to stand up and defend them... and applaud the changes they have made... then flip flop and say that it is wrong what has happened... and flip flop again and say there is nothing that can be done to change what is happening.

Oh, the life of a fence sitter.

> What has happened over the years is that nudity at the gathering has become sexualized.

By whom ?? and how ?? please explain instead of throwing out generalities.

> It’s about loss of respect,

A loss of respect for anything “rainbow” was lost a long time ago... this is just one more twist in the downward spiral.

> and for all your protestations to the contrary, I know you know exactly what I’m talking about. The attitude towards nudity now is not a safe one. Sisters are at risk of being harassed and exploited if they take their clothes off.

Brothers as well... you seem to think that nudity is a problem only for sisters.

> So most of us just don’t any more. And for some reason, most of the brothers don’t, either. It’s just not comfortable, all the way around.

I guess I typed that last one a little to soon.

> It’s a huge loss, Logan, and one that I grieve. I don’t expect Bill to be able to get that,

Hmm, here we have the resident psychiatrist making assumptions about what a person she has never met feels... Hmm, I wonder how that works ??

Carla, I grieve daily for the loss of the “rainbow”... it is dead... and the NRMT and fence sitters such as yourself are the cause of it... so go cry in your milk deary... and when you get ready to come down off that fence let me know.

> but you should, because you were there when that innocence was still alive.

Uhm, HELLO !!! I’ve been around since 1979... that’s 26 years deary... I was there and watched idiots like Barry Adams, Garrick Beck, Brain Michaels, Jeff Kline, and fence sitters like yourself and the NRMT mouth piece kill “rainbow”... like I said when you are ready to come down off that fence just let me know.

> You can’t deny you were touched by it, as were we all. As cynical as you pretend to have become, you can’t deny it was part of the rainbow magic that captured our imaginations way back then.

What I love is that you speak in past tense “was”... why is that ?? is it becuz you know “rainbow” is dead ?? don’t feel to bad becuz it was fence sitters like yourself that helped kill it.

> Safe space. Rare and precious.

Yup, and until you get up off your ass and get down off that fence nothing will change becuz you have it good as long as your friends are in charge.

Remember, don’t sweat the petty things.
And don’t pet the sweaty things.

Tha Preacha Bill

Tha Preacha Bill wrote:

> Uhm, HELLO !!! I’ve been around since 1979... that’s 26 years deary... I was there and watched idiots like Barry Adams, Garrick Beck, Brain Michaels, Jeff Kline, and fence sitters like yourself and the NRMT mouth piece kill “rainbow”... like I said when you are ready to come down off that fence just let me know.

bill

Ive knowed carla for about 25 years

logan

JEEZ-US! hey preacha, how many days have you been off yer meds??

Tha Preacha Bill wrote: > I lived in Harlem for a year and in the worst part of DC as well... and I felt safer there than at what now poses as “gatherings”.

well, shit..take your white honkey ass back to Harlem and quit yer bitchin’!

> That used to be true... now a days pholks would more than likely help others scam and steal form one another if the cut is right.

Sorry, I seen so many lovin’ kind folks at last year’s Annual - folks that would take the shirts off their backs to give to you. The same folks that you trash now took you ragged ass off the streets in boston and brought you to a rainbow gathering. The nerve - where do you get off!

> ACTUALLY, if you take into account that even if 1,000 people get

ripped off at a “gathering” with an attendance of 10,000 that is 10% of the total attndance... and lets not forget the violence... which is more prevelant at “gatherings” than theft.

“When the pickpocket met the buddha - all he saw was the buddha’s pockets.”

I guess if you’re looking for violence, theif, ugliness, ect ect, you’ll find it at the gatherings. but if you look for love, compassion, kindness, peace, joy...well, you’ll find it there as well.

> It’s every man (and woman) for themselves now... even in “neoghborhoods” you can still get ripped off... just promise whoever sees you doing it a good cut and no worries.

What universe do you inhabit??

> Not for long... keep signing permits and supporting those that do and there will be no more safety.

As long as there is love - there will be safety. The permit didn’t take away the love.

> Uhm, having been around for quite some time now (since 1979)

when the rainbow family took your homeless ass off the streets of Boston and fed you, loved you, and nurtured you for 26 YEARS!!!!!

> it is my opinion (and take it for what it is worth...

an opinion from a hateful delusional individual who “didn’t get his way” and decides to trash those who have loved him...?? Sure...go for it, big guy...

> but others have voiced the same exact thing) BUT, the police started showing up in force even more so over the past 2 year at what posed as the “annual gathering” becuz there was a permit signed giving them free reign over the events.

Been sitting up around the parking lot counting cops?? Boy are you stupid.

> NOW, maybe if pholks would stopp signing them “gatherings” could go back to business as usual.

And what is business as usual?? Tearing down somebody’s accomplishments? Lying? Dirty tricks?? If tomorrow the permit was never signed EVER again, be sure that your karma would catch up with you in the forest. You have alot of explaining to do to alot of people.

> then do something about it... first you need to jump down off that fence you so aptly have have had your ass perched on for the past 3-4 years.

and what?? become a sad, lonely, angry asshole like you???

> ... then I stopped using drugs and that all changed.

yeah, now you’re SUPPOSE to take that lil blue pill your doctor gave you.

> That’s funny... the only time I thought it was OK was when I was tripping... no real big worries then... or when I was drunk... hell, I figured everyone else around me was equally fucked up and didn’t really care... then I stopped using drugs... since then I have kept my clothes on.

must have been the day you stopped “trippin’” and looked in the mirror.

> My question is why wait until you are in the middle of the woods to

shed

> your clothing ?? hell, if you feel that strongly about it walk down Main St. USA in your birhtday suit.

Boy, there is no intelligent life here....

> OH, that’s right public nudity is against the law... and if you chose to do it you could get arrested and thrown in jail... or fined... so, out in “babylon” taking personal responsibilty for ones actions is the norm... but God forbid that one should take such responsibilty while at a “gathering”.

JEE-US! Quit the lectures on personal responsiblity. When you head out to the woods this summer there will be some folks that might want to chat with you - even in the Ozarks. When they do...you lay ‘em this rap about taken personal responsibility for all the lying, stalking, and narcing you’ve been doing towards family. and crying ain’t gonna cut it1

> Yup, but then the NRMT came along and shit started changing...

Please, only you and a couple of other loonies here believe that NRMT crap. you admitted it yourself that you heard of the NRMT from the Forest Service.

> A loss of respect for anything “rainbow” was lost a long time ago... this is just one more twist in the downward spiral.

a downward spiral for you perhaps. Rainbow is alive and thriving.

You “watched”? or you were “told” by Forest Service personael.

> What I love is that you speak in past tense “was”... why is that ?? is it becuz you know “rainbow” is dead ?? don’t feel to bad becuz it was fence sitters like yourself that helped kill it.

“Rainbow is dead”...well, the Wake was yesterday...why are you still mopeing around??

> Remember, don’t sweat the petty things.
> And don’t pet the sweaty things.

and i have to wonder what you would want something so discusting as a sig line?? >

Safety is about how you feel.

I’ve come to realize that feeling safe has as much do do with your personality, world view and past experiences as anything that is happening outside your head.

Personally, I very rarely feel scared. Yet I notice that situations that I place my self in every day are perceived by other people as scarey situations. I don’t feel them that way at all.

I believe that my sense of security comes from always being aware of what’s going on around me and being able to adjust my words, actions and demeanor to fit the situation.

That being said, I am not in the habit of wandering around urban areas in the middle of the night while high on LSD without a buddy or a big dog. But I’ve put in hundreds of miles just me and my dog.

So here are my safety tips:

If someone is following you, don’t panic, but calmly relocate yourself to a very public place. If need be call someone to come get you.

When wandering around, dress appropriately. Shorts and a tank top is invisible in my local neighborhood but very out of the ordinary in other areas of San Diego.

Dress like a bag lady - this rule of thumb has allowed me to freely camp on the streets of downtown LA, Hollywood, and Oakland. When in Rome....

If you are under the influence at any level that you couldn’t work at, use the buddy system. It’s more fun anyway.

Relax. Sometimes, when things get weird, a relaxed APPROPRIATE joke mellows everything out.

Om. Just last month two middle aged guys started a fight in front of my house. I went out there and om’ed and they realized how silly they were being and broke it up all on their own.

Feel in your bones the knowledge that appearances do matter in some situations and if you act strong and confident, people will assume you are. It doesn’t always matter how you feel on the inside.

Be in the moment. What keeps you safe in one situation on one day, may not work in the next situation on the next day.

When someone doesn’t respect your wishes, ask a friend or two or twenty for help. One person’s NO isn’t as loud as the a group’s “NO.”

Asking for help when you need it is a sign of strength, not weakness.

Love,
Karin

“Tamara” <twilli...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:k1F3e.13434$S46.12321@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

> a wonderful sister or ours who many of you know loving dove recently was surprised to find several pictures of her posted on a website which i do not wnat to provide here. she asked me to tell you especially sisters who are naturists at gathereings that some people will take your picture even up close and then post it on various websites.

I’ve heard of this, it’s so sad to see the gatherings lose the innocence.

Being able to be naked and to have my family naked around me was the most amazing revelation.

That our bodies are all beautiful, weather one is old or fat or young and skinny.

That there is no shame in being naked.

The only shame is if someone watching is outside of the experience and sees it as dirty then it becomes embarassing and everyone gets dressed.

The gathering has spread out into many lives and people no longer gather who once gathered, they live rainbow in their lives and no longer gather. How sad.

Will we ever be together in that magical way again?

Much energy has been taken away from gatherings.

loveya,
Sister K

Sister K wrote:

> I’ve heard of this, it’s so sad to see the gatherings lose the innocence.
> Being able to be naked and to have my family naked around me was the most amazing revelation.
> That our bodies are all beautiful, weather one is old or fat or young and skinny.

Hmmm, Odd I say... the “Kathy” I have had e-mail communications with is a little more intelligent than to mispell a word like “whether”... just to let you know the weather is here, wish you were fine.

Hey pholks, just to let you know... Kathy Geary is someone that lives in NYC and was supposedly a friend of Da Boobie’s... according to her she has NEVER posted to this group... she has NEVER been to a Rainbow Gathering... although she has been to a couple of the picnics in Central Park.

Kathy is a very well educated person and from the e-mails I have gotten from her I can say without a doubt that she would never have used the word “weather” when meaning “whether”... this is something Da Boobie is well known for.

Just letting pholks know that this persona is none other than Da Boobie.

Tha Preacha Bill

Remember, don’t sweat the petty things.
And don’t pet the sweaty things.

paranoid?? Or just another excuse to harrass and stalk a woman?? I don’t believe that Kathy needs to come on A.G.R. and DEFEND herself, but I suspect the reason she hasn’t posted here in a while is because a “certain individual” becomes unreasonable and creepy whenever she does. I haven’t seen or talked to Kathy since the Republican National Convention, although I always hope to see her at the N.Y. potlucks each month. If Kathy wants to post here on ANY subject, why should it be a concern to you??

But seeing how you’re a raving paranoid who believes the worse in everybody, here what you should do. On google, next to each post is an option link. Click on it and then click to “reply to author”. Send you concerns directly to her.

> Hey pholks, just to let you know... Kathy Geary is someone that lives in NYC and was supposedly a friend of Da Boobie’s... according to her she has NEVER posted to this group...

Not true.

> she has NEVER been to a Rainbow Gathering... although she has been to a couple of the picnics in Central Park.

Again, not true. I believe she wrote about her experiences at one of the Annuals she attended on her website.

> Kathy is a very well educated person and from the e-mails I have gotten from her I can say without a doubt that she would never have used the word “weather” when meaning “whether”... this is something Da Boobie is well known for.

Really....you know her that well, eh??

> Just letting pholks know that this persona is none other than Da Boobie.

i doubt that Kathy is up to playing your sick games, but I will relay the message to her, and hope she replies to your sick accusations.

take you meds.

namaste;
bodhi

Don’cha think it’s funny that Bill is accusing you of faking the ID after I busted him trotting out that fake “Vinnie” and his allged girlfriend? You know, the ID he created to show he wasn’t a deadbeat father when in fact, he is.

Funny thing is, O’Leary claims that Kathy has never posted on AGR when in fact her posts go all the way back to May 2002 - including posts in which she included in her sig line the address to her web site. (check the archives) The “Vinnie” fake - and my hats off to you for unearthing that fraud - was really simple to forge. O’Leary has been stalking Kathy for some time now - Why? I don’t know....perhaps like Karin, Carla, Connie, and other sisters on AGR he thinks he can insult and intimidate ‘em with his abusive language.

namaste;
bodhi

Did you catch where he vowed to stalk Hawker around the net? Wonder what his ISP thinks of that...

ohlo...@hotmail.com wrote:

> Did you catch where he vowed to stalk Hawker around the net? Wonder what his ISP thinks of that...

It’s how these “jack booted thugs” around here operate. It you happen to disagree with their opinion that rainbow is corrupt and needs to be abolished, then they sic their attack dog O’Leary on you. The reason more folks are not speaking out against their negative assessment of Rainbow is because most peaceful folks don’t want to be harrassed,insulted, threatened, and stalked.... O’Leary, Marty, and Sanity, are the “brownshirts” of AGR. Look how they reacted to Hawker’s post.....anybody hear the breaking of glass???

namaste;
bodhi

Next Part

Previous Part

BB’s Home Page > alt.gathering.rainbow > Part 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5 > 6 > 7 > 8 > 9