From: justisaur@yahoo.com   
      
   On 1/21/2024 3:40 PM, Richard Silk wrote:   
   > I remember back when I was just learning to understand that people dream (as   
   a youth of around 3 or 4) that I tried to remember them all as well.  To this   
   day, I can remember some *very old* dreams (dreams from *long ago*) with   
   fairly decent clarity (   
   like the two-story hay bales with a hatch between the floors) although I   
   started noticing *in my adult year* that certain dreams seemed to have a "real   
   life analog" that occurred typically within 24 to 48 hours.  (Then came the   
   "out of body" / "astral    
   body projection" experiences, and that *really* piqued my interest!)   
      
   I can remember a few bits of a couple dreams I had when I was around 15,   
   and a couple particularly from around 7 or so.  I don't really have time   
   right now, but I'll try to write what I remember of them here at some   
   point.  It's possible I've written them down at some point, I'll have to   
   look through my old files.   
      
   > So when I discovered alt.dreams, well, it seemed like practically a "god   
   send" that I could *journal* the dreams, then see if any of them actually   
   *did* "come true" in real life.   
      
   I've had a number of deja vu moments that I swear I dreamed about   
   sometimes decades before, but unfortunately don't think I wrote them   
   down.  I may have done one, again I'll have to look through the old files.   
      
   > J:> "Is it even helpful to remember and analyze them. I don't know."   
   >   
   > The dream I had of October 7th of 2023 was rather amazing, but by the time   
   I'd posted it, apparently, the news of the invasion of Israel from the Gaza   
   strip was already world news.  It doesn't matter that I posted the dream   
   *before* turning on the news:   
     the news went public *at about the time* I was having the dream.  (It's the   
   idea of posting a dream *before* an event occurs that I find a fascinating   
   possibility.)   
      
   Ah, but that's not an analysis, and were those dreams of any help?   
      
   >   
   > J:> "There is some entertainment to be had from them, but it also feels   
   somehow wrong in a way I can't put my finger on."   
      
   > Well, I *sorta* get that.  It's the near anonymity of alt.dreams that I   
   appreciate:  Sure, I can post some *wild* stuff that would *normally* get a   
   person "committed" (back before the Left dumped out all the criminally insane   
   into the streets as    
   homeless addicts) but in alt.dreams, it's simply "just a dream," and as such,   
   open to speculation / interpretation (even ridicule, but fortunately, there's   
   been none of that visible in all the years I've been posting here.  The "bad   
   folk" tend to simply    
   disappear, and only the auto-spammers leave any actual "defecation" in the   
   space.)   
      
   I doesn't look to be anyone here but you and Sandy at this point. Well   
   and me, but one never knows when someone will join or rejoin, or find   
   some Usenet discussion in the future, or it will be incorporated into   
   the Superintelligent AI of the future. :)   
      
   > Other than that, I am unable to see anything "wrong" about posting dreams.    
   To me, it's analogous with the public"block chain" that's the core engine of   
   bit-coin technology.   
      
   I think it's a mix of something like unnecessarily reliving the horror   
   or nightmares, perhaps damaging one's psyche', and peeking behind the   
   curtain in the theater of life.  Either way "Things that man was not   
   meant to know."   
      
   It gives me a certain vibe that the insane give off.   
      
   > "gun violence"   
      
   I'm a pragmatist.  Statistically other countries that have banned   
   general ownership of guns have had beyond significantly less both   
   violence and suicides, and it's even evident in places within the US   
   where gun laws are stricter.   
      
   So in general I'm for banning guns, as I prefer to keep deaths as low as   
   possible.   
      
   To freedom, having regular guns doesn't really have much impact as when   
   the laws were written there were no, tanks, air planes, helicopters,   
   chemical and nuclear weapons, which put guns as useful as a rock vs.   
   those in power.   
      
   However, there is the significant outlier of Switzerland, which has a   
   requirement of both military service and gun training, which has one of   
   the lowest rates of any violence.  I'd prefer to go that way instead of   
   the worst of both worlds we're in in the US, and it seems it would be   
   easier to get us to bans than full military service.   
      
   > Is [X] "right" or "wrong"?  No judgment.  Feel the peace of that position?   
      
   Interesting.  I'm coming more from the right or wrong of effectiveness.   
      
   > I *do* seem to recall some type of images of homeless folk on sidewalks.    
   *Much* (not "all") of California appears to be run by agnostics or atheists   
   these days.  At least, that's how it appears in all forms of nightly news:    
   Fox says it "out loud"    
   while those MSM type outlets say it tacitly (by "not" saying it, or by   
   "looking/pointing away from" the conditions that *public, government/governing   
   policies* are causing.)   
      
   I'm in the capital, a lot more of the right up here, and a lot of right   
   in the rural areas, which mirrors the rest of the country, but they have   
   much less pull on california than they do nationally.   
      
   It was also Regan who dismantled the mental institutions here, which   
   started it everywhere else, a republican.  There was a lot wrong with   
   those though, a lot of abuse of people putting away inconvenient people   
   and keeping people there as a way to enrich the institutions.   
      
   I don't really know which was better.  It feels scarier out there, but   
   statistically crime is way down.   
      
      
   > J:> "The only thing that's really stuck with me is what my grandfather   
   taught me in his [self-proclaimed] religion of the "Brick church" which is to   
   follow the golden rule of 'Do onto others as you would have them do unto you.'   
   Which is basically what    
   your link is about."   
   >   
   > Trying to follow that:  a "Brick church" is the *consequence* of enough   
   *people* congregating together as a common mind (as in Baptism into the Holy   
   Spirit of Jesus Christ) which is yet another example of how "Reality Conforms   
   to Thought":  as the    
   congregation grows, the meeting in homes migrates to meeting in a common   
   location which migrates to the building of a "Brick church" (etc.)   
      
   Sorry, it's a bit of an inside joke that started with his enlistment   
   into the Navy when asked to declare his church he replied "brick." Which   
   meant he didn't have a preference for any and was fine for any.  I am to   
   understand that was a common 'joke' of the time, but I'm not sure, I   
   never did any research into it.  I'm not sure I'm explaining that very   
   well.   
      
   I realize now that I pretty much just imprinted on that, much as many if   
   not most do exposed to whatever religion is about them.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)