BBC Blog Network

User Profile

padushka

Listed below are comments made by padushka between Tuesday, 23rd June 2009 and Sunday, 19th July 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Was the Moon landing a hoax? 5:43pm on 19 Jul 2009 One of the guests on today's show retold the story that Yuri Gagarin supposedly said, "I don't see any God up here." It's been reported that he in fact never said this, and was actually a committed Orthodox believer.

This is from Pravda newspaper:

"There are speculations in the media that from orbit Gagarin made the comment, "I don't see any God up here." However, no such words appear in the verbatim record of Gagarin's conversations with the Earth during the spaceflight. In a 2006 interview a close friend of Gagarin, Colonel Valentin Petrov, stated that Gagarin never said such words, and that the phrase originated from Nikita Khrushchev's speech at the plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, where the anti-religious propaganda was discussed. In a certain context Khrushchev said, "Gagarin flew into space, but didn't see any God there"."
Bible codes and gay genes 03:27am on 29 Jun 2009 GayChristian: It seems Paglia gives an opposing view to nearly all the points that you mention. Thankfully, you can't write her off as a "fundamentalist" or as a "self-hating closeted gay" or as a "homophobe". Don't you feel uncomfortable that a lesbian atheist has to remind you that homosexuality "is indeed condemned by the Bible, despite the tortuous casuistry of so many self-interested parties, including clerics". I've never, ever, ever understood people who can read the Bible and then with a straight face proclaim man on man sex as aye-ok. Why try to have your cake and eat it? Why the need to say you are a Christian? Why not just be a humanist, or a 'nice person'? Here's a famous quotation from a guy who doesn't even believe in a Creator God, the Dalai Lama: "if you are a Buddhist, homosexuality is wrong. Full stop."* Yup. Can't get much clearer. So, when it comes to the Christian ("all things were made by Him"-John1) conception of God, how could anyone argue that it wouldn't matter to him what we do with our bits. Jesus constantly talked of "porniea" and that it would bar us from His kingdom. I, and quite a few of my friends, have done the whole sex with men merry go round for years. Sometimes fun, for sure. Unsatisfying eventually, as you can imagine. But not once did we try to justify our actions as "Christian". We all knew the truth.

I think you misunderstood a few things Jim was saying. I didn't get that he thought the boys' school had any link to this, but rather not fully connecting to the males in his family, if I've read it right.
There are so many other things I could argue, but you have the same Google as I do. To try to spin AIDS as less than predominantly a gay disease just goes against every piece of data so far. Think about it for a moment. 2-3% homosexuals in the population yet they average around 70% of cases. That is an absolutely astounding figure ! No way that can be spinned.

Jovial asked why Satinover hadn't done any genetic research himself. Why the hell would he waste his time when gay scientists have been furiously trying for the past 20 years to come up with something and the net result - nada.

One last atheist gay that would have made William's panel complete is Peter Tatchell. Look up his "Homosexuality: It isn't natural" article. Fascinating quotations -

"Many studies suggest social factors are also important influences in the formation of sexual orientation. These include the relationship between a child and its parents, formative childhood experiences, family expectations, cultural mores and peer pressure.

By about the age of five or six, a combination of biological and social influences seem to lay the basis of an individuals sexual orientation. Because our sexuality is fixed at such an early age, many lesbians and gay men feel they have been homosexual all their lives and therefore mistakenly conclude that it must be genetic and that they were born queer."

What is, however, certain is that if gayness was primarily explainable in genetic terms we would expect it to appear in the same proportions, and in similar forms, in all cultures and all epochs. As the anthropologists Clellan Ford and Frank Beach demonstrated in Patterns Of Sexual Behaviour (1965), far from being cross-culturally uniform and stable, both the incidence and expressions of same-sex desire vary vastly between different societies."

"The homophobes are thus, paradoxically, closer to the truth than many gay activists. Removing the social opprobrium and penalties from queer relationships, and celebrating gay love and lust, would allow more people to come to terms with presently inhibited homoerotic desires. In this sense, it is perfectly feasible to promote lesbian and gay sexuality and make someone queer. Individuals who have a homosexual component in their character, but are inhibited by repression or guilt, definitely can be encouraged to acknowledge their same-sex attraction and act upon it."

I think I'll throw my lot in with the lesbian pagan and the gay activist. Fair play to them for having the guts to tell the truth and for being Satinover's fun bedfellows.

* [In reality, Tibetan Buddhism is not a values-free system oriented around smiles and a warm heart. It is a religion with tough ethical underpinnings that sometimes get lost in translation. For example, the Dalai Lama explicitly condemns homosexuality, as well as all oral and anal sex. His stand is close to that of Pope John Paul II, something his Western followers find embarrassing and prefer to ignore. His American publisher even asked him to remove the injunctions against homosexuality from his book, "Ethics for the New Millennium," for fear they would offend American readers, and the Dalai Lama acquiesced. New York Times, 2003]
Bible codes and gay genes 01:03am on 29 Jun 2009 Apologies for the length of this post, but I remembered I have some quotations saved from a few years back by Camille Paglia and, having re-read them, found it hard to leave many out; they all seem relevant to issues brought up on this thread. Paglia is a pretty well-known professor and cultural critic in the US, a feminist, an atheist, a lesbian - by choice, and a proponent of man-boy love ("I fail to see what is wrong with erotic fondling with any age." Google her for more on that.) But it's interesting that if she had been a guest on Sunday Sequence along with Satinover on the topic of gay identity and whether gays can change, they would have had very little to disagree about! A pagan and a Jew, both telling it like it is.
Here are a few of her 'best bits' (most from her book "Vamps and Tramps", 1994, and Salon magazine). [When she writes that gay is a choice, I think she means choice but not volition. A guy definitely doesn't choose in a conscious way to be gay - I certainly didn't - but as she says it's an adaptation, like a 'best/only possible choice to the circumstances I find myself in'.]

...

"I think the only way true tolerance will come is for people to be convinced that bisexual responsiveness is a perfectly achievable ideal. That's what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to convince people that, "So you had sex with another man, oh, big deal." You don't want a situation where [taunting voice], "Oh you had sex with another man? You're really gay! And the fact that you're with a woman now, oh, you're secretly homophobic. You're suppressing you're real instincts." That kind of talk coming from gay activism is shallow, stupid, and self-defeating.

I've been very disappointed with the direction of gay thinking after Stonewall. I would have thought that gay writers would take a much more liberal posture, a kind of "let's try this, let's try that." To me what has happened is very symptomatic of a fanatical mind-set. There's the idea that [mocking tone] "Oh, you can't change homosexuality, it's innate, how dare you [suggest otherwise]! You're homophobic." Please! If there are gay men who want to develop their ability to respond to women, why not let them? What we should be arguing is the fluidity of sexual response, not its harnessing in these false, opposed categories."

...

"I see lot of contemporary homosexuality as being a search for something that was simply part of a larger, more cohesive fabric of life earlier, up to about 100 years ago. To me it's not simply, "Oh, homosexuality was oppressed before and now it's free to express itself." I don't see that."

"As a world culture, we have very little interest in groups of women competing with each other. I have often felt that the root of this pleasure is the contemplation of men fighting with each other, rolling over each other, showing off their bodies, pushing and shoving, putting their arms all around each other. There is something here that is very satisfying to us.

I wouldn't take the queer theory attitude, "Oh it's all suppressed homosexuality." That's stupid. But rather, that homoerotic impulses are naturally part of heterosexuality. It's natural for men to have that kind of relationship with one another, the kind of intimacies that go on in the battlefield, among men at work, men in crews. The loss of that is another thing that contemporary homosexuality is trying to remedy. Boys used to spend the whole day with their fathers and brothers and so on. And now the father goes to work, and the boys are in school. There are these huge, huge gaps in the culture."

...

"After the American Psychiatric Association, responding to activist pressure, removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 1973, psychological inquiries into homosexuality slowly became verboten. To even ask about the origins of homosexuality was automatically dubbed homophobic by gay studies proponents in the 80s and 90s. Weirdly, despite the rigid social constructionist bias that permeated the entire left, gay activists in and out of academe now leapt on the slightest evidence that could suggest a biological cause of homosexuality.
I myself believe (as I argued in No Law in the Arena in Vamps & Tramps) that everyone is born with a potential for bisexual responsiveness and that exclusive homosexuality is an adaptation to specific social conditions."

...

"Which brings us to another subject, the furor this past month over a report by psychiatrist Robert Spitzer of Columbia University that, from his rather cursory interviews with 153 men and 47 women, the "reparative therapy" endorsed by conservative Protestant groups can in some cases change sexual orientation from gay to straight. That Spitzer had helped to persuade the American Psychiatric Association to drop the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 makes his current study harder to dismiss.

Nevertheless, screeching gay activists immediately descended on the media to denounce and defame Spitzer as a tool of the far right. This was a good example of the fascist policing of public discourse in this country by nominal liberals who have become as unthinkingly wedded to dogma as any junior member of the Spanish Inquisition. Why should the fluidity of sexual orientation threaten any gay secure in his or her identity?
What gay ideologues, inflated like pink balloons with poststructuralist hot air, can't admit, of course, is that heterosexuality is nature's norm, enforced by powerful hormonal cues at puberty. In the past decade, one shoddy book after another, rapturously applauded by p.c. reviewers, has exaggerated the incidence of homosexuality in the animal world and, without due regard for reproductive adaptations caused by environmental changes, toxins or population pressure, reductively interpreted bonding or hierarchical behavior as gay in the human sense.

Because of the unblushing dishonesty of strident activists and campus "queer theorists," whose general knowledge of science would fit into Marie Antoinette's thimble, we are ironically further from understanding homosexuality than we were in 1970, when popular culture was moving into the seductive gender-bending era typified by the brilliant David Bowie. With the emphasis on external "politics," all respect for psychology has been lost. Did no one notice the grotesquely misogynous dialogue put into gay men's mouths on "Queer as Folk"? That kind of catty aversion to the female body is learned, not inborn, and it can be partly traced to early family relations, before personal memory has even gelled.
My political philosophy as a libertarian says that government has no business intervening in any consensual private behavior. My professional ethic as a thinker and writer, however, says that self-knowledge is our ultimate responsibility. In vicious attacks like the one on Spitzer, gay activists, with all their good intentions, are aligning themselves with the forces of ignorance and repression. Too little reliable work is currently being done in homosexuality because free inquiry cannot be conducted in a politicized atmosphere of harassment and intimidation."

...

"If a gay man wants to marry and sire children, why should he be harassed by gay activists accusing him of 'self-hatred'? He is more mature than they are, for he knows that woman's power cannot be ignored. If counseling can allow a gay man to respond sexually to women, it should be encouraged and applauded, not strafed by gay artillery fire of reverse moralism."

...

"Homosexuality is not normal. On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm. Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction. No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculoushomosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait.We should be honest enough to consider whether homosexuality may not indeed be a pausing at the prepubescent stage where children anxiously band together by gender.current gays cant insist that homosexuality is not a choice; that no one would choose to be gay in a homophobic society. But there is an element of choice in all behavior, sexual or otherwise. It takes an effort to deal with the opposite sex; it is safer with your own kind. The issue is one of challenge versus comfort"

...

Serious problems arise when scientific inquiry is obstructed, as in the inflated myth of the "gay gene", by an excessive concern for gay sensitivities. The self-policing by the indulgent major media on these matters has come perilously close to censorship. True gay intellectuals should encourage open discussion of the genesis of homosexuality, a complex subject that has been in limbo, a political blackout, for 20 years. We must demand equality before the law, but that does not excuse us from the philosophic obligation of self-knowledge. Heterosexuality and homosexuality need to be objectively studied by psychologists and historians as interrelated dynamic systems that change from culture to culture."

...

"For the past decade, the situation has been out of control: responsible scholarship is impossible when rational discourse is being policed by storm troopers, in this case gay activists, who have the absolutism of all fanatics in claiming sole access to the truth."

"In the Eighties and early Nineties, displaced anxiety over the horror of AIDS turned gay activists into rampaging nihilists and monomaniacs, who dishonestly blamed the disease on the government...AIDS did not appear out of nowhere. It was a direct result of the sexual revolution, which my generation unleashed with the best of intentions, but whose worst effects were to be suffered primarily by gay men. In the West, despite much propaganda to the contrary. AIDS is a gay disease and will remain one for the foreseeable future."

"I believe that the shocking toll of AIDS on gay men in the West was partly due to their Seventies delusions that a world without women was possible. All-male energies, unbalanced and ravenous, literally tore the body apart."

"We should be aware of the potentially pernicious intermingling of gay activism with science, which produces more propaganda than truth. Gay scientists must be scientists first, gays second."

"No eroticism can be complete that denies the power of the female principle..."

"The gay activist establishment has been stupid and narrow in the way it has conducted its civil rights campaign... There is no gay leader remotely near the stature of Martin Luther King, because black activism has drawn on the profound spiritual traditions of the church, to which gay political rhetoric is childishly hostile. Shrilly self-interested and doctrinaire, gay activism is completely lacking in philosophical perspective. Its sorrow became the only sorrow, its disease the only disease."

"Homosexuality is not 'normal.' On the contrary, it is a challenge to the norm; therein rests its eternally revolutionary character Queer theorists - that wizened crew of flimflamming free-loaders - have tried to take the post structuralist tack of claiming that there is no norm, since everything is relative and contingent. This is the kind of silly bind that word-obsessed people get into when they are deaf, dumb, and blind to the outside world. Nature exists, whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single, relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction. Penis fits vagina; no fancy linguistic game-playing can change that biologic fact."

"Given the intense hormonal surge of puberty, the total absence of adult heterosexual desire is neither normal nor natural. "

"I was the only openly gay person at the Yale Graduate School (1968-1972), a candor that was professionally costly. That anyone with my aggressive and scandalous history could be called 'homophobic,' as has repeatedly been done, shows just how insanely Stalinist gay activism has become."

"The 10 percent figure, servilely repeated by the media, was pure propaganda, and it made me, as a scholar, despise gay activists for their unscrupulous disregard for the truth. Their fibs and fabrications continue, now about the still-fragmentary evidence for a genetic link to homosexuality and for homosexual behavior among animals."

"I used to feel that the old psychoanalytic model was inadequate in describing the origins of homosexuality as, essentially, arrested development. But it was true that all my gay male friends had powerful, dominating mothers in the prototypical style."

"ACT-UP won substantial practical victories in its mobilizations against the political and medical establishment, but its most crazed extremists also did enormous damage to the public image of gay men that will take a generation to undo. Flashed across the nation's television screens were contorted male faces, raging, ranting, bawling like infants - 'Me, me, me!'"

Total attention and an instant cure were demanded, even though science had failed to find a cure for any virus, even the common cold.. .Meanwhile, more women were dying yearly from breast cancer than had succumbed to AIDS in America over a decade. In April 1991, a monsoon hit Bangladesh and killed 125,000 people over one weekend - exactly the number of American AIDS casualties to that point. I angrily asked a friend, 'Where is the quilt for those who died in Bangladesh?' ACT-UP was selfishly selective in what it got angry about..."

"...ACT-UP's hysteria made me reconsider those vilified therapists and ministers who think change of homosexual orientation is possible and whose meetings are constantly disrupted by gay agitators. Is gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not wish to be gay? Sexuality is highly fluid, and reversals are theoretically possible. However, habit is refractory, a phenomenon obvious in the struggle with obesity, smoking, alcoholism, or drug addiction... Helping gays learn how to function heterosexually, if they so wish, is a perfectly worthy aim. We should be honest enough to consider whether homosexuality may not indeed be a pausing at the prepubescent stage when children anxiously band together by gender."

"Heterosexual love, is in sync with cosmic forces. Not everyone has the stomach for daily war with nature."

"Men who shrink from penetration of the female body are paralyzed by justifiable apprehension, since they are returning to our uncanny site of origin. It is not male hatred of women but male fear of women that is the great universal."

"Today, when a freshman has an affair with another girl all the campus social-welfare machinery pushes her toward declaring herself gay and accepting and 'celebrating' it. This is a serious mistake... It is absurd to say that one, two, or more homosexual liaisons make you 'gay' - as if lavender ink ran in your veins. Young women are often attracted to each other during a transitional period when they are breaking away from their parents, expanding their world-views, and developing their personalities. To identify these fruitful Sapphic idylls with a permanent condition of homosexuality is madness, and the campus counselors who encourage such premature conclusions should be condemned and banished. They are preying, for their own ideological purposes, on young people at their most vulnerable."

...

In a response to a letter re: Gay Youth Pride Day:

"The psychological turmoil of adolescents at sexual awakening cannot be underestimated. Everything is in flux impulses, fears, dreams, with simultaneous longings for independence and for protection by adults. What I dislike about the push of organized gay activism into high schools is that it imposes a rigid political paradigm on a stage of life that is in rapid, painful transition for everyone, gay or straight.
As an equity feminist, as well as an open lesbian, I oppose special protections for any group, including my own. Teachers and administrators should obviously not permit physical harassment of any kind on school property, but verbal epithets, however offensive or hurtful, have First Amendment protection. The PC thought police, having been defeated on college campuses after the court-ordered banning of the fascist speech codes, are now oozing their way into high schools. Hate cannot be stopped by authoritarian manipulation but by slow social change, which may take generations.
The Internet has been a boon to lonely gay teens in geographically remote areas but, of course, computers still remain largely a white middle-class luxury. I find very suspicious the statistics about teen suicides with which gay activists badger the media. If gay teens are indeed attempting suicide at a higher rate than straight teens, perhaps more questions need to be asked about the genesis of homosexuality. The intolerable sense of isolation may precede the homosexuality, rather than vice versa.
I have written repeatedly about my theory that homosexuality is an adaptation, rather than an innate trait, and that it is reinforced by habit. With its cant terms of oppression and bigotry, gay activism, encouraged by the scientific illiteracy of academic postmodernism, wants to deny that there is a heterosexual norm. This is madness. We need more art and history and less politics in primary education. Art gives the young the psychological and spiritual tools for authentic self-discovery. And art is where sexual dissenters have contributed the most to the human record.
In short, I agree with your concern about the Trojan Horse of gay activism, which is being dragged into high schools under the false flag of compassion. Young people who oppose homosexuality for any reason have a constitutional right to express their views, in or out of the classroom. Whatever they may privately believe as individuals, educators have a professional obligation to remain ideologically neutral in their treatment of students."

...

"After a period of optimism about the long-range potential of gay men's one-on-one relationships, gay magazines are starting to acknowledge the more relaxed standards operating here, with recent articles celebrating the bigger bang of sex with strangers or proposing "monogamy without fidelity" -- the latest Orwellian formulation to excuse having your cake and eating it too.

Again, it is my libertarian position that everyone is free to have consensual sex with anybody else and in any style and quantity, as long as the rights of others to enjoy public space are not infringed upon. But it's grotesque for gay men to avoid asking themselves searching questions about their addiction to cruising. The strange is always a flight from the oppressively too-familiar. It's an escape from "HOME and MOTHER," as D.H. Lawrence said about Herman Melville's sea voyages."

"Since psychotherapy is now ruled by the wishy-washy "I'm OK, You're OK" school and since academe is infested by supine apologists for queer theory (a bag of bombast by ignoramuses who got their jobs by kissing Michel Foucault's bony ass), only conservatives, alas, are providing any challenge whatever to the prevailing, simplistic, Pollyanna assumptions about homosexuality."

"Gayness is certainly not innate, and those who trumpet that science has proved otherwise should be condemned. That gayness may be intricately related in childhood development to other personality traits, like shyness, aggression or artistic talent, is a more likely hypothesis.

I have been struck, in my brief encounters over the years with a half-dozen prominent gay male activists, by the frightening coldness and deadness of their eyes. Behind their smooth, bland faces I saw the seething hatreds of Dostoevskian anarchists. Gay crusading, I concluded, was their way of handling their own bitter misanthropy, which came from other sources. I found these men more spiritually twisted than anyone I have encountered in my life. The gay movement should not be left in their hands.

You call yourself "secular," as do I. Secular humanism is strong only when it can offer science and art as vibrant substitutes to conventional religion in the search for meaning. But militant gay academics and their jargon-spouting post-structuralist minions have trashed science and art. As a teacher, I am concerned about young people's cultural milieu. Until gay activism can expand the imagination and feed the soul as well as religion does, give me religion."

"As a libertarian, I believe that government must stay out of our private lives. As an atheist, I believe that government has no business sanctifying the unions of some persons (heterosexuals) but not others (homosexuals), particularly when certain benefits (such as employer-sponsored spousal health-insurance) flow to one group only.

As a scholar, however, I am troubled by the provincialism and amorality of the gay male world, when compared to the vastness of philosophical perspective provided by orthodox religion -- or even by ancient paganism, which honored nature. And as a lesbian, I'm sick and tired of the gay rights movement being damaged by the cowardly incapacity for self-examination of many gay men."

"For gays to demand that sincere Christians cease lobbying Washington about the increasing liberal drift of government policy shows colossal historical amnesia. For pity's sake, it was the flamboyant, thunderous activism of evangelical Protestant ministers in the 19th century that powered the abolitionist movement and led to the end of slavery in the United States. (Of course, these massively documented facts were concealed in Steven Spielberg's Liberal Hollywood Lite version of "Amistad.")
So gays should quit bitching about Southern Baptists exercising their constitutional right to free speech about homosexuality, which is indeed condemned by the Bible, despite the tortuous casuistry of so many self-interested parties, including clerics. I have been warning and warning for years that the insulting disrespect shown by gay activists to religion -- which has been going on for 20 years virtually unchecked on TV talk shows, with their biased liberal hosts -- would produce a backlash over time."

...

"Backward in thinking" is how McCurry put it, with the arrogant elitism for which liberal Democrats have become notorious. Translation: Christians who revere traditional scriptural teaching are ignorant rubes. If you don't swing with the sodomites these days, you're nowheresville with the A-list crowd. The Clintons, who just returned from their party weekend in the glitterati Hamptons, know where the fat checkbooks are buried.

I've warned throughout this decade that the gay activist tactics of derision and intimidation about orthodox Christianity arouse needless animosity without producing fundamental change: Viciously silencing opponents simply guarantees that when the backlash finally comes, it will take massively reactionary form. No authentic dialogue is possible with gay activists, as I know from experience. Their minds are closed: They think in starkly Manichaean terms of good vs. evil, with themselves cast as the angels. Hence they and Christian fundamentalists are made for each other, in a nonstop cyclic melodrama of hysterical mutual torment.

Yes, as a scholar of sexual history and culture, I think the claims that homosexuality is innate are based on questionable and minuscule evidence (see my July 7 column on this subject). The PC parrots who are squawking that view all over the media don't seem to realize that their vaunted body of data simply suggests thus far that gay men are developmentally defective -- that is, that they were incompletely masculinized in the womb, perhaps because of emotional or environmental stresses on their pregnant mothers. Is this really where we want gay rights to be heading?

Sexual fantasies, rooted in childhood, are always symbolic. They have a mysterious, magical relationship to family, friends and the greater worlds of nature and society -- which is why the famous, grisly fairy tales like "Snow White" or "Hansel and Gretel" have generated so much psychoanalytic commentary. Once overt sexual desire and practice begin to reinforce those mental pathways, it's very difficult to alter them. Habit makes deep neural imprints.

If some or many gays can reexamine their personal and family histories and make a fundamental shift of sexual orientation, more power to them! I respect their will and courage. Neither gay activists nor queer theorists (binge queens for propaganda) show any appetite for self-examination at the moment, so their sweeping statements about psychology are useless.

My philosophy of gay rights is very simple: As a libertarian, I think that government should stay out of people's private lives. I oppose sodomy laws, favor lowering the age of consent to 14 and advocate reexamining all benefits currently extended to married heterosexuals to ensure that gays, who cannot legally marry, are not discriminated against.

Next, I loathe the outrageous way that gay activists routinely conflate the oppression of gays and blacks: There is no basis for comparison in U.S. history, where blacks were systematically and cruelly enslaved. And I am highly skeptical about the actual incidence of gays losing their jobs because they are gay (as opposed, let's say, to them simply being obnoxious, for which straights get fired too).

To conclude, I appeal to the gay activist leadership to focus on practical legal matters and to back off from its doomed high-wire experiments with theology and psychoanalysis. Let religious conservatives say whatever they want and run whatever ads they want. Get real: Entertainment, media and the arts are nonstop advertisements for homosexuality these days. One man's propaganda is another man's poison."
Bible codes and gay genes 8:03pm on 28 Jun 2009 JimS007 - A huge thanks for sharing your story. Very,very powerful. If I could, I'd like to second OT's suggestion that you write again - although we understand if you don't have the time.
Bible codes and gay genes 01:45am on 23 Jun 2009 Ok. Just had to write because I'm pissed off reading comments like "quack", "doctor" and "nutcase" coming from people who, if in debate, would get mightily chewed up and spewed all over the floor by this guy.

How does this sound?
* Graduate of MIT, Yale and Harvard
* Diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry
* Residency in Psychiatry at Yale
* Fellow of The Yale Child Study Center
* Diploma in Analytical Psychology from the C. G. Jung Institute of Zurich
* Yale Symour L. Lustman Research award
* William James lecturer in Psychology and Religion at Harvard
* Teaching Fellow in Physics, Yale University
* Member of Yale Theoretical Condensed Matter Physics Group
* Author of the "Quantum Brain". (Expert on quantum mechanics)
* Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Science and Mathematics at The King's College
* Visiting Scientist (Financial Services) at Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich
* Visiting Lecturer in Constitutional Law and Civil Liberties at Princeton University, Dept. of Politics
* Ph.D. in physics (summa cum laude) at the University of Nice, France
* Past-President of the C. G. Jung Foundation of New York
* State flight surgeon, served in the 1/169th combat-support helicopter battalion of the Connecticut Army National Guard, and Army Reserve Psychiatrist (rank of major)

Yes, distinguished in a whole variety of academic fields but yes, what a loser he must be. Some self-important bloggers in Belfast said so, after all.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

padushka