I woke up a few weeks ago and could see something that wasn't there. I was terrified but I could see it with my eyes closed so I really really really knew it wasn't there. I took a shower and I could still see it with or without my eyes closed. I washed my hair and I washed myself and I could still see it. I was still terrified. I came out of the shower and it went away. I haven't seen it since and I must have erased it from my brain because I can't even remember what it was I could see, but I know it wasn't there.
I always have pretty vivid dreams... I'd love to know where they came from! The mind is very powerful.
One of my old friends from uni could actually control what he did in his dreams, he said it happened about once every couple of months and that it was the most amazing experience. He said he knew he was dreaming and would fly, swim under the sea, rob banks etc. He could do whatever he wanted and knew he'd never get caught because he knew he was dreaming!
I had the same dream every night for five nights once... it was really strange :-s That was a few years ago and I think it involved being up on the hill in Dunnet... weird
I thought this was a thread about The Grateful Dead and thought yes! something to brighten up a boring Friday.
Michael Stone is innocent.
Convicted without any forensic evidence and failed to be picked at any ID parade
So who did kill Lin & Megan Russell
http://www.michaelstone.co.uk/
"Whilst I was going up the stairs,
I met a man who wasn't there!
He wasn't there again, today,
Oh! How I wished he'd go away !!"
I'm the kind of woman whose feet hit the floor each morning, and the Devil says........... " Oh, Blast She's Up !! "
I can do lucid dreaming and what's more I can now do it while I'm awake.
This afternoon I lay on the sofa. Within minutes I was floating around the room and changing channels on the TV. I floated outside briefly but I was aware that my dual existence of lying on the sofa and floating in the garden endangered my survival and after my heart was on the verge of stopping beating for the second time I floated back in through the window. Neil Oliver was still on the TV when I landed safely and he smiled at me from one of the Channel Islands. That pleased me.
It may be that time of year but I can do it without physical stimulants of any form. I'm good in that respect.
don't dismiss the shroom as a physical stimulant ...
Neil Oliver is your modern day John Donne, don't ignore the signs
I don't need stimulants of that sort.
I haven't met John Donne yet. Have you?
It happened not too long after I discarded my glass bra before going to my bed. Despite it being dark I could see Ed Miliband moving about inside it as expected. It was supposed to be an Ed Miliband controlled bra after all. But I could tell that David was there even though he wasn't supposed to be. Ed was ignoring him. He was trying to convince us that he (and he alone) was in charge of the bra. But I knew David was there, and Ed knew David was there and Ed was worried. Big time worried.
What was worse was that keen-eyed political watchers (such as this bra owner) could see an old white-haired bespectacled figure wearing a black jacket in the background. What's afoot? What was afoot was the owner of longest suicide note in history thinking he could guide Ed to success.
Some dead people should stay dead before they bestow their inherent failures on their descendents. The balding red haired Welshman also seems to have forgotten why he never made the pinnacle. Ed won't ever gain control of my glass bra if he follows the black donkey and the man that did the donkey work shouldn't forget why he had to cast himself out eighteen years ago.
I never met the white-haired man while he was alive. I hope he doesn't influence Bed Ed too much. Someone will kill him if he does. And Ed's ambition too.
Last edited by crayola; 02-Oct-10 at 12:21. Reason: red not read and the white haired man wasn't balding
Quite a titillating allegory really.
Clearly you cast yourself as Britannia, analogous to the ruling deity. The bra represents the riches and wealth of this country now potentially in the control of Ed whom you call Bed Ed because you find him attractive. Yet you see him as a mannikin so have feelings of superiority to him - you see him with a mixture of interest and revulsion.
But David has not gone away - the game is not over I think. It's a bit like McDonald and Wheatley really.
You are right about Kinnock. Foot merely lost touch with what was obvious.
Guild socialism failed; but it was always going to fail because society is far more diverse that socialists thought. The great contradiction of socialism was that the more you spread the wealth the weaker the socialist impulse becomes.
But you are wrong about the dead people staying dead. It has nothing to do with them at all. It's the party itself - it is not really a party at all and its components are at war with each other and always have been. The people are irrelevant - it's the ideas that live on.....
Last edited by John Little; 02-Oct-10 at 12:49.
Good grief, you make me sound like Margaret Thatcher with the Britannia bit!
You were on the right track with the bra but ended up in the burn that runs beside it. The bra represented the Labour party and the two cups were its left and right wings. Ed was supposed to be in control of the right one and that's why he was having problems.
Ed is a successful 40 year old man who isn't ugly but I am not attracted to him at all. Which is odd.
I am more bemused and worried than interested and revulsed. There has been no opposition to the UK government since the election and I am surprised that the Labour Party chose him to take on the role of the leader of the opposition. I hope I am wrong and that he will be good but I am not optimistic. I'm told he has a good brain and I hope they are right.
I called him Bed Ed because I was in bed and Bed rhymes with Ed and I hope he's not Red. That bit was just silly.
Perhaps but is it not more like Wilson and Jenkins than Macdonald and Wheatley? Or even Macdonald and Burger King.
You might be interested to hear that Wheatley is still revered in some socialist circles here.
Was Foot ever in touch with what was obvious? I didn't vote for him nor would I ever have done.
Aren't all established parties like that? Ed should banish the ghost of Foot if it ever visits him and he should keep the carroted one well away from him if he doesn't want to suffer the same fate as him.
Note the use of quotes.
The point about Ed and the unions is that they want to be the opposition.
Dave would have done his own thing.
With Ed at the helm I think we shall see more union influence on Labour than in the last 13 years.
I am not surprised that Wheatley is still revered - along with McLean and Kirkbride - but not Shinwell!! But syndicalism is selfish, exclusive and ultimately doomed. Wheatley did, ultimately, deliver and hundreds of thousands of people lived in decent homes because of him. Credit where it is due.
Maybe Butler and MacMillan is more like.....?
On the other hand there was a time in the late 1940s when Foot really had his finger on Britain's pulse. Trouble was that Britain moved on and Foot did not. But fair play to him - he stayed true to Socialism and I do not see him as a syndicalist - he was a parliamentarian.
I applaud your use of quotes.
I shall not, however, seek to emulate you. I like to keep life simple.
Ok I shall for once also not use quotes.
Perhaps you're right about the unions wanting to be the opposition. After being battered by Thatcherism for almost two decades they lost most of their influence over Labour policy during the Blair/Brown era. They will feel Ed owes them and they like the idea of bringing down a Tory government. And Ed needs a period in opposition to learn the job, just as Cameron and Blair did before him.
But if Ed and the Unions try to return to syndicalism or any other form of corporatism they will likely earn themselves another two decades in the wilderness. Unless the current government really messes up or self destructs.
Butler and Macmillan? Yes absolutely!
That is Labour's problem in a nutshell. They began because the unions needed to react to political problems; the unions wanted representation in Parliament. But the moment they involved the socialist organisations they dod two things; they ensured that the party would have its own distinct ideology, and they also split its soul because the two sides wants totally different things.
But no - they do not prosper when the unions dominate.
Which is why their effectiveness as an opposition in the coming years may be very limited. We needed Ed like a hole in the head....
Bookmarks