Sometimes when we chit chat about gurus- negatively, and the things we say show up prominently when searching for those gurus in google.

So just be careful, we dont want to ruin business reputations for private thoughts and opinions. That may be half assed. Or wishy washy. Or just ignorant, you know.

And remember that people can say things about us too online with our real names that can really hurt us so imagine how that would feel.

What do you think? Yes no?

Should we promote more raw vegan good positive things?

Yes no?

Its ok what you think.

How boring can good positive things be?

I am not being condescending. I love DISH and TRASH. I just search for someone raw famous and something I said years ago shows up and its embarrassing how nasty it was. And I feel guilt. It may not be how I feel currently either. So just be warned by my example. We should promote raw vegans everywhere.





Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2015 09:57PM by coconutcream.

I am for being open, even if it is not perfect. Better this than guru-ism. I think that we should promote being critical of information, and discerning too.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

No! You mean gossiping about 'celebrities' reflects on who we are and what kind of a person we are! Who knew!

Gossiping is reassuring for most of us.
We are saying to ourselves, I am not alone being this bad.
Which makes us even worse than the one we are criticizing.
I remember one experience in high school.
At one exam I performed very poorly and was feeling down.
But then most of my class mates did poorly too, then I felt better.
I was not alone to have failed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/27/2015 01:39PM by RawPracticalist.

RawPracticalist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I remember one experience in high school.


You're right about one thing - this gossip culture on the board (of which I think only two or three individuals are a part of) is like we're back in high school.





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/27/2015 02:03PM by Lois.

Yes, looking back at my life and I can see how the bad seeds were planted during my time at high school.
We used to make fun of those students who we thought were ugly, not smart, fat, ...
I am still paying a huge price for that attitude.
Where did we learn this from, our parents do not teach that?

RP wrote:

<<<Where did we learn this from, our parents do not teach that?>>>

Here is a small snippet from my file on Education...

The purpose of "modern, industrialized, compulsory schooling was to make a sort of surgical incision into the prospective unity of these underclasses," John Taylor Gatto concludes in "Against School: How public education cripples our kids and why," published in the September 2001 edition of Harper's. "Divide children by subject, by age-grading, by constant rankings on tests, and by many other more subtle means, and it was unlikely that the ignorant mass of mankind, separated in childhood, would ever re-integrate into a dangerous whole." (Dangerous, that is to say, to the planned domination of the corporate elites.)

That's right, schools are divisive. They're all about ranking and dividing. When you were in school, how much energy went into differentiating the "popular" kids from the nerds? If cultivating fertile minds -- as opposed to stressing herd unity and obedience -- was ever the goal of these institutions, why are the bright kids so ostracized?

The purpose of government schooling, Gatto learns from Alexander Inglis's 1918 book, "Principles of Secondary Education," is "to watch over and control a population deliberately dumbed down and declawed in order that government might proceed unchallenged and corporations might never want for obedient labor.
"That, unfortunately, is the purpose of mandatory public education in this country."

The result? "We have become a nation of children," Gatto offers as our cultural epitaph, "happy to surrender our judgments and our wills to political exhortations and commercial blandishments that would insult actual adults."

rawgosia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am for being open, even if it is not perfect.
> Better this than guru-ism. I think that we should
> promote being critical of information, and
> discerning too.

I agree. now actually BE open instead of avoiding.
you chastise me for not being accurate.

so support your statement.

> rawgosia Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

> >Their B12 levels were dropping IN THE
> > WILD when they were eating fruit with no
> insects.
> > So nothing to do with sterile environment.
>


show me where it says that. what evidence is there that it was "fruit with no insects" other than their guessing about it?

rawgosia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am for being open, even if it is not perfect.
> Better this than guru-ism. I think that we should
> promote being critical of information, and
> discerning too.

Yes!!! A live one, thank goodness!!! I was beginning to wonder at how few there seem to be in the vegan world.

If everyone spoke about what they thought of everything, wow. Thats like google. Its a brain. Ok then maybe its good, nothing to hide, those who dont like it dont play.

Lois Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No! You mean gossiping about 'celebrities'
> reflects on who we are and what kind of a person
> we are! Who knew!
>
>


I know someone who is really against gossip who posts under another name... Heh heh heh...

John Rose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RP wrote:
>
> <<>>
>
> Here is a small snippet from my file on
> Education...
>
> The purpose of "modern, industrialized, compulsory
> schooling was to make a sort of surgical incision
> into the prospective unity of these underclasses,"
> John Taylor Gatto concludes in "Against School:
> How public education cripples our kids and why,"
> published in the September 2001 edition of
> Harper's. "Divide children by subject, by
> age-grading, by constant rankings on tests, and by
> many other more subtle means, and it was unlikely
> that the ignorant mass of mankind, separated in
> childhood, would ever re-integrate into a
> dangerous whole." (Dangerous, that is to say, to
> the planned domination of the corporate elites.)
>
> That's right, schools are divisive. They're all
> about ranking and dividing. When you were in
> school, how much energy went into differentiating
> the "popular" kids from the nerds? If cultivating
> fertile minds -- as opposed to stressing herd
> unity and obedience -- was ever the goal of these
> institutions, why are the bright kids so
> ostracized?
>
> The purpose of government schooling, Gatto learns
> from Alexander Inglis's 1918 book, "Principles of
> Secondary Education," is "to watch over and
> control a population deliberately dumbed down and
> declawed in order that government might proceed
> unchallenged and corporations might never want for
> obedient labor.
> "That, unfortunately, is the purpose of mandatory
> public education in this country."
>
> The result? "We have become a nation of
> children," Gatto offers as our cultural epitaph,
> "happy to surrender our judgments and our wills to
> political exhortations and commercial
> blandishments that would insult actual adults."


What a great point about posting the test scores and grouping kids. Yes, it's designed to create and sustain competition. It is still promoted that today's kids are competing with Chinese kids, etc. For what? It's all 1st chakra survival/fear-based propaganda. "There's not enough to go around!!!" type of deal. Eff that noise.