Non-mainstream religion

Well here comes another target for the 'watch list' or even a possible 'hate list'.

I have been reading through one of the little leaflets from the "Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania", this one about living in a peaceful new world. One of the background facts not covered by the leaflet is that we will all have to be vegetarian - we are all shown as living in complete harmony with all other living animal organisms, what then can we eat?

The leaflet suggests that the whole earth will be transformed into 'a gardenlike paradise state'; lovely but what will happen to those life-forms which are happy in the desert or rocky areas or any place not considered as 'garden' by the members of this religion group.

Incidentally this leaflet goes on to say that there will be food for all and that we will be the ones who will plant and harvest...this implies that the population of Earth will have to fall significantly, how will this be achieved?

It also troubles me that the Bible, supposedly the word of God, is written and re-written by the leaders of the various religious groups so that the book will say what they want their followers to read. I once asked someone who knocked at my front door what the bible said about reincarnation, only to be told that there were no references in the book at all. The emperor Justinian and his wife did a fairly good job of removing most of the references but there are still a few remaining in the King John editions (those are also heavily edited) but I discovered, through a search on the web, that the version of the bible they used was entirely re-written for their use.

If this doesn't attract some comments it will show that no one else reads my blogs and that this for my own entertainment purposes alone.

Love to all
Ainsley

DNA database - the government conspiracy

I read an article from The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/18/ndnad_new_figures/} about the fact that the government probably will not comply with requests to remove innocent people from the database, I also went through the comments and came across one from 'Chris G'. He (essentially) jokingly makes a suggestion that babies should be micro-chipped at birth...

"According to another article in the Reg, in the UK
we are NOT innocent until proven guilty, therefore children should be
considered guilty from birth, after all how many of them will grow up
to be the proud possessors of ASBOs or worse? I say let's stop messing
around , don't just take their DNA,fire a chip into their necks the
moment they are born so we can keep track of them from day one.

"We could train Midwife/policemen then we could chip the little sods the moment there is enough of the neck showing."

Just to be certain that this idea will go through and become law, all the government has to do is to arrange for a sudden rash of baby kidnappings from hospitals around the country. Then when they suggest that if babies are chipped at birth then they can be traced within the hospital and cannot be removed without permission...of course these chips cannot be deactivated and will remain in the body for life. Because our babies will be safe from kidnapping we will all be pleased to allow this to happen.

Am I the only one to see this as a distinct possibility and find that this is really disturbing?

Sleep well...if you can.

Love to all
Ainsley

Varioous aspects of blogging

The headline reads:
'The power of female blogging' and the rest of the text goes on to talk about the female force in blogging. I think that most of what is said, about getting more women interested in pouring out their thoughts onto the web for others to read is really great. One thing that appears a bit further down the page states that "In a print magazine advertisers could use old standards such as heels, lipstick and sex to sell..." I took a quick look at the front page of BlogHer and read one of the bloggers references about the 'must-have shoes for the fall' just made me feel that the whole female blogging push is about selling. Further proof of this is fully illustrated by the attempt to get the bloggers to add some kind of advertising to their page, something I really cannot get interested in doing or indeed following. When I see an advert I just ignore it, sales to me are not going to happen - sorry.

I also fail to see why there should be a 'women only' blogging site; if the equivalent version of a 'men only' site were to come into being on the web I can see that there would be a very vociferous claim of sexism, and rightly so. The only possible reason I can come up with is for a more efficient demographic targeting of the audience, this rant is fairly pointless - no one is going to change what is happening.

I mentioned that I am now on Twitter, I use TwitterFox to inform me of postings when I am not signed in to the site and have activated the phone link for one of my 'followings' and also use Twhirl for when I don't want to use Firefox for whatever reason. The reason I am babbling about this is because I am considering adding 'TwitPic' to my armoury, to allow me to add pictures to my posts - advice and information from any reader (in comments to this post) would be gratefully received.

Speaking of which, if anyone wants to follow my posts on Twitter look for me as DolphinDancer (no breaks in the name) and say hello.

Well, that is all for now - love to all.
Ainsley.