Re: No, excuse me!
Re: Re: No, excuse me! -- dant	Top of thread		Forum

Posted by: jonx ® 07/30/2005, 01:54:17 Author Profile Edit Alert Moderators

So it is possible. Thanks for that. My friend, not only is it possible, it was rampant! If you deny this, it shows you were either not there, or you have no integrity whatsoever. There were so many flavours of surrender kicking around in the '70s sometimes it was best just to just stay in your room and meditate. Anyone who was there (and is not dissembling) would attest to that. As for Jim's question... as I said in a previous post, I'm not going to even entertain such a discussion. It's far too personal for me.

Previous

Recommend Current page

Next

Replies to this message

integrity --- dant ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 05:11:30 ) ( 897 bytes ) +3 Now what could surrender mean --- Jethro ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 05:44:13 ) ( 465 bytes ) Re: integrity --- jonx ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 09:14:23 ) ( 1586 bytes ) +2 dant being very serious now --- dant ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 11:55:17 ) ( 2712 bytes ) Checkmate again, Jonx! LOL!!!!!!!!! (I love it!) --- Jim ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 16:00:47 ) ( 787 bytes ) +1 What a perfectly lame argument! --- jonx ( Sun, Jul 31, 2005, 05:28:48 ) ( 441 bytes ) img +1 So what if you were an instructor? You lose, MATIE! --- Jim ( Sun, Jul 31, 2005, 10:57:58 ) ( 448 bytes ) +1 Re: So what if you were an instructor? You lose, MATIE! --- jonx ( Mon, Aug 01, 2005, 01:07:52 ) ( 1040 bytes ) img pointless --- Toby ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 09:53:22 ) ( 545 bytes ) +1 Re: pointless --- jonx ( Sat, Jul 30, 2005, 11:11:45 ) ( 362 bytes )