william.scherk

There has been no such diagnosis. Psychosis is one half of the false dilemma you set up for yourself. In several posts I pointed out that you haven't considered a third possibility: that you were mistaken in your interpretation of an unusual state of mind. George posted twice before your appearance. In each of the two posts he was rather light-hearted. Starbuckle did not sneer or ridicule, and neither did Ninth Doctor. Nobody has called you insane. No one. You are utterly wrong to insist on this. It is dishonest to keep banging that drum. Here's what Starbuckle asked: "But my main question here is whether accepting the existence of God or accepting that he had had a "psychotic break" with reality were really Schulman's only reasonable alternatives when he experienced whatever it was that he experienced." That was a good faith question. You have dodged that question in every single post. What makes other alternatives unreasonable? Nobody set the only alternative explanation of your experience as a psychotic break with reality. Nobody but you. Only you have set up this false dilemma. Your refusal to consider the possibility of another explanation is the crux of your communication problem. Do you show good faith insisting that there is no third possibility? Is it good faith to insist that other people have set the false dilemma -- when only you have set up the alternatives? ++++++++++++++++ If I was forced to choose from the buffet of god stories, I would probably choose Neil's confection: his god doesn't actually do much, doesn't actively hurt anyone, doesn't raise a superstructure of loathsome religion, does not make lightning strike, does not intrude on the world or make anything of importance happen. An inert, distant, uninvolved and low-power god seems a lot more palatable than the other offerings. Neil's god seems to have set everything in motion and then had a series of long naps. So, I can provisionally accept that Neil's god is the one gem amongst all others. Now what? Neil's god doesn't seem to have anything more to say to anyone on any subject. He has no awesome powers and no control over events. He neither causes disasters nor is able to avert them. He gives no map to salvation and has no particular beef with anyone or anything. About the only thing we can take away from this concept of god is that life is eternal, that we humans live on in some way after 'death.' That's a good deal, I figure. No rules, no expectations, no punishment, no anger, no hell, no nothing. So, Neil, I can provisionally give a nod to your concept of god as the least monstrous. Now what? What do you think I should do with this general acceptance of your god as Best In Show?

What is this 'NT-type' personality?

That is really sad. There was no need for you to push away the fellow you used to respect, no need for you to insist that 'respecting your truth' be a condition of a relationship. I wonder if there is anything in this long thread that made you consider you may possibly have been mistaken about your interpretation of events. Is it even remotely possible that you did not actually meld with a spirit, Neil? Knowing before you joined the discussion that the likely outcome would result in you isolated, upset, angry, without support and subject to derision and insult, would you have done or said anything differently? There is a good to excellent chance you can salvage some of the respect once accorded you. It would involve you refraining from attacking other people's characters and putting the spiritual questions aside. You are hurting yourself, Neil. You are damaging your relationships. Insisting that you cannot be mistaken is interpreted as arrogance, as My Way Or The Highway, an imperious demand that others accede to your views. There is no positive payoff for you, as far as I can see. As the Voice told you in 1988, your demands were unwelcome and dangerous. You place conditions on the Spirit, unreasonable conditions on him, and you court Death and annilation of all that you treasure . . . You asked, "Why, then, would I bother writing on this subject to someone I know is utterly skeptical of what I have to say on the subject?" It is a good question, but you would do better to ask this of yourself. I think most folk here see you as a very talented man who has gone astray, and that most people here would like to help you understand that nothing you can say or do can force people to your will. What you seek is not presently possible, and only frustration can result. I have had a brief email exchange with your friend and interviewer Brad. He cares about you. He wants you to be happy and healthy and productive and to move on to new achievements. But you are stuck between your demands and the reality of the situation. If your intervention here can be seen as an experiment, then you do understand that the experiment failed. Using all the means at your disposal, you have come up empty. ++++++++++++++ I note that Neil has said goodbye to OL and this discussion five times already. But my screen shows he is still here reading the thread right now. Why? If he doesn't want to be a pinata, why doesn't he just move on and stop troubling himself?

There is something very wrong at the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies; according to the website, no issues have appeared in quite some time. There is a link on the site mentioning "exciting new developments" -- dated December 17, 2009. The note explains that 'Our Spring 2009 issue is obviously very late, but it should be out to subscribers early in the new year.' Perigo is a hateful nutcase, yeah, and likely hopes that JARS dies along with the hopes and dreams of its editor, but I doubt that he has based his death wishes on anything other than the facts apparent to all . . .

Um, so Brad has a question of the JREF, which he passes to you to pass to OL . . . is there something seriously wrong with Brad or is he merely unfamiliar with the ways of the world? Earlier you claimed to have known psychics who met the JREF challenge but who were not paid. I asked you for their names. Could you please ask George to ask Brad to ask Michael to ask you to tell George to tell Brad to tell us their names, please? Incidentally, when you use the word paralogia, did you intend to call George a deluded fool? In other news, I have asked my uncle to ask George to post a note to SOLO to ask if anyone knows anything about the JREF challenge. It might be a while for an answer back by that route, so I invite you, Neil, to tell Brad to either go dig up his own answers, or to invite him here to join us in this festival of goodwill and spiritual openness. If this attempt at communication is successful, I will share with Brad the hidden secret means of discovering the answer to his questions. I will admit the answers involve at least one thumb/finger, one keyboard and the key words "million dollar faq randi."

This is sad and funny and awe-inspiring. The 'spam filter' on Neil seems to exclude from consideration any notion that he himself could be mistaken about anything he believes to be true. The most useful communications that Neil excludes are those that posit a plausible psychological explanation for his mystical experience. He rules it out, pushes that possibility off the table, and then lashes out at anyone who questions his filter. Neil has made it clear -- it is impossible that his interpretation could be wrong. Within his worldview there is no possibility whatsoever that his ketosis/starvation/dehydration/insomnia could explain his mental state at the time of the mind-meld. But the rest of us are the dogmatic, close-minded, crippled, authoritarian, cultist monsters. Yikes. Neil, I suggest that you are building a high wall between yourself and some reasonable options, that you are heading down a path that will lead only to self-exclusion, loneliness and pain. Please allow that some of us here -- at least George and PDS and Michael -- are trying to help you keep a door open to consensual reality, to give you a passage to the world outside your self-built cell of delusion. Don't wall yourself away from everyone. There will be no benefits either short or long term.

Maybe not quite the complete truth. Have you heard of Control-C and Control-V? These are 'keyboard shortcuts' that allow you to copy and to paste by pushing two keys at the same time. Press down the Control button (one Windows computers) at the same time as you press the C button. This copies the text you have selected. Then, to paste, position your cursor where you want the copied material to be inserted. Then press Control and V at the same time. Voila! -- there is also an Apple version, should you be using that kind of computer.

Can you remember the names of these psychics?

Can you please give us a few details of this aural event? What did you two hear at the same time, what were the conditions preceding the communication, what were the hallmarks of the event that convinced you both that you had heard from your dad?

I haven't seen the Python sketch for a while, but aren't we supposed to poke Neil with soft cushions before we resort to the drastic measure of the comfy chair? I missed the dang reference the first time around. Here is an excerpt of the transcript for those who need to know, from a connoisseur. [Cut to them torturing a dear old lady, Marjorie Wilde] Ximinez: Now, old woman -- you are accused of heresy on three counts -- heresy by thought, heresy by word, heresy by deed, and heresy by action -- *four* counts. Do you confess? Wilde: I don't understand what I'm accused of. Ximinez: Ha! Then we'll make you understand! Biggles! Fetch...THE CUSHIONS! [JARRING CHORD] [biggles holds out two ordinary modern household cushions] Biggles: Here they are, lord. Ximinez: Now, old lady -- you have one last chance. Confess the heinous sin of heresy, reject the works of the ungodly -- *two* last chances. And you shall be free -- *three* last chances. You have three last chances, the nature of which I have divulged in my previous utterance. Wilde: I don't know what you're talking about. Ximinez: Right! If that's the way you want it -- Cardinal! Poke her with the soft cushions! [biggles carries out this rather pathetic torture] Ximinez: Confess! Confess! Confess! Biggles: It doesn't seem to be hurting her, lord. Ximinez: Have you got all the stuffing up one end? Biggles: Yes, lord. Ximinez [angrily hurling away the cushions]: Hm! She is made of harder stuff! Cardinal Fang! Fetch...THE COMFY CHAIR! [JARRING CHORD] [Zoom into Fang's horrified face] Fang [terrified]: The...Comfy Chair? [biggles pushes in a comfy chair -- a really plush one] Ximinez: So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft cushions. Well, we shall see. Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair! [They roughly push her into the Comfy Chair] Ximinez [with a cruel leer]: Now -- you will stay in the Comfy Chair until lunch time, with only a cup of coffee at eleven. [aside, to Biggles] Is that really all it is? Biggles: Yes, lord. Ximinez: I see. I suppose we make it worse by shouting a lot, do we? Confess, woman. Confess! Confess! Confess! Confess Biggles: I confess! Ximinez: Not you!

If I might quote Aaron Sorkin's script for The Social Network: it's not that you're an asshole. It's that you try so hard to be one. Spirit, my prophecy is fulfilled. Thank you. How's that Inquisition thing working out for you? +++++++++++ Added -- Here's the backstage note I sent to Neil under the rubric 'Please reconsider your departure from OL.' I hope other fair-minded OLers can help convince him to stick around. I know he wants to . . . he is still watching and posting to this thread long after his departure notice. Rescind, Neil! I think you should stick around. The comparision to The Inquisition is not quite apt. More like the stocks . . . Just remember that the other spiritists ran off OL recently. I would like you to stay in the game and use the mind that spirit gave you to continue your work for wisdom . . .

What some of us here at OL are avoiding is a rather chilling possibility -- that the eternal spirit of the multiple continua has entered our world and that we have paid no heed. Spirits walked among us in the form of Aristotle's Advance, Chu hua and J Neil Schulman. Spirit gave us information and sincerely tried to help us see the error of our thinking. And then what did we do? We terrorized this spirit with a determined scheme of violence, torture, imprisonment and harsh 'enhanced' interrogation, in short -- an Inquisition. Yup. Tortured human beings with the aim of expunging and destroying that multiple spirit within. J Neil's spirit appearances here can serve to chasten us, if only we heed the lessons (for I think we must accept the probability that the eternal spirit still speaks in Neil's mind, is still melded but at lower volume, as a sort of indwelling 'super-ego' or conscience). Spirit has apparently given us one last direct written communication through J Neil Schulman (and a summary appendix). I think we owe it to rationality to give long and thoughtful and continuing attention to all J Neil Schulman messages. For here I prophesy -- the greatest spirit of the ages is NOT going to go away from OL! Spirit gave us challenges this past month. Spirit gave us opportunity to see spirit's design, through engrams, multiple continua, and revelation -- through J Neil Schulman. Spirit indwells at OL. The opening has been made. I therefore think this thread should be pinned and all further excursions of spirit be linked to this thread. All spirit excursions should be explicitly welcomed on OL, and every effort should be made to allow spirit free play for the delightful wisdom it utters. I hereby invite J Neil Schulman to keep his and spirit's mind-meld in this thread as he continues the effort to enlighten and bless us. I urge OLers to open their minds and strive evermore to encourage this spirit to contest our limited understandings. And I must ask OL to put down the tools of The Inquisition, of derision, of hateful mocking and poking, of auto-da-fe, rack, acid, burning, stake, hot oil, and of pointed questions. For J Neil Schulman can see what is on this thread at any time -- even though we cannot see him here! He is here, he will always be here and he will always take note of what we say. And He will return to us and write freely if we make the conditions ripe for his wisdom. How do I know this? Because I feel the spirit of J Neil Schulman speaking inside me! I feel I can speak the words of J Neil Schulman with complete and utter fidelity to the thoughts in his mind, and by extension, the eternal spirit of the multiple continua. In my next post I shall reveal the thoughts of J Neil Schulman, thoughts completely verifiable as The Spirit Of J Neil Schulman -- and by extension, the eternal spirit of the multiple continua. This flash of insight and gnosis became clear to me overnight, when, in a state of sleeplessness, dehydration, ketosis, paranoia and hypnogogic trance, I heard J Neil Schulman in my head . . . he said "James Randi's entire methodology of proof is based on a classic error in logic. If something can be duplicated by trickery, it doesn't exist." I tremble at the force and strength of this divine communication. This is the most important communication of them all.

Apparently names, photos, addresses . . . He had a lovely disclaimer on his former blog, according to a report from 2006: "The remarks above are protected speech pursuant to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court … as they are uttered in a context which does not lend itself to imminent lawlessness, AND; do not constitute a 'true threat' as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court." There are many highlights from his wonderful career as blogger and radio personality. At one point he called for a day of violent rage against blacks . . . "complete with lynchings, church burnings, drive-by shootings and bombings to put these subhuman animals back in their place." Yes to complete fucking nutcase whackjob freakazoid, but maybe 'constitutionally protected speech' and so No to incarceration, but I would like to see the strong argument for that No.

What do you find most disturbing about the case, Adam? If you had been following the case and history of the man, what do you think should have been the proper outcome of his incitements to murder?

No more so than the "belief" that I ate at Denny's last night. I have a recollection of an experience I regard as real. Are you claiming that you ate at Denny's last night, then, Neil? A Denny's close to Pahrump, NV? If so, we can check that and confirm that, and your claim will meet the burden of proof. We will find witnesses to your attendance. We will find a bill that corresponds to your Big Boy 1/2 Turkey dinner order to table 23. We will find your DNA in the booger you stuck under the table. We can find other forensic evidence. How would we go about gaining similar evidence that the lord of the universe spoke in a voice inside your head? Additionally, if you claim that no one else has ever eaten the exact same 1/2 Turkey Dinner with Clam Sauce, Homefries and Buttermilk Pancakes with exactly the same appreciation of the meal's ineffable qualities . . . you are simply moving the goal posts. Joan of Arc did not claim to have eaten the Big Boy Dinner. But she did eat. Just like you. On another related subject, you seem to ask us to believe that your investigation of the OJ case trumps all other investigations, that yours was the finest and best and most thoroughgoing investigative journalism ever applied to the case. Here, a question: -- did you double-check your notion that a Dr Frankenstein could have made up a simulacra of OJ's blood?** ___________ ** from page 93 of Neil's Ur-crackpot book: "If you didn't have enough of OJ's blood, Dr Frankenstein could make more for you."

Like what? It's a simple either/or with a sharply excluded middle. I disagree entirely. In the recorded conversations you lay out only two options for yourself: god's visitation is real or you were crazy. I see that now you depart from the two dramatic options. A "medically caused" break with reality is not psychotic. A hallucination is not necessarily psychotic. A failure to distinguish reality from imagination does not imply craziness . . . You were in a paranoid state before the mind meld. You were starving yourself. You were dehydrated. You had always had 'psychic' beliefs. You had had a previous 'encounter' with god nine years previous. And then, in the aftermath, "after this experience, I found myself in the Emergency Room, had to rehydrated again with an intravenous drip." Except that most everything about what I report on my experience is unreported in the accounts of others' claiming divine contact, and my experience prompted me to convert to nothing. Not at all true. The hallmarks of a 'conversion experience' are found in your experience. From a state of agnosticism you experience ecstacy, and you became a believer in gods. You even refer to this experience as being 'born again.' Now you told George that "There was nothing about my contact with God that was ineffable to me," yet in the dialogues you said "Because what I am able to do — and it’s hard to describe this even today because the words don’t really match any other experience that either I have had or you have had — presumably" and in a latter comment you say "Words are inadequate to describe what was going on. That’s something that I cannot emphasize enough. That the verbal forms that we use are entirely inadequate to describe what I was experiencing." How is that not ineffable, Neil? What is the problem with seeing your experience as similar (not identical) to that of other folks? I just don't understand why you feel that all the other experiences are unreal . . . "I believe most such contacts are either entirely unreal, or are unreal by the point at which someone tries to explain them, inasmuch as a multi-dimensional cognitive experience does not translate easily into language presupposing singular body identities, three-dimensional perception, linear time, and other data challenging for the average human brain system software to interpret."

It's a folly to try to litigate this here. You can quickly find sources that say that this is untrue on google, sorting out what the actual truth is takes more than citing what side of the issue you prefer to take. Nobody is 'litigating,' Shayne. As for 'sources that say this is untrue,' I have no idea what you are referring to. I was intrigued by the clamour on Ventura's stupid show for 'the tapes,' and I was referring to your ranting repetition about 'the tapes,' so I went looking for the actual FOI attempt to get 'the tapes,' and I found and linked to and excerpted the judgement about 'the tapes.' Now we can argue that the FBI lady was a dirty liar and the judge was a tool, and that 'the tapes' are still floating about in the ether somewhere, but I thought to add some actual information to the mix, for those who are interested. You aren't interested in any inquiry until some kind of murky new investigation is mooted. That is a stupid stance to take, in my humble opinion.

The question is stacked the way you put it. Try this: Do you find me to be a credible reporter (on the subject of meeting god/religious experiences)? Did you regard me as a credible reporter (on the subject of meeting god/religious experiences) when I was still an atheist? Neil, I don't believe anyone doubts you have more or less accurately reported 'the experience' -- especially since you have laid out the circumstances, the thoughts in your head, your physical and mental state, and so on); what is not easy to accept on its face is the claim that the voice in your head was the voice of a god, and that the account of the experience has been interpreted correctly. You said in the interview that you were only 98% certain of the reality of the god in your head. Moreover you have written that you feel your only choice of interpretation was either Psychotic Break or Reality. Why not a third interpretation choice, or more? Aside from your position as a libertarian/Rand admirer, there doesn't seem to be much out of the ordinary in your reported experience, in terms of other reported 'mystical experience.' The hallmarks of a conversion experience are strong in your case. It is difficult for me to understand your insistence that your experience (of god) was of a different order or class from these other experiences. I suggest that you move on from discussion of this narrow issue. It isn't going anywhere fresh or fruitful, and it will be frustrating to you that few beyond theists/believers accept your experience as viridical. Lots and lots of interesting and infuriating topics at hand at this forum, some of which are no doubt of interest to you. Why not set aside the god talk and enliven us with your take on other issues?

Here's the judgement that ended the initial Freedom of Information suit seeking "the tapes" -- Bingham v. United States Dep't of Justice. Highlight: More specifically, Special Agent Maguire described her search: "I subsequently searched a series of FBI evidence databases, including the FBI's Electronic Case File System and the FBI's Investigative Case Management System, and determined that the FBI possessed eighty-five (85) videotapes that might be potentially responsive to plaintiff's FOIA request." Id. ¶ 11. Special Agent Maguire then declared that she determined through "chain of custody and other supporting documentation associated with each videotape" that fifty-six of the videotapes were not of the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Id. ¶ 12. She personally viewed the remaining twenty-nine videos to determine their responsiveness to plaintiff's request. See id. ¶ 13. She determined that sixteen of the tapes did not show the Pentagon crash site but that thirteen did. See id. ¶¶ 13-14. Of the thirteen, twelve only showed the Pentagon after the impact of Flight 77. See id. ¶ 14. The one remaining tape showed the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. See id.; see also Hardy Decl. ¶ 23. While that tape initially was withheld, it subsequently was turned over to plaintiff. See Defendants' December 15, 2006 Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause; see supra at 2. Special Agent Maguire also located a videotape from the Citgo Gas Station in Arlington, Virginia and had it taken to the FBI's Forensic Audio-Video Image Analysis Unit, which determined that it did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon. See Maguire Decl. ¶ 15. Because the Citgo video did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon, it is not responsive to plaintiff's request. See FOIA Request ("I seek any videotapes in the possession of the FBI that may have captured the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon[.]") (emphasis added). Special Agent Maguire searched for and was not able to locate video from the Sheraton National Hotel in Arlington, Virginia.

Another video with a 'theory' about which The Whistler has yet no opinion. It is too bad that the 'due process' investigation he calls for will never happen. That way we have no idea what The Whistler thinks of such aids to inquiry . . .

I haven’t been posting on this thread because I feel I should read the linked interview first, so I don’t mean to be rude just popping in and asking a couple basic questions. First, in allowing you to learn about the future, did God give you some winning Powerball numbers? Why not? That’s the database field I’d really like to have uploaded when it happens to me. Whatever the supernatural voice tells me to do, I’m game so long as it’s accompanied by winning lottery numbers. Hear that, Mephistopheles? Second, where you on drugs? LSD or mushrooms, particularly? Had you used them before, and maybe had a flashback? You can read Neil's discussion of his experience (one of several tellings, one of several experiences) in Chapter Six: Mind Meld. I think it is accurate to say that Neil was physically and mentally stressed around the time of the Mind Meld. In the passage below he gives the most expansive version of events. Beyond the obvious priming for the event (for which you will need to read the whole account), I am struck by Neil's interpretive options. It seems like he saw only two choices: I met god or I am crazy. Although he asserts that Occam's razor is no use to anyone in interpreting experience, I figure the razor cuts cleanly. Considering the unusual mental state he found himself in -- paranoid, dehydrated, sleepless -- it seems likely to an outsider like me that the one state led to the other, and no spirit beings were actually involved. Your mileage may vary. Going back five months before that, I started a diet. I had put on weight, probably as a consequence of the unhappiness of going through a divorce. I put on weight and I started a severe diet, and it was a diet which had worked for me before in my life very, very effectively. A diet of reduced calories, usually under 900 calories a day, but also restricting carbohydrates as well to under maybe 30 or 40 grams a day. In addition to which I was walking, exercising. So the combination of restricted calories, restricted carbohydrates, and exercise put me into the state which the Atkins Diet and the Atkins diet books and Dr. Atkins talk about, which is you go into a state of ketosis. Within a couple days before February 18, 1997, which was a Tuesday, I have been in the hospital emergency room because I feel myself fainting. I feel my heartbeat is irregular. I feel in serious danger. And so I go into the Emergency Room and what do they do? They say you’re dehydrated and they rehydrate me by putting an intravenous saline drip into me to get me back up to rehydration. This happened twice, at least once before the 18th and I’m not sure exactly which day but it probably would have been the Saturday before. I think it happens within a day or two after the event, on around the 19th or something like that. So two times during this period, I am in such ketosis of blood poisoning from the excess of ketones in my blood caused from five months of severe diet and exercise and just before and just after that I am dehydrated in ketosis and breathing shallowly. J. NEIL SCHULMAN: But in essence the precondition for what appears to happen to me appears to have a physiological component to it and it is described in the Bible and I unwittingly, simply by trying to take off weight, have put myself in the same situation as if I’d gone out to the desert to fight the devil. Fasting puts you into ketosis. Apparently the ketones have some toxic effect on the brain, which enables something to happen. This is not a drug experience. We’re not talking about taking an artificially engineered substance, or even a natural plant substance, into the body, to produce some sort of effect. We’re not talking about my taking Peyote or Marijuana or LSD or anything like this. This is something, which is in the body’s mechanism, itself, which can be triggered by a specific technique, and that technique is denial of food. And something happens in the brain. Now, on the Monday before, when I go to the Karl Hess Club, suddenly it occurs to me I have done things over the previous few days. I have, in essence, sent out information to various different people. I have met during that previous week with detectives at the L.A.P.D. and presented my theory to them. I have presented it to O.J.’s attorneys. And that night it occurs to me, if this has gotten to Ron Shipp, if this information that I am presenting a theory that Ron Shipp was involved in these murders and framing O.J., I could be in physical danger. BRAD LINAWEAVER: I remember you from that period and I remember I’ve never seen you more paranoid. J. NEIL SCHULMAN: Right, because I suddenly thought, “what have I done to myself? I’ve exposed myself, I’ve exposed my family here, and I need to take immediate action to batten down the hatches before because if I am vulnerable I wouldn’t know about it.” In essence I go to high alert. That night I went to my bank, I withdrew cash, got into my car and started wondering where should I put myself for the next few days, while I’m making further contacts? Who can I go to who I wouldn’t necessarily be traced to, if I were to go there as a safe house? Should I drive to Jean, Nevada, and stay in one of those $18 a night hotel rooms, which I could easily afford to do? Is there some friend who could be useful to me? What I essentially decided to do that night was drive out to Randy Herrst’s house and ask him for help. I drove out late at night to Randy’s. He came down with me, and we basically sat in my car, and I laid out all of this to him. And I said, “Look, am I just being paranoid or is there a real possibility that I’m in danger here?” He said, “Neil, the point is that you have no way of knowing, and so, yes, you were right to take protective steps. Now let’s figure out what we’re going to do, to resolve this quickly, in such a way that you don’t have to go into hiding if somebody really is pissed off with you and is going to take some action.” So around 10 o’clock in the morning of February 18th I’ve been up all night talking with Randy and strategizing this. So now in addition to the physiological condition of ketosis and dehydration, which I’ve been experiencing, I’ve now gone without a night’s sleep. And we go have the meeting with this attorney in Beverly Hills. He says, “Well, look, I know another attorney who has a direct contact with Gil Garcetti at the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office. Let’s present your material to him.” And so we make an appointment for me to go back to his office later that day and meet with him again. Now, having had this first meeting with Randy and this attorney, in the morning of February 18th, I need to get some sleep. Randy thinks it’s a good idea if I not go to sleep unprotected. That I not go to sleep and simply be alone. BRAD LINAWEAVER: You mean have somebody on guard? J. NEIL SCHULMAN: Have somebody on guard. This is Randy’s suggestion. Randy is acting in essence as my bodyguard at this point. But Randy also has gone a night without sleep and he needs to go home and sleep as well, before this meeting, and so we called up another friend of ours, Dafydd ab Hugh, and I said, “Dafydd can you come over to my place?” and I explained the situation in brief. I said, “There’s some potential for danger. I don’t know exactly how to calculate it. It may be a small potential. It may be a large potential. But we don’t know. Could you just come over to my place and just sort of watch my back while I get some sleep?” And Dafydd said, “Yes,” and he came over. Dafydd gets there around 11:30 or 11:45 in the morning. And Randy says, “Okay, I’m going to go home and get some sleep and I’ll meet you later today, and we’ll go over to the attorney’s office again.” So Dafydd is out in the living room, and I say, “Okay, I’m going to lie down.” And I go into my bedroom, and I close the door to lie down and get some sleep before the meeting. And I lay down on my bed, and about ten seconds later — almost immediately — something has happened and I sit up in bed. The first impression I’m having is that I have just traveled a long way, and I’ve just arrived. And I’m looking around and I’m thinking, “Where am I? What’s going on?” Remember, all of this is from my internal perspective. Okay. I am sitting up and saying, “Huh! Now I’m here. I’ve just arrived.” But I wonder what’s going on. And suddenly I sit up, stand up, and I remember that I am God. I’m realizing as this is coming along, as my mind is sifting through all the new stuff, that J. Neil Schulman is a fictional persona, which I have created my entire life, because up until that moment I was hiding from myself the fact that I was God. This is what is going through my mind while this is happening. Now. One can say that I’m going through a psychotic episode at this point. Certainly the physiological conditions for a psychotic episode — ketosis, dehydration, lack of sleep — all of these various things can add up and say that I’m having a break with reality. But the problem is that I’m not experiencing it as a break with reality.

You can look up bills on the US Senate site, which returns results at the Library of Congress site. Full text PDF link: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111s4023pcs/pdf/BILLS-111s4023pcs.pdf Looks fairly straightforward. No earmarks.

Here's an excerpt from an article published at Rollcall.com by US House of Representatives Democrat Steve Cohen. I was recently the victim of bad reporting myself. A network owned by Turner Broadcasting System and Time Warner — truTV — aired a story on Nov. 12 called “The Police State Conspiracy” that contained grossly inaccurate information, insulted victims of the Holocaust and accused me and other elected officials of breaking the law. The show, “Conspiracy Theory,” is hosted by former wrestler and Gov. Jesse Ventura and focused on legislation I co-sponsored with my colleagues, H.R. 645, which has never even passed out of a subcommittee. The bill would establish emergency operations centers to share information and provide assistance in case of emergencies and natural disasters. But in Ventura’s “report” he claimed that it created concentration camps across the country run by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. This, of course, is an outrageous distortion and outright lie, but to tell viewers that there is a government conspiracy to drag innocent Americans to FEMA-run concentration camps is dangerous and irresponsible. In the piece, Ventura continually insisted facilities he has uncovered are command centers for a network of concentration camps ready to be activated under martial law and that Americans should fear an inevitable government takeover. These are outright lies that were crafted to stimulate ratings for advertising revenue and to keep chatter going among conspiracy theorists. Among Ventura’s irresponsible claims is that an Immigration and Customs Enforcement center in Texas and a low-security federal prison in California are actually concentration/prison camps. He then insinuated that coffin liners are being produced en masse for FEMA concentration camps across the country and that the federal government is preparing to start a pandemic as an impetus for martial law. Each of his claims can be easily refuted, but the program distorted my attempts to rebut them. “Conspiracy Theory” is the very thing it purports to expose — dangerous lies and deception. I am shocked and appalled that TBS and Time Warner would produce a program so full of inaccuracies and irresponsible distortions and let an on-air personality like Jesse Ventura make outrageous and unsubstantiated comparisons between the Holocaust and an imagined FEMA concentration camp scenario. It is disrespectful to victims of the Holocaust and dangerously stirs fear among its viewers.

Objectivists may not have the specialized chops, nor the desire to spend a lot of time rooting around in difficult material. For example, AA posted a long discursion on probability, mostly derived from Berlinski, and further derived from materials put forth by the Discovery Institute. I spent a few days reacquainting myself with the immense material elsewhere that has developed in response to the DI bumf. AA was mostly regurgitating arguments that had been debunked elsewhere by folks with a stupendous advantage over me on the subjects. I think if AA had good faith, he would be acquainted with those debates and debunkings and raised his game. Instead his eructions increasingly took the form of Trollery. I don't think this fits. You have to estimate the gravity and engagement of the interlocutor. It is up to the claimant to lead the discussion. Chu Hua for example announced she considered herself an Objectivist who practiced Dianetics. Where do you start with something like that? Maybe I am rude and dismissive and awful and emotional, but the pings from my BS meter led me to view AA and Chu Hua as cranks. There is no good argument to be had from a crank, since the opinions are so robust and implacable. I actually view those two (and on the subject of his prophesies and revelations, Neil Schulman) as kooky ranters who aren't actually on the field to advance knowledge per se, but are on the field to find confirmation. Here, now, we have Neil asserting that his experience of the divine shares not a tottle of similarity with other experiences. Where do you go with something like that? How fruitful is engagement likely to be? And presently we have another set of kook rants from Mr Wissler on the subject of The Conspirators. It is like watching someone play 'connect the dots.' You and I see five or ten dots. The cranks see a constellation, a Crab Nebula, engrams, invisible spirits and sundry truckloads of woo. Where do you start, knowing how it will likely finish? Incidentally, Chu Hua left SOLO after a bit of a trainwreck. The US Government is a criminal cabal, Dianetics is Truth, rant rant rant blah blah.

Speaking of crackpots, why do you presume that I place any value on either your ignorant questions or your spurious diagnoses? Well, Shayne, you can give a reference to your supporting information or not. You choose not. That says a lot more about you than it does me. Here's a parallel: you claim that 'The Gummint did Dastardly Fings.' We say, 'Oh Yeah, How Do You Know -- Where Do You Get Your Information?' And you come back with 'Nevermind, Poo Poo Head.' Weak, feeble, disengaged. You go on the Ignore list for me.