Subject: Cont.- Are there Jobs for Biologists?
From: pohl@earthlink.net
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 1997 11:46:25 -0500
Original post: Hi, I'm considering going to school to study biology. i would
like to know if there presently are jobs in this field and what is predicted
for years to come. Does anyone know of a good website that would be helpful?
Hi, I'm the author of the posting "Are there Jobs for Biologists?" I would
like to thank those of you who replied to my posting. I have gained insight
and learned of many good links. I received comments on my original posting
regarding my failure to mention academics, my skills and direction. So for
those of you who are interested! I'm in my thirties and am presently employed
by a highly respected R&D; lab. I'm a key technician working on a team
specializing in chemical processing, that involves etching and microscope
work. I'm also Responcible for supporting our group with SEM microscopy. my
hobbies include fly-fishing, entomology (mostly aquatic), nature photography
(my work has been exhibited in many local galleries), Internet research and
geology. I am quite accustomed to accurate note taking in my observations
both personally and professionally. I hold an Associates degree in Electrical
Technology. I graduated with high honers and have taken many higher level
mathematics and physics courses as well. I've always had a strong interest in
learning and preserving our environment. I would like to further my interest
by applying the skills that I have aquired while furthering my education. I'm
currently doing research to learn more about independent study and to find
out what programs are offered by area colleges. I would like to attend
college full time if I found a position where the employer was willing to
work with me (i.e. flexible work schedule). The types of work that interest
me the most are field work, lab work and microscopy.
Thanks for reading!
1) I resently requested information regarding volunteer
opportunities with The Department of Interior. Are there
other sources for volunteer work?
2) I reside in the Saratoga, New York area. Are there jobs or
any home bases in the Albany/Saratoga Region?
Thanks please reply to pohl@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Marijuana science is interesting!!!
From: Patricia Schwarz
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 07:23:21 -0800
BBrian Sandle wrote:
> : Then cannabinoids are undoubtedly good for the hippocampus,
> : check out the research on the syntehtic cannabinoid HU211
> : which as a brain anti-inflammatory reduces neural damage from
> : hypoxia by up to 50%
>
> No, no, for someone whose breathing has been reduced it is no good to
> tell them that they will only suffer half the damage.
>
You really are confused aren't you? 8-}
Marijuana does not work by hypoxia, it does not work like a
"dirty drug", it was discovered in 1986 that it works through
a system of chemoreceptors that account for its effects.
There is no hypoxia involved whatsoever in the action of
cannabinoids and this is certain.
The place where "hypoxia" came into your misunderstanding
may be where I referred to HU211, which is not even smoked,
it is an injectable synthetic cannabinoid that is made
in the lab. Here, I will describe the research in very very
simple language so that you have a small chance of comprehending:
They did some experiments with rats. They either gave them
meningitis, hit them on the head really hard or cut off
their oxygen for some length of time.
After causing deliberate brain trauma to the rats in the
above manner, they injected them with the synthetic
cannabinoid HU21l. To which they had not been exposed to before.
The rats who got the HU211 injections had half the neural
damages as the conrols in the test who were also subjected
to the same deliberate brain trauma.
Do you understand now? Administered after a brain trauma,
the synthetic canninoid HU211, because of the anti-inflammatory
action of the cannabinoid system that lalready exists in your
brain, can reduce nerual damage by a significant percentage.
I can see that ten years of research in this field by
pharmacologists and molecular biologists and neuroscientists
has not made much of an impact even among people who ought
to know.
> You are probably telling me no more than once drugs have damaged a brain
> through hypoxia then they may have to continue to be taken.
You are obviously arguing from an ideological standpoint and
probably aren't capable of digesting my above explanation. Oh well.
I'll keep trying, though.
These results have nothing at all to do with damage from "drugs"
they are specific to the cannabinoid system.
Cannabinoids including those in marijuana act through a unique
receptor system with unique properties. So marijuana is in
fact far more comparable to a tricyclic anti-depressant than
it is to, say, alcohol. Tricyclic anti-depressants act mainly
through the serotonin system. Well, here we have a whole
newly-discovered receptor system to use medically.
It's pretty fascinating. What did this system evolve for?
What does it do? And what disorders might be caused by
not having the proper gene for expressing natural cannabinoids?
This is all pretty intriguing stuff folks. It's not a "dirty
drug" i.e. something that acts like alcohol. Cannabinoids
are manufactured by the brain and immune system and they
play a vital role in all animals including humans.
Look, Brian, your own brain is already full of anadamide, which
is the natural analog of THC.
So if THC causes brain damage as you say, I guess we're all
BORN DAMAGED THEN. Because the code for producing cannabinoids
was encoded in your genes, babe, many millions of years ago.
Whether you like it or not, your health depends on cannabinoids
manufactured in your own head. THis is just a fact. But one
that has yet to reach the stage of being understood by large
numbers of scientists outside the cannabinoid field.
-patricia
--
Naked is a state of mind
Luscious Jackson
Subject: American scientists are cowardly, was:Re: aclu to the rescue
From: Patricia Schwarz
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 07:40:19 -0800
I want to hear from anyone from the AAAS on the science
question. If you want to spout off about legalization issues
in general, please go to alt.drugs.pot, that is all they do
there.
But I want to know -- where are all the pro-science organizations
now when Clinton is openly claiming that medical marijuana laws are
impeding the process of scientific decision-making, when he himself
has forbidden the clinical research that has been proposed and
sat the table for the last five years?
They literally said, "This research is not needed because
the law already tells us what we need to know on this issue."
Where is the AAAS on this question??? Where is the APS, the
NAS, where are all of our defenders of science here????????
Where do the Skeptics stand? Where does Mr. Sokal stand,
is he silent here becuase he can't play a prank on impoverished
philosophers to make his point?
Where are Ed Witten and David Gross, who talk tough against
postmodernism as well? Where are they when a real scientist
is told he can't do real science because the results of the
experiments have been decided in advance by government policy?
I'm not hearing any answers here, just cheap diversions that one
can have literally miles of in the drug groups.
Has American science fallen into moral slumber? Are scientists
only capable of attacking the less powerful such as humanities with
1/100th the budget?
You can find out a lot about peoples' true dedication to
pursuit of truth if you ask them to take a little bite at
the hand that feeds them.
No, scientists in this case are only happy to bite the
hands of starving humanities, there is not enough real
moral courage left in American science to stand up to
the government on anything sibstantial where grant blackmail
can be used.
Clinton is threatening to arrest doctors. Even some doctors are
caving in to his coercion. So I can understand that American
scientists are too terrified to make even the smallest PEEP
here.
-patricia
Subject: Re: American scientists are cowardly (was: aclu to the rescue)
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Date: 2 Jan 1997 09:25:19 -0600
-*--------
In article <32CBD6E3.787C@vasilisa.com>,
Patricia Schwarz wrote:
> I'm not hearing any answers here, just cheap diversions that one
> can have literally miles of in the drug groups.
The major issues concerned are political, not scientific, and the
vast majority of scientists think clearly enough to realize this.
Most of those who protest the stupidities of the War on Drugs
will not complain that it limits scientific research, but rather,
will add their voice to the *political* opposition. Many do
this, if Schwarz cares to look rather than kvetch.
I am *far* less concerned about someone getting money to research
the medicinal properties of marijuana than I am about the
imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Does
Schwarz think I should be more concerned about the former than
the latter? If so, why? Personally, I am skeptical that we will
find anything medicinally important in marijuana. But I also
believe that jailing people for growing it, smoking it, and
selling it is a political travesty. So: how should I honestly
protest? That the War on Drugs is limiting medical research in a
small way? Or that it is destroying the lives of many innocents?
Tell us, Schwarz, which issue is important here?
-*---------
It is not clear what complaint Schwarz expects from scientists
about the grant process. "Hey! You're deciding grants on the
basis of politics rather than science alone!" Well, dear, that
is the way grants have *always* worked. That is why the 80s saw
lots of grants for Star Wars research. That is why the 90s sees
less emphasis on basic research and more on applied research.
Yes, scientists complain. But they complain knowing that
government largesse is *always* politicized. If Schwarz is
looking for some stance that government grants should be made
purely on the basis of science ... well, that is a philosophic
impossibility, showing a misunderstanding of what science is
about. If one wants to change the focus of science grants, one
has to work politically, not scientifically.
> Has American science fallen into moral slumber?
This reflects a philosophically mistaken view of science. Except
(arguably) in how to gain empirical knowledge, science does not
carry any political view. Scientists vary widely in their
politics, from the libertarianism of someone like sci.med's own
Rubin to the Marxism of Llewontin. If Schwarz is looking to
science generally for political inspiration, she is confused.
Science cannot provide this. (That is *why* science funding is
necessarily politicized. The impetus comes from human desire.
Science provides only the method.)
> ... Are scientists only capable of attacking the less powerful
> such as humanities with 1/100th the budget? ...
The criticisms of the pomos are philosophic, not scientific. The
criticisms often came from scientists, because the pomos were
saying extremely stupid things about science and related
philosophy, and the scientists knew better. (My current
.signature shows the kind of stupidities that are taught by
pomo-educated PhD's!) I believe the chief concern was not for
science, but for broader academic and cultural interests.
Russell
--
What reading produces is text. Is there a beyond? Certainly. Can
philosophy or litcrit approach it a-textually? Nope.
-- Silke Weineck, postmodern humanities scholar
Subject: Re: Seeking Research Funding from The Private Sector
From: wpenrose@interaccess.com (William R. Penrose)
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 11:29:22
In article <5aghjd$cud@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> slutes@bcm.tmc.edu (Steve Lutes) writes:
>It's common knowledge that goverment research funding is tight. So
>instead of whining about it, I've decided to do something constructive.
>Therefore I'm looking for research $$$ from private sector
>organizations (for- and non-profit). I firmly believe that are
>businesses interested in research and long-term gains. On non-profits
>interested in research as well.
>Can someone tell me where I can get info about private sector (profits
>and non-profits) research funding? Companies, web site, mailing
>lists-it doesn't matter.
If there was such a thing, there would be a feeding frenzy, the likes of which
have never before been seen on Usenet. There are thousands of hungry
researchers out there, academic, industrial, whatever, sniffing the ground for
the scent of money.
From personal experience, I can say that industrial R&D; money is about 10
times harder to locate, 10 times harder to get once located, and always less
than is needed for the tasks to be performed. The reason is that
industry in general has no use for R&D;, and especially basic R&D.; The driving
force is short-term profit. Money spent on R&D; has to lead to product
improvements, ie, a clear competitive edge or lower cost of production. New
product development is a very distant third to the first two motives. The
outcome has to be clearly visible, and a chain of tasks leading directly to
the desired outcome has to be clear to even the thickest brain. In other
words, it isn't research, which is a gamble by definition.
There are exceptions to this general rule. Large companies tend to be looser
with the purse-strings than small ones. Timing the proposal to the company's
fiscal year can be useful, since tax breaks are a big item in decisions on R&D.;
A caution: When presenting your ideas to a company, try to avoid the internal
R&D; people when possible. They are usually worried about their jobs, and will
sometimes pirate an idea. A few years ago, we approached a food company with
a plan to use sensor arrays for quality control. Their R&D; people were asked
to sit in, and their attitude was "good idea, I think we can do that
in-house". That killed our proposal instantly. Management's attitude was
that they were already paying their R&D; people to play in the sandbox; why not
have them do something useful? (Incidentally, they never did do the project
in-house.)
I will post a summary of replies to this NG
>unless the person replying indicates otherwise.
You are very generous. If I compiled a list of private and industrial R&D;
sources, I would charge a very high price for it!
Bill
********************************************************
Bill Penrose, President, Custom Sensor Solutions, Inc.
526 West Franklin Avenue, Naperville, IL 60540
630-369-9618 (temporary)
email wpenrose@interaccess.com
********************************************************
Subject: Re: Cont.- Are there Jobs for Biologists?
From: Michael Stillman
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 12:01:22 -0500
pohl@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> Original post: Hi, I'm considering going to school to study biology. i would
> like to know if there presently are jobs in this field and what is predicted
> for years to come. Does anyone know of a good website that would be helpful?
Hi. One person's opinion:
There are a decent number of jobs available for biologists at the
bachelor's
and master's degree levels (relocations might be in order). However, if
a doctorate program is a possibility, you might consider the following.
There is a glut of Ph.D. scientists in many disciplines (especially
biology
and physics). Also, the funding situation is bad and getting worse.
While
I think the circulating stories about Ph.D. cab drivers are extreme,
there
are many Ph.D. biologists & others who trained for research and/or
teaching,
but have ended up working in communications, finance, computers, etc.
One thing a solid science education should teach you is how to analyze
and
solve problems; it should sharpen your thought processes (and despite
the
advertised Job Title, everyone hires Problem Solvers). The ability to
analyze
a situation and come up with several possible solutions will be valued
by
employers across disciplines.
Above all, do what you *enjoy* doing. The bleak outlook/reality for
biologists
at certain levels can't endure forever. Take that postdoctorate
fellowship for
$19,000 if you really love the work. Just do yourself a favor and
realize that
your training as a scientist can give you skills that may be more
broadly based
that you've thought.
Good luck,
Mike
==========================================================================
Michael J. Stillman, Ph.D.
DendWrite Communications
"Medical Writing, Editing, and Website Development Services"
33 Dinsmore Avenue, Suite 602
Framingham, MA 01702
Tel/Fax: 508.875.7782
http://www.dendwrite.com/users/stillent
Subject: Re: American scientists are cowardly, was:Re: aclu to the rescue
From: jack wright
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 1997 19:16:21 -0800
Patricia Schwarz wrote:
>
> I want to hear from anyone from the AAAS on the science
> question. If you want to spout off about legalization issues
> in general, please go to alt.drugs.pot, that is all they do
> there.
>
> But I want to know -- where are all the pro-science organizations
> now when Clinton is openly claiming that medical marijuana laws are
> impeding the process of scientific decision-making, when he himself
> has forbidden the clinical research that has been proposed and
> sat the table for the last five years?
>
> They literally said, "This research is not needed because
> the law already tells us what we need to know on this issue."
>
> Where is the AAAS on this question??? Where is the APS, the
> NAS, where are all of our defenders of science here????????
>
> Where do the Skeptics stand? Where does Mr. Sokal stand,
> is he silent here becuase he can't play a prank on impoverished
> philosophers to make his point?
>
> Where are Ed Witten and David Gross, who talk tough against
> postmodernism as well? Where are they when a real scientist
> is told he can't do real science because the results of the
> experiments have been decided in advance by government policy?
>
> I'm not hearing any answers here, just cheap diversions that one
> can have literally miles of in the drug groups.
>
> Has American science fallen into moral slumber? Are scientists
> only capable of attacking the less powerful such as humanities with
> 1/100th the budget?
>
> You can find out a lot about peoples' true dedication to
> pursuit of truth if you ask them to take a little bite at
> the hand that feeds them.
>
> No, scientists in this case are only happy to bite the
> hands of starving humanities, there is not enough real
> moral courage left in American science to stand up to
> the government on anything sibstantial where grant blackmail
> can be used.
>
> Clinton is threatening to arrest doctors. Even some doctors are
> caving in to his coercion. So I can understand that American
> scientists are too terrified to make even the smallest PEEP
> here.
>
> -patricia
your point must be political, because i don't get it.
Subject: Re: American scientists are cowardly, was:Re: aclu to the rescue
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 02:17:15 GMT
In article <32CB2885.1BD@ghgcorp.com>, jack wright writes:
>Patricia Schwarz wrote:
>>
... snip ...
>>
>> But I want to know -- where are all the pro-science organizations
>> now when Clinton is openly claiming that medical marijuana laws are
>> impeding the process of scientific decision-making, when he himself
>> has forbidden the clinical research that has been proposed and
>> sat the table for the last five years?
... snip ...
>>
>> Clinton is threatening to arrest doctors. Even some doctors are
>> caving in to his coercion. So I can understand that American
>> scientists are too terrified to make even the smallest PEEP
>> here.
>>
>> -patricia
>
>your point must be political, because i don't get it.
No, actually I think that there is a scientific point here too. Let
me point out a few things.
1) As somebody pointed out already, scientists are not a unified
political body and shouldn't be expected to act as a body on political
issues.
2) The government is under no obligation to base its decisions on
scientific considerations. There is no place in the Constitution
where it says "The government shall not enact a law without the
advice and consent of the scientific community". The government is a
political body and has the right to ignore any scientific
recommendation and consideration if it choses so (whether it is smart,
that's another story).
So, in view of the above, why do I claim that there is a scientific
point here. Because there is a strong tendency, on part of the
government to use "scientific research results" as a partial
justification for various initiatives and, to the best of my memory,
lots of such claims were floated around the "War on Drugs". Now, if
it happens that such research has been "doctored", that contradictory
results were ignored or that studies having the potential to
invalidate said research have been banned, in short if the quoted
research is of dubious and questionable quality, then yes, the
scientific community should object, strongly and publicly. Not to the
proposed law or initiative, since this is a political matter, but to
the claim that it is based on "science". It is not just a matter of
ethics (and it is probably a waste of time to appeal to ethics
anyway), but of self interest. Regardless of any political beliefs
individual scientist may hold, we all have a vested interest in
maintaining and protecting our credibility. Thus, in cases like those
I've mentioned above, it is in the best long term interest of the
scientific community to issue a statement to the effect "proceed if
you wish but don't mix our name in this".
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: Marijuana science is interesting!!!
From: bsandle@southern.co.nz (Brian Sandle)
Date: 3 Jan 1997 02:56:08 GMT
Patricia Schwarz (violette@vasilisa.com) wrote:
: BBrian Sandle wrote:
:
: > : Then cannabinoids are undoubtedly good for the hippocampus,
: > : check out the research on the syntehtic cannabinoid HU211
: > : which as a brain anti-inflammatory reduces neural damage from
: > : hypoxia by up to 50%
: >
: > No, no, for someone whose breathing has been reduced it is no good to
: > tell them that they will only suffer half the damage.
: >
:
: You really are confused aren't you? 8-}
:
: Marijuana does not work by hypoxia, it does not work like a
: "dirty drug", it was discovered in 1986 that it works through
: a system of chemoreceptors that account for its effects.
:
: There is no hypoxia involved whatsoever in the action of
: cannabinoids and this is certain.
What I asked is that if they reduce muscular irritablity why not breathing?
I think that there is some evidence that they may cause foetal hypoxia,
though I'm not sure of the mechanism. So your suggestion would be to do
what then?
[...]
:
: Cannabinoids including those in marijuana act through a unique
: receptor system with unique properties. So marijuana is in
: fact far more comparable to a tricyclic anti-depressant than
: it is to, say, alcohol. Tricyclic anti-depressants act mainly
: through the serotonin system. Well, here we have a whole
: newly-discovered receptor system to use medically.
:
: It's pretty fascinating. What did this system evolve for?
: What does it do? And what disorders might be caused by
: not having the proper gene for expressing natural cannabinoids?
:
: This is all pretty intriguing stuff folks. It's not a "dirty
: drug" i.e. something that acts like alcohol. Cannabinoids
: are manufactured by the brain and immune system and they
: play a vital role in all animals including humans.
:
: Look, Brian, your own brain is already full of anadamide, which
: is the natural analog of THC.
:
: So if THC causes brain damage as you say, I guess we're all
: BORN DAMAGED THEN. Because the code for producing cannabinoids
: was encoded in your genes, babe, many millions of years ago.
: Whether you like it or not, your health depends on cannabinoids
: manufactured in your own head. THis is just a fact. But one
: that has yet to reach the stage of being understood by large
: numbers of scientists outside the cannabinoid field.
As a physicist you should understand threshholds of activity.
& I know there is a tremendous desire to be different/more perceptive.
But to try to urge nature on has lots of risks since there are factors
not known. As I said I believe that you are urging men on to a backwards
path. And unborn children.
Brian Sandle
Subject: Re: American scientists are cowardly (was: aclu to the rescue)
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Date: 2 Jan 1997 21:48:55 -0600
-*---------
In article , wrote:
> So, in view of the above, why do I claim that there is a scientific
> point here. Because there is a strong tendency, on part of the
> government to use "scientific research results" as a partial
> justification for various initiatives and, to the best of my memory,
> lots of such claims were floated around the "War on Drugs". Now, if
> it happens that such research has been "doctored", that contradictory
> results were ignored or that studies having the potential to
> invalidate said research have been banned, in short if the quoted
> research is of dubious and questionable quality, then yes, the
> scientific community should object, strongly and publicly. ...
As an example of this, one would expect scientists concerned with
recreational use of drugs to work through groups such as the
Consumer's Union to provide more objective information on drug
effects, perhaps even publishing such in a book called
"Consumer's Union Guide to Licit and Illicit Drugs."
But that would never happen.
Or if it did, who would notice?
Or ... oh, what the hell. Every intelligent person raised in
American society in recent decades knows that the cops and the
politicians lie about drugs. Anyone who hasn't figured this out
by the age of twenty-five has either bought into the lies or is
too damn dumb to poor piss out of a boot when the instructions
are written on the heel. The Clinton administration's latest
salvo is just one more example in long decades of such. In case
no one has noticed, Surgeon Generals get fired or squelched for
asserting simple truths. Should scientists complain? Absolutely!
But so should everyone.
Russell
--
What reading produces is text. Is there a beyond? Certainly. Can
philosophy or litcrit approach it a-textually? Nope.
-- Silke Weineck, postmodern humanities scholar
Subject: Re: FATTI NON FOSTE...
From: dev2506@iperbole.bologna.it (Govinda)
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 05:11:43 GMT
Caro F. D. B.,
da quanto hai scritto ritengo che tu stia "cercando".
Come tutti, chi piu`, chi meno coscientemente. Chi oggi, chi ieri, chi
domani, chi sempre, tutti ci si domanda questi ed altri "Perche`".
E` quella condizione esistenziale che il romanticismo tedesco
definisce "suchen": cercare, e "der Suchende": colui che cerca.
> FATTI NON FOSTE ...
>
per viver come bruti,
ma per seguir VIRTUTE
e....
>La conoscenza e' un valore primario.
e mi pare che trascuri alquanto la Virtu`, altrimenti tutto il tuo
girare intorno alla Conoscenza sarebbe meno affannoso..
>Proprio non capisco: non si rinuncia per un giorno ad acqua calda,
>phoen (asciugacapelli), aspirina, automobile e tivu, ne' ad un volo ai
>Caraibi alla prima occasione, ma guai ad esultare per Internet,
Inoltre "conoscenza" e tecnologia non sono affatto la stessa cosa..
Dante ed Ulisse (cosi` come Prometeo, Parsifal, Socrate, Cristo,
Budda...) intendono la conoscenza DI SE STESSI, dei propri fini,
scopi, limiti..
Che la ricerca avvenga NEL MONDO e sulle COSE del mondo e` solo
un'inevitabile necessita`: mi posso conoscere, MISURARE, solo
guardandomi agire e manipolare lo spazio che mi circonda, il "se`" e`
definibile solo in relazione al "non se`".
Similitudine: solo guardando lo specchio posso vedere il mio volto.
>Quasi tutti riteniamo la sopravvivenza della specie piu' importante di
>quella del singolo, al punto di essere spesso capaci, se necessario,
>di sacrificare per essa la nostra vita, perche' ?
Questo e` un caposaldo di tutto il tuo ragionamento, la cui
infondatezza (da dove lo deduci? ma quando mai?) sarebbe solo un punto
di stima a tuo favore (se cosi` pensi, vuol dire che sei un
"altruista"), se non fosse per le rovinose conseguenze a cui puo`
portare:
1) Teorica:
>--cut--------.. nulla puo' valere piu' di un uomo, se non "
>e' " di piu' di un uomo, e cos'e', questi, se non coscienza ? Quindi
>l'umanita' potrebbe anche essere il corpo di qualche forma di coscienza
>superiore, come l'insieme delle cellule di un organismo complesso.
Asserzione, questa, che sta alla base di ogni "Fondamentalismo",
(religioso, politico, etc.) che appunto vede l'individuo asservito
alla specie, alla razza, alla collettivita`. L'ideale al di sopra
dell'uomo, con il possibile sacrificio del secondo in nome del primo..
2) Patica:
Quella di mostrarti (se sei cosi` convinto) come un potenziale futuro
"kamikaze", "uomo-bomba" in un autobus, o alla Coop. Per un
"qualsiasi" nobilissimo ideale.
>Bene, ma chi glielo fa fare, agli uomini, di arrivare fino al
>sacrificio di se' per la comunita'?
Esatto, ma fortunatamente sono solo pochi esaltati, che per qualche
decennio diventano esempi esecrabili o monumenti di piazza (a seconda
di chi vince), ma che sono in entrambe i casi dimenticati nel volgere
di pochi secoli.
> Potranno anche albergare degli
>esseri superiori , in essa, degli angeli, degli "Uomini", ma che gliene
>frega a quelli con la "u" minuscola, se, come sembra, possono scegliere?
Ecco e` la coscienza dell'assoluta RELATIVITA` del
minuscolo\maiuscolo, che spero ti fecondi, con il fruttifero seme del
dubbio.. :-)
Ciao, Govinda.
** QUI ED ORA ** SONO/SEI/E' ** L'ETERNO INFINITO **
