mary patric - 12/22/00 23:15:08 My URL:"> My Email:mary@ureach.com Link(s) to add to these pages: http://

Comments: i was surprised to find this page. i came upon it "accidentally". years ago when nutra sweet first came out, i began using it. for quite a while i began to experience severe fatigue and muscle weakness. i had many tests and no reason was ever found. the doctors finally wanted me to go to a psychiatrist because the only thing that was left to assume was clinical depression. i had a feeling it may be the nutra sweet and i stopped using it. ive never had the problem again. i have what may be some lasting neurological damage, but it is hard to say what has caused it, as i have had a head injury as well. anyway, thanks for the information. it may validate my concerns about aspartame.

wim hartemink - 12/13/00 19:29:06 My Email:wil.hartemink@net.HCC.nl Link(s) to add to these pages: http://

Comments: hello, I am an outsider as being european but it is december 13th now and congratulations are on the last to send to usa citisans. As the Us is supposed to export democracy the last weeks are impossible to understand wish you better times wim hartemin , holland

Keith in Houston - 12/13/00 13:53:33 My Email:barnwoodcrafts@netscape.net Link(s) to add to these pages: http:// My nominee for President: Bill Gates Another name to keep in mind: Rep. John Culbertson, (R), TX

Comments: In the State of Texas, the winning party nominates the slate of electors, which are then confirmed by the Legislature (both houses) which are then certified by the Secretary of State, and are then remanded to the Electoral College by the Legislature.

- 11/20/00 23:56:59 Link(s) to add to these pages: http:// My nominee for President: Walter Cronkite Another name to keep in mind: Franklin Thomas

Comments: It's working. If just nine Electors change their vote, (16 Electors, if Gore wins Florida), The election would go to the House of Representatives. We could get a President who more people trust and respect and admire. The system is working well when most people believe that the person chosen is a very good first or second choice. I don't think most people think that about the current candidates, who seem to want the job so bad.

- 10/30/00 07:01:04 Link(s) to add to these pages: http://

Comments: There is one maxim and a corollary that must underlie all of our thinking about saving the Earth. The maxim is that no private interests - neither rights to property nor profit - can get in the way of the human right to clean air and clean water and an atmosphere that will permit continuation of life on Earth. The corollary is that the costs of saving the Earth must be shared by us all. -- Walter Cronkite from a book titled 'Save the Earth', by Jonathan Porritt

The King of Pain - 10/19/00 09:45:35 My URL:http://www.kingsofpain.co.uk/ My Email:kingsofpain@yahoo.co.uk Link(s) to add to these pages: http://www.catenema.com/ My nominee for President: The King of Pain

Comments: We (not unlike Jesus) wept. Yours in Love

Ben Dillon - 09/28/00 21:47:52 My Email:bendillon17@hotmail.com Link(s) to add to these pages: http:// My nominee for President: Matt Drudge Another name to keep in mind: Howard Phillips

Comments: Hi, You messaged me about two weeks ago on Napster, but, being ever so busy with the first weeks of college, I just took the initiative today to check out the website. Very impressive! Ben Dillon bendillon17@hotmail.com

vernon mosley - 09/27/00 05:40:03 My Email:m-m1@pcis.net Link(s) to add to these pages: http:// Another name to keep in mind: pat buchanan

Comments: I encountered your "not milk" while going through David Icke's pages and amazed! I haven't encountered anything like it before, and thoroughly ate it up. Especially the Monsanto meeting. I have lived on a small farm, milked a few cows when it could be done by hand (whew) and know several people who "dairy farm" now. Your work is quite revealing. I have always drank milk, though it was better when I milked it myself, but you certainly have given me food for thought. Thanks. Vernon Mosley p.s. on your president nominee, why would anyone choose the lesser of two evils? I had rather choose no evil at all. I could not do that with the two front runners.

- 07/09/00 03:02:28 Link(s) to add to these pages: http://

Comments: now i know why i get terrible headaches after i drink diet sodas!!!!! is diet-rite products safe? thank-you for the information,pj in tenn.

- 04/27/00 01:51:00 Link(s) to add to these pages: http://

Comments: Many thanks for helping out on the anti aspartame campaign. We are planning a march to the FDA here in DC sometime this summer. We will all be blowing ceremoinial whistles. Mission Possible Nations Capitol Dairy Education Board Organic Consumers Assn. Truth in Labeling Organization Etc Jon Baum http://aspartamekills.com

Mike - 03/17/00 08:30:20 My Email:maxmiles@earthlink.net Link(s) to add to these pages: http://

Comments: I just have a question for anyone who knows something about this. I believe it was the late 60's or the early 70's that Walter narrated a tv show called "The 21st Century". It opened up with a short teaser and then the opening credits with computerized sounds and music. I particulerly remember a episode that talked about the future of Transportation ie: cars and roads. I would like to know if anyone else remembers this show and how I might find recordings of them. Further more is there an address or web site or E-mail address where I could write to Mr. Cronkite to ask him about it?

- 01/10/00 00:41:26 My URL:http://www.oocities.org/gaiabrainearths Link(s) to add to these pages: http://www.publicintegrity.org My nominee for President: Walter Cronkite, of course Another name to keep in mind: Franklin Thomas

Comments: Problems of externalities that plague our society and ecosystems and that accompany the operation of our capitalist economic system can be solved by assessing fees on activities that produce external costs. Fees on natural resource use, or use of the commons, would allow citizens a means of moderating human activities that have an adverse impact on the human community or environment. Prices for goods and services whose production involves an adverse environmental impact would rise, encouraging changes in ndividuals' behavior and in production processes.

Clive Schoonover - 07/09/99 23:59:31 My Email:Dahaka@webtv.com

Comments: I must strongly dissagree with this Gaia Brain theory on the basis of common sense and my Christian obligation. The idea of mob rule deciding what individuals can and cannot do is just as cruel and unethical as locking animals in factory farms. It only takes a cursory glance around to see that there are no (and never have been) sucessfull marxist societies. A mass of unorganized people, each with their own opinions, is capable of absolutely no action whatsoever. In only a short time some soapbox polititian will convince the people that he represents them adequately, and once in power will institute some new version of the NKVD and then you can kiss all of your rights and your naive idealism goodby. And what gives someone the right to decide what is good and what isn't? Just because you don't like industry doesn't mean I and millions of others don't. Also the notion that you can change human nature by taxation has got to be the most naive thing i have ever heard. In todays society we willingly pay outlandish prices for commercial items and don't ever stop to ask why they are so expensive. People enjoy creature comforts and will not give them up, and if no one gives them up then the demand for industry will continue to rise. From a more moral standpoint, the imposition of ones will upon another is an obvious no-no. I am a Christian and wouid like to see more people turn to God, but i would never forcibly convert some one or restrict anyone from practicing their beliefs because God has specifically told us not to. In the past some Christians have commited the sin of judgement and persecution and now we are all criticised for their actions, but you would wish to do the same to your fellow man. For a final note there is no need for the world to become vegetarians. It is true that meat production is very inneficient, but an increase in overall food production would only cause more population growth (if any of that food ever even got to the starving people, which is doubtful) and a further strain on your little Gaia Brain. And maybe you have never looked at our own teeth, but they are made for eating meat and vegatables, as is your digestive system. Even the desire to hunt and our competitive nature is evidence of a carnivorous species. P.S. Pluralism is not unity!!

Read more Gaia Brain forums

The idea of mob rule deciding what individuals can and cannot do is just as cruel and unethical as locking animals in factory farms. 'Mob rule' connotes lawlessness. Do you mean to equate democracy with lawlessness? I am proposing several things, all, I believe, consistent with democratic principles and a commitment to non-violence. First, in a democracy the levels of pollution and rates of takings of natural resources ought to match the levels that half the people say are about right, or somewhat too high, while the other half say they are about right or somewhat too low, too restricted. Second, an efficient and fair way to decide who will have the priviledge of putting pollution into the air and taking natural resources from ecosystems and the earth, (and a fair way to provide for compensation to fellow humans for taking from them the option of using these resources themselves), would be to charge a fee for polluting or taking and degrading resources. Natural resources belong to all. The proceeds of these fees also are the property of all. We might want to make a rule that we all must spend some portion of our share of (this monetary representation of) earth's natuarl resource wealth on programs endorsed by a large part of the population, by the public at large. I hope that nothing I have said will be taken as a call to disregard or defy the law. I believe that respect for law is a prerequisite to the success of any government. I do want a government that mediates transactions between users of natural resources and the owners of the resources, the people at large, to succeed. I do think that respect for law is strengthened when government gives up any claim of a right to initiate the use of force against citizens. When the law respects an individual's right to do as they please in private, without any government attempts to regulate private behavior, then there will be more respect for law and government in general, and more acceptance of government authority to regulate public behavior. What is the line between public and private behavior? I think if it is visible or audible from public space, from space where all are able to travel to and from freely, then it is public behavior. I think public behavior includes environmental impacts and the keeping of animals in captivity. Some may argue whether keeping animals captive is a private or public act. I think that the community does have the authority to put limits on what kind of actions can be taken against sentient beings, and this implies that we cannot keep animal captive in secret, away from any public scrutiny. You are concerned about mob rule. What rule would the 'mob' produce, do you think, that would be harmful? I see 'unethical' as involving forcible action in some way. But I see this proposed political system as one that prohibits first-use of force by government. If we see the act of polluting or of taking natural resources as forcing others to take our waste products, or forcing others to do with less of what is in limited supply, then any government actions related to assessment of fees for the taking of public resources would be a response to a first-use of force by a polluter or user of natural resources. This paradigm would end government as we know it. When you renounce any authority of government to initiate the use of force, you drastically change or eliminate much of what government does today. It seems to me not unreasonable to suggest that, just as citizens of a democracy can put limits on how much noise our neighbor can make, we can also put overall limits on how much we allow people to pollute the air and water; and we can limit the amount of fish taken from the ocean and the number of trees cut from the forests, to ensure that we do not use up so much of what we have that there is not enough forest or fish population or biodiversity to produce the natural resource wealth that we will need next year and next generation. If your concern is that people's opinions might be volatile or fickle and that this could adversely affect the ability of industry to operate smoothly and plan for the future, then I agree that this is a possibility. But I think this concern could be addressed. We might want to encourage careful consideration of what drastic changes people will impose on society, because all change requires investments of energy, effort and time for learning new ways of doing. We ought to concentrate our limited resources on changing those things first which are most pressing. We could achieve this focus on priorities by asking citizens to keep most votes for changes in human impacts on earth to within a few percent of current levels. But in those areas that we feel are in urgent need of change, we could allow votes for more drastic changes in human impacts on the earth. (We could, of course, allow any vote for any drastic change. This is a free country. A vote is an opportunity for citizens to speak their minds. But we could count the votes that fall extremely far from the mean or consensus values with less weight than votes that fall closer to the average. This would mean that citizens could not gain unfair advantage by claiming a desire for a more drastic change than they really want to see, in hopes of skewing the average farther in their preferred direction. I could imagine a kind of social contract that allows people more leeway to vote for more abrupt changes in human impacts on natural resources in exchange for a willingness to let others decide what our public spending priorities ought to be. In other words, you can decide about spending my public share of natural resource wealth if you let me have your votes on how much we should reduce pollution and demands on natural resources, etc. The 'you' could be an individual, or all the rest of the global community We would be, in effect, trading one kind of political activity for another that we are more interested in.) I ... dissagree with this Gaia Brain theory on the basis of common sense and my Christian obligation. Specifically, which of the three assumptions or basic principles do you disagree with?     ...      [T]here are no (and never have been) sucessfull marxist societies. I think that whatever society we create, it will be more successful if we give up the notion that government can legitimately initiate the use of force against citizens. Our society will be more successful if it is democratic enough to let the people decide what levels of pollution and how much taking of natural resouurces we will allow. A more successful society would share the economic measure of our natural resource wealth, (the Commons), among all people equally. We might be more successful at funding public programs that enjoy popular support if we allow all people an equal say in how we allocate public spending.      A mass of unorganized people, each with their own opinions, is capable of absolutely no action whatsoever. Unless they are all united by a shared set of rules, such as in a free market. A free market is not only the most efficient way to allocate labor and capital resources, but also the most efficient way to allocate natural resources, too. Is that so wrong? ... to be continued...

Meat Eater - 07/03/99 04:46:17

Comments: Ummm...... I like meat!!! I'm a meat eater! I love the warm jucies!! Any way would you want an animal over population?! And hunters have to kill um anyway?! The cow is a very good example of all the uses. I mean I drink their milk, eat their mucsles, wear their skin.... Its sad how they die though... The slaughters cut a slit threw the cows/bull neck and it bleeds slowly do its death... I saw it on faces of death... Great movie!! to see on halloween. I'm sorry. But I love to eat meat. I guess its strong in my genetic memory. "MMM meat...," says my genetic memory,"juicey meat!!!" okie bu bye!

Carl Williams - 06/12/99 20:53:58 My Email:tornado@southwind.net My nominee for President: Howard Baker

Comments: My wife is a nurse who is suffering from many of the symptoms described in the article by Betty Martini. I, personally, experience headaches when I drink one diet pop and have stopped using it soon after it was introduced. But my wife still doesn't believe there is a cause and effect between her drinking habits (4+ diet colas a day) and her symptoms of joint aching, depression, headaches, etc. She is told the "company line" at nurses conventions that are similar to the article in the Wall Street Journal (also turned up in the search when one plugs in "Aspartame") It says, "No conclusive tests have ever shown Aspartame to be dangerous or unhealt y." It did acquiesce with the statistic that one out of 16,000 people have PTK syndrome they were born with and that an insigm in Aspartame contains this chemical and will cause problems in those people. But nothing is mentioned in a serious context about the real dangers. Typical of the large corporate domination of media outlets on important subjects of many kinds. Hurray for your taking the time to help spread the word about Aspartame. I am using print-outs of the articles to help fortify my arguments with my wife, in hopes that she will sometime in the future stop drinking it and actually start to feel better. Thanks, Carl Williams 261 N. Armour Wichita, KS 67206

- 06/11/99 18:24:04

Comments: The biggest meat-eater ever to exist was tyrannosaurus rex and it died out... while the biggest plant-eater every to exist was bronchiosaurus which was even larger and it died out too.

- 06/11/99 18:13:05

Comments: ...remark on the introduction to "violence begins at breakfast" - my oh my you're lashing on the helpings of moral guilt here aren't you? You know a lot more people would listen to some of the valid po nts vegetarians have if they presented their argument with less religious zeal and not so much judgemental emotionality. I'd just like to say, NO, my "complete breakfast" does NOT "include pain and suffering" - and yes, I like goat's milk with my cereal. This comes from my own four, dearly cherished goats who live happily outdoors in a big field with a shelter for bad weath r. Furthermore goats don't need to become pregnant in order to give milk, the stimulus of milking is enough. Before making such sweeping statements, think of responsible people who do not keep their animals in foul and cramped conditions - and there are q ite a few these days. PS: one of my neighbours claims to be an animal lover but she tries to feed her cats on a meat-free diet. Cats are even more exclusive carnivores than are dogs, and as a result they are not very well. Just because it is just about possible to keep an anim l alive on a diet it hasn't evolved for (the digestive system will try to extract whatever it can from whatever is offered) doesn't make it right; and to feed a carnivore on a veggie diet just because the sensitivities of the HUMAN owner can't cope with m at, is just as wrong as feeding ground offal to herbivores such as cows because it's cheap. There's more than one way of imposing human standards on animals. Food for thought.

Kudos to you for not keeping animals in such oppressive conditions as some others are kept. If there were more public awareness of the conditions that most cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, etc., are made to endure, we might decide that those who choose to eep animals in the most oppressive conditions ought to be made to pay a fee, in some proportion to how much suffering they seem to be imposing on animals they keep. This would be in the same spirit as the pollution fee; i.e., desi ned to limit the prevalence of those actions that most people find offensive, to keep them within limits that are acceptable to most people. If people saw how prevalent the 'concentration camp' style of factory farm is, and how oppressive the conditions a e, they may say that they want those kinds of practices to be discouraged. If people saw how you keep animals, they may not say that it is so offensive that it deserves to be discouraged with such fees. In this way, those who keep animals in less oppress ve conditions--where they can breathe fresh air and move about freely--will not suffer in the marketplace due to higher operating costs. Those who in the past chose the 'concentration camp' model of animal 'agriculture' may decide to re-evaluate that dec sion and perhaps change their methods to avoid that 'misery fee'. If we choose to, we can bring about a reduction in both the number of animals kept in captivity, and the amount of suffering inflicted on each one. It will cost a bit more to raise animals in more humane conditions, so the price of meat will increase somewhat. But consumers will not be unduely burdened if we distribute the fee proceeds to all people equally. Some people may choose to eat less meat, or to become vegetarian, and they will be better off for it.

BTW, I agree it is absurd to force cats to be vegetarian. I think it is also crazy to keep animals in captivity, and feed them the dregs of the slaughterhouse, to 'help' them. I know someone who keeps a bunch of de-clawed cats in her house, as a supposed act of kindness. (And a very stinky house it is.) But when we feed money to the animal slavery industry to get the cat food, we help to promote that industry. We are deciding that those cows and chickens, etc., should live in misery, then die so that the e other animals can live. Who are we to play god this way, or to decide that some deserve our help while others deserve to be treated as objects, as slaves or worse? I don't understand it, excepte that some people may be rather anti-social, or they find interaction with human beings too stressful. The keeping of a bunch of cats would be a kind of surrogate social interaction, ensuring that the keeper would have the attention of others and be able to give attention to others--something we all need, social beings that we are--without the perhaps higher level of stress involved in interactions with fellow humans.

Esther - 06/10/99 21:03:34

Comments: If I drink a diet drink with aspertame it acts the same way on me as caffinated drinks do, I am running to the bathroom very quickly. My urine however is fluorescent green, every time. It's wierd!! My cousin graduated in Sports Science and Nutrition and e told me that some people are allergic to aspertame and maybe I am one of them. Maybe we all are!!

Maxi Cass - 05/27/99 05:23:33

Janice Fleming - 05/20/99 14:02:20 My Email:j_l_fleming@hotmail.com My nominee for President: McDonalds Another name to keep in mind: Ramblers stake house and salon

Comments: Eat MEAT I LOVE meat! Meat is my friend. And for all of you vegetarians that think I am going to hell and all that other shit, guess I'll see you there! I would just like to ask you what we are supposed to do with those 660,000 cattle that are slaughter d every hour. Are we just supposed to let them loose and be over populated by the cattle? Then there would be even more "global warming" Plus, the cattle would eat all of the potatoes that we are forced to grow insead of cattle! Lets here it for the no brain freak vegatarians that don't know there own ass from a hole in the ground that think that they are going to heaven you are probably the kind of people who go up to a Drive throw window who ask for two large thighs and a cherr bend over.

    Somebody put up a web page, reserve domain 
                       ENDDST!.org
              Make bumperstickers, labels like        END
Stick 'em everywhere!On clocks, mirrors, TVs,           S 
viewscreens!                                            T!