On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:34:28 -0800, "Zootal"
wrote:

It's funny how the people who want to kill things because of their
attachment to their turf and plants are also the ones with the most
problems with what you perceive to be pests. Moles are insectivores
and I don't think they eat bulbs. I could be wrong.

It's now what they eat that bugs me - it's the devestation they do to the
landscape and garden . That is why I tolerate racoons and skunks and
possums and neighborhood kids. Pests, yes, but they don't eat much, and
don't do much damage. But things that dig up the landscape is another
problem entirely.



We have an armadillo living either on or near our property. He/she
comes and noses around and messes up the mulch. Call me crazy, and
the climate of this newsgroup will do just that, but I love that these
critters have a place to go. When I bought this house there were huge
fields of native grasses and trees and these animals have all been
forced off when the bulldozer shows up.

So, I am willing to tollerate damge to plants. If I have something
out there growing for me to eat and a bird gets it, I am so happy for
that bird, or skunk or raccoon or whatever. I love the snakes who lay
their eggs on my property, and the myriad lizards which lay their eggs
also.

I go so far as to be very careful when I cut down the ornamental
grasses and clean them up. The anoles like to hunker down in the
crown for winter. I'm always mindful that because I am human I do not
have the right to murder animals who may tear up a silly plant or ten.

HOWEVER, as I do have critters, they are welcome, and I rarely, if
ever, have problems with them.

In article ,
Jangchub wrote:

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:34:28 -0800, "Zootal"
wrote:

It's funny how the people who want to kill things because of their
attachment to their turf and plants are also the ones with the most
problems with what you perceive to be pests. Moles are insectivores
and I don't think they eat bulbs. I could be wrong.

It's now what they eat that bugs me - it's the devestation they do to the
landscape and garden . That is why I tolerate racoons and skunks and
possums and neighborhood kids. Pests, yes, but they don't eat much, and
don't do much damage. But things that dig up the landscape is another
problem entirely.



We have an armadillo living either on or near our property. He/she
comes and noses around and messes up the mulch. Call me crazy, and
the climate of this newsgroup will do just that, but I love that these
critters have a place to go. When I bought this house there were huge
fields of native grasses and trees and these animals have all been
forced off when the bulldozer shows up.

So, I am willing to tollerate damge to plants. If I have something
out there growing for me to eat and a bird gets it, I am so happy for
that bird, or skunk or raccoon or whatever. I love the snakes who lay
their eggs on my property, and the myriad lizards which lay their eggs
also.

I go so far as to be very careful when I cut down the ornamental
grasses and clean them up. The anoles like to hunker down in the
crown for winter. I'm always mindful that because I am human I do not
have the right to murder animals who may tear up a silly plant or ten.

HOWEVER, as I do have critters, they are welcome, and I rarely, if
ever, have problems with them.

I think the moles are taking a bad rap. But their tunnels provide
VOLES easy access to plant roots. My plants are not silly and have been
nurtured for decades. Sad to find a dogwood listing and being able to
pull it up to find a girdled spear point.

I'm never mindful but I am aware that the Zen Buddhist in 1940 Japan
went along with the program. Also read in the Dali Lama's biography
that he some times shoots aggressive birds at his feeder. Must be the
human condition.
So no Moles = No Voles or maybe less Voles.

Bill

--

S Jersey USA Zone 5 Shade
http://www.ocutech.com/ High tech Vison aid
This article is posted under fair use rules in accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and is strictly for the educational
and informative purposes. This material is distributed without profit.

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:53:15 -0500, William Wagner
wrote:

I think the moles are taking a bad rap. But their tunnels provide
VOLES easy access to plant roots. My plants are not silly and have been
nurtured for decades. Sad to find a dogwood listing and being able to
pull it up to find a girdled spear point.

I'm never mindful but I am aware that the Zen Buddhist in 1940 Japan
went along with the program. Also read in the Dali Lama's biography
that he some times shoots aggressive birds at his feeder. Must be the
human condition.
So no Moles = No Voles or maybe less Voles.

Bill

Okay, Bill. Please give me the author and name of this book with the
page where it says His Holiness killed anything, ever.

You're a weird if you think the Dalai Lama has ever HELD a weapon, let
alone shoot one at any living thing.

Provide the title of the book. Is it Kundun? Author?

In article ,
Jangchub wrote:

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:53:15 -0500, William Wagner
wrote:

I think the moles are taking a bad rap. But their tunnels provide
VOLES easy access to plant roots. My plants are not silly and have been
nurtured for decades. Sad to find a dogwood listing and being able to
pull it up to find a girdled spear point.

I'm never mindful but I am aware that the Zen Buddhist in 1940 Japan
went along with the program. Also read in the Dali Lama's biography
that he some times shoots aggressive birds at his feeder. Must be the
human condition.
So no Moles = No Voles or maybe less Voles.

Bill

Okay, Bill. Please give me the author and name of this book with the
page where it says His Holiness killed anything, ever.

You're a weird if you think the Dalai Lama has ever HELD a weapon, let
alone shoot one at any living thing.

Provide the title of the book. Is it Kundun? Author?

I think the info is in here. I can't find the actual book as it around
here somewhere. I've been reading for ~50 years weird stuff.
Can't help you with the page number.

http://www.amazon.com/Dalai-Lama-Bio...phies/dp/03133
22074/sr=1-3/qid=1171569979/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/102-9391882-1140908?ie=UTF8&s
=books

The other book is "Zen at War" ISBN 0-8348-0405-0

Bottom line. Buddhist are not special.


Bill

--

S Jersey USA Zone 5 Shade
http://www.ocutech.com/ High tech Vison aid
This article is posted under fair use rules in accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and is strictly for the educational
and informative purposes. This material is distributed without profit.

I had moles and started a trap war. You need to learn how to set the
trap and it works. I got red of them and when a new one shows up I have
it within a day. The Vector spear trap works fine if you learn how to
use it.


From Mel & Donnie in Bluebird Valley





http://community.webtv.net/MelKelly/TheKids

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:13:29 -0500, William Wagner
wrote:


I think the info is in here. I can't find the actual book as it around
here somewhere. I've been reading for ~50 years weird stuff.
Can't help you with the page number.

http://www.amazon.com/Dalai-Lama-Bio...phies/dp/03133
22074/sr=1-3/qid=1171569979/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/102-9391882-1140908?ie=UTF8&s
=books

The other book is "Zen at War" ISBN 0-8348-0405-0

Bottom line. Buddhist are not special.


Bill

Who said Buddhists were special? I have emailed the author to find
out if she indeed said that in any book she's written and would like
to know where she got her information.

Bottom line, Buddhists are just lucky to see reality the way it is,
and can develop their mind to a point where we can serve others
without sick delusional thinking or attachment.

I think your agenda has been exposed with your bottom line.

In article ,
Jangchub wrote:

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:13:29 -0500, William Wagner
wrote:


I think the info is in here. I can't find the actual book as it around
here somewhere. I've been reading for ~50 years weird stuff.
Can't help you with the page number.

http://www.amazon.com/Dalai-Lama-Bio...phies/dp/03133
22074/sr=1-3/qid=1171569979/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/102-9391882-1140908?ie=UTF8&s
=books

The other book is "Zen at War" ISBN 0-8348-0405-0

Bottom line. Buddhist are not special.


Bill

Who said Buddhists were special? I have emailed the author to find
out if she indeed said that in any book she's written and would like
to know where she got her information.

Bottom line, Buddhists are just lucky to see reality the way it is,
and can develop their mind to a point where we can serve others
without sick delusional thinking or attachment.

I think your agenda has been exposed with your bottom line.

Agenda I have no stinky agenda or badges.

Bill

--

S Jersey USA Zone 5 Shade
http://www.ocutech.com/ High tech Vison aid
This article is posted under fair use rules in accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and is strictly for the educational
and informative purposes. This material is distributed without profit.

In article ,
Jangchub wrote:



Who said Buddhists were special? I have emailed the author to find
out if she indeed said that in any book she's written and would like
to know where she got her information.

Good Luck.

Bill

--

S Jersey USA Zone 5 Shade
http://www.ocutech.com/ High tech Vison aid
This article is posted under fair use rules in accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and is strictly for the educational
and informative purposes. This material is distributed without profit.

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:42:45 GMT, Janet Baraclough
wrote:

The message
from Jangchub contains these words:

. I have emailed the author to find
out if she indeed said that in any book she's written and would like
to know where she got her information.

From this interview, which was widely publicised ?

http://www.readersdigest.ca/mag/2004/05/dalai_lama.html

quote

"RD: Do you have a favourite animal?

Dalai Lama: Birds maybe. I feed birds, peaceful birds. I’m a nonviolent
person, but if a hawk comes when I’m feeding birds, I lose my temper and
get my air rifle.

RD: You have an air rifle?

Dalai Lama: Yes, although I shoot only to scare the hawks. " (end quote)

The same interview quotes His Holiness saying he eats some meat.
Presumably it's killed first.


Janet



This is a whole lot different than saying His Holiness shoots
aggressive birds at the feeders with a rifle. Miles different. He
uses the sound of the air gun. He happens to do this not only to
protect the birds of prey, but to help the predators and keep them
from killing and creating more non-virtue, which will hold them for
eons in the animal realm. They eat meat, but they kill with their
talons and beak, ripping at flesh. For H.H. this is an act of
compassion for the raptor.

Secondly, His Holiness eats meat only when his health absolutely
requires it and when he goes to a special award dinner or has audience
with people from other countries which don't know Buddhists are mostly
vegetarians (I am) and will cook delicious meat shrimp, etc. When
teaching, H.H. often says if you must eat meat, eat the meat of a
large animal so only one life had to be taken to feed many people.
Thus, shrimp are out of the question, or fish. He will eat it so not
to be rude. It's not that important for a living Buddha to be
concerned with karma because he no longer creates it.

This is not really a discussion for this newsgroup, but it frustrates
me when people don't look at the whole scope, put all the information
together accurately and report it using wisdom. I can't or won't
allow someone to say His Holiness shoots birds with his rifle when I
know he would rather die.

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:53:15 -0500, William Wagner
wrote:

I think the moles are taking a bad rap. But their tunnels provide
VOLES easy access to plant roots. My plants are not silly and have been
nurtured for decades. Sad to find a dogwood listing and being able to
pull it up to find a girdled spear point.

I'm never mindful but I am aware that the Zen Buddhist in 1940 Japan
went along with the program. Also read in the Dali Lama's biography
that he some times shoots aggressive birds at his feeder. Must be the
human condition.
So no Moles = No Voles or maybe less Voles.

Bill

Okay, Bill. Please give me the author and name of this book with the
page where it says His Holiness killed anything, ever.

You're a weird if you think the Dalai Lama has ever HELD a weapon, let
alone shoot one at any living thing.

Provide the title of the book. Is it Kundun? Author?


He has been quoted about it in an interview in the New York
Times. Although, apparently, he just shoots in the direction of
predatory birds, to scare them away from the smaller birds at is
bird-feeder...

http://www.dharmaweb.org/index.php/H...ai_Lama_interv
iew_-_New_York_Times


Maybe in a past life, you were a tight-assed Jain?


--
Want Freebies?
http://www.TheFreeStuffList.com/
Check The Free Stuff List

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:13:29 -0500, William Wagner
wrote:


I think the info is in here. I can't find the actual book as it around
here somewhere. I've been reading for ~50 years weird stuff.
Can't help you with the page number.

http://www.amazon.com/Dalai-Lama-Bio...phies/dp/03133
22074/sr=1-3/qid=1171569979/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/102-9391882-1140908?ie=UTF8&s
=books

The other book is "Zen at War" ISBN 0-8348-0405-0

Bottom line. Buddhist are not special.


Bill


Who said Buddhists were special? I have emailed the author to find
out if she indeed said that in any book she's written and would like
to know where she got her information.

Bottom line, Buddhists are just lucky to see reality the way it is,
and can develop their mind to a point where we can serve others
without sick delusional thinking or attachment.

I think your agenda has been exposed with your bottom line.


On the other hand, a good Buddhist would be willing to recognise
that NOT all Buddhists are actually enlightened. And that the
vast majority are still engaged in delusions and attachments and
unhealthy agendas.

And a good Buddhist will work to recognise his/her OWN LACK of
enlightenment.


Then again, there are plenty of not-so-skilled Buddhists who act
elitist, and who assume (or at least present) the idea that,
reading the sutras, and being on the path, magically equates
being enlightened. It's called being snotty, which DOES mean an
implication of being, "special."


I'm soooo glad that I have the humility to be the first category.
And I try feel compassion for those in the second.


Because people who think that they already know everything, are
thus refusing to ever learn anything new. And thus perpetuate
their delusions and ignorance (and arrogance...)


--
Want Freebies?
http://www.TheFreeStuffList.com/
Check The Free Stuff List

wrote:
I

How bout you take this to E-mail

--
lsmft

John McWilliams wrote in
:

wrote:
I

How bout you take this to E-mail


I'm actually enjoying the discussion. Since there isn't much else going on
right now, I don't think a dozen or so slightly off-topic posts are that
big of a deal.

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:20:45 GMT, Janet Baraclough
wrote:

The message
from Jangchub contains these words:



This is a whole lot different than saying His Holiness shoots
aggressive birds at the feeders with a rifle. Miles different. He
uses the sound of the air gun.

He fires a weapon of death and injury, whose pellets might well hit
any bird, " just to make a sound" ? He could perfectly well make a
scare-noise in some harmless way that's not associated with causing
death and injury. A compressed air horn, clapping hands, or banging
saucepan lids together.
For him to buy, keep, use an air rifle, tacitly supports that industry
and outlook.

He happens to do this not only to
protect the birds of prey, but to help the predators and keep them
from killing and creating more non-virtue, which will hold them for
eons in the animal realm. They eat meat, but they kill with their
talons and beak, ripping at flesh. For H.H. this is an act of
compassion for the raptor.

I suspect he has more sense and humility than to pretend that.

Raptors kill/ dismember/ eat meat because otherwise they would die.
The same justification he uses for his own meat consumption. At least
birds don't pretend to only do it out of social courtesy.
Why would birds killing and slicing meat with the body/tools provided
by their creator for the purpose, be any more, or less virtuous, than a
slaughterman picking up a tool designed for the purpose and using it to
kill and butcher the meat which HH then eats?

Secondly, His Holiness eats meat only when his health absolutely
requires it

As do raptors.


and when he goes to a special award dinner or has audience
with people from other countries which don't know Buddhists are mostly
vegetarians

Oh, puhlease.

He never travels incognito or alone. Wherever he goes, worldwide, he
is escorted AND preceded by security operations and a whole team making
his arrangements in advance in minute detail.His hosts know in advance
who and what he is, and are instructed well in advance, what his needs
are and the protocol for hosting the Dalai Lama. If hosts of such an
eminent guest offer him a dinner menu that includes meat, it's because
they have been pre-advised it won't cause offence, and he might choose
to eat it.. Not, because they know nothing about Buddhism.


It's not that important for a living Buddha to be
concerned with karma because he no longer creates it.

Aside from social occasions, he also chooses to eat meat off his own
bat. In order for him to do so, someone HH believes does have karma to
consider, has killed and prepared that flesh on his behalf. Are you
saying, HH has no concern for that person's karma?

I can't or won't
allow someone to say His Holiness shoots birds with his rifle when I
know he would rather die.

Well, no. When faced with the option of "eat killed meat, or die",
HH chose that animals would die rather than himself.

Janet


Is nothing sacred to you, even in part? I didn't think so. I've
never seen one nice post to me in the entire time I've been coming to
this newsgroup. I see nothing changes in the small minded. And no,
not everyone knows the protocol. H.H. attendants do not instruct
anyone as it is the hosts invitation and that said the host...oh
forget it. I certainly don't need to defend The Dalai Lama. You just
dislike me, so you make a feable attempt at talking about someone like
he is a rock star.

In article ,
says...
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 13:43:30 GMT, Janet Baraclough
wrote:

I have not likened anyone to a rock star. Surely you recognise why any
internationally important figure on public engagements, is preceded by
detailed arrangements, agreed in advance between the host and the VIP's
team of assistants. The DL is no exception.


I'm now going to once again "unattach" myself to your silly statements
about someone you've probably never seen in person,


Well, I have seen the Dalai Lama in person, at a lecture a few
years ago.

He looked like a fairly regular old guy (except for his great
booming deep voice.) He had a slight cold, and occasionally put
a crumpled Kleenex to his nose.

I didn't feel any urge to worship him.


let alone know how
his attendants give orders of protocol to hosts. It's not done. If
the host asks, they give protocol. If not, they proceed.


Puh-leeeze... He would probably feel great relief at having an
encounter without all the trappings. He has been quoted as
laughing at the pretentiousness of that title, "His Holiness."

A hypothetical visit to my home? I would show him my vegetable
garden (see? ON-topic!) Then maybe lunch of store-bought rice
plus my own veggies. And just hang out with some positive,
one-to-one conversation. Maybe hoping that my home and
possessions - quite modest by many western standards - wouldn't
seem too proud or wealthy.

"Protocol"? Nah, wouldn't have time for that snotty little
pretentiousness...


--
Want Privacy?
http://www.MinistryOfPrivacy.com/