good choice. covers my purism tendencies.

and to keep the salt shaker functional during humid weather.

congratulations!!

you must dread going to sleep every night. i do and my dreams are not as terrible as yours.

“ But chickens are chickens, right?

the workers were treated poorly but the chickens endured the suffering.

isn't zen buddhism is without gods?

"This is a forum about the lineage of Bodhidharma."

is studying zen off-topic?

zen isn't about reading unless the goal is to get an intellectual, academic view. without a regular practice of daily meditation little personal understanding can be gained.

the accounts i've read don't say the patriarch was lynched but that he was beheaded at the order of whoever was top dog at the time.

maybe the ancient physicians who used to bleed people with leeches were on to something?

i wish this was true (some of my best friends are trees) but most of what is written is belief or unsubstantiated hypothesis.

interesting. another mate selection tool was probably based on which hunters brought home the most meat.

i regret the misleading title. reading the article sort of pushed me over the edge about texas considering what the state has been doing with voting rights, abortion and medical treatment for transgendered.

the study admits that dogs on raw meat diets appeared healthier then dismisses that by saying the dogs in that group were younger. they should have clarified that with statistical analysis because it leaves a big hole in their conclusions. or maybe the brief news article neglected some important details.

the conclusion seems to contradict thousands of years of natural selection and evolution in the diet of wolves from which domestic dogs are descended, that the species would have survived better if they had been eating grains, vegetables and fruits instead of meat.

also the caveat: "further research is needed to confirm whether a raw meat or a vegan diet is associated with better dog health outcomes."

electricity. without it there would be no cars, tv, internet or most of the other things we'd be better off without.

when facts, logic and reason fail, people can always resort to name calling. it's effective for ignorant people who are less inclined to rational discussion. it's also very good troll bait.

i was given 'troves' of factual information?

one letter from a disgruntled follower which said nothing about rape or pedophilia.

from your essay (which i have not read since you re-wrote it but did go back to see if you had added any references): two articles, one from YKA (which seems to be an online forum or blog) and one from vice.com. both are undocumented opinions.

there is nothing in the 'troves' of 'factual information' that indicates gandhi was a serial rapist or a pedophile.

gandhi began his experimentation in 1944 after the death of his wife. he was 75 years old. he died at the age of 79. he was an ascetic who probably weighed no more than 95 pounds. during that time you believe he was serially raping women?

what is known is that he slept with women in his bed when experimenting with brachmacharya. he did not do this in secret nor did he ever deny it. as far as i know, no woman ever accused him of rape.