[This message has been delayed due to our travel. **Kitty]

This is in reference to
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/1144

The pertinent portion for my question is:

...we have just today arranged purchase of 100 grams
of pure folic acid.

I have been trying to find a pure source of folic acid to no avail.
The only places that do sell in bulk seem to have a 25 kg min order.
Could you please reveal your source for this small quantity of folic acid.

Thank you,
Erich Brueschke

[We obtained the folic acid from
http://www.al-chymist.com/site/579340/product/FSO105-100G  However, there is
currently no price given and based on what is written on the Home and About
pages, the owner may be going out of business and selling off his inventory. The
list of chemicals on the page with that name is very short. You may get more
information by emailing him, if you can find an email address. **Kitty]

This purely anecdotal report was sent to me by one of the original
joint purchasers of the Orchid >99% pure resveratrol. I thought that
it was remarkable enough to warrant reporting to the group.
Please note that this is *not* any kind of suggestion that anyone new
should take part in the current joint purchase, since that is now
fully subscribed and closed.

Here is the exact wording of the report as received:
----------------------------------
I inherited a 15 year old keeshond dog about a year ago..because a
friend of mine was just accepted and took a job as a Chicago fire
fighter....

He trusted me with his dog Max  sincce we used to be roomates and MAx
liked me and I liked Max..my freind the firefighter didn't have time
to take care of him too much anymore...

When I got Max...his eyes were all cloudy white blue with catrarcts I
guess..and he was riddled with arthitis ..we had to carry him up and
down three flights of stairs...he walked real slow   and didnt like to
walk more than a block...just preferred to sleep all day....he was on
his last legs....as most dogs dont live past 15 years...(105 years in
dog yeares..)///

well I read in life extension magazine that SODZYME was working
miracles with people with crippling arthitis..so we started giving him
on 4 SODZYme pills a day...this helped alot..cleared up his eyes quite
a bit.. but just brought him to the point of being borderline between
invalid dog and regular old dog...this has been going on for about 4
months at the time I got my resveratrol....

Once we got the resveratrol l..we have been giving him a 1/4 teaspoon
of of it per night....he has slept a lot more and we can tell he is
dreaming alot with his leg movements while sleeping...

It has been about 2 or 3 months ON THE RESVERATROL now...and the
results are simply amazing....he now goes up and down the stairs on
his own...still a little shaky coming down...his eyes are gettign even
more clear...

and now when he gets to the street he likes to run all over the
place....he likes now to play with our keeshond who is only 2 years
old....in fact he starts running down the block and we have to run
after him to tell him to stop...long distances!!!

We told the firefighter about his new state  and he said he hasn't run
like that in 5 years!!!...

SO if this translates to humans....I think nursing home bound patients
could really benefit from high dose resveratrol...it truly seems to be
a miracle..and it is no placebo effect or wishful thinking..as people
that  knew the old max and see him now are quite amazed....and we
havent mentioned anything to them about the reveratrol.....

just thought you'd like to know!!!!!

thanks for getting us the reveratrol.....Max really appreciates it!!!
-------------------------------------

I followed up by asking the dog's weight and the approximately dosage
that was being given to him and received the following reply.
--------------------------------------
THE DOG WEIGHS ABOUT 40 LBS... AND THERE ARE TWO DOSES ACTUALLY...MY
GIRLFRIEND 5 DAYS A WEEK JUST LICKS THE TIP OF HER FINGER STICKS IT IN
THE BAG AND THEN RUBS IT UNDER HIS LIP...THIS GOES on 5 DAYS A
WEEK...THEN WHEN HE COMES TO MY HOUSE i GIVE HIM MAYBE 1/8 TO 1/4
TEASPOON....i STILL DONT HAVE MY SCALE...SO i LOOKED AT A 50 GRAM PACK
AND KEPT VISUALLY DIVIDING IT IN 1/2,,,,50> 25 >12.5>6.25..SO AN 1/8TH
OF THE BAG WEIGHS 6.25 GRAMS...A 16TH 3.125, AND A 32ND 1.56....IT
LOOKS TO ME THAT A FULL TEASPOON IS LESS THAN THE 1.56 SO i GUESS 1
TEASPOON   FLAT...IS ABOUT A GRAM....SO HE'S PROBAVLY GETTING 80 MG 5
DAYS A WEEK AND THEN ABOUT 200 MG TWICE  A WEEK ON WEEKENDS...once I
get a scale ill try to get more accurate..
----------------------------------

--Paul

I sent an e-mail to info@... about the reference for the
experience. When i didn't receive any answer after 3 days, I sent the e-
mail to someone who works there. He replied me on 24 may saying he
would forward it to the right person for reply. So far, I haven't
received any reply.

> [I hope that someone, if not Orhan, has or will contact cyanotech.com
> regarding substantiation for the statement, "Already research is
> showing astaxanthin increases the life span of lab animals 37%," in
> the January 18, 2001 article. Refer to this thread, if you wish, to
> show that interest exists in lifespan study results and also concern
> about the lack of evidence for statements/claims made. **Kitty]
>

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Erich Brueschke"
<erich_brueschke@...> wrote:
>
> Here are 2 studies concerning the relationship between nutrition and
> circadian rhythm that were posted on the yahoo fasting group. I
> checked to see if you all were members before posting this message and
> I didn't see your names, so I assume that you have not seen the
> posting. I feel it might be of interest to you as you have recently
> stated that you have changed to a modified fast for your daily eating.

[snip of Paul's previous meta comment. **Kitty]

I was a member of the yahoo fasting group for a while but found it to
be too concerned with weight loss and chatting and not sufficiently
with science, so I quit.

>
> Erich
>
> The relationship between nutrition and circadian rhythms in mammals.
> http://pmid.us/17451793
>
> The interrelations among feeding, circadian rhythms and ageing.
> http://pmid.us/17482337
>
> Source: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/fasting/message/1257

Olafur had access to the full text of both of the above and kindly
sent them to me.
Reading them (Oren Froy was the major author of both) did not reveal
much that was of practical significance (to me at least) with respect
to how one should schedule one's eating nor with respect to what one
should eat. Here is a general summary of what I got out of them using
the following definitions:
CR = Calorie restriction
IF = Intermittent feeding (a total fast every other circadian cycle)
RF = Restricted feeding (eating is only allowed during a certain
duration of the day) - while the amount of food was not restricted,
there appeared to be no clear definition of either the length of
duration for which this term was used (the authors appears to give
anything from 3 - 12 hours, which is a huge variation), nor was there
any specification of when in the circadian cycle this feeding time
occurred (which I also think would make a huge difference).

1) Strong rhythms of about 24 hours (ie. circadian) for many
physiological parameters are highly important to maintain for health
and longevity.

2) The amplitude (strength or variation in value) of such rhythms
generally decreases as one ages.

3) I say "about 24 hours" because the cycle is not directly regulated
to be 24 hours, but is instead reset or resynchronized every day by
various inputs to the body such as light/dark, eating, activity, etc.
Therefore, in order to maintain a strong circadian rhythm it is highly
important to be as regular as possible in *all* of one's daily
activities.
There appears to be no research about any strongly entrained
(constantly strongly resynchronized) cycle time different than 24
hours (such as I and Kitty were doing when on a 28 hour cycle for over
2 years). The only research has been on free running cycles (not
strongly resynchronized) and severely changed cycles (eg. constantly
changing shift work, constantly changing time zones or swapping night
with day each week). All of these constant or periodic (fairly short
period) changes to the circadian cycle appear to be negative for both
health and longevity.

4) Both CR and IF appear to maintain the circadian amplitude with age
better than for controls. It was not clear to what extent RF helped
the circadian rhythm, but that is likely because of the lack of clear
specification of the different possible types and arrangements of RF,
as pointed out above.

5) It is difficult to completely separate the effects of CR and RF
because CR almost necessarily implies that the feeding time is also
restricted unless only a small amount of food is put out several times
per day (a lot of work with animals), because the animals will eat up
all the reduced amount of calories in a relatively short duration. In
effect, what I and Kitty (and other once a day eaters) do is the type
of feeding which has been done with most CR animals experiments. The
animal is given a reduced amount of food once a day at a certain time
and it eats up that food in a fairly short duration and then has not
food for the remainder of the circadian cycle. We currently eat pretty
much all that we feel able to eat within 3-4 hours and nothing outside
of that time (usually starting about 7 hours after rising and thus
ending about 5-6 hours before sleep). Even though this is all that we
feel able to eat within that time period, it is most certainly is not
an ad lib diet, which is shown by the fact that we have not gained
weight (in fact my weight is more stably at its low point of 137-139
lbs) and we still need to take the special measures that we developed
on CR in order to prevent unacceptable hunger.

6) One concern that I (and some others) have always had about the
applicability of mouse/rat IF experiments to humans is the vast
difference in the metabolic rate. This would mean that metabolically,
every other day feeding for a mouse would be more equivalent to every
other week feeding for a human. Because these papers relate the effect
more to circadian rhythm, although the question is never directly
addressed, it now appears that every other day feeding for a human may
well mimic the effects of that same regimen in a mouse or rat.

7) If one could get used to IF, particularly if one combined it with
CR, that might be best of all with respect to circadian rhythm and
perhaps health and longevity. I plan to try that at some point in
time. My initial thoughts are that it will lead to greatly reduced
productivity for me. I will feel too hungry during the evening of the
fasting day and too over-stuffed during the evening of the feeding
day. But I will approach it with an open mind, since I also did not
think that I would be comfortable and productive on one meal daily
until I tried it and found that it was quite acceptable.

--Paul

[Olafur is reading the full texts of these 2 papers now and will post a separate
message when he's done. **Kitty]

This post is in follow up to my post of last month detailing my
efforts in increasing happiness via neurofeedback.

[Paul (and others), if you are making a follow-up post, please do it as a reply
post in the previous thread (even your own), so that the whole continues as one
thread set of messages. For readers, the "post of last month" that is referenced
above is http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/1533 --Paul]

A number of
members wrote to me off list, asking for more info and some
questioning the potential placebo effect. While I fully realize that
placebo is effective in roughly a quarter of all "medicines" one takes
I think there is much more to the process in this case.
First, I should point out that I have experienced various negative
effects from the act of causing my brain to reset its core modalities on
reactions to stress (ie the wavelength patterns it traditionally uses).
I do not believe that one would knowingly cause a negative feedback
(negative placebo) unless one had some sort of masochistic tendencies
and I do not exhibit these in other aspects of my life.....except
perhaps in my fondness for golf.....lol.

I am including a link to my MD`s published studies for those of you who
are of this inclination...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_\
AbstractPlus&term=%22Lubar+JF%22%5BAuthor%5D




Since Dr Lubar believes that much of one`s unhappiness is caused by a
combination of improperly developed/conditioned wavelengths, slowed
signalling and inability to adapt I am wondering what supplements might
be best to target the maintenance and repair of the brain.


Paul Couvrette

[Paul, per the posting requirements please add your full name to your messages
(I have done so here again) or put it clearly in the FROM line. **Kitty]

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Kitty Antonik Wakfer" <kitty@...> wrote:
>
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Orhan Kulluoglu" <okulluoglu@> wrote:
> >
> > A strong Anti-oxidant Astaxanthin is mentioned on Morelife pages:
> >
> > http://morelife.org/references/pmid_12000000+.html
> > 132. Life Sci 2002 Apr 21;70(21):2509-20
> > Contribution of the antioxidative property of astaxanthin to its
> > protective effect on the promotion of cancer metastasis in mice
> > treated with restraint stress.
> >
> > http://morelife.org/references/pmid_lt12000000.html
> > 159. Nutr Cancer 2000;36(1):59-65
> > Antitumor activity of astaxanthin and its mode of action.
> >
> > [The reason these citations are included in the references files is
> > because they are cited by notes about changes to our supplement
> > regimen pages:
> > http://morelife.org/personal/health/his-regimen_changes.html
> > http://morelife.org/personal/health/her-regimen_changes.html
> > And astaxanthin is included on our current regimen pages:
> > http://morelife.org/personal/health/his-regimen.html
> > http://morelife.org/personal/health/her-regimen.html
> >
> > --Paul]
>
> [Rephrasing and correction to grammar in the above. --Paul]
>
> These links to References pages are from change notations related to
> our supplement regimen change from powder to capsule astaxanthin that
> were made well over 4 years ago, when at the same time we decided that
> we should included some reference both for the value of everything
> that we take and for any changes that we were noting as made. We
> have continued to take this carotenoid for its strong antioxidative
> and other properties and actually take considerably more than when we
> first started. (See regimen ingredients spreadsheet linked from either
> or our Regimen pages.) If we had sufficient time - or assistance from
> others - we would have more references or even a separate page for
> this carotenoid (particularly relating to why we increased our dosage)
> and all of the items that we take or of which of which we change
> dosage. Since attention has now been focused on this particular
> supplement, we will try to make the time to add references for our
> recently increased dosage decision.

I'd like to assist with this, even creating entire pages for
supplements such as astaxanthin, if I had more time on my hands.
Unfortunately I do not have enough time on my hands now to be able to
offer my assistance, except perhaps with minor tasks, unless I were
paid substantially for my service.

BTW, I also take astaxanthin. Just a few months ago I upped my dose
from 1mg to 2mg daily. I'd probably take more if it were cheaper. It
is categorized as a drug here in Iceland so I can't order it online.
Despite this it is available at a nearby health food store, but a
package containing 60 x 4mg capsules of astaxanthin costs around 45$.
This is a case where price becomes a big factor in determining the
dosage since I do not think it is worth it for me to take a higher
dosage, unless I either had more assets or if it were available to me
at a considerably lower price. I do not take astaxanthin on days I eat
salmon though since a serving of salmon will give me a couple of
milligrams of astaxanthin.

> > I read an old news about Astaxanthin on internet saying
> > "Research is showing astaxanthin increases the life span of lab
> > animals 37%"
> > I wanted to learn whether its mean or maximum life span and
> > also on which animal species the experiment was done.
> > However, I couldn't find any reference for this.
> >
> > The link for the news:
> > http://www.cyanotech.com/news/news_011800.html
>
> Entering the following search string yielded only 4 abstracts:
> astaxanthin AND (lifespan OR "life span" OR anti-aging OR
> life-extension OR "life extension" OR longevity OR mortality). All 4
> referred to mortality results among salmon when fed or injected with
> astaxanthin or fed vegetable oil instead of fish oil. When "mortality"
> was removed from the search, the yield was zero. While I have not done
> an exhaustive search of Google using the same string, I did not find
> any items within the first 4 search result pages that linked
> astaxanthin to any lifespan or mortality studies, beyond those found
> in the PubMed search. Several sites have lifespan references - even to
> animal studies of such - on a page containing the word astaxanthin,
> but the subjects are not related to each other.
>
> I have asked Olafur to see if he can find anything more. In the
> meantime, Orhan, please consider investigating that sentence in the
> report at cyanotech.com further by writing the website or the author
> (if you can identify hir) and ask for substantiation of that
> statement. If a writer wants to be seen as credible, s/he should only
> make such a statement with a cited reference.

I searched for but did not find any studies that tested the effect of
astaxanthin on lifespan. I did not expect to find any because Kitty
had already searched the literature, but also because I researched
astaxanthin quite extensively back in 2005 (after which I decided to
add it to my regimen) but do not remember coming across any lifespan
study on astaxanthin at that time. Since the news report at
cyanotech.com is from the year 2000 if any lifespan study had been
published at that time I would probably have found it during my
research in 2005. So I highly doubt such a study exists. Of course
there may have been some research conducted on the effects of
astaxanthin on lifespan that was never published (perhaps it was
poorly done and did not pass the peer review process?). In any case
the statements on astaxanthin from this news report should not be
taken seriously, particularly since the news report is found on the
website of a company that sells a proprietary astaxanthin supplement.

[Just a quick comment on Olafur's last point.
It is certainly not *automatically* the case that information about a product,
published by a company that sells that product, will be either bogus or not up
to the standards of scientific proof. However, unless and until a society is
attained where all forms of social preferencing are efficiently implemented and
constantly used, it is probably wise to require stronger proof concerning the
validity of product information provided by its seller than by someone with no
financial interest in the validity of the information. --Paul]

[I hope that someone, if not Orhan, has or will contact cyanotech.com regarding
substantiation for the statement, "Already research is showing astaxanthin
increases the life span of lab animals 37%," in the January 18, 2001 article.
Refer to this thread, if you wish, to show that interest exists in lifespan
study results and also concern about the lack of evidence for statements/claims
made. **Kitty]

Here are 2 studies concerning the relationship between nutrition and
circadian rhythm that were posted on the yahoo fasting group. I
checked to see if you all were members before posting this message and
I didn't see your names, so I assume that you have not seen the
posting. I feel it might be of interest to you as you have recently
stated that you have changed to a modified fast for your daily eating.

[In Erich's first message he made no connection with anything on the MoreLife or
SelfSIP websites as now required for acceptance of a post. However, even in this
second message, what Erich states is his *interpretation* of something he has
read from me and/or Kitty somewhere, rather than a direct quote of text with a
link for verification. Thus, this is akin to hearsay, rather than any direct
connection to either what is on the MoreLife website or what has previously been
posted and related to the MoreLife website, as is now our mandatory posting
requirements.
I am not merely being picky here. The purpose of the strictness of this
requirement is not only to publicize links to the MoreLife website and hopefully
encourage others to join in helping to improve it, but even more importantly to
teach all readers of MoreLife the skills and methods of scientific factual
citation of evidence for every statement that is made, most particularly instead
of some likely inaccurate and possibly erroneous or misleading paraphrasal.

The particular places where we have stated something related to Erich's "you
have changed to a modified fast for your daily eating" are at least twofold:
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/1543
wherein nothing was stated about fasting, and
http://morelife.org/personal/health/dietregimen.html
where under the section "Calories and Us" intermittent fasting and our change to
one meal per day are both mentioned. And there is more again about one meal per
day and fasting in the section of that same page "Our Meals, Wherever &
Whenever".
There is also some information about the theory and benefits of fasting, the
negatives of snacking and consideration of the number of daily meals on the Use
of Food page: http://morelife.org/food/index.html but no mention there about our
own personal application of this information.

If Erich got his information about our stated practices from somewhere else then
he needs to provide a link to that source. --Paul]


Erich

The relationship between nutrition and circadian rhythms in mammals.
http://pmid.us/17451793

The interrelations among feeding, circadian rhythms and ageing.
http://pmid.us/17482337

Source: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/fasting/message/1257

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Orhan Kulluoglu" <okulluoglu@...> wrote:
>
> A strong Anti-oxidant Astaxanthin is mentioned on Morelife pages:
>
> http://morelife.org/references/pmid_12000000+.html
> 132. Life Sci 2002 Apr 21;70(21):2509-20
> Contribution of the antioxidative property of astaxanthin to its
> protective effect on the promotion of cancer metastasis in mice
> treated with restraint stress.
>
> http://morelife.org/references/pmid_lt12000000.html
> 159. Nutr Cancer 2000;36(1):59-65
> Antitumor activity of astaxanthin and its mode of action.
>
> [The reason these citations are included in the references files is
> because they are cited by notes about changes to our supplement
> regimen pages:
> http://morelife.org/personal/health/his-regimen_changes.html
> http://morelife.org/personal/health/her-regimen_changes.html
> And astaxanthin is included on our current regimen pages:
> http://morelife.org/personal/health/his-regimen.html
> http://morelife.org/personal/health/her-regimen.html
>
> --Paul]

[Rephrasing and correction to grammar in the above. --Paul]

These links to References pages are from change notations related to
our supplement regimen change from powder to capsule astaxanthin that
were made well over 4 years ago, when at the same time we decided that
we should included some reference both for the value of everything
that we take and for any changes that we were noting as made. We
have continued to take this carotenoid for its strong antioxidative
and other properties and actually take considerably more than when we
first started. (See regimen ingredients spreadsheet linked from either
or our Regimen pages.) If we had sufficient time - or assistance from
others - we would have more references or even a separate page for
this carotenoid (particularly relating to why we increased our dosage)
and all of the items that we take or of which of which we change
dosage. Since attention has now been focused on this particular
supplement, we will try to make the time to add references for our
recently increased dosage decision.

>
> I read an old news about Astaxanthin on internet saying
> "Research is showing astaxanthin increases the life span of lab
> animals 37%"
> I wanted to learn whether its mean or maximum life span and
> also on which animal species the experiment was done.
> However, I couldn't find any reference for this.
>
> The link for the news:
> http://www.cyanotech.com/news/news_011800.html

Entering the following search string yielded only 4 abstracts:
astaxanthin AND (lifespan OR "life span" OR anti-aging OR
life-extension OR "life extension" OR longevity OR mortality). All 4
referred to mortality results among salmon when fed or injected with
astaxanthin or fed vegetable oil instead of fish oil. When "mortality"
was removed from the search, the yield was zero. While I have not done
an exhaustive search of Google using the same string, I did not find
any items within the first 4 search result pages that linked
astaxanthin to any lifespan or mortality studies, beyond those found
in the PubMed search. Several sites have lifespan references - even to
animal studies of such - on a page containing the word astaxanthin,
but the subjects are not related to each other.

I have asked Olafur to see if he can find anything more. In the
meantime, Orhan, please consider investigating that sentence in the
report at cyanotech.com further by writing the website or the author
(if you can identify hir) and ask for substantiation of that
statement. If a writer wants to be seen as credible, s/he should only
make such a statement with a cited reference.

*********
Readers should note that Orhan's message was the first accepted under
the new requirements stated in the Group Policy (in the File section)
and also on the Group's home page, "Posts to this group are only
acceptable when they are specifically addressed to text already in
place on the websites (or to an ongoing discussion of such text begun
on this group or elsewhere) or when they are suggestions for
alterations or changes to those websites, which are supported by
logical and effective reasons why such changes would be beneficial for
the purposes of the websites."

Initially Orhan had sent a message containing only his question and I
responded that he would need to make it conform to the group
requirement (stated above). While he used the first items that came up
with a site search (http://morelife.org/sitesearch.html ), he could
have (more easily, IMO) simply stated, with a link to either of our
Regimen pages, that we take Astaxanthin (with an amount if he wanted
to include that) and ask if among our reasons was information on
lifespan results (maybe in addition to its published carotenoid
value). Then the question regarding the 2000 cyanotech.com
article he had read would have had a clear relationship to MoreLife.org.

I and Paul hope that others will keep this in mind with their
messages, so that iterations are not necessary.

**Kitty

A strong Anti-oxidant Astaxanthin is mentioned on Morelife pages:

http://morelife.org/references/pmid_12000000+.html
132. Life Sci 2002 Apr 21;70(21):2509-20
Contribution of the antioxidative property of astaxanthin to its
protective effect on the promotion of cancer metastasis in mice
treated with restraint stress.

http://morelife.org/references/pmid_lt12000000.html
159. Nutr Cancer 2000;36(1):59-65
Antitumor activity of astaxanthin and its mode of action.

[The reason these citations are included in the references files are because
they are referred to from previous changes to our supplement regimen pages:
http://morelife.org/personal/health/his-regimen_changes.html
http://morelife.org/personal/health/her-regimen_changes.html
And astaxanthin is included on our current regimen pages:
http://morelife.org/personal/health/his-regimen.html
http://morelife.org/personal/health/her-regimen.html

--Paul]


I read an old news about Astaxanthin on internet saying
"Research is showing astaxanthin increases the life span of lab
animals 37%"
I wanted to learn whether its mean or maximum life span and
also on which animal species the experiment was done.
However, I couldn't find any reference for this.

The link for the news:
http://www.cyanotech.com/news/news_011800.html

Two uploads were made to MoreLife.org in the last 2 days that warrant
notice to readers.

A new page is available describing (-)-BPAP from the Promising
Research Chemicals portion of the Use of Chemicals Supplementary to
Diet and Exercise section (and also Lifespan - Reaching Your
Potential) in the Science Index. http://morelife.org/scienceindex.html
BPAP (for short) is a powerful catecholaminergic/serotoninergic
activity enhancer over 100 times as effective as deprenyl (which it
was invented to replace), with a broader spectrum of neurotransmitter
enhancement effects and without the negative amphetamine and MOA
inhibition side effects.
Although I have not yet updated our personal supplement regimen pages
to reflect it, I and Paul are taking 40 and 60mcg daily, respectively.

The Use of Food Summary section has been considerably increased to
include the discussion of fasting and for referenced support of our 1
meal daily that we started in January of this year. We had been
consuming only 2 meals daily for all of last year.
http://morelife.org/food/  Among my planned tasks is to update the
Diet Regimen page again, for more current descriptions of how we are
eating the 1 daily meal.

The Reference Index pages have been updated in support of the
additional material on the two pages above.

As usual, please let me know of any errors including links that are
not operational.

**Kitty

The MoreLife Yahoo group is once again open for postings by all
members who adhere to the group description and the group policy
posting rules. The group is once again under full moderation so that
its owners can eliminate posts that do not adhere to those rules. All
members, and particularly those wanting to post, are urged to read the
home page description at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife and
the Group Policy file in the Group Admin folder of the files section.
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/files/Group%20Admin/

This message also serves as a reminder to those three people who
switched themselves back to "no email" status, that such a status is
not allowed on this group. We require a minimum of "special notices"
message receiving status for the reasons stated in the Group Policy
file.

The posting rules are actually little changed from before. The only
difference is that this time, in our own self-interest, we intend to
see that those rules are strictly adhered to. As it was before, we
were not getting the feedback on our websites which has always been
the entire purpose of this group. The group was never intended to
become essentially a duplicate of the LEF Forums where Paul (as Tom
Matthews) provided a considerable amount of advice, information and
analysis for no direct member fees because he was paid a consulting
fee by LEF to do so.

As it is, we provide a large amount of information on our websites
with only the request for voluntary value-for-value returns. The
purpose of this group is and always has been to provide us with the
feedback necessary to make those websites even more useful to readers.
What has been most frustrating to us is that very few, not even those
who have given use substantial value-for-value payments, have given us
any specific feedback on what they particularly liked, disliked, found
useful, would like to see elaborated or added, etc, about any part of
either of our websites. We ourselves would like to continue enlarging
and updating the material on the websites, but without some such
input, we have no criteria on which to base a decision about what to
work on next.

As has been stated many times before, we also welcome helpers and
collaborators of various kinds and levels so that our current websites
and others that we have in planning could become more complete and
effective. We recognize that we two individuals cannot do everything
ourselves and that more people would greatly help to enable more to be
achieved more quickly.

--Paul and **Kitty

The latest upload, done this afternoon, to MoreLife.org is for my and
Paul's supplement & chemical regimen pages and the additional pages
that relate to them. This includes the large Excel spreadsheet
(accessible from each regimen page) where we keep track of those
ingredients which are obtained from more than 1 source. There was a
considerable amount of effort necessary in reevaluating our
supplements and chemicals when we decided to consume all our dietary
intake at one (large & long) meal each day - therefore the change
lists are quite long. This entire task took more time than I
anticipated but it's finally done.....at least for now :)

All changed sections are noted by date on the MoreLife.org home page -
http://morelife.org

I was pleased to be able to include on our Personal Index page a photo
that was snapped of us dancing at an EDM (electronic/energy dance
music) event in Phoenix on April 6 - my birthday. This was a real
relaxed affair at a small visual and sound gallery with mostly
drum&bass and breaks going on in one room and trance in the other.
This shot is of us on the outskirts of the area where breakdancers
were taking turns showing off their skills. The crowd was enthusiastic
when Paul joined in; I did likewise and one of the attendees caught us
in action. Not, unfortunately, one with Paul doing his high kicks ;>)
  For those who are curious to see some more of the dancing during that
time in that room, here's the link to the online photo of me and Paul
and from that one a person can go to other photos in the set. Paul can
be seen in the background in 3 (I think) and I am dancing in the
background in one (while holding our water bottle :)
http://www.villagephotos.com/viewpubimage.asp?id_=19935831&selected=
Unfortunately I didn't find that anyone else put photos online which
they took in the mostly trance music room, where we did most of our
dancing that night. (We had gone to a local club earlier but it wasn't
nearly as much fun.)

As usual, please email me to let me know of any errors found,
including links that do not work. I do a pretty careful check with our
html editors, but misses are definitely still possible and JavaScript
links are not checkable with our tools.

**Kitty

An upload to MoreLife.org was made this evening and consists primarily
of information pages on two new items we have included in our
supplement/chemical regimens - acipimox (a potentially life extending
prescription drug) and a generic Kremezin (beaded activated carbon,
which we've categorized as a supplement). The information page for
acarbose, also a a potentially life extending prescription drug item
we have been using since last year, has been updated. Numerous
references for these 3 pages are included in the References Index
pages including links to some full papers. These information pages can
be reached through the Supplements and Reaching sections of the
Science Index.  http://morelife.org/scienceindex.html

The Supporting Page for MoreLife.org and SelfSIP.org has also been
updated.

In order to complete the above effort, I halted temporarily the work
on my and Paul's Regimen pages. There is still a couple of day's of
work needed to bring them up to current status, including the noting
of changes and the reasons for them, along with the regimen ingredients
spreadsheet. I will continue work on both of these in between tasks
related to the synthetic resveratrol group buy, which has kept both of
us fairly busy, but which is now nearing completion.

As always, if anyone finds any errors, including links that do not
work (our checker does not do those in JavaScript) please send me an
email.

**Kitty

Numerous messages have been received by me and Paul as a result of
both the poll results and the last message that Paul posted on 4/1/07.
Except for two, we have not responded to any of them individually,
although we have read them all. We read everything we receive, except
obvious spam.

A thank-you to those who expressed a real understanding of what we
have been writing - all of it without ever any motive (conscious or
unconscious) to demonstrate/establish Paul's (or my) superior mental
ability, as some have accused. For those who included various reasons
for purposely not expressing their convictions (at 0%) regarding the
poll statements, it would have been more valuable had you done this on
the group prior to the poll closing, since some, IMO, were worthy of
being viewed and considered by others, and possibly discussed in the
group. For the individual who expressed hir reluctance to participate
in the poll due to hir relative recent entry to the group, hir degree
of conviction on the statements would still have been valid, and hir
private voicing of 0% conviction on the poll statements is
appreciated. A thank you to the individual who thought hir identified
vote (for 0% conviction) had been registered but saw differently when
the results were revealed. Additionally, we appreciated hearing from
the person who acknowledged that criticism received from Paul almost 2
years ago was warranted. "I abstained from posting for some time after
you chastised me quite soundly.....and rightly....but have grown since
then." Thank you for letting us know and we hope to interact with you
in the future.

For those who wrote to say they didn't vote in the poll but want us to
know that they still think that Paul's
corrections/criticisms/admonishments of posted messages and/or posters
are unwarranted and/or unnecessary and are done to varying degrees for
the purpose of demonstrating his mental superiority, well....
Obviously there is nothing that will convince you otherwise. I can
only say that you appear to me to be people who view anyone who
demonstrates strong conviction in areas you personally consider
unimportant, to be merely out to establish hir mental superiority over
others. Since Paul clearly *does* think that these things are
important, or otherwise he would not be commenting about them,
possibly this is a case of projecting your own insecurities about
certain areas of your own knowledge/understanding onto Paul... For me
and Paul, this is a clear message that only very limited relationships
can exist for us with those of you with this opinion.

And for those who think we are simply not sufficiently "hard-skinned"
for dealing with people on the Internet, I say that we purposely have
no intention to become disinterested in this manner, to become cynics
who expect nothing but the worst from everyone and everything. We are
basically optimists and approach life in that manner - which does not
eliminate the occurrence of discouragement when we face a situation
with one or more individuals who we had previously assessed at a
higher level of value or rationality than their current actions warrant.

Lastly, for those who neither registered a vote in the polls nor have
written us expressing their views on the statements or on Paul's last
message, For most, I take this as lack of any real interest in the
group, but rather a "grab whatever is of value but ignore all the
other nonsense" pov. Such people (the majority of group members, it
seems), who basically dishonor us by such an attitude of contempt for
our most valued ideas, are precisely the ones to whom we wish to no
longer give value. Yes, it is possible that a small number are
extremely involved in other matters and have not even read messages
received from the group in the past 4 weeks. Maybe one or 2 have even
died (as one writer suggested - although that would soon lead to
bouncing status which we watch, and delete such members).

This group was formed with a specific purpose. "Providing an
opportunity for readers of the MoreLife website to ask questions,
critique, comment, and engage in discussions about the content and
organization of the website - very briefly: Reality based tools for
more life in quantity and quality." ...." This Yahoo group is also the
appropriate location to make comments and ask questions about the
Self-Sovereign Individual Project, the significantly different
philosophical and social changes considered by the owners of MoreLife
as necessary for the continuation and fruition of groundbreaking
life-extension measures as well as for society as a whole."
taken from: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/
And then there is also Paul's very first message (when he was still
using the name Tom Matthews) -
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/1  The
website feedback that Paul/Tom (and I) hoped would be forthcoming "to
hone and optimize both the information and tools, and the methods of
their presentation" has been virtually non-existent. Actual assistance
from others with any part of the website has never occurred, whether
to supply/write content or to help with website programming. This is
why the MoreLife.org - and since mid 2003 SelfSIP.org - has almost
totally remained the work of just me and Paul.

Our current view is that it is extremely unlikely that MoreLife Yahoo
will resume in its previous format. Perhaps a small number of current
members and others will at sometime be interested in a seminar-like
discussion held in a group formed along somewhat different
arrangements than this one has been. Hopefully these individuals will
be ones who truly want to improve themselves in all areas for the
purpose of optimizing their individual lifetime happinesses, recognize
that critiques/corrections of themselves and others is one way by
which information for such optimization is obtained and also realize
that a joint cooperative effort is going to lead to far more benefit
for all than expecting two people to do all the work. I have benefited
from the true critiques I have both received and given, since my
reasoned assessment is a vital part of each. Paul too has learned from
reasoned critiques and he would learn even from admonishments if they
were ever given with sufficient rational detail rather than as broad
castigations or assertions with little logical basis. I and Paul do
hope that others who already do think, or who later come to realize,
that reasoned critiques - and sometimes even admonishments - are a
valuable part of learning will seek an opportunity for online
interactions that include these in an atmosphere of rational discourse.

**Kitty

Both I and Kitty have, for far too long, been gaining very little
benefit from our Internet efforts, while frequently being faced with
the evasion, irrationality, dislike, ridicule and even contempt of
others on the Internet both elsewhere and now, it is clear, within our
own MoreLife Yahoo group. We now see the people that gain from our
efforts as falling into two fundamentally different categories. The
first is composed of those who do truly appreciate and learn from our
work, and return value as much as they can according to their value
received. The second is composed of those who value some of our
information, but dislike most of our methods, particularly those we
consider to be our most precious and important ideas. These are also
generally the sort of people who will grab anything they can get
anywhere they can get it, with no concern for return of value.
Although we are aware that many people are mixtures of these two,
nevertheless we are now seriously considering how we can distinguish
between the people in these two categories - so that we can continue
to interact with the first, while at the same time both interacting
and helping those in the second category as little as possible. The
knowledge of the dislike for us and/or the misconstruing of our
motives by some people has been a major blow to our joint psyches and
we are in great need of a period of time away from this ugliness of so
many others, to enjoy the beauty of the world, including much that has
been created by humans (even though most seem to be an enormously
inconsistent mixture of beauty and ugliness of thoughts and actions).
We will use this time off to mend our psyches, to increase our
happiness by doing more enjoyable projects of rational creation
(whether or not any other person ever agrees or even cares) and, in
general, to increase our personal lifetime happinesses.

Until further notice all our owned groups (except two private ones
which must be ongoing at least until projects are finished) will be
set to posting by moderators only.

To those who have truly appreciated all that we have provided, we wish
to say thanks and farewell till we return, likely in a highly
restricted format. To the others, there is nothing that I can say at
all, since whatever I write is almost sure to be misunderstood or
its purpose and motive misconstrued.


--Paul


And from Kitty:

Even though it was Paul's writing at this group that brought the ire
of some members, I edited those 2 messages in response to Max
Watt/Richard Kaufman and agreed that Paul's wordings were appropriate
for the circumstances. The resulting lack of understanding and even
imputing of motive to Paul (and by association me) has been extremely
disappointing. The failure of the vast majority of group members to
take any stand on the poll statements is puzzling.... Are the vast
majority unwilling to let their thoughts be known regarding this issue
of Paul's motives for making criticisms of messages and/or
admonishments of posters when he thinks them warranted? What am I to
think of these people? Do they agree with the poll statements, but
don't want to be counted, or do they just not want to bother to take
the time to think about the statements? Surely if they were convinced
that Paul did not have this motive for making his criticisms or
admonishments, they would let that be known, even if not willing to
put their name behind it.

For those who do think that Paul criticizes or admonishes in order to
establish or demonstrate his mental superiority, why do they put any
credibility into anything he writes? Following the logic that he
critiques/criticizes and/or admonishes in order to demonstrate mental
superiority, then this could well be the motive for anything he writes
rather than seeking the truths of reality and helping others to
uncover, analyze and understand these truths, all of which are his
stated purposes and have always been.

It is clear that large numbers of people in this group do *not* think
that Paul criticizes messages and/or admonishes a poster (both
infrequent events, but the latter actually rare) because he is trying
to help people to analyze situations and correct bad practices. If
they thought so, they would have responded in the poll in that manner
and/or posted messages to the group to that effect. The polls show how
many think his motivation is to establish his mental superiority over
others - whether this is by the percentage of times he posts or the
amount of confidence the person has in hir own judgment is not clear
and makes little difference. The fact that it is thought by any of
these people at all is very telling about them, whether or not they
have identified themselves. Why any of them - especially those who
voted with high amounts of confidence that this is Paul's purpose -
are here at this group is really a mystery to me. It never entered my
mind that anyone would think this of Paul before Scott Miller wrote
that this was his opinion and probably that of others - whether or not
this is only about items Scott deems to be of little importance is
immaterial. I have always thought that Paul is pretty damn smart -
able to make connections and see through the maze and mess where most
(often including me) are mired in the complexities - but I have never
seen him say or write anything except to try to get to the truth
and/or help someone else do the same. And I came to learn fairly early
in my association with Paul that most of what others refer to as
nit-picky is really quite important.

Because of the demonstrated lack of understanding of Paul's and my
motivations in our writings here - and by inference to our websites -
by the vast majority of MoreLife Yahoo group members, I am looking
forward to an extended absence in activity here.

**Kitty

The following morelife poll is now closed.  Here are the
final results:


POLL QUESTION: Paul Wakfer's intended purpose in admonishing the
author of any message posted to the Yahoo group MoreLife is to
establish his (Paul's) mental superiority over that author.

**Voter identity displayed**

CHOICES AND RESULTS
- 0% convinced, 6 votes, 60.00%
- 1-19% convinced, 2 votes, 20.00%
- 20-39% convinced, 0 votes, 0.00%
- 40-59% convinced, 1 votes, 10.00%
- 60-79% convinced, 0 votes, 0.00%
- 80-99% convinced, 0 votes, 0.00%
- 100% convinced, 1 votes, 10.00%

INDIVIDUAL VOTES
- 0% convinced
      - wesjess@...
      - kitty@...
      - toobs1234@...
      - paul@...
      - biknut@...
      - olafurpall@...
- 1-19% convinced
      - Henderson-J@...
      - 3r2hxp1a2001@...
- 20-39% convinced
- 40-59% convinced
      - billmckee@...
- 60-79% convinced
- 80-99% convinced
- 100% convinced
      - uci500@...


For more information about this group, please visit
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife

For help with Yahoo! Groups, please visit
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/

The following morelife poll is now closed.  Here are the
final results:


POLL QUESTION: Paul Wakfer's intended purpose in criticizing
any message posted to the Yahoo group MoreLife is to establish his
mental superiority over the message author.

**Voter identity displayed**

CHOICES AND RESULTS
- 0% convinced, 6 votes, 66.67%
- 1-19% convinced, 2 votes, 22.22%
- 20-39% convinced, 0 votes, 0.00%
- 40-59% convinced, 1 votes, 11.11%
- 60-79% convinced, 0 votes, 0.00%
- 80-99% convinced, 0 votes, 0.00%
- 100% convinced, 0 votes, 0.00%

INDIVIDUAL VOTES
- 0% convinced
      - paul@...
      - biknut@...
      - toobs1234@...
      - uci500@...
      - olafurpall@...
      - kitty@...
- 1-19% convinced
      - Henderson-J@...
      - 3r2hxp1a2001@...
- 20-39% convinced
- 40-59% convinced
      - billmckee@...
- 60-79% convinced
- 80-99% convinced
- 100% convinced


For more information about this group, please visit
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife

For help with Yahoo! Groups, please visit
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/

The following morelife poll is now closed.  Here are the
final results:


POLL QUESTION: Paul Wakfer's intended purpose in criticizing
any message posted to the Yahoo group MoreLife is to establish his
mental superiority over the message author.

**Voter identity not displayed**

CHOICES AND RESULTS
- 0% convinced, 7 votes, 50.00%
- 1-19% convinced, 1 votes, 7.14%
- 20-39% convinced, 0 votes, 0.00%
- 40-59% convinced, 2 votes, 14.29%
- 60-79% convinced, 2 votes, 14.29%
- 80-99% convinced, 1 votes, 7.14%
- 100% convinced, 1 votes, 7.14%



For more information about this group, please visit
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife

For help with Yahoo! Groups, please visit
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/

The following morelife poll is now closed.  Here are the
final results:


POLL QUESTION: Paul Wakfer's intended purpose in admonishing the author of any
message posted to the Yahoo group MoreLife is to establish his
(Paul's) mental superiority over that author.

**Voter identity not displayed**

CHOICES AND RESULTS
- 0% convinced, 5 votes, 50.00%
- 1-19% convinced, 1 votes, 10.00%
- 20-39% convinced, 1 votes, 10.00%
- 40-59% convinced, 1 votes, 10.00%
- 60-79% convinced, 0 votes, 0.00%
- 80-99% convinced, 1 votes, 10.00%
- 100% convinced, 1 votes, 10.00%



For more information about this group, please visit
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife

For help with Yahoo! Groups, please visit
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/

Hi Paul-

Please see my comments to specific statements/questions below:

On 3/29/07, couvrette2002 <paul@...> wrote:
>
>   [Paul, although your Yahoo ID provides no information, your website -
> with which your email address is associated - yields a information about
> you, including your studio location and your photo (?different from a couple
> years ago). This meets our identification requirement and the moderation
> status has been removed. However, you have not placed your full name clearly
> either within the "From" line or within the message itself. Therefore, I
> placed your full name at the end of your message, and ask that you do so
> yourself in the future, and any additional public aliases. **Kitty]
>
> I wanted to share with the group some work I have been
> doing in the pursuit of happiness. For roughly six months I have been
> undergoing EEG Neurobiofeedback as a therapy to reduce my reaction to
> stress since I feel mind improvement is as much a goal as feeding the
> body in order to increase one`s enjoyment of life.
> One of my conclusions from having a full EEG Brain scan and having a
> therapist (RN retired from brainwave work with stroke victims) modify
> my brainwaves wavelenghts is that one acclimatizes to states that one
> thinks of as normal....yet are potentially simply a poor adaptation to
> a stressor utitilizing brainwaves that may not be optimum for dealing
> with that stressor. I feel within my own self that my improvements in
> happiness are not solely the result of placebo....though some placebo
> is always a portion of happiness improvement.
>







Thanks for this information, Paul! I meditate  regularly, a practice that
> may have an effect similar to neurobiofeedback technique in changing
> patterns of brain activity to ones more conducive to maintaining
> happiness.
>










This Pubmed link may provide some basis for proof of efficacy.
>
>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1\
2824763&dopt=Abstract
>















I am curious as to what orthomolecular protocols the members have
> found useful in improving brain function. Is there a way to search
> past posts to look into this. I seem to remember Huperzine being
> mentioned and would conclude that Gincko would increase blood flow to
> the brain.
> Any recommendations......My recommendations: omega-3 oils, including at
> least 1 gram EPA/day, and resveratrol- interestingly, it seems to have a
> significant mood elevating effect at relatively high doses (at least at
> about 5 mg/kg/day).
>






OH.....I vaguely remember that posters were required to identify
> themselve and was wondering what info was needed since I have not
> posted for many months.
>
> Paul Couvrette
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Antonik Wakfer" <paul@...> wrote:
>
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Handel" <rhandel@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As some of you know, I am just now at 39-years-old beginning to try
> >to adopt a CRAN (to use Paul's term) lifestyle.
>
> While I have used the term CRAN (Calorie Restriction with Adequate
> Nutrition) and certainly prefer it to "CRON" (Calorie Restriction with
> Optimal Nutrition), since no one knows what nutrition is optimal, I
> certainly did not originate CRAN and I still prefer plain "CR" since
> it fully adequately describes what is trying to be done - restrict
> calories *only*. The CRAN term arose because the original experiments
> by Clive Mackay in the 30s did FR (Food Restriction) and therefore
> also restricted essential vitamins and minerals. It was only with work
> of Walford and others in the 70s and 80s that it was realized that the
> reason why Mackay had as little effects as he did (and a lot of his
> mice died young) was because of inadequate nutrition - effectively a
> starvation diet which CR, correctly done according to its name, is
> not. (This is all explained in Walford's books, except "CRAN" and
> "CRON" are not mentioned there.)

I received a correction to the above which states that the 2nd ed
(2000) of Walford's 120-year Diet book does contain CRON. Here is the
first email that I received; a follow-up verified that it was the 2nd
edition and published in 2000. I have the first edition, published in
1986 and no such term exists there.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:  Re: CRAN expectations
Date:  Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:45:00 -0000
From:  Tim Tyler <xxxxx@...>
To:  Paul Antonik Wakfer <paul@...>

--- "Paul Antonik Wakfer" <paul@...> wrote:

> This is all explained in Walford's books, except "CRAN" and
> "CRON" are not mentioned there.

There are 12 entries for "CRON" in the index of BT120YD2NDED.

"CRON" appears in 3 Chapter titles and 7 Section titles.

The term is introduced by Walford as follows:

"Calorie restriction with optimal nutrition, which I call the "CRON
diet"...

  - Page xii, BT120YD2NDED.
-----------------------------------

Since the term CRON was in use long before 2000, I do not think that
Walford invented the term, but he obviously decided to adopt it. I am
actually quite surprised at this since such an action is highly
unscientific and not like the Walford of earlier days, IMO.

--Paul

[Paul, although your Yahoo ID provides no information, your website - with which
your email address is associated - yields a information about you, including
your studio location and your photo (?different from a couple years ago). This
meets our identification requirement and the moderation status has been removed.
However, you have not placed your full name clearly either within the "From"
line or within the message itself. Therefore, I placed your full name at the end
of your message, and ask that you do so yourself in the future, and any
additional public aliases.  **Kitty]

I wanted to share with the group some  work I have been
doing in the pursuit of happiness. For roughly six months I have been
undergoing EEG Neurobiofeedback as a therapy to reduce my reaction to
stress since I feel mind improvement is as much a goal as feeding the
body in order to increase one`s enjoyment of life.
One of my conclusions from having a full EEG Brain scan and having a
therapist (RN retired from brainwave work with stroke victims) modify
my brainwaves wavelenghts is that one acclimatizes to states that one
thinks of as normal....yet are potentially simply a poor adaptation to
a stressor utitilizing brainwaves that may not be optimum for dealing
with that stressor. I feel within my own self that my improvements in
happiness are not solely the result of placebo....though some placebo
is always a portion of happiness improvement.

This Pubmed link may provide some basis for proof of efficacy.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1\
2824763&dopt=Abstract


I am curious as to what orthomolecular protocols the members have
found useful in improving brain function. Is there a way to search
past posts to look into this. I seem to remember Huperzine being
mentioned and would conclude that Gincko would increase blood flow to
the brain.
Any recommendations......

OH.....I vaguely remember that posters were required to identify
themselve and was wondering what info was needed since I have not
posted for many months.

Paul Couvrette

Paul's email response to a member's personal message follows:

metformine wrote:

>Hi Tom,
>

Please note that Tom Matthews was an Internet name which I
discontinued several years ago and now go by only my birth
name, Paul Wakfer.

>I wanted to know if the following post
>"Update Re: R-alpha Lipoic Acid - As a Supplement   Kitty Antonik
>Wakfer ... kittyaw  Feb 17, 2003  6:21 am  "
>was still update (Sorry for my language, I'm french)
>

Most of the information from that post,
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/94, is still
valid. However, there are now far more suppliers of quality RLA
and of other forms, so that I no longer sell RLA.

>I also found this link for R lipoic acid by source naturals:
>http://www.betterlife.com/prod_home_page.asp?prod_id=20227
>Does it seem good for you?

Yes. The information is accurate and the product should be of good
quality and purity from my experience with source naturals.

> Does the product from Life Extension (R dihydro lipoic acid) worth more?

This product will be of at least as good quality and purity as any other
product available. But since there is no research verifying LEF's claim
that the reduced dihydro form is superior in vivo to the standard
oxidized from, I cannot say whether or not this is true and therefore
worth paying more to obtain. I and my wife do use the LEF product,
but that is because we get all LEF products at no charge under an
agreement I made with LEF over 10 years ago.

>Thanks a lot for your work
>
>François ROSE
>(you can email me at:  [email address removed])
>

We will post this response to the MoreLife group Yahoo so that others
can be informed.

--Paul Wakfer

MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Rational freedom by self-sovereignty & social contracting

[A prompt reply from Francois was received:
"Thanks a lot Paul, for this quick and precise answer."

**Kitty]

Some members may not interpret certain words in the poll statements as I
and Kitty intended them to be. Therefore, please note that the following
words are to be interpreted with the following meanings given:

"admonish" - "express concern, warning or disapproval to a person
about remiss, neglect or error, in an earnest, but possibly harsh
manner, while urging amendment of such behavior"

"criticize" - "find faults, errors, or demerits of some of the content
of a message, with or without urging amendment of the behaviors which
produced them"

The word "any" used in each question as "any message" is intended to
mean "every message". Therefore, the amount of conviction of the
validity of the poll statement can also indicate the proportion of
messages to which you think the statement applies.

"establish" - "convince or demonstrate to others that something is
valid"

"superiority" - "the quality or state of surpassing in virtue, merit,
excellence, or worth"


Anyone can at any time change hir vote in any poll before the poll
close date. This is done by accessing the polls at the group and
entering a new choice.

--Paul

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "ricktwinz" <rhandel@...> wrote:
>
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Antonik Wakfer" <paul@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Handel" <rhandel@> wrote:
>
> <SNIP of earlier portion of message by Rick Handel>
>
>
> > > Further, there appears to be a new article (I don't see it in
> > >pubmed, so I will link to it here)
> >
> > PubMed is a few weeks behind the appearance of abstracts on
> publisher
> > websites. It will be there. It just is not yet.
> >
> > Later note:
> > The article is now on PubMed: http://pmid.us/17374682
> >
> > > that may suggest more limited
> > >benefits than I had previously thought were possible (based on my
> > >limited exposure to CRAN, primarily through Walford's books):
> > >
> > > http://tinyurl.com/yqbzjp
> >
> > Quite frankly Walford's books are not the best place to learn about
> > CR. Not only are they too one-sided wrt to his own way of
> accomplishing
> > it, but he was far too negative about taking supplements in general.
> > In addition a great deal of experimental research and mechanism
> > investigation has been done since his books were written which has
> > shown that his methods were not the only or even necessarily the
> best
> > way to do CR. I have his books but have not referred to them in
> years.
>
>
> Thanks, Paul.  This information is very helpful to me.  I will focus
> on obtaining and reading some recent articles about CR duing the
> coming months.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Rick Handel
>
>
> <SNIP of remainder of message by Rick Handel>

I want to say how pleased I was to see your two snips above to clean
up the message and an expression of appreciation for the information.

Here is additional practical information about CR to help you.

1) Count calories approximately only for the first week or so with a
variety of food meals of the kind that you will generally be eating.
That will give you an idea from which you can then simply judge
afterward, perhaps checking the count again every few months to see
that you have not wandered off too far.

2) Eat only one meal daily spread out over a period of 2 -4 hours in
the late afternoon/early evening but ending about 4 hours before
sleep. Eat all the daily food types that you want at this one meal.

3) Do not consume any calories *except* during those 2-4 hours. This
gives you the longest possible daily fast time, during which your body
is recycling proteins, hopefully many old and damaged ones.

4) To prevent hunger during the fasting state we drink hot
green/rooibos tea (half and half made in a large teapot).

5) So that vitamins are distributed as much as possible, take one
small set of the ones that need to be distributed first thing upon
rising in the morning and the others with the meal. We take the
supplements that need to be taken without food either with our morning
pills or with a small set of premeal pills one hour before our daily meal.

6) We also take certain powders and pills (but no calories) right
before sleep.

Most of this is already on our website, but the above is just a summary.

--Paul

[Supplement/chemical regimens are still not complete; soon... **Kitty]

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, John Simkiss <simkiss@...> wrote:
>
> --- In morelife@yahoogroup s.com, Kitty Antonik Wakfer <kitty@ > wrote:
>
> >--- In morelife@yahoogroup s.com, John Simkiss <simkiss@ > wrote:
> >>
> >> Minor correction from the long message below on Sunday:
> >>
> >> "BTW, to all those readers who spotted Scott's "we" and thought
"aha!
> >> Scott's going to get the 'we' admonition from Paul", I congratulate
> >> you. You are now on the first step towards that goal of eliminating
> >> such wrong habits of third person plural usage from your language
> >> usage."
> >>
> >> Third person plural = They
> >> First person plural = We
>
> >Congratulations for catching this error in typing (an infrequent
> >dyslexic type error, like when he leaves out a "not"). Paul has also
> >always had slight problems with "left" and "right". He, of course,
> >knows which is which, but it is not totally automatic with him. Thank
> >you for bringing it to our attention.
> >Third person plurals are also sometimes ill-defined and/or poorly
> >used, but the problem is not nearly as rampant and negative as with
> >first person plurals.
>
> I mentioned this error only because it changes the meaning of Paul's
>sentence.
> Newer group members (including me) had to figure out if
>"the 'we' admonition from Paul" was actually supposed to be "the
>'they' admonition from Paul" and if Paul has previously written about
>third person plural misuse.

The fact that I put the "we" in quotes meant that I had *focused* on
it and any such error was highly unlikely. In addition Scott had not
even used a "they" in his sentence referred to:

"he was stating an opinion in a colorful way that I'm
certain we all understood as he intended."

And even stronger, the "'we' admonition" statement to which you refer
was preceded by the following text which clearly points out the "we"
error:

"Actually I am not sure what Erich intended and you cannot be sure
either, unless you have been in private communication with him and he
told you (and you certainly cannot speak for others by using a "we").
I am giving Erich the benefit of the doubt and I accept that he did
not intend to appeal to irrational emotional connections and to
distort reader's thinking in order to promote his own points (perhaps
doing so because he felt his case was not strong enough to stand up
to the scrutiny of rational thought alone)....."

And finally, readers, new or not, are responsible for searching the
websites and the group archives for anything which they find strange,
just so that longtime group posters do not need to explain everything
over and over again. If you had done so, then you would have found
multiple references to the negatives of most usages of first person
plurals including a full essay "Collectivism in Language: Its Effects
on Valid Reasoning" at: http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/we.html


> I have a nasty habit of mistyping "now" where I mean "not" and vice
>versa as in "I am now a socialist."  Ooops...I mean I am NOT a
>socialist.

I also do that at times. It is a finger/brain type error (similar to
dyslexic). There is a clear difference between these types of errors**
and intentional language usages that may be unconsciously distortional
to thinking/feeling.

** These are actually better called mistakes. They are due to small
brain mix-ups and I call them all dyslexic-type mistakes for lack of
any better terminology that I know.


> Were Paul's error merely a common verb noun agreement issue or an
>error in the use of the subjunctive mood, I would not have commented.
>I also noted that Paul recently wrote:
>
>   "Since all my criticisms have the same philosophical basis (sound use
>   of language for the purpose of accurate communication and logical
>   reasoning) they all have the same weight of importance to me if not to
>   others; and since this is my group, my weight of important is going to
>   prevail, not that of others."
>
> I concluded from this comment and Paul's continuing criticism of
>unsound use of language that it would be helpful to other members to
>correct Paul's mistake.

There is a huge difference between a criticism of the intentional use
of distortional or ambiguous language and that of an obvious *mistake*.

Readers *please note* carefully in the preceding sentence that
"intentional" modifies "use" rather than "distortional or ambiguous".
(I should not have to state this except that unfocused reading and
jumping to biased conclusions appears to be so common that I appear
to need to indicate exactly how all my sentences should be read.)

What I did with "third" versus "first" has no more importance than a
spelling or grammar mistake. The only time that I have ever either
criticized or pointed out these types of mistakes, was when I stated
that I assumed that a statement containing a mistake which influenced
its meaning (like your "not" instead of "now" or vice versa) was meant
a certain way. or when I was trying to help Olafur with his written
English. But Olafur had enough sense (as opposed to some others) to
realize that I was trying to help him rather than to "establish my
mental superiority".


> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_person
>
> >Did you really think giving a reference for this fact was necessary?
> >Paul and I do know the difference - see his essay, "Collectivism in
> >Language: Its Effects on Valid Reasoning" if you (or others) have not
> >already read it or have forgotten its contents.
> >http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/we.html
>
> Not really, no.  But very few things in life are genuinely
>necessary, and necessity is not the basis for most human action nor
>the test I applied which led me to insert that link.

Kitty clearly meant "necessary" in the sense of "needed to make your
point because you thought that we or others would not be convinced
your statement was valid without this reference".


>I expected that Paul already knew the difference between 1st and 3rd
>person.

Having been educated long before you and in a country (Ontario Canada)
with a heritage of teaching English grammar early and thoroughly, and
being a person who writes very complex and long yet well organized
sentences, I am a little surprised that you only "expected" it. Once
again, if you had searched the websites and the group archives, you
would have known it for certain.


>However, I am new to this group and have observed others herein
>giving references where they are also not necessary.  By including
>the Wikipedia link I was following the custom I suspected most
>morelife group members prefer.

I would much prefer members to follow logic and reason rather than any
customs including those of this group. If you think that our group
policies are mere arbitrary custom, then please point out which and
why. In any case, if you refer to making peer reviewed journal
references to statements of scientific fact that are not common
knowledge, then your reference failed in three ways. First, it was not
a scientific statement. Second, it was as much common knowledge as is
the fact that the human body contains two kidneys. Third, wikipedia is
not a peer reviewed reference.


>Also, note that I didn't reply to just Paul or to just Paul and you;
>I replied to the group.  Thus one should not assume that the
>Wikipedia link was for your and/or Paul's exclusive benefit.

This is correct and I don't think that Kitty thought of that point.
But if she had she would have explained that this group is not a stand
alone. It is for the purpose of discussing all things related to our
websites. All readers are expected to either have read those websites
and all preceding messages in the group or to search those areas for
what they do not understand *before* asking questions. Unfortunately
very few people if any are doing this, and we have not been insistent
about it of late.


> I doubt
>very much that every member of this group knew the difference between
>first and third person.  Some members may not speak or write English
>as their native language.  Some may be quite young.  Some may have
>forgotten their grammar.  Perhaps the reference was useful to some
>members, perhaps not.  But I see no harm in including the link.

Quite right again. However, in that case you really ought to give a
link which is more likely to be correct. OTOH, perhaps you checked out
the link for its accuracy and were putting your credibility behind it.


> Kitty, your paragraph above reads as if you are aggravated or even
>insulted by my use of the Wikipedia reference.  Please understand
>that no aggravation or insult was intended or implied.

[Actually, I experienced 2 emotions at the time I read your comment - surprise
and annoyance. Providing a scaling for each with 0% = none and 100% to the
greatest I've ever experienced to date:
Surprise = 60%, Annoyance = 20%
The automatic thought immediately preceding the emotions was "A reference for
this well known fact?" (See Mind Over Mood for further explanation of this
evaluation process.) **Kitty]

Agreed that perhaps we both took the use of the reference the wrong way, noting
of course Kitty's comment immediately above.

Please understand that we have been under stress because not one
single person has written with any agreement of the important (to us)
points that we have been making, nor has anyone (except Max Watt, in
part) even indicated that they understand all my important critical
remarks about the abstract and Max's further remarks. Finally, our
hopes for understanding and future mutually beneficial interactions
with at least two people, with whom we had spent much discussion time,
have been enormously reduced during the course of all this dialog.
Under such depressive circumstances it is not easy to keep optimistic
and to not expect the worse from everyone.


>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> jas3
> >>
> >> (aka John Simkiss,
> >> Member: The Grammar Police)
>
> >I don't know whether or not this last is an attempt at humor, but if
> >you do find true (or suspected) errors of grammar in our writings,
> >then bring them forward. An email to me re. items on the websites on
> >such items is always appreciated.
>
> You may safely assume that anyone who purports membership in a group
>called "The Grammar Police" is attempting humor (unless he is a
>member of the Académie Française, in which case he would have
>absolutely no sense of humor as a precondition to employment).  As in
>verbal communication, humor (or even a poor attempt at humor) in
>email frequently suggests that the author's intentions are friendly.

However (to reflect what you just said to us), there are likely people
on this group who would not understand that "The Grammar Police" was
meant humorously, which is why it would have been more communicative
if you had placed a smiley after that line in order to clearly
indicate that intent.


> >Actually Paul's knowledge of and practice of good grammar is far
> >better than most anyone's writing I've read. Some of his sentences do
> >get more complex than many (?most) readers these days find able to
> >comprehend (at least on first reading), but then he's had much
> >practice in reading/creating technical writing and writing legal
> >documents, particularly formal contracts. He has always regretted that
> >formal rules for bracketing and precedence of logical operators have
> >not become a standard part of the English language to reduce
ambiguity.
>
> I do agree that Paul's grammar usage is generally quite good.  But
>Paul and you employ some unusual conventions of both style and
>vocabulary, which various authorities on grammar would certainly deem
>to be incorrect.

I would be interested for you to point these out (other than what you have
below). One that *I* do purposefully is to refuse to place
periods anterior to quote marks when a quotation is at the conclusion
of a sentence, since I think that is completely illogical wrt the
purpose and meaning of period, and is merely a silly grammatical
convention left over from the age of typesetting. I also do not put
two spaces between sentences as you have done in your message, because
I think that is an unnecessary waste of space. (Its practice appears now to be
discouraged in on line writing, because it is again a now unnecessary vestige of
the age of typesetting.)

However I generally do not mention or discuss any of these things
because once again they are not important, unless they should happen
to affect meaning.


>Fortunately there are no official authorities on English grammar with
>whom we might definitively request a ruling on the matter.  I write
>"fortunately" because I am generally mistrusting of such authorities.

I am much more interested in communication than in formal grammar.
Surely the only rational purpose of grammar is to optimize communication.


> In reference to "unusual conventions," have Paul or you described
>why you both write "I and [insert name here]..." rather than using
>the more common convention of "[insert name here] and I..." ?

Yes. And there is even a message from Olafur (who did it naturally
without realizing that it was not "correct" grammatically) where I and
Kitty both decided to switch over to our present method. The reason is
very simple. As an individualist egoist, *I* should always come before
anyone else!
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/1189


>Also, I've never seen the possessive pronoun "hir" used anywhere but
>on morelife.

It is our attempt to introduce a gender neutral pronoun that stands
for "his", "her", "him" or "his" when the gender is not clearly
specified. We picked it up from another group and thought it to be a
neat solution. We similarly use "s/he".

[Out of curiosity, I searched back on the messages here at MoreLife Yahoo and
find the earliest usage of "hir" is from Dec 6 2002, among Paul's comments,
"Should this decision of being on CR be taken only by the person hirself upon
reaching an age when the benefits and disadvantages can weighed?"
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/59
The earliest message I find with both "his/her" and "hir" is from Nov 2004. 
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/730  However, the
"his/her" is retained from a previous message to which #730 is a response where
hir is used several times by both the writer (Micky Snir) and Paul in his
comments. **Kitty]


>I did a quick search of the morelife.org site, but didn't see
>anything in the glossary under "hir" or any explanation for the use
>of this invention.

Yes, we should put it in the glossary. If we could ever get some help
then these things would all get done. However, if you had searched
SelfSIP or this group for "hir" then you would have found its clear definition.


>I like the use of "hir" and would suggest that it is a fine example
of English as a living language.

I am glad you like it. But I maintain that it is a "fine example" of
human rational alteration of the English language precisely because it
is useful to avoid any misunderstanding when the gender of the
referent is unknown and/or unnecessary. English is no more "living" than it is
"evolving". Instead English is being lived in and with humans and is being
altered and evolved by human actions. - see discussion below.


> I would like to comment on this paragraph that Paul wrote last week:
>
>   "2) The purpose of dictionaries is to describe current word usage as
>   opposed to correct usage (correct usage as defined above). That is
why
>   if one consults older dictionaries one will see very different word
>   meanings. Such changes are sometimes described by saying that English
>   is a "living" language. However, I maintain that such use of "living"
>   is also enormously distortional (which is why I put it in quotes
in my
>   usage) and therefore incorrect (by my meaning of the word for this
>   purpose). Languages are not lifeforms. Languages are constructs of
>   people (or certain other lifeforms), the purpose of which is clear
>   communication. Anything that subverts that purpose is therefore
>   contrary to the very purpose of the language. It is therefore harmful
>   to that purpose and thus, to those who constructed it with that
>   purpose in mind."
>
>As we all know, evolution is not confined to lifeforms or to
>biological systems. Stellar evolution, for example, is a fascinating
>topic. Languages have evolved and will certainly continue to do so.

Actually, "we" don't "all" know this. I used to think that the word
evolution should only refer to "the production of new species by means
of DNA alterations". I have also seen others argue this way. However,
based on the root word "evolve" I have recently changed my mind on
this one.

I now have no problem with all gradual changes in complex systems
being called evolution. However, it is highly important to retain the
full complex system that is evolving and to include within it the
causes of the changes that are occurring. For example it is misleading
to say that DNA evolves, since the DNA is not the cause of the
alterations that occur to it. DNA will not change except by the
actions of the environment (including all factors of the cell in which
the DNA sits. Thus, it is only correct to say that species within an
environment evolve because of actions of the environment that cause
change in the DNA of lifeforms over time.

Similarly, stars evolve because the star is a complex set of
matter/energy (existents directly in reality) part of the whole system
surrounding it, and the self-action of that complex set causes alterations of
the whole.

However, it is incorrect to say that language evolves, since languages
are not complexes of existents (things directly in reality). A
language system is part of meta-reality. See my definitions in the NSC
http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html#existent

Systems in meta-reality are constructs of humans. They can have no
self-actions that enable them to change in any manner and cannot
therefore evolve, but can only be altered by the actions of their
creators, humans. Therefore it is misleading to say "languages
evolve". Instead, in order to be clear about cause and effect, one
must *include* humans (the creators of the constructs) within the the system of
a language and state "languages are evolved (passive verb
form) by the actions of those who speak and write the language". The
difference here between the passive form of "evolve" for languages
and the active form of "evolve" for stars is absolutely fundamental to
clear thought about reality.
Here are examples of correct usage:

Star systems evolve (active form of evolve).

DNA is evolved by its environment (passive form of evolve)

Species within an environment evolve (active form)

English is evolved by those who speak and write it. (passive form)

Civilizations evolve (active form) - because the environment and the human
actors which cause the evolving are part of the evolving system.

It is notable that written and spoken English are separately evolving
languages (in addition to each having separate evolution in different
geographic and cultural settings).


>While it might be interesting to try to codify human spoken and
>written language similarly to a declarative or object oriented
>programming language and to then try to train people to interpret
>such language into "meaning" in order to reduce miscommunication, I
>can't see how that would ever be possible.

You are just a quitter :) I maintain that it is going to have to occur
if the human race is to reach an optimally operating society.


> I would argue that languages evolve towards more clear communication
>over long periods of time on their own.

First, as I have pointed out above, languages do not evolve, they are
evolved by human actions. But much more importantly, I submit that
languages do not get clearer over time but rather get more distorted
and ambiguous over time. Just yesterday (3/20), I suggested to Kitty
that it would be an interesting question to investigate and analyze
whether perhaps the degeneration of the Latin language was a causative
factor in the decline and fall of the Roman Empire (as I am convinced
that the degeneration of English is causative to the decline of
liberty in the US).


>and that attempts to freeze any language in place or to formally
>regulate it (as the French attempt with limited success)

If you think that I am suggesting any such thing, then you have
completely misunderstood my critique of the use of force imagery for
describing written discourse. I am criticizing it because while humans
have made these changes because they *think* that the changes enhance
communications, I maintain that this thinking is faulty and that
instead these changes *greatly distort* communications and feelings.


>impair the ability of that language to serve as a tool for
>communication (to the extent that such regulation or freezing is
>actually practiced by that language's end users).

I totally agree and any such attempt has no relevance to my criticisms.


>While a "living" language may mean that it is more difficult to
>communicate with other people who speak that same language, it
>ensures that language grows into a more useful means of clear
>communication over time.

I don't see any logical reason that the alteration would necessarily be toward
more clarity. If you have reasons for stating this, please
present them. I can certainly present to you good reasons why I think
the alteration will be and has been strongest toward ambiguity and
distortional thinking/feeling.


> Lastly it is important to recognize that nobody actually
>"constructed" English with any purpose in mind.

Certainly not any particular "body" but a lot of bodies did just that.
Languages were brought into existence, maintained and altered by the
actions of individual humans for the purpose of increasing their
individual lifetime happinesses.


>English evolved over time from Middle English as did nearly every
>other language evolve without any sort of active construction in
>mind.

But the intent and purpose of the language changes made by many
individuals was communication, which itself was for the purpose of
increasing happiness. But once again English did not evolve, it was
altered (was evolved, if you like, but using the passive form of the
verb) by the purposeful actions of many individual humans seeking to
enhance communication in order to increase their individual happinesses.


>Perhaps the sole exception would be Esperanto.  Languages have
>evolved over time along with the neural constructs that allow humans
>to derive meaning from such language.  I would submit that as our
>species evolves, our languages will continue to evolve.

No. Once again languages do not evolve. Human actions cause their
languages to evolve. This may be subtle, but it is a highly important
difference. The fact that you use the phrase "our languages" shows
that you really know that, even though you still continue to write as
if languages are independent evolving entities. This is a variation of
the "we" fallacy of imputing to collectives actions that can only be performed
by existents.


> Those who wrote the first English language dictionaries and rules of
>grammar were simply attempting to codify usage that was already
>common and were not "constructing" a de novo language with any
>specific purpose such as clear communication.  They were mostly
>publishers whose sole purpose was to sell books.

I agree and I never said or implied anything different.


> Two of my favorite sites on the web on language, which you and Paul
>may enjoy are:
>
> http://www.ethnologue.com/
>
> http://www.languagemonitor.com/GlobalLanguageMonitor.html

I will have a look at them, but I will likely have some disagreements,
at least along the line that I have described above.

Thanks for your thoughts. I hope that you will review the reference
that I gave you and its annotational remarks before replying.


>
> Cheers,
>
>
> jas3 (aka John Simkiss
> Founding Member: morelife humor study group)
>
>
> p.s.  The line before this is another attempt at humor.  Please
>engage laughter simulation module....

Please endeavor to place a smiley after all humor, so that it is not
misunderstood. After all readers cannot see the smile on your face, so
you must place it there to be understood.

--Paul

We discovered on creating the polls that identities of voters *is* an
option and we decided that we want to know how many voters are willing
to stand up and be counted. However, since some people may not vote on
the 2 questions if their identity is revealed, there are now 2 polls on
each of the 2 questions. Two will reveal the voter's identity and the
other 2 will not. This distinction has been added in a note on all 4
polls at the end of the the statement to be voted on.

We also selected that the results to be hidden until the polls are
closed and the results automatically reported to all members.

In addition, note that the poll is set to automatically close at the end
of Mar 31, 2007

Also please note the wording of the questions. Paul realized after
seeing the format of the questions that it is much clearer to state it
in the affirmative. Therefore each are of this variety: "Paul Wakfer's
intended purpose in criticizing any message posted to the Yahoo group
MoreLife is to..." and the voter is asked to state his conviction of the
validity of this statement.


**Kitty

Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the
morelife group:

I do not think that Paul Wakfer's intended purpose in admonishing the
author of any message posted to the Yahoo group MoreLife is to
establish his (Paul's) mental superiority over that author.

   o 0% convinced
   o 1-19% convinced
   o 20-39% convinced
   o 40-59% convinced
   o 60-79% convinced
   o 80-99% convinced
   o 100% convinced


To vote, please visit the following web page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/surveys?id=12544662

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!

Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the
morelife group:

I do not think that Paul Wakfer's intended purpose in admonishing the
author of any message posted to the Yahoo group MoreLife is to
establish his (Paul's) mental superiority over that author.

   o 0% convinced
   o 1-19% convinced
   o 20-39% convinced
   o 40-59% convinced
   o 60-79% convinced
   o 80-99% convinced
   o 100% convinced


To vote, please visit the following web page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/surveys?id=12544660

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!

Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the
morelife group:

I do not think that Paul Wakfer's intended purpose in criticizing
any message posted to the Yahoo group MoreLife is to establish his
mental superiority over the message author.

   o 0% convinced
   o 1-19% convinced
   o 20-39% convinced
   o 40-59% convinced
   o 60-79% convinced
   o 80-99% convinced
   o 100% convinced


To vote, please visit the following web page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/surveys?id=12544650

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!