The Game of Picaroons

I have an idea for a board game which could make me a million bucks, if it is worth a flip. The problem is ... I haven't finished developing it. I haven't got the bugs worked out, and I was terrible in math. The game is called Picaroons. A Picaroon is another name for a spy. I'm calling the game that because I like the name, and, because, I'd like to create a board game with spies in it; but so far, all I have is a game of checkers in which you use the flip side of the checker pieces, and you get to re-enter captured pieces in the light-colored squares, which don't ever get used. And that's as far as I've gotten. Actually, I have gotten slightly farther along than that: I bought a cheap checker set and painted the flip sides of all the checkers red, so you could tell the Picaroon side from the regular checker side. The Picaroon side, or red side, is the flip side of the checker which no one ever cares about, but me. Think of it as a game of Othello or Reversi, with Risk mixed in ... if I can get the cards to fit in somehow. Right now, all I have is twenty-four checker pieces, painted red on one side, and all the cards which one uses in a game of Risk, which I raided. On the cards are horsemen, a cannon and infantry. And there are two wild cards which have all three categories (horsemen, cannon, infantry) on one card. I'm surprised there aren't more wild cards, but maybe the further I get along in this game, that will make perfect sense. For the time being, I think I have a great idea, but I haven't got it developed yet, but using the other side of the checker pieces seems like a very logical variation, so I'm going with that. Here's the object of the game: you play a game of checkers and get captured or you capture. Every time you capture a checker piece you get to draw a card. Let's say the cards are divided into three categories: paper, rock, scissors. There are 13 of each category in Risk, that's what I have in cards, so I'm dancing around that number, more or less.

And two wildcards. The way the cards will be used is ... as you're accumulating cards after capturing your opponent's checker pieces ... you hope to get three of a kind -- three rocks, three sheets of paper or three scissors, or, a set of three, with a rock, a sheet of paper and a pair of scissors. Once you have three of a kind or a set, you can snatch one of your captured pieces from your opponent and enter it Picaroon side up onto the board in the light-colored squares. That's sort of as far as I've gotten. I know I'm going to have to take into consideration what happens if you capture a king, or your opponent captures your king, but blah, blah, blah. The end part I have worked out: The thing you want to accomplish is to get your Picaroons in the two light-colored squares in the center of the board. I've thought about the fact that both games might compete with one another, that is, while you're still playing checkers, if you have re-entered a Picaroon (flipped piece) you are also playing the Picaroons phase, so I figure on each move, if you have at least one Picaroon on the board you can move your Picaroon one space and move your regular checker pieces as you normally would. I'm thinking that Picaroons can only capture other Picaroons, and they do so by moving in an adjacent space, with rock beating scissors, scissors cutting paper, and paper wrapping the rock; except, I'm looking at water, fire and stick. Stick floats on water, water puts out fire, and fire burns stick. Whatever. What I'm thinking is you have to move the Picaroon pieces safely to the far corners, at which point you acquire a little flag, which means that piece can begin moving into the center of the board, but the only way it can move to the center squares (there are four, obviously: two light and two dark) is by rolling a pair of dice. Then the game becomes like Risk, sort of. If you catch my drift.

The trick will be to land your Picaroons in the four center squares, having to land exactly on the square with the roll of one dice or two die. For instance, you roll a four (either one dice or two dice totaling four), and that piece, the Picaroon with a little flag, can be moved onto the square. I'm thinking no one can capture a Picaroon with a flag unless you're a Picaroon with another flag on the other side, and then ... I dunno. Anyway, You roll a six and a five, say, you overshoot your target, so then you gotta roll a two or a one to come back and land exactly on the square. Boring, right? Well, then the game becomes like Risk, because you can take over the square from your opponent if water beats fire, fire burns stick and stick floats on water. You see what I mean? So, you're dealing with luck and some skill, but not a lot of skill. I'm thinking about what I could do while the Picaroons are rolling from the squares on the corners to the center of the board; in other words, will there be a checker game still going on, and is that going to be confusing. I dunno. I need to play it, but no one will play with me. I feel like Henny freaking Penny, or Ducky Lucky or whatever the hell it is ... which is the animal which wants to bake the bread, but nobody wants to help, but they all want to eat the bread after it's baked, so it's a little moral. Which has nothing to do with anything, except that's how I feel. Or Chicken Little, with the sky falling. I always get those confused.

Anyway, I'm typing this up, so I can say I have my board game copyrighted, it being in the public domain with a date on it, so that if anybody steals Picaroons or the concept, I can sue the pants offa them, even though I have never done well when it comes to legal matters. I'll come back and add more once I have beta tested what I have so far.

Peace, out.

"The question is," said Alice ...

We found this description of Gnosticism on the Gnostic Society Library website. At least the guy is honest.

The random projection of contemporary fads and enthusiasms (such as feminism and the Gaia hypothesis) onto Gnosticism might also have to be controlled. But all of this seems like a small price to pay for some order and clarity in this field. We might have to take to heart the ironic admonition of Alice in Wonderland:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."


To which we say ... Precisely.

It is our view that there are no mysteries, no secret mysteries that secretive and mysterious people would like to believe that they know. The truth is what it is. The truth will set you free. The truth has clearly been revealed by God -- his name means Salvation. Can you guess who that is? It's no mystery.

Suspect Fragments of Papias

The fragment X of the Roberts-Donaldson collection of fragments is considered to be suspect as the alleged words of Papias.

Schoedel writes about Papias (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5, p. 140):

According to Irenaeus, our earliest witness, Papias was "a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, a man of primitive times," who wrote a volume in "five books" (haer. 5.33.4; quoted by Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.39.1). Eusebius already doubted the reality of a connection between Papias and the apostle John on the grounds that Papias himself in the preface to his book distinguished the apostle John from John the presbyter and seems to have had significant contact only with John the presbyter and a certain Aristion (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.3-7). Eusebius' skepticism was no doubt prompted by his distaste - perhaps a recently acquired distaste (Grant 1974) - for Papias' chiliasm and his feeling that such a theology qualified Papias for the distinction of being "a man of exceedingly small intelligence" (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.13). Nevertheless Eusebius' analysis of the preface is probably correct; and his further point that Papias' chiliasm put him to the same camp as the Revelation of John is surely relevant. It is notable that Eusebius, in spite of his desire to discredit Papias, still places him as early as the reign of Trajan (A.D. 98-117); and although later dates (e.g., A.D. 130-140) have often been suggested by modern scholars, Bartlet's date for Papias' literary activity of about A.D. 100 has recently gained support (Schoedel 1967: 91-92; Kortner 1983: 89-94, 167-72, 225-26).

Schoedel writes about the comments of Papias (op. cit., v. 5, pp. 141-142):

What the fragments have to tell us about Mark and Matthew is information that Papias himself traces to "the presbyter" (Eus. Hist. Eccl. 3.39.15-16). Eusebius separates the statements about Mark and Matthew, but they may have originally followed one another and certainly seem closely related. Perhaps the simplest reading of the statement on Mark is that Mark served as Peter's interpreter (possibly in the role of methurgaman, or oral translator) and wrote down what he heard Peter say of the words and deeds of Jesus and that his writing is defective in "order," though not in accuracy or fullness of recollection, because Peter naturally referred to the Lord's logia in a random manner. Some have suspected that Papias did not have in mind the gospel of Mark that we know, but the arguments are tenuous. On another point, Kurzinger has attempted to show that Papias was speaking not of translation from the native language of Peter but of presentation of the reports of Peter (an interpretation which he applies also to Papias' statement about Matthew); but this seems to push a rhetorical approach to Papias' terminology too far (Schoedel 1967: 107; Kortner 1983: 203-4). On the other hand, an interpretation in rhetorical terms is somewhat more likely when it comes to the suggestion that Papias meant to say that Peter spoke "in chria-style" rather than "as needs (chriai) dictated." But the point that is debated more than any other is what Papias had in mind when he said that Mark did not write "in order." It is perhaps most likely that Papias was measuring Mark by Matthew (who is said by Papias to have made "an ordered arrangement" of the materials) - or perhaps more generally by Papias' own conception of what ought to be included in such an account - and that he had in mind completeness of information as well as "order" in the narrow sense of the term. In any event, Papias is defending Mark in spite of perceived deficiencies.

Papias attests the role that oral tradition continued to play in the first half of the second century. Papias himself preferred "the living voice" to what could be found in books. Nevertheless, Papias seems to have known the Gospels, and he provides the earliest tradition concerning the authorship of the Gospel of Mark. The testimony of Papias concerning Matthew is more problematic. Eusebius says that Papias also "made use of testimonies from the first letter of John and likewise from that of Peter" (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.17).

Gnostic Society's Translation of Secret Gospel of Mark

Gnostic Scriptures and Fragments
The Secret Gospel of Mark

Archive Notes

This document was found by Prof. Morton Smith in 1958 at the Mar Saba monastery, southeast of Jerusalem. In the document, authoritatively attributed to Clement of Alexandria, a "Secret Gospel of Mark" is mentioned. Clement presents fragments from the text of this secret gospel which he claims is in the custody of the Church in Alexandria, but which is kept secret. Perhaps the most important issue confirmed by this letter is the fact that in Clement's time "hierophantic teachings of the Lord" and Gospel texts now lost were still transmitted within the church to a select group of Christians. Fragments attributed to the Secret Gospel of Mark are shown below in italics.

(An excellent summary of scholarly and popular responses to the Secret Gospel of Mark is provided in an article available in the Gnostic Society Library: The Strange Case of the Secret Gospel According to Mark: How Morton Smith's Discovery of a Lost Letter by Clement of Alexandria Scandalized Biblical Scholarship, by Shawn Eyer.)

A Letter Attributed to Clement of Alexandria

To Theodore.

You did well in silencing the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocrations. For these are "wandering stars" referred to in the prophecy, who wander from the narrow road of the commandments into a boundless abyss of the carnal and bodily sins. For, priding themselves in knowledge, as they say, "of the deep things of Satan, they do not know that they are casting themselves away into "the netherworld of the darkness" of falseness, and boasting that they are free, they have become slaves of servile desires. Such men are to be opposed in all ways and alltogether. For, even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not, even so, agree with them. For not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be prefered to the true truth, that according to the faith.

Now of the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark, some are altogether falsifications, and others, even if they do contain some true elements, nevertheless are not reported truely. For the true things being mixed with inventions, are falsified , so that, as the saying goes, even the salt loses its savor.

As for Mark, then, during Peter`s stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord`s doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former books the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue , lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautionously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in 1, verso Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initated into the great mysteries.

But since the foul demons are always devising destruction for the race of men, Carpocrates, instructed by them and using deceitful arts, so enslaved a certain presbyter of the church in Alexandria that he got from him a copy of the secret Gospel, which he both interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine and, moreover, polluted, mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies. From this mixture is withdrawn off the teaching of the Carpocratians.

To them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way ; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath. For, "For not all true things are to be said to all men". For this reason the Wisdom of God, through Solomon, advises, "Answer the fool with his folly," , teaching that the light of the truth should be hidden from those who are mentally blind. Again it says, "From him who has not shall be taken away" and "Let the fool walk in darkness". But we are "children of Light" having been illuminated by "the dayspring" of the spirit of the Lord "from on high", and "Where the Spirit of the Lord is" , it says, "there is liberty", for "All things are pure to the pure".

To you, therefore, I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked, refuting the falsifications by the very words of the Gospel. For example, after "And they were in the road going up to Jerusalem" and what follows, until "After three days he shall arise", the secret Gospel brings the following material word for word:

"And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, "son of David, have mercy on me". But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered , went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus thaught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."

And these words follow the text, "And James and John come to him" and all that section. But "naked man with naked man" and the other things about which you wrote, are not found.

And after the words,"And he comes into Jericho," the secret Gospel adds only, "And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them." But many other things about which you wrote both seem to be and are falsifications.

House of Virgin Mary in Ephesus ... is a FRAUD!

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH ...
The Virgin Mary never lived in Ephesus ...
She was buried in Jerusalem ...
What elaborate lengths the enemies of Jesus, God and man have gone to to hide the truth about the racial identity of Jesus, our Savior for all races and all nations

Located on the top of the "Bulbul" mountain 9 km ahead of Ephesus, the shrine of Virgin Mary enjoys a marvelous atmosphere hidden in the green. It is the place where Mary may have spent her last days. Indeed, she may have come in the area together with Saint John, who spent several years in the area to spread Christianity. Mary preferred this remote place rather than living in crowded place. The house is a typical Roman architectural example, entirely made of stones.

In the 4th century AD, a church, combining her house and grave, has been built. The original two-stored house, which consisted of an anteroom (where today candles are proposed), bedroom and praying room (Christian church area) and a room with fireplace (chapel for Muslims). A front kitchen fell into ruins and has been restored in 1940's. Today, only the central part and a room on the right of the altar are open to visitors.

From there one can understand that this building looks more like a church than a house. Another interesting place is the "Water of Mary", a source to be found at the exit of the church area and where a rather salt water, with curative properties, can be drunk by all.


Paul VI was the first pope to visit this place in the 1960's. Later, in the 1980's, during his visit, Pope John-Paul II declared the Shrine of Virgin Mary has a pilgrimage place for Christians. It is also visited by Muslims who recognize Mary as the mother of one of their prophets. Every year, on August 15th a ceremony is organized to commemorate Mary's Assumption. Especially on August 15th, 2000, an organization has planned to celebrate also Jesus' 2000th birthday.

The visions of Sister Emmerich, as recorded by Brentano, occupy several volumes and are mostly concerned with events from the life of Christ and of Mary. Only a few are devoted to Mary's final day in Ephesus, and those few follow no logical or even chronological sequence, tending to be circular rather than linear, creating and then clarifying ambiguities, so that in highly condensed version that follows we have taken the liberty of reorganizing and summarizing Sister Emmerich's visions to help you see more clearly exactly what she saw.

THE LOCATION OF THE HOUSE
"Mary did not live in Ephesus itself, but on a hill to the left of the road from Jerusalem... Narrow paths from Ephesus lead southwards to it... It is a very lonely place, but has many fertile slopes as well as rock caves where several Christian families and friends of Mary already lived... John had a house built for her here...

It is on an uneven plateau near the top of the hill, overgrown with trees and wild bushes... There were Jewish as well as Christian settlers here, living in caves fitted out with woodworks or in huts or tents... It was like a scattered village... Mary's house was the only one built of stone... A little way behind it was the summit of the hill, from which one could see Ephesus and also the sea with its many islands... Near here is a castle inhabited by a king who seems to have been deposed... Behind the house Mary had built a Way of the Cross soon after her arrival...

It had twelve Stations... Mary paced out the measurements herself... At each Station she set up memorial stones - eight smooth stones with many sides, each resting on a base of the same stone... The stones and their bases were all inscribed with Hebrew letters... These Stations were all in little hollows, except the Station of Month Calvary which was on a hill... The Station of the Holy Sepulcher was in a little cave over this hill..."

THE HOUSE ITSELF
"It was built of regular stones, rounded at the back, and had a spring running under it... The windows were high up near the flat roof... The main part of the house was divided into two by the fireplace in the middle of it, sunk into the ground, facing the door... There was a deep channel in the wall, like half of a chimney, which carried the smoke up an opening in the ceiling... Behind the fireplace, the apse of the room was curtained off and formed Mary's oratory... In a niche in the center of the wall there was a receptacle like a tabernacle and in it stood a cross about the length of a man's arm...

To the right and left of the fireplace were doors which led into the black part of the house... The door to the right led to the bedchamber of the Blessed Virgin, which ended in a semi-circle... Her couch, which was placed against a niche in the wall, was the length and breath of a narrow plank... Through the door to the left of the oratory was a small room were Mary's clothes and other belongings were kept... She lived here quietly with her maidservant, a younger woman who fetched what little food they needed... John would visit them when he was not away on his travels..."

MARY'S DEATH AND BURIAL
"I saw her lying on a low, very narrow couch in her little sleeping alcove... Her head rested on a round cushion... She was very weak and pale. The assembled Apostles held a service in front part of the house... Peter stood in priestly vestments before the altar, with the others behind him as if in a choir...

I saw the Blessed Virgin being lifted up several times a day by the women to be given a spoonful of juice which had been pressed from a bunch of yellow berries... Newcomers tenderly embraced those who were already there... After their feet had been washed, they approached Mary's couch and greeted her with reverence... She could only say a few words to them... Towards evening she realized that her end was approaching and said farewell to the Apostles, disciples and women who were present... She lay back on her pillows, pale and still... Peter gave her Holy Communion... She died after the ninth hour, at the same time as Our Lord...
Matthew and Andrew then followed Mary' Way of the Cross until the last Station, half and hour's journey from the house, which was the cave representing the Holy Sepulcher... Here they worked to enlarge the tomb and to built a door with which to close the entrance... Women came to the house to prepare the body for burial, bringing with them clothes as well as spices to embalm the body... The house was closed and they worked lamplight... Two women washed the holy body... John carried a vessel with ointment...

Peter dipped a finger of his right hand into it and anointed the breast, hands and feet of the Blessed Virgin, praying as he did so... Bunches of myrrh were laid in the armpits and bosom and in the spaces between the shoulders and the neck, chin and cheeks... They wrapped the holy body in a great grave-cloth and placed it in the wicker coffin which stood near... On her breast was laid a wreath of red, white and sky-blue flowers...

The coffin was then taken to the cave where she was buried." The date of Mary's death perhaps fades in importance when Sister Emmerich tells us that after Mary's entombment St John took St Thomas, who had arrived late, to see the Virgin one last time. Once inside the cave, they knelt and St John opened the lid of the coffin. Mary's body was not in the burial shroud, but the shroud remained intact. They carefully covered up the entrance to the cave and left.

Morton Smith's Secret Gospel of Mark

The Secret Gospel of Mark

In 1958 at the Mar Saba Monastery southeast of Jerusalem, Professor Morton Smith made an amazing discovery while cataloging the library there. He found a letter written to someone named Theodore. The letter is believed to be by Clement of Alexandria. In this letter, the author makes mention of a "Secret Gospel of Mark". The author of the letter goes so far as to quote two sections from the gospel. The author also alludes to a complete text which is in the possession of the Church at Alexandria but is kept secret. Below are the two sections (and where they belong in the Gospel of Mark) that we know about, followed by the fragment of the letter thought to be from Clement.

The first fragment is to be found between Mark 10:34 and 10:35 -

And they came into Bethany and a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she knelt down before Jesus and said to him, "Son of David, have mercy on me". But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus got angry with them and went off with her into the garden where the tomb was. Right away there was a loud cry from inside the tomb. Then Jesus rolled away the stone from in front of the tomb. He went in where the youth was and stretched forth his hand and raised him up. The youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beg him to be with him. They they left the tomb and went to the young man's house, for he was rich. Six days later, Jesus gave him instructions of what to do and in the evening the youth came to him, wearing nothing but a linen cloth over his naked body. He remained with him that night, for Jesus thaught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And when Jesus woke up, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.

The second fragment is to be found between Mark 10:46a and 10:46b -

And the sister of the young man whom Jesus loved was there, along with his mother and Salome, but Jesus did not receive them.

The Letter Attributed to Clement

To Theodore.

You did well in silencing the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocrations. For these are "wandering stars" referred to in the prophecy, who wander from the narrow road of the commandments into a boundless abyss of the carnal and bodily sins. For, priding themselves in knowledge, as they say, "of the deep things of Satan, they do not know that they are casting themselves away into "the netherworld of the darkness" of falseness, and boasting that they are free, they have become slaves of servile desires. Such men are to be opposed in all ways and alltogether. For, even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not, even so, agree with them. For not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be prefered to the true truth, that according to the faith.

Now of the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark, some are altogether falsifications, and others, even if they do contain some true elements, nevertheless are not reported truely. For the true things being mixed with inventions, are falsified , so that, as the saying goes, even the salt loses its savor.

As for Mark, then, during Peter`s stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord`s doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former books the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue , lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautionously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in 1, verso Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initated into the great mysteries.

But since the foul demons are always devising destruction for the race of men, Carpocrates, instructed by them and using deceitful arts, so enslaved a certain presbyter of the church in Alexandria that he got from him a copy of the secret Gospel, which he both interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine and, moreover, polluted, mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies. From this mixture is withdrawn off the teaching of the Carpocratians.

To them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way ; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath. For, "For not all true things are to be said to all men". For this reason the Wisdom of God, through Solomon, advises, "Answer the fool with his folly," , teaching that the light of the truth should be hidden from those who are mentally blind. Again it says, "From him who has not shall be taken away" and "Let the fool walk in darkness". But we are "children of Light" having been illuminated by "the dayspring" of the spirit of the Lord "from on high", and "Where the Spirit of the Lord is" , it says, "there is liberty", for "All things are pure to the pure".

To you, therefore, I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked, refuting the falsifications by the very words of the Gospel. For example, after "And they were in the road going up to Jerusalem" and what follows, until "After three days he shall arise", the secret Gospel brings the following material word for word:

"And they came into Bethany and a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she knelt down before Jesus and said to him, "Son of David, have mercy on me". But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus got angry with them and went off with her into the garden where the tomb was. Right away there was a loud cry from inside the tomb. Then Jesus rolled away the stone from in front of the tomb. He went in where the youth was and stretched forth his hand and raised him up. The youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beg him to be with him. They they left the tomb and went to the young man's house, for he was rich. Six days later, Jesus gave him instructions of what to do and in the evening the youth came to him, wearing nothing but a linen cloth over his naked body. He remained with him that night, for Jesus thaught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And when Jesus woke up, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."

And these words follow the text, "And James and John come to him" and all that section. But "naked man with naked man" and the other things about which you wrote, are not found.

And after the words,"And he comes into Jericho," the secret Gospel adds only, "And the sister of the young man whom Jesus loved was there, along with his mother and Salome, but Jesus did not receive them." But many other things about which you wrote both seem to be and are falsifications.

Picaroons

I have an idea for a board game which could make me a million bucks, if it is worth a flip. The problem is ... I haven't finished developing it. I haven't got the bugs worked out, and I was terrible in math. The game is called Picaroons. A Picaroon is another name for a spy. I'm calling the game that because I like the name, and, because, I'd like to create a board game with spies in it; but so far, all I have is a game of checkers in which you use the flip side of the checker pieces, and you get to re-enter captured pieces in the light-colored squares, which don't ever get used. And that's as far as I've gotten. Actually, I have gotten slightly farther along than that: I bought a cheap checker set and painted the flip sides of all the checkers red, so you could tell the Picaroon side from the regular checker side. The Picaroon side, or red side, is the flip side of the checker which no one ever cares about, but me. Think of it as a game of Othello or Reversi, with Risk mixed in ... if I can get the cards to fit in somehow. Right now, all I have is twenty-four checker pieces, painted red on one side, and all the cards which one uses in a game of Risk, which I raided. On the cards are horsemen, a cannon and infantry. And there are two wild cards which have all three categories (horsemen, cannon, infantry) on one card. I'm surprised there aren't more wild cards, but maybe the further I get along in this game, that will make perfect sense. For the time being, I think I have a great idea, but I haven't got it developed yet, but using the other side of the checker pieces seems like a very logical variation, so I'm going with that. Here's the object of the game: you play a game of checkers and get captured or you capture. Every time you capture a checker piece you get to draw a card. Let's say the cards are divided into three categories: paper, rock, scissors. There are 13 of each category in Risk, that's what I have in cards, so I'm dancing around that number, more or less.

And two wildcards. The way the cards will be used is ... as you're accumulating cards after capturing your opponent's checker pieces ... you hope to get three of a kind -- three rocks, three sheets of paper or three scissors, or, a set of three, with a rock, a sheet of paper and a pair of scissors. Once you have three of a kind or a set, you can snatch one of your captured pieces from your opponent and enter it Picaroon side up onto the board in the light-colored squares. That's sort of as far as I've gotten. I know I'm going to have to take into consideration what happens if you capture a king, or your opponent captures your king, but blah, blah, blah. The end part I have worked out: The thing you want to accomplish is to get your Picaroons in the two light-colored squares in the center of the board. I've thought about the fact that both games might compete with one another, that is, while you're still playing checkers, if you have re-entered a Picaroon (flipped piece) you are also playing the Picaroons phase, so I figure on each move, if you have at least one Picaroon on the board you can move your Picaroon one space and move your regular checker pieces as you normally would. I'm thinking that Picaroons can only capture other Picaroons, and they do so by moving in an adjacent space, with rock beating scissors, scissors cutting paper, and paper wrapping the rock; except, I'm looking at water, fire and stick. Stick floats on water, water puts out fire, and fire burns stick. Whatever. What I'm thinking is you have to move the Picaroon pieces safely to the far corners, at which point you acquire a little flag, which means that piece can begin moving into the center of the board, but the only way it can move to the center squares (there are four, obviously: two light and two dark) is by rolling a pair of dice. Then the game becomes like Risk, sort of. If you catch my drift.

The trick will be to land your Picaroons in the four center squares, having to land exactly on the square with the roll of one dice or two die. For instance, you roll a four (either one dice or two dice totaling four), and that piece, the Picaroon with a little flag, can be moved onto the square. I'm thinking no one can capture a Picaroon with a flag unless you're a Picaroon with another flag on the other side, and then ... I dunno. Anyway, You roll a six and a five, say, you overshoot your target, so then you gotta roll a two or a one to come back and land exactly on the square. Boring, right? Well, then the game becomes like Risk, because you can take over the square from your opponent if water beats fire, fire burns stick and stick floats on water. You see what I mean? So, you're dealing with luck and some skill, but not a lot of skill. I'm thinking about what I could do while the Picaroons are rolling from the squares on the corners to the center of the board; in other words, will there be a checker game still going on, and is that going to be confusing. I dunno. I need to play it, but no one will play with me. I feel like Henny freaking Penny, or Ducky Lucky or whatever the hell it is ... which is the animal which wants to bake the bread, but nobody wants to help, but they all want to eat the bread after it's baked, so it's a little moral. Which has nothing to do with anything, except that's how I feel. Or Chicken Little, with the sky falling. I always get those confused.

Anyway, I'm typing this up, so I can say I have my board game copyrighted, it being in the public domain with a date on it, so that if anybody steals Picaroons or the concept, I can sue the pants offa them, even though I have never done well when it comes to legal matters. I'll come back and add more once I have beta tested what I have so far.

Peace, out.

The Heckled

I never wanted to be a stand-up comedian. I hate this stuff. I am deadly serious. Death, there's a funny subject. See what I mean? I hate it, but life doesn't ask our permission, ever. You have to eat. You have to be something. I just happen to be good at writing jokes ... and telling them, but it's a curse, really. I'll tell you what I hate most about stand-up comedy -- I call it the "what's up with that" syndrome. You know, where someone comes out and reflects on something that happens to all of us, usually, and then the comic says, "What's up with that?" ... and the crowd just roars with laughter, while everyone is nodding and looking at the person with them, as if to say, You know, I can relate to that. Isn't that amazing? Well, it isn't amazing. Hey, breathing ... what's up with that? You see? I hate this stuff. And the thing that everyone can relate to is always something stupid, like, you know when you're putting on a pair of socks, and your toenails need to be clipped, and invariably a toenail, either on your little toe or your big toe, catches a thread of the sock, and you end up nearly tearing your foot off just to put on a damn sock? What's up with that? See what I mean? But people love that. But, damn it, don't laugh at that. Really. They love to go, Hey, that happens to me. I'm like the comedian. But no you're not. Nobody is like anybody else. What is so funny about relating to what someone else does in his miserable little life? Did you ever try to do a good or a funny dive or trick into the water, and you bust your ass in a way that you just land smack on your stomach or your back, and it hurts like hell, and you know that everyone around the diving board is just groaning or laughing, so that while you're underwater, for a split second, you think about not coming up, and you have this little argument with yourself, which can only be as long as you remain underwater, because when you come up, you have to say, Hey, I meant to do that. It didn't really hurt. That red splotch on my stomach or back or face is a birthmark that always shows up when I'm swimming. Did that ever happen to you? So what if it did? So what if you know what that form of embarrassment is like? Big deal. Get a life. Stop pissing away your money going to see somebody whom you think does just what you do, because you have a meaningless little life and you're trying to connect with humanity. You know what I mean? So what if we all fart, and yet you can't imagine other people being gross and farting, but you know they do, so you don't feel so crude afterwards, but you know that you are. Farting. What's funny about that? Kids love it, farting and farting jokes. You know what that's all about? Running out of things to laugh about, so you tell a fart joke, and everybody laughs, only nervously. You know how there are categories of farts. I don't even want to go there, because I hate bathroom humor, and it is gross. Dogs fart, but not much. You never hear a dog farting. You smell them farting, which is foul, because it's a dog fart. Horses fart like there's no tomorrow, but dogs as a rule are not farters. You know how you might fart around a dog, your pet, and they look at you like, Aren't you just the crude bastard, but I can relate to it, the earthiness of it, at least that's what you imagine your dog is thinking, and it's good that your dog can't talk and that he or she smells other dogs' butts, because with all the farting that people do, if your dog wanted to leave, he or she would have a good reason to do so, because you're uncouth, and the dog thinks you're trying to do it to punish the dog, only the dog likes it, but not in any delirious kind of way.

Hey, if you don't like stand-up, why are you freaking doin' it?

Stand-up? Freaking? Why do I stand up? Because I'm not a couch potato like it looks like that you are. I stand, rather than lay or sit, because I get paid to do this. What's your excuse?

I'm sitting because I'm drinking and eating, and listening to your stupid ass.

Oh, yeah? Big deal. Everybody sits. And freaking ... why do people like this moron say freaking instead of fucking. Fuck you, pal, and the horse you rode in on.

I don't do stand-up, and neither do you, so get off the stage.

What's up with hecklers? Everybody wants to kill a heckler, including the heckled, until the comedian dresses the heckler down, and everybody laughs at the heckler, so that he's waiting for you after the show? Unless you're bad, and you don't have a comeback, and then people hate the comedian. I'll kill you first, before I look bad, and pretend it's part of the act. Girls don't heckle. Guys heckle. If a girl heckled, nobody would like it. They'd think she was crazy or sexually confused. You know what I mean? Heckling. I'd heckle myself if there was any money in it.

You're an idiot.

What would be a good comeback for that? Anybody? I heard George Carlin get angry once at a heckler on a comedy record, and he just went ballistic, worse than Don Rickles, told the guy he hoped his family died in a car crash. Way over the top. I stopped liking Carlin after that, though he was brilliant. He was sick, too sick. I can't imagine his spirit floating around in a timeless state. He'd be lost without an audience, you know? Rickles always acts like he's really a good guy and he just pokes fun because he's really a great actor and likes to get outside of himself and act like an asshole. No he doesn't. He's a real asshole. Don Rickles is an asshole, but after he has been an asshole, he tries to act kind and unassuming, like, I just do this for a living, but he is so unbelieveable that you feel uncomfortable for him, and invariably, Rickles cares about being caring for only so long, before he launches into another tirade of how black people talk, or how goofy a Chinese man looks when he talks Chinese with squinty eyes and his teeth stuck out.

Get off the stage!

Okay, I will, because I hate this stuff. But I hate you more, so I'm going to kill you, but first, I'm going to have a comeback. Hey, asshole you come and get me off the stage, but let me remind you, I have a chainsaw backstage ... and I'll cut you up into little pieces and show everybody what your bowels look like. Ha, how's that? ... Wait, everybody ... comeback ... that's part of the show. Screw it, I'm still getting paid.

No, you aren't. Leave now, you're terrible.

Gee, boss. See what I mean? I hate this stuff.

We hate it more.

I'm getting my chainsaw.

The hell you are. Get out of my club.

I'm going to kill all of you. You too, boss. No, I'm really not ... that's part of the show.

Show's over.

Rickles does it. Why can't I do it? I hate this. I hate you, all of you. I hate myself, so I'm going to kill myself and blame it on you. Ha, what's up with that? I hate this stuff. You, too? You're all a bunch of freaking bastards. Don't you know how to laugh?

Reflections on a Bittersweet Return

Relieved ... and yet anguished? Broken, furious with nowhere to direct my fury. I don't know what specifically I felt as the time neared for my departure from Asmara, Ethiopia. Maybe that's an angry response at having to think about how I felt. It was dreamy, in a way. But it was horribly discouraging, tearfully remorseful, and unnecessary disruption of a life that had been going well, socially, but granted with no direction. I was in college, and I intended to graduate. But I had wasted a year of my life, and there were more ahead, accomplishing nothing, increasingly a stranger to myself with no way that I was aware of to arrest these feelings. Home wouldn't do it. It felt like the end of being ill, or deeply asleep, awake but weak -- unaware of just how weak I was, uncertain, not confident and already resigned to having a disasterous rest of my life. But not once did I feel suicidal. Never. I was cynical, dark and bitter, but I would take a slow death fighting madness over checking out without a fight to the end.

I didn't hold out much hope that I would fare well matching my new personality with those of my family members, which would not have changed, not to the unraveling degree mine had. I dreaded them seeing me like this -- and it would not be a matter of willpower to put my best face forward, because my mind had a mind of its own, at this point; if it felt fear, my mind wanted to race with it as fast and as far as it could, as if to push me down just a little bit further. But, I was actually getting stronger, as I have seen the progress, and who and what I am now.

The thought of leaving was reassuring, yes, it was exhilarating, but always there were the dampening feelings, so agonizing that should feelings should emerge. A part of me hated me for being such a wimp. Almost intolerable melancholy, until I could get stoned on whatever was available. I missed life as I had enjoyed it, which seemed more than two years behind me. It seemed an eternity since I had been happy. Join the crowd, you might say. Everyone was unhappy. I only know that I saw none acting like me, but that means nothing. Nobody was happy. Words are insufficient; speaking in cliches, one hopes, will be enough. I miss the beautiful weather and the amber afternoons, which felt like early autumn, and the mornings which felt like early spring. It was barren and stark, but unique enough to hold my attention.

I never wanted to see Asmara again, at the time, though parts of it were beautiful and unique. There is a charm to a stripped down society, third-world living, but with a broken heart, alone, there was only dull interest, until next when I was drunk. I felt in a way I had never felt before, and I was sure I would never feel that way again. I'd never found myself away for so long, preparing to may a return which would be almost as traumatic. My life was enriched, but ruined. I felt a part of me had died, if not all of me but the breathing and thinking part -- and with that part which died, all of the happy memories I had ever created with my fiancee died. It didn't matter whether she loved me anyone, or if I loved her, we had not weathered fate or love well -- she much more than me.

I was not the same. And I couldn't love her in the way I had loved her before. She had revealed herself to be selfish, flighty, immature, cruel, with no forethought of the consequences and no apparent conscience. I was being forced to start over, with my return to the United States ... and I was still in the Navy ... with advanced mental illness, which was problematic, but I didn't have a name for it. I was ashamed that I had experienced a form of death, the death of my personality and soul, of my hope, of my confidence and general outlook, whatever that means. I felt doomed. And I was scared to death, though I didn't want to be. I kept telling myself I had no reason to be. Except going through what other men had gone through.

The S is Harry S Truman ... stands for "Satan"

How efficient Babylon
Clean and spotless, bums are gone
Starve the poor and feed the rich
Lead the blind man to a ditch
But for mercy, there go you
One day you'll have holey shoes
And the difference 'tween rich and poor?
Those boners lie, "There is no more."
Do you believe that of the poor?
In fact, they're slime, Budsters and whores
You're not so mean ...
And so what for? ...
You've got a boyish manner and grin
What have you placed your confidence in?
What does the S in Harry Truman's name mean --
The 33rd president, big deal Mason?
"Sorry, Japs, we double-crossed you bad
"We did Pearl Harbor, but that made us mad."
It wouldn't be sorrow that Truman felt
The world was made to melt
Did the buck stop where it should
'Twould do old Harry good

The great horned beast threw back his head
His hooves dug in the rock
And pulled S closer toward him
And crowed out like a cock
The task 'twas given to S to do,
"He's done it so damned well:
"You mocked the false creator.
"And sent the rest to hell."
He did it without conscience ...
So is he psychopath?
Can one kill without madness?
Can one kill without wrath?
What motivates the warriors ...
Have they been told stay cool?
Must we be at the mercy of
Gnostic, Satanic fools?
The stupid man will listen
When dazzling his eyes
"It must be God," little Harry S said.
"Just look how fast he flies."

-- Simon O. Seuss