Here's a link for atheist symbols:
http://www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com

So far, I've found 3 different theories on how belief systems
originated in humans.  Here's another interesting one:
http://cornelismondt.tripod.com/atheism/id15.html

Here's the add: http://www.infidels.org/index.shtml

Yeah, sorry, that was just a first draft.. I'm working out a better
theory on the secular web forum, under the name DNAinaGoodway.  When
it's more complete, I'll post it here.

But you're right, it's not just nature, but nurture as well. Nurture
and nature always work together, interacting and feeding back.

It's similar to language acquisition, we inherit neural "pre-wiring"
for the ability, but how it develops depends on the organism's
environment.

If you go there, please drop a post and help me out.  There are many
more contributers on that site than this one.


--- In atheismuk2@..., elizabeth_dehner
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I don't agree with the statement that we "inherit some degree to
> predisposition for spirituality or religiosity" I think we are all
> born as a blank canvass and it is to what circumstances we are
born
> that can have an affect on what we believe/don't believe.
>
>
>
> --- In atheismuk2@..., "pourrientui"
<pourrientui@h...>
> wrote:
> > Just found this, poking around online for non-theistic sites.
I'm
> > not what you might call an atheist, and I'm not in the UK.  Born
> and
> > still in Massachusetts, but love how the internet allows global
> > community.
> >
> > My current best understanding of the faith phenom is that we are
> > stuck with it.  It appears that we all inherit some degree of
pre-
> > disposition for "spirituality" or "religiosity", or something to
> > that effect that I haven't found a better term for yet. It makes
> > abundent sense that this inheritable ability evolved.  It seems
> > reasonable that our various cultures have taken this ability and
> > evolved all the various adaptation of it, all our myriad of
> faiths.
> > In my view, they were just doing the best they could with the
> > information they had at the time.  I don't see them devolving
> > anytime soon.
> >
> > Over time, I expect scientific understanding will out-compete
all
> > these other theories (faiths).

--- In atheismuk2@..., "annelieseglitz"
<anneliese.glitz@l...> wrote:
> Hi,
> Does anyone know if there is an international symbol for atheism?
If
> Christians have a cross why shouldn't we have a symbol? Then, if
one
> was in an accident etc. people would know what we believed, and we
> would be spared religious advisors hanging around our hospital
> beds.  Equally, one would be able to recognize ones fellow
atheists.
> What do you think.

Just offhand, her's acouple images:

A segment of DNA

A brain.

A happy, relaxed human.

No symbol needed?

Hi

I don't agree with the statement that we "inherit some degree to
predisposition for spirituality or religiosity" I think we are all
born as a blank canvass and it is to what circumstances we are born
that can have an affect on what we believe/don't believe.



--- In atheismuk2@..., "pourrientui" <pourrientui@h...>
wrote:
> Just found this, poking around online for non-theistic sites. I'm
> not what you might call an atheist, and I'm not in the UK.  Born
and
> still in Massachusetts, but love how the internet allows global
> community.
>
> My current best understanding of the faith phenom is that we are
> stuck with it.  It appears that we all inherit some degree of pre-
> disposition for "spirituality" or "religiosity", or something to
> that effect that I haven't found a better term for yet. It makes
> abundent sense that this inheritable ability evolved.  It seems
> reasonable that our various cultures have taken this ability and
> evolved all the various adaptation of it, all our myriad of
faiths.
> In my view, they were just doing the best they could with the
> information they had at the time.  I don't see them devolving
> anytime soon.
>
> Over time, I expect scientific understanding will out-compete all
> these other theories (faiths).

Hello,

Personally, as much as I try to make people aware of my atheism, I
think that a symbolic representation of it is not a wise thing to do.
I've said it plenty of times in the past: - as have others - atheism
is purely the absence of belief in god; it is not an ideology or a
doctrine; it is pure disbelief. Therefore, I think it seems
inappropriate to assign a symbol to it. Granted, atheists might share
certain views, but in no way does atheism represent a coherent world-
view.

I think that an organisation like the National Secular Society is the
kind of group to which we should belong. It is not exclusively
atheistic; indeed, many of its members are believers who are keen to
keep religion separate from the State. A group such as this - like
the Brights, I guess - is a 'catch-all' one, i.e. it aims to attract
as many secularists as possible, and thus attract many atheists. I
think that this is the way forward for atheists, because it
demonstrates that we are, most importantly, positive (and not the
pessimistic cynics that we may have been branded as by some), and
progressive. Rather than just proclaiming a simple disbelief, I think
it is important that we belong to something constructive, which seeks
social and political change vís-a-vís religion. This way, we gain
credibility, and actual appear to be positive. Secularism thus
becomes our aim; our atheism merely lurks in the background, as a
simple disbelief.

Off the point, again...

- Matt

P.S., I did add some pictures to the 'photos' section of this group
when I joined it a couple of years ago - there are a few which some
people might want to use as an atheist symbol. I wouldn't support an
atheist logo, however, for the above reasons.

--- In atheismuk2@..., ranterjmc <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In atheismuk2@..., "annelieseglitz"
> <anneliese.glitz@l...> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Does anyone know if there is an international symbol for atheism?
> If
> > Christians have a cross why shouldn't we have a symbol? Then, if
> one
> > was in an accident etc. people would know what we believed, and
we
> > would be spared religious advisors hanging around our hospital
> > beds.  Equally, one would be able to recognize ones fellow
> atheists.
> > What do you think.
>
> I'd be very much in favour of a suitable symbol for all the reasons
> you've given.
>
> I've given some thought to it in the past. I did think of a circle
> expressing completeness - possibly a smiley face. I don't think we
> should have a "crossed-out cross" or something to emphasise
> non-belief or non-something.
>
> I'm not too keen on this "brights" stuff myself.

--- In atheismuk2@..., "annelieseglitz"
<anneliese.glitz@l...> wrote:
> Hi,
> Does anyone know if there is an international symbol for atheism?
If
> Christians have a cross why shouldn't we have a symbol? Then, if
one
> was in an accident etc. people would know what we believed, and we
> would be spared religious advisors hanging around our hospital
> beds.  Equally, one would be able to recognize ones fellow
atheists.
> What do you think.

I'd be very much in favour of a suitable symbol for all the reasons
you've given.

I've given some thought to it in the past. I did think of a circle
expressing completeness - possibly a smiley face. I don't think we
should have a "crossed-out cross" or something to emphasise
non-belief or non-something.

I'm not too keen on this "brights" stuff myself.

Hi,
Does anyone know if there is an international symbol for atheism? If
Christians have a cross why shouldn't we have a symbol? Then, if one
was in an accident etc. people would know what we believed, and we
would be spared religious advisors hanging around our hospital
beds.  Equally, one would be able to recognize ones fellow atheists.
What do you think.

Hi Matt

I very much like the idea of the "conscientious disbeliever" - very
good, it made me chuckle on a dull, rainy Wednesday afternoon!

Shell

--- In atheismuk2@..., atheist_revolutionary
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've never experienced that in a hospital, but I think it's worth
> mentioning how frustrated and annoyed I get when I come
> across "religion" on job, student loan, and university applications!
>
> I normally just write "none" for fear that an educated person might
> read my application, i.e., if I write "atheist" as my religion,
then
> they might think, "What an idiot. Atheism isn't a religion!"
> Obviously we all know that atheism is purely disbelief, and clearly
> it isn't a religion. However, I really would love to
> write "atheist", just to make my position clear! Maybe if we were
to
> write "conscientious disbeliever", we would get our point across!
>
> Once on a summer-job application, I was asked my nationality in
> the "equal opportunities" section, so I responded with "Citizen of
> the World". I despise those equal opportunities questions! They are
> just ridiculous! If nationality/race/sexuality/religion isn't an
> issue in the world of work, why then is there a need to mention it,
> let alone ask candidates about it? Hence when I was asked for
> my "race", I replied with "homo sapien", having crossed out all the
> possible responses, e.g. caucasian, afro-caribbean, etc. If the
> government wants to stamp out racism, it should stop propagating
the
> idea that there are different 'kinds' of human beings in
thoughtless
> questionnaires and equal opportunities sections on job applications!
>
> Slightly off the point, but it angers me!
>
> - Matt
>
> --- In atheismuk2@..., "annelieseglitz"
> <anneliese.glitz@l...> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I wonder if any other atheists have had the following experiance,
> or
> > if any NHS staff would like to comment on it?  A couple of years
> ago
> > I had to spend a few weeks in an NHS hospital.  When I was
> admitted
> > they asked my religion, I replied I was an atheist, the nurse
> flatly
> > refused to write the word, instead she put 'none'. This of course
> is
> > not quite the same thing, an atheist does not accept the
existance
> > of god (no capital on purpose), whereas to claim no religion
> sounds
> > as if you just have n't thought about the issue.
> > Please give me your thoughts, was this a one off?
> > Anneliese.

Hi,

I've never experienced that in a hospital, but I think it's worth
mentioning how frustrated and annoyed I get when I come
across "religion" on job, student loan, and university applications!

I normally just write "none" for fear that an educated person might
read my application, i.e., if I write "atheist" as my religion, then
they might think, "What an idiot. Atheism isn't a religion!"
Obviously we all know that atheism is purely disbelief, and clearly
it isn't a religion. However, I really would love to
write "atheist", just to make my position clear! Maybe if we were to
write "conscientious disbeliever", we would get our point across!

Once on a summer-job application, I was asked my nationality in
the "equal opportunities" section, so I responded with "Citizen of
the World". I despise those equal opportunities questions! They are
just ridiculous! If nationality/race/sexuality/religion isn't an
issue in the world of work, why then is there a need to mention it,
let alone ask candidates about it? Hence when I was asked for
my "race", I replied with "homo sapien", having crossed out all the
possible responses, e.g. caucasian, afro-caribbean, etc. If the
government wants to stamp out racism, it should stop propagating the
idea that there are different 'kinds' of human beings in thoughtless
questionnaires and equal opportunities sections on job applications!

Slightly off the point, but it angers me!

- Matt

--- In atheismuk2@..., "annelieseglitz"
<anneliese.glitz@l...> wrote:
> Hi,
> I wonder if any other atheists have had the following experiance,
or
> if any NHS staff would like to comment on it?  A couple of years
ago
> I had to spend a few weeks in an NHS hospital.  When I was
admitted
> they asked my religion, I replied I was an atheist, the nurse
flatly
> refused to write the word, instead she put 'none'. This of course
is
> not quite the same thing, an atheist does not accept the existance
> of god (no capital on purpose), whereas to claim no religion
sounds
> as if you just have n't thought about the issue.
> Please give me your thoughts, was this a one off?
> Anneliese.

Just found this, poking around online for non-theistic sites. I'm
not what you might call an atheist, and I'm not in the UK.  Born and
still in Massachusetts, but love how the internet allows global
community.

My current best understanding of the faith phenom is that we are
stuck with it.  It appears that we all inherit some degree of pre-
disposition for "spirituality" or "religiosity", or something to
that effect that I haven't found a better term for yet. It makes
abundent sense that this inheritable ability evolved.  It seems
reasonable that our various cultures have taken this ability and
evolved all the various adaptation of it, all our myriad of faiths.
In my view, they were just doing the best they could with the
information they had at the time.  I don't see them devolving
anytime soon.

Over time, I expect scientific understanding will out-compete all
these other theories (faiths).

Hi Missus Gummby,
It's a relief to know I am alone in my NHS misfortune, little did I
know hell was supposed to be full of people who had written the
naughty word 'atheist', nothing like freedom of expression is
there?  If I hadn't felt too ill to argue I'd have played merry
hell...er if you know what I mean.
Love the pseudonym.
A

--- In atheismuk2@..., "annelieseglitz"
<anneliese.glitz@l...> wrote:
> Hi,
> I wonder if any other atheists have had the following experiance,
or
> if any NHS staff would like to comment on it?  A couple of years
ago
> I had to spend a few weeks in an NHS hospital.  When I was admitted
> they asked my religion, I replied I was an atheist, the nurse
flatly
> refused to write the word, instead she put 'none'. This of course
is
> not quite the same thing, an atheist does not accept the existance
> of god (no capital on purpose), whereas to claim no religion sounds
> as if you just have n't thought about the issue.
> Please give me your thoughts, was this a one off?
> Anneliese.

Nope, never happened to me. I suspect that the nurse was of a
religious nature, and more than likely didn't know what the
word 'atheist' actually meant. Some churches still preach that
atheists are evil/satan worhipping/baby killing monsters.

Anyhoo, what on earth was she doing taking her religious prejudices
to work in the first place? I would have made sure that 'atheist'
went on the form.

Missus Gumby

Hi,
I wonder if any other atheists have had the following experiance, or
if any NHS staff would like to comment on it?  A couple of years ago
I had to spend a few weeks in an NHS hospital.  When I was admitted
they asked my religion, I replied I was an atheist, the nurse flatly
refused to write the word, instead she put 'none'. This of course is
not quite the same thing, an atheist does not accept the existance
of god (no capital on purpose), whereas to claim no religion sounds
as if you just have n't thought about the issue.
Please give me your thoughts, was this a one off?
Anneliese.

NATIONAL CURRICULUM AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS

What do you have to teach if you are a private school?  The National
Curriculum only applies for state schools, and private schools are much
freer to decide their own curriculum, enabling them to teach a curriculum
defined by strong religious or philosophical beliefs: Steiner or Montessori,
Christian or Islamic.

Lesley Hilton visits the Bethany School in Netherthorpe near Sheffield which
teaches a Bible based, creationist curriculum to students until GCSE level.

How do they structure their curriculum?  To what extent do they follow the
National Curriculum at all?  Is what they teach a balanced education?

Liten from about 8 mins in. Here is the link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/rams/learningcurve_current.ram

_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

Hey,

www.the-brights.net

I'm in the process of looking through it still!

- Matt

--- In atheismuk2@..., elizabeth_dehner
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> What is the web address of the 'Brights' - I haven't heard of
these
> before.  Cheers.
>
>
> --- In atheismuk2@..., atheist_revolutionary
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > Yep, I'd give a similar answer. Not only is there a monumental
lack
> > of scientific evidence for the existence of god(s): there is no
> > logic in believing in god(s) simply because he/she/it/they
has/have
> > been 'revealed' in 'divine' scripture. For instance, the
existence
> > of god cannot be proved by referring to the Bible. The Bible
does
> > not provide evidence for the existence of god; it assumes the
> > existence of god. In other words, the Bible does not 'reveal'
the
> > existence of the Christian god. Rather, it assumes the existence
of
> > the Christian god from the outset, meaning that a conscious
belief
> > in god is necessary prior to reading the scripture (circular
> logic).
> > Therefore, the Bible does nothing to prove the existence of god -

> it
> > merely reinforces belief in god in those minds which have not
> > addressed the fundamental philosophical and scientific problems
> > associated with the concept of a deity.
> >
> > What are the 'Brights' all about? I had a brief look at their
> > website a few days ago, and I couldn't quite understand whether
> they
> > are intending to be a serious organisation. I guess they are,
but
> it
> > just seems rather strange. I'll have to investigate more before
I
> > think about joining!
> >
> > - Matt
> >
> > --- In atheismuk2@..., philsviews <no_reply@y...>
> > wrote:
> > > I don't accept the existence of the supernatural because I see
no
> > > evidence for it existing.
> > >
> > > Which is great, and I hope you all think the same way.  Except
> for
> > > the fact that the soon we find evidence it is no
> > > longer 'super'natural but natural, and this leads to us having
an
> > > unfalsifiable claim.
> > >
> > > BTW has antyone else here joined the Brights?

What is the web address of the 'Brights' - I haven't heard of these
before.  Cheers.


--- In atheismuk2@..., atheist_revolutionary
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Yep, I'd give a similar answer. Not only is there a monumental lack
> of scientific evidence for the existence of god(s): there is no
> logic in believing in god(s) simply because he/she/it/they has/have
> been 'revealed' in 'divine' scripture. For instance, the existence
> of god cannot be proved by referring to the Bible. The Bible does
> not provide evidence for the existence of god; it assumes the
> existence of god. In other words, the Bible does not 'reveal' the
> existence of the Christian god. Rather, it assumes the existence of
> the Christian god from the outset, meaning that a conscious belief
> in god is necessary prior to reading the scripture (circular
logic).
> Therefore, the Bible does nothing to prove the existence of god -
it
> merely reinforces belief in god in those minds which have not
> addressed the fundamental philosophical and scientific problems
> associated with the concept of a deity.
>
> What are the 'Brights' all about? I had a brief look at their
> website a few days ago, and I couldn't quite understand whether
they
> are intending to be a serious organisation. I guess they are, but
it
> just seems rather strange. I'll have to investigate more before I
> think about joining!
>
> - Matt
>
> --- In atheismuk2@..., philsviews <no_reply@y...>
> wrote:
> > I don't accept the existence of the supernatural because I see no
> > evidence for it existing.
> >
> > Which is great, and I hope you all think the same way.  Except
for
> > the fact that the soon we find evidence it is no
> > longer 'super'natural but natural, and this leads to us having an
> > unfalsifiable claim.
> >
> > BTW has antyone else here joined the Brights?

I suppose so, yeah. It makes me laugh when people talk of
the 'supernatural' - if it's 'above' nature, then how can their
senses perceive it? If god exists, then it exists *within* nature,
not outside of it. To claim that god is 'supernatural' is a logical
impossibility. If god is supernatural, then we would not - and could
not - know of him. But then, WE know that. Unfortunately, the
average theist doesn't...

I'll have to investigate the Brights, if they're intending to be a
serious movement. I did see that Richard Dawkins has 'aligned'
himself with them in some of his newspaper articles, although I'm
unsure how close he intends to be with them.

- Matt

--- In atheismuk2@..., philsviews <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
> What about the point that if scientific evidence was found, it
would
> no longer be supernatural, so we could still say we were right all
> along.
>
> How can we know that there is no supernatural if we change our
> definition of what is supernatural as time goes on.
>
> Is that a case of moving the goalposts?
>
> BTW, the Brights are trying to become a serious movement.  The
> website for those that have not found it is www.the-brights.net .

I managed to miss last year's gathering. Any plans to hold another
meet up in the foreseeable future?

AX

--- In atheismuk2@..., missus_gumby <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
> --- In atheismuk2@..., larryinlurex <no_reply@y...>
> wrote:
> > I couldn't make it, does anyone have a report?
> >
> > Martin
>
> A good time was had by all! I even had an argument in the street
> (before things got started) with a mormon who was trying to peddle
> his religion.
>
> Enormous amounts were imbibed, and several truck loads of food were
> eaten. It was a very pleasurable experience to meet up with some of
> the other UK Internet Infidel folks. Here is the link that shows a
> few pictures of the event.
>
> http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54646
>
> Martin

What about the point that if scientific evidence was found, it would
no longer be supernatural, so we could still say we were right all
along.

How can we know that there is no supernatural if we change our
definition of what is supernatural as time goes on.

Is that a case of moving the goalposts?

BTW, the Brights are trying to become a serious movement.  The
website for those that have not found it is www.the-brights.net .

Yep, I'd give a similar answer. Not only is there a monumental lack
of scientific evidence for the existence of god(s): there is no
logic in believing in god(s) simply because he/she/it/they has/have
been 'revealed' in 'divine' scripture. For instance, the existence
of god cannot be proved by referring to the Bible. The Bible does
not provide evidence for the existence of god; it assumes the
existence of god. In other words, the Bible does not 'reveal' the
existence of the Christian god. Rather, it assumes the existence of
the Christian god from the outset, meaning that a conscious belief
in god is necessary prior to reading the scripture (circular logic).
Therefore, the Bible does nothing to prove the existence of god - it
merely reinforces belief in god in those minds which have not
addressed the fundamental philosophical and scientific problems
associated with the concept of a deity.

What are the 'Brights' all about? I had a brief look at their
website a few days ago, and I couldn't quite understand whether they
are intending to be a serious organisation. I guess they are, but it
just seems rather strange. I'll have to investigate more before I
think about joining!

- Matt

--- In atheismuk2@..., philsviews <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
> I don't accept the existence of the supernatural because I see no
> evidence for it existing.
>
> Which is great, and I hope you all think the same way.  Except for
> the fact that the soon we find evidence it is no
> longer 'super'natural but natural, and this leads to us having an
> unfalsifiable claim.
>
> BTW has antyone else here joined the Brights?

I don't accept the existence of the supernatural because I see no
evidence for it existing.

Which is great, and I hope you all think the same way.  Except for
the fact that the soon we find evidence it is no
longer 'super'natural but natural, and this leads to us having an
unfalsifiable claim.

BTW has antyone else here joined the Brights?

Hello all!

I'd like to think that some of you remember me! I haven't posted in
this group - or any other - for a good couple of years, so I thought
I'd make a dramatic reappearance! I hope everyone's getting on well!

Anyway, for the few who are interested, I'm currently at the end of
my second year at Royal Holloway, University of London, where I'm
studying History. I'm planning to do a Master's degree, and then
undertake PhD research on the British National Party. After all of
that, I suppose I'll have to get myself a job (probably as a
government research officer, *yawn*)! :( Oh, and I'm not a born-
again Christian - I'm still an atheist, and proud of my disbelief :P

Enough about me anyway. I see that there hasn't been much
conversation in the last month in this forum, so, I'll go crazy and
stir up some debate...

Erm...

"Why do you not believe in god(s)?"

Or, perhaps:

"Why do you believe that there is/are no god/s?"

Come on, answers on a postcard please!

If you enjoy theological debate make sure you check out
www.sciforums.com

It is a great forum, (recently over-populated with die hard muslim
fanatics), with many people from all "sides of the fence".

Enjoy.

Just thought I'd say hello to everyone here, and hope with time I
can get to know you all.

I am a staunch atheist, currently working on a book for non-
believers, and always up for a debate with any poor religious 'soul'
that gets in my way.

Anyway, hi.

Dear All,
This is the message I promised to put up some time ago thanking all who
contributed to my project by giving their interpretations of the list of words I
gave. Many of the ideas raised and given were hugely valuable to the project,
and helped me immensely.

Because of the way the project has evolved, it is unlikely that anyone will
easily recognise their contribution in the final exhibited work, but I cannot
stress enough how useful they were in helping me to reach a conclusion. Of
course, you are all still welcome to visit the show at Leeds College of Art and
Design. The Foundation course show opens to the public between 27th May
to 3rd June (excluding weekends and bank holidays).

Thank you again.

Michael Adamson

Hi,



I would like to Invite you to my Yahoo Group Islam and Muslims. The
group is for Muslims, people who want to become Muslims or are
interested in Islam, I hope to see you in the group. It is a new
group , and more features and information will follow, and I hope you
will post your own information as well or questions, the group and
facilities are open for everyone, however only in English

and feel free to welcome other by forwarding this message; and please
note I am not pressing my religion on you, if you dont wish to join
thats ok, and if I offended anyone by inviting them to my Group I am
sorry,


Copy and past link if you wish to view the Group:

http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Islam_Muslims/  (copy and Paste)

Michael
Love is:
Strong empathy and emotional bonding to someone (or
something or some cause). While that appears clinical,
love as a human emotion transcends the basic level of
survival to make us "human" in the best sense of that
word.
Norman








___________________________________________________________
WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe in the Yahoo! Mail Internet Cafe
Awards  www.yahoo.co.uk/internetcafes

Dear All,

I am a student in Leeds looking for interpretations of various aspects
of language for an art project. The project is to be exhibited to the
public in May, and you are welcome to pay a visit.

I am posting this invitation in several groups, in the hope of getting
as wide a variety of responses as possible. I hope that you do not
feel that this posting is inappropriate for this group. If so, please
accept my apologies, and ignore this message. I will only post this
message once, and at the end of the project I will post another
thanking everyone who took the trouble to send a message.

If you would like to participate, please respond to this message with
an e-mail giving a description of your personal views and/or opinions
of the word "love", in your own words. What do you think it means? How
would you describe it? Could you describe it another way? There are no
right or wrong answers; all opinions are valid. I just want to know
what *you* think the word means.

I look forward to receiving your response.

Thank you

Michael Adamson

Notes:
1. Please send your response direct to me at
love_in_your_own_words@..., NOT to the group.
2. Please send your e-mail as plain text (no HTML and no attachments).
Use the subject line "Love is...".
3. Your message can be as short or as long as you like, but if you go
over about 100 words it will probably have to be shortened - which I
don't want to do, because that defeats the principle of "your own words".
4. I cannot guarantee to include every entry; I don't know how many I
will receive, and I am working within fairly strict limits of time and
space. I will include as many as possible. I also cannot guarantee to
include messages received after 1st May 2004.
5. Your anonymity is guaranteed. I am only interested in your views on
the word "love", so I will be deleting all e-mails after I have
collected your comments. No names or e-mail addresses will be saved or
published.
6. I hope you will understand that I cannot promise to respond to
individual messages, but I will post a general "thank you" here and
acknowledge all contributions in the exhibition.
7. The project is to be exhibited at Leeds College of Art and Design,
Vernon Street, Leeds, 27th May - 3rd June 2004.
8. Finally, please try to be honest but above all enjoy taking part.
Thanks again.