Subject: st-0ck M0gul Ne vvsletter

From: "john cesario" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:41:28 +0200

STOCK TRADER ALERT!

MONDAY OCTOBER 16, 2006

GLOBEX INC.

ETHANOL PLAY

Symbol: GLXI

Price: .29

WHILE PAST PERFORMANCE IS NEVER INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS, ON AUGUST
4TH

THIS STOCK WENT FROM $.70 TO $1.18. CAN IT RUN AGAIN???

GO READ THE NEWS!! ARE ALL SIGNS SHOWING GLXI IS READY TO POP?

COULD THIS ONE BE MORE PROFITABLE THAN BANK ROBBERY?

RADAR IT RIGHT NOW FOR MONDAY. DON"T TAKE YOUR EYES OFF IT....

__________

Information within this report contains forward looking statements
within

the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21B of

the SEC Act of 1934. Statements that involve discussions with respect to

projections of future events are forward looking. Don"t rely on them. This

company doesn"t report. Past performance is never indicative of future results.

We received 150,000 free trading shares in the past. All those shares have

been sold. We have received an additional 230,000 free trading shares now.

The two tranches were from different third parties, not officers, directors or

affiliates. We intend to sell all 230,000 shares now, which could cause the stock

to go down. This company has: nominal cash and no revenues in its most recent
quarter.

It is not an operating company. These factors raise substantial doubt about its
ability

to continue as a going concern. A failure to finance could cause the company to
go out

of business. This is a high risk security. This report shall not be construed
as any kind

of investment advice or solicitation.

Preparations for the four undertakings we advocate, already exists. Our purpose however is to investigate the global meaning of nature, life and history as it manifests itself in ethical, political, artistic and religious aspirations, and to evaluate these aspirations with reference to the ontological and scientific adequacy of their presuppositions.
The medical sciences belong to praxiology. Contemporary Western medicine has selected as its quasi exclusive aspect the human body, and has applied the analytic scalpel of the anatomist to each aspect of the body fragmenting it into numerous parts. Marginal activities, like preventive medicine, behavioural medicine, and epidemiology do not belong completely to these trends. The fundamental sciences on which medicine is based, point towards fragmentation. The anatomist analyses the dead body and the biochemist eliminates the structure and investigates the chemical reactivity of its components. As a result of all these divisions, a multitude of dualisms appear: mind-body, individual-group, organ-organism. The acting physician, to the contrary, is confronted by a living total human being, as much by a network of serial relations and by a field of physical states as by a physical body. The fragmented sciences offer him only a partialised image of man and his world, preventing him from accepting the patient as a suffering totality. No obvious solutions exist for this predicament.
It is our conviction that the time has come to make a conscious effort towards the construction of global world views, in order to overcome this situation of fragmentation. There are many reasons why we believe in the benefit of such an enterprise, and in the following pages we shall attempt to make some of them clear.
He who wants to have a future-oriented global view of the history of humanity needs a world model and an action model that enable him to make reliable prognoses. For example, the explosion of the world population is clearly a problem that has ecological, political and ethical implications. How can we construct a meaningful opinion about this problem, if we do not know the capacity of the earth and the origin of this explosion? One who seeks a world explanation needs a world description. A global world model is impossible without a place for man, who knows, acts and evaluates. And as we remarked already, the acting subject becomes more and more the whole of humanity. Every evaluation for the sake of action implies a knowledge of the present situation. A global action model presupposes a world model, and it also needs a model of the instruments, materials and possibilities. For example, can a project to populate other planets as a possible solution for the population explosion be taken seriously or is it pure speculation? Constantly one needs a confrontation between new insights and traditional models of interpretation. For example, are we sure that chemical agriculture and even chemical medicine solve more problems than they will eventually create?
It is also possible to clarify factual world-view fragments as echoes of common sense or of insights that are valid in certain social configurations. The advance towards a maximal world view can then function as a corrective and a warning against making one of the fragments absolute (e.g. science, religion or politics). We do not thus mean to diminish the attempt to illuminate and evaluate as much as possible our own existence by considering the separate domains. It is a fact that in the past we have been able to find inspiration even in fragmented views, in order to lessen our fears by acquiring a feeling of direction, to increase solidarity by striving towards common goals, and to gain in this way some understanding about ourselves and the world. World-view construction should aim at fulfilling all these needs in our complex society.
We do not live in a neutral world. We admire, love or value certain aspects of the world, while we detest and hate others or find them irrelevant. We enjoy, and we suffer. Some aspects of reality are holy, others profane. A world view does not only make reality intelligible, but also provides a means of evaluating this reality, as it is expressed in different cultures. As we have noted above, it is difficult to arrive at a consensus about the meaning of explanation. It is even more so with regard to the process of evaluation. We believe, however, that everyone who wants to construct a reasonable view of reality and human existence will have to take into account the following questions:
The universe has been understood as a mechanism (materialistic mechanism) or as an organism (hylozoism, vitalism). Why not use acts of consciousness and groups as models of the whole? It is not necessary to reduce more complex systems to less complex ones, even though the inverse reduction of the simple to the complex suffers from our lack of knowledge about collectivities and persons. Still, G.W.F. Leibniz looked upon the whole of reality as a set of monads, more or less clearly conscious individual entities. A.N. Whitehead sees the universe as constituted by a set of occurrences, all having physical and mental features.
Sly, old Slys son of Burtonheath, by birth a
No matter how important facts may be, we are not satisfied with merely knowing them. We also want to understand, gain insight into and explain them. We always seek an answer to the question why? No consensus exists concerning what constitutes understanding and explanation. This comes, in part, from the fact that explanation has a different meaning in each sub-region. To construct a world view, we will have to experiment with different models of understanding and explanation. We will also have to give a new meaning to the why question as applied to the world as a whole, one that cannot be the same as in the different sub-regions. Explaining often means formulating meaningful connections. However, if the object is reality as a whole, the why question cannot retain the same meaning. Being in its totality, according to both mystics and philosophers, must find its roots in itself, or it is rootless. Concerning individual realities, the question indeed arises: why are they there, and why are they as they are? Why, ьberhaupt is there something rather than nothing?
We do not live in a neutral world. We admire, love or value certain aspects of the world, while we detest and hate others or find them irrelevant. We enjoy, and we suffer. Some aspects of reality are holy, others profane. A world view does not only make reality intelligible, but also provides a means of evaluating this reality, as it is expressed in different cultures. As we have noted above, it is difficult to arrive at a consensus about the meaning of explanation. It is even more so with regard to the process of evaluation. We believe, however, that everyone who wants to construct a reasonable view of reality and human existence will have to take into account the following questions:
My lord, I warrant you we will play our part,
Proposal XV: Consciousness and Group as Models of Reality.
In constructing modern world views, we must take into consideration the Post-modern critique of the myths of race, nation and class that have too often been used as a means of repression. Our own approach is Post-modern in that we recognise that reason itself has discovered its limitations, and has become conscious of its historicity. Perfect certainty and a de facto complete and universal all-encompassing knowledge is in principle impossible. Critical reason and emotional enthusiasm need not exclude each other, and both can provide an irreducible contribution to the construction of world views. Indeed, our reason is limited and our emotions can be misled. We must also confront the shortcomings of language. Thus, we have learned to appreciate variety and multiformity as values, and hence we do not want to strive for one unique world view. But neither do we want to resign ourselves to the present situation of fragmentation.