--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > I knew that even before you typed the email to the moderators. > > > > > > JR > > > > > > John, what specifically did you know -before- Barry "typed > > the email to the moderators"? > > > Ask Barry. He knows it and he can confirm it.
John in Brazil, I really, really hate to use up my last post of the week dealing with horseshit like this, but since JohnR has chosen to act like a low-life scumbag, I must. I have no earthly idea what JohnR is talking about. What he seems to be doing is claiming AFTER THE FACT AND WITH NO POSSIBILITY OF PROOF that he "knew" that my friend's medical condition was that she was pregnant. I think that's total bullshit. I offered him an opportunity to prove or disprove his contention that Jyotish is a science and he replied once and *only* once to this group, coming up with excuses for why he probably wouldn't participate in my test, and then ending by saying that he "might" post to the group if he saw some- thing interesting in the chart. He never made such a post. He never sent anything to me in email. Basically, as far as I can tell, what he is doing now is lying. Worse, he's lying in the same way that Lou Valentino lies. Lou has a proven history of making "predictions" on his website and claiming that they are "85% accurate" and then going back later and 1) EDITING the previous predictions to take out the things that were incorrect, and 2) DELETING all the old predictions so that no one can check up on his claims of "accuracy." In other words, Lou is a charlatan. I was willing to give JohnR a break and suggest only that he had no balls for not participating in my little test. That would have been an improvement over what he's trying to do now. Now he's *claiming* that he "knew" something. Well, if he really "knew" it, he was afraid to post it to the group, wasn't he. Bottom line of that is that he has no balls. If he *didn't* know anything, and is now claiming to have only to protect his own rep as a Jyotishi and Jyotish itself, again there is the same bottom line -- no balls. I really did give the guy a chance. And this is what he does with it. I think that the conclusion that any thinking person should draw from this is that Jyotish is a crock of shit *and* that its practitioners like JohnR *know* that it's a crock of shit. In other words, they are charlatans. If JohnR feels differently, and cares to dispute this, there is only one way to do so -- put his "predictions" to the test. Allow me or someone else to propose another "blind test" and this time follow through with it and post his analysis of the chart in question. That's what a person who had balls would do. I expect JohnR to whine and lie instead. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Since it appears that JohnR is not going to > > > > respond to my challenge with his analysis of > > > > my friend's medical condition as indicated in > > > > her Jyotish chart, and I want to finish up my > > > > participation in all existing threads on FFL > > > > before the new year starts, I will post the > > > > answer. > > > > > > > > ( It goes without saying that any subsequent > > > > attempts by JohnR or any other Jyotishi to > > > > say, "Oh, I saw that in the chart, but I was > > > > just late in posting my response" should be > > > > greeted with howls of derisive laughter. :-) > > > > > > > > The medical issue my friend is dealing with is > > > > called being pregnant. > > > > > > > > Other than that simple and fairly common medical > > > > issue, she is 100% healthy. Her doctors, both > > > > allopathic and from the world of alternative > > > > medicine, believe that she will have a normal > > > > home birth, but just in case, arrangements have > > > > been made by the midwives at a nearby hospital > > > > in case she requires surgery. We all hope that > > > > isn't necessary. > > > > > > > > Below is the text I sent to the FFL moderators. > > > > The only thing I changed in it was to delete > > > > my friend's last name (for privacy, and to keep > > > > stalkers away from her) and to insert the word > > > > "best" in front of "friend," because she really > > > > is my best friend. I'm heading off in a few min- > > > > utes to spend the rest of the year with her, > > > > even though that'll only be five hours. :-) > > > > > > > > Had JohnR analyzed the chart and posted that he > > > > "found" indicators of disease, that would have > > > > been partly because I described her condition as > > > > a medical issue. Well, duh, it is. Giving birth > > > > IS a medical issue, and never a 100% safe one. > > > > But IMO the only reason he would have "found" > > > > indicators of disease in her chart would have been > > > > because *he was looking for them*, and projecting > > > > them onto a chart in which they did not appear. > > > > > > > > Similarly, when Judy and Raunchydog accused me > > > > of violating my friend's privacy by making her > > > > medical condition public, they were *looking for > > > > things to demonize me with*, and projecting them > > > > onto the situation in the form of the bogus > > > > "privacy" straw man. Please join me in laughing > > > > at their attempts to portray me as a Bad Guy for > > > > violating my friend's "medical privacy." It's > > > > hard to *miss* the medical condition of someone > > > > who is eight and a half months pregnant; keeping > > > > it private is just not an option unless you are > > > > wearing a tent. :-) > > > > > > > > The original letter to the FFL moderators follows, > > > > in case someone actually wants them to confirm that > > > > this is what I sent to them earlier. As noted > > > > above, the only thing in it I have changed is to > > > > delete my friend's last name out of concern that > > > > one or more TBs here would start stalking her the > > > > same way that they stalk me and Vaj and Paul Mason > > > > and John Knapp and others who have dared to be > > > > critical of TM or its ludicrous "extra added cost" > > > > products like Jyotish. > > > > > > > > I still think that this would have been an interest- > > > > ing test, if JohnR had had the cojones to respond > > > > to it. But he didn't. I think that speaks for itself > > > > about the depth of *his* belief in the accuracy and > > > > efficacy of Jyotish. > > > > > > > > But the interesting test that DID take place was > > > > how a few TM True Believers here responded to the > > > > idea of Jyotish being put to the test. If John's > > > > lack of a response speaks volumes, theirs fills > > > > libraries. > > > > > > > > Happy New Year, > > > > > > > > Unc/Turq/Barry > > > > > > > > > > > > *************************************************** > > > > > > > > Sent to Rick, Alex, and gullible_fool: > > > > > > > > As mentioned on FFL, I am challenging JohnR to > > > > use the birth data below to pinpoint the nature > > > > of the medical condition that my friend is deal- > > > > ing with. > > > > > > > > The birth data: > > > > > > > > Born: Suffern, New York, USA > > > > September 18, 1965 18:06 (6:06 p.m.) > > > > > > > > The person, and their medical condition: > > > > > > > > This is the birth data for my best friend Laurel, > > > > who is very, very pregnant and about to give birth. > > > > Both medical doctors and alternative care providers > > > > have assured her that all is perfectly fine with > > > > the pregnancy, and that there is no danger to either > > > > mother or (soon) daughter. A normal birth is planned, > > > > but as I said there is the possibility of required > > > > surgery if things don't go as planned. > > > > > > > > As I understand Jyotish, *if it works* John should > > > > have no problem with noticing this medical condition > > > > in her chart, even if I did not specify the sex of > > > > the person. In fact another Jyotish practitioner > > > > DID, in fact, predict the pregnancy from her chart > > > > a year before it happened. She wasn't trying to > > > > get pregnant. > > > > > > > > > >
