I have always been a proponent of regular checking.  But quite honestly,
there have been times when I have not been able to cover all the
checking steps and have had to settle for an abbreviated version.  But
the end result has still always been satisfactory.  At least that has
been my experience.


--- In [email protected], laughinggull108 <no_reply@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
> >
> > dear Laughing One Jelly Bean please do not be hurt that Ravi has
totally forgotten the plot line of your Garden of Eden saga in which
Xeno was NOT the one with whom I was cavorting in the bushes.
>
> Now hold on there just a daggone minute Missy Dirty Mind! 'Cavorting'
in the bushes? Where do you come up with these ideas? Let's look at it
again, this time with a pure mind: It had been a really long, long time
since you had been checked (wink, wink, nudge, nudge), and seeker Steve,
being the 'exceptional' checker that he is (of course, I wouldn't know
from personal experience) was more than willing to oblige. The bushes
along the river provided the privacy needed, and the springy patches of
moss provided comfortable seats. However, the first attempt was
interrupted (commonly referred to as checkus interruptus*) when seeker
Xeno stumbled upon yours truly selling water by the river. As a result,
seeker Steve was very anxious to get back at it because, being the
'exceptional' checker that he is, knows that coming out of a checking
session too quickly and without completion can lead to a condition
commonly referred to as Krishna butterballs* for the checker and lackus
fulfillmentitus* for the checkee. (It's also worth noting that he tries
never to end a checking prematurely.) However, nature was supportive in
the end and both of you were able to have a nice, long uninterrupted
checking in which seeker Steve, I guess one could say, checked your
brains out. (And he chose to stay and meditate with you rather than
quietly leave the bushes.) It is easy? You experienced how easy it is?
Now this is how we will meditate morning and evening...
>
> *these are sacred terms learned only on a qualified TTC, and are not
available for use by ordinary lay meditators.
>
> Raviji, like jelly beans, also comes in many flavors, including
cinnamon.
>
> > Obviously the San Diego sun and southern CA ambiance has addled his
brain, which he, meaning Ravi of course, doesn't even like us to talk
about!  His brain I mean.  Neuroscience and all that
bullocks.  Anyway, more evidence of this addling is his being stuck
in the past with talk of psychological rape and inauthenticity. 
Dear LOJB, isn't that just so so LAST year?!  And all the effing
this and effing that.  One is sorely tempted to urge Nephew to get
some new material for gosh sakes!  It's a new year.  Even in
Western astrology.  Even in the Chinese system.  It's a new
season.  It's almost a new month.  Get with the new program,
Newphew!  Sorry couldn't resist that lame pun smiley faces all
around.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@
> > To: [email protected]
> > Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 11:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Cliff Notes Robin [previously Re: Men
only]
> >
> >
> > Â
> > "Everyone on this forum is just text on a screen to me."
> >
> > Thank you Guru Xeno - this is what I like about you. You are at
least honest - and admit you are a cold-hearted, emotionless, distant,
dead man basically, of dead beliefs, of inane platitudes - having sexual
orgies in your mind with words, even your hard-ons while you are having
sex with words might be just a word in your mind called "hard-on". It
really reflects in your writing - everytime I read you it's astonishing,
it's as if you are a zombie. And then equally hilarious is when I see
someone like Share react to you - it's as if she actually had sex with
you and you made her come. I'm always tempted to ask you and Share to
take your orgies offline.
> >
> > Hail to Guru Zombie Xeno !!!
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@
wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Â
> > >--- In [email protected], "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Ok, that was silly. I went to your link and typed in some text. I
made it longer and played with the percentage to keep or edit. All it
did was randomly leave in or take out stuff. I don't get why you need a
program to do this. Many of us do it naturally by the way we read, which
is often sloppy or, because of pre-conceived notions about things, we
fail to take in half of what anyone is actually saying. All of us are
text compactors already and I don't think it benefits us all that much.
I don't require a computer to do it FOR me!
> > >
> > >
> > This kind of software is designed to produce 'executive summaries',
and well designed programs do not use random selection. However the
sample of Robin's was huge, and the compression was to about 5% which is
really far too much. Normally you get reasonable results with 25% to 50%
compression. Some manual editing might be needed. The software works
better if the original document has a well defined structure.
> > >
> > >'HOW IT WORKS'
> > >
> > >'After text is placed on the page, the web app calculates the
frequency of each word in the passage. Then, a score is calculated for
each sentence based on the frequency count associated with the words it
contains. The most important sentence is deemed to be the sentence with
the highest frequency count.'
> > >
> > >'Obviously, human readers may disagree with this automated approach
to text summarization. Automated text summarization works best on
expository text such as textbooks and reference material (non-fiction).
The results can be skewed when a passage has only a few sentences. Text
Compactor is not recommended for use with fiction (i.e., stories about
imaginary people, places, events).'
> > >
> > >As the result with that post was not particularly good, I conclude
Robin and his exposition is the result of an imaginary person writing
about imaginary places and events, though Ann and Curtis seem reasonably
real. But of course I can't be sure. Everyone on this forum is just text
on a screen to me.
> > >
> > >
> >
>


Reply via email to