[FairfieldLife] Re: David Carradine's Jyotish Chart
Saturn and Rahu are malefic planets and are located in the 8th house of secret affairs and death. Aren't all the planets malefic, except for Jupiter, which can be either? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: To All: Thanks Vaj for the information. Using the birth time provided, Mr. Carradine was born under the sign of Aquarius or Kumbha, and the Moon was in the nakshatra of Chitra. At this birth sign, we can see the reason why he had trouble maintaining his marriage. Mars is in the 8th house which causes an affliction termed as kujadosha. This affliction causes conflicts in marriage and divorces. The same Mars is considered as an apsara karaka signifying that he has penchant for beautiful women, resulting in secret affairs and dalliances. The nature of his death is not readily apparent from the rashi chart. However, the circumstances of his death are shown more clearly from the navamsha chart. From that chart, Saturn and Rahu are in conjunction in the 8th house from the Moon. Saturn and Rahu are malefic planets and are located in the 8th house of secret affairs and death. Saturn is further debilitated showing that his body has already weakened due to his age. This planet is the karaka (significator) for air or lack of it. When mixed with the influence of Rahu, the results are lethal. Rahu is represented in Hindu myth as a bodyless demon who pretended to be a demigod. In the navamsha chart, Rahu is the lord of the 11th house of desire which is enducing Saturn to indulge in strange sexual gratifications. With the influence of Rahu's sexual preferences, he indulged in getting autoerotic pleasures through asphyxiation. JR --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: I already posted it in the files section, but I accidentally used the Yukteshwar ayanamsha. That's the birth data built into Goravani for Grasshopper. On Jun 6, 2009, at 12:47 PM, Bhairitu wrote: Did you look here? http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Main_Page
[FairfieldLife] Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
Finally, Secretary Clinton will be interviewed on a Sunday TV show. This Sunday, June 7, she'll appear on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. It'll be her first Sunday show interview as secretary of state and her first Sunday show since she ended her presidential campaign almost exactly a year ago. http://hillary.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/05/secretary_clinton_on_sunday_tv_finally
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special full Moon Messages from the Pleiadians (Jupiter, Neptune, Chiron)
Oh, I just knew there was a reason to stick around... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: ls...@... [mailto:ls...@...] Subject: Special full Moon Messages from the Pleiadian's (Jupiter, Neptune, Chiron) Dear clients and spiritual family of Astrological Varieties, Especially clients. It is a pleasure to bring to you full Moon messages from the Pleiadianâs on this full Moon in Sagittarius night. This is a taste of what will be the format in my new e-book âFull Moon Messages from the Pleiadianâsâ coming out on September 12, 2009. But just a taste. The book is best served with a light, fruity white wine. Special discounts will be given to anyone who can pronounce the parts of the book title that are in Pleiadian: âsâ Lou: What happened to the mass landing plans that UFO authors talked about like Sister Tuellaâs book âProject: World Evacuationâ and Sheldon Nidle/Virgina Essene in regards to the Photon Belt? Pleiadianâs: The male energy took over during those points of time in both big government and Religion so it did not allow certain light wave patterns to make the connections necessary for our higher technologies to work. YOU CANNOT MOVE IN AND OUT OF TIME OR VIBRATIONS WHEN THE GODDESS ENERGY IS LOW. It's getting tougher for Lou to spring a boner, too. He suspects that's because of all the male energy going around. Lou: Then when is the manifestation? The Pleiadianâs: When Uranus moves into Aries in March of 2011 we will start to show ourselves much more to prepare for the beginning of â THE PREPERATION PHASEâ to fully start when Neptune moves into itâs own sign of Pisces in February of 2012. And if it doesn't happen then, as it hasn't happened in the past, Lou will just edit his web page to make it look as if he never predicted it. THAT is a prediction you can count on. Lou: It has been so long since the volunteers have been working to help bring balance. Why do we have to keep waiting? I want to go home. I donât enjoy it here anymore. The Pleiadianâs: We know. Many volunteers have been frustrated over the delay of plans and many have given up... . . . We are working with the Ashtar Command as well as the Jerusalem Command to speed things up now. A rare photo of the Ashtar Command. I'm not sure which one is Lou: [http://rabulous.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/captundgirls.jpg] Lou: Thank you for your time and answering these questions tonight. The Pleiadianâs: You are welcome Lou. As always we enjoy communicating through one of our family members. It is an honor to serve the light. And help him sell his book...
[FairfieldLife] The answer to the astrology/Jyotish test
Since now John (jr_esq) has had ample opportunity to read my post announcing my test of astrology and Jyotish and has chosen instead to use Jyotish to reveal things about David Carradine that anyone reading a newspaper already knows :-), I will post the answer. I wrote it shortly after posting the test, and sent a copy to Richard M, because he managed to figure out who the person was using Google, and I wanted to congratulate him. If anyone accuses me of rewriting it to fake the results, he can verify that the two copies are the same. Thanks to both Card and Bhairitu for playing. Interestingly, when you read the answer below, both of them got some things right. Well done. The Astrology Test OK, there *was* a bit of a cheat in this test. But only a bit of one. The person whose birth data was given was the subject of a six-volume series of books by the person I consider the greatest writer of the English language in the 20th century. He was fictional. *However*, Francis Crawford, Earl of Lymond was also one of the most meticulously imagined and researched characters in the history of literature. His creator was Dorothy Dunnett, considered by many the greatest writer in Scottish history. You probably have never heard of her, other than in mentions of her by me on this forum. The reason is that she wrote historical fiction, which is not everyone's cuppa tea. But Dorothy wrote historical fiction with a precision and with a level of due diligence that most historians have never achieved. Dorothy never fudged anything having to do with the periods of time and the characters -- both real and imagined -- she wrote about. She would typically spend a minimum of a year researching the place and the time she was to write about, reading literally hundreds of books about it, going there personally to get the vibe of the place and its people, thoroughly immersing herself in the place and the time, and then starting to write. She wrote about Lymond for 15 years, in a six- volume set of novels known as The Lymond Chronicles. If anyone on earth can be said to have had a real existence, it is someone who has thus been focused on by a great writer so intently, and for so long. Astrology plays a great part in the novels, because it played a great part in the times of which Dorothy was writing. As a result, Dorothy imagined and docu- mented his original birth date and time, and was aware of many of the *general* things that the astrology of the times would have said about a man born at that time and place. Nonetheless, she was not a believer in astrology herself; she merely did the work to make sure that every word she wrote about that time period rang true. Decades later, she grew curious and, as I said when introducing this little test, she commissioned a well-known British astrologer to cast a horoscope for Lymond, giving her nothing but the birth data. The result was the chart I posted, plus the following description: The chart displays the tremendous strength and emotional powers of Scorpio underneath the characteristics of Gemini and Libra, producing an outer personality which is mercurial, fickle, adaptable, quick and original in its habit. The presence of Jupiter adds a philosophic depth, and that of Venus means a leaning towards feminine things and an understanding of them, as well as an unusual success with women. Mars in the fourth House adds an element of violence and even crudity, and together with the other factors implies conflict in the home. The fifth House indicates a quick-minded facility with, beneath it, great strength and sense of purpose. Neptune in the 9th House and Uranus in the 12th in association with the rest, indicate important and unusual events happening overseas. Neptune, the watery sign, can also mean renunciation. Saturn in the 10th House has to do with raising up and casting down in despair, and the 12th House implies self-sacrifice and even self-destruction, together with prisons, hospitals and all that is confining. On the other hand, Jupiter in the ascendant can also mean great good luck. A strong, powerful and vigorous chart, overlaid by an original and decorative outer personality. Dorothy was shocked beyond words. This fairly accurately describes the man she spent 15 years writing about. Francis Crawford, Earl of Lymond first enters our awareness in the opening book of The Lymond Chronicles, The Game Of Kings, introduced by the words, Drama entered, mincing like a cat. If you want to see how accurate the astrologer's interpretation of Lymond's chart really was, read The Lymond Chronicles. It would make the perfect summer reading for someone who loves words and loves great writing. If you can make it through the first 50 pages (and many cannot), I warn you...you may become hooked, and be able to read nothing else until you have finished the entire series. And then -- worse -- your first impulse upon finishing it will be to start at the beginning and read it again. I have read
[FairfieldLife] Re: The photos people choose to portray their inner selves
Sorry about the formatting of this, by the way. When viewed in Firefox, this page displays a bunch of crap after the second photo, and then continues on after the crap. But I just looked at it in Internet Explorer, and it stops after the first two photos. I guess that is why Yahoo's Rich-Text Editor is clearly marked with the word (Beta). For those not in the software industry, a Beta release means, Here's something we were too lazy or cheap to test and perform adequate QA on ourselves, so we're going to give it to you to test for us. Not responsible. Here is the post again, with links instead of photos, because posting this many photos into the Yahoo Rich-Text Editor (Beta) piece of crap causes it to throw up. But that's OK, because in comparison to the photos the other people chose to represent themselves, the one at the bottom may cause you to throw up, too. :-) What does it SAY about a person who chooses to post such a photo of herself, imagining that this is how someone *she* has obsessed on for 15 years sees her? Is this SANE? Compare to how less obsessed and more human members of our online community chose to rep- resent themselves. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: From the Fairfield Life Members photo page: Rick: [Rick Archer] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos/album/408557067/pic/2082755584/view?picmode=mode=tnorder=ordinalstart=1count=20dir=asc Alex: [Alex Stanley] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos/album/408557067/pic/248331062/view?picmode=mode=tnorder=ordinalstart=21count=20dir=asc Stu: [s2ness] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos/album/408557067/pic/2008566370/view?picmode=mode=tnorder=ordinalstart=21count=20dir=asc Paul Mason: ['Premanand' Paul Mason] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos/album/408557067/pic/935130989/view?picmode=mode=tnorder=ordinalstart=1count=20dir=asc Marek: [Marek] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos/album/408557067/pic/1417782921/view?picmode=mode=tnorder=ordinalstart=1count=20dir=asc Barry: [Barry with Maya, age two weeks] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos/album/408557067/pic/968469679/view?picmode=mode=tnorder=ordinalstart=21count=20dir=asc Judy: [Barry's fantasy image of Judy] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos/album/408557067/pic/1624549388/view?picmode=mode=tnorder=ordinalstart=21count=20dir=asc
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry, nothing here for you anymore. Be gone
I would like to thank Bill for encouraging me to stay. Thanks to people like him, I will. For a while, anyway. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, It's just a ride bill.hicks.all.a.r...@... wrote: On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:40 PM, TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From my side, to be honest, I've been trying to provoke a little interest lately, in lieu of bailing from FFL altogether. . . . So, if you'd like, consider my high numbers a last gasp, an attempt to see if there is any life left in the Olde FFL, from my obviously jaded perspective. If so, I'll stick around. If not, I'll bail. Don't you realize that people have left because they have had enough of our resident Lord of the Flies? The one who lords over all, thinks pushing buttons is a noble thing instead of an ill mannered, nasty thing to do and is in violation of the guidelines and rules of FFL? Pushing buttons *IS* a noble thing, in spiritual environments filled with people who wish to identify those buttons in themselves, identify the attachments they reveal, and work on elim- inating them. In such environments, the person who can help you to pinpoint your own hot button issues (and thus your samskaras and attachments) is your friend. Interestingly, in environments filled with folks I tend to call spiritual slackers, such people are not only not considered friends, they are considered enemies. The reason is that the spiritual slackers are NOT working on trying to eliminate their attachments and their sam- skaras and their hot button issues. They *cling* to their hot button, as if they believed that the buttons -- and the overreactions they indulge in when they are pushed -- are them. One might suggest, Bill, that your post -- coming as it does from someone I don't think I have ever interacted with at all -- is an example of the latter. Try reading the guidelines and rules. Its as though they were written just for you. Why Rick hasn't thrown you out in light of his guidelines and rules is beyond me and I'm sure many other FFL people. Thankfully for you Rick is the owner/moderator in name only. The fact that Rick has not thrown me out the way you'd like him to might have something to do with him having been thrown out of the domes himself in Fairfield. It might have some- thing to do with the credo he posted for this online cyberestablishment on its home page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ Bill, spend a little time reading that credo. Then ask yourself whether a forum that was *founded* to provide a rare place where people who have been involved with the TM movement can talk about that movement *without* fear of retalia- tion from the TM movement is likely to throw someone off that forum for being merely an asshole and pushing a few spiritual slackers' hot buttons *as* they talk about it. I mean, Rick didn't throw off one guy even after he mounted a cyberattack on FFL by posting porn to it and then writing to the Yahoo admin- istrators complaining about the porn *he* had posted, in an attempt to get the forum taken down. I *understand* that you are happier with the TMO approach to things you don't like -- BAN THEM. Like the TMO, you'd like to declare the things or the people you don't like anathema, declare them heretics or off the program, and send them away. Cool, I guess, if that's what floats your boat. I don't think you're going to have much luck convincing Rick to ride in it, though. People would stop lurking and become contributors to FFL if you left. But they will lurk until assured they won't be playing into your game of superiority and bullying, trying to compensate for the obvious, that you have no other place to go. Many go away for a few months, come back to check if you're still here then go away again, hoping to wait you out. Bill, as I say I don't think I've ever interacted with you before. Other than a couple of posts of yours recently, I don't think I've ever even *seen* you post here. The only post of yours that the broken Yahoo search engine can find is from February: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/208504 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/208504 In it -- interestingly -- you do nothing but repost a news article about a Texas judge who ordered a website to report anonymous flamers and trolls. Is trying to get people you don't like BANNED from Internet groups your *hobby*? :-) I would appeal to your sense of shame in urging your to leave FFL, but shame is something your type of person lacks. Bill, as I have said, I have *not* flamed you in the past. To be perfectly honest, I don't think I even noticed your existence until you went out of your way to flame *me* just now. But if it eases your mind and allows you to post without the fear of being lorded over by me, I will agree to go back to not noticing your existence in the future. I can assure you it will not
[FairfieldLife] The Webcam Phenomenon
Just as an aside, the subject of the photos that people choose to post to Internet forums having come up, has anyone ever noticed that many of these photos on social networking sites like Facebook and on dating sites are taken using Webcams? So *why* is this? In this day and age, when a digital camera is built into almost every phone, it's certainly not because it's the only way they can get a digital photo *to* post. Here's my theory -- the people who post photos of themselves taken *by* themselves using a Webcam do this BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO FRIENDS. If you had friends or lovers, surely one of them would have taken a flattering photo of you at some point, right? Surely one of these photos taken by friends and lovers would have managed to catch you in a photogenic mood, and smiling an honest smile, captured unawares, not as if you were posing for the camera. It is my experience that such photos of me and everyone I know are the best photos of ourselves. Who would *not* choose one of these photos to represent themselves to the world online? People who don't have any friends, that's who. Their only *option* for taking a photo of them- selves is to do it themselves, sitting alone in front of their computer. Ponder this next time you cruise a dating site or Facebook. Do you want to go out with or friend the nerd who has no real-life friends to even take a *photo* of him, or do you want to go out with or friend the person someone else clicked a photo of when they were together, having fun?
[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sun...@... wrote: Dang, the Edgster telling it like it is. I have hi-lighted some of the parts I most enjoyed, and which I felt were most right on. Since I chimed in on this earlier by reposting Judy's definitive statement about why those who disagree with her about crop circles will *never* know as much about them as she does: You aren't going to be able to get it right, because you haven't been paying attention to what I'm saying. I'll agree with both Edg and lurk here. The sheer *arrogance* of the statement above indicates a level of attachment to her There is some Woo Woo going on belief. Add to that a continued demon- ization of anyone who does *not* pay attention to her holy word as skeptopaths and having no cojones -- *while claiming that she has never demonized them -- and you have someone who is not only attached in the extreme to her point of view, but unable to recognize the attachment. THIS is what I was talking about last week with Richard M, about why I don't *believe* Judy when she says one thing about what she believes, and then acts in a manner that indicates that she believes something completely different. Don't take my word for it. Just look at the history on this thread. Almost everyone who has dared to disagree with Judy's holy word about crop circles has been called a skeptopath, has been accused of dishonest debating tactics, and of lacking cojones. Does that SOUND like someone who merely doesn't know for sure the truth about crop circles? I also agree with Lurk that Edg's statement is a fine example of moderation and balance and economy of language. He sees what almost every- one else here sees, and what the person claiming that she's not demonizing those who disagree with her cannot. But, speaking of economy of language, one picture is better than a thousand words: [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_k2rfk6VyHkQ/SFaF7R_8BnI/Ac8/cMuzXd79i\ TA/s400/TinFoilHatArea.jpg] --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: Why should I waste my time doing research into crop circles? All I need to do is read one article by a person who has done this, and the below is a typical balanced view about crop circles. The writer has done some homework, saved me the effort, and the conclusion is that man made is overwhelmingly the best guess to support. Judy, do you agree with the below article? If so, we have no basis for our having a debate. Right now though, I put you in the same category as the guy who said to me about professional wrestling Some of it's fake, but some's real. Good line. Great analogy To me, you're wanting something, anything will do, to point at that suggests woo-woo is operative in the world. You're a witch doctor trying to find a special bone special bone, I love that to shake at a patient when you say, I'm the exception to the rule, my bones work and ooogaboooga is a real power that can those in the know can wield. Stop clinging to your need for wooism to be justifiable. No one's levitating, 2012 will be like Y2K, Tony's a fraud, Maharishi dumped Guru Dev and sold out to money, crop circles are man made, psychic surgeons palm chicken parts, Sai Baba is a pedophile, Barry isn't all bad, you are not always right, and you are comfortable calling names as much as Vaj. What part of this paragraph don't you agree with? Edg in top form. Bam, bam. No malice here. Just calling people out on their crap. It's got to be done. Your intellectual heft is often put to a low use -- you've spend 15 years beating a dead horse you call loser. It's sick to beat a dead horse, and you know it. Everyone here knows it. It is true. Raunchy, are we wrong here.? I don't think so. It's easy to get into a rut. I think we have to call it like it is. I don't think there was one wasted word in this post. Edg http://www.unmuseum.org/cropcir.htm http://www.unmuseum.org/cropcir.htm The article: For over twenty years the southern English countryside has been the site of a strange phenomenon that has baffled observers and spawned countless news stories and not a few books. In the middle of the night, flattened circular depressions have appeared in fields of wheat, rye and other cereal crops. They range in diameter from ten feet to almost a hundred feet wide and vary from simple circles to complex spirals with rings and spurs. All have sharply defined edges. The most striking feature of the circles is the frequency with which they occur. In 1990 over 700 crop-circles appeared in Britain. People who attempt to study these circles have coined a name for themselves: cereologists. The word comes from the name of the Roman goddess of vegetation, Ceres. There are two favorite theories held by cereologists that think crop circles are the result of some not well understood physical phenomena. The first is that the depressions are
[FairfieldLife] Obama's date night with Michele was a block from my Paris pad
I saw the following headline on HuffPost today and wondered where he ate, since I used to live around there. Style http://www.huffingtonpost.com/style/ Date Night, Paris Edition: Obamas Have Dinner At Bistro A Few Blocks From Eiffel Tower http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/06/obamas-paris-date-night_n_2122\ 29.html So I read the article. And yes, not only was it in my old 'hood, it's a restaurant that is less than a block from my old apartment. I used to eat there at least once or twice a week. Cool. our request is being processed... Obamas' Paris Date Night http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/06/obamas-paris-date-night_n_2122\ 29.html PARIS Ah, Paris. The city of love. And the city of this week's presidential date night. A week after flying to New York for dinner and a Broadway show, President Barack Obama and first lady, Michelle, dined at a cozy neighborhood bistro just a few blocks from the Eiffel Tower. The president and first lady were in France to join their counterparts from France, Canada and Britain to commemmorate the 65th anniversary of D-Day, the allied invasion of Normandy in World War II that led to victory in Europe. La Fontaine de Mars dates back to 1908 and specializes in rustic dishes from France's southwest region of Bordeaux Perigord and the Basque. Foie gras, duck and cassoulet are on the menu, although the White House has not said what the president and first lady chose. The Obamas shared the restaurant with other diners, and other restaurants on the winding Rue St. Dominique were filled. Police, some in riot gear, lined the street. Crowds pressed behind barriers at the end of the street to glimpse the first couple, and about 100 people gathered there burst into applause as the Obamas left the restaurant. Clusters of people at street corners held up cell phones and cameras to snap pictures. After dinner and a ride along the quai on the Left Bank of the Seine River, the Obamas returned to the U.S. ambassador's residence, where first daughters Sasha and Malia awaited them. Earlier in the day, Sasha and Malia joined their parents on a visit to Notre Dame Cathedral, where a children's choir sang and the president lit a candle. They climbed the stairs for a view of the city from the roof of the 12th century Gothic church. The cathedral was closed to the public during the first family's visit. The first family's motorcade traveled to the cathedral along the Boulevard St. Germain, where hundreds lined the street hoping to see them.
[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sundur@ wrote: Dang, the Edgster telling it like it is. I have hi-lighted some of the parts I most enjoyed, and which I felt were most right on. And another skeptopath to add to the list. Thank you Sister Aloysius. Lessee now, Sister Aloysius is supposed to be the gal who thinks doubt is a terrible thing, right? So your comment assumes inflexible certainty on my part and a great fear of doubt, right? A small sampling from previous posts of mine on crop circles: - I think ETs are *less* probable than that they're all made by humans. I don't think they're messages from the Space Brothers, but I really have no clue whatsoever what/ who might be creating the ones that don't seem to have been made by humans. I have no idea what other possible causes there could be. None of the explanations I've seen proposed seem likely, and I haven't been able to dream any up on my own. I don't *believe* any of the currently available explanations for crop circles. I don't *disbelieve* any of them either. I. just. don't. know. I think being able to take the don't know position at present is crucial if we're ever to have a hope of figuring any of it out. At this point we don't have enough hard information, or perhaps even the conceptual tools, to put this stuff into boxes and label them with anything but Who the hell knows? Yup, that's Sister Aloysius, all right. Not a bit of doubt, ironclad certainty as far as the eye can see. cackle Just as a little bonus, Curtis to me from two posts in a previous discussion of crop circles: - Your answer was useful. It shows that you have an unqualified I don't know how they appear where mine contains the bias that I don't know how people did this. This is where I find the topic useful, to uncover such biases in my thinking. I don't really have a solid reason for making that assumption, but I don't feel compelled by the information of the site to challenge my bias. - Regarding the crop circles: I found that my ability to assess the claims of unusual findings at some sites is severely limited. Although I am skeptical of claims that people know what any of this means (i.e. UFOs), I understand my limits in evaluating their reporting truthfulness, or accuracy, and what any of it may mean. I am willing to move the whole topic of unusual findings at circle sites into the I don't have a clue bin. - Curtis is a *genuine* skeptic about crop circles, not a skeptopath. He also took the time to do his homework and read some of the factual material about them, looking at several of the sites I recommended and digging up a bunch of his own.
[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sun...@... wrote: I suppose there is a chance that Judy is right in her views, and everyone else is wrong. Lurk, you don't even know what my views *are*. You read what Edg said about them and assumed what he said was accurate. It wasn't. I suppose this may be the case. But on the other hand, on the surface, and for many layers down, I think Edg is dialed in to the reality of the situaton. And it's not mean spirited expose. Just a sober looking at things as they are. Not sure why Judy cannot give any ground on some things. Which things? I think it reinforces all that her harshest critics say about her. Excuse me for referring to Judy in the third person, or whatever person it is, but I do not care to get into a one on one with her. Nope. Not interested. Call me a coward if you wish. Yeah, it's cowardly big-time to make nonspecific charges and refuse to follow up on them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The answer to the astrology/Jyotish test
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: Since now John (jr_esq) has had ample opportunity to read my post announcing my test of astrology and Jyotish and has chosen instead to use Jyotish to reveal things about David Carradine that anyone reading a newspaper already knows :-), That isn't what he did. You have it exactly backwards. What he did was, he looked at the things we already know, then looked at Carradine's chart to see if he could find indications of these things. Working backward this way is a standard exercise that astrologers perform in order to *learn*. This is a procedure that's followed in many fields to increase the ability to make a correct prediction from current data in the future. Debunking via misrepresentation (i.e., creating straw men to attack) suggests a lack of confidence in one's ability to make a coherent argument based on facts and logic.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The photos people choose to portray their inner selves
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: snip What does it SAY about a person who chooses to post such a photo of herself, imagining that this is how someone *she* has obsessed on for 15 years sees her? Is this SANE? Given the number of times Barry has now posted that photo to show how horrible he thinks I am-- even at one point going to the trouble to project it via Photoshop onto a field at hundreds of times its original size--seems to me my imagination was dead-on accurate. I couldn't possibly have hoped for better proof of Barry's obsession.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry, nothing here for you anymore. Be gone
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: snip Pushing buttons *IS* a noble thing, in spiritual environments filled with people who wish to identify those buttons in themselves, identify the attachments they reveal, and work on elim- inating them. In such environments, the person who can help you to pinpoint your own hot button issues (and thus your samskaras and attachments) is your friend. Thing is, in genuinely spiritual contexts, the button-pushing is not fueled by hostility, hatred, and obsession, and it's usually done with honesty.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Webcam Phenomenon
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: Just as an aside, the subject of the photos that people choose to post to Internet forums having come up, has anyone ever noticed that many of these photos on social networking sites like Facebook and on dating sites are taken using Webcams? So *why* is this? In this day and age, when a digital camera is built into almost every phone, it's certainly not because it's the only way they can get a digital photo *to* post. Here's my theory -- the people who post photos of themselves taken *by* themselves using a Webcam do this BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO FRIENDS. That's one theory. It may even be accurate in some cases. But there are other possible reasons. Even Barry could probably come up with a couple. It is my experience that such photos of me and everyone know are the best photos of ourselves. Who would *not* choose one of these photos to represent themselves to the world online? But he chose the reason he felt would reflect the most negatively on the person he obsessively loathes. Photos are not the only way people choose to represent themselves to the world online.
[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sundur@ wrote: I suppose there is a chance that Judy is right in her views, and everyone else is wrong. Lurk, you don't even know what my views *are*. You read what Edg said about them and assumed what he said was accurate. It wasn't. This is true. I don't know exactly what your views are on cc. However, the little I have read of them the part man made, part ET seemed to summarize it. Perhaps I am mistaken. I suppose this may be the case. But on the other hand, on the surface, and for many layers down, I think Edg is dialed in to the reality of the situaton. And it's not mean spirited expose. Just a sober looking at things as they are. Not sure why Judy cannot give any ground on some things. Which things? I cannot give any specific examples because I generally skim posts rather than do an in depth reading. But the overall impression I get is that there is not much give on your opinions. The few times I have engaged with you on issues, I thought it got into a lot of parsing of words and ideas, and I don't care to get down to that level of minutae. I think it reinforces all that her harshest critics say about her. Excuse me for referring to Judy in the third person, or whatever person it is, but I do not care to get into a one on one with her. Nope. Not interested. Call me a coward if you wish. Yeah, it's cowardly big-time to make nonspecific charges and refuse to follow up on them. I have followed up to the extent I can. At the risk of appearing to preach, maybe think about some of things Edg said. Maybe there is something there you may find useful. Or maybe you are comfortable with how you see things now. Obviously there are some thngs in your life which need to be tweaked, as you have recently alluded to in your state of mind. I know I have recently talked about some issues I am dealing with. I have sought therapy of different types. And I have benefitted from it. Maybe, just maybe, if I were in a therapists office, I might say, I don't know if this is a strengh, or a weakeness, but I have had an online dialogue with a member of a discussion group going on fifteen years, in which I call him out on what I feel are his lies and manipulations. It really bothers me that he thinks he can get away with it. Is this an unheathly obsession or is it a constuctive desire on my part for I view as fairness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry, nothing here for you anymore. Be gone
TurquoiseB wrote: Pushing buttons *IS* a noble thing, in spiritual environments filled with people who wish to identify those buttons in themselves, identify the attachments they reveal, and work on elim- inating them. In such environments, the person who can help you to pinpoint your own hot button issues (and thus your samskaras and attachments) is your friend. Barry, I think if one is going to justify poking folks in their tender spots one is going to have to at least show that such untoward sensitivities of the personality can be therapeutically addressed and at least mitigated if not made whole. Yet, who herein is more vociferous than thou about the inefficiencies of the psychic and psychological tools extant than you are? If anyone dares come here to hawk a tool, share a vision, declare a holy intent, you've shown yourself quite capable of mounting a cynicism towards it such that, those without your acumen, might be dissuaded from even attempting these forms of self-help. If you were found berating some guy in a wheelchair for his inability to heal himself and walk again, well, karma would be swift in that most onlookers would immediately come to the guy's defense, and you'd be in some serious social trouble. Thus, when I scold, say, Nab, for his TB ways, my bad if I don't at least indicate to him how to fix himself. That's my sin here tooI rail but cannot give formulae to those in need. I simply do not believe that anything but the hardest of work and the longest of times can tilt a personality with any degree of certainty. Pavlov couldn't make or unmake a dog's droolingness without a large number of positive or negative reinforcements. Putting humans into a situation like the dogs might just work, but at the hourly rate that most professionals would charge, hell, you're looking at, say, thousands of bucks to, say, stop smoking, or stop chewing your fingernails, like that. Trying to use such therapy to change one's emotional flows could be as massive an undertaking as a NASA moonshot. I sat in a chair for 29 years, and you know what you think that did for my anger issues, my moral fixations, etc. How is it that you prong others, then, when one such as I made scant or even negative progress by a method that had a lot going for it in theory and tons of testimonials, you know, all the reasons you started TM? I joined the cult, but I did not shoot the deputy apparently. So what say you to Nab or moi? Where do we go for the astral tune-up? How can we chisel the bad hunks off of us like Mike lopped off The David? Or, are we to be chair-bound and beaten for it? Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry, nothing here for you anymore. Be gone
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: [snip] Pushing buttons *IS* a noble thing, in spiritual environments filled with people who wish to identify those buttons in themselves, identify the attachments they reveal, and work on elim- inating them. In such environments, the person who can help you to pinpoint your own hot button issues (and thus your samskaras and attachments) is your friend. [snip] ...but you don't do it by telling obvious non-truths, Barry. Why not be gentle in your pushing buttons spiritual agenda (or whatever you want to call what you do)? Why make stuff up? Certainly, when you're called on it, it will backfire on you and throw a monkeywrench into the whole process, no?
[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sundur@ wrote: Dang, the Edgster telling it like it is. I have hi-lighted some of the parts I most enjoyed, and which I felt were most right on. Since I chimed in on this earlier by reposting Judy's definitive statement about why those who disagree with her about crop circles will *never* know as much about them as she does: You aren't going to be able to get it right, because you haven't been paying attention to what I'm saying. Nope. Barry deliberately misrepresents the context, having carefully snipped it (just as he did in another recent post): - Edg wrote: If you're going to win this debate, I wrote: What would winning mean in this context, Edg? You aren't going to be able to get it right, because you haven't been paying attention to what I'm saying. You're much too anxious to hear yourself talk than to listen to the person you're talking to. - Edg thinks the debate in question is about whether crop circles are made by aliens, and that winning the debate for me would mean convincing him they were. That's because he wasn't paying attention to what I said. And of course not only have I not suggested those who disagree with me about crop circles will never know as much about them as I do, in fact I've said precisely the opposite (it's even quoted in Barry's post): You wouldn't even have to refer to my past posts, BTW, to inform yourself sufficiently to have a reasonable discussion. I just thought it would be easier for you to start with the sources I cited than have to plow through the Web on your own to find them. It's a big topic. Google gives you over a million hits. Most of them are crap. I'll agree with both Edg and lurk here. The sheer *arrogance* of the statement above indicates a level of attachment to her There is some Woo Woo going on belief. Wrong. Add to that a continued demon- ization of anyone who does *not* pay attention to her holy word as skeptopaths and having no cojones -- *while claiming that she has never demonized them Never demonized them *for disagreeing with me*, Barry forgot to add. And in this case, my holy word has to do with what I believe and don't believe about crop circles. It seems a truism that if you don't pay attention to what someone says about what they believe, you're unlikely to be able to state it with any accuracy. Here's what I believe and don't believe about crop circles in a nutshell, from one of my posts to Edg: - I don't *believe* any of the currently available explanations for crop circles. I don't *disbelieve* any of them either. I. just. don't. know. - snip Don't take my word for it. Just look at the history on this thread. Almost everyone who has dared to disagree with Judy's holy word about crop circles has been called a skeptopath, has been accused of dishonest debating tactics, and of lacking cojones. Does that SOUND like someone who merely doesn't know for sure the truth about crop circles? When the charges of skeptopathy and lacking cojones have to do with an unwillingness to *look at the facts*--not my facts but documented, on-the-record facts--rather than with disagreement about the origins of some small percentage of crop circles, it seems rather silly to claim my making such charges somehow proves I'm not being honest when I say I don't know the truth about the origins of these circles. I don't know the truth about the origins of these circles *BECAUSE I've read the facts about them*. This isn't really very complicated. I'm quite sure Barry understands it but is choosing to misrepresent it. (Edg, I'm not so sure about.) Once again I'll remind folks of the discussion I had with Curtis last time around. We didn't end up agreeing, but he did enough homework on the topic for us to have a reasonable discussion, which remained cordial throughout. It would never occur to me to call him a skeptopath or suggest he lacked cojones. He's a genuine skeptic who has the guts to investigate and challenge his own biases.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signs we're getting old #27
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: snip The ONLY category applicable is defense. See Barry's original post, above. No mention is made of other categories that tangentially have something to do with defense (i.e., people who work in those departments once saw Saving Private Ryan). I see. What you mean to say here is: Shemp admits he was wrong, and that military spending is more than half of the annual US budget when Social Security is taken out. Look, what Barry said wasn't ambiguous. If it had needed clarification--if he had meant defense as a percentage of the budget minus Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid instead of percentage of gross national product, he's had ample opportunity to admit his mistake. But he hasn't done so, so we can assume he stands by what he said to start with, even though it was wildly wrong. Shemp was right to call him on it, and you aren't doing Barry any favors by trying to cover for him by changing what he said. The topic had changed as it does on many threads and Shemp was arguing with me on a different topic. The topics often change in threads, and you are often part of that. Go back and read the thread instead of jumping on me for a topic that has long been resolved on this thread. Go back to your battle with Barry and keep it to yourself, unless you have something regarding the argument of this thread. Shemp was wrong on the topic I was discussing with him, and you aren't doing Shemp any favors by trying to cover for him by changing what he said. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry, nothing here for you anymore. Be gone
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Pushing buttons *IS* a noble thing, in spiritual environments filled with people who wish to identify those buttons in themselves, identify the attachments they reveal, and work on elim- inating them. In such environments, the person who can help you to pinpoint your own hot button issues (and thus your samskaras and attachments) is your friend. Thing is, in genuinely spiritual contexts, the button-pushing is not fueled by hostility, hatred, and obsession, and it's usually done with honesty. The honesty thing is very important because, without it, the I'm pushing buttons for your own spiritual growth out of pure love and compassion for your welfare routine can be used as an excuse to be nasty to someone. That's why pushing buttons is usually left to fully enlightened teachers who can be counted on to perform such incredibly powerful -- and potentially damaging -- spiritual practises with minimal or zero negative effects. Somehow, Barry, I can't get the idea out of my mind that you don't have the best intentions when you are engaged in your pushing buttons agenda. I think of your 12 plus years of pushing Judy's buttons on virtually a daily basis. Am I wrong in concluding that it is not the love in your heart that motivates your hate relationship with Judy? You also love to put down the TMO. Fine, they deserve it in most cases. Indeed, you've written some of the best critiques of the Movement I've ever seen...stuff that should be required reading of the top echelon of the TMO. An example (and if anyone has a link to it, I'd love to have it so that I bookmark it for future reference): a few months ago you wrote a fanciful tract, from the perspective of a high schooler, of what would happen if that high schooler were approached to start TM under the David Lynch project and the high schooler went online to do research of what she would be getting into. Simply great stuff. But too often your actions remind me of the very worst I've seen in the TMO, the very people you criticize. I'll give you an example. Back when I was active in my local center in the '70s, there was an initiator who whenever someone wasn't deemed acceptable to go on teacher-training always volunteered to be the one to tell the declined candidate the bad news. Oh, I'll tell him, he would always say when the matter came up during meetings of the center's teachers. He just loved being the one to tell the failed candidate that he couldn't fulfill a deeply held desire to become a TM teacher. You remind me of him. This pushing buttons thing is something you revel in, I suspect, not because it produces any spiritual growth -- which it may or may not do, I simply am not competent to say -- but because of the sadistic satisfaction you get out of it. If I'm wrong on this, fine. But your pushing buttons approach would work a hell of a lot better if you backed things up with facts, not some of the obvious bullshit you come up with. I've called you on this on at least 3 occasions over the years and exposed stuff you said as simply figments of your imagination. I suppose you justify those instances by saying to yourself: well, it COULD have happened; therefore, why not SAY it happened?. But that's not good enough. It doesn't pass the smell test most times (People aren't idiots; they can smell a rat). YOu are on even shakier ground when you play with facts because they can be disputed by research oftentimes. But we can all make mistakes like that; why not just admit it and say: well, I got my facts wrong but this is what I meant. In this recent episode it fell to that mental case in Vermont to suggest what you meant which wasted everyone's time. We all know the point you were trying to make but the facts that you obviously made up simply took away from your point. And it wasn't necessary.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signs we're getting old #27
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: snip The ONLY category applicable is defense. See Barry's original post, above. No mention is made of other categories that tangentially have something to do with defense (i.e., people who work in those departments once saw Saving Private Ryan). I see. What you mean to say here is: Shemp admits he was wrong, and that military spending is more than half of the annual US budget when Social Security is taken out. Look, what Barry said wasn't ambiguous. If it had needed clarification--if he had meant defense as a percentage of the budget minus Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid instead of percentage of gross national product, he's had ample opportunity to admit his mistake. But he hasn't done so, so we can assume he stands by what he said to start with, even though it was wildly wrong. Shemp was right to call him on it, and you aren't doing Barry any favors by trying to cover for him by changing what he said. The topic had changed as it does on many threads and Shemp was arguing with me on a different topic. No, I wasn't. You tried to divine what Barry had meant to say but even on that you were wrong on the facts. The topics often change in threads, and you are often part of that. Go back and read the thread instead of jumping on me for a topic that has long been resolved on this thread. Go back to your battle with Barry and keep it to yourself, unless you have something regarding the argument of this thread. Shemp was wrong on the topic I was discussing with him, and you aren't doing Shemp any favors by trying to cover for him by changing what he said. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Webcam Phenomenon
TurquoiseB wrote: Here's my theory -- the people who post photos of themselves taken *by* themselves using a Webcam do this BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO FRIENDS. Hmmm, your photo shows that you are friends with an infant. I do think most folks here have an interior life that is best represented by a shot solely of themselves. Those with friends to fluff up a photo might be just as isolated as others, right? Who doesn't pose when someone whips out a camera to catch a moment in the sun when humans are shoulder to shoulder in a noshing? Who here still has all their friends from high school, college, TTC, the workplace? To have even one relationship that is deeply wrought is rare in any life -- simply on the basis of the time requirement, who has the time to explore the mind of another with anything that could be called intimate? Who here can even pick out a Hallmark card for another and feel like it really nails down some sentiment in a specific to the friend manner? My babe and I have spent two hours per day or more in conversation for the last nine years, and I have yet to fathom her depths in most regards. I know her, but I haven't a clue. Like that. The vastness of her underpinnings is equal to what Arjuna saw when Krishna yawned for him. Just so do all of us, when but peeking inside another's cave, find someone who's there hefting sword and shield lest anyone enter uninvited. Who is not just such a wary waiter in the cave of their mind? Unless you've got a warrant, stay out of my underwear drawer. And consider my trikking videos. When one truly is dancing in public, it's to be done as a solo if one is to be spontaneous. Add another, try to partner up, and suddenly, artificiality (art and craft) dominate the presentation. Only hours of practice can create the illusion that the two are being spontaneous. Scant wonder then that if you want a photo of me, that I do not include others in the mug shot. Look at your high school year book -- probably any photo has others in it next to you like when you were on the Bake Sale Committee. To their scattered lives they went, right? What value then for a recent shot with a pal or two showing their grills next to your row of Chiclets? Nah, ya got this one wrong, boy. Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry, nothing here for you anymore. Be gone
Dang, I'm falling love with fucking Shemp! What the hell? Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Pushing buttons *IS* a noble thing, in spiritual environments filled with people who wish to identify those buttons in themselves, identify the attachments they reveal, and work on elim- inating them. In such environments, the person who can help you to pinpoint your own hot button issues (and thus your samskaras and attachments) is your friend. Thing is, in genuinely spiritual contexts, the button-pushing is not fueled by hostility, hatred, and obsession, and it's usually done with honesty. The honesty thing is very important because, without it, the I'm pushing buttons for your own spiritual growth out of pure love and compassion for your welfare routine can be used as an excuse to be nasty to someone. That's why pushing buttons is usually left to fully enlightened teachers who can be counted on to perform such incredibly powerful -- and potentially damaging -- spiritual practises with minimal or zero negative effects. Somehow, Barry, I can't get the idea out of my mind that you don't have the best intentions when you are engaged in your pushing buttons agenda. I think of your 12 plus years of pushing Judy's buttons on virtually a daily basis. Am I wrong in concluding that it is not the love in your heart that motivates your hate relationship with Judy? You also love to put down the TMO. Fine, they deserve it in most cases. Indeed, you've written some of the best critiques of the Movement I've ever seen...stuff that should be required reading of the top echelon of the TMO. An example (and if anyone has a link to it, I'd love to have it so that I bookmark it for future reference): a few months ago you wrote a fanciful tract, from the perspective of a high schooler, of what would happen if that high schooler were approached to start TM under the David Lynch project and the high schooler went online to do research of what she would be getting into. Simply great stuff. But too often your actions remind me of the very worst I've seen in the TMO, the very people you criticize. I'll give you an example. Back when I was active in my local center in the '70s, there was an initiator who whenever someone wasn't deemed acceptable to go on teacher-training always volunteered to be the one to tell the declined candidate the bad news. Oh, I'll tell him, he would always say when the matter came up during meetings of the center's teachers. He just loved being the one to tell the failed candidate that he couldn't fulfill a deeply held desire to become a TM teacher. You remind me of him. This pushing buttons thing is something you revel in, I suspect, not because it produces any spiritual growth -- which it may or may not do, I simply am not competent to say -- but because of the sadistic satisfaction you get out of it. If I'm wrong on this, fine. But your pushing buttons approach would work a hell of a lot better if you backed things up with facts, not some of the obvious bullshit you come up with. I've called you on this on at least 3 occasions over the years and exposed stuff you said as simply figments of your imagination. I suppose you justify those instances by saying to yourself: well, it COULD have happened; therefore, why not SAY it happened?. But that's not good enough. It doesn't pass the smell test most times (People aren't idiots; they can smell a rat). YOu are on even shakier ground when you play with facts because they can be disputed by research oftentimes. But we can all make mistakes like that; why not just admit it and say: well, I got my facts wrong but this is what I meant. In this recent episode it fell to that mental case in Vermont to suggest what you meant which wasted everyone's time. We all know the point you were trying to make but the facts that you obviously made up simply took away from your point. And it wasn't necessary.
[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sun...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sundur@ wrote: I suppose there is a chance that Judy is right in her views, and everyone else is wrong. Lurk, you don't even know what my views *are*. You read what Edg said about them and assumed what he said was accurate. It wasn't. This is true. I don't know exactly what your views are on cc. However, the little I have read of them the part man made, part ET seemed to summarize it. Perhaps I am mistaken. You're mistaken. I think (and have stated explicitly) that ETs having made *any* of the circles is *LESS* likely than that they're all made by humans. That having been said, however, *some* of the circles have features that have not been found in any of the circles known to have been made by humans, which is why I'm reluctant to conclude that they're all made by humans. Here are three of the features (there are others): 1. Elongated apical plant stem nodes 2. Expulsion cavities in the plant stems 3. The presence of 10-50 micrometer diameter magnetized iron spheres in the soils, distributed linearly At one point a bunch of MIT students were challenged to create a circle that showed these characteristics (proposed by a circle researcher). They had no trouble creating the circle by the usual method of ropes and boards (although it wasn't nearly as complex as many of the circles on record). They managed to replicate #2 by building a portable microwave transmitter and beaming it at the plants. They took a stab at #3 by building a device that sprayed magnetized iron particles around the circle, but it took too much time and they had to resort to a pyrotechnic device; the iron particles ended up unevenly distributed, unlike in the non-hoaxed circles. They couldn't achieve #1 at all. And what they did accomplish required fairly complicated and cumbersome technology. The question is: If humans did make the circles that have these characteristics, why on earth would they go to the trouble to plant this kind of anomalous, virtually invisible evidence throughout circles that would have been difficult enough to create overnight without it? Most people are satisfied that all the circles are human-made simply because humans *can* create complicated patterns in crops that you can see and walk around in and take photos of. But these three characteristics were only discovered after intensive scientific investigation; they aren't anything anybody would be able to detect without careful measurements with complicated instruments. Nor would they result simply from the process of mashing down crops in patterns. And why, after all the intense study of the circles by determined debunkers, haven't they been able to extrapolate from these highly specific types of effects to the technology that accomplishes them? At any rate, these are the types of questions that need to be answered before I'm willing to conclude that all the circles are human-made. But again, if some of them *aren't* human-made, I have NO IDEA what their origin might be. As I said, I think aliens is the *least* likely possibility. snip Yeah, it's cowardly big-time to make nonspecific charges and refuse to follow up on them. I have followed up to the extent I can. I appreciate that, thank you. At the risk of appearing to preach, maybe think about some of things Edg said. Maybe there is something there you may find useful. Or maybe you are comfortable with how you see things now. Pretty much, actually. I'm more interested in striving to be authentic and honest than anything else. I have no motivation to pretend to be be someone I'm not for the sake of getting people to like me. If somebody doesn't like me for who I am, that's just my (and possibly their) tough luck.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signs we're getting old #27
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: snip The ONLY category applicable is defense. See Barry's original post, above. No mention is made of other categories that tangentially have something to do with defense (i.e., people who work in those departments once saw Saving Private Ryan). I see. What you mean to say here is: Shemp admits he was wrong, and that military spending is more than half of the annual US budget when Social Security is taken out. Look, what Barry said wasn't ambiguous. If it had needed clarification--if he had meant defense as a percentage of the budget minus Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid instead of percentage of gross national product, he's had ample opportunity to admit his mistake. But he hasn't done so, so we can assume he stands by what he said to start with, even though it was wildly wrong. Shemp was right to call him on it, and you aren't doing Barry any favors by trying to cover for him by changing what he said. Not only that but even assuming the change, Off_World is totally off on this. For example, Homeland security is the closest any of the categories he includes that come to defense. But even that's a stretch. And he includes everything but the kitchen sink. So you are saying that Judy was wrong to chastise me about a long gone topic, and that the topic HAD changed. As to the discussion (which Judy so rudely interupted with nothing of substance to say - as if she OWNS the thread), it said it on the VERY website you posted for me ! In this thread, were I to be proved wrong, I already had decided a long ways back to say to you yes, you are right, my bad It was very clear to me that that could be my conclusion to this thread, because I wasn't a hundred percent sure (I was 99% sure), and I have no problem admiting I was wrong. But you, like Turq, Vaj, Judy, and a couple of others NEVER EVER admit you were wrong. You cannot ever say that, even though you are CLEARLY WRONG here. Cant' you add ? Look at the webpage you posted to me, which states it CLEARLY, and shows Social Security and Medicare taken out of the totals for you ! * Discretionary spending: $1.114 trillion $481.4 billion - Department of Defense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense PLUS $145.2 billion - Global War on Terror http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terrorism = $626.6 billion Half of $1.114 trillion is $557 billion. For your information, since you cannot add, $626.6 billion is more than $557 billion. The Iraq War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War and the War in Afghanistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001-present) are not included in the regular budget. Instead they are funded through special appropriations.[1] Iraq and Afghanistan amount to about 300 billion dollars a year - minimum. So add 626. PLUS 300, and the true figure is $926 billion, which leaves ONLY $188 billion dollars for the Government to spend ! THAT is why the country is BROKE. All this info above is FROM the site you posted ! You have dug yourself into a hole, just admit you are wrong. Its obvious to anyone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget%2C_2008#cite_n\ ote-0 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget%2C_2008#cite_\ note-0 OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] TM poster girl, Heather Graham, and tantric sex
We need MORE TMers like this: http://tinyurl.com/m962d8
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry, nothing here for you anymore. Be gone
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: [snip] Pushing buttons *IS* a noble thing, in spiritual environments filled with people who wish to identify those buttons in themselves, identify the attachments they reveal, and work on elim- inating them. In such environments, the person who can help you to pinpoint your own hot button issues (and thus your samskaras and attachments) is your friend. [snip] ...but you don't do it by telling obvious non-truths, Barry. Why not be gentle in your pushing buttons spiritual agenda (or whatever you want to call what you do)? Why make stuff up? Certainly, when you're called on it, it will backfire on you and throw a monkeywrench into the whole process, no? Not to mention the myriad things that push *Barry's* buttons. If he's ever taken to heart his own angry reaction at having one of them pushed, if he's ever identified an attachment of his as a result, he's certainly never shared it with us, at least not that I can recall. Nor has he ever shown any signs of considering the button-pusher a friend for having pinpointed his samskaras for him--to the contrary.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry, nothing here for you anymore. Be gone
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: [snip] Pushing buttons *IS* a noble thing, in spiritual environments filled with people who wish to identify those buttons in themselves, identify the attachments they reveal, and work on elim- inating them. In such environments, the person who can help you to pinpoint your own hot button issues (and thus your samskaras and attachments) is your friend. [snip] ...but you don't do it by telling obvious non-truths, Barry. Why not be gentle in your pushing buttons spiritual agenda (or whatever you want to call what you do)? Why make stuff up? Certainly, when you're called on it, it will backfire on you and throw a monkeywrench into the whole process, no? LOL ! That may be true of Barry, but your paragraph above is a perfect desicription of you ! You are EXACTLY like him in every way, except you supported right wing evangelist extremists for yearsand he didn't. OffWorld
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Special full Moon Messages from the Pleiadians (Jupiter, Neptune, Chiron)
On Jun 7, 2009, at 2:10 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: It is a pleasure to bring to you full Moon messages from the Pleiadian’s on this full Moon in Sagittarius night. This is a taste of what will be the format in my new e-book “Full Moon Messages from the Pleiadian’s” coming out on September 12, 2009. But just a taste. The book is best served with a light, fruity white wine. Special discounts will be given to anyone who can pronounce the parts of the book title that are in Pleiadian: ’s” I have to admit, of all the silliness in Lou's posts, what bothers me the most (actually it's the only thing, the rest I think is pretty amusing) is this nonsense with the 's that he keeps writing, over and over. Didn't he ever learn basic punctuation? Trivial, I know, but there you have it. Guess I'll never be a Pleiadian. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM poster girl, Heather Graham, and tantric sex
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote: We need MORE TMers like this: http://tinyurl.com/m962d8 http://tinyurl.com/m962d8 For once, I agree with you. She has some very funny statements here. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signs we're getting old #27
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_re...@... wrote: snip All this info above is FROM the site you posted ! You have dug yourself into a hole, just admit you are wrong. Its obvious to anyone. Shemp, several posts back: Depending upon how much discretionary spending is for any given year, defense may represent 600% of discretionary spending. Off, several posts back: Military spending is more than half of the US budget when you take out Social Security and Medicare. Your math sucks. You are digging yourself into a deep hole here. Defense is more than 500 trillion in the chart you linked to...
Re: [FairfieldLife] The answer to the astrology/Jyotish test
On Jun 7, 2009, at 2:27 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: OK, there *was* a bit of a cheat in this test. But only a bit of one. Just a bit of a cheat, Barry? LOL... The person never existed! But it was your test, so you get to make up the rules. But I don't think that was playing fair. JMO. The person whose birth data was given was the subject of a six-volume series of books by the person I consider the greatest writer of the English language in the 20th century. He was fictional. *However*, Francis Crawford, Earl of Lymond was also one of the most meticulously imagined and researched characters in the history of literature. His creator was Dorothy Dunnett, considered by many the greatest writer in Scottish history. You probably have never heard of her, I've heard of her. other than in mentions of her by me on this forum. The reason is that she wrote historical fiction, which is not everyone's cuppa tea. I love hysterical fiction... But Dorothy wrote historical fiction with a precision and with a level of due diligence that most historians have never achieved. Dorothy never fudged anything having to do with the periods of time and the characters -- both real and imagined -- she wrote about. She would typically spend a minimum of a year researching the place and the time she was to write about, reading literally hundreds of books about it, going there personally to get the vibe of the place and its people, thoroughly immersing herself in the place and the time, and then starting to write. She wrote about Lymond for 15 years, in a six- volume set of novels known as The Lymond Chronicles. If anyone on earth can be said to have had a real existence, it is someone who has thus been focused on by a great writer so intently, and for so long. Doesn't absolve you! Try again, this time with someone who actually existed. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry, nothing here for you anymore. Be gone
...but you don't do it by telling obvious non-truths, Barry. Judy wrote: Not to mention the myriad things that push *Barry's* buttons... Actually, the question that is more relevant is whether it is considered better at the Purusha and Mother Divine orgies to use official MAV Ayurvedic sesame oil or K-Y for lubricant. I have no personal information on this, but I'm betting on the sesame oil because the TMO makes a profit on it and not on K-Y. At least not yet... Read more: From: Uncle Tantra Subject: Re: TM and sexual Tantra Newsgroups: alt.magick.tantra, alt.meditation.transcendental, alt.religion.tantra, soc.sexuality.general Date: Thurs, Dec 15 2005 http://tinyurl.com/qs7dtl
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Barry, nothing here for you anymore. Be gone
On Jun 7, 2009, at 3:31 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: I would like to thank Bill for encouraging me to stay. Thanks to people like him, I will. For a while, anyway. LOL...line of the week! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, It's just a ride bill.hicks.all.a.r...@... wrote: On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:40 PM, TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From my side, to be honest, I've been trying to provoke a little interest lately, in lieu of bailing from FFL altogether. . . . So, if you'd like, consider my high numbers a last gasp, an attempt to see if there is any life left in the Olde FFL, from my obviously jaded perspective. If so, I'll stick around. If not, I'll bail. Don't you realize that people have left because they have had enough of our resident Lord of the Flies? The one who lords over all, thinks pushing buttons is a noble thing instead of an ill mannered, nasty thing to do and in violation of the guidelines and rules of FFL? Uh, Bill, have you ever heard of the delete button? You don't like someone's posts, you don't have to read them...just delete before reading...it's what everybody does with Barry's. :) Pushing buttons *IS* a noble thing, in spiritual environments filled with people who wish to identify those buttons in themselves, identify the attachments they reveal, and work on elim- inating them. In such environments, the person who can help you to pinpoint your own hot button issues (and thus your samskaras and attachments) is your friend. Interestingly, in environments filled with folks I tend to call spiritual slackers, such people are not only not considered friends, they are considered enemies. The reason is that the spiritual slackers are NOT working on trying to eliminate their attachments and their sam- skaras and their hot button issues. They *cling* to their hot button, as if they believed that the buttons -- and the overreactions they indulge in when they are pushed -- are them. Consider me one of the spiritual slackers, as I think what passes for most spirituality is mostly a lot of boring, pompous crap, designed primarily to boost people's self- importance and empty their wallets. Sal
[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)
Judy, Now why didn't you just do the below in the first place? -- it is a great presentation, and you've done us all a service thereby. That said, let me have some funzies: Here's some crop circles that would get me into all sorts of obsessing: How about a crop circle that predicted something? Go to such and such coordinates and you'll find a white dwarf that cannot be seen by the naked eye and that has not yet been noticed by astronomers. Or, give me a crop circle that portrays a physics' insight heretofore unknown. A few math symbols correctly used in a new way could open some eyes in the ivory towers, but so far, we get zilch. Or, how about a simple sentence in an unknown alphabet that nonetheless has experts convinced that the alphabet is sophisticated and unlikely to be a ruse? Or, how about a photo of a alien (there's been a wheat field Mona Lisa by now, right) -- an alien whose photo convinces Earthly experts that the taxonomy etc. all jive holistically? Or, how about a duplication of a crop circle from one area being used to form an equation with a crop circle from another area? A simple juxtaposition of two symbols might be an equation of a sort. A form of communication could be imagined by such a metaphor. Let's see a jargon created around the world that has consistency. How about some crop circles in an Arctic snow field that only a massively technical effort could produce? Crop circles in the middle of the Sahara would be paradigm shattering if no other footprints or tire tracks or helicopter sand scattering marks could be found. I'd be slavering. Let's see even Bill Whitherspoon pull that off without the use of a black-ops copter and guys who lower themselves 75 feet to the ground to prevent the down-blasts from marring the scene. How about a crop circle on the White House lawn? How about a crop circle on anyone's lawn? How about a crop circle burnished into a large bedrock shelf? How about a crop circle in any cave painting? How about a crop circle on the Moon for all to see? How about a crop circle seen forming for an instant in water seen by a passing pilot? How about a crop circle that joins the Mysterious Nazca Lines in Peru as some sort of, what?, commentary? How about a crop circle that a flock of geese cannot be persuaded to enter? How about a crop circle sniffing dog who can tell, like the dogs that smell cancer, a difference between obviously man-made circles and the mysterious ones? A dog's nose is an insanely great tool. How about a crop circle that either kills the plant life or enhances the vitality of such that color differences or longevity or something distinguishes the circle with continuities unshared with the immediate surroundings? Where are these crops circles? Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sundur@ wrote: I suppose there is a chance that Judy is right in her views, and everyone else is wrong. Lurk, you don't even know what my views *are*. You read what Edg said about them and assumed what he said was accurate. It wasn't. This is true. I don't know exactly what your views are on cc. However, the little I have read of them the part man made, part ET seemed to summarize it. Perhaps I am mistaken. You're mistaken. I think (and have stated explicitly) that ETs having made *any* of the circles is *LESS* likely than that they're all made by humans. That having been said, however, *some* of the circles have features that have not been found in any of the circles known to have been made by humans, which is why I'm reluctant to conclude that they're all made by humans. Here are three of the features (there are others): 1. Elongated apical plant stem nodes 2. Expulsion cavities in the plant stems 3. The presence of 10-50 micrometer diameter magnetized iron spheres in the soils, distributed linearly At one point a bunch of MIT students were challenged to create a circle that showed these characteristics (proposed by a circle researcher). They had no trouble creating the circle by the usual method of ropes and boards (although it wasn't nearly as complex as many of the circles on record). They managed to replicate #2 by building a portable microwave transmitter and beaming it at the plants. They took a stab at #3 by building a device that sprayed magnetized iron particles around the circle, but it took too much time and they had to resort to a pyrotechnic device; the iron particles ended up unevenly distributed, unlike in the non-hoaxed circles. They couldn't achieve #1 at all. And what they did accomplish required fairly complicated and cumbersome
[FairfieldLife] Re: The answer to the astrology/Jyotish test
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Jun 7, 2009, at 2:27 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: OK, there *was* a bit of a cheat in this test. But only a bit of one. Just a bit of a cheat, Barry? LOL... The person never existed! But it was your test, so you get to make up the rules. But I don't think that was playing fair. JMO. I thought it was a fascinating test when Dorothy Dunnett posed it. So did she, when it turns out that the original astrologer came up with inter- pretations of the chart of a fictional character based on his fictional birth date that matched fairly well the description of him in over 3000 pages of novels. *And*, the two people who gave the test here a try did pretty well, too. Go figure. The person whose birth data was given was the subject of a six-volume series of books by the person I consider the greatest writer of the English language in the 20th century. He was fictional. *However*, Francis Crawford, Earl of Lymond was also one of the most meticulously imagined and researched characters in the history of literature. His creator was Dorothy Dunnett, considered by many the greatest writer in Scottish history. You probably have never heard of her, I've heard of her. other than in mentions of her by me on this forum. The reason is that she wrote historical fiction, which is not everyone's cuppa tea. I love hysterical fiction... But Dorothy wrote historical fiction with a precision and with a level of due diligence that most historians have never achieved. Dorothy never fudged anything having to do with the periods of time and the characters -- both real and imagined -- she wrote about. She would typically spend a minimum of a year researching the place and the time she was to write about, reading literally hundreds of books about it, going there personally to get the vibe of the place and its people, thoroughly immersing herself in the place and the time, and then starting to write. She wrote about Lymond for 15 years, in a six- volume set of novels known as The Lymond Chronicles. If anyone on earth can be said to have had a real existence, it is someone who has thus been focused on by a great writer so intently, and for so long. Doesn't absolve you! Try again, this time with someone who actually existed. I had no interest in testing astrology per se. I was merely doing this for fun, as was Dorothy Dunnett. If it proved anything, it is that people *can* make intuitive insights that have some degree of accuracy about a person -- real or fictional -- based on nothing more than their birth data. I've posted here before of what would be a *real* test of astrology, and so far all of the astrology/Jyotish buffs have failed to take me up on it. All they'd have to do is make a *concrete*, *verifiable* prediction about the near future, with absolutely no bullshit vague language in the prediction, and then see if it comes true. If it did, I'd be impressed. But it seems that's too much to ask of those who believe in astrology and Jyotish.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The photos people choose to portray their inner selves
Turq - I did not take this photo with a web cam. That's my real hair. LOL!
[FairfieldLife] How Pharma and Insurance Intend to Kill the Public Option
...And What Obama and the Rest of Us Must Do -by Robert Reich I've poked around Washington today, talking with friends on the Hill who confirm the worst: Big Pharma and Big Insurance are gaining ground in their campaign to kill the public option in the emerging health care bill. You know why, of course. They don't want a public option that would compete with private insurers and use its bargaining power to negotiate better rates with drug companies. They argue that would be unfair. Unfair? Unfair to give more people better health care at lower cost? To Pharma and Insurance, unfair is anything that undermines their profits. So they're pulling out all the stops -- pushing Democrats and a handful of so-called moderate Republicans who say they're in favor of a public option to support legislation that would include it in name only. One of their proposals is to break up the public option into small pieces under multiple regional third-party administrators that would have little or no bargaining leverage. A second is to give the public option to the states where Big Pharma and Big Insurance can easily buy off legislators and officials, as they've been doing for years. A third is bind the public plan to the same rules private insurers have already wangled, thereby making it impossible for the public plan to put competitive pressure on the insurers. Max Baucus, Chair of Senate Finance (now exactly why does the Senate Finance Committee have so much say over health care?) hasn't shown his cards but staffers tell me he's more than happy to sign on to any one of these. But Baucus is waiting for more support from his colleagues, and none of the three proposals has emerged as the leading candidate for those who want to kill the public option without showing they're killing it. Meanwhile, Ted Kennedy and his staff are still pushing for a full public option, but with Kennedy ailing, he might not be able to round up the votes. (Kennedy's health committee released a draft of a bill today, which contains the full public option.) Enter Olympia Snowe. Her move is important, not because she's Republican (the Senate needs only 51 votes to pass this) but because she's well-respected and considered non-partisan, and therefore offers some cover to Democrats who may need it. Last night Snowe hosted a private meeting between members and staffers about a new proposal Pharma and Insurance are floating, and apparently she's already gained the tentative support of several Democrats (including Ron Wyden and Thomas Carper). Under Snowe's proposal, the public option would kick in years from now, but it would be triggered only if insurance companies fail to bring down healthcare costs and expand coverage in he meantime. What's the catch? First, these conditions are likely to be achieved by other pieces of the emerging legislation; for example, computerized records will bring down costs a tad, and a mandate requiring everyone to have coverage will automatically expand coverage. If it ever comes to it, Pharma and Insurance can argue that their mere participation fulfills their part of the bargain, so no public option will need to be triggered. Second, as Pharma and Insurance well know, years from now in legislative terms means never. There will never be a better time than now to enact a public option. If it's not included, in a few years the public's attention will be elsewhere. Much the same dynamic is occurring in the House. Two members who had originally supported single payer told me that Pharma and Insurance have launched the same strategy there, and many House members are looking to see what happens in the Senate. Snowe's trigger is already buzzing among members. All this will be decided within days or weeks. And once those who want to kill the public option without their fingerprints on the murder weapon begin to agree on a proposal -- Snowe's trigger or any other -- the public option will be very hard to revive. The White House must now insist on a genuine public option. And you, dear reader, must insist as well. This is it, folks. The concrete is being mixed and about to be poured. And after it's poured and hardens, universal health care will be with us for years to come in whatever form it now takes. Let your representative and senators know you want a public option without conditions or triggers -- one that gives the public insurer bargaining leverage over drug companies, and pushes insurers to do what they've promised to do. Don't wait until the concrete hardens and we've lost this battle. ~~Talking Points Memo: http://snipurl.com/jmqqn
[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)
Duveyoung wrote: Now why didn't you just do the below in the first place? She did, Edg, almost every time the 'crop circles' topic was mentioned. You are supposed to read the messages here BEFORE you post your comments. I tried to tell you that, but you got your 'hot' button pushed and you snapped at me. So, I guess you made a big ass out of yourself again. LOL! I think (and have stated explicitly) that ETs having made *any* of the circles is *LESS* likely than that they're all made by humans. That having been said, however, *some* of the circles have features that have not been found in any of the circles known to have been made by humans, which is why I'm reluctant to conclude that they're all made by humans. Here are three of the features (there are others): 1. Elongated apical plant stem nodes 2. Expulsion cavities in the plant stems 3. The presence of 10-50 micrometer diameter magnetized iron spheres in the soils, distributed linearly At one point a bunch of MIT students were challenged to create a circle that showed these characteristics (proposed by a circle researcher). They had no trouble creating the circle by the usual method of ropes and boards (although it wasn't nearly as complex as many of the circles on record). They managed to replicate #2 by building a portable microwave transmitter and beaming it at the plants. They took a stab at #3 by building a device that sprayed magnetized iron particles around the circle, but it took too much time and they had to resort to a pyrotechnic device; the iron particles ended up unevenly distributed, unlike in the non-hoaxed circles. They couldn't achieve #1 at all. And what they did accomplish required fairly complicated and cumbersome technology. The question is: If humans did make the circles that have these characteristics, why on earth would they go to the trouble to plant this kind of anomalous, virtually invisible evidence throughout circles that would have been difficult enough to create overnight without it? Most people are satisfied that all the circles are human-made simply because humans *can* create complicated patterns in crops that you can see and walk around in and take photos of. But these three characteristics were only discovered after intensive scientific investigation; they aren't anything anybody would be able to detect without careful measurements with complicated instruments. Nor would they result simply from the process of mashing down crops in patterns. And why, after all the intense study of the circles by determined debunkers, haven't they been able to extrapolate from these highly specific types of effects to the technology that accomplishes them? At any rate, these are the types of questions that need to be answered before I'm willing to conclude that all the circles are human-made. But again, if some of them *aren't* human-made, I have NO IDEA what their origin might be. As I said, I think aliens is the *least* likely possibility.
[FairfieldLife] Re: How Pharma and Insurance Intend to Kill the Public Option
do.rflex wrote: How Pharma and Insurance Intend to Kill the Public Option.. They still have to find a sound way to pay for expanding health care, a tough job amid staggering U.S. budget deficits... Read more: 'Health, climate change vie for boost in US Congress' Reuters, June 7, 20009 http://tinyurl.com/p46xwp Even the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities suggested last week that Congress is unlikely to be able to pay for universal coverage unless it takes the unpopular step of limiting the tax exclusion for the value of the health insurance provided by an employer... Read more: 'Paying for Universal Health Coverage' New York Times Editorial, June 6, 2009 http://tinyurl.com/qc995v
RE: [FairfieldLife] Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of raunchydog Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 1:21 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV Finally, Secretary Clinton will be interviewed on a Sunday TV show. This Sunday, June 7, she'll appear on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. It'll be her first Sunday show interview as secretary of state and her first Sunday show since she ended her presidential campaign almost exactly a year ago. http://hillary.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/05/secretary_clinton_on_sunda y_tv_finally Good interview. Here's a quote they replayed from her concession speech: Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been. No hint in the interview of Hillary having sour grapes. No indication that he regards Obama as a stuffed suit. She clearly gave the impression that she is very impressed with Obama and enjoys working with him. Could it possibly be, Raunchy, that her perspective is a little bit better informed than yours?
[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: Judy, Now why didn't you just do the below in the first place? Because (a) Lurk was much politer than you were; (b) he admitted his impression could be mistaken about my views; (c) I hadn't gone around with him before on this, as I had with you. -- it is a great presentation, and you've done us all a service thereby. Uh-huh. Did the same presentation the last time we discussed it. That said, let me have some funzies: Here's some crop circles that would get me into all sorts of obsessing: snip list of intriguing types of circles Where are these crops circles? You seem to be suggesting that if aliens made the crop circles, they'd make them more intriguing in various ways, and because there are no such intriguing circles, therefore it's unlikely to be aliens. Right? What I don't understand is why you're asking me to explain why the aliens aren't making intriguing circles when you know I believe aliens are less likely than humans to have made the circles we have.
[FairfieldLife] Re: How Pharma and Insurance Intend to Kill the Public Option
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex no_re...@... wrote: do.rflex wrote: How Pharma and Insurance Intend to Kill the Public Option.. They still have to find a sound way to pay for expanding health care, a tough job amid staggering U.S. budget deficits... willytex is right. Look, with a $1.8 trillion deficit, Obammy has shot his wad. There really is nothing else we can spend our money on 'cause we haven't got it. The only good thing about the spending orgy that Obammy went on is that there isn't anything left for global warming. And no one's interested anyway. Pretty much everyone has concluded it's a scam. Ha! Read more: 'Health, climate change vie for boost in US Congress' Reuters, June 7, 20009 http://tinyurl.com/p46xwp Even the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities suggested last week that Congress is unlikely to be able to pay for universal coverage unless it takes the unpopular step of limiting the tax exclusion for the value of the health insurance provided by an employer... Read more: 'Paying for Universal Health Coverage' New York Times Editorial, June 6, 2009 http://tinyurl.com/qc995v
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of raunchydog Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 1:21 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV Finally, Secretary Clinton will be interviewed on a Sunday TV show. This Sunday, June 7, she'll appear on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. It'll be her first Sunday show interview as secretary of state and her first Sunday show since she ended her presidential campaign almost exactly a year ago. http://hillary.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/05/secretary_clinton_on_sunda y_tv_finally Good interview. Here's a quote they replayed from her concession speech: Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been. No hint in the interview of Hillary having sour grapes. No indication that he regards Obama as a stuffed suit. She clearly gave the impression that she is very impressed with Obama and enjoys working with him. Could it possibly be, Raunchy, that her perspective is a little bit better informed than yours? Clinton: Obama has 'absolutely' passed '3 a.m.' test WASHINGTON (CNN) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says President Obama has answered the central question that she raised about him when she was his chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination. In an interview with ABC's This Week broadcast Sunday, Clinton was asked about her famous 3 a.m. ad last year, which questioned whether Obama was the right candidate to handle a middle-of-the-night international crisis. Has the president answered it for you? host George Stephanopoulos asked. Absolutely, Clinton replied. And, you know, the president, in his public actions and demeanor, and certainly in private with me and with the national security team, has been strong, thoughtful, decisive, I think he is doing a terrific job. And it's an honor to serve with him. ~CNN: http://snipurl.com/jmtfr
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signs we're getting old #27
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: snip All this info above is FROM the site you posted ! You have dug yourself into a hole, just admit you are wrong. Its obvious to anyone. Shemp, several posts back: Depending upon how much discretionary spending is for any given year, defense may represent 600% of discretionary spending. Off, several posts back: Military spending is more than half of the US budget when you take out Social Security and Medicare. Your math sucks. You are digging yourself into a deep hole here. Defense is more than 500 trillion in the chart you linked to... You are being dishonest Judy. Here below is Shemp's long arguments about the topic he and I were discussing. Your attempt to bring ALL posts back to your feud with Turq is arrogant. I think you should apologize. If you think this thread was still about Turq's mistake of terms, then read below Shemps LONG arguments in this thread over what the thread VERY QUICKLY became. You and Turq do not own FFL ya know. Shemp said: And, yes, I may agree with you vis a vis the Social Security spending inclusion. Both Social Security and Medicare are essentially insurance programs. Their contributions and benefits are taken and meted out completely differently than all other spending and taxing by the federal government and, as such, should be segregated from the budget. But defense is NOT about half of the budget even when SS and Medicare are taken out. See the following and do the math: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget%2C_2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget%2C_2008 Shemp said: Gosh, I was nervous when Bush had a deficit of $580 billion. This year Obama and his Democratic Congress have given us a $1.8 trillion deficit. Divide that amount by the 300 million people in the U.S. and you come up with a figure of $6,000 per person. And that's just ONE YEAR. Obama's planning on doing this each and every year. Perhaps not the end of the world but pretty darn close to the end of America. Shemp said: Oh, really? Here are the figures I linked to: For 2008 (and, by the way, it's worse for 2009 -- which is what we were originally talking about -- because the budget for 2009 is $3.8 trillion): Total budget: $2.9 trillion Social Security: $608 billion Medicare: $386 billion Total SS and Medicare: $994 billion $2,900 billion - 994 billion = $1,906 billion Defense spending: $481 billion Now, pray tell Off_World, how is $481 billion anywhere near half of $1.9 trillion Shemp said: Not only that but even assuming the change, Off_World is totally off on this. For example, Homeland security is the closest any of the categories he includes that come to defense. But even that's a stretch. And he includes everything but the kitchen sink. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of raunchydog Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 1:21 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV Good interview. Here's a quote they replayed from her concession speech: Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been. For a professional partisan politician... No hint in the interview of Hillary having sour grapes. No indication that he regards Obama as a stuffed suit. She clearly gave the impression that she is very impressed with Obama and enjoys working with him. Could it possibly be, Raunchy, that her perspective is a little bit better informed than yours? If I may comment: Are you really suggesting that if Hillary, Obama's secretary of state, thought Obama was a stuffed suit and hated working with him, that she'd be announcing it on a nationally televised TV show on Sunday morning only a few months into his term? Just how long do you think she'd last in that job if she did? Give me a *break*.
[FairfieldLife] Re: How Pharma and Insurance Intend to Kill the Public Option
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex no_reply@ wrote: do.rflex wrote: How Pharma and Insurance Intend to Kill the Public Option.. They still have to find a sound way to pay for expanding health care, a tough job amid staggering U.S. budget deficits... willytex is right. Look, with a $1.8 trillion deficit, Obammy has shot his wad. There really is nothing else we can spend our money on 'cause we haven't got it. The only good thing about the spending orgy that Obammy went on is that there isn't anything left for global warming. And no one's interested anyway. Pretty much everyone has concluded it's a scam. Ha! Bananas.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: How Pharma and Insurance Intend to Kill the Public Option
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of shempmcgurk Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 11:04 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: How Pharma and Insurance Intend to Kill the Public Option --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , WillyTex no_re...@... wrote: do.rflex wrote: How Pharma and Insurance Intend to Kill the Public Option.. They still have to find a sound way to pay for expanding health care, a tough job amid staggering U.S. budget deficits... willytex is right. Look, with a $1.8 trillion deficit, Obammy has shot his wad. There really is nothing else we can spend our money on 'cause we haven't got it. The only good thing about the spending orgy that Obammy went on is that there isn't anything left for global warming. And no one's interested anyway. Pretty much everyone has concluded it's a scam. Pretty much everyone in your strange little world. In the real world, all legitimate climatologists agree that it's a real and serious threat.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote: snip Clinton: Obama has 'absolutely' passed '3 a.m.' test WASHINGTON (CNN) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says President Obama has answered the central question that she raised about him when she was his chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination. In an interview with ABC's This Week broadcast Sunday, Clinton was asked about her famous 3 a.m. ad last year, which questioned whether Obama was the right candidate to handle a middle-of-the-night international crisis. Has the president answered it for you? host George Stephanopoulos asked. Absolutely, Clinton replied. And, you know, the president, in his public actions and demeanor, and certainly in private with me and with the national security team, has demonstrated just the kind of weaknesses I was worried about. He's not well informed, and he vacillates all over the place. I think he's doing a barely mediocre job. And it's a major drag to serve with him, the former secretary of state declared.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Barry, nothing here for you anymore. Be gone
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 3:31 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Barry, nothing here for you anymore. Be gone I mean, Rick didn't throw off one guy even after he mounted a cyberattack on FFL by posting porn to it and then writing to the Yahoo admin- istrators complaining about the porn *he* had posted, in an attempt to get the forum taken down. Just for the record, we often give spammers the boot (people promoting MLM schemes, posting religious rants without participating in the conversation, etc.), and if we can't discern the motives of someone signing up, we start them out on moderated status. I've booted two legitimate FFL members: Kirk Bernhardt, because I was in a rare pissy mood one day years ago, and he kept posting fabricated Movement press releases made to look real. I don't know what my problem was, as these days I'd probably get a good laugh out of that. He resubscribed within minutes under a different name. The other guy was the one you refer to. If I remember correctly, I did boot him for making racist comments. He then slipped in under a pseudonym, posted the porn, and reported it to Yahoo. Yahoo then switched our status to Adult or whatever they call it, which was a problem, because you could no longer find FFL by searching in Yahoo Groups, folks couldn't access the site on public library computers, etc. One of our members (a lawyer) contacted Yahoo and straightened that out. I have since met the porn poster in person, we've become friends, and he has rejoined under a different name.
[FairfieldLife] Weekly Address: President Obama Calls for Real Health Care
Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g18BZnMgCY
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 11:07 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of raunchydog Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 1:21 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV Good interview. Here's a quote they replayed from her concession speech: Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been. For a professional partisan politician... No hint in the interview of Hillary having sour grapes. No indication that he regards Obama as a stuffed suit. She clearly gave the impression that she is very impressed with Obama and enjoys working with him. Could it possibly be, Raunchy, that her perspective is a little bit better informed than yours? If I may comment: Are you really suggesting that if Hillary, Obama's secretary of state, thought Obama was a stuffed suit and hated working with him, that she'd be announcing it on a nationally televised TV show on Sunday morning only a few months into his term? I don't think she would have taken the job in the first place if she thought that. In fact, she said in the interview that she tried to wriggle out of it at first, suggesting other candidates, etc., but that Obama was very convincing, as was her awareness of the seriousness of world affairs.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 11:13 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote: snip Clinton: Obama has 'absolutely' passed '3 a.m.' test WASHINGTON (CNN) - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says President Obama has answered the central question that she raised about him when she was his chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination. In an interview with ABC's This Week broadcast Sunday, Clinton was asked about her famous 3 a.m. ad last year, which questioned whether Obama was the right candidate to handle a middle-of-the-night international crisis. Has the president answered it for you? host George Stephanopoulos asked. Absolutely, Clinton replied. And, you know, the president, in his public actions and demeanor, and certainly in private with me and with the national security team, has demonstrated just the kind of weaknesses I was worried about. He's not well informed, and he vacillates all over the place. I think he's doing a barely mediocre job. And it's a major drag to serve with him, the former secretary of state declared. Yuk, yuk. Did you watch the interview, Judy? Obviously that is not Hillary's opinion. it's quite apparent that her private feelings and public statements are quite in sync.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Webcam Phenomenon
On Jun 7, 2009, at 9:29 AM, Duveyoung wrote: My babe and I have spent two hours per day or more in conversation for the last nine years, Is that before or after you inflate her? and I have yet to fathom her depths in most regards. I know her, but I haven't a clue. Like that. The vastness of her underpinnings is equal to what Arjuna saw when Krishna yawned for him. Yep, after 9 years that's just what a healthy relationship with an actual human looks like...Krishna yawning, whatever that means. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The answer to the astrology/Jyotish test
TurquoiseB wrote: All they'd have to do is make a *concrete*, *verifiable* prediction about the near future, with absolutely no bullshit vague language in the prediction, and then see if it comes true. If it did, I'd be impressed. But it seems that's too much to ask of those who believe in astrology and Jyotish. You will have a major life change in the next two years. ;-) However, you misunderstand that astrology is not about concrete black and white predictions. It is a weather report of the propensity for an event. However it is far better than a WAG (Wild Ass Guess). As I have said before there is something too astrology. It is not a junk science. The criticism of it by people who have never tried to learn it is about like villagers say in the Amazon where they've never seen a satellite phone and a visitor has one and they start taking about the crazy man talking to a box. There is a wide gap in knowledge. With the proper data I've never seen a chart fail to disclose the career path that a person took or will take. Many people go to astrologers to actually find if they are on the right career path. I've never seen a chart with proper data fail why the person was having difficulty in life with marriage or relationships. Often when someone asks why they are going through such a bad time one can about guess that one of the lunar nodes in transit is causing the problem. You can assure them when it will go away and it does. What you can't do is look at an ephemeris and see the likely hood of some precise event happening. You have to have a subject to see that. It can be a person or entity such as a country. One thing you will have a really difficult time with is that many astrologers, particularly western astrologers, have big egos. You can imagine if they get predictions right time after time without a strong spiritual base the ego gets bloated. I've seen this with jyotishis too but mainly ones from the west who have also a background in western astrology and not a strong spiritual base. I once attended an event with both western and eastern astrologers. Many of the western astrologers reminded me of Amway salesmen.
[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)
Duveyoung wrote: Now why didn't you just do the below in the first place? Judy wrote: What I don't understand is why you're asking me to explain why the aliens aren't making intriguing circles when you know I believe aliens are less likely than humans to have made the circles we have... Because Edg is a troll and you pushed one of his 'hot' buttons? LOL!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: On Behalf Of authfriend Absolutely, Clinton replied. And, you know, the president, in his public actions and demeanor, and certainly in private with me and with the national security team, has demonstrated just the kind of weaknesses I was worried about. He's not well informed, and he vacillates all over the place. I think he's doing a barely mediocre job. And it's a major drag to serve with him, the former secretary of state declared. Yuk, yuk. Did you watch the interview, Judy? Obviously that is not Hillary's opinion. it's quite apparent that her private feelings and public statements are quite in sync. I think what Judy is trying to imply with her joke is that if Hillary really *did* feel that way, she would not say so in public, because that would cost her her job. So she'd lie. And that's the kind of honest politician Judy admires. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Webcam Phenomenon
Duveyoung wrote: My babe and I have spent two hours per day or more in conversation for the last nine years, and I have yet to fathom her depths in most regards. I know her, but I haven't a clue. Like that. The vastness of her underpinnings is equal to what Arjuna saw when Krishna yawned for him. Sal wrote: Yep, after 9 years that's just what a healthy relationship with an actual human looks like...Krishna yawning, whatever that means. Very impressive, Sal! LOL!
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Webcam Phenomenon
What a vile attack for no reason. Sal, Sal, Sal, tsk tsk. I have a relationship with a woman; get over it. It's not an especially successful relationship by many measurements -- as I've said, it takes a ton of intimacy to shift a POV -- but we try to be honest and represent ourselves with considerable vulnerability. If anyone else spent as much time together as we have, I cannot imagine that relationship being anything but hugely profitable to both. It's enjoyable as a process no matter the therapeutic values. After about 6300 hours of shared bon mots, there's a country-unto-itself feel about us. Me likes muchalotta. We spend time together, we like it, it feels good to know that she knows that I know that she knows I know -- like that. And who isn't a vastness unexplored? There's experts still trying to figure out Hitler -- anyone is a Gordian Knot. I like the puzzle dynamics.even two pieces found to fit together is an aha moment. So, Sal, does ya know anyone well enough to know them maskless? Does ya got anyone to whom you can say, Honey, I fucked up again just exactly like the last time, and I know you're going to have to beat me up again about it, but GAWD I love to watch you swing the cudgel? Just askin'! Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Jun 7, 2009, at 9:29 AM, Duveyoung wrote: My babe and I have spent two hours per day or more in conversation for the last nine years, Is that before or after you inflate her? and I have yet to fathom her depths in most regards. I know her, but I haven't a clue. Like that. The vastness of her underpinnings is equal to what Arjuna saw when Krishna yawned for him. Yep, after 9 years that's just what a healthy relationship with an actual human looks like...Krishna yawning, whatever that means. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Whale Wars
Anyone watching the Whale Wars? My jury is having a hard time deciding if these folks are terrorists or angels doing triage. They be pirates fer shur, but maybe they's gots some fine ass halos too. Edg
[FairfieldLife] Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice?
Rick: if it is inappropriate to ask for and receive from you free professional advice, please excuse me for it. Regarding meta-tags, which I've just added to a website that I've created: is it true that the key words that one puts in as meta-tags must be identical to words that actually appear on the webpage in which the meta-tags have been placed? Someone once told me that if they aren't then search engines such as google will reject them. Is this true?
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 11:58 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer r...@... wrote: On Behalf Of authfriend Absolutely, Clinton replied. And, you know, the president, in his public actions and demeanor, and certainly in private with me and with the national security team, has demonstrated just the kind of weaknesses I was worried about. He's not well informed, and he vacillates all over the place. I think he's doing a barely mediocre job. And it's a major drag to serve with him, the former secretary of state declared. Yuk, yuk. Did you watch the interview, Judy? Obviously that is not Hillary's opinion. it's quite apparent that her private feelings and public statements are quite in sync. I think what Judy is trying to imply with her joke is that if Hillary really *did* feel that way, she would not say so in public, because that would cost her her job. So she'd lie. I understand that, and I'm saying that if you watch the interview (http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek) it's clear that Hillary wasn't coerced into becoming Secretary of State, that she enjoys the job, and that she likes, respects, and works well with Obama. She's not harboring some grudge and putting on a happy face for the press.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signs we're getting old #27
Thank you, Off Kilter, for reproducing the essense of my points, below, on this subject. You have demonstrated the soundness of my arguments. And, of course, where you and Barry were wrong. -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: snip All this info above is FROM the site you posted ! You have dug yourself into a hole, just admit you are wrong. Its obvious to anyone. Shemp, several posts back: Depending upon how much discretionary spending is for any given year, defense may represent 600% of discretionary spending. Off, several posts back: Military spending is more than half of the US budget when you take out Social Security and Medicare. Your math sucks. You are digging yourself into a deep hole here. Defense is more than 500 trillion in the chart you linked to... You are being dishonest Judy. Here below is Shemp's long arguments about the topic he and I were discussing. Your attempt to bring ALL posts back to your feud with Turq is arrogant. I think you should apologize. If you think this thread was still about Turq's mistake of terms, then read below Shemps LONG arguments in this thread over what the thread VERY QUICKLY became. You and Turq do not own FFL ya know. Shemp said: And, yes, I may agree with you vis a vis the Social Security spending inclusion. Both Social Security and Medicare are essentially insurance programs. Their contributions and benefits are taken and meted out completely differently than all other spending and taxing by the federal government and, as such, should be segregated from the budget. But defense is NOT about half of the budget even when SS and Medicare are taken out. See the following and do the math: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget%2C_2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget%2C_2008 Shemp said: Gosh, I was nervous when Bush had a deficit of $580 billion. This year Obama and his Democratic Congress have given us a $1.8 trillion deficit. Divide that amount by the 300 million people in the U.S. and you come up with a figure of $6,000 per person. And that's just ONE YEAR. Obama's planning on doing this each and every year. Perhaps not the end of the world but pretty darn close to the end of America. Shemp said: Oh, really? Here are the figures I linked to: For 2008 (and, by the way, it's worse for 2009 -- which is what we were originally talking about -- because the budget for 2009 is $3.8 trillion): Total budget: $2.9 trillion Social Security: $608 billion Medicare: $386 billion Total SS and Medicare: $994 billion $2,900 billion - 994 billion = $1,906 billion Defense spending: $481 billion Now, pray tell Off_World, how is $481 billion anywhere near half of $1.9 trillion Shemp said: Not only that but even assuming the change, Off_World is totally off on this. For example, Homeland security is the closest any of the categories he includes that come to defense. But even that's a stretch. And he includes everything but the kitchen sink. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: How Pharma and Insurance Intend to Kill the Public Option
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex no_reply@ wrote: do.rflex wrote: How Pharma and Insurance Intend to Kill the Public Option.. They still have to find a sound way to pay for expanding health care, a tough job amid staggering U.S. budget deficits... willytex is right. Look, with a $1.8 trillion deficit, Obammy has shot his wad. There really is nothing else we can spend our money on 'cause we haven't got it. The only good thing about the spending orgy that Obammy went on is that there isn't anything left for global warming. And no one's interested anyway. Pretty much everyone has concluded it's a scam. Ha! Bananas. How do you feel, John, about the $1.8 trillion deficit?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Webcam Phenomenon
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: [snip] Is that before or after you inflate her? [snip] Ha! Funny! I suppose blow-up dolls are the male equivalent to dildos?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice?
Google prides itself on having a secret formula that changes often and in a significant fashion. Search engines cannot be manipulated beyond a certain extent or they'll catch you at it. Best to have content to attract traffic to your site and hope that it resonates enough to create word of mouth, viral processes, etc. If you put eight hours a day into promoting awareness of the site, you'll get your traffic sooner or later if you got what folks want. There's just no gimmicks of worth that can make a site popular if the content isn't there. That said, for a newbie, I'll bet Rick's services can cut to the chase fast and help them out with all the broad considerations when it comes to marketing a Web site. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote: Rick: if it is inappropriate to ask for and receive from you free professional advice, please excuse me for it. Regarding meta-tags, which I've just added to a website that I've created: is it true that the key words that one puts in as meta-tags must be identical to words that actually appear on the webpage in which the meta-tags have been placed? Someone once told me that if they aren't then search engines such as google will reject them. Is this true?
RE: [FairfieldLife] Whale Wars
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Duveyoung Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 12:13 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Whale Wars Anyone watching the Whale Wars? My jury is having a hard time deciding if these folks are terrorists or angels doing triage. They be pirates fer shur, but maybe they's gots some fine ass halos too. I'm a big fan. Watched it last year too. http://animal.discovery.com/tv/whale-wars/ I think these folks are heroes. The Japanese aren't going to stop whaling unless they're forced. The killing whales for research provision should never have been included in the international anti-whaling laws, and there's no way these killers are doing any research. International law appears toothless, as no one is stopping them, so I applaud the efforts of these brave people to stop the whaling.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry, nothing here for you anymore. Be gone
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: I would like to thank Bill for encouraging me to stay. Thanks to people like him, I will. For a while, anyway. Turq, I did notice that too about Bill and did wonder where he came from. Hey Bill Hicks, you a regularly practicing meditator? Just wondering. Like, not just a someone who might have learned a meditation but quit or dropped practicing. That kind of `fallen away' status of course would be just a `non-meditator'. Are you a practicing meditator, of some kind? Just wondering. It helps a lot in figuring who to read when they post things here to FFL. Jai Guru Dev, -Doug in FF --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, It's just a ride bill.hicks.all.a.ride@ wrote: On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:40 PM, TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From my side, to be honest, I've been trying to provoke a little interest lately, in lieu of bailing from FFL altogether. . . . So, if you'd like, consider my high numbers a last gasp, an attempt to see if there is any life left in the Olde FFL, from my obviously jaded perspective. If so, I'll stick around. If not, I'll bail. Don't you realize that people have left because they have had enough of our resident Lord of the Flies? The one who lords over all, thinks pushing buttons is a noble thing instead of an ill mannered, nasty thing to do and is in violation of the guidelines and rules of FFL? Pushing buttons *IS* a noble thing, in spiritual environments filled with people who wish to identify those buttons in themselves, identify the attachments they reveal, and work on elim- inating them. In such environments, the person who can help you to pinpoint your own hot button issues (and thus your samskaras and attachments) is your friend. Interestingly, in environments filled with folks I tend to call spiritual slackers, such people are not only not considered friends, they are considered enemies. The reason is that the spiritual slackers are NOT working on trying to eliminate their attachments and their sam- skaras and their hot button issues. They *cling* to their hot button, as if they believed that the buttons -- and the overreactions they indulge in when they are pushed -- are them. One might suggest, Bill, that your post -- coming as it does from someone I don't think I have ever interacted with at all -- is an example of the latter. Try reading the guidelines and rules. Its as though they were written just for you. Why Rick hasn't thrown you out in light of his guidelines and rules is beyond me and I'm sure many other FFL people. Thankfully for you Rick is the owner/moderator in name only. The fact that Rick has not thrown me out the way you'd like him to might have something to do with him having been thrown out of the domes himself in Fairfield. It might have some- thing to do with the credo he posted for this online cyberestablishment on its home page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ Bill, spend a little time reading that credo. Then ask yourself whether a forum that was *founded* to provide a rare place where people who have been involved with the TM movement can talk about that movement *without* fear of retalia- tion from the TM movement is likely to throw someone off that forum for being merely an asshole and pushing a few spiritual slackers' hot buttons *as* they talk about it. I mean, Rick didn't throw off one guy even after he mounted a cyberattack on FFL by posting porn to it and then writing to the Yahoo admin- istrators complaining about the porn *he* had posted, in an attempt to get the forum taken down. I *understand* that you are happier with the TMO approach to things you don't like -- BAN THEM. Like the TMO, you'd like to declare the things or the people you don't like anathema, declare them heretics or off the program, and send them away. Cool, I guess, if that's what floats your boat. I don't think you're going to have much luck convincing Rick to ride in it, though. People would stop lurking and become contributors to FFL if you left. But they will lurk until assured they won't be playing into your game of superiority and bullying, trying to compensate for the obvious, that you have no other place to go. Many go away for a few months, come back to check if you're still here then go away again, hoping to wait you out. Bill, as I say I don't think I've ever interacted with you before. Other than a couple of posts of yours recently, I don't think I've ever even *seen* you post here. The only post of yours that the broken Yahoo search engine can find is from February: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/208504 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/208504 In it -- interestingly -- you do nothing but repost a news
RE: [FairfieldLife] Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice?
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of shempmcgurk Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 12:15 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice? Rick: if it is inappropriate to ask for and receive from you free professional advice, please excuse me for it. Regarding meta-tags, which I've just added to a website that I've created: is it true that the key words that one puts in as meta-tags must be identical to words that actually appear on the webpage in which the meta-tags have been placed? Someone once told me that if they aren't then search engines such as Google will reject them. The keywords meta tag itself is worthless, but the title and description tags are important. Your home page title tag should include your 2-3 most important KW phrases or variations of one phrase, usually first, with your company name last. Your description tag should be more readable - an enticement to click on your link rather than some other in the search engine results.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: Google prides itself on having a secret formula that changes often and in a significant fashion. Search engines cannot be manipulated beyond a certain extent or they'll catch you at it. Best to have content to attract traffic to your site and hope that it resonates enough to create word of mouth, viral processes, etc. If you put eight hours a day into promoting awareness of the site, you'll get your traffic sooner or later if you got what folks want. There's just no gimmicks of worth that can make a site popular if the content isn't there. That said, for a newbie, I'll bet Rick's services can cut to the chase fast and help them out with all the broad considerations when it comes to marketing a Web site. Edg Heck, at this point I just want people to locate my site by putting the name of my site into the search engine...and even that's not happening yet! Perhaps it's because I just created the site and not enough time has elapsed, I don't know... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Rick: if it is inappropriate to ask for and receive from you free professional advice, please excuse me for it. Regarding meta-tags, which I've just added to a website that I've created: is it true that the key words that one puts in as meta-tags must be identical to words that actually appear on the webpage in which the meta-tags have been placed? Someone once told me that if they aren't then search engines such as google will reject them. Is this true?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: [I wrote:] If I may comment: Are you really suggesting that if Hillary, Obama's secretary of state, thought Obama was a stuffed suit and hated working with him, that she'd be announcing it on a nationally televised TV show on Sunday morning only a few months into his term? I don't think she would have taken the job in the first place if she thought that. Unless she didn't realize it until after she'd been in the job for a bit. I don't think she loathes him, but then I think he's doing a pretty good job with foreign affairs. My point is that you can't draw conclusions about what someone thinks of their boss by what they say in a nationally televised interview; it's extremely unlikely it'll be anything but very positive (unless they're about to quit).
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice?
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Duveyoung Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 12:22 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice? Google prides itself on having a secret formula that changes often and in a significant fashion. True, but certain things have always been important and approved by Google, such as unique, useful content (as you said) and legitimate page optimization. Here's Google's advice on the matter: http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=enanswer=35291
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Webcam Phenomenon
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: I have a relationship with a woman; get over it. It's not an especially successful relationship by many measurements -- as I've said, it takes a ton of intimacy to shift a POV -- but we try to be honest and represent ourselves with considerable vulnerability. When Edg describes his Relationship (always with a capital 'R' implied), I often get the feeling that it's a lot like the one in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnYAKAQd9Zg :-)
[FairfieldLife] Rick on climatology (was How Pharma and Insurance Intend to Kill the Public...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: [responding to Shemp] Pretty much everyone in your strange little world. In the real world, all legitimate climatologists agree that it's a real and serious threat. I bet that word legitimate is gonna be taking a lot of weight if we we push this claim. Or is it circular? i.e. Legitimate *means* those who have the correct view? In my mind's eye Rick I imagine you at a little wine cheese party for exalted company. Here you would have the opportunity to repeat your view about the legitimacy of some individuals who do not share your certainty about climate change. First Rick, meet professor Richard Lindzen, a Harvard trained atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. How do you do. Oh and here we have Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) and its Director since its establishment in 1998 until January 2007. Previously he was director of the Geophysical Institute since 1986. Pleased to meet you. Now over here Rick! Here's Dr Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. He is principally known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award. (A real heavyweight climatolgist Rick, but DON'T MENTION INTELLIGENT DESIGN!). How do you do. And also with us this evening we have Dr John Christy. He is a distinguished professor of atmospheric science, and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He was appointed Alabama's state climatologist in 2000. For his development of a global temperature data set from satellites he was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and the American Meteorological Society's Special Award. In 2002, Christy was elected Fellow of the American Meteorological Society. Pleased to meet you. I'd love to be a fly on the wall! You wouldn't be shy would you Rick?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: [I wrote:] He's not well informed, and he vacillates all over the place. I think he's doing a barely mediocre job. And it's a major drag to serve with him, the former secretary of state declared. Yuk, yuk. Did you watch the interview, Judy? Obviously that is not Hillary's opinion. it's quite apparent that her private feelings and public statements are quite in sync. No, I didn't watch it, and I might well have had the same impression you did if I had. BUT I don't place absolute reliance on my impressions of professional politicians, especially in this kind of situation, where they don't have much choice about what kind of impression to give. Again, my point is that we couldn't expect her to be anything but very positive and to do her best to convey that those were her private feelings, even if she hated his guts (which I don't think she does; I'm just saying). It's the same with the folks here who regularly post Obama's high approval numbers in response to criticism as if they were somehow *proof* that the criticism was uncalled for. There's a strong element of kabuki in politics, and you have to allow for it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote: snip Heck, at this point I just want people to locate my site by putting the name of my site into the search engine... and even that's not happening yet! Where did they get the name of your site from? How do they know what it is?
[FairfieldLife] Health Industry Obscene Bribes and Lobbying $ to Block Single-Payer
Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy. Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans' health dollars. Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do. http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php THIS is what's shameful: ~ Democrats teaming up with Republicans to kill health care reform at the behest of Big Insurance and the whole Medical-Industrial Complex ~ Above and beyond the $3,405,669,482 the Medical-Industrial Complex has spent on lobbying in the last decade (second only to the banksters' $3,560,808,113 lobbying efforts in the same time period), the Medical-Industrial Complex has donated $833,259,267 directly to members of Congress. Not counting the huge amounts of money given to presidential candidates like Obama, McCain and Kerry, the biggest donations have gone to the 3 worst industry shills who have been well-paid to make sure there will never be effective, robust health care reform: Arlen Specter (R-D- PA- $4,026,933) Max Baucus (DLC- MT- $2,833,731) Mitch McConnell (R-KY- $2,758,468) And when you just go right to Big Insurance, the non-presidential candidates who got the biggest legalized bribes were the 7 senators who have been tasked with the job of killing single-payer: Ben Nelson (DLC-NE- $1,196,799) Max Baucus (DLC- MT- $1,184,113) Joe Lieberman (DLC- CT- $1,036,302) Arlen Specter (R-D- PA- $1,035,530) Chuck Schumer (D-NY- $981,400) Mitch McConnell (R-KY- $929,207) Chuck Grassley (R-IA- $884,724) ~Full article: http://snipurl.com/jmyo9
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Webcam Phenomenon
That is exactly the relationship I have with my lady. Yup. Very funny bit that. Having bowed to the metaphor, let me say that you're fucking right that I imply a capital R on my Relationship. I earned several PhD's worth of expertise about her and she about me, and a capital R is the least I can imply when I write about it. I feel sorry for anyone who hasn't tried to connect with at least one other person on the planet in this way. I know of nothing else that can yield so much pleasure, meaning, and evolution of spirit and psychology. And, defensively speaking, what man hasn't been a dinosaur in his gal's eyes? Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: I have a relationship with a woman; get over it. It's not an especially successful relationship by many measurements -- as I've said, it takes a ton of intimacy to shift a POV -- but we try to be honest and represent ourselves with considerable vulnerability. When Edg describes his Relationship (always with a capital 'R' implied), I often get the feeling that it's a lot like the one in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnYAKAQd9Zg :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote: Heck, at this point I just want people to locate my site by putting the name of my site into the search engine...and even that's not happening yet! Perhaps it's because I just created the site and not enough time has elapsed, I don't know... If it's a new site, then it is thought that Google runs a sort of sandbox policy (though only Google really know and they ain't telling). This means that it can take 6 to 9 months to get a half decent ranking. One thing to be very aware of: The technology you have used to build your site can harm you by preventing Google from indexing your site properly. For example if your site uses HTML frames, flash, or content generated 'on the fly'. Could you post your URL?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Webcam Phenomenon
On Jun 7, 2009, at 12:30 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: I have a relationship with a woman; get over it. It's not an especially successful relationship by many measurements -- as I've said, it takes a ton of intimacy to shift a POV -- but we try to be honest and represent ourselves with considerable vulnerability. When Edg describes his Relationship (always with a capital 'R' implied), I often get the feeling that it's a lot like the one in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnYAKAQd9Zg LOL...shame on you, Turq! :) Are you trying to imply that Edg's woman is...gasp...fantasy?? Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: Google prides itself on having a secret formula that changes often and in a significant fashion. Search engines cannot be manipulated beyond a certain extent or they'll catch you at it. Best to have content to attract traffic to your site and hope that it resonates enough to create word of mouth, viral processes, etc. If you put eight hours a day into promoting awareness of the site, you'll get your traffic sooner or later if you got what folks want. There's just no gimmicks of worth that can make a site popular if the content isn't there. That said, for a newbie, I'll bet Rick's services can cut to the chase fast and help them out with all the broad considerations when it comes to marketing a Web site. Edg Heck, at this point I just want people to locate my site by putting the name of my site into the search engine...and even that's not happening yet! Perhaps it's because I just created the site and not enough time has elapsed, I don't know... In that case, did you put the name of your site as the first meta-tag? Also, the most important search terms should also be the first text content on the site. For example, a site called Shemp should have that in the title, meta-tags, but should also be some of the first words in the body of the homepage. Eg. Instead of having this as your first words, At our company, we strive for excellence and customer service, put Shemp - At our company, we strive for excellence and customer service Repeat the most important search terms several times in the body of the pages, even if you have to contrive it a little. OffWorld --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Rick: if it is inappropriate to ask for and receive from you free professional advice, please excuse me for it. Regarding meta-tags, which I've just added to a website that I've created: is it true that the key words that one puts in as meta-tags must be identical to words that actually appear on the webpage in which the meta-tags have been placed? Someone once told me that if they aren't then search engines such as google will reject them. Is this true?
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Carradine's Jyotish Chart
It all depends what the birth sign is and what house the planets are located. Even Jupiter can bring bad results such as obesity and grand financial schemes. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool ffl...@... wrote: Saturn and Rahu are malefic planets and are located in the 8th house of secret affairs and death. Aren't all the planets malefic, except for Jupiter, which can be either? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: To All: Thanks Vaj for the information. Using the birth time provided, Mr. Carradine was born under the sign of Aquarius or Kumbha, and the Moon was in the nakshatra of Chitra. At this birth sign, we can see the reason why he had trouble maintaining his marriage. Mars is in the 8th house which causes an affliction termed as kujadosha. This affliction causes conflicts in marriage and divorces. The same Mars is considered as an apsara karaka signifying that he has penchant for beautiful women, resulting in secret affairs and dalliances. The nature of his death is not readily apparent from the rashi chart. However, the circumstances of his death are shown more clearly from the navamsha chart. From that chart, Saturn and Rahu are in conjunction in the 8th house from the Moon. Saturn and Rahu are malefic planets and are located in the 8th house of secret affairs and death. Saturn is further debilitated showing that his body has already weakened due to his age. This planet is the karaka (significator) for air or lack of it. When mixed with the influence of Rahu, the results are lethal. Rahu is represented in Hindu myth as a bodyless demon who pretended to be a demigod. In the navamsha chart, Rahu is the lord of the 11th house of desire which is enducing Saturn to indulge in strange sexual gratifications. With the influence of Rahu's sexual preferences, he indulged in getting autoerotic pleasures through asphyxiation. JR --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: I already posted it in the files section, but I accidentally used the Yukteshwar ayanamsha. That's the birth data built into Goravani for Grasshopper. On Jun 6, 2009, at 12:47 PM, Bhairitu wrote: Did you look here? http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Main_Page
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice?
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of shempmcgurk Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 12:27 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: Google prides itself on having a secret formula that changes often and in a significant fashion. Search engines cannot be manipulated beyond a certain extent or they'll catch you at it. Best to have content to attract traffic to your site and hope that it resonates enough to create word of mouth, viral processes, etc. If you put eight hours a day into promoting awareness of the site, you'll get your traffic sooner or later if you got what folks want. There's just no gimmicks of worth that can make a site popular if the content isn't there. That said, for a newbie, I'll bet Rick's services can cut to the chase fast and help them out with all the broad considerations when it comes to marketing a Web site. Edg Heck, at this point I just want people to locate my site by putting the name of my site into the search engine...and even that's not happening yet! Perhaps it's because I just created the site and not enough time has elapsed, I don't know... What is your site?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Upgrade your FFL Meditator Status
Should like to update your status here? Om, just as you could come back to regular meditation practice, you could also update your FFL to `yes'= Meditator posting status. Posters: 99 You Don't meditate? Not close. Sorry. Don't meditate is non-meditation. Which of course would be 'no'=non-meditator in status as a writer here at FFL. `Yes' = meditators Fairfield Life Post Counter, Meditator Status: 50 authfriend jstein@ `Yes' 50 TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com `Yes' 45 Vaj vajradhatu@ `Yes' 44 nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 32 grate.swan no_re...@yahoogroups.com `Yes' 31 Bhairitu noozguru@ 29 sparaig LEnglish5@ 27 ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com 27 Richard J. Williams willytex@ `yes' 24 Robert babajii...@... 22 off_world_beings no_re...@yahoogroups.com `Yes' 22 dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony2k5@ 21 enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@yahoogroups.com `Yes' 20 Rick Archer rick@ `Yes' 20 Duveyoung no_re...@yahoogroups.com 18 do.rflex do.rflex@ 17 bob_brigante no_re...@yahoogroups.com 16 Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ `Yes' 15 BillyG. wgm4u@ 13 Richard M compost1uk@ `Yes' 12 shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ 'Yes' 10 satvadude108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com `Yes' 10 raunchydog raunchydog@ 10 lurkernomore20002000 steve.sundur@ 9 cardemaister no_re...@yahoogroups.com 8 WLeed3@ 8 Nelson nelsonriddle2001@ 7 geezerfreak geezerfreak@ 3 drpetersutphen drpetersutphen@ 3 William108 william108wm@ 3 Dick Richardson somerset_2@ `Yes' 3 Dick Mays dickmays@ 3 Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ 2 sgrayatlarge no_re...@yahoogroups.com 2 scienceofabundance no_re...@yahoogroups.com 2 beno beno mynameisbeno@ 2 Tom azgrey@ 2 Marek Reavis reavismarek@ 2 Hugo richardhughes103@ 1 uns_tressor uns_tressor@ 1 tkrystofiak krysto@ 1 pranamoocher bhrma@ 1 nelson lafrancis nelsonriddle2001@ 1 metoostill metoostill@ 1 Peter drpetersutphen@ 1 Paul Mason premanandpaul@ 1 Patrick Gillam jpgillam@ 1 Mike Doughney mike@ 1 Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ 1 Joe Smith msilver1951@ 1 Barbara Thomas barbara_thomas73@ 1 min.pige min.pige@ 1 wayback71 waybac...@... 1 jyouells2000 john_youe...@... 1 shukra69 shukra69@ 1 sanosh2002 sanosh2002@ 1 Zoran Krneta krneta.zoran@ 1 John jr_esq@ `Yes' 1 enpai en...@... 2 Jason jedi_sp...@... 2 tomwalsh23 tomwals...@... 2 It's just a ride bill.hicks.all.a.r...@... 3 kaladevi93 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 2 Stu buttspli...@... 6 Ben brbenjaminass...@... 1 kuldip jhala kulls2...@... 1 ve...@... 1 ultrarishi no_re...@yahoogroups.com 1 sanosh2002 sanosh2...@... 1 horashastra ve...@... 1 feste37 fest...@... 1 emptybill emptyb...@... 1 wle...@... yes' 1 Dick Mays dickm...@... 1 Devanath Saraswati devna...@... 1 uns_tressor uns_tres...@... 1 jimjim5886 jimjim5...@... 1 Darrylle darryst...@... 1 Thomas Walsh tomwals...@... 1 ffl...@... `yes' 1 bhawani_shank2000 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 1 jim_falkenstern jimfalkenst...@... `yes'=meditator 1 at_man_and_brahman at_man_and_brah...@... 1 curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... 4 It's just a ride bill.hicks.all.a.r...@... 4 I am the eternal l.shad...@... 1 gullible fool ffl...@... 1 vedamer...@... 3 metoostill metoost...@... 1 alex52556 alex.at.52...@... 1 Randy Meltzer rm...@... 1 claudiouk claudi...@... Posters: 99 Move over to `yes'=meditator Anybody writing here would like their non-meditation status reviewed or upgraded for the FFL posting list? Don't meditate? Not close. Sorry. FFL Meditators Are these writers, all meditators? Of some kind? Like, current practicing meditators? Yes, some of these folks evidently are, in FFL public admissions of recent times. Any others than these? `Yes' = meditators Fairfield Life Post Counter, Meditator Status:
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: snip Heck, at this point I just want people to locate my site by putting the name of my site into the search engine... and even that's not happening yet! Where did they get the name of your site from? How do they know what it is? I should have made that clearer...I was referring to when I tried googling it myself.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Heck, at this point I just want people to locate my site by putting the name of my site into the search engine...and even that's not happening yet! Perhaps it's because I just created the site and not enough time has elapsed, I don't know... If it's a new site, then it is thought that Google runs a sort of sandbox policy (though only Google really know and they ain't telling). This means that it can take 6 to 9 months to get a half decent ranking. One thing to be very aware of: The technology you have used to build your site can harm you by preventing Google from indexing your site properly. For example if your site uses HTML frames, flash, or content generated 'on the fly'. Could you post your URL? No, because I still want to remain anonymous here on FFL.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Special full Moon Messages from the Pleiadians (Jupiter, Neptune, Chiron)
Rick Archer wrote: From: ls...@aol.com [mailto:ls...@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 10:35 PM To: ls...@aol.com Subject: Special full Moon Messages from the Pleiadian's (Jupiter, Neptune, Chiron) Dear clients and spiritual family of Astrological Varieties, It is a pleasure to bring to you full Moon messages from the Pleiadian’s on this full Moon in Sagittarius night. This is a taste of what will be the format in my new e-book “Full Moon Messages from the Pleiadian’s” coming out on September 12, 2009. snip Full moons (and new moons often mean earthquakes. Even before the moon was full which occurring exactly right now (real low tides), yesterday afternoon at around 3:30 we had a 3.2. Felt like a sonic boom. Next month will be eclipseville.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Barry, nothing here for you anymore. Be gone
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 12:26 PM, dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony...@yahoo.comwrote: Just wondering. It helps a lot in figuring who to read when they post things here to FFL. Jai Guru Dev, -Doug in FF Doug, calling self appointed FFL's Lord of the Flies Barry and He Who Only Knows What He's Read About in Books Vaj meditators invalidates this whole dark endeavor of yours. I know you well enough to have given up trying to make sense out of a lot of things you do and say. I just figure well, that's the way you are. I do agree with others that this survey is creepy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: Good interview. Here's a quote they replayed from her concession speech: Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been. No hint in the interview of Hillary having sour grapes. No indication that he regards Obama as a stuffed suit. She clearly gave the impression that she is very impressed with Obama and enjoys working with him. Could it possibly be, Raunchy, that her perspective is a little bit better informed than yours? My opinion that Obama is an emptysuit has nothing to do with Hillary's private or public opinion of him. Does anyone know what anyone REALLY thinks? What Hillary thinks of Obama`s polices at any point in time depends on the issues at hand. What does it matter anyway? Whether Hillary agrees or disagrees with Obama, she clearly understands her role as SOS and the importance of supporting his policies in the interest of national security. Hillary takes her job seriously and has a strong sense of patriotic duty that impels her to her best for Obama and for our country. Once again, Rick, I don't care that Hillary lost. I care how she lost. The DNC and Obama's complicity in allowing blatant sexism to run wild in the primary will always be a sore spot for me whether it is for Hillary or not. For the Record by Melissa McEwan | Tuesday, June 03, 2008 I'm not sad because Obama's the nominee. I'm sad because there are women at this blog, in my personal life, across this nation, andif my inbox is any indicationacross the globe, women of all races and sexualities and socio-economic classes, many of whom weren't even Hillary Clinton supporters, many of whom voted for Obama in the primary, who have watched with horror the seething hatred directed at Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman. (I'm not talking about legitimate criticisms of her campaign, which I have made myself. I'm not saying any criticism of Clinton is de facto sexist; it isn't. I'm talking specifically and only about misogynist attacks, which are always unjustified and smear not just the woman at whom they are directed, but all women.) And these women have witnessed this despicable but spectacular marriage of aggressive misogyny and their long-presumed allies' casual indifference to it, and wondered what fucking planet they were on that dehumanizing eliminationist rhetoric, to which lefty bloggers used to object once upon a time, was now considered a legitimate campaign strategy, as long as it was aimed at a candidate those lefty bloggers didn't like. And these women felt, quite rightly, like feminist principles were being thrown to the wolves in a fit of political expedience. And these women felt personally abandoned. By people they had considered allies. And while they struggled to understand just what was happening, while they were losing their way along well-traveled paths that no longer felt familiar or welcoming, they were admonished like children to stop taking things personally. They were sneered at for playing identity politics. They were demeaned as ridiculous, overwrought, hysterics. They were called bitches and cunts. They were bullied off blogs they'd called home for years. (But don't take that personally.) And now, at long last, even now, when Clinton cannot win, she is being pushed out, carelessly, rudely, with little regard for the implicit message in hustling a historic candidate off the stage and demanding her graciousness in defeat, despite offering her no graciousness in victory. Right to the end, there is a lack of respect that hurts to watch. And I'm sad because I know there are women who are hurting. Not because their candidate lost. Clinton may not have even been their candidate. They're hurting because misogyny hurts all women, and because they have fewer allies than they once thought. And unlike the people (including many of these women) who are feeling the same way with regard to racism in this campaign, who are licking wounds of racist attacks even as preparations begin for the breathtakingly awesome celebration of the first ever presumptive nominee of color, ZOMG, these women do not have an equivalent wonder to celebrate. They don't have a despite it all. They don't have a step forward to point to, to say the pain was worth it. They just have the pain. And I'm sad because I see so little evidence of people who are willing to understand that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: On Behalf Of authfriend Absolutely, Clinton replied. And, you know, the president, in his public actions and demeanor, and certainly in private with me and with the national security team, has demonstrated just the kind of weaknesses I was worried about. He's not well informed, and he vacillates all over the place. I think he's doing a barely mediocre job. And it's a major drag to serve with him, the former secretary of state declared. Yuk, yuk. Did you watch the interview, Judy? Obviously that is not Hillary's opinion. it's quite apparent that her private feelings and public statements are quite in sync. I think what Judy is trying to imply with her joke is that if Hillary really *did* feel that way, she would not say so in public, because that would cost her her job. So she'd lie. And that's the kind of honest politician Judy admires. :-) Honest politician? would that be a contradiction in terms?
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice?
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of shempmcgurk Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 1:44 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Richard M compost...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Heck, at this point I just want people to locate my site by putting the name of my site into the search engine...and even that's not happening yet! Perhaps it's because I just created the site and not enough time has elapsed, I don't know... If it's a new site, then it is thought that Google runs a sort of sandbox policy (though only Google really know and they ain't telling). This means that it can take 6 to 9 months to get a half decent ranking. One thing to be very aware of: The technology you have used to build your site can harm you by preventing Google from indexing your site properly. For example if your site uses HTML frames, flash, or content generated 'on the fly'. Could you post your URL? No, because I still want to remain anonymous here on FFL. I know the identities of many anonymous people here and am good at keeping them secret. So if you want some recommendations, email me privately. Otherwise, search for your domain name in Google. If nothing comes up, you're not even indexed, which means no one links to your site.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Nelson nelsonriddle2...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: On Behalf Of authfriend Absolutely, Clinton replied. And, you know, the president, in his public actions and demeanor, and certainly in private with me and with the national security team, has demonstrated just the kind of weaknesses I was worried about. He's not well informed, and he vacillates all over the place. I think he's doing a barely mediocre job. And it's a major drag to serve with him, the former secretary of state declared. Yuk, yuk. Did you watch the interview, Judy? Obviously that is not Hillary's opinion. it's quite apparent that her private feelings and public statements are quite in sync. I think what Judy is trying to imply with her joke is that if Hillary really *did* feel that way, she would not say so in public, because that would cost her her job. So she'd lie. Barry apparently thinks Rick is very, very stupid. And that's the kind of honest politician Judy admires. :-) Honest politician? would that be a contradiction in terms? In that situation, honest employee would be a contradiction in terms. Nobody who wants to keep their job is going to bash their boss on national television.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: Finally, Secretary Clinton will be interviewed on a Sunday TV show. This Sunday, June 7, she'll appear on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. It'll be her first Sunday show interview as secretary of state and her first Sunday show since she ended her presidential campaign almost exactly a year ago. http://hillary.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/05/secretary_clinton_on_sunday_tv_finally Hillary being interview by Steph and fetch it... Is like Cheney being interview by Shawn Hannity... No real hard questions, there... R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
(snip) And these women have witnessed this despicable but spectacular marriage of aggressive misogyny ... (snip) Yes, but she agreed to stay in the marriage with Bill. R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
(snip) My opinion that Obama is an emptysuit ... (snip) WoW! How misinformed can one Be? I am wondering... This 'Empty Suit'...raised more grass roots support, than any other candidate in history... This President we have is respected around the world, and is inspiring to every race, to every child, and all free men and woman throughout the world... You are nuts, plain and simple. R.G.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of raunchydog Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 2:16 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer r...@... wrote: Good interview. Here's a quote they replayed from her concession speech: Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been. No hint in the interview of Hillary having sour grapes. No indication that he regards Obama as a stuffed suit. She clearly gave the impression that she is very impressed with Obama and enjoys working with him. Could it possibly be, Raunchy, that her perspective is a little bit better informed than yours? My opinion that Obama is an emptysuit has nothing to do with Hillary's private or public opinion of him. Does anyone know what anyone REALLY thinks? What Hillary thinks of Obama`s polices at any point in time depends on the issues at hand. What does it matter anyway? Whether Hillary agrees or disagrees with Obama, she clearly understands her role as SOS and the importance of supporting his policies in the interest of national security. Hillary takes her job seriously and has a strong sense of patriotic duty that impels her to her best for Obama and for our country. Once again, Rick, I don't care that Hillary lost. I care how she lost. The DNC and Obama's complicity in allowing blatant sexism to run wild in the primary will always be a sore spot for me whether it is for Hillary or not. OK, that's pretty clear, and the points in the article below are well put, and you've posted examples of indisputable sexism against Hillary but please remind me, how did Obama complicitly allow sexism against Hillary? Should he have regularly chastised the bloggers during the campaign? I received a lot of racist stuff during the campaign and still do. Doctored photos of the White House lawn turned into a watermelon patch, and stuff like that. Why is Hillary complicitly allowing people to distribute these things? Why did Bill belittle Obama's win in North (South?) Carolina by comparing it with Jesse Jackson's? I'm not as politically insightful or articulate as you, so it puzzles me how you can perceive Obama as an empty suit when just about everyone else except right-wingers is rather impressed with how well he's handling the huge pile on his plate. That's why I suspect that emotions skew your perception. For the Record by Melissa McEwan | Tuesday, June 03, 2008 I'm not sad because Obama's the nominee. I'm sad because there are women at this blog, in my personal life, across this nation, and-if my inbox is any indication-across the globe, women of all races and sexualities and socio-economic classes, many of whom weren't even Hillary Clinton supporters, many of whom voted for Obama in the primary, who have watched with horror the seething hatred directed at Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman. (I'm not talking about legitimate criticisms of her campaign, which I have made myself. I'm not saying any criticism of Clinton is de facto sexist; it isn't. I'm talking specifically and only about misogynist attacks, which are always unjustified and smear not just the woman at whom they are directed, but all women.) And these women have witnessed this despicable but spectacular marriage of aggressive misogyny and their long-presumed allies' casual indifference to it, and wondered what fucking planet they were on that dehumanizing eliminationist rhetoric, to which lefty bloggers used to object once upon a time, was now considered a legitimate campaign strategy, as long as it was aimed at a candidate those lefty bloggers didn't like. And these women felt, quite rightly, like feminist principles were being thrown to the wolves in a fit of political expedience. And these women felt personally abandoned. By people they had considered allies. And while they struggled to understand just what was happening, while they were losing their way along well-traveled paths that no longer felt familiar or welcoming, they were admonished like children to stop taking things personally. They were sneered at for playing identity politics. They were demeaned as ridiculous, overwrought, hysterics. They were called bitches and cunts. They were bullied off blogs they'd called home for years. (But don't take that personally.) And now, at long last, even now, when Clinton cannot win, she is being pushed out, carelessly, rudely, with little regard for the implicit message in hustling a historic candidate off the stage and demanding her graciousness in defeat, despite offering her no graciousness in victory. Right to the end, there is a lack of respect that hurts to watch. And I'm sad because I know there are women who are hurting. Not because their candidate lost. Clinton may not have even been their candidate. They're
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 3:50 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: Finally, Secretary Clinton will be interviewed on a Sunday TV show. This Sunday, June 7, she'll appear on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. It'll be her first Sunday show interview as secretary of state and her first Sunday show since she ended her presidential campaign almost exactly a year ago. http://hillary.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/05/secretary_clinton_on_sunda y_tv_finally Hillary being interview by Steph and fetch it... Is like Cheney being interview by Shawn Hannity... No real hard questions, there... It wasn't meant to be a hardball interview. She did most of the talking. Anyone know why this was her first Sunday morning interview since the campaign?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Webcam Phenomenon
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: [snip] Is that before or after you inflate her? [snip] Ha! Funny! I suppose blow-up dolls are the male equivalent to dildos? Fleshlight (K-18, ROT-13): uggc://syrfuyvtugsnaf.pbz/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special full Moon Messages from the Pleiadians (Jupiter, Neptune, Chiron)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: Rick Archer wrote: From: ls...@... [mailto:ls...@...] Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 10:35 PM To: ls...@... Subject: Special full Moon Messages from the Pleiadian's (Jupiter, Neptune, Chiron) Dear clients and spiritual family of Astrological Varieties, It is a pleasure to bring to you full Moon messages from the Pleiadianâs on this full Moon in Sagittarius night. This is a taste of what will be the format in my new e-book âFull Moon Messages from the Pleiadianâsâ coming out on September 12, 2009. snip Full moons (and new moons often mean earthquakes. Even before the moon was full which occurring exactly right now (real low tides), yesterday afternoon at around 3:30 we had a 3.2. Felt like a sonic boom. Next month will be eclipseville. Eclipsing I assume would only intensify the gravitational pull, more so, than just new and full... R.G.
