[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
I've known Barry for over 30 years, too. We were on a course together for 6 months in St. Moritz in '77. The only problem is, I can't remember which of the 150-odd course participants he is. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" > > wrote: > > > > > Turq, you know the irony about this entire conversation? > > > If you recall, it all started because one of the brightest > > > new lights in this group "ruthsimplicity" left and made no > > > bones about the fact that she left because she had better > > > things to do than waste another moment of her energy on > > > one Judith Stein. > > > > Was someone forcing her to waste her energy on me? > > > > Actually, that isn't "how it all started." How it > > all started was Barry's goodbye post to Ruth, > > which was filled with outrageous and deliberate > > misstatements of fact concerning moi, including > > that I always try to drive strong women off > > whatever forum I'm on. > > > > Trouble is, as I've pointed out, Ruth and I had a > > very cordial relationship, characterized by mutual > > admiration and respect, until she had a meltdown > > over the abduction-experience issue. > > > > > > > But look where we are now.you-know-who has steered this > > > whole issue from the loss (100% due to old horse laugh herself) > > > of someone whose writing REALLY uplifted the entire group down > > > to a silly conversation about your role in making some semi- > > > colorless sap leave. > > > > More cognitive dissonance. Looks like Barry's malady > > is infecting his supporters as well. > > > > What focused the conversation on Michael leaving > > (actually one of the most colorful posters ever to > > this group) was Barry's accusation that I was lying > > about why he had left. > > > > The humiliation of having Michael confirm what I > > said has just about driven Barry around the bend. If > > you consider yourself a friend of his, you ought to > > be helping him deal with it by gently drawing him > > closer to reality and reassuring him that he'll > > survive. You aren't doing him any favors by > > validating his fantasies. He's in enough trouble > > already. > > You know Judy, I've known Barry for nearly 30 years. It's more than 30 years actually > (damn how time flies!). > You are engaging in utter fantasy about him. Barry has an extremely keen sense of humor. > He's one of the few people I've known who can truly get as much pleasure laughing at > himself as someone else. > > If you think for one second that Barry is "humilated" by what Michael said you haven't > learned a thing about him in all of these years of endless sparring. > > Tweaking you is sport to him. He amuses himself doing it. Barry (like me) likes to laugh > and does not like to be bored. > > What makes many of your posts so damn boring and redundant is that you take yourself > SO seriously. This particular episode started because a sharp intellect (Ruth) realized that > debating with you is a dead end. A humorless dead end at that. She decided to leave FFL > since you would respond even when she wasn't addressing you. She has better things to > do than going around in cirlcles with your own special brand of madness. > > It isn't Barry needin help m'dear. It's you. I could care less whether you get it or not. > > In the meantime I'll enjoy (when I have time to check in) Barry's prodding and poking of > you. You take his bait every time. After all these years you still go for it. > > It's a twisted little play that I hope never stops. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: US Out of Iraq ASAP, per Maliki
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > To All: > > > > > > Is the Iraqi prime minister trying to influence the > > > American election with his statement that the US troops > > > should get out of his country as soon as possible? > > > > Could it be that he agrees with Obama and made his statement > > in order to get someone elected whom he agrees with? > > A lot of it has to do with the fact that most Iraqis > want us out as soon as possible, and Maliki wants to > keep his job. Very true. Let's hope that Maliki's statement rings true and not just bravado. > > > What everyone is missing is that the Iraqi government is > > officially NOT a US protectorate any more. By law and > > agreement and public statement by BUsh, we MUST leave when > > they tell us to. > > > Either that or stage a coup against the current iraqi Regime. > > Yet another reason why Maliki needs to have the > country behind him. He appears to be doing a good job since he's able to get the Sunni political bloc to work with the Shiite majority in the Iraqi government.
[FairfieldLife] Re: US Out of Iraq ASAP, per Maliki
It's actually refreshing that Maliki made this statement. He is saying that the Iraqis are strong enough to take care of their own country, despite the apparent daily violence by insurgents. Nonetheless, that's what most Americans want to hear. So, McCain's plan for Iraq may be undermined. Also, Maliki is saying that the US troop presence in Iraq is wearing thin on the the Iraqi people. So, Obama's timetable for withdrawal of US troops would suit both the Iraqis and the Americans. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > To All: > > > > Is the Iraqi prime minister trying to influence the American election > > with his statement that the US troops should get out of his country > > as soon as possible? > > > > Could it be that he agrees with Obama and made his statement in > order to get someone elected whom he agrees with? > > Well, duh. > > > What everyone is missing is that the Iraqi government is officially NOT > a US protectorate any more. By law and agreement and public statement > by BUsh, we MUST leave when they tell us to. > > > And... National sovereignty trumps "safety of troops" or any other concern. > > Even if it would cause thousands of extra US tropp's lives to leave on Jan 1, > legally the Iraqis could compel us to leave and the only recourse we would > have would be to exercise "due diligence" while doing so > > Either that or stage a coup against the current iraqi Regime. > > > Lawson >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > The humiliation of having Michael confirm what I > > said has just about driven Barry around the bend. If > > you consider yourself a friend of his, you ought to > > be helping him deal with it by gently drawing him > > closer to reality and reassuring him that he'll > > survive. You aren't doing him any favors by > > validating his fantasies. He's in enough trouble > > already. > > You know Judy, I've known Barry for nearly 30 years. It's more > than 30 years actually (damn how time flies!). You are engaging > in utter fantasy about him. Barry has an extremely keen sense of > humor. He's one of the few people I've known who can truly get > as much pleasure laughing at himself as someone else. Look, I know you have to defend him because he's your friend, but I've known him for almost 14 years now-- not as long as you have, and only via this medium-- but long enough to have a pretty clear idea of who he is. I have never *once* seen him laugh at himself. Maybe he does it in "real life" with people he's close to and not threatened by, but he has a need to present himself quite differently in this venue. And enough others over the years have validated my take on him, both in public and in private, for me to know I'm not indulging in some purely personal fantasy about him. He's one of the most mean-spirited, hypocritical, dishonest, ego-driven, angry, unhappy individuals I've ever encountered anywhere. > If you think for one second that Barry is "humilated" by > what Michael said you haven't learned a thing about him > in all of these years of endless sparring. He's doing everything he can to avoid the appearance of humiliation, but the intensity of his reaction, and its very high fantasy quotient, gives it away. > Tweaking you is sport to him. He amuses himself doing it. > Barry (like me) likes to laugh and does not like to be > bored. There's more than a desire to laugh behind his attacks on me (and others), Geeze. If you can't see that, you haven't been paying attention. Again, this is not just my take by a very long shot. There's something very deeply twisted about him. And you might want to read up on the psychology of boredom. It's not a benign symptom. But I agree with you that it's a big part of what's troubling him. > What makes many of your posts so damn boring and redundant is > that you take yourself SO seriously. This particular episode > started because a sharp intellect (Ruth) realized that > debating with you is a dead end. A humorless dead end at that. > She decided to leave FFL since you would respond even when she > wasn't addressing you. Well, of course I would, if she said something I wanted to comment on. That she decided she wasn't going to speak to me doesn't somehow mean I have to stop expressing my opinion about what she says. That's sort of like saying, "You can't see me because I have my eyes closed." But there's no obligation whatsoever for her to respond, so the reason she gave is patently bogus. She did not cover herself with glory in the discussion we had about abduction experiences. She took a position at the outset--the one I initially commented on--and then felt she had to stick to it even though it became obvious she wasn't as well informed as she had thought. That's an unusual situation for her, and she didn't know how to handle it. > She has better things to do than going around in cirlcles > with your own special brand of madness. I consistently fail to be impressed by generalized accusations for which no evidence or examples are provided. > It isn't Barry needin help m'dear. It's you. I could care > less whether you get it or not. I think both of you need help, frankly. Enablers need treatment as well as those they enable. > In the meantime I'll enjoy (when I have time to check in) > Barry's prodding and poking of you. You take his bait every > time. After all these years you still go for it. How interesting that you don't see the same thing on his side.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
but when I perceive > something about Curtis, I'm wrong and he's right? How you view my motivation to goof on Maharishi's grandiosity is really none of my business. I'm sure you will come up with something that fits your world view cuz that is what humans tend to do. On a forum like this you could opt for the alternative of asking me how I feel about things and not assuming that you know me better than I know myself from my posts...but I won't hold my breath on that one. That is the the tougher road and it can challenge preconceptions. You have to enjoy being wrong about someone as much as you enjoy being right about them before you had more information. But one thing I will point out. My posts were about Maharishi and my relationship with him, and you came after me personally. That is a trait that I do not respect. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" > > wrote: > > > > > > Received in email from Michael/t3rinity: > > > > > > "You may also share this if you want: I left because of Barry, yes, > > > and I communicated this to Judy. I am not sure if Judy had me in > > > mind, but it is certainly true. > > > > Ah, I *knew* that if I kept associating Judy > > with McCarthy she'd email the person in question. > > Glad you decided to say what you think in front > > of people's backs for a change, Michael. :-) > > > > > If anybody thinks that this is an overeaction, or is interested, you > > > can look at the last post Barry wrote to one of my posts, and then > > > compare it to the original post. To cut it short, Barry draws a > > > number of conclusions out of my posts about my alleged opinions, > > > which are in no way written there, and which I had made clear to > > > him before, that they are not mine. > > > > Michael, you CLAIM that they are not yours. You > > suffer from the same dis-ease as Judy, in that > > you cannot conceive of anyone's assessment of > > you and your motives that differs from your own > > being correct or valid. If they don't see you and > > your motives and your trends the way you do, they > > are WRONG. I think my assessments of your actions > > and your motives are correct, and I stand by them. > > > > Hmmm... So when you perceive something that Michael > denies, you're right and he's wrong, but when I perceive > something about Curtis, I'm wrong and he's right? > > Goodness. > > > Lawson >
[FairfieldLife] Some way cool links
http://www.blackdotpubs.com/html/links.html
[FairfieldLife] Seth Cohen
Our Dear Friend Seth Cohen is on life support today and tomorrow they are going to pull the plug on him. I think the major cause is necrotizing soft tissue infection which spread widely in his body and organs. He will be missed by Many. Betty Blue
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" > wrote: > > > Turq, you know the irony about this entire conversation? > > If you recall, it all started because one of the brightest > > new lights in this group "ruthsimplicity" left and made no > > bones about the fact that she left because she had better > > things to do than waste another moment of her energy on > > one Judith Stein. > > Was someone forcing her to waste her energy on me? > > Actually, that isn't "how it all started." How it > all started was Barry's goodbye post to Ruth, > which was filled with outrageous and deliberate > misstatements of fact concerning moi, including > that I always try to drive strong women off > whatever forum I'm on. > > Trouble is, as I've pointed out, Ruth and I had a > very cordial relationship, characterized by mutual > admiration and respect, until she had a meltdown > over the abduction-experience issue. > > > > But look where we are now.you-know-who has steered this > > whole issue from the loss (100% due to old horse laugh herself) > > of someone whose writing REALLY uplifted the entire group down > > to a silly conversation about your role in making some semi- > > colorless sap leave. > > More cognitive dissonance. Looks like Barry's malady > is infecting his supporters as well. > > What focused the conversation on Michael leaving > (actually one of the most colorful posters ever to > this group) was Barry's accusation that I was lying > about why he had left. > > The humiliation of having Michael confirm what I > said has just about driven Barry around the bend. If > you consider yourself a friend of his, you ought to > be helping him deal with it by gently drawing him > closer to reality and reassuring him that he'll > survive. You aren't doing him any favors by > validating his fantasies. He's in enough trouble > already. You know Judy, I've known Barry for nearly 30 years. It's more than 30 years actually (damn how time flies!). You are engaging in utter fantasy about him. Barry has an extremely keen sense of humor. He's one of the few people I've known who can truly get as much pleasure laughing at himself as someone else. If you think for one second that Barry is "humilated" by what Michael said you haven't learned a thing about him in all of these years of endless sparring. Tweaking you is sport to him. He amuses himself doing it. Barry (like me) likes to laugh and does not like to be bored. What makes many of your posts so damn boring and redundant is that you take yourself SO seriously. This particular episode started because a sharp intellect (Ruth) realized that debating with you is a dead end. A humorless dead end at that. She decided to leave FFL since you would respond even when she wasn't addressing you. She has better things to do than going around in cirlcles with your own special brand of madness. It isn't Barry needin help m'dear. It's you. I could care less whether you get it or not. In the meantime I'll enjoy (when I have time to check in) Barry's prodding and poking of you. You take his bait every time. After all these years you still go for it. It's a twisted little play that I hope never stops.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Typo: Maharishi on role of the Guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Dick Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The transcript has a small spelling mistake in the Sanskrit: > "Pripad Asyamritam Divi." should be "Tripad Asyamritam Divi" > > It is from Purusha Sukta, verse 3: > etavanasya mahima > ato jyayagamshcha purushaha > pado'sya vishva bhutani > tripad asya mritam divi > > "So much is His greatness. However, the Purusha is greater than this. > All the beings form only a quarter (part of) Him. The three-quarter > part of His, which is eternal, is established in the spiritual > domain." > > Jai Guru Dev > Maharishi's 20th July 2005 Press Conference The meaning itself is relevant to the dual nature of the Supreme Being, that is, a part of him is immanent IN creation and the rest lies dormant, unmoved by his Shakti Power and BEYOND creation. The 'dynamic' Purusha (or the manifest immanent part) is the oversoul that Emerson talks about and the soul of you and I! (i.e. "and man was made in the image of God"), the personal, manifest aspect of the creator. Om is the Divine Mother Shakti (part of the 'trinity'), Tat is the Son or the Immanent Purusha, and Sat is the Father aspect or the Absolute, unmanifest, beyond creation. As the Hindus say, "Om Tat Sat". Brahman, the Absolute Being, projects his Shakti into matter (speaks the word) and the 'reflection' off of that relative creation is the dynamism MMY talks about (the soul in man, a 'pure' reflection when realized) and the soul of God himself IN creation in its pure Sattvic form."highest relative" MMY. The analogy goes, "where does the reflection of the moon go when a bucket of water reflecting it breaks?". It returns to its origin, never really having left, it is a dichotomy, an illusion, Maya/Shakti. As such so is man's soul one with Spirit, the apparent dualities nothing but the play of the Gunas or Mother Nature.."I am THAT, thou art THAT, and all of this is nothing but THAT, Tat tvam asi". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tat_Tvam_Asi
[FairfieldLife] Re: News about Seth Cohen
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jul 19, 2008, at 8:35 PM, sgrayatlarge wrote: > > > OK, Seth went to MIU in the mid to late 70's ,went to Governor > > training, currently lives in Boulder, so is known to many in the TM > > community and I thought that I might reach some of his old friends > > (which have emailed me already) to share news of his grave illness. > > So mysterious. Is that doublespeak for, "He has AIDS, but he's > asked me not to say that"? > > Sal > He doesn't have AIDs. He inspired a lot of people, with his sense of humor, and his honesty, and light-heartedness. In a way, he does remind one of Marlin Brando, in his nature, to see the world from a rather interesting perspective. I haven't seen him for a long time, but I know he got very sick once, On a course in India. They had to stop the plane in Greece, because he was so ill with some intestinal thing; He has been close to death, this past week; This is a message to all of his friends, Who love Seth.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: News about Seth Cohen
On Jul 19, 2008, at 8:35 PM, sgrayatlarge wrote: OK, Seth went to MIU in the mid to late 70's ,went to Governor training, currently lives in Boulder, so is known to many in the TM community and I thought that I might reach some of his old friends (which have emailed me already) to share news of his grave illness. So mysterious. Is that doublespeak for, "He has AIDS, but he's asked me not to say that"? Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: News about Seth Cohen
-I forgot to mention that he is co-founder of a company called Master Colors ( a revolutionary approach to working with color and design) , www.master-colors.com. So if you want to learn about what Seth has been up to, check out the website. -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > OK, Seth went to MIU in the mid to late 70's ,went to Governor > training, currently lives in Boulder, so is known to many in the TM > community and I thought that I might reach some of his old friends > (which have emailed me already) to share news of his grave illness. > > So now you know > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "pranamoocher" > wrote: > > > > > > Seth is the Godfather to many TM followers. > > > I hope he is ok. > > > > > > PM > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 19, 2008, at 4:51 PM, sgrayatlarge wrote: > > > > > > > > > Due to the sensitive nature regarding Seth Cohen's current > physical > > > > > condition, those of you who are friends of Seth and would > like to > > > know > > > > > more, feel free to email me at sgrayatlarge@ , attn: Steve > > > > > Gray and I will share more details. > > > > > > > > Who is Seth Cohen? > > > > > > > > Sal > > That isn't much of an explanation. Are you saying Seth was some > kind of sugar daddy? I > > really can't tell what you mean by "Godfather." > > > > I'm with Sal on this one. I feel bad that this guy, whoever he is, > is sick but who the hell is > > Seth Cohen? > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: News about Seth Cohen
OK, Seth went to MIU in the mid to late 70's ,went to Governor training, currently lives in Boulder, so is known to many in the TM community and I thought that I might reach some of his old friends (which have emailed me already) to share news of his grave illness. So now you know --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "pranamoocher" wrote: > > > > Seth is the Godfather to many TM followers. > > I hope he is ok. > > > > PM > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine > > wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 19, 2008, at 4:51 PM, sgrayatlarge wrote: > > > > > > > Due to the sensitive nature regarding Seth Cohen's current physical > > > > condition, those of you who are friends of Seth and would like to > > know > > > > more, feel free to email me at sgrayatlarge@ , attn: Steve > > > > Gray and I will share more details. > > > > > > Who is Seth Cohen? > > > > > > Sal > That isn't much of an explanation. Are you saying Seth was some kind of sugar daddy? I > really can't tell what you mean by "Godfather." > > I'm with Sal on this one. I feel bad that this guy, whoever he is, is sick but who the hell is > Seth Cohen? >
[FairfieldLife] Re: US Out of Iraq ASAP, per Maliki
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > To All: > > > > Is the Iraqi prime minister trying to influence the > > American election with his statement that the US troops > > should get out of his country as soon as possible? > > Could it be that he agrees with Obama and made his statement > in order to get someone elected whom he agrees with? A lot of it has to do with the fact that most Iraqis want us out as soon as possible, and Maliki wants to keep his job. > What everyone is missing is that the Iraqi government is > officially NOT a US protectorate any more. By law and > agreement and public statement by BUsh, we MUST leave when > they tell us to. > Either that or stage a coup against the current iraqi Regime. Yet another reason why Maliki needs to have the country behind him.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Turq, you know the irony about this entire conversation? > If you recall, it all started because one of the brightest > new lights in this group "ruthsimplicity" left and made no > bones about the fact that she left because she had better > things to do than waste another moment of her energy on > one Judith Stein. Was someone forcing her to waste her energy on me? Actually, that isn't "how it all started." How it all started was Barry's goodbye post to Ruth, which was filled with outrageous and deliberate misstatements of fact concerning moi, including that I always try to drive strong women off whatever forum I'm on. Trouble is, as I've pointed out, Ruth and I had a very cordial relationship, characterized by mutual admiration and respect, until she had a meltdown over the abduction-experience issue. > But look where we are now.you-know-who has steered this > whole issue from the loss (100% due to old horse laugh herself) > of someone whose writing REALLY uplifted the entire group down > to a silly conversation about your role in making some semi- > colorless sap leave. More cognitive dissonance. Looks like Barry's malady is infecting his supporters as well. What focused the conversation on Michael leaving (actually one of the most colorful posters ever to this group) was Barry's accusation that I was lying about why he had left. The humiliation of having Michael confirm what I said has just about driven Barry around the bend. If you consider yourself a friend of his, you ought to be helping him deal with it by gently drawing him closer to reality and reassuring him that he'll survive. You aren't doing him any favors by validating his fantasies. He's in enough trouble already.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Received in email from Michael/t3rinity: > > > > > If anybody thinks that this is an overeaction, or is > > > > interested, you can look at the last post Barry wrote > > > > to one of my posts, and then compare it to the original > > > > post. To cut it short, Barry draws a number of > > > > conclusions out of my posts about my alleged opinions, > > > > which are in no way written there, and which I had made > > > > clear to him before, that they are not mine. > > > > > > Michael, you CLAIM that they are not yours. You > > > suffer from the same dis-ease as Judy, in that > > > you cannot conceive of anyone's assessment of > > > you and your motives that differs from your own > > > being correct or valid. If they don't see you and > > > your motives and your trends the way you do, they > > > are WRONG. I think my assessments of your actions > > > and your motives are correct, and I stand by them. > > > > Hmmm... So when you perceive something that Michael > > denies, you're right and he's wrong, but when I perceive > > something about Curtis, I'm wrong and he's right? > > Barry is currently in the throes of a massive > struggle with cognitive dissonance that has > reached a crisis stage. As far as his psyche > is concerned, it's a battle for his very > survival. > > That's why we're seeing him make all these > off-the-wall assertions; he's trying desperately > to fight off reality. On a very fundamental level, > he's talking to himself, attempting to reframe > what's going on into something he can tolerate > before it overwhelms him. > > He's been doing this as long as I've known him, > but occasionally it explodes into a major > confrontation with the real world that drives > him to attack anything and anyone that fails to > validate his shaky self-image, logic and reason > be damned. You really are obsessed with him aren't you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yahoo Groups Post Counter > = > Start Date (UTC): Sat Jul 19 00:00:00 2008 > End Date (UTC): Sat Jul 26 00:00:00 2008 > -- Searching... > > 130 messages as of (UTC) Sun Jul 20 00:27:41 2008 > Member Posts > > "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 29 > TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>21 > "new.morning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 13 > nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 9 > Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 9 > "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 7 > "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>4 > sgrayatlarge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 4 > Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>3 > "pranamoocher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3 > "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3 > Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>3 > bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2 > cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2 > "Alex Stanley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2 > "R.G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>2 > okpeachman2000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>2 > "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>2 > film_man_pdx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2 > "The Secret" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1 > lloyd kinder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1 > Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1 > "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>1 > "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1 > michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>1 > Dick Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1 > "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>1 > posters: 27 > Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times > = > Daylight Saving Time (Summer): > US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM > Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM > Standard Time (Winter): > US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM > Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM > For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com > Less than one day and Judy's more than half way home. What a shocker!
[FairfieldLife] Re: News about Seth Cohen
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "pranamoocher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Seth is the Godfather to many TM followers. > I hope he is ok. > > PM > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine > wrote: > > > > On Jul 19, 2008, at 4:51 PM, sgrayatlarge wrote: > > > > > Due to the sensitive nature regarding Seth Cohen's current physical > > > condition, those of you who are friends of Seth and would like to > know > > > more, feel free to email me at sgrayatlarge@ , attn: Steve > > > Gray and I will share more details. > > > > Who is Seth Cohen? > > > > Sal That isn't much of an explanation. Are you saying Seth was some kind of sugar daddy? I really can't tell what you mean by "Godfather." I'm with Sal on this one. I feel bad that this guy, whoever he is, is sick but who the hell is Seth Cohen?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" > > wrote: > > > > > > Received in email from Michael/t3rinity: > > > If anybody thinks that this is an overeaction, or is > > > interested, you can look at the last post Barry wrote > > > to one of my posts, and then compare it to the original > > > post. To cut it short, Barry draws a number of > > > conclusions out of my posts about my alleged opinions, > > > which are in no way written there, and which I had made > > > clear to him before, that they are not mine. > > > > Michael, you CLAIM that they are not yours. You > > suffer from the same dis-ease as Judy, in that > > you cannot conceive of anyone's assessment of > > you and your motives that differs from your own > > being correct or valid. If they don't see you and > > your motives and your trends the way you do, they > > are WRONG. I think my assessments of your actions > > and your motives are correct, and I stand by them. > > Hmmm... So when you perceive something that Michael > denies, you're right and he's wrong, but when I perceive > something about Curtis, I'm wrong and he's right? Barry is currently in the throes of a massive struggle with cognitive dissonance that has reached a crisis stage. As far as his psyche is concerned, it's a battle for his very survival. That's why we're seeing him make all these off-the-wall assertions; he's trying desperately to fight off reality. On a very fundamental level, he's talking to himself, attempting to reframe what's going on into something he can tolerate before it overwhelms him. He's been doing this as long as I've known him, but occasionally it explodes into a major confrontation with the real world that drives him to attack anything and anyone that fails to validate his shaky self-image, logic and reason be damned.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine > wrote: > > > > On Jul 19, 2008, at 5:18 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > You give me too little credit, Sal. > > > > > > I DO have the power to fog people's brains with > > > my super-powerful Negativity Ray (TM) and Literary > > > Eloquence (TM), and turn them into mind-slaves who > > > do whatever I want them to do. I *made* Michael > > > unsubscribe, through the unrelenting power of > > > my Evil Shakti (TM). > > > > > > Watch your step, or I might do it to you, too. > > > > Too late. I'm afraid my brain is already so fogged that > > anything more will make little difference. But hey, give > > it a go. > > It's already Sunday here in Spain. I make it > a point never to turn anyone into one of my > mind-slaves on a Sunday. Unless they are > really babalicious. > > > Frankly, Michael's and Jim's obvious need to be 'special' > > and treated accordingly was downright bizarro, IMO. > > Bingo. > > If you cut to the chase, that's really it. > They wanted to be treated a certain way, > the way they felt that they *deserved* to > be treated. > > People didn't treat them like they were > "special." They didn't like that much and, > rather than figure out that all they had > to do to fit in was to act like what they > are -- ordinary human beings not one whit > more special than any other -- they bailed. > Just like Rory before them and probably a > few "special" folks in the future. > > Meanwhile, the people here who are Just > Folks, without any "special needs," seem > to get along just fine. Many of them even > manage to have a good time. > > Could it possibly be that the Just Folks > have figured out something that the "special" > folks haven't? Or is it that I just haven't > gotten around to them yet with my Negativity > Ray (TM) and Literary Eloquence (TM)? Maybe > they're still here only because I haven't > yet unleashed the awesome whupassness of > my Evil Shakti (TM) on them. > > Only the Shadow knows... > Turq, you know the irony about this entire conversation? If you recall, it all started because one of the brightest new lights in this group "ruthsimplicity" left and made no bones about the fact that she left because she had better things to do than waste another moment of her energy on one Judith Stein. I truly loved Ruth's posts here. Always respectful and often brilliant. That does NOT mean I always agreed with her! But she made me think through my position on more than one occaisian. She also had a patient way (as does Curtis) that I really do admire. But look where we are now.you-know-who has steered this whole issue from the loss (100% due to old horse laugh herself) of someone whose writing REALLY uplifted the entire group down to a silly conversation about your role in making some semi-colorless sap leave.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For that to be true, he would have to still > be reading Fairfield Life after unsubscribing, > right? Otherwise, how would he know to write > his email and "channel" it through Alex? This isn't an important point, and there's no need for anyone to waste a post responding to it, but just for the sake of disclosure, Michael didn't specifically write to me. It was sent to FairfieldLife-owner (AT) yahoogroups.com And, mail to that address goes to Rick and the moderators. I usually let Rick do any message forwarding because my attitude is that people should subscribe if they wanna post. But, because he's out of town, I figured I should help out with that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: US Out of Iraq ASAP, per Maliki
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > To All: > > Is the Iraqi prime minister trying to influence the American election > with his statement that the US troops should get out of his country > as soon as possible? > Could it be that he agrees with Obama and made his statement in order to get someone elected whom he agrees with? Well, duh. What everyone is missing is that the Iraqi government is officially NOT a US protectorate any more. By law and agreement and public statement by BUsh, we MUST leave when they tell us to. And... National sovereignty trumps "safety of troops" or any other concern. Even if it would cause thousands of extra US tropp's lives to leave on Jan 1, legally the Iraqis could compel us to leave and the only recourse we would have would be to exercise "due diligence" while doing so Either that or stage a coup against the current iraqi Regime. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: News about Seth Cohen
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jul 19, 2008, at 6:37 PM, pranamoocher wrote: > > > Seth is the Godfather to many TM followers. > > JOOC, prana, what does that mean, exactly? > > > I hope he is ok. > > Sal 'Seth= One of the Good Guys'
[FairfieldLife] Post Count
Yahoo Groups Post Counter = Start Date (UTC): Sat Jul 19 00:00:00 2008 End Date (UTC): Sat Jul 26 00:00:00 2008 -- Searching... 130 messages as of (UTC) Sun Jul 20 00:27:41 2008 Member Posts "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 29 TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>21 "new.morning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 13 nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 9 Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 9 "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 7 "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>4 sgrayatlarge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 4 Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>3 "pranamoocher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3 "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3 Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>3 bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2 cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2 "Alex Stanley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2 "R.G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>2 okpeachman2000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>2 "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>2 film_man_pdx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2 "The Secret" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1 lloyd kinder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1 Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1 "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>1 "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1 michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>1 Dick Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1 "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>1 posters: 27 Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times = Daylight Saving Time (Summer): US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM Standard Time (Winter): US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jules Verne by Proxy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > Actually, it wasn't my "fiction" but my speculation, > > > spurred by Judy's refusal to back up a claim that she > > > made. As I said in the speculation, claiming that > > > you left "because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty" > > > didn't sound like you at all. It sounded like something > > > that Judy would make up. As it turns out, it was. > > > > I never claimed Jim left because of your nastiness > > and dishonesty. > > > > Barry, you're descending deeper and deeper into your > > own fantasy world. At some point soon, it's going to > > become impossible for you to come back. > > > > Get some help before it's too late. > > > > Barry suffers from a condition known as "Jules Verne by Proxy" > syndrome. > > This mental disease is characterized by the host fantasizing about > witnessing physically-impossible phenomenon and incorporating these > experiences into his world view. The word "host" is employed because > the patient plays "hosts" to these fantasies to such a great degree > that he comes to believe them himself. > > Examples of these fantasies are: believing oneself capable of > journeying to the center of the Earth; visiting cities 20,000 leagues > underwater; believing he has witnessed human beings flying; and > eating cheese on the moon. > > Hosts also invent imaginary friends whose pretend words and > activities lend support to one's arguments. Usually a harmless > condition. > Except when you imaginary friend goes by the name "god" and your initials are GWB... Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" > wrote: > > > > Received in email from Michael/t3rinity: > > > > "You may also share this if you want: I left because of Barry, yes, > > and I communicated this to Judy. I am not sure if Judy had me in > > mind, but it is certainly true. > > Ah, I *knew* that if I kept associating Judy > with McCarthy she'd email the person in question. > Glad you decided to say what you think in front > of people's backs for a change, Michael. :-) > > > If anybody thinks that this is an overeaction, or is interested, you > > can look at the last post Barry wrote to one of my posts, and then > > compare it to the original post. To cut it short, Barry draws a > > number of conclusions out of my posts about my alleged opinions, > > which are in no way written there, and which I had made clear to > > him before, that they are not mine. > > Michael, you CLAIM that they are not yours. You > suffer from the same dis-ease as Judy, in that > you cannot conceive of anyone's assessment of > you and your motives that differs from your own > being correct or valid. If they don't see you and > your motives and your trends the way you do, they > are WRONG. I think my assessments of your actions > and your motives are correct, and I stand by them. > Hmmm... So when you perceive something that Michael denies, you're right and he's wrong, but when I perceive something about Curtis, I'm wrong and he's right? Goodness. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Obama arrives in war zone'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge > wrote: > > > > > > > > -"and responds from a > > > > > larger set of considerations and perspectives." > > > > > > > > The reason why he kicks around ideas and responds from a > > > > larger set of considerations is because he needs time for > > > > his 300 plus advisors to formulate the correct "idea" for > > > > him. > > > > > > And that's just his *foreign policy* advisors. > > > > There's probably a private, invitation-only forum/blog that > > the 300 can argue foreign policy in and he monitors the > > conversation. > > Actually there isn't, and he doesn't. This NY > Times article describes how it works: > > http://tinyurl.com/5aksns > > Basically, there's a lot of discussion back and > forth via email between individuals. His top > advisers ask for input from selected folks in the > larger group, then discuss it among themselves. > > Every day they send Obama a briefing on foreign > affairs and a Q&A of things he's likely to be asked > about that day with suggested responses. > That seems even more unwieldy than a forum with 300 participants, but perhaps it has better security. What they should do, is create a bunch of firewalled Second LIfe islands ala what IBM does for its secure corporate meetings and have daily face to face (virtual) meetings (that will almost certainly happen within a few years for national-level campaigns). Lawson
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: News about Seth Cohen
On Jul 19, 2008, at 6:37 PM, pranamoocher wrote: Seth is the Godfather to many TM followers. JOOC, prana, what does that mean, exactly? I hope he is ok. Sal
[FairfieldLife] US Out of Iraq ASAP, per Maliki
To All: Is the Iraqi prime minister trying to influence the American election with his statement that the US troops should get out of his country as soon as possible? See article below: BERLIN - Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says U.S. troops should leave Iraq "as soon as possible," according to a magazine report, and he called presidential candidate Barack Obama's suggestion of 16 months "the right timeframe for a withdrawal." In an interview with Germany's Der Spiegel magazine released Saturday, al-Maliki said he was not seeking to endorse Obama. The Illinois senator and likely Democratic nominee has pledged to withdraw combat troops from Iraq within 16 months if he is elected. "That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes," al-Maliki was quoted as saying. "Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of U.S. troops in Iraq would cause problems." Asked when U.S. forces would leave Iraq, he responded, "As soon as possible, as far a we're concerned." In Iraq on Saturday, Sadiq al-Rikabi, an adviser to al-Maliki, declined to discuss the prime minister's published remarks, but he said Iraqi officials do not intend to be "part of the electoral campaign in the United States." "We will deal with any administration that comes to power," he said. Obama's Republican presidential rival, John McCain, has supported Bush administration policy opposing a set timetable for taking troops out of Iraq. "Barack Obama advocates an unconditional withdrawal that ignores the facts on the ground and the advice of our top military commanders," McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann said Saturday. "John McCain believes withdrawal must be based on conditions on the ground. "Prime Minister Maliki has repeatedly affirmed the same view, and did so again today. Timing is not as important as whether we leave with victory and honor, which is of no apparent concern to Barack Obama," Scheunemann said in a statement. Just days ago McCain told reporters on his campaign bus that Maliki "has exceeded a lot of the expectations." "I think that much to the surprise of some Maliki has proved to be a more effective leader," McCain said Tuesday in New Mexico. The national security adviser to the Obama campaign, Susan Rice, said the senator welcomed al-Maliki's comments. "This presents an important opportunity to transition to Iraqi responsibility, while restoring our military and increasing our commitment to finish the fight in Afghanistan," Rice said in a statement Saturday. Obama arrived on his first visit to Afghanistan on Saturday, less than four months before the general election. He also is expected to stop later in Iraq. McCain has criticized Obama for his lack of experience in the region. The Arizona senator has suggested he would pursue an Iraq strategy "that's working" a reference to the troop buildup credited for sharply reducing violence in the country. Al-Maliki is scheduled to visit Germany next week for talks with Chancellor Angela Merkel and business leaders amid a renewed German push in helping to rebuild Iraq. Berlin had opposed the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jul 19, 2008, at 6:26 PM, authfriend wrote: > > >>> Funny, you've never spoken up when Barry has accused > >>> me of driving people off a forum. > >> > >> If you mean the case of Ruth, it seems that that's exactly > >> what happened. > > > > So when Ruth leaves claiming she couldn't > > tolerate my posts, I drove her off. When Michael > > leaves claiming he couldn't tolerate Barry's posts, > > he did so of his own volition. > > No, when Ruth left, she took responsibility for her actions. > When Michael did, he claimed it was Barry's doing. He did not, any more than Ruth claimed it was my doing. But you've just contradicted yourself: Above, you say that Barry's accusation that I drive people off forums was "exactly what happened" in Ruth's case. You can't keep track of your own arguments, Sal. Citing a person's > posts as a reason doesn't constitute making them responsible > IMO. Exactly my point. > Michael's a professional whiner with a clear agenda that wasn't > being met here. May he have better luck elsewhere. Oh, please. The only reason Michael spoke up at all, via his email to Alex, was to confirm what I had said against Barry's accusations that I was making it up. Unlike Ruth, he didn't make a "farewell" post blaming anybody as the reason he left, or even send an email to the moderators. He just quietly unsubscribed. If Barry hadn't gone into full meltdown mode, we wouldn't have heard anything more from Michael.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jules Verne by Proxy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > wrote: > > > > Barry suffers from a condition known as "Jules Verne by Proxy" > > syndrome. > > > > If people like Barry, who many know is a negative force on FFL, are > banned from posting. Do you think it would help forums like this to > survive ? > No. Then they'd have to ban people like me and you, too. Then the only people left would the truly nice souls like Curtis and BillyG.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jules Verne by Proxy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > wrote: > > > > Barry suffers from a condition known as "Jules Verne by Proxy" > > syndrome. > > > > If people like Barry, who many know is a negative force on FFL, are > banned from posting. Do you think it would help forums like this to > survive ? No. Banning people from a social forum like this one for any reason other than breaking the rules would kill it, not help it survive.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
On Jul 19, 2008, at 6:26 PM, authfriend wrote: Funny, you've never spoken up when Barry has accused me of driving people off a forum. If you mean the case of Ruth, it seems that that's exactly what happened. So when Ruth leaves claiming she couldn't tolerate my posts, I drove her off. When Michael leaves claiming he couldn't tolerate Barry's posts, he did so of his own volition. No, when Ruth left, she took responsibility for her actions. When Michael did, he claimed it was Barry's doing. Citing a person's posts as a reason doesn't constitute making them responsible IMO. Michael's a professional whiner with a clear agenda that wasn't being met here. May he have better luck elsewhere. Sal
[FairfieldLife] 'Stange Symmetry in Iraq'
Summer Travel Plans By GAIL COLLINS Published: July 19, 2008 Barack Obama’s Middle East tour is under way. Next stop is ... wherever. (Security is really, really, really tight for this trip.) Suffice it to say that he intends to check out the big Middle Eastern trouble spots, to meet with officials and generals, and to speak with ordinary citizens to the degree possible for a man surrounded by more armor than a Transformer movie. “I think he wants to get out and do as much as he can ... I don’t think he’ll be strolling around the market in a flak jacket,” said Susan Rice, a senior Obama foreign policy adviser, speaking from a plane en route to ... someplace. That was, of course, a reference to John McCain’s visit to Baghdad last year when he strolled through a market, swaddled in a flak jacket and protected by so many soldiers, helicopters and sharpshooters that it looked like a new invasion. The entire expedition provided as much information on real-life conditions in Iraq as a walk down the old “Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves” set at Universal Studios. Nevertheless, McCain declared that he was witnessing evidence that the country was returning to normal. The next day, a number of Shiite workers from the market were murdered. McCain, who had been demanding that Obama visit Iraq, is now denouncing him for not having gone sooner, more often and before making policy speeches on the Middle East. “He’s never been to Afghanistan and I’m astonished,” he added. You could pose the question in the opposite direction. Why is Obama going at all? Given the constraints under which he has to operate, the chance that he’ll see something enlightening seem to be lower than the chance of being shown something misleading. (See above: McCain/marketplace.) Really, anybody he needs to talk to would be happy to pick up a phone. On the other hand, it’s always useful to get out and about. President Bush has been traveling around the world like crazy recently. A friend of mine refers to this late-breaking interest in globe-trotting as “a taxpayer-funded junior year abroad.” But let us try not to be bitter. Bush has been touching all the bases — April with NATO, the Middle East in May, Europe in June, Asia in July. And look at all the progress we’ve seen since. The United States and Iraq have suddenly agreed to a “general time horizon” for future troop reductions. (Not a timetable! Everybody knows that timetables are playing into the hands of the enemy. This is an “aspirational goal.” Totally, totally different.) And we’re talking to Iran about its nuclear weapons! This also is not a change of policy. Just ask the administration. “The United States is determined to have negotiations only when Iran has suspended its enrichment and reprocessing,” said Condoleezza Rice firmly. Talking with the top Iranian nuclear negotiator is not a negotiation! It’s talk. A get-to-know-you thing. Like speed dating. Americans seem confused about how Iraq fits into the presidential race. Polls tell us they want the troops out, but when it comes to judgment in foreign affairs, they have more faith in McCain, who wants to stay in. There’s a kind of strange symmetry in Iraq. Earlier this week, The Times’s Sabrina Tavernise and Richard Oppel talked to Iraqis in various parts of the country and reported that most seem to have a very high opinion of Obama for reasons that include: 1) his name; 2) the fact that although he is not and never has been Muslim, there’s a connection there somewhere; and 3) in the words of one Baghdad businessman: “He seems like a nice guy.” If you feel as though these explanations lack a depth of political sophistication, try asking American voters how they feel about Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. The Iraqis who talked to The Times were less enthusiastic about Obama’s position on — well, Iraq. Although most of the people interviewed wanted the Americans gone, they also wanted assurance they would still have the pathetic modicum of security and stability they have now. Which requires the American troops. That seems to put them closer to John McCain’s position. But they like Barack better. Once again, we see citizens of our two very different nations united by love of democracy and voter irrationality. The confusion about who to trust on Iraq may go back to the fact that both candidates were right about the war, in different ways. Obama opposed the whole thing. (“Dumb” was the operative word.) McCain thought it was being badly executed. Recently, his passion to demonstrate knowledge of military tactics has been so intense that he appears to be running for secretary of defense. Obama underestimated the potential of the surge, but was way ahead of McCain in recognizing that the big problem in the region was Afghanistan, not Iraq. Yes, even though he had never been there, Obama was able to figure out that the region where Al Qaeda was actually located posed more of a danger to Ameri
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jules Verne by Proxy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Barry suffers from a condition known as "Jules Verne by Proxy" > syndrome. > If people like Barry, who many know is a negative force on FFL, are banned from posting. Do you think it would help forums like this to survive ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: News about Seth Cohen
Seth is the Godfather to many TM followers. I hope he is ok. PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jul 19, 2008, at 4:51 PM, sgrayatlarge wrote: > > > Due to the sensitive nature regarding Seth Cohen's current physical > > condition, those of you who are friends of Seth and would like to know > > more, feel free to email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] , attn: Steve > > Gray and I will share more details. > > Who is Seth Cohen? > > Sal >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine > wrote: > > If that's not what you meant, all the posts you've wasted > > on this silliness have been even dumber than usual. > > Not really. They diverted people's attention > away from Ruth, didn't they? > > That was the whole idea. Barry: Get some help. Fast.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jul 19, 2008, at 5:55 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine > > wrote: > > > >> Really, this is just a dumb attempt to make somebody else > >> responsible for his own actions. Is he an adult? If so, > >> unless Barry has the power to ban people, he left of his > >> own volition, as does everyone else who unsubs. This > >> attempt by Judy to make Barry responsible for the actions > >> of someone else is pathetic. > > > > Funny, you've never spoken up when Barry has accused > > me of driving people off a forum. > > If you mean the case of Ruth, it seems that that's exactly > what happened. So when Ruth leaves claiming she couldn't tolerate my posts, I drove her off. When Michael leaves claiming he couldn't tolerate Barry's posts, he did so of his own volition. > I don't recall anyone else at the moment, Judy. I guess you missed Barry's post to Ruth: "Judy has a history of attempting to drive any strong woman off of any forum she is part of. It started back on a.m.t., and continues to this day." (Do you feel I've tried to drive you off FFL, Sal?) > > I never suggested, of course (nor did Michael), that > > Michael hadn't left of his own volition. > > That's exactly what you suggested, citing Barry's antics > as the reason he left: > "We recently lost an > extremely valuable long-time poster because of > Barry's nastiness and dishonesty." > > Implying, of course, that he would have stayed otherwise, > and was basically driven off by big, bad Barry. As I said: People have reasons for making the decisions they do. Michael's reason was Barry's nastiness and dishonesty. Obviously that doesn't mean he didn't leave of his own volition, any more than Ruth having me as a reason means she didn't leave of her own volition. > If that's not what you meant, all the posts you've wasted > on this silliness have been even dumber than usual. Sal, Barry made the false accusation, first, that I tried to drive strong women off the forums I was on; then when I pointed out that quite a few folks have left forums because of Barry, citing Michael (without naming him) as an example, Barry falsely claimed I was lying (and went on and on and on about it until Michael, bless his heart, spoke up and confirmed what I had said). *That* was what was dumb. And your comments, I'm afraid, are even dumber.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jul 19, 2008, at 5:55 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine > > wrote: > > > >> Really, this is just a dumb attempt to make somebody else > >> responsible for his own actions. Is he an adult? If so, > >> unless Barry has the power to ban people, he left of his > >> own volition, as does everyone else who unsubs. This > >> attempt by Judy to make Barry responsible for the actions > >> of someone else is pathetic. > > > > Funny, you've never spoken up when Barry has accused > > me of driving people off a forum. > > If you mean the case of Ruth, it seems that that's exactly > what happened. I don't recall anyone else at the moment, > Judy. > > > I never suggested, of course (nor did Michael), that > > Michael hadn't left of his own volition. > > That's exactly what you suggested, citing Barry's antics > as the reason he left: > "We recently lost an > extremely valuable long-time poster because of > Barry's nastiness and dishonesty." > > Implying, of course, that he would have stayed otherwise, > and was basically driven off by big, bad Barry. > > If that's not what you meant, all the posts you've wasted > on this silliness have been even dumber than usual. Not really. They diverted people's attention away from Ruth, didn't they? That was the whole idea.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Received in email from Michael/t3rinity: > > > > > > > > "You may also share this if you want: I left because of > > > > Barry, yes, and I communicated this to Judy. I am not > > > > sure if Judy had me in mind, but it is certainly true. > > > > > > Ah, I *knew* that if I kept associating Judy > > > with McCarthy she'd email the person in question. > > > > Michael and I had exchanged emails when he unsubscribed, > > but his email above was entirely unsolicited by me. He'll > > confirm that too. > > For that to be true, he would have to still > be reading Fairfield Life after unsubscribing, > right? Right. (Unless somebody *else* emailed him to let him know what was going on.)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
On Jul 19, 2008, at 6:09 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: What ever happened to the days when people said they were leaving and really left? :-) Unsubbers just ain't what they used to be... Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" > > wrote: > > > > > > Received in email from Michael/t3rinity: > > > > > > "You may also share this if you want: I left because of > > > Barry, yes, and I communicated this to Judy. I am not > > > sure if Judy had me in mind, but it is certainly true. > > > > Ah, I *knew* that if I kept associating Judy > > with McCarthy she'd email the person in question. > > Michael and I had exchanged emails when he unsubscribed, > but his email above was entirely unsolicited by me. He'll > confirm that too. For that to be true, he would have to still be reading Fairfield Life after unsubscribing, right? Otherwise, how would he know to write his email and "channel" it through Alex? Seems to me that Jim is still reading FFL, too, or *he* wouldn't have weighed in with his own "channeled" email to join in the "Gotta Trash Barry" fest. What ever happened to the days when people said they were leaving and really left? :-) I'm smelling a bit of that old perfume called "Let's pretend to leave and blame it all on some- one so that maybe people will throw him off the forum and then we can come back and be treated like the 'special' people we are." I think they sell it at the cosmetics counter at upscale stores like K-Mart.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
On Jul 19, 2008, at 5:55 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Really, this is just a dumb attempt to make somebody else responsible for his own actions. Is he an adult? If so, unless Barry has the power to ban people, he left of his own volition, as does everyone else who unsubs. This attempt by Judy to make Barry responsible for the actions of someone else is pathetic. Funny, you've never spoken up when Barry has accused me of driving people off a forum. If you mean the case of Ruth, it seems that that's exactly what happened. I don't recall anyone else at the moment, Judy. I never suggested, of course (nor did Michael), that Michael hadn't left of his own volition. That's exactly what you suggested, citing Barry's antics as the reason he left: "We recently lost an extremely valuable long-time poster because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty." Implying, of course, that he would have stayed otherwise, and was basically driven off by big, bad Barry. If that's not what you meant, all the posts you've wasted on this silliness have been even dumber than usual. But people have their own reasons for making the decisions they do. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Based on hearing from Alex that Jim had > > > > > unsubscribed, I *speculated* that it might > > > > > have been him you were talking about. I > > > > > then went on to explicitly say in the orig- > > > > > inal post that I didn't believe that Jim > > > > > would have said that he left "because of > > > > > Barry's nastiness and dishonesty." I said > > > > > that that did not sound like him, and that > > > > > I thought you'd made it up. > > > > > > > > > > As it turns out, you made it up about some > > > > > other person, not Jim. :-) > > > > > > > > Not made up, sorry. > > > > > > Ah, but it is. I and everyone here have the right > > > to assume that it IS made up > > > > You have the right to believe whatever you wish > > and to state your beliefs as such. Ethically, you > > do not have the right to state your beliefs as > > though they were established fact, as you did > > above. > > Ethically, schmethically. I said that you > made it all up because as far as I (or any- > one else here) can tell, you DID make it > all up. That IS a fact unless you can prove > that it is not. It may be a fact that you believe (or did when you were writing this) that I made it up. The *content* of that belief, however, is not a fact, it's a belief. You do not (or did not when you were writing this) know whether I made it up. As I said: Ethically, you do not have the right to state your belief as though what you believe were an established fact.
[FairfieldLife] Jules Verne by Proxy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > Actually, it wasn't my "fiction" but my speculation, > > spurred by Judy's refusal to back up a claim that she > > made. As I said in the speculation, claiming that > > you left "because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty" > > didn't sound like you at all. It sounded like something > > that Judy would make up. As it turns out, it was. > > I never claimed Jim left because of your nastiness > and dishonesty. > > Barry, you're descending deeper and deeper into your > own fantasy world. At some point soon, it's going to > become impossible for you to come back. > > Get some help before it's too late. > Barry suffers from a condition known as "Jules Verne by Proxy" syndrome. This mental disease is characterized by the host fantasizing about witnessing physically-impossible phenomenon and incorporating these experiences into his world view. The word "host" is employed because the patient plays "hosts" to these fantasies to such a great degree that he comes to believe them himself. Examples of these fantasies are: believing oneself capable of journeying to the center of the Earth; visiting cities 20,000 leagues underwater; believing he has witnessed human beings flying; and eating cheese on the moon. Hosts also invent imaginary friends whose pretend words and activities lend support to one's arguments. Usually a harmless condition.
[FairfieldLife] Re: T3rinity Will be Missed
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I hope, after a nice break, T3rinity will rejoin us. I think > he brought quite positive elements and knowledge to this place. > And he provided a good model of patience and unflappability. Amen to that, brother.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Really, this is just a dumb attempt to make somebody else > responsible for his own actions. Is he an adult? If so, > unless Barry has the power to ban people, he left of his > own volition, as does everyone else who unsubs. This > attempt by Judy to make Barry responsible for the actions > of someone else is pathetic. Funny, you've never spoken up when Barry has accused me of driving people off a forum. I never suggested, of course (nor did Michael), that Michael hadn't left of his own volition. But people have their own reasons for making the decisions they do.
[FairfieldLife] Re: T3rinity Will be Missed
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Its a shame T3rintiy has left. He was one of the people I regularly > read. He provided a good insights from a variety of vantage points > fairly unique here:> I hope, after a nice break, T3rinity will rejoin us. I think he > brought quite positive elements and knowledge to this place. And he > provided a good model of patience and unflappability. Yes he did. But he will probably not rejoin FFL because Turqoise, Barry the Turk is a compulsive lier and a fountainhead of Buddhist negativity. If this fellow Barry was forever banned from FFL this forum could thrive. As it looks now it heads towards oblivion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's poem to Swami Muktananda
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, film_man_pdx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > BTW, I forgot to ask if there were any pictures of the meetings posted > anywhere on the internet? > > TIA > Yes...and you don't have to go too far to get one, either, as our very own Rick Archer has very kindly put a photo of both Muktananda and Maharishi a huggin' right in the "Photos" section of FFL. Here's a shortcut to it: http://tinyurl.com/5mevjn
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's poem to Swami Muktananda
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "pranamoocher" wrote: > > > >> ...And then Baba went off the deep end... > >> > > > > Ok, some are going to disagree, but my first impression > > when reading this is that Maharishi was trying his best > > to IMPRESS Muktananda, and get his "blessing." > > > > The whole thing is full of language about how Muktananda > > "outranks" Maharishi because he's a real Swami and MMY > > was not. My guess is that Muktananda was one of the > > first real *credentialed* Swamis that MMY had run into > > in America, and he was trying to impress him so that > > Muktananda wouldn't blow the fact that Maharishi had > > none. > > > > In other words, this sounds to me as if Maharishi was > > trying to dazzle Muktananda with pretty words so that > > he could later use him in his P.R. the way he'd used > > the Beatles. Which he did. > > > > Either that, or he really *felt* all these things about > > a guy he'd met only once before, during which visit he'd > > *also* played the "you outrank me" game. Your call. > I remember when Muktananda's organization ran ads back in the late > 1970's in yoga magazines showing a guy cross legged levitating with > palms in the arm and the caption "so now I'm flying, now what?" That > pretty much summed up the TMO at that point. Many TM'ers went over to > Muktananda because he would answer questions that Maharishi couldn't or > wouldn't. I also think his form of yogic meditation in general was > better for the public than TM. Of course his organization kinda fell > apart after he passed on as it was given to this young Indian girl which > surprised friends who were in the organization at the time as she was > just someone they hung out with and she would even go have pizza with them. > Actually, on his passing he gave his organisation over, equally to the Indian girl you refer to as well as her brother. But within a few years, the sister edged out her brother completely from the organisation in a not completely bloodless coup. The organisation didn't really fall apart as the result of it being handed to the girl -- I mean, hey, people die and these things have to be given over to someone -- it was a combination of the revelations of Muktananda's alleged sexual dalliances with a number of young girls as well as the acrimonious break-up of the brother/sister team.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" > wrote: > > > > Received in email from Michael/t3rinity: > > > > "You may also share this if you want: I left because of > > Barry, yes, and I communicated this to Judy. I am not > > sure if Judy had me in mind, but it is certainly true. > > Ah, I *knew* that if I kept associating Judy > with McCarthy she'd email the person in question. Michael and I had exchanged emails when he unsubscribed, but his email above was entirely unsolicited by me. He'll confirm that too.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jul 19, 2008, at 5:18 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > You give me too little credit, Sal. > > > > I DO have the power to fog people's brains with > > my super-powerful Negativity Ray (TM) and Literary > > Eloquence (TM), and turn them into mind-slaves who > > do whatever I want them to do. I *made* Michael > > unsubscribe, through the unrelenting power of > > my Evil Shakti (TM). > > > > Watch your step, or I might do it to you, too. > > Too late. I'm afraid my brain is already so fogged that > anything more will make little difference. But hey, give > it a go. It's already Sunday here in Spain. I make it a point never to turn anyone into one of my mind-slaves on a Sunday. Unless they are really babalicious. > Frankly, Michael's and Jim's obvious need to be 'special' > and treated accordingly was downright bizarro, IMO. Bingo. If you cut to the chase, that's really it. They wanted to be treated a certain way, the way they felt that they *deserved* to be treated. People didn't treat them like they were "special." They didn't like that much and, rather than figure out that all they had to do to fit in was to act like what they are -- ordinary human beings not one whit more special than any other -- they bailed. Just like Rory before them and probably a few "special" folks in the future. Meanwhile, the people here who are Just Folks, without any "special needs," seem to get along just fine. Many of them even manage to have a good time. Could it possibly be that the Just Folks have figured out something that the "special" folks haven't? Or is it that I just haven't gotten around to them yet with my Negativity Ray (TM) and Literary Eloquence (TM)? Maybe they're still here only because I haven't yet unleashed the awesome whupassness of my Evil Shakti (TM) on them. Only the Shadow knows...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > > > As always I enjoy all of your posts on FFL, and often find them > > entertaining and to the point. Just to put to rest Barry's fiction > > that I left FFL because of him, I decided to go simply because there > > was nothing more for me to say. FFL in my opinion has become mostly a > > bunch of people saying the same old tired things against the TMO and > > Maharishi and the TM technique. Not at all what it used to be - very > > little knowledge there now. > > > > You may share this if you want to. > > > > All the Best and please stay in touch, > > Jim > > Received in email from Michael/t3rinity: > > "You may also share this if you want: I left because of Barry, yes, > and I communicated this to Judy. I am not sure if Judy had me in > mind, but it is certainly true. I just feel a wall of negativity descending on me in > almost all of his posts. My experience also. He is obviously into very dark thinking. Just a few days ago Barry claimed I would soon die. He claims to be an occultists. The reality is that he has serious problems. > > About Judy I can say that she has a remarkable intellectual power, and > that she was always interpreting me right. My experience also, Judy is a remarkable person. In May this year I met a jewish woman, about the same same age as Judy also. She has an intellect out of the ordinary (so often boringly repeated about Jews) and a wit and a warmth about her seldom seen in these whereabouts. Needless to say we instantly became friends. > I largely agree with what Jim wrote. Jim was one of the few perls on > this forum. Amongst posters here Michael/t3inity was one of those most appreciated. That Michael dropped this forum because of Barry is sad indeed, but not surprising. Barry, with his endless negativity towards anything uplifting, particularily the TMO which he left 30 (!) years ago, and his Buddhist friend "Vaj" have driven many away from this forum. And more will follow.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
On Jul 19, 2008, at 5:18 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: You give me too little credit, Sal. I DO have the power to fog people's brains with my super-powerful Negativity Ray (TM) and Literary Eloquence (TM), and turn them into mind-slaves who do whatever I want them to do. I *made* Michael unsubscribe, through the unrelenting power of my Evil Shakti (TM). Watch your step, or I might do it to you, too. Too late. I'm afraid my brain is already so fogged that anything more will make little difference. But hey, give it a go. Frankly, Michael's and Jim's obvious need to be 'special' and treated accordingly was downright bizarro, IMO. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jul 19, 2008, at 4:32 PM, Alex Stanley wrote: > > > Why should I leave only for one person? Well, for one thing I > > knew him online for a longer time than many others here. Second, > > I feel he has a certain degree of support in the group, and he > > tries to dominate it, by his literary eloquence. This seems to > > count more here than logical argument. There is a certain > > casualness in the group which I find alienating. Maybe the > > group is simply too big. There is a certain amount of negativity > > and sarcasm penetrating the group - I can live without it. > > I have no idea what this idiot could possibly be referring to. :) > > Really, this is just a dumb attempt to make somebody else > responsible for his own actions. Is he an adult? If so, unless > Barry has the power to ban people, he left of his own volition, > as does everyone else who unsubs. This attempt by Judy to > make Barry responsible for the actions of someone else is > pathetic. You give me too little credit, Sal. I DO have the power to fog people's brains with my super-powerful Negativity Ray (TM) and Literary Eloquence (TM), and turn them into mind-slaves who do whatever I want them to do. I *made* Michael unsubscribe, through the unrelenting power of my Evil Shakti (TM). Watch your step, or I might do it to you, too.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Typo: Maharishi on role of the Guru
On Jul 19, 2008, at 5:08 PM, new.morning wrote: Ha!. Actually, its funny, when I read "Pripad" I did said, "that doesn't look right." Who knows where tht came from. Maybe its the Ved from within my cells that spoke up. :) You're obviously a lot more evolved than I am! Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: T3rinity Will be Missed
Just so Sal won't lose any sleep, "it could haoone" was actually meant to be "it could happen" -- but I am prone at times to make up words at times. (Hey, thats how language evolves. Do you you really think English came into existence one day -- with all 2 million words -- good to go?) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Its a shame T3rintiy has left. He was one of the people I regularly > read. He provided a good insights from a variety of vantage points > fairly unique here: a "travel with her" position within the Mother > Meera group, a European perspective from someone long in the TMO, a > natural, not on his arm sleeve devotional school view, lots of travel > in India and knowledge of the deeper aspects of India and its > cultures, was fairly unflappable (I was sometimes amazed at the > distortions of his views fedback to him and his patient corrections) > and he seemed like a genuinely regular and nice guy. > > I can relate to T3rinity's dilemma. Not responding to "junk" responses > is a tactic I have found useful. Not all posts are deserving of a > response. Even if a post appears to highly distort my views, or claims > bizzare motive for my my posts (hey maybe they actual do know what i > am thinking and feeling better than me -- "it could haoone" as Judy > Tanuda(sp?) -- comedian -- used to say), I try to let it pass. I give > most readers enough credit here to sort things out without my step by > excruciating step, correcting the record. > > And defending ones "name" is so old-school. Does anyone really care if > a turd-brain (at that moment) calls you a turd-brain? Its more funny > than slanderous. > > Or, more compassionately, who knows what weird things people are > working out, and what twisty-turning, knotty constraints their > thoughts must go through to get to the surface. In the big picture, I > think everyone is doing the best with what they have. > > And I think people do learn, respond and heal over time. (It may be a > LONG time.) But if one writes crap long enough, it usually dawns that > it is crap. Similar to many of our pasts in TMOville. After talking > the talk long enough, a light goes on and we go, "whew -- what was I > thinking!" > > I hope, after a nice break, T3rinity will rejoin us. I think he > brought quite positive elements and knowledge to this place. And he > provided a good model of patience and unflappability. > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > > > > > > As always I enjoy all of your posts on FFL, and often find them > > > entertaining and to the point. Just to put to rest Barry's fiction > > > that I left FFL because of him, I decided to go simply because there > > > was nothing more for me to say. FFL in my opinion has become mostly a > > > bunch of people saying the same old tired things against the TMO and > > > Maharishi and the TM technique. Not at all what it used to be - very > > > little knowledge there now. > > > > > > You may share this if you want to. > > > > > > All the Best and please stay in touch, > > > Jim > > > > Received in email from Michael/t3rinity: > > > > "You may also share this if you want: I left because of Barry, yes, > > and I communicated this to Judy. I am not sure if Judy had me in > > mind, but it is certainly true. > > > > If anybody thinks that this is an overeaction, or is interested, you > > can look at the last post Barry wrote to one of my posts, and then > > compare it to the original post. To cut it short, Barry draws a number > > of conclusions out of my posts about my alleged opinions, which are in > > no way written there, and which I had made clear to him before, that > > they are not mine. I came to the decission that I would have to go > > into another round of what I actually think, and what I said, in > > opposition of what he declares me of having said. If anyone is > > interested - which I doubt, you can look. So I was simply tired of > > this game. My reaction my be right or wrong, you may call me > > thinskinned, I am simply being honest to you. > > > > Why should I leave only for one person? Well, for one thing I knew him > > online for a longer time than many others here. Second, I feel he has > > a certain degree of support in the group, and he tries to dominate it, > > by his literary eloquence. This seems to count more here than logical > > argument. There is a certain casualness in the group which I find > > alienating. Maybe the group is simply too big. There is a certain > > amount of negativity and sarcasm penetrating the group - I can live > > without it. Now let me say that I have also had fruitful discussions > > here, and there are certainly people here that I respect and like a > > lot. I also had nice exchanges with Barry in the past, I even had an > > email exchange with him not too long ago, which was very nic
[FairfieldLife] Re: Typo: Maharishi on role of the Guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jul 19, 2008, at 4:28 PM, Dick Mays wrote: > > > The transcript has a small spelling mistake in the Sanskrit: > > "Pripad Asyamritam Divi." should be "Tripad Asyamritam Divi" > > Yeah, I was really losing sleep over that one, Dick...I mean, > I just *knew* something was wrong, but couldn't figure it out. > Thanks for setting us all straight. > > Sal > Ha!. Actually, its funny, when I read "Pripad" I did said, "that doesn't look right." Who knows where tht came from. Maybe its the Ved from within my cells that spoke up. :)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
On Jul 19, 2008, at 4:32 PM, Alex Stanley wrote: Why should I leave only for one person? Well, for one thing I knew him online for a longer time than many others here. Second, I feel he has a certain degree of support in the group, and he tries to dominate it, by his literary eloquence. This seems to count more here than logical argument. There is a certain casualness in the group which I find alienating. Maybe the group is simply too big. There is a certain amount of negativity and sarcasm penetrating the group - I can live without it. I have no idea what this idiot could possibly be referring to. :) Really, this is just a dumb attempt to make somebody else responsible for his own actions. Is he an adult? If so, unless Barry has the power to ban people, he left of his own volition, as does everyone else who unsubs. This attempt by Judy to make Barry responsible for the actions of someone else is pathetic. Sal
[FairfieldLife] T3rinity Will be Missed
Its a shame T3rintiy has left. He was one of the people I regularly read. He provided a good insights from a variety of vantage points fairly unique here: a "travel with her" position within the Mother Meera group, a European perspective from someone long in the TMO, a natural, not on his arm sleeve devotional school view, lots of travel in India and knowledge of the deeper aspects of India and its cultures, was fairly unflappable (I was sometimes amazed at the distortions of his views fedback to him and his patient corrections) and he seemed like a genuinely regular and nice guy. I can relate to T3rinity's dilemma. Not responding to "junk" responses is a tactic I have found useful. Not all posts are deserving of a response. Even if a post appears to highly distort my views, or claims bizzare motive for my my posts (hey maybe they actual do know what i am thinking and feeling better than me -- "it could haoone" as Judy Tanuda(sp?) -- comedian -- used to say), I try to let it pass. I give most readers enough credit here to sort things out without my step by excruciating step, correcting the record. And defending ones "name" is so old-school. Does anyone really care if a turd-brain (at that moment) calls you a turd-brain? Its more funny than slanderous. Or, more compassionately, who knows what weird things people are working out, and what twisty-turning, knotty constraints their thoughts must go through to get to the surface. In the big picture, I think everyone is doing the best with what they have. And I think people do learn, respond and heal over time. (It may be a LONG time.) But if one writes crap long enough, it usually dawns that it is crap. Similar to many of our pasts in TMOville. After talking the talk long enough, a light goes on and we go, "whew -- what was I thinking!" I hope, after a nice break, T3rinity will rejoin us. I think he brought quite positive elements and knowledge to this place. And he provided a good model of patience and unflappability. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > > > As always I enjoy all of your posts on FFL, and often find them > > entertaining and to the point. Just to put to rest Barry's fiction > > that I left FFL because of him, I decided to go simply because there > > was nothing more for me to say. FFL in my opinion has become mostly a > > bunch of people saying the same old tired things against the TMO and > > Maharishi and the TM technique. Not at all what it used to be - very > > little knowledge there now. > > > > You may share this if you want to. > > > > All the Best and please stay in touch, > > Jim > > Received in email from Michael/t3rinity: > > "You may also share this if you want: I left because of Barry, yes, > and I communicated this to Judy. I am not sure if Judy had me in > mind, but it is certainly true. > > If anybody thinks that this is an overeaction, or is interested, you > can look at the last post Barry wrote to one of my posts, and then > compare it to the original post. To cut it short, Barry draws a number > of conclusions out of my posts about my alleged opinions, which are in > no way written there, and which I had made clear to him before, that > they are not mine. I came to the decission that I would have to go > into another round of what I actually think, and what I said, in > opposition of what he declares me of having said. If anyone is > interested - which I doubt, you can look. So I was simply tired of > this game. My reaction my be right or wrong, you may call me > thinskinned, I am simply being honest to you. > > Why should I leave only for one person? Well, for one thing I knew him > online for a longer time than many others here. Second, I feel he has > a certain degree of support in the group, and he tries to dominate it, > by his literary eloquence. This seems to count more here than logical > argument. There is a certain casualness in the group which I find > alienating. Maybe the group is simply too big. There is a certain > amount of negativity and sarcasm penetrating the group - I can live > without it. Now let me say that I have also had fruitful discussions > here, and there are certainly people here that I respect and like a > lot. I also had nice exchanges with Barry in the past, I even had an > email exchange with him not too long ago, which was very nice and on a > friendly basis. I used to think that if we would meet in person, we > could have a nice and very interesting talk. But our last exchanges > made me feel otherwise - I may be right, I may be wrong, but I have no > interest anymore. I just feel a wall of negativity descending on me in > almost all of his posts. > > About Judy I can say that she has a remarkable intellectual power, and > that she was always interpreting me right. Maybe I expressed myself > unclearly or too abstract, she could always say what I
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Received in email from Michael/t3rinity: > > "You may also share this if you want: I left because of Barry, yes, > and I communicated this to Judy. I am not sure if Judy had me in > mind, but it is certainly true. Ah, I *knew* that if I kept associating Judy with McCarthy she'd email the person in question. Glad you decided to say what you think in front of people's backs for a change, Michael. :-) > If anybody thinks that this is an overeaction, or is interested, you > can look at the last post Barry wrote to one of my posts, and then > compare it to the original post. To cut it short, Barry draws a > number of conclusions out of my posts about my alleged opinions, > which are in no way written there, and which I had made clear to > him before, that they are not mine. Michael, you CLAIM that they are not yours. You suffer from the same dis-ease as Judy, in that you cannot conceive of anyone's assessment of you and your motives that differs from your own being correct or valid. If they don't see you and your motives and your trends the way you do, they are WRONG. I think my assessments of your actions and your motives are correct, and I stand by them. You may attempt to refute them all you want, but I don't buy it. Like Judy, your claims about your habit patterns and your motives say one thing, but the consistent actions say quite another. I am *entitled* to my own opinions of your motives, and am equally entitled to express them here. What you don't like is THAT I express them here. > I came to the decission that I would have to go > into another round of what I actually think, and what I said, in > opposition of what he declares me of having said. If anyone is > interested - which I doubt, you can look. So I was simply tired of > this game. My reaction my be right or wrong, you may call me > thinskinned, I am simply being honest to you. Cool. I don't care whether you stay or go. As I've said many times before, I don't find you that interesting. > Why should I leave only for one person? Well, for one thing I knew > him online for a longer time than many others here. Second, I feel > he has a certain degree of support in the group... Ahh...now we get to the REAL reason for this email, and for your consistent attacks on me when I bring up atheism or say something you don't like. What you don't like IN PARTICULAR is that some other people on this forum AGREE with me. THAT is what you would like to put a stop to. And in this you are JUST like Judy. That's why you two get along. :-) > ...and he tries to dominate it, > by his literary eloquence. Uh...thanks, I guess. :-) But I don't think I dominate this forum at all. And I doubt that anyone else does, either. What I think you are really trying to say is that you don't like me being here and saying things that you don't like hearing said. > This seems to count more here than logical > argument. There is a certain casualness in the group which I find > alienating. Could that possibly be because you have a big spiritual stick up your butt? :-) > Maybe the group is simply too big. There is a certain > amount of negativity and sarcasm penetrating the group - I can live > without it. Obviously, you cannot. Because here you are again. :-) > Now let me say that I have also had fruitful discussions > here, and there are certainly people here that I respect and like a > lot. I also had nice exchanges with Barry in the past, I even had an > email exchange with him not too long ago, which was very nice and > on a friendly basis. I used to think that if we would meet in > person, we could have a nice and very interesting talk. But our > last exchanges made me feel otherwise - I may be right, I may be > wrong, but I have no interest anymore. Only enough to write and email all this, right? :-) > I just feel a wall of negativity descending on me in > almost all of his posts. Must be my literary eloquence. Some people just can't HANDLE literary eloquence. :-) > About Judy I can say that she has a remarkable intellectual power, > and that she was always interpreting me right. What you mean to say is that she was interpreting you the way you'd LIKE to be interpreted. I was not. THAT is what you are pissed off about. My view of you and your motives is JUST as valid as yours. It's just different from yours, that's all. My credo in life is to listen to what people say, but to watch what they DO. In the case of you, Judy, and Jim, THAT is the issue. What you *claim* about your motives does not match what I and many others perceive as your motives. We have chosen to believe our own eyes and ears, and not your words. > Maybe I expressed myself > unclearly or too abstract, she could always say what I had meant. > That doesn't mean I agree with everything she says - after all I am > following a very different way since more than 20 years
Re: [FairfieldLife] News about Seth Cohen
On Jul 19, 2008, at 4:51 PM, sgrayatlarge wrote: Due to the sensitive nature regarding Seth Cohen's current physical condition, those of you who are friends of Seth and would like to know more, feel free to email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] , attn: Steve Gray and I will share more details. Who is Seth Cohen? Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Typo: Maharishi on role of the Guru
On Jul 19, 2008, at 4:28 PM, Dick Mays wrote: The transcript has a small spelling mistake in the Sanskrit: "Pripad Asyamritam Divi." should be "Tripad Asyamritam Divi" Yeah, I was really losing sleep over that one, Dick...I mean, I just *knew* something was wrong, but couldn't figure it out. Thanks for setting us all straight. Sal
[FairfieldLife] News about Seth Cohen
Due to the sensitive nature regarding Seth Cohen's current physical condition, those of you who are friends of Seth and would like to know more, feel free to email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] , attn: Steve Gray and I will share more details. Thanks
[FairfieldLife] "Friedlich eingeschlafen"
http://www.zisch.ch/navigation/top_main_nav/nachrichten/zentralschweiz/uri/detail.htm?client_request_className=NewsItem&client_request_contentOID=266000 http://tinyurl.com/69ho8z
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > wrote: > > > > > > > > Based on hearing from Alex that Jim had > > > > unsubscribed, I *speculated* that it might > > > > have been him you were talking about. I > > > > then went on to explicitly say in the orig- > > > > inal post that I didn't believe that Jim > > > > would have said that he left "because of > > > > Barry's nastiness and dishonesty." I said > > > > that that did not sound like him, and that > > > > I thought you'd made it up. > > > > > > > > As it turns out, you made it up about some > > > > other person, not Jim. :-) > > > > > > Not made up, sorry. > > > > Ah, but it is. I and everyone here have the right > > to assume that it IS made up > > You have the right to believe whatever you wish > and to state your beliefs as such. Ethically, you > do not have the right to state your beliefs as > though they were established fact, as you did > above. Ethically, schmethically. I said that you made it all up because as far as I (or any- one else here) can tell, you DID make it all up. That IS a fact unless you can prove that it is not. If more people had called Joseph McCarthy when he did what you tried to do, that whole lamentable period of history wouldn't have happened. He made it all up, and you made it all up. "I have in my hands a list of 205 [government employees] that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department." -- Senator Joseph McCarthy, 1950 The list was never made available to the Secy of State, or to anyone else. McCarthy later claimed that he could not reveal it because he had to protect a communication from a private source, exactly the same argument used by Judy Stein when refusing to back up the following quote: "We recently lost an extremely valuable long-time poster because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty." -- Judy, 17 July 2008 Photo of Joe: http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/02/04/icon_topic3_feb4,0.jpg Photo of Judy: http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos/view/4c65?b=27
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > As always I enjoy all of your posts on FFL, and often find them > entertaining and to the point. Just to put to rest Barry's fiction > that I left FFL because of him, I decided to go simply because there > was nothing more for me to say. FFL in my opinion has become mostly a > bunch of people saying the same old tired things against the TMO and > Maharishi and the TM technique. Not at all what it used to be - very > little knowledge there now. > > You may share this if you want to. > > All the Best and please stay in touch, > Jim Received in email from Michael/t3rinity: "You may also share this if you want: I left because of Barry, yes, and I communicated this to Judy. I am not sure if Judy had me in mind, but it is certainly true. If anybody thinks that this is an overeaction, or is interested, you can look at the last post Barry wrote to one of my posts, and then compare it to the original post. To cut it short, Barry draws a number of conclusions out of my posts about my alleged opinions, which are in no way written there, and which I had made clear to him before, that they are not mine. I came to the decission that I would have to go into another round of what I actually think, and what I said, in opposition of what he declares me of having said. If anyone is interested - which I doubt, you can look. So I was simply tired of this game. My reaction my be right or wrong, you may call me thinskinned, I am simply being honest to you. Why should I leave only for one person? Well, for one thing I knew him online for a longer time than many others here. Second, I feel he has a certain degree of support in the group, and he tries to dominate it, by his literary eloquence. This seems to count more here than logical argument. There is a certain casualness in the group which I find alienating. Maybe the group is simply too big. There is a certain amount of negativity and sarcasm penetrating the group - I can live without it. Now let me say that I have also had fruitful discussions here, and there are certainly people here that I respect and like a lot. I also had nice exchanges with Barry in the past, I even had an email exchange with him not too long ago, which was very nice and on a friendly basis. I used to think that if we would meet in person, we could have a nice and very interesting talk. But our last exchanges made me feel otherwise - I may be right, I may be wrong, but I have no interest anymore. I just feel a wall of negativity descending on me in almost all of his posts. About Judy I can say that she has a remarkable intellectual power, and that she was always interpreting me right. Maybe I expressed myself unclearly or too abstract, she could always say what I had meant. That doesn't mean I agree with everything she says - after all I am following a very different way since more than 20 years - but its a capacity of understanding and intuition which is remarkable - yes right not just intellectual scrutinity, but also intuition. I largely agree with what Jim wrote. Jim was one of the few perls on this forum. I have been off and on again, so people may not notice I unsubscribed. I must also admit that I had unscubscribed one time before. I only inscribed myself again after MMY's death and funeral. I wanted to give some information to some people here."
[FairfieldLife] Typo: Maharishi on role of the Guru
The transcript has a small spelling mistake in the Sanskrit: "Pripad Asyamritam Divi." should be "Tripad Asyamritam Divi" It is from Purusha Sukta, verse 3: etavanasya mahima ato jyayagamshcha purushaha pado'sya vishva bhutani tripad asya mritam divi "So much is His greatness. However, the Purusha is greater than this. All the beings form only a quarter (part of) Him. The three-quarter part of His, which is eternal, is established in the spiritual domain." Jai Guru Dev Maharishi's 20th July 2005 Press Conference Excerpt on the role of the Guru:
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > Based on hearing from Alex that Jim had > > > unsubscribed, I *speculated* that it might > > > have been him you were talking about. I > > > then went on to explicitly say in the orig- > > > inal post that I didn't believe that Jim > > > would have said that he left "because of > > > Barry's nastiness and dishonesty." I said > > > that that did not sound like him, and that > > > I thought you'd made it up. > > > > > > As it turns out, you made it up about some > > > other person, not Jim. :-) > > > > Not made up, sorry. > > Ah, but it is. I and everyone here have the right > to assume that it IS made up You have the right to believe whatever you wish and to state your beliefs as such. Ethically, you do not have the right to state your beliefs as though they were established fact, as you did above. (But of course you'll continue to do so anyway, because you have no ethical principles.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > Based on hearing from Alex that Jim had > > unsubscribed, I *speculated* that it might > > have been him you were talking about. I > > then went on to explicitly say in the orig- > > inal post that I didn't believe that Jim > > would have said that he left "because of > > Barry's nastiness and dishonesty." I said > > that that did not sound like him, and that > > I thought you'd made it up. > > > > As it turns out, you made it up about some > > other person, not Jim. :-) > > Not made up, sorry. Ah, but it is. I and everyone here have the right to assume that it IS made up until such time as you can prove that it is not. In this situation, you are in the same category as Joseph McCarthy with *his* claims that *he* refused to back up. (However, Joe might have had more credibility than you.) "I have in my hands a list of 205 [government employees] that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department." -- Senator Joseph McCarthy, 1950 The list was never made available to the Secy of State, or to anyone else. McCarthy later claimed that he could not reveal it because he had to protect a communication from a private source, exactly the same argument used by Judy Stein when refusing to back up the following quote: "We recently lost an extremely valuable long-time poster because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty." -- Judy, 17 July 2008 Photo of Joe: http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/02/04/icon_topic3_feb4,0.jpg Photo of Judy: http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos/view/4c65?b=27
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > Actually, it wasn't my "fiction" but my speculation, > > > spurred by Judy's refusal to back up a claim that she > > > made. As I said in the speculation, claiming that > > > you left "because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty" > > > didn't sound like you at all. It sounded like something > > > that Judy would make up. As it turns out, it was. > > > > I never claimed Jim left because of your nastiness > > and dishonesty. > > And I never claimed you did. As you're so > fond of saying, "Go back and read what I > really wrote." Yeah, that's what you claimed. You read it again. > Based on hearing from Alex that Jim had > unsubscribed, I *speculated* that it might > have been him you were talking about. I > then went on to explicitly say in the orig- > inal post that I didn't believe that Jim > would have said that he left "because of > Barry's nastiness and dishonesty." I said > that that did not sound like him, and that > I thought you'd made it up. > > As it turns out, you made it up about some > other person, not Jim. :-) Not made up, sorry.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Obama arrives in war zone'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge wrote: > > > > > > -"and responds from a > > > > larger set of considerations and perspectives." > > > > > > The reason why he kicks around ideas and responds from a > > > larger set of considerations is because he needs time for > > > his 300 plus advisors to formulate the correct "idea" for > > > him. > > > > And that's just his *foreign policy* advisors. > > There's probably a private, invitation-only forum/blog that > the 300 can argue foreign policy in and he monitors the > conversation. Actually there isn't, and he doesn't. This NY Times article describes how it works: http://tinyurl.com/5aksns Basically, there's a lot of discussion back and forth via email between individuals. His top advisers ask for input from selected folks in the larger group, then discuss it among themselves. Every day they send Obama a briefing on foreign affairs and a Q&A of things he's likely to be asked about that day with suggested responses.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Obama arrives in war zone'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge wrote: > > > > > > -"and responds from a > > > > larger set of considerations and perspectives." > > > > > > The reason why he kicks around ideas and responds from a larger > > > set of considerations is because he needs time for his 300 plus > > > advisors to formulate the correct "idea" for him. > > > > And that's just his *foreign policy* advisors. > > > > > There's probably a private, invitation-only forum/blog that the 300 can argue > foreign policy in and he monitors the conversation. > > > Lawson BHO (too bad his middle name is not Robert or Richard) is the first real internet prez candidate -- as perhaps kennedy was the first television president. In that each was the first to really understand and "own"/master the thing. Setting up a private blog / chat group for advisors is a wonderful thing, IMO. Throw out a topic, and have them chew on it from many angles, from around the world, think along with them, and see what, and respond to, creatively shape what emerges. Way better than tightly controlled access to the president. Is it true Rick Archer is his secret chat group organizer? And that BHO regularly reads FFL because, as he says, "Theres a lot of knowledge there."
[FairfieldLife] Narcissism
Since the term is used here a lot -- at times. And loosely. Particularly MMY. Was he narcissistic? I don't know. [Some comments below in brackets.] July 20, 2008 Here's Looking at Me, Kid By JAN HOFFMAN JAMIE LYNN SPEARS is a narcissist, to say nothing of her older sister. So is Hillary Rodham Clinton. Bill, too! Clearly, the word was created with A-Rod in mind. And who can forget Eliot Spitzer? But please, let's forget this month's narcissist du headline, Peter Cook, the philandering ex-husband of the model Christie Brinkley. Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, is a narcissist. (Chuck Hagel?) Madonna seemingly takes nightly baths in her own reflected glow. Have we forgotten anybody pop-analyzed with that word in the last six minutes? Naomi Campbell, anyone? As stunningly disparate as they are, all of these folks and many others, including Saddam Hussein and Russell Crowe, have been labeled as narcissists. It has become the go-to diagnosis by columnists, bloggers and television psychologists. A term that has deep roots in psychoanalytic literature appears to have become a popular descriptor so bloated as to have been rendered meaningless. "It sounds more impressive to say that someone is narcissistic rather than a jerk," said Dr. Susan Jaffe, a Manhattan psychoanalyst. Are any of these characters actually narcissists? Only their therapists know for sure. [ A similar theme to "mind-readers" who feel they know what others are thinking, feeing, or being motivated by] We love to label the offensive behavior of others to separate them from us; it's their problem, not ours. And labels have their periods of vogue (see "chauvinist"). "Narcissist" is among our current favorites. It has been splashed at bad boyfriends, successful executives, reality show contestants, users of YouTube and Facebook, and, obviously, celebrities. But while it has acquired a silly elasticity, it has also acquired rich layers of meaning. For though the word has a derogatory stamp, the very people we label narcissistic often are those who attract as well as repel us. "The study of narcissism is a growth industry in academia," said Daniel Ames, a social and personality psychologist at Columbia Business School, who administers a narcissistic personality test to his students. "It helps us to understand and explain behavior, whether it's in the bedroom or the boardroom. And it's just a lot of fun to talk about." But during the recent Brinkley-Cook custody smearfest, Dr. Stephen Herman, a court-appointed psychiatrist affiliated with Weill Medical College of Cornell University, did not have fun in mind when he testified that Mr. Cook was a narcissist. In a phone interview last week, he explained that he had been using the term in its clinical sense, "not so much to label someone but to give insight into behavior, and indicate the relatively inflexible personality characteristic that it is." ["relatively inflexible personality characteristic that it is" -- so this is an attribute. In many way's MMY was, when I was there, the most flexible personality I had ever seen. Always looking at everything from a new angle. Getting absorbed in mundane minutia -- which might have been tedious for some of us at times -- but indicates a fascination about how things work. Inflexibility seems to be on the opposite side of the spectrum from these traits. ] In the clinical diagnostic manual, the many criteria for narcissistic personality disorder include a "pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration and lack of empathy." [MMY had lot of empathy, in the days when I was in the audience. Listening endlessly to trivial problems of people and giving some advice they sought. And there was always a line to see him in his room after lectures. I know some ex skin boys who appear to loathe him now -- for "treating the people who loved him like shit". I saw some of that, but not much. But I was more in the audience than with him every minute. ] [But but if a narcissist is inflexible and unempathetic -- wouldn't they be unempathetic all of the time?] Havelock Ellis, the late-19th-century British sexologist, has been credited with coining the term "narcissist," after the myth of Narcissus, the Greek youth fatally enamored of his own reflection. Narcissists, Freud later wrote, were nearly untreatable. Unspeakably lonely and shackled by grandiose fantasies, they were incapable of forming relationships, not even with a psychoanalyst. In the 1970s, several psychoanalysts argued that narcissistic personality disorder occurs across a continuum and is not impervious to treatment a theory that continues to be refined. Today, therapists say, patients who receive a diagnosis of the disorder remain among the most challenging to help because they often believe their problem is that others never sufficiently recognize how special they are. In childhood they had been deprived of essential emotional sustenance; as
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's poem to Swami Muktananda
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, film_man_pdx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > BTW, I forgot to ask if there were any pictures of the meetings posted > anywhere on the internet? > > TIA The Muktananda people has some pictures. Muktananda also said during the meeting " I have been asked about Maharishi before but did not know what to say. Now that I have met him I can say that if you stay in his boat he will take you safe across the ocean." On other occasions he also commented about the difference between his and Maharishis path. He said that he had come to take care of a small number of students in this lifetime, whereas Maharishi takes care of the whole world. He also congratulated the TM-ers for their courage of meditating without close contact with their teacher since Maharishi had a different role in taking care of the whole world. Apparently he made this point on many occasions.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > Actually, it wasn't my "fiction" but my speculation, > > spurred by Judy's refusal to back up a claim that she > > made. As I said in the speculation, claiming that > > you left "because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty" > > didn't sound like you at all. It sounded like something > > that Judy would make up. As it turns out, it was. > > I never claimed Jim left because of your nastiness > and dishonesty. And I never claimed you did. As you're so fond of saying, "Go back and read what I really wrote." Based on hearing from Alex that Jim had unsubscribed, I *speculated* that it might have been him you were talking about. I then went on to explicitly say in the orig- inal post that I didn't believe that Jim would have said that he left "because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty." I said that that did not sound like him, and that I thought you'd made it up. As it turns out, you made it up about some other person, not Jim. :-) "I have in my hands a list of 205 [government employees] that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department." -- Senator Joseph McCarthy, 1950 The list was never made available to the Secy of State, or to anyone else. McCarthy later claimed that he could not reveal it because he had to protect a communication from a private source, exactly the same argument used by Judy Stein when refusing to back up the following quote: "We recently lost an extremely valuable long-time poster because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty." -- Judy, 17 July 2008 Photo of Joe: http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/02/04/icon_topic3_feb4,0.jpg Photo of Judy: http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos/view/4c65?b=27
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, it wasn't my "fiction" but my speculation, > spurred by Judy's refusal to back up a claim that she > made. As I said in the speculation, claiming that > you left "because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty" > didn't sound like you at all. It sounded like something > that Judy would make up. As it turns out, it was. I never claimed Jim left because of your nastiness and dishonesty. Barry, you're descending deeper and deeper into your own fantasy world. At some point soon, it's going to become impossible for you to come back. Get some help before it's too late.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's poem to Swami Muktananda
BTW, I forgot to ask if there were any pictures of the meetings posted anywhere on the internet? TIA
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's poem to Swami Muktananda
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yifuxero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > from "Baba Muktananda, A biography" by Swami Parkashananda, Sarasvati > Productions, ISBN 978-1-886140-13-4, p. 271-272. > > "On 26th of March [1977], Baba moved to a private bungalow on Juju > Beach to recuperate". > > ... > ... > "The day after his arrival, Maharishi Maehsh Yogi came to visit him. > He and the Maharishi sat together outside in the garden for about > half an hour. BIG ASS SNIP FOR BREVITY AND READABILITY: I seem to recall reading an article in YOGA JOURNAL from about that same time period re: Baba and MMY meeting up in Europe. It was back in the day when YJ was still printing in Black and White on cheap paper. It wasn't a puff piece for either movement, per se, but it didn't give much to take away. Darshan just doesn't translate to the printed word very well. "You had to be there", was my thought on the article.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's poem to Swami Muktananda
And did "Jim" also witness the dozens and dozens of levitation and hovering episodes performed by that guru from that cult you were involved in for years, Barry? Look, that's at least three instances in which you've created imaginary friends or circumstances in order to make whatever point you were making. You felt you needed to create fictitions -- unnecessarily I might add -- in order to aggrandize your story as if that would make your argument better. Better to just stick to the truth; you're a good writer and perfectly capable of winning friends and influencing people that way without resorting to fabrications. I just watched for the umpteenth time the movie "Girl, interrupted". At one point Suzannah, the character played by Wynona Ryder, gets a diagnosis from the attending psychiatrist who labels her as having some sort of borderline disorder. But as is obvious to all, the doctors really have no idea what they're doing other than acknowledging that they are dealing with disturbed people. I'm not familiar with psychology, Barry, but this propensity you have for inventing imaginary people and fanciful feats by gurus and all that must have a name. "Jules Verne by Proxy" syndrome would be the name I'd give it. It's probably harmless and I'm sure you're not a threat, physically, to either yourself or others. But you are full of shit. Oh, and just to let you know there's no hard feelings, here's the little signature Barry Wright "dig" that follows all of the cutting observations you make here: -) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > wrote: > > > > First of all, Barry, he never met him in America, just Seelisberg > > (unless the "Juju" place is in America which I don't think it is). > > > > Secondly, I seem to recall a post you did several years ago in > > which you claimed you met someone in the Muktananda group who was > > present at the meeting and it was her distinct impression that > > Muktananda felt sorry for Maharishi and that's why he sat down > > beside him and gave him a hug. > > > > Of course, the truth is that you made up your imaginary friend, > > which is your wont to do, in order to make whatever silly point > > you were trying to make at the time. > > You recall incorrectly. You are probably referring > to FFL posts #94514 and #94523, in which my friend > (who will be surprised to hear that he doesn't exist) > was clearly identified as a guy named Jim. > > And, of course, this doesn't have any relationship > to my "take" on Maharishi's "poem." In fact, one of > the reasons Muktananda *might* have felt sorry for > Maharishi was this poem, and his obvious need to > suck up. > > > Original post #94514: > > While this is a sweet story from a TM TB-kind of point > of view, just to balance it I should report verbatim > the view of the same event that a good friend of mine > whom I know from the Rama trip told me. He was in Swami > Muktananda's entourage at the time, and thus was in > the same room that Michael was, saw the same events, > and heard *Muktananda's* comments on the meeting > after it was over. > > According to my friend, when asked by his students > the next day what it was like meeting Maharishi, > Muktananda supposedly said, quote: "He seemed nice, > but desperately in need of a hug. So I hugged him." > That was it. According to my friend, Muktananda > never mentioned the meeting ever again. > > Different strokes for different folks, I guess. > > > Original post #94523: > > > > Muktananda supposedly said, quote: "He seemed nice, > > > but desperately in need of a hug. > > > > And maybe some shakipat? > > Maybe. Jim (my friend) was totally into Muktananda > at that point in his life, and was rather unimpressed > with Maharishi. > > Jim and his buddies were heavy into the shaktipat > scene, and the way things were around Muktananda's > movement, which he tells me were light and informal > and fun. He was pretty underwhelmed when he encoun- > tered a spiritual environment that was the opposite: > heavy, formal to a fault, and where (in his words) > "Having fun seemed to be considered a sin by most > of the people I talked to." > > I never met Muktananda, so I don't know first-hand > about his movement or how it was different from > Maharishi's. I'm just reporting the experience of > a fellow I once swapped "what did you do before you > ran into Rama" stories with. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Obama arrives in war zone'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge wrote: > > > > -"and responds from a > > > larger set of considerations and perspectives." > > > > The reason why he kicks around ideas and responds from a larger > > set of considerations is because he needs time for his 300 plus > > advisors to formulate the correct "idea" for him. > > And that's just his *foreign policy* advisors. > Translation: If I could market my Pundit Lawn Jockeys in Vedic City, I could afford to get out of this dump on the shore and the festering wounds from flea bites might clear up.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As always I enjoy all of your posts on FFL, and often find them > entertaining and to the point. Just to put to rest Barry's fiction > that I left FFL because of him, I decided to go simply because > there was nothing more for me to say. FFL in my opinion has become > mostly a bunch of people saying the same old tired things against > the TMO and Maharishi and the TM technique. Not at all what it > used to be - very little knowledge there now. > > You may share this if you want to. > > All the Best and please stay in touch, > Jim Actually, it wasn't my "fiction" but my speculation, spurred by Judy's refusal to back up a claim that she made. As I said in the speculation, claiming that you left "because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty" didn't sound like you at all. It sounded like something that Judy would make up. As it turns out, it was. "I have in my hands a list of 205 [government employees] that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department." -- Senator Joseph McCarthy, 1950 The list was never made available to the Secy of State, or to anyone else. McCarthy later claimed that he could not reveal it because he had to protect a communication from a private source, exactly the same argument used by Judy Stein when refusing to back up the following quote: "We recently lost an extremely valuable long-time poster because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty." -- Judy, 17 July 2008 Photo of Joe: http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/02/04/icon_topic3_feb4,0.jpg Photo of Judy: http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos/view/4c65?b=27
[FairfieldLife] Barry's fiction
As always I enjoy all of your posts on FFL, and often find them entertaining and to the point. Just to put to rest Barry's fiction that I left FFL because of him, I decided to go simply because there was nothing more for me to say. FFL in my opinion has become mostly a bunch of people saying the same old tired things against the TMO and Maharishi and the TM technique. Not at all what it used to be - very little knowledge there now. You may share this if you want to. All the Best and please stay in touch, Jim
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Obama arrives in war zone'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge wrote: > > > > -"and responds from a > > > larger set of considerations and perspectives." > > > > The reason why he kicks around ideas and responds from a larger > > set of considerations is because he needs time for his 300 plus > > advisors to formulate the correct "idea" for him. > > And that's just his *foreign policy* advisors. > There's probably a private, invitation-only forum/blog that the 300 can argue foreign policy in and he monitors the conversation. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Obama arrives in war zone'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning wrote: > > > He seems smart. Hillary and others are smart, but in a more > > clever, calculating way. BHO (any relation to HBO?) seems to > > have a (much) broader perspective, and not the well honed > > knee-jerks that many politicians have to many issues. > > Some of us get the impression that while his perspective > may be broad, it ain't all that deep. > Translation: Negroes don't feel pain the way the rest of us do.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: New Toy
Richard J. Williams wrote: > bhairitu wrote: > >> ...an ASUS Eee PC 2G Surf running Linux. >> http://eeepc.asus.com/global/ >> >> > For what purpose would you be needing an ultra- > portable laptop computer with the small keys > and small screen? Rita thought we should get > one, but we don't travel much and don't hang > out at Starbucks much anymore. But I'd still > like to have one anyway. Can the Asus replace > a Blackberry? I can't be carrying around a lot > of toys, since I like to fly about. What about > the weight? But, maybe I would pay $200 for an > ASUS Eee PC 2G instantly, if I saw one on the > shelf, but where? It's much handier than a full laptop. Often when I watch a movie I might want to look up something about the cast or crew on IMDB but the machines are off. No problem now. I used to do that with a Pocket PC and navigating the web with that little screen was no fun. The keyboard is a little cramped but not as much as a BlackBerry or Sidekick. The $299 machine only has 2 GB of memory and running has a little less than 300 MB free. They sell a 4 GB version as well as a 20 GB one but for more money. For less than $20 I can pop in an SD card and have a "second drive" so that is no problem and it also takes USB sticks. So I went for the cheapest one. It doesn't weight much at all as there are no moving parts save a small fan for the CPU. Good luck on finding one at a store, maybe Toys R Us as they sell them online and I've heard they are in some of their stores. Best Buy also sells them online only. I got mine through Amazon and decided to take a chance as I couldn't find any in a store. The Sony VIAO laptop exec sees them as a threat so I wouldn't be surprised if some of the laptop companies have threatened to pull their lines if one of the big electronics stores put them on the shelf. Dell is coming out with one shortly too. Fujitsu has a little laptop which you will find in stores that is about the same size for $999.
[FairfieldLife] Maharishi World Peace Movement aims to establish world peace
India Maharishi World Peace Movement aims to establish world peace Jabalpur | Thursday, Jul 17 2008 IST Maharishi World Peace Movement Chairman Brahmachari Girish Verma today said his objective was to establish world peace and make every citizen invincible through Vedic principles and experiments. ''The need of the hour is to take the place Movement to every human being and establish world peace for all time to come,'' he told reporters on the eve of Guru Purnima, when the Movement would be launched here. Pointing out that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi launched the World Peace Spiritual Re-awakening Movement five decades back and undertook constant tours to the nooks and crannies of the globe for blowing the bugle of a spiritual revolution, Dr Verma added 'that' was the inspiration for a resolve to launch the Peace Movement internationally. The Peace Movement would be launched here as this was Mahesh Yogi's 'karmabhoomi' in the initial part of his life. ''Guarding one's health as per the Maharishi Vedic Health Rituals, construction and use of homes, schools, offices, villages and cities as per Vaastu principles, Yoga every morning and evening, meditation and consumption of only bio-food products are among ten principal schemes of the Peace Movement,'' explained Dr Verma. The Maharishi Maha Media News Service and Maharishi Maha Media Portal would be also inaugurated tomorrow. ''Maharishi World Peace Movement committees will be formed at different levels with the target of linking at least one per cent of India's population with meditation besides imparting Yoga training to the maximum number of people,'' Dr Verma added. --- End forwarded message --- __ Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail. Dem pfiffigeren Posteingang. http://de.overview.mail.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's poem to Swami Muktananda
TurquoiseB wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "pranamoocher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> ...And then Baba went off the deep end... >> > > Ok, some are going to disagree, but my first impression > when reading this is that Maharishi was trying his best > to IMPRESS Muktananda, and get his "blessing." > > The whole thing is full of language about how Muktananda > "outranks" Maharishi because he's a real Swami and MMY > was not. My guess is that Muktananda was one of the > first real *credentialed* Swamis that MMY had run into > in America, and he was trying to impress him so that > Muktananda wouldn't blow the fact that Maharishi had > none. > > In other words, this sounds to me as if Maharishi was > trying to dazzle Muktananda with pretty words so that > he could later use him in his P.R. the way he'd used > the Beatles. Which he did. > > Either that, or he really *felt* all these things about > a guy he'd met only once before, during which visit he'd > *also* played the "you outrank me" game. Your call. I remember when Muktananda's organization ran ads back in the late 1970's in yoga magazines showing a guy cross legged levitating with palms in the arm and the caption "so now I'm flying, now what?" That pretty much summed up the TMO at that point. Many TM'ers went over to Muktananda because he would answer questions that Maharishi couldn't or wouldn't. I also think his form of yogic meditation in general was better for the public than TM. Of course his organization kinda fell apart after he passed on as it was given to this young Indian girl which surprised friends who were in the organization at the time as she was just someone they hung out with and she would even go have pizza with them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit -- question for Rick or the other moderators (since he's away)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Just for the fun of it: > When I first encountered Judy Stein I thought, > and said, that I considered her a shrewish old > schoolmarm who argued incessantly about anything > she could sucker people into arguing about because > she was still trying to impress her dead Daddy with > how strong she is. And she was a TM True Believer. Not in those words, you didn't. Google Groups search has no record of your ever having referred to me as "shrewish" (or "a shrew"), and you didn't get around to suggesting I was a "schoolmarm" until 2003. Plus which, I don't believe I had occasion to mention anything on alt.m.t about my father's death for some years. (And I'd be astonished if I'd ever referred to him on alt.m.t as "Daddy.") In other words, Barry made this whole tale up, at least in terms of what he actually *said* about me. Oh, and he knows I'm not a True Believer, too.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Obama arrives in war zone'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge wrote: > > > > -"and responds from a > > > larger set of considerations and perspectives." > > > > The reason why he kicks around ideas and responds from a larger > > set of considerations is because he needs time for his 300 plus > > advisors to formulate the correct "idea" for him. > > And that's just his *foreign policy* advisors. > This is why he has so much potential... Because there is so much energy and intelligence, Just ready to burst forth, and give new ideas, new directions... And Senator Obama is an open soul, and ready to recieve; Unlike the closed minded approach we have been through. Where you have 'group think' based in Mafia tactics; And just a handful of people making all the decisions for the rest of us...
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Obama arrives in war zone'
(snip) > > You aren't with it if your middle name isn't "Hussein"- (snip) I spoke to some arab dudes about the name 'Hussein'... Whether it was some kind of title or something. They told me it means: 'beaufiful'...like in beautiful man... That type of thing. Yeah, those 'light workers' really stir up those 'dark workers' don't they?... R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Maharishi and Muktananda
Here is what a real person who was there himself wrote. Not some imaginary friend of The Turq Turqouise> > Dear Fairfield Lifers, > > I was there at this famous meeting in 1976 between Maharishi and Swami > Muktananda. Parts of the information in the 2 e-mails above seems in- > accurate; here's what I remember: > > Swami Muktananda was traveling on tour throughout Europe with a large > entourage of his followers. A meeting was arranged with Maharishi in > the big meeting room in Seelisberg where Maharishi held evening know- > ledge meetings for the international staff - in the beautiful gold > meeting hall that you see in many videos. > > Muktananda and his entourage were the guests of honor that evening, > and the meeting was, in essence, turned over to them as I remember. > Maharishi was seated on the stage on the central couch, as usual. > Swami Muktananda was seated on another couch to Maharishi's right > (a place of great honor - the teacher often is on the right when > he sits with a student, as in a TM initiation). Neither was higher > or lower than the other. (Muktananda seemed quite happy with the > seating arrangement, and didn't express verbally or physically any > desire to change it - till the end - but we're getting ahead of > the story!) > > The audience was the entire international staff, 108's, faculty, > VIPs, etc. - plus the participants on my course (a year-long, ex- > perimental course where Maharishi was giving us a lot of personal > attention). He specifically invited our course to this special > meeting - sent a bus all the way around Lake Lucerne and had us > travel over an hour to get there, which messed up our routine and > only happened on very special occasions (celebrations, special an- > nouncements, guests, etc.). So Maharishi knew that something spe- > cial was up - Swami Muktananda did not arrive as any kind of sur- > prise. > > That evening, to begin the meeting, Maharishi said some brief, but > very uplifting and honoring remarks about Swami Muktananda. Maha- > rishi then asked Swami Muktananda to speak, which he did, through > his interpreter (a young woman), and during that talk he spoke > highly of Maharishi. He also spoke quite forcefully about the ig- > norance and superficiality of Western science when compared with > deep, vedic knowledge. > > After he spoke, Swami Muktananda and his followers chanted the Guru > Gita (which is a part of the Skanda Purana, and contains some sig- > nificant components of the TM puja ceremony). > > During all of this, all throughout his talking or chanting, Swami > Muktananda did what he does with his students - had them come sit > right near him for a minute or two, and then sent them back to > their seat in the audience and replaced them with another of his > students, apparently giving them powerful darshan. > > Basically, Maharishi turned over the program for the evening to > Swami Muktananda, and sat quietly, often with eyes closed, after > his own opening words. He didn't interact on the surface (make > remarks, do commentary, exchange looks, etc.). He seemed very > deep within. > > To me, and a number of my friends on my course, it seemed like a > kind of friendly, cosmic "contest" was developing: which of these > two powerful saints was going to "make the other move". It was > obvious, almost palpable, that there was a great flow of love, > respect, and especially cosmic power, between these two. > > And the contrast was very clear - Swami Muktananda manifesting > his power through activity (forceful speech, moving his disciples > about, group chanting, animated gestures) and Maharishi manifest- > ing his power through silence and non-movement. Almost like the > polarity of Goddess Shakti and Lord Shiva, the two great polar > opposite fields of life. > > The polarity of this silence and activity was intense. Obviously, > something had to give. And, at a certain moment late in the even- > ing, right in the middle of saying something to or about Maharishi, > Swami Muktananda abruptly stopped talking, quickly got up, sat down > right next to Maharishi on his couch, and hugged him in a big bear- > hug. Everyone, the followers of both Masters, were shocked and > amazed, and the room became VERY agitated! Suddenly, people were > up out of their seats, moving about, taking pictures of the two > Masters, talking, etc. The silence, the chanting, etc. were obvi- > ously over. To the best of my knowledge, no guest had ever sat down > next to Maharishi on his couch, nor snuggled up against him, nor > wrapped him in a hug! > > Maharishi didn't seem upset, and didn't look any more uncomfortable > than you'd be if you'd been deep in silence and somebody bounced > down onto the couch next to you and grabbed you. Maharishi didn't > appear to try and pull away or get up. The two of them exchanged a > few private words in the midst of this chaos, then both arose and > exited the meeting hall together, leaving the room in turmoil. > > Some of
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Obama arrives in war zone'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -"and responds from a > > larger set of considerations and perspectives." > > The reason why he kicks around ideas and responds from a larger > set of considerations is because he needs time for his 300 plus > advisors to formulate the correct "idea" for him. And that's just his *foreign policy* advisors.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit -- question for Rick or the other moderators (since he's away)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > I wasn't trying to be nasty, and I was never in the least > > dishonest when dealing with him, or with anyone else here. > > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! The interesting thing is that this Turk fellow actually believes everything he writes. As if he has a Mission, which ofcourse makes him believe he is a very, very important person. HaHaHa
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit -- question for Rick or the other moderators (since he's away)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > wrote: > > > > > > > If my memory isn't faulty, t'would seem that Judy felt > > > > the need to...uh...stretch the truth a bit (if not... > > > > dare I say it...actually LIE) in the fervor of one of > > > > her "Gotta Trash Barry" moments. I'll be interested to > > > > see what she has to say about this claim when she > > > > returns. > > > > > > I don't have anything to say about it, other than > > > that of course I stand by it. Unless Barry's > > > REELY REELY STOOOPID, he ought to have > > > been able to come up with an additional possibility, > > > in which what I wrote is 100% accurate and the > > > faultiness of his memory is completely irrelevant. > > > > Ok, I think that there will be no complaint from > > anyone here if I characterize Judy as the person > > who has most often demanded that people back up > > their claims on this forum. It's almost her "trade- > > mark." Well, turnabout is fair play. > > > > Judy, please produce two things to back up the > > following claim: > > > > > We recently lost an > > > extremely valuable long-time poster because of > > > Barry's nastiness and dishonesty. > > > > 1. Please supply the name or screen name of the > > poster you claim left FFL "because of Barry's > > nastiness and dishonesty." > > > > 2. Please supply documentation that this is the > > reason they gave for leaving. If it's a message on > > FFL, please give us the message number. If it is > > a private email, please ask for permission to repost > > that email here verbatim. (Or, when you give us the > > person's name, we can simply write to the person and > > ask them whether your representation of why they > > left FFL is accurate.) > > > > I'm really curious as to how you will respond to > > this, Judy. It really IS "doing a Judy" on YOU, and > > "turnabout is fair play." Above you "stand by" the > > claim, but with no backup. I think everyone here knows > > that if anyone else did that when YOU had challenged > > them to back up one of their claims, the next words > > out of your mouth would be a variant of, "See...I > > told you so...he/she is LYING!" > > Actually, usually I just note that the person > refuses to back up the claim and let others come > to their own conclusions. > > In this case, I'd have to reveal a private > communication, which I'm not going to do. And I > can't recall ever having demanded that anybody > else do so. > > > Try as I might, I am unable to substantiate your claim > > using the Yahoo Search Engine. > > How much time have you spent on this so far, Barry? > > > > > > You made a claim, Judy. And now the only thing you have > > to say when that claim is challenged is that you "stand > > by it." I suppose we're supposed to take your word for > > it, because as you say so often, you "never lie." > > Exactly. > > > Uh-huh. Aren't you the person who claimed that if Obama > > secured the nomination that as a good Democrat you would > > support him fully? Given some of the things you've said > > on this forum since and the negative nature of the articles > > you repost, I cannot help but assume that either you have > > a different definition of what "support" means than I do, > > or you have a different definition of what "I never lie" > > means than I do. > > Well, one difference in our definition of "lie," > apparently, is that if one changes one's mind for > some reason, that doesn't mean what one said to > start with was a lie. > > Oh, and by the way, you've now documented that > you're REELY REELY STOOOPID. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit -- question for Rick or the other moderators (since he's away)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > Add to that Fairfield Life and the TM-Free blog, > > where she did exactly the same thing > > Uh, no. I was posting to TMFree well before Barry > was Plus which, as I recall--I could be wrong, but I don't think so--my first comment addressed to Barry at TMFree was in response to one of his *trashing me*.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit -- question for Rick or the other moderators (since he's away)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > Hope everybody is having as much fun with this latest > > meltdown of Barry's as I am... > > > > Oh, heck, let's just rub it in a little further. From > > an earlier post in the sequence: > > > > > I wasn't trying to be nasty, and I was never in the least > > > dishonest when dealing with him, or with anyone else here. > > > > Hey, Barry, I'll be *delighted* to provide evidence > > that you're being dishonest here about your chronic > > dishonesty. Whaddya say, would you like me to do that? > > > > Let's start with this: > > > > "[Judy] follows me from Internet forum to Internet > > forum [trying to lure me into arguments]. She has > > done the same with several folks here, as they > > would be more than willing to tell you." > > > > Want more, Barry? > > If it's of this quality, sure. > > Please note the way that Judy responded to this > assertion of mine when it was first posted: This was hardly the first time you'd posted it, Barry, as you well know. The first time was back in May 2005, and you've done so any number of times since. > > This is a very old, tired lie Barry's told over and > > over, but, again, one he feels secure in telling > > Ruth because she has no way to know it's a lie. > > The ONLY Internet forum I ever "followed" Barry to > > was this one--and that was *at his invitation* to > > the folks on alt.m.t when he started posting here. > > A quick search of the following Google groups for posts > made by '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' containing the word 'Barry' > will find will find posts there from her responding to > my posts to those groups, in most cases for no other > purpose than to trash me. > > alt.religion.gnostic > alt.meditation > sci.skeptic > comp.ai.philosophy > alt.magick.tantra > > Her game seemed to have been that whenever I would > get into a conversation with someone from one of > these other groups that was cross-posted to alt. > meditation.transcendental, she would follow up on > the thread, even if she wasn't interested in the > subject matter, and -- Surprise! -- attempt to > undermine my credibility on the new forum. Ah, now we see Barry's definition of "follows from Internet forum to Internet forum": He includes participation in cross-posted conversations, even if the posts in question all came from a single forum. Of course, cross-posted conversations were standard on Usenet; nobody except Barry would ever try to portray participation in them as "following someone from forum to forum." > Add to that Fairfield Life and the TM-Free blog, > where she did exactly the same thing Uh, no. I was posting to TMFree well before Barry was; and as I noted, I came to FFL *at Barry's invitation* on alt.m.t. (Besides which, I was already a member but had been only lurking; I didn't post to FFL until Barry and Vaj started lying about what went on on alt.m.t. My second post ever to FFL, #52346, has a good overview of what happened.) , and I think > you've got a few more groups that she's "followed > me to" than this one. And yet she claimed in no > uncertain terms that this was the only one. Go > figure, eh? It *is*, of course, the only one in terms of what virtually everyone except Barry would understand by the phrase he used. And again, even that was *at his explicit invitation*. And I might also note that this is the *first* time he's attempted to justify his lie by resorting to this definition, even though I've challenged him on it many times. So it's not as if he had this peculiar definition in mind all along. He just felt the need, finally, to come up with *something*. Oh, and one more thing: When I mentioned on alt.m.t that I had discovered Barry had been trashing me on FFL well before he'd issued his invitation for us to join him there, he threatened to accuse me of being a "cyberstalker" if I dared to speak up about it on FFL.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Obama arrives in war zone'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning wrote:
>
> > He seems smart. Hillary and others are smart, but in a more
> > clever, calculating way. BHO (any relation to HBO?) seems to
> > have a (much) broader perspective, and not the well honed
> > knee-jerks that many politicians have to many issues.
>
> Some of us get the impression that while his perspective
> may be broad, it ain't all that deep.
Time will tell. I agree the jury is still out. And often, IMO, there
is "great hope" with new emergent candidates who arrive on the scene,
somewhat unknown. For example, there was great hope an potential
promise when Jimmy Carter, JFK, Reagan to a degree, and even GWB
arrived in the presidential sweepstakes. And often the sizzle was
bigger than the stake. (I mean steak, :) -- but stake through the
heart captures some of the thought)
Still, being a romantic and optimist it appears, I have hope for BHO.
("Hope" -- what a concept -- some candidate ought to capitalize on that.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's poem to Swami Muktananda
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > First of all, Barry, he never met him in America, just Seelisberg > (unless the "Juju" place is in America which I don't think it is). > > Secondly, I seem to recall a post you did several years ago in > which you claimed you met someone in the Muktananda group who was > present at the meeting and it was her distinct impression that > Muktananda felt sorry for Maharishi and that's why he sat down > beside him and gave him a hug. > > Of course, the truth is that you made up your imaginary friend, > which is your wont to do, in order to make whatever silly point > you were trying to make at the time. You recall incorrectly. You are probably referring to FFL posts #94514 and #94523, in which my friend (who will be surprised to hear that he doesn't exist) was clearly identified as a guy named Jim. And, of course, this doesn't have any relationship to my "take" on Maharishi's "poem." In fact, one of the reasons Muktananda *might* have felt sorry for Maharishi was this poem, and his obvious need to suck up. Original post #94514: While this is a sweet story from a TM TB-kind of point of view, just to balance it I should report verbatim the view of the same event that a good friend of mine whom I know from the Rama trip told me. He was in Swami Muktananda's entourage at the time, and thus was in the same room that Michael was, saw the same events, and heard *Muktananda's* comments on the meeting after it was over. According to my friend, when asked by his students the next day what it was like meeting Maharishi, Muktananda supposedly said, quote: "He seemed nice, but desperately in need of a hug. So I hugged him." That was it. According to my friend, Muktananda never mentioned the meeting ever again. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. Original post #94523: > > Muktananda supposedly said, quote: "He seemed nice, > > but desperately in need of a hug. > > And maybe some shakipat? Maybe. Jim (my friend) was totally into Muktananda at that point in his life, and was rather unimpressed with Maharishi. Jim and his buddies were heavy into the shaktipat scene, and the way things were around Muktananda's movement, which he tells me were light and informal and fun. He was pretty underwhelmed when he encoun- tered a spiritual environment that was the opposite: heavy, formal to a fault, and where (in his words) "Having fun seemed to be considered a sin by most of the people I talked to." I never met Muktananda, so I don't know first-hand about his movement or how it was different from Maharishi's. I'm just reporting the experience of a fellow I once swapped "what did you do before you ran into Rama" stories with.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Obama arrives in war zone'
-"and responds from a > larger set of considerations and perspectives." The reason why he kicks around ideas and responds from a larger set of considerations is because he needs time for his 300 plus advisors to formulate the correct "idea" for him. -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > > "Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly > > > > evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the > > > > lawlessness of the frontier, from the bomb that fell on > > > > Pearl Harbor, to the threat of nuclear annihilation. > > > > Americans have adapted to the threats posed by an ever- > > > > changing world. " > > > > > > > > Guy was *raised* in Honolulu... > > > > > > I don't get it, he should have said "bombs"? > > > > Yep. Not earthshaking, any more than his reference > > to the "57 states" and other similar gaffes, but > > he does make a lot of 'em. > > > > I was thinking about my impression of Obama yesterday while driving > home (its amazing, in the middle of a city, I have (one of several) > routes home through farmers, cow pastures and horse ranches). > > As with all my thoughts, I realize they may be shaped by submerged > nasty alligators (see adjacent post), I like that he appears > reflective. And appears to kick an idea around inside -- and responds > from a larger set of considerations and perspectives than many. > > Funny scene to me -- GWB inside BHO's mind "WTF -- what are ALL these > things??! > > He seems smart. Hillary and others are smart, but in a more clever, > calculating way. BHO (any relation to HBO?) seems to have a (much) > broader perspective, and not the well honed knee-jerks that many > politicians have to many issues. > > And a great contrast to McCain, who has morphed from a sort of > interesting, maverick, straight-talker in 2000, to a (poor) > tele-prompter reader of scripts written by (bad, rigid, dogmatic part > and portion of) conservative right, and evangelistic non-thinkers. > > In a rapidly changing world, I don't think pat old answers to old > conditions (some quite poor answers even then) hold much of a candle > to anyone who can kick an idea around inside -- and responds from a > larger set of considerations and perspectives. > > YMMV >
