[FairfieldLife] Well, aakaashaM no 'palipyate (na + upalipyate)!
See Giitaa XIII 32 here (p. 312): http://it.scribd.com/doc/40037675/Bhagavad-Gita-Radhakrishnan It seems to be important to do dhaaraNaa (to concentrate) on the relationship between body and aakaasha, because, due to its subtlety (saukSmya; Meissner effect?) it (aakaasha) is not tainted (na; upalipyate)by the negative vibrations from the surroundings, like the superconductive materials are not tainted by the magnetic field in magnetic levitation (due to Meissner effect?)... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWTSzBWEsms
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: Ann has written a response to Curtis which requires that Curtis enter into it. Saw this flash by in Message View and had to comment that this is insanity. Neither Ann nor Robin has either the ability or the right to make such a post. They're both just attention vampires hoping they can suck yet another victim into interacting with them. And what they're both upset about is that it isn't working.
[FairfieldLife] New Ammachi Yahoo group list
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ammachi-Real-Free-Speech/messages If anyone's interested on Ammachi related discussion. It's moderated by a woman I recently became friends with - in the last month, she is a very nice, balanced woman. Looks like the moderator of Ammachi_free_speech_zone has been pressured by MA Center to give up the moderator duties to an overtly biased Amma supporter and this mad yogi was duly kicked off :-) Love, Ravi
[FairfieldLife] Robin and pussycats
Robin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nrw9xPCFtYw Pussycats: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1alkt1F7DM4
[FairfieldLife] Re: The experience we are almost certain to have to go through
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: snip Whose woods these are I think I know. His house is in the village though; He will not see me stopping here To watch his woods fill up with snow. My little horse must think it queer To stop without a farmhouse near Between the woods and frozen lake The darkest evening of the year. He gives his harness bells a shake To ask if there is some mistake. The only other sound's the sweep Of easy wind and downy flake. The woods are lovely, dark and deep. But I have promises to keep, And miles to go before I sleep, And miles to go before I sleep. ~ Robert Frost http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azNtM8s9-C0feature=related Thanks for the link, Judy, beautiful performance. It's tempting to go beyond the simplicity of the poem about someone away from home and responsibilities and just pausing to watch the snow fall. The composer captured the wistful mood of the poem. Although the poem may portend death and the contemplation of death, I think the durge like quality of music is too heavy an interpretation. Frost may have wondered what it would be like to allow himself to be peacefully lulled to sleep in the snow. It's more about wonder and embracing the beauty of the moment than a desire to freeze to death. The composer gets the wondering, wistful quality of the poem but I think he got suckered into the suicide angle. On a snowy night many years ago, scintillating particles of light all around, tree branches bowed low, I remember laying down in a big pile of snow and wondering how long I could remain comfortably ensconced in my snow nest. It was so peaceful and restful I thought how easy it would be to fall asleep and freeze to death. I wasn't drunk and had no desire to die so the reality of feeling cold set in rather quickly. Surrendering to the beauty of the moment in the snow makes it impossible to have a care in the world. Frost and I understand each other.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 11:17 PM, turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: Ann has written a response to Curtis which requires that Curtis enter into it. Saw this flash by in Message View and had to comment that this is insanity. Neither Ann nor Robin has either the ability or the right to make such a post. They're both just attention vampires hoping they can suck yet another victim into interacting with them. And what they're both upset about is that it isn't working. Barry baby - it's OK - all of us here by now, know you read every single message, you need to stop this Message View drama, looks pretty - what's the word I'm looking for - aah emotionally stunted. My old man's post was brilliant BTW and I dare either you or Curtis to respond to it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The experience we are almost certain to have to go through
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: snip Whose woods these are I think I know. His house is in the village though; He will not see me stopping here To watch his woods fill up with snow. My little horse must think it queer To stop without a farmhouse near Between the woods and frozen lake The darkest evening of the year. He gives his harness bells a shake To ask if there is some mistake. The only other sound's the sweep Of easy wind and downy flake. The woods are lovely, dark and deep. But I have promises to keep, And miles to go before I sleep, And miles to go before I sleep. ~ Robert Frost http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azNtM8s9-C0feature=related Thanks for the link, Judy, beautiful performance. It's tempting to go beyond the simplicity of the poem about someone away from home and responsibilities and just pausing to watch the snow fall. When asked to reveal the hidden meaning of his poems, Robert Frost's response was If I wanted you to know I'd had told you in the poem. The only response this poem evokes in me -- or has ever evoked -- is the image of someone stopping on a journey to appreciate the Silence, before continuing on. I've never understood those who had to project more into it than that. When it comes to the Big D, I can think of no better lines than several of Bruce Cockburn's, inserted into a song that actually *was* about death, the death of his good friend and fellow singer/songwriter Mark Heard: Death's no stranger No stranger than the life I've seen... Gone from mystery into mystery Gone from daylight into night Another step deeper into darkness Closer to the light But then I think I share with Mr. Cockburn a lack of a fear of death, and a similar lack of focus on it. It will happen soon enough, and when it does only then will we be able to say anything whatsoever about the nature of its mysteries. And then -- the ultimate joke -- no one will be able to hear us expound upon them, if there even is an us left to expound upon anything. Either we'll be off to new adventures, or it'll just be the Big Black. Either way, the mystery remains unsolved back in the place/time we just left. I've prepared for death only as far as pre-selecting the song that my friends and family can play at my memorial service, should they feel they need to hold one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp6czLE8Ucg I have friends who spent inordinate amounts of time studying techniques of Tibetan phowa, preparing for their time in the Bardo, and hoping to secure the highest possible rebirth for themselves, or in their view the even higher possibility of getting off the wheel altogether. The thing is, these same friends don't seem to spend very much time appreciating the world around them right here, right now, and all of *its* mysteries and beauties. I'm with Bruce on this one...who CARES about the winds of the Bardo and where they'll take us, much less trying to figure out how to make them take us where our silly little selves think we should go. The here- and-now wind is blowing in the here-and-now diamond sky right here, right now. Its music is far more interesting than any imaginary music we can imagine in the afterlife. The afterlife is, after all, after life. Who wants to miss life pondering it? :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Good one, Curtis. You got a twofer, a double play. You win the jackpot, a trip to Obfuscating Rehab for the irony impaired. Does anyone else get the feeling that this word is being overused in a completely bogus way? Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. I resubmit my definition, which I think does more justice to the way the word is used here than any other. Irony (noun) Saying what you really mean, and which you know to be true, while pretending that it's not true, and that you mean the opposite. Synonym: having no balls.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: But she will continue, with her fifty posts a week, fighting every battle large and small. Okay, medium and small. Alright, alright. mostly all small. And winning each one. Okay, vanquishing each opponent. Alright, alright, annihilating any opposition with her superior logic and ability to cite posts five years back. And with every single 50-battle week, demonstrating that they're *all* meant as a distraction, to keep people from noticing that she doesn't have anything else to say.
[FairfieldLife] Materialism
May we look upon our treasures, the furniture of our houses, and our garments, and try whether the seeds of war have nourishment in these our possessions. Holding treasures in the self-pleasing spirit is a strong plant, the fruit whereof ripens fast. A day of outward distress is coming and Divine Love calls for us to prepare against it. -Woolman http://www.icelandichorse.info/seedsofactivism.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19697344
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Damn laughingoutloud108 - LOL..you know the secret, but why eyes closed and fingers crossed - you should have been brave and courageous. Anyway are you Vaj's long lost brother or something? I am utterly devastated by that last question. Now you know MY secret...LOL. Now go play in the curds and ghee. On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 4:11 AM, laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: ** (Sitting here with eyes tightly closed and fingers crossed) Baby Krishna...Baby Krishna...Baby Krishna...Baby Krishna...Baby Krishna... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Hey laughingstock108, I don't like your jerk-off name, I don't like your jerk-off face, I don't like your jerk-off behavior and I don't like you...jerk-off. Do I make myself clear? On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 8:55 AM, laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: ** Hang in there Share...you have at least one more supporter out here who somewhat feels what you are trying to do. Susan was most certainly right when she indicated that FFL had become (and I'm summarizing here) a somewhat different creature than what it started as so many years ago. There's very little value in many of the comments made by certain posters. Everyone who even comes close to the 50 posts/week limit should look back at their posts from the past month or so and try to find those that offered something significant towards the opening sentence to the description of this group: Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere. We can learn from each other if what is being offered is worthy of our attention. Knowledge IS structured in consciousness...but I don't want to be anywhere near the state of consciousness required to understand what some of you are trying to say or do. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: About Judy's ways of not being truthful and to set the record straight, it was Robin not me who brought our conflict to FFL.Ãâ And he did so twice.Ãâ And I mentioned that the first time he did so.Ãâ Yet you began the nitpicky piling on.Ãâ Not Curtis, you.Ãâ And you continued to do so.Ãâ Even though you had not seen the initial private emails between me and Robin.Ãâ For me this is a crucial point.Ãâ You did not know all that had been said between me and Robin.Ãâ You certainly did not ever understand my feelings in the matter.Ãâ Nor did you ever attempt to understand them.Ãâ This is also crucial.Ãâ You continually piled on and nitpicked even though he brought the conflict to FFL without asking how I felt about that.Ãâ A reasonable and compassionate person would have let me and Robin work it out on our own given these circumstances.Ãâ Compassionate is obvious.Ãâ Reasonable because is anyone here really qualified to help 2 people work out a conflict?Ãâ If yes, I'm 110% sure it's not you. This mercifully short post is a good example of what I don't like about your posting, Judy.Ãâ You pick one technical aspect, that one about one exchange.Ãâ Which is probably technically correct in the sense that your nitpicky pilings on are not really exchanges.Ãâ Yet you fail to mention aspects way more important:Ãâ that it was Robin who brought the conflict twice onto FFL, not me; that you hadn't seen the initial private emails between me and Robin; that you didn't attempt to understand where I was coming from. These are your ways of not being truthful. From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 7:48 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology Ãâ --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: snip Anyway, if by rabbit hole you mean my opinions of Judy, I assure you that Barry has little to do with that.Ãâ When Judy butted in and continued to butt into a personal and emotional matter between me and Robin, that's when my current opinions of Judy were formed. You are not being truthful here, Share. You and I had *exactly one exchange* concerning the matter between you and Robin. I did not continue to butt in. Moreover, when you make public posts, you do not have the right to expect that nobody will comment on them, no matter how personal and emotional they
[FairfieldLife] Top Ten Inspiring Tales from the Bible
From http://listverse.com/2008/01/31/top-10-bizarre-biblical-tales/ http://listverse.com/2008/01/31/top-10-bizarre-biblical-tales/ 10. A lesson for those who dare mock male pattern baldness Found in: 4 Kings 2:23-24 http://www.drbo.org/chapter/12002.htm One of the more inspirational passages in the Bible tells the story of Elijah, a wise man, yet one cursed with male pattern baldness. One day he was minding his own business, making the long walk to Bethel, when he is attacked by a roving band of children who tease him with names like bald head. But Elijah was having none of this, he turns round and curses them in the name of the Lord, and instantly two female bears emerge from a nearby wood and maul all 42 children to death. The moral of this story? Don't make fun of bald people. Frankly, why this story isn't included along with the Ten Commandments is anybody's guess, but I think it would serve as an excellent lesson for children who think baldness is something to be made fun of. 9. Eglon's ignoble death Found in: Judges 3:21-25 http://www.drbo.org/chapter/07003.htm Ehud is the Bible's sneakiest assassin (and also the only left-handed person mentioned in the Holy Book). He is on a mission to deliver a message from God to smarmy King Eglon. Ehud waltzes in to meet the gluttonous king, pulls out a sword and stabs Eglon in the stomach. At first he can't get it in, but he pushes harder and eventually reaches his intestine. Eglon is so overweight, we learn, that his fat actually covers the hilt of the sword, pushing it further into his stomach until it's not even visible. It's at this point that Eglon loses control of his bowels and begins to defecate mercilessly all over his chamber. The King's attendants eventually come back, but do not enter Eglon's bed chamber, assuming he is relieving himself. After waiting to the point of embarrassment, his attendants burst in to find their king dead on the floor, covered in his own faecal matter. Meanwhile, Ehud had escaped to the town of Seriah. The moral of this story? Who cares, but it's damn cool. 8. Onan cautious, yet foolish 8. Onan cautious, yet foolish Found in: Genesis 38:8-10 http://www.drbo.org/chapter/01038.htm A story so eponymous, it gave way to its own neologism onanism, an archaic term for masturbation. Basically, God kills Er. Why? We don't really find out. However, in a stroke of good luck, Er's father, Judah, has given you the right, nay the duty, to have sex with your dead brother's wife. Onan is a bit apprehensive at first, but agrees to go through with this bizarre scheme to create a `true heir' to Er. He begins to have sex with the girl, but at the last minute decides to pull out and spill his seed upon the ground. God is so irked he decides to kill Onan too, and thus nobody gets an heir. This story is the basis for the Christian condemnation of masturbation and birth control. The moral of this story? In the words of Monty Python, Every sperm is sacred 7. A very disturbing tale Found in: Judges 19:22-30 http://www.drbo.org/chapter/07019.htm Within the Bible, one occasionally finds stories so horrible, one can wonder what their purpose is. Not only is this story utterly bizarre, but it is also absolutely disgusting. A man and his concubine are wandering the streets when they decide to seek shelter for the night, and find a man kind enough to let them stay. That night however, a group of men turn up at the door and demand to see the guest so that they may have sex with him. The owner is unwilling to let his male lodger be raped and so offers up his virgin daughter instead. However, this is still not good enough for the men, so the owner offers them his guest's concubine and the men accept. The men brutally rape the woman and leave her on the doorstep where she bleeds to death. If that is not enough, when she is found by her husband, he chops her up into twelve pieces which he sends to each of the twelve tribes of Israel. The moral of this story? I would hope none. 6. A novel way to show your love Found in: 1 Kings 18:25-27 http://www.drbo.org/chapter/09018.htm Before Byron, before Casanova, there was David. Young and in love, David desperately wants to marry Saul's daughter Michal and offers Saul anything he wants to let him marry her. What could Saul possibly want? Money? A vow of love? No. Saul wants foreskins. 100 to be exact. Why? Who cares. If you want my daughter, you're going to have to find 100 foreskins by tomorrow. David finds this odd, but then again this girl is hot, so he goes out and kills 200 men, and collects their foreskins. It's only then he remembers that he only needs 100 foreskins. Oops. Oh well, maybe if he hands over twice as many foreskins, Saul will be doubly as impressed. Indeed he is and duly hands over his daughter to David. The moral of this story? Never be ashamed to do crazy things for love. 5. Like slicing salami Found in: Exodus 4:24-26
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Damn laughingoutloud108 - LOL..you know the secret, but why eyes closed and fingers crossed - you should have been brave and courageous. Anyway are you Vaj's long lost brother or something? I am udderly devastated by your question...now you know MY secret...LOL. Now go play in the curds and ghee. On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 4:11 AM, laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: ** (Sitting here with eyes tightly closed and fingers crossed) Baby Krishna...Baby Krishna...Baby Krishna...Baby Krishna...Baby Krishna... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Hey laughingstock108, I don't like your jerk-off name, I don't like your jerk-off face, I don't like your jerk-off behavior and I don't like you...jerk-off. Do I make myself clear? On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 8:55 AM, laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: ** Hang in there Share...you have at least one more supporter out here who somewhat feels what you are trying to do. Susan was most certainly right when she indicated that FFL had become (and I'm summarizing here) a somewhat different creature than what it started as so many years ago. There's very little value in many of the comments made by certain posters. Everyone who even comes close to the 50 posts/week limit should look back at their posts from the past month or so and try to find those that offered something significant towards the opening sentence to the description of this group: Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere. We can learn from each other if what is being offered is worthy of our attention. Knowledge IS structured in consciousness...but I don't want to be anywhere near the state of consciousness required to understand what some of you are trying to say or do. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: About Judy's ways of not being truthful and to set the record straight, it was Robin not me who brought our conflict to FFL.Ãâ And he did so twice.Ãâ And I mentioned that the first time he did so.Ãâ Yet you began the nitpicky piling on.Ãâ Not Curtis, you.Ãâ And you continued to do so.Ãâ Even though you had not seen the initial private emails between me and Robin.Ãâ For me this is a crucial point.Ãâ You did not know all that had been said between me and Robin.Ãâ You certainly did not ever understand my feelings in the matter.Ãâ Nor did you ever attempt to understand them.Ãâ This is also crucial.Ãâ You continually piled on and nitpicked even though he brought the conflict to FFL without asking how I felt about that.Ãâ A reasonable and compassionate person would have let me and Robin work it out on our own given these circumstances.Ãâ Compassionate is obvious.Ãâ Reasonable because is anyone here really qualified to help 2 people work out a conflict?Ãâ If yes, I'm 110% sure it's not you. This mercifully short post is a good example of what I don't like about your posting, Judy.Ãâ You pick one technical aspect, that one about one exchange.Ãâ Which is probably technically correct in the sense that your nitpicky pilings on are not really exchanges.Ãâ Yet you fail to mention aspects way more important:Ãâ that it was Robin who brought the conflict twice onto FFL, not me; that you hadn't seen the initial private emails between me and Robin; that you didn't attempt to understand where I was coming from. These are your ways of not being truthful. From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 7:48 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology Ãâ --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: snip Anyway, if by rabbit hole you mean my opinions of Judy, I assure you that Barry has little to do with that.Ãâ When Judy butted in and continued to butt into a personal and emotional matter between me and Robin, that's when my current opinions of Judy were formed. You are not being truthful here, Share. You and I had *exactly one exchange* concerning the matter between you and Robin. I did not continue to butt in. Moreover, when you make public posts, you do not have the right to expect that nobody will comment on them, no matter how personal and emotional they are.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Raunchy -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Judy's attributing words to me that I did not write or even think is Judy's alternate approach to supplying subtext?! Oh, wait, I think I get it. You're making a joke. Please tell me you're making a joke. And not twisting into a pretzel to avoid criticizing Judy. Raunchy, do you really think that the only parameter of fair fighting is keeping discussions out in the open?! I disagree. I think there are others that are at least equally important. I notice how you put all of this on me and none of it on Judy, totally ignoring how she responded to my apology. Of course that's what she did with the me and Robin kafufel. Perhaps a requirement to belong to her clique? I would say rather if we can't be honest with ourselves, how can we be honest with others. Discerning respected others have told me that I am honest with myself about my shortcomings to a very good degree. Perhaps my memory is not as good as Judy's nor my ability to deal with the sheer volume of posts and archives. But my intention about and devotion to big and little truths is at least as strong as hers, if not stronger. From: raunchydog raunchy...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 10:56 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   You've got a pretty strong charge going on there, Share. Maybe it's something to reflect upon. It's quite clear to me Judy wasn't quoting anything you actually said. Her alternate approach to supplying subtext, that I've seen her use with Barry, might have been: Says Share, especially disliking the negativity of having her mistakes and falsehoods called to her attention. She really hates that. Seems to me fighting fairly means keeping the discussion out in the open. Private emails, or even the gist of them that leak into the public discussion, Sal's for example, is more likely to engender reality-obfuscating as well as mistrust and room to stretch or avoid the truth. I don't see how anybody can ever hope to get anywhere near the larger Truth if they have no concern for the smaller truths of everyday life, including on this forum. If we can't be honest with each other, how can we ever be honest with ourselves? ~J. Stein From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: raunchydog quoting Judy: I don't see how anybody can ever hope to get anywhere near the larger Truth if they have no concern for the smaller truths of everyday life, including on this forum. If we can't be honest with each other, how can we ever be honest with ourselves? ~J. Stein It sounds so good doesn't it. Who could argue with that in theory. But put into practice by Judy, it just doesn't play out that way does it. But she will continue, with her fifty posts a week, fighting every battle large and small. Okay, medium and small. Alright, alright. mostly all small. And winning each one. Okay, vanquishing each opponent. Alright, alright, annihilating any opposition with her superior logic and ability to site posts five years back. But that's our Judy. Sounds like you've been on the losing end of an argument with Judy a time or two, Steve. Exactly how did she so handily annihilate you with her superior logic? Here's the thing, Steve,(Curtis can chime in here), it's not possible to be logical about anything unless you have command of the facts. You may have noticed, I certainly have, that the only time Judy nails you is when you don't have command of the facts and you end up making false statements. If someone made a false or misleading statement about you, would you want to let it stand or would you want people to know the truth? Of course you would you want the truth. Dollars to donuts, Judy would be the first to defend your honor and you would thank her for it. In veritate victoria: In truth, triumph.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Ann WB -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Yes, cute dormouse, Ann. Not looking at all pompous or reality avoiding which of course were the nasty parts of the metaphor. And so of course not the ones you mentioned. Your ignoring that does not do you justice. Plus your ignoring Judy's part in this ie her response to my apology, does not do you justice either. From: awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 10:33 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. Here is the thing, dear Share, although you have obviously taken exception to the metaphor of the dormouse as pertaining to you, it was a rather charming, in an interesting way, image and not one to get overly excited about. (See my photo of a rather adorable dormouse). On the other hand, I know you can do better in your description of Judy so that it encompasses not only your feelings (which seem to be hurt) as well as a degree of truthfulness and therefore potency without the ugly-esh negativity. I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: raunchydog quoting Judy: I don't see how anybody can ever hope to get anywhere near the larger Truth if they have no concern for the smaller truths of everyday life, including on this forum. If we can't be honest with each other, how can we ever be honest with ourselves? ~J. Stein It sounds so good doesn't it. Who could argue with that in theory. But put into practice by Judy, it just doesn't play out that way does it. But she will continue, with her fifty posts a week, fighting every battle large and small. Okay, medium and small. Alright, alright. mostly all small. And winning each one. Okay, vanquishing each opponent. Alright, alright, annihilating any opposition with her superior logic and ability to site posts five years back. But that's our Judy. Sounds like you've been on the losing end of an argument with Judy a time or two, Steve. Raunchy, you're kidding right. Everyone has been on the losing end of the arugument with Judy without exception likely beginning with her first post. Please don't state something some obvious. I hope your subsequent points are a little more substantive. Exactly how did she so handily annihilate you with her superior logic? Okay, I goofed. In many cases the correct term would be twisted as it pertains to logic. Er, her logic. Here's the thing, Steve,(Curtis can chime in here), it's not possible to be logical about anything unless you have command of the facts. Facts are funny things. That can be used in a context where they can indicate different things. The unemployment rate is 8.1%. Romney: This is an unacceptable and a sign of continued failed economic policy. Obama: The unemployment rate is on a steady decline. It shows we are on the right track to economic recovery. You may have noticed, I certainly have, that the only time Judy nails you is when you don't have command of the facts and you end up making false statements. Except that so much of what we discuss here are opinions. Most of the time what we discuss here are opinions. I think the objection is that Judy often states her opinions as fact. And then there is what I have called her ace in the hole where she can know what you actually mean to say, or how you actually feel, even if you state the contrary. If someone made a false or misleading statement about you, would you want to let it stand or would you want people to know the truth? Of course you would you want the truth. Dollars to donuts, Judy would be the first to defend your honor and you would thank her for it. In veritate victoria: In truth, triumph. Of course I would want her to stand up for me in that situation. And in many cases I have seen her do that for me and others. But in many other instances I have seen her display tremendous partisonship in disputes where, at least in my opinon, the truth is far away from the position she is taking. Again, just my opinion.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Ann has written a response to Curtis which requires that Curtis enter into it. Saw this flash by in Message View and had to comment that this is insanity. Neither Ann nor Robin has either the ability or the right to make such a post. They're both just attention vampires hoping they can suck yet another victim into interacting with them. And what they're both upset about is that it isn't working. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNcDI_uBGUo
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
R: If someone made a false or misleading statement about you, would you want to let it stand or would you want people to know the truth? Of course you would you want the truth. Dollars to donuts, Judy would be the first to defend your honor and you would thank her for it. In veritate victoria: In truth, triumph. It's an interesting example that you bring up here Raunchy. I believe you have taken the position that there are people (here) who don't deserve to have the record corrected when a misrepresentation has been made against them. Or at least by the person who made the misrepresentation. And that is exactly the point I am making. How strong can one's committment be to truth, when it is so often trumped by personal animosities? S: Of course I would want her to stand up for me in that situation. And in many cases I have seen her do that for me and others. But in many other instances I have seen her display tremendous partisonship in disputes where, at least in my opinon, the truth is far away from the position she is taking. Again, just my opinion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: New Ammachi Yahoo group list
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: snip Looks like the moderator of Ammachi_free_speech_zone has been pressured by MA Center to give up the moderator duties to an overtly biased Amma supporter and this mad yogi was duly kicked off :-) I'm sorry you've been derpived of an outlet to offer your opinion about things Ravi. However, I wonder if there is another side to the story? You know, their side?
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Good one, Curtis. You got a twofer, a double play. You win the jackpot, a trip to Obfuscating Rehab for the irony impaired. Does anyone else get the feeling that this word is being overused in a completely bogus way? Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. I resubmit my definition, which I think does more justice to the way the word is used here than any other. Irony (noun) Saying what you really mean, and which you know to be true, while pretending that it's not true, and that you mean the opposite. Synonym: having no balls. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usdcpWXPaDY
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Ann has written a response to Curtis which requires that Curtis enter into it. Saw this flash by in Message View and had to comment that this is insanity. Neither Ann nor Robin has either the ability or the right to make such a post. They're both just attention vampires hoping they can suck yet another victim into interacting with them. And what they're both upset about is that it isn't working. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ-E4bvrA1Ufeature=related
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Good one, Curtis. You got a twofer, a double play. You win the jackpot, a trip to Obfuscating Rehab for the irony impaired. Does anyone else get the feeling that this word is being overused in a completely bogus way? Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. I resubmit my definition, which I think does more justice to the way the word is used here than any other. Irony (noun) Saying what you really mean, and which you know to be true, while pretending that it's not true, and that you mean the opposite. Synonym: having no balls. Susan: Very well put, Barry. Nice writing. I always like your point of view. You put a lot of thinking into your posts, and it shows. Also the travelling you have done. There are a lot of people on FFL who seem to want to stir things up. It's nice there are a few persons, like you and Curtis, who tell it like it is. You have such interesting things to say. I always learn something when I read one of your posts. Do you know anything about this Louis person? I thought he said some things about Robin that Robin needed to hear.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Ann has written a response to Curtis which requires that Curtis enter into it. Saw this flash by in Message View and had to comment that this is insanity. Neither Ann nor Robin has either the ability or the right to make such a post. They're both just attention vampires hoping they can suck yet another victim into interacting with them. And what they're both upset about is that it isn't working. First of all, dear Barry, what are you talking about? Not that you will answer because you only speak to interesting people but you have left me scratching my fair head on this one. But I will ask a few rhetorical questions as others will be reading this since you will, no doubt, be busy photographing gravestones or watching the clock to make sure your dog is pooping on schedule. Since when is interacting with someone categorized as being victimized? Attention vampire has no meaning for me, what does it mean to you? That when someone writes something they expect it may be read by a few other posters? Does it mean the writer is 'thirsty' for attention and writes all the time to assert their dogmatic opinions and continually berate others for their stupidity and obvious lack of sophistication and worldliness, or worse, their idealism? Take a look in the mirror Count, because that ain't me. And since when are you the granter of rights and freedoms on this forum? To say someone doesn't have the 'right' to expect a reply to something posted here? I demanded nothing by the way, but if Robin wants to well, gee, how outrageous. Just about as outrageous as your mock outrage here, dear Barry.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Good one, Curtis. You got a twofer, a double play. You win the jackpot, a trip to Obfuscating Rehab for the irony impaired. Does anyone else get the feeling that this word is being overused in a completely bogus way? Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. I resubmit my definition, which I think does more justice to the way the word is used here than any other. Irony (noun) Saying what you really mean, and which you know to be true, while pretending that it's not true, and that you mean the opposite. Synonym: having no balls. I think he was referring to the word obfuscating, not irony.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Devas and Architecture
mjackson74: The answer is of course that while this type of architecture may be nice and may be interesting, our health and well being and world peace are NOT enhanced by it, this is a bullshit lie... You have already been caught telling a fib here, Mr. Jackson - you only get one single bija mantra in TM. How you got more than one TM bija mantra from three TM teachers is beyond me. Obviously you haven't been practicing TM. Go figure. Our health and well being and world peace are enhanced, or not, by by EVERYTHING we do, both mental and physical. All actions are dependent on other actions. Why do you think they call the family fireplace a hearth? I noticed that you have not responded to the notion that if sthapatya veda is so important to health, well-being and world peace, seems like the Big M might have mentioned it a few years ago so it could be working its magic all these many years. MMY mentioned vastu before the erection of the Golden Dome at Fairfield, IA, in 1972. Why do you think it's a dome? http://www.mmyvv.com/machieve1.jsp Perhaps you were not directing this to me, but I am not a TM teacher, merely one of the peons who meditate. So, where did your TM bija mantra come from? The point I'm trying to make is that the bijas mantras used in TM practice came from the Sri Vidya sect. So, I don't think they were 'made up' by MMY or Satyanand or Nandakishore. This is probably the most important aspect of TM practice that was mentioned on Usenet posts which could discredit MMY, that TM was 'invented' by MMY, when in fact, it's a centuries old yoga technique used by Buddhists and Hindus since at least the time of the historical Buddha and the use of mandalas, if not long before in the Upper Paleolithic in South Asia, according to historians. To sum up what has been established: If SBS had in his possession a Sri Yantra, and placed it in the Brahmastan of his cave, worshipped it and meditated on it while muttering the Saraswati bija mantra, and since SBS posed in Padma Asana displaying the chit mudra, and since SBS's teacher was SKS of Sringeri, the headquarters of the Saraswati sannyasins, and since the Sri Yantra is placed on the mandir for worship at the Sringeri, in a vastu tantric temple which has a south facing entrance, and since all the Saraswati sannyasins of the Shankara order at Sringeri all adhere to the Soundarylahari in which is mentioned the TM bija mantra for Saraswati, and every Saraswati sannyasin meditates on the Saraswati bija mantra at least twice every day, most people would conclude that the TM bija derived from the Sri Vidya sect of Karnataka, since the TM bija mantra for Saraswati is mentioned in the most revered scripture of the Sri Vidya, and is enumerated in the Soundaryalahari, right? Work cited: 'History of the Tantric Religion' by Bhattacharyya, N. N. New Delhi: Manohar, 1999
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Ann has written a response to Curtis which requires that Curtis enter into it. Saw this flash by in Message View and had to comment that this is insanity. Neither Ann nor Robin has either the ability or the right to make such a post. They're both just attention vampires hoping they can suck yet another victim into interacting with them. And what they're both upset about is that it isn't working. RESPONSE: I take it back, Barry. I didn't explain myself. But I think Curtis very smart to keep quiet in order to frustrate my designs on him (AV). I knew there was a reason for his silence after all the posts directed at him. I think he has chosen the high ground here. I can refute what you have said, Ann and Robin, but what comes first is my refusal to give you both the satisfaction of even *that*: thereby demonstrating something more important even than the truth: Don't feed the monkeys at the zoo.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: raunchydog quoting Judy: I don't see how anybody can ever hope to get anywhere near the larger Truth if they have no concern for the smaller truths of everyday life, including on this forum. If we can't be honest with each other, how can we ever be honest with ourselves? ~J. Stein It sounds so good doesn't it. Who could argue with that in theory. But put into practice by Judy, it just doesn't play out that way does it. But she will continue, with her fifty posts a week, fighting every battle large and small. Okay, medium and small. Alright, alright. mostly all small. And winning each one. Okay, vanquishing each opponent. Alright, alright, annihilating any opposition with her superior logic and ability to site posts five years back. But that's our Judy. Sounds like you've been on the losing end of an argument with Judy a time or two, Steve. Raunchy, you're kidding right. Everyone has been on the losing end of the arugument with Judy without exception likely beginning with her first post. Please don't state something some obvious. I hope your subsequent points are a little more substantive. Exactly how did she so handily annihilate you with her superior logic? Okay, I goofed. In many cases the correct term would be twisted as it pertains to logic. Er, her logic. Here's the thing, Steve,(Curtis can chime in here), it's not possible to be logical about anything unless you have command of the facts. Facts are funny things. That can be used in a context where they can indicate different things. The unemployment rate is 8.1%. Romney: This is an unacceptable and a sign of continued failed economic policy. Obama: The unemployment rate is on a steady decline. It shows we are on the right track to economic recovery. You may have noticed, I certainly have, that the only time Judy nails you is when you don't have command of the facts and you end up making false statements. Except that so much of what we discuss here are opinions. Most of the time what we discuss here are opinions. I think the objection is that Judy often states her opinions as fact. And then there is what I have called her ace in the hole where she can know what you actually mean to say, or how you actually feel, even if you state the contrary. If someone made a false or misleading statement about you, would you want to let it stand or would you want people to know the truth? Of course you would you want the truth. Dollars to donuts, Judy would be the first to defend your honor and you would thank her for it. In veritate victoria: In truth, triumph. Of course I would want her to stand up for me in that situation. And in many cases I have seen her do that for me and others. But in many other instances I have seen her display tremendous partisonship in disputes where, at least in my opinon, the truth is far away from the position she is taking. Again, just my opinion. As they say, You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. Furthermore, it's just plain sloppy to confuse the two. If you're going to claim that the truth is far away from the position Judy is taking, in other words, implying that she not telling the truth, then you better back that up with facts and not your OPINION.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Raunchy -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Judy's attributing words to me that I did not write or even think is Judy's alternate approach to supplying subtext?! Oh, wait, I think I get it. You're making a joke. Please tell me you're making a joke. And not twisting into a pretzel to avoid criticizing Judy.  It was clear to me from the get go that Judy wasn't quoting anything you actually said. That part of my statement still stands. However, Judy corrected me: What I normally do is put Translation: before the proposed subtext. In this case I was *adding* something to what Share had said (Especially when...) rather than supplying subtext for what she had said, so Translation: didn't apply. But I knew nobody would think it was something she herself had said, so I just left it in quotes. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320866 Apparently, Judy was fairly confident that nobody would think it was something you had *actually* said. IMO your objection to attributing words to you is a ruse to avoid the larger issue of having mistakes and falsehoods called to your attention. Raunchy, do you really think that the only parameter of fair fighting is keeping discussions out in the open?! I disagree. I think there are others that are at least equally important. You can fight fairly in private emails as much as you like and you can judge for yourself (without the benefit of feedback from a public forum) whether or not it was a fair fight. My point is that an open discussion on a public forum requires courage and integrity to be truthful with oneself and others. Openness keeps people honest, there's no place to hide. It's just you and the variety of mirrors of consciousness on the forum reflecting you back to you. I notice how you put all of this on me and none of it on Judy, totally ignoring how she responded to my apology. Of course that's what she did with the me and Robin kafufel. Perhaps a requirement to belong to her clique? Judy's response to you is between you and Judy. The clique requirement slam is wholly gratuitous and also untrue, since I don't know anything about your Robin kerfuffle, nor do I care. I would say rather if we can't be honest with ourselves, how can we be honest with others. Discerning respected others have told me that I am honest with myself about my shortcomings to a very good degree. Perhaps my memory is not as good as Judy's nor my ability to deal with the sheer volume of posts and archives. But my intention about and devotion to big and little truths is at least as strong as hers, if not stronger.     r#275;s ipsa loquitur From: raunchydog raunchydog@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 10:56 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words.àOr even think them.àMaybe herself?àOr someone from another decade?àPSàI'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter.àBTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster. ààYou've got a pretty strong charge going on there, Share. Maybe it's something to reflect upon. It's quite clear to me Judy wasn't quoting anything you actually said. Her alternate approach to supplying subtext, that I've seen her use with Barry, might have been: Says Share, especially disliking the negativity of having her mistakes and falsehoods called to her attention. She really hates that. Seems to me fighting fairly means keeping the discussion out in the open. Private emails, or even the gist of them that leak into the public discussion, Sal's for example, is more likely to engender reality-obfuscating as well as mistrust and room to stretch or avoid the truth. I don't see how anybody can ever hope to get anywhere near the larger Truth if they have no concern for the smaller truths of everyday life, including on this forum. If we can't be honest with each other, how can we ever be honest with ourselves? ~J. Stein From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in
[FairfieldLife] Quality control died with Steve Jobs?!
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1445493page=114 The ip5 was to be my first iphone, but I rang up and cancelled my pre-order today. I placed the order well over a week before the ip5 was released and got an SMS on the night of the release telling me they had just received my order That's 5 or 6 business days after I placed it, and that I would receive another SMS within 4 days telling me my estimated delivery date (which is sure to be weeks from now). Then with 4 out of every 5 phones turning out to be scuffed or chipped I just thought it, I'll go with the galaxy s3 instead. It's disappointing because I had been quite anti-apple for so long but finally caved and bought an iPad 3 this year and it changed my mind about apple being a ** company until now. It seems quality control and customer service died with Steve jobs.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Ann WB -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Yes, cute dormouse, Ann. Not looking at all pompous or reality avoiding which of course were the nasty parts of the metaphor. Here is how I see it. You can focus on what you think of as the negative aspects of this or the funny ones or, of course, ignore the whole thing completely. All of these ways of dealing with the dormouse sentence are possible. I actually found myself laughing out loud at that description and I can say with all truthfulness I would have laughed just as much if it had been directed at me, which it may have been since Judy said it was not directed at you. What does focusing on the 'nasty parts of the metaphor' achieve anyway? Surely, you have the best answer to that, I know you do. So, when I read that descriptive my first impulse was to find a picture of a dormouse and look how fantastic that little creature was.  And so of course not the ones you mentioned. Your ignoring that does not do you justice. I IGNORE nothing but I FOCUS on what is important, to me. This is how I live my life and it is the best way I know to do myself justice. Plus your ignoring Judy's part in this ie her response to my apology, does not do you justice either. Share, my post to you was written with good intentions. If you, like Curtis, think it was not then I failed in what I was trying to achieve, which was to encourage you to stay true to who you think you are, a positive and sensitive and thoughtful person, and not fall into the trap of lashing out in a way that goes against who you want to be, or what you work so hard on developing in your character in your relationship with others. But, in reality, it is none of my business so I will, as you are so much better than I am at doing, apologize if I wither misread you or overstepped my boundaries. From: awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 10:33 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words.àOr even think them.àMaybe herself?àOr someone from another decade?àPSàI'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter.àHere is the thing, dear Share, although you have obviously taken exception to the metaphor of the dormouse as pertaining to you, it was a rather charming, in an interesting way, image and not one to get overly excited about. (See my photo of a rather adorable dormouse). On the other hand, I know you can do better in your description of Judy so that it encompasses not only your feelings (which seem to be hurt) as well as a degree of truthfulness and therefore potency without the ugly-esh negativity. I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster. ààFrom: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement.àIf anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Raunchy -- writing for the Church of $cientology
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: You can fight fairly in private emails as much as you like and you can judge for yourself (without the benefit of feedback from a public forum) whether or not it was a fair fight. (without the benefit of feedback from a public forum) M: Another keyboard thrashed with Sumatran coffee with whole milk ejected from my nose. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy's attributing words to me that I did not write or even think is Judy's alternate approach to supplying subtext?! Oh, wait, I think I get it. You're making a joke. Please tell me you're making a joke. And not twisting into a pretzel to avoid criticizing Judy.  It was clear to me from the get go that Judy wasn't quoting anything you actually said. That part of my statement still stands. However, Judy corrected me: What I normally do is put Translation: before the proposed subtext. In this case I was *adding* something to what Share had said (Especially when...) rather than supplying subtext for what she had said, so Translation: didn't apply. But I knew nobody would think it was something she herself had said, so I just left it in quotes. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320866 Apparently, Judy was fairly confident that nobody would think it was something you had *actually* said. IMO your objection to attributing words to you is a ruse to avoid the larger issue of having mistakes and falsehoods called to your attention. Raunchy, do you really think that the only parameter of fair fighting is keeping discussions out in the open?! I disagree. I think there are others that are at least equally important. You can fight fairly in private emails as much as you like and you can judge for yourself (without the benefit of feedback from a public forum) whether or not it was a fair fight. My point is that an open discussion on a public forum requires courage and integrity to be truthful with oneself and others. Openness keeps people honest, there's no place to hide. It's just you and the variety of mirrors of consciousness on the forum reflecting you back to you. I notice how you put all of this on me and none of it on Judy, totally ignoring how she responded to my apology. Of course that's what she did with the me and Robin kafufel. Perhaps a requirement to belong to her clique? Judy's response to you is between you and Judy. The clique requirement slam is wholly gratuitous and also untrue, since I don't know anything about your Robin kerfuffle, nor do I care. I would say rather if we can't be honest with ourselves, how can we be honest with others. Discerning respected others have told me that I am honest with myself about my shortcomings to a very good degree. Perhaps my memory is not as good as Judy's nor my ability to deal with the sheer volume of posts and archives. But my intention about and devotion to big and little truths is at least as strong as hers, if not stronger.     r#275;s ipsa loquitur From: raunchydog raunchydog@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 10:56 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words.àOr even think them.àMaybe herself?àOr someone from another decade?àPSàI'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter.àBTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster. ààYou've got a pretty strong charge going on there, Share. Maybe it's something to reflect upon. It's quite clear to me Judy wasn't quoting anything you actually said. Her alternate approach to supplying subtext, that I've seen her use with Barry, might have been: Says Share, especially disliking the negativity of having her mistakes and falsehoods called to her attention. She really hates that. Seems to me fighting fairly means keeping the discussion out in the open. Private emails, or even the gist of them that leak into the public discussion, Sal's for example, is more likely to engender reality-obfuscating as well as mistrust and room to stretch or avoid the truth. I don't see how anybody can ever hope to get anywhere near the larger Truth if they have no concern for the smaller truths of everyday life,
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: M: Did the *attack the confidence* formulaic routine work well for you when you were surrounded by 20 somethings Robin? How has it been working for you lately? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: ANN: I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. M: Perhaps a review process is in order for Share. She could send you her posts before posting them, and they could be evaluated for how much they do justice to her. I think there is more than a little Robin left in you Ann. (I hope that was just right.) Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. Here was your intent tell: Here is the thing, dear Share, You kinda know what's coming after that. RESPONSE: If any reader examines what Curtis has said here, there is a kind of hidden a priori psychology. And what is that a priori? That somehow the force and imperiousness of the personality of Curtis can be a substitute for any contact with the truth of the matter. Notice that Curtis perfectly deprives the impartial reader of any chance to subject this difference of point of view to a fair hearing *independent of the peremptory and despotic authority of Curtis*. Curtis takes on the entire burden of the proof of his argument here--in the absence of any possibility of having this matter adjudicated by a context within which Curtis himself exists. Curtis annexes the context of truth through sheer dint of will and personality. It is certainly a spectacular phenomenon to witness [Hold it, Curtis: I will have no respect for you whatsover *if you use the very mechanism I am describing here to evade facing the inevitability of my analysis*--So STFU--unless you are prepared to address my argument on its own terms]: Curtis lords it over everyone, and kills the possibility of a context which is opposed to Curtis getting a hearing. You see, Curtis is so scrupulously sensitive to the truth, that he knows how important it is to keep that truth from undermining or refuting him. So he just banishes it from existence and appropriates the context totally with the force of his personality. But of course all this is hidden from view. Look: There is some disagreement between this person (whom Curtis is addressing here) and Curtis. But instead of taking on the most generous and sincere motive which could lie behind the comments this person has made to Share Long, Curtis would judge them out of court categorically: as if to say: I have caught you in an utterly dishonest and manipulative form of behaviour, and you had better just own up. You are judged and sentenced; the execution awaits my discretion. I wish those readers at FFL who seek some form of contact with reality, with what is the case, will see that Curtis operates under a set of ruthless and intolerant rules. His judgment does not suffer from some subjectively experienced doubt when he makes his argument. But this is because he simply eliminates all of the reality which existed inside the context where the issue is being controverted, and substitutes his own context, which will not permit any appeal to a truth which Curtis has determined is a moral and intellectual inconvenience to him. Curtis has a secret ex cathedra way of writing. One does not notice it; one is influenced by the illusion that his confidence *must mean he is in contact with the truth*; but as it happens, in disputation at least, Curtis's confidence and authority is directly proportional to the truth which he is denying entrance into the discussion. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. Here is the thing, dear Share, although you have obviously taken exception to the metaphor of the dormouse as pertaining to you, it was a rather charming, in an interesting way, image and not one to get overly excited about. (See my photo of a rather adorable dormouse). On the other hand, I know you can do better in your description of Judy so that it encompasses not only your feelings (which seem to be hurt) as well as a degree of truthfulness and therefore potency without
[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin and pussycats
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, card cardemaister@... wrote: Robin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nrw9xPCFtYw Pussycats: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1alkt1F7DM4 Dear Cardmaister, Not withstanding Louis's likely opinion to the contrary, I take this post as a compliment. Did you notice that the tawny cat--who got the worst of the fight--in the end approached the more aggressive white cat--as if to say: I don't care how badly you treat me, I'd like to be your friend? And then they both sort of walked away from each other having restored--and exhibited--their ultimate Buddhahood natures. You know that Zen monk who turns to his friend (who is concerned about the effect of having carried a beautiful woman across a stream): Haven't you put her down yet? Those cats moved on. It's harder to do when you go up the evolutionary ladder. As for the robin, well, the consistency and winsomeness of his chirping, it is something I aspire to. Thanks, Card. Robin
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: As they say, You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. Furthermore, it's just plain sloppy to confuse the two. If you're going to claim that the truth is far away from the position Judy is taking, in other words, implying that she not telling the truth, then you better back that up with facts and not your OPINION. Okay Raunchy, there are facts that are not open to interpretation and those that are. There are physical facts which cannot be disputed or which don't leave room for interpretation and facts that do. So and so killed someone. Did he do it in self defense or did he do it in a premeditated fashion out of anger or revenge? So you are telling me that the conclusion for something like this is clear cut. I think this the fault line we often see here. Some people are satisfied offering an opinion on something like this, and others will insist that their interpretation of this fact, is the correct interpretation. I think it may be you who are confusing the issues Raunchy. If you are going to go into the pretzel mode, you might need to work on it a little more.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Raunchy -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: You can fight fairly in private emails as much as you like and you can judge for yourself (without the benefit of feedback from a public forum) whether or not it was a fair fight. My point is that an open discussion on a public forum requires courage and integrity to be truthful with oneself and others. Openness keeps people honest, there's no place to hide. It's just you and the variety of mirrors of consciousness on the forum reflecting you back to you. Such noble words, but applied so selectively to only people you deem deserving a fair hearing.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: Hi Ann, My short response was written to you while in line at Starbucks on my phone before my show. I actually botched your opening line to Share which I was trying to send back to you so you might see how I saw it, a bit condescending. She has been getting a lot of that from people here lately so I thought I would chip in. I understand that you are not trying to sound like Robin and are not a student of his philosophy. I said that because it seemed to be from his playbook to get under someone's skin presumptively as I thought you had with Share, asking her to go back and find another way to express herself that might express who she really is better than she had. It implies that someone outside might know her mind and heart better and she needs to work on herself a bit to catch up with this insight. I consider it a weird boundaries violation ala Robin. Perhaps the connection was unfair of me given your history. Judy pulls this on people too so I could have used her. In my perception, you and Judy and Raunchy have been ganging up on Share. I don't think she deserves that. I also understand that this is not how you are viewing all this. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: The thing is dear Ann... Yes? Tell me more. But if I am not to run out of posts by Monday night, at this rate I need to cover more ground here. I found your comment below something I would like to address, quickly: I think there is more than a little Robin left in you Ann. (And here this is a direct quote from you complete with quotation marks, let there be no mistake.) Now, I take this comment of yours to mean that what I wrote to Share reminds you of what Robin would have said. That is the only conclusion I can come to from your assessment. But here is the thing. Robin does not hold a patent on how he lives his life and how he in turn chooses to articulate that here in his interactions with others. You assume because I said what I said to Share that I have borrowed, incorporated, embodied Robin or, at least, his philosophy. However, you would be wrong. I will not speak for him but I will for myself when I say that the impulse and the belief behind that impulse is something that I have come to know is true in my own life. This is a discovery not a stolen idea, a borrowed life list of rules, a plagiarized page out of Robin's Book On Reality. It is something I have come to understand and believe. If it sounds familiar then how is this different from the fact that there are undoubtedly more than one or two people on this planet that can essentially perceive certain realities about life to be true? Do you forget, I have not been around Robin for 26 years? Do you imagine I keep copies of his old books at my bedside so I can stay clear and fresh on his former writings and beliefs? Do you think I wish to follow him once again as some beacon of realized knowingess? And perhaps more importantly, do you see me as some mimicing, mindless drone who has no original ideas of her own? Because if you do we really need to have that coffee in that cafe somewhere. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. It's dormouse, not doormouse (dor = sleep). Always appreciated. And of course, as Curtis knows, the phrase wasn't used to describe Share (except by herself). Actually I didn't, I just dropped in and must have gotten that wrong. If so I apologize to Judy if I was characterizing her as condescending for a term she herself didn't use. Here was your intent tell: Intent tell, what a charming bit of psychobabble. NLP, I assume? No, it is my own collage of the poker term as it applies to writing. It sounds so much edgier than foreshadowing. OK, since I was the one who composed the message to Share I think I am the expert here. I could have written the sentence beginning with the usual, Dear Share. The fact that I wrote those two words after a few opening words does not, for me, change my intent of the letter to Share. I don't want to hurt Share or to speak condescendingly to her (although I have admitted times when I do give her a nudge or two about her many spiritual pursuits and activities) but this was not the case in my post today. I truly wanted to impart to her exactly what I said.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quality control died with Steve Jobs?!
Apple products are very, very well thot out. However, I've played extensively with both the Apple and the Galaxy S3 - and the S3 is a very nice phone...it is rather large though - like it want to be a IPad. The navigation is extremely well functioning - and of course it uses Google maps which is a big plus. I was using the Galaxy feature (android siri) and was able to lock up the phone by asking the following question: Galaxy, what is the definition of antidisestablishmentarianism? The phone basically just sat there and locked up...until I rebooted. Failed a repeated test too. My only real beef with it is that it is totally fragile because it is too thin, so one small drop and the screen shatters...which I witnessed personally ...ahem!
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: M: Did the *attack the confidence* formulaic routine work well for you when you were surrounded by 20 somethings Robin? How has it been working for you lately? Robin: That's an unfair dig, Curtis. I think I never thought of applying it to *that* context--but, now that you bring it up, I sort of wish I had. A little late in the game now, I suppose. The universe computing through my Unity Consciousness didn't really make that one of its priorities. But I am wondering: at 68, do you think it would work for me? Now I realize I have stepped out of my usual mode of robin singing here, but I think there still is enough lust in there to want to give this a try. Ladies: be warned. 20 somethings: God, that would be nice, Curtis! No, the power surge you get in enlightenment, that more or less trumps everything else. But now that I have given up the field of all possibilities, I am thinking retrospectively of *that* possibility. And I think I blew it, Curtis. I think I blew it. Sorry, all your gals *who could have been*. I knew you'd find some way to get under my skin, Curtis. Faces and eros: There has to be someone behind this, don't you think? Platonically yours, Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: ANN: I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. M: Perhaps a review process is in order for Share. She could send you her posts before posting them, and they could be evaluated for how much they do justice to her. I think there is more than a little Robin left in you Ann. (I hope that was just right.) Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. Here was your intent tell: Here is the thing, dear Share, You kinda know what's coming after that. RESPONSE: If any reader examines what Curtis has said here, there is a kind of hidden a priori psychology. And what is that a priori? That somehow the force and imperiousness of the personality of Curtis can be a substitute for any contact with the truth of the matter. Notice that Curtis perfectly deprives the impartial reader of any chance to subject this difference of point of view to a fair hearing *independent of the peremptory and despotic authority of Curtis*. Curtis takes on the entire burden of the proof of his argument here--in the absence of any possibility of having this matter adjudicated by a context within which Curtis himself exists. Curtis annexes the context of truth through sheer dint of will and personality. It is certainly a spectacular phenomenon to witness [Hold it, Curtis: I will have no respect for you whatsover *if you use the very mechanism I am describing here to evade facing the inevitability of my analysis*--So STFU--unless you are prepared to address my argument on its own terms]: Curtis lords it over everyone, and kills the possibility of a context which is opposed to Curtis getting a hearing. You see, Curtis is so scrupulously sensitive to the truth, that he knows how important it is to keep that truth from undermining or refuting him. So he just banishes it from existence and appropriates the context totally with the force of his personality. But of course all this is hidden from view. Look: There is some disagreement between this person (whom Curtis is addressing here) and Curtis. But instead of taking on the most generous and sincere motive which could lie behind the comments this person has made to Share Long, Curtis would judge them out of court categorically: as if to say: I have caught you in an utterly dishonest and manipulative form of behaviour, and you had better just own up. You are judged and sentenced; the execution awaits my discretion. I wish those readers at FFL who seek some form of contact with reality, with what is the case, will see that Curtis operates under a set of ruthless and intolerant rules. His judgment does not suffer from some subjectively experienced doubt when he makes his argument. But this is because he simply eliminates all of the reality which existed inside the context where the issue is being controverted, and substitutes his own context, which will not permit any appeal to a truth which Curtis has determined is a moral and intellectual inconvenience to him. Curtis has a secret ex cathedra way of writing. One does not notice it; one is influenced by the illusion that his confidence *must mean he is
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: CURTIS: The thing is dear Ann... RESPONSE: One must assume, since this is all that Curtis has said to Ann, that this retort is sufficient to utterly destroy the substance and effect of what Ann has written to Curtis. M: No one must not. One might not know it was a short response I did on my phone while standing in line at Starbucks before my show. One might even ask me if one was confused about the intent instead of going off on this rant. I wanted Ann to experience this line directed toward her to understand where I was coming from. It is not. Ann has written a response to Curtis which requires that Curtis enter into it. M; Requires? You really need to get over yourself Robin. You are the guy who has been answering posts with enigmatic Youtube videos. Does this requirement only apply to me? R:He refuses because his bloodhound instincts for the smell of truth have warned him: Do not go there. It is dangerous. R: Right and you are the arbiter of truth., gotchya wise man. R: So what does he do instead? He capsizes the context to make it seem as if, in this ironic turning of a phrase of Ann's (in her addressing Share Long), *he has entirely dealt with the context of what Ann has said to him*. But there is a catch to this that most FFL readers will miss (Raunchy not one of them): Had anyone other than Curtis responded to someone as Curtis has here, *that person would lack the force of personality and will to make this response stand as in any way adequate to the challenge presented by Ann*. But because it is Curtis who has written it, it has that Manly Halo Good-Guy-That-I-Am-Always strength inside of it M: You are being an asshole here Robin. R: --so, although ineffectual in the person of anyone else on FFL, with Curtis, it almost works. For at the very least, one has the illusory impression that Curtis has answered Ann. Which he has not. Do you see? This is a form of manipulation and deceit that is manifestly unfair to Ann and a form of insidious seduction of the reader. Consider this thought experiment: *Someone other than Curtis has written each one of the posts to Ann today* [that Curtis has in fact written]. Ann has responded as she has. Now consider that this X person (someone other than Curtis) responds to Ann's last post with this one sentence: The thing is dear Ann.. M: Plenty of posters write short lines to express a perspective concisely. Concisely Robin, you might want to consider that concept. R: Think: How well would this go over? It would be a dying balloon. Almost embarrassing. [And note how Curtis has made of Ann's original approach to Share as if sneeringly condescending and foul--but it was not this inside Ann's heart: such is the power of Curtis's appropriation of the truth.] But Curtis has a mystique (most balanced intellect among all of us--Xeno) and a character which gives to his words some power they otherwise would not have. And this of course is the point of my earlier post: Curtis is fanatically determined not to let reality wrest control of the context. He will possess that context at all costs. M: Holy shit, no you diii-int! You never answered me about why you repeated this charge a hundred times in your last posts, what was up with that. Did you know you were? Do you know you are now? Are you aware of the number of times you have repeated this charge? R: And in this sense, in saying what he has said to Ann here, he gives the impression he has essentially had the last word. But has he? M: No Robin that will always be you. R: He has said nothing. He has systematically and sedulously and deceitfully made certain that the potency and thoughtfulness of Ann's post to Curtis is entirely robbed of its intrinsic merit. This, by force of personality and will. Curtis legendary status among certain posters and readers here enables him to escape from the demands of truth and honesty which are incumbent upon the rest of us. And my thesis can only be denied by Curtis *through the very same M.O. as I have described here*. M: You really need to get that head out of your ass Robin. At your age that has to exacerbate constipation issues, and it can't be helping your complexion. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. It's dormouse, not doormouse (dor =
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Ann WB -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Yes, cute dormouse, Ann. Not looking at all pompous or reality avoiding which of course were the nasty parts of the metaphor. Here is how I see it. You can focus on what you think of as the negative aspects of this or the funny ones or, of course, ignore the whole thing completely. All of these ways of dealing with the dormouse sentence are possible. M: I don't see you or any of us living up to this advice when the intent is directed toward us. Judy's intent has been very clear with Share and she is feeling defensive because she is being attacked. Imagine if in the beginning I gave this rap to you about Barry's posts to you. Is this realistic? I actually found myself laughing out loud at that description and I can say with all truthfulness I would have laughed just as much if it had been directed at me, which it may have been since Judy said it was not directed at you. What does focusing on the 'nasty parts of the metaphor' achieve anyway? Surely, you have the best answer to that, I know you do. So, when I read that descriptive my first impulse was to find a picture of a dormouse and look how fantastic that little creature was.  And so of course not the ones you mentioned. Your ignoring that does not do you justice. I IGNORE nothing but I FOCUS on what is important, to me. This is how I live my life and it is the best way I know to do myself justice. Plus your ignoring Judy's part in this ie her response to my apology, does not do you justice either. Share, my post to you was written with good intentions. If you, like Curtis, think it was not then I failed in what I was trying to achieve, which was to encourage you to stay true to who you think you are, a positive and sensitive and thoughtful person, and not fall into the trap of lashing out in a way that goes against who you want to be, or what you work so hard on developing in your character in your relationship with others. But, in reality, it is none of my business so I will, as you are so much better than I am at doing, apologize if I wither misread you or overstepped my boundaries. From: awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 10:33 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words.àOr even think them.àMaybe herself?àOr someone from another decade?àPSàI'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter.àHere is the thing, dear Share, although you have obviously taken exception to the metaphor of the dormouse as pertaining to you, it was a rather charming, in an interesting way, image and not one to get overly excited about. (See my photo of a rather adorable dormouse). On the other hand, I know you can do better in your description of Judy so that it encompasses not only your feelings (which seem to be hurt) as well as a degree of truthfulness and therefore potency without the ugly-esh negativity. I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster. ààFrom: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement.àIf anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone Curtis -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Thank you for this Curtis and for your earlier email to Ann. Again I appreciate how you're being reasonable and fair to everyone. And how you didn't let the dormouse correction derail what I perceive as your genuine truth seeking. Bet the trees in DC area are gorgeous now. Share From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 9:26 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: Hi Ann, My short response was written to you while in line at Starbucks on my phone before my show. I actually botched your opening line to Share which I was trying to send back to you so you might see how I saw it, a bit condescending. She has been getting a lot of that from people here lately so I thought I would chip in. I understand that you are not trying to sound like Robin and are not a student of his philosophy. I said that because it seemed to be from his playbook to get under someone's skin presumptively as I thought you had with Share, asking her to go back and find another way to express herself that might express who she really is better than she had. It implies that someone outside might know her mind and heart better and she needs to work on herself a bit to catch up with this insight. I consider it a weird boundaries violation ala Robin. Perhaps the connection was unfair of me given your history. Judy pulls this on people too so I could have used her. In my perception, you and Judy and Raunchy have been ganging up on Share. I don't think she deserves that. I also understand that this is not how you are viewing all this. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: The thing is dear Ann... Yes? Tell me more. But if I am not to run out of posts by Monday night, at this rate I need to cover more ground here. I found your comment below something I would like to address, quickly: I think there is more than a little Robin left in you Ann. (And here this is a direct quote from you complete with quotation marks, let there be no mistake.) Now, I take this comment of yours to mean that what I wrote to Share reminds you of what Robin would have said. That is the only conclusion I can come to from your assessment. But here is the thing. Robin does not hold a patent on how he lives his life and how he in turn chooses to articulate that here in his interactions with others. You assume because I said what I said to Share that I have borrowed, incorporated, embodied Robin or, at least, his philosophy. However, you would be wrong. I will not speak for him but I will for myself when I say that the impulse and the belief behind that impulse is something that I have come to know is true in my own life. This is a discovery not a stolen idea, a borrowed life list of rules, a plagiarized page out of Robin's Book On Reality. It is something I have come to understand and believe. If it sounds familiar then how is this different from the fact that there are undoubtedly more than one or two people on this planet that can essentially perceive certain realities about life to be true? Do you forget, I have not been around Robin for 26 years? Do you imagine I keep copies of his old books at my bedside so I can stay clear and fresh on his former writings and beliefs? Do you think I wish to follow him once again as some beacon of realized knowingess? And perhaps more importantly, do you see me as some mimicing, mindless drone who has no original ideas of her own? Because if you do we really need to have that coffee in that cafe somewhere. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. It's dormouse, not doormouse (dor = sleep). Always appreciated. And of course, as Curtis knows, the phrase wasn't used to describe Share (except by herself). Actually I didn't, I just dropped in and must have gotten that wrong. If so I apologize to Judy if I was characterizing her as condescending for a term she herself didn't use. Here was your intent tell: Intent tell, what a charming bit of psychobabble. NLP, I assume? No, it is my own collage of the poker term as it applies to writing. It sounds so much edgier than foreshadowing. OK, since I was the one who composed the message to Share
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Ann WB -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Ann I accept your apology and offer mine for any misunderstanding of you. Share From: awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 8:56 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Ann WB -- writing for the Church of $cientology --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Yes, cute dormouse, Ann. Not looking at all pompous or reality avoiding which of course were the nasty parts of the metaphor. Here is how I see it. You can focus on what you think of as the negative aspects of this or the funny ones or, of course, ignore the whole thing completely. All of these ways of dealing with the dormouse sentence are possible. I actually found myself laughing out loud at that description and I can say with all truthfulness I would have laughed just as much if it had been directed at me, which it may have been since Judy said it was not directed at you. What does focusing on the 'nasty parts of the metaphor' achieve anyway? Surely, you have the best answer to that, I know you do. So, when I read that descriptive my first impulse was to find a picture of a dormouse and look how fantastic that little creature was.  And so of course not the ones you mentioned. Your ignoring that does not do you justice. I IGNORE nothing but I FOCUS on what is important, to me. This is how I live my life and it is the best way I know to do myself justice. Plus your ignoring Judy's part in this ie her response to my apology, does not do you justice either. Share, my post to you was written with good intentions. If you, like Curtis, think it was not then I failed in what I was trying to achieve, which was to encourage you to stay true to who you think you are, a positive and sensitive and thoughtful person, and not fall into the trap of lashing out in a way that goes against who you want to be, or what you work so hard on developing in your character in your relationship with others. But, in reality, it is none of my business so I will, as you are so much better than I am at doing, apologize if I wither misread you or overstepped my boundaries. From: awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 10:33 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. Here is the thing, dear Share, although you have obviously taken exception to the metaphor of the dormouse as pertaining to you, it was a rather charming, in an interesting way, image and not one to get overly excited about. (See my photo of a rather adorable dormouse). On the other hand, I know you can do better in your description of Judy so that it encompasses not only your feelings (which seem to be hurt) as well as a degree of truthfulness and therefore potency without the ugly-esh negativity. I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Wha: edible umlauts??
http://www.redrobin.com/
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: CURTIS1: The thing is dear Ann... ROBIN1: One must assume, since this is all that Curtis has said to Ann, that this retort is sufficient to utterly destroy the substance and effect of what Ann has written to Curtis. CURTIS2: No one must not. One might not know it was a short response I did on my phone while standing in line at Starbucks before my show. One might even ask me if one was confused about the intent instead of going off on this rant. I wanted Ann to experience this line directed toward her to understand where I was coming from. ROBIN2: Bullshit, Curtis. ROBIN1:It is not. Ann has written a response to Curtis which requires that Curtis enter into it. CURTIS 2: Requires? You really need to get over yourself Robin. You are the guy who has been answering posts with enigmatic Youtube videos. Does this requirement only apply to me? ROBIN2: You are culpably selective and tendentious here, Curtis. You are proving my thesis. ROBIN1 :He refuses because his bloodhound instincts for the smell of truth have warned him: Do not go there. It is dangerous. CURTIS 2: Right and you are the arbiter of truth., gotchya wise man. ROBIN2: No, no, Curtis. It is not who is the arbiter of truth. Newton and Copernicus were not arbiters of the truth. The question is: Does what I am saying here explain your behaviour, Curtis. And I believe it does. But you, you *know* it does. Or am I wrong here, Curtis? Why not this response: Robin, what you are saying about me is not true. I do not avoid the truth, and I do not understand on what basis you can make such an outrageous and demeaning and trangressive statement. Shut up, Robin. You are wrong. But that would be taking too much of a chance. It's the metaphysic of your M.O., Curtis, and I have been describing it for some time now. You have never addressed the question--and you never will. This is the secret to understanding you, Curtis. You will not go anywhere near where reality might make trouble for you. ROBIN1: So what does he do instead? He capsizes the context to make it seem as if, in this ironic turning of a phrase of Ann's (in her addressing Share Long), *he has entirely dealt with the context of what Ann has said to him*. But there is a catch to this that most FFL readers will miss (Raunchy not one of them): Had anyone other than Curtis responded to someone as Curtis has here, *that person would lack the force of personality and will to make this response stand as in any way adequate to the challenge presented by Ann*. But because it is Curtis who has written it, it has that Manly Halo Good-Guy-That-I-Am-Always strength inside of it CURTIS2: You are being an asshole here Robin. ROBIN2: Explain how my assholeness is a more salient fact than what I am describing as the truth of how you act, Curtis. ROBIN1: --so, although ineffectual in the person of anyone else on FFL, with Curtis, it almost works. For at the very least, one has the illusory impression that Curtis has answered Ann. Which he has not. Do you see? This is a form of manipulation and deceit that is manifestly unfair to Ann and a form of insidious seduction of the reader. Consider this thought experiment: *Someone other than Curtis has written each one of the posts to Ann today* [that Curtis has in fact written]. Ann has responded as she has. Now consider that this X person (someone other than Curtis) responds to Ann's last post with this one sentence: The thing is dear Ann.. CURTIS2: Plenty of posters write short lines to express a perspective concisely. Concisely Robin, you might want to consider that concept. ROBIN2: Have I misjudged you, Curtis? I think Xeno's estimation of you significant. But you are making me lose confidence in you. This won't do at all. I am getting very angry with you, Curtis. Please stop with the names. ROBIN1: Think: How well would this go over? It would be a dying balloon. Almost embarrassing. [And note how Curtis has made of Ann's original approach to Share as if sneeringly condescending and foul--but it was not this inside Ann's heart: such is the power of Curtis's appropriation of the truth.] But Curtis has a mystique (most balanced intellect among all of us--Xeno) and a character which gives to his words some power they otherwise would not have. And this of course is the point of my earlier post: Curtis is fanatically determined not to let reality wrest control of the context. He will possess that context at all costs. CURTIS2: Holy shit, no you diii-int! You never answered me about why you repeated this charge a hundred times in your last posts, what was up with that. Did you know you were? Do you know you are now? ROBIN2: I will repeat what is obvious as long as you try to bullshit your way out of addressing what I say about you, Curtis. I have said things about you; you have not denied them. This is an admission of your concealed
[FairfieldLife] sublime Nisargadatta quote
knowing i am nothing is wisdom, knowing i am everything is love. between the two my life moves. -nisargadatta
[FairfieldLife] 6 tips to celebrate National Punctuation Day
Short, to the point, and more clearly expressed than I've seen almost anywhere else. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-b-bradshaw/national-punctuation-day-_b_1908136.html Other tips, concealed as ...walked into a bar jokes: A semicolon walks into a bar; it has a drink and then leaves. A dangling modifier walks into a bar. After finishing a drink, the bartender asks it to leave. A question mark walks into a bar? Two scare quotes walk into a bar. A gerund and an infinitive walk into a bar, drinking to drink. The bar was walked into by the passive voice. Three intransitive verbs walk into a bar. They sit. They drink. They leave. Finally, more grammar than punctuation: The past, the present and the future walked into a bar. It was tense.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra maskedzebra@... wrote: I will repeat what is obvious as long as you try to bullshit your way out of addressing what I say about you, Curtis. M: You have now defined yourself as a troll here Robin. Got it. Over and out. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: CURTIS1: The thing is dear Ann... ROBIN1: One must assume, since this is all that Curtis has said to Ann, that this retort is sufficient to utterly destroy the substance and effect of what Ann has written to Curtis. CURTIS2: No one must not. One might not know it was a short response I did on my phone while standing in line at Starbucks before my show. One might even ask me if one was confused about the intent instead of going off on this rant. I wanted Ann to experience this line directed toward her to understand where I was coming from. ROBIN2: Bullshit, Curtis. ROBIN1:It is not. Ann has written a response to Curtis which requires that Curtis enter into it. CURTIS 2: Requires? You really need to get over yourself Robin. You are the guy who has been answering posts with enigmatic Youtube videos. Does this requirement only apply to me? ROBIN2: You are culpably selective and tendentious here, Curtis. You are proving my thesis. ROBIN1 :He refuses because his bloodhound instincts for the smell of truth have warned him: Do not go there. It is dangerous. CURTIS 2: Right and you are the arbiter of truth., gotchya wise man. ROBIN2: No, no, Curtis. It is not who is the arbiter of truth. Newton and Copernicus were not arbiters of the truth. The question is: Does what I am saying here explain your behaviour, Curtis. And I believe it does. But you, you *know* it does. Or am I wrong here, Curtis? Why not this response: Robin, what you are saying about me is not true. I do not avoid the truth, and I do not understand on what basis you can make such an outrageous and demeaning and trangressive statement. Shut up, Robin. You are wrong. But that would be taking too much of a chance. It's the metaphysic of your M.O., Curtis, and I have been describing it for some time now. You have never addressed the question--and you never will. This is the secret to understanding you, Curtis. You will not go anywhere near where reality might make trouble for you. ROBIN1: So what does he do instead? He capsizes the context to make it seem as if, in this ironic turning of a phrase of Ann's (in her addressing Share Long), *he has entirely dealt with the context of what Ann has said to him*. But there is a catch to this that most FFL readers will miss (Raunchy not one of them): Had anyone other than Curtis responded to someone as Curtis has here, *that person would lack the force of personality and will to make this response stand as in any way adequate to the challenge presented by Ann*. But because it is Curtis who has written it, it has that Manly Halo Good-Guy-That-I-Am-Always strength inside of it CURTIS2: You are being an asshole here Robin. ROBIN2: Explain how my assholeness is a more salient fact than what I am describing as the truth of how you act, Curtis. ROBIN1: --so, although ineffectual in the person of anyone else on FFL, with Curtis, it almost works. For at the very least, one has the illusory impression that Curtis has answered Ann. Which he has not. Do you see? This is a form of manipulation and deceit that is manifestly unfair to Ann and a form of insidious seduction of the reader. Consider this thought experiment: *Someone other than Curtis has written each one of the posts to Ann today* [that Curtis has in fact written]. Ann has responded as she has. Now consider that this X person (someone other than Curtis) responds to Ann's last post with this one sentence: The thing is dear Ann.. CURTIS2: Plenty of posters write short lines to express a perspective concisely. Concisely Robin, you might want to consider that concept. ROBIN2: Have I misjudged you, Curtis? I think Xeno's estimation of you significant. But you are making me lose confidence in you. This won't do at all. I am getting very angry with you, Curtis. Please stop with the names. ROBIN1: Think: How well would this go over? It would be a dying balloon. Almost embarrassing. [And note how Curtis has made of Ann's original approach to Share as if sneeringly condescending and foul--but it was not this inside Ann's heart: such is the power of Curtis's appropriation of the truth.] But Curtis has a mystique (most balanced intellect among all of us--Xeno) and a character which gives to his words some power they otherwise would not have. And this of course is the point of my earlier post: Curtis is fanatically determined not to let reality wrest control of the context. He will possess that context at all costs. CURTIS2: Holy shit, no
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: As they say, You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. Furthermore, it's just plain sloppy to confuse the two. If you're going to claim that the truth is far away from the position Judy is taking, in other words, implying that she not telling the truth, then you better back that up with facts and not your OPINION. Okay Raunchy, there are facts that are not open to interpretation and those that are. There are physical facts which cannot be disputed or which don't leave room for interpretation and facts that do. So and so killed someone. Did he do it in self defense or did he do it in a premeditated fashion out of anger or revenge? So you are telling me that the conclusion for something like this is clear cut. I think this the fault line we often see here. Some people are satisfied offering an opinion on something like this, and others will insist that their interpretation of this fact, is the correct interpretation. I think it may be you who are confusing the issues Raunchy. If you are going to go into the pretzel mode, you might need to work on it a little more. Pretzel mode happens to people who state an opinion as if it were fact. That's what you did by implying Judy doesn't tell the truth and exactly why she so easily kicks your butt in an argument.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: CURTIS: The thing is dear Ann... RESPONSE: One must assume, since this is all that Curtis has said to Ann, that this retort is sufficient to utterly destroy the substance and effect of what Ann has written to Curtis. M: No one must not. One might not know it was a short response I did on my phone while standing in line at Starbucks before my show. One might even ask me if one was confused about the intent instead of going off on this rant. I wanted Ann to experience this line directed toward her to understand where I was coming from. It is not. Ann has written a response to Curtis which requires that Curtis enter into it. M; Requires? You really need to get over yourself Robin. You are the guy who has been answering posts with enigmatic Youtube videos. Does this requirement only apply to me? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_BWG5tYoLAfeature=related R:He refuses because his bloodhound instincts for the smell of truth have warned him: Do not go there. It is dangerous. R: Right and you are the arbiter of truth., gotchya wise man. R: So what does he do instead? He capsizes the context to make it seem as if, in this ironic turning of a phrase of Ann's (in her addressing Share Long), *he has entirely dealt with the context of what Ann has said to him*. But there is a catch to this that most FFL readers will miss (Raunchy not one of them): Had anyone other than Curtis responded to someone as Curtis has here, *that person would lack the force of personality and will to make this response stand as in any way adequate to the challenge presented by Ann*. But because it is Curtis who has written it, it has that Manly Halo Good-Guy-That-I-Am-Always strength inside of it M: You are being an asshole here Robin. R: --so, although ineffectual in the person of anyone else on FFL, with Curtis, it almost works. For at the very least, one has the illusory impression that Curtis has answered Ann. Which he has not. Do you see? This is a form of manipulation and deceit that is manifestly unfair to Ann and a form of insidious seduction of the reader. Consider this thought experiment: *Someone other than Curtis has written each one of the posts to Ann today* [that Curtis has in fact written]. Ann has responded as she has. Now consider that this X person (someone other than Curtis) responds to Ann's last post with this one sentence: The thing is dear Ann.. M: Plenty of posters write short lines to express a perspective concisely. Concisely Robin, you might want to consider that concept. R: Think: How well would this go over? It would be a dying balloon. Almost embarrassing. [And note how Curtis has made of Ann's original approach to Share as if sneeringly condescending and foul--but it was not this inside Ann's heart: such is the power of Curtis's appropriation of the truth.] But Curtis has a mystique (most balanced intellect among all of us--Xeno) and a character which gives to his words some power they otherwise would not have. And this of course is the point of my earlier post: Curtis is fanatically determined not to let reality wrest control of the context. He will possess that context at all costs. M: Holy shit, no you diii-int! You never answered me about why you repeated this charge a hundred times in your last posts, what was up with that. Did you know you were? Do you know you are now? Are you aware of the number of times you have repeated this charge? R: And in this sense, in saying what he has said to Ann here, he gives the impression he has essentially had the last word. But has he? M: No Robin that will always be you. R: He has said nothing. He has systematically and sedulously and deceitfully made certain that the potency and thoughtfulness of Ann's post to Curtis is entirely robbed of its intrinsic merit. This, by force of personality and will. Curtis legendary status among certain posters and readers here enables him to escape from the demands of truth and honesty which are incumbent upon the rest of us. And my thesis can only be denied by Curtis *through the very same M.O. as I have described here*. M: You really need to get that head out of your ass Robin. At your age that has to exacerbate constipation issues, and it can't be helping your complexion. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: Pretzel mode happens to people who state an opinion as if it were fact. That's what you did by implying Judy doesn't tell the truth and exactly why she so easily kicks your butt in an argument. Fine, whatever you say Raunchy. But thank you for not bringing up this notion again of how we must be honest with ourselves and others when on a public forum. Because you certainly are not the person to pontificate on that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Ann WB -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Yes, cute DORMOUSE Ann. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR8LFNUr3vw  Not looking at all pompous or reality avoiding which of course were the nasty parts of the metaphor. Here is how I see it. You can focus on what you think of as the negative aspects of this or the funny ones or, of course, ignore the whole thing completely. All of these ways of dealing with the DORMOUSE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxiYrSk0Wagare possible. M: I don't see you or any of us living up to this advice when the intent is directed toward us. Judy's intent has been very clear with Share and she is feeling defensive because she is being attacked. Imagine if in the beginning I gave this rap to you about Barry's posts to you. Is this realistic? I actually found myself laughing out loud at that description and I can say with all truthfulness I would have laughed just as much if it had been directed at me, which it may have been since Judy said it was not directed at you. What does focusing on the 'nasty parts of the metaphor' achieve anyway? Surely, you have the best answer to that, I know you do. So, when I read that descriptive my first impulse was to find a picture of a dormouse and look how fantastic that little creature was.  And so of course not the ones you mentioned. Your ignoring that does not do you justice. I IGNORE nothing but I FOCUS on what is important, to me. This is how I live my life and it is the best way I know to do myself justice. Plus your ignoring Judy's part in this ie her response to my apology, does not do you justice either. Share, my post to you was written with good intentions. If you, like Curtis, think it was not then I failed in what I was trying to achieve, which was to encourage you to stay true to who you think you are, a positive and sensitive and thoughtful person, and not fall into the trap of lashing out in a way that goes against who you want to be, or what you work so hard on developing in your character in your relationship with others. But, in reality, it is none of my business so I will, as you are so much better than I am at doing, apologize if I wither misread you or overstepped my boundaries. From: awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 10:33 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words.àOr even think them.àMaybe herself?àOr someone from another decade?àPSàI'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter.àHere is the thing, dear Share, although you have obviously taken exception to the metaphor of the dormouse as pertaining to you, it was a rather charming, in an interesting way, image and not one to get overly excited about. (See my photo of a rather adorable dormouse). On the other hand, I know you can do better in your description of Judy so that it encompasses not only your feelings (which seem to be hurt) as well as a degree of truthfulness and therefore potency without the ugly-esh negativity. I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster. ààFrom: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement.àIf anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Raunchy -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: You can fight fairly in private emails as much as you like and you can judge for yourself (without the benefit of feedback from a public forum) whether or not it was a fair fight. My point is that an open discussion on a public forum requires courage and integrity to be truthful with oneself and others. Openness keeps people honest, there's no place to hide. It's just you and the variety of mirrors of consciousness on the forum reflecting you back to you. Such noble words, but applied so selectively to only people you deem deserving a fair hearing. Is that a fact? Prove it.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Raunchy -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: You can fight fairly in private emails as much as you like and you can judge for yourself (without the benefit of feedback from a public forum) whether or not it was a fair fight. My point is that an open discussion on a public forum requires courage and integrity to be truthful with oneself and others. Openness keeps people honest, there's no place to hide. It's just you and the variety of mirrors of consciousness on the forum reflecting you back to you. Such noble words, but applied so selectively to only people you deem deserving a fair hearing. Is that a fact? Prove it. Raunch, You have on at least on one occasion slandered someone, and when it was pointed out that you made an entirely inaccurate statement about this person you refused to back down or issue an apology. So when you talk about how we must be honest with ourselves and others, I find this to be empty rhetoric on your part.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra maskedzebra@ wrote: I will repeat what is obvious as long as you try to bullshit your way out of addressing what I say about you, Curtis. M: You have now defined yourself as a troll here Robin. Got it. Over and out. It's the *presumption* of this that blows my mind. That Curtis or anyone else owes him a response in which he addresses what he says about him. And that if Curtis doesn't do what he's being told to do, he's just going to keep calling him names until he does. That's what children throwing tantrums do. That's what chronic abusers do. That's what people suffer- ing from Narcissistic Personality Disorder do. That's what attention vampires do. That's what Robin does, it's what Judy does, and in a saddening trend it's what Ann is starting to do. It's NOT what normal people do. What would you do if some guy on the street walked up to you, yelled a bunch of disparaging things about you in your face, and then stood there demanding that you *debate* these things with him, and in detail? Wouldn't you be kinda tempted to point up to the sky and say Look...is that a UFO? ...and then run away? And yet put people on an Internet forum and they start to think that they can demand things of others that they would never dare to demand of them in real life.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra maskedzebra@ wrote: I will repeat what is obvious as long as you try to bullshit your way out of addressing what I say about you, Curtis. CURTIS: You have now defined yourself as a troll here Robin. Got it. Over and out. ROBIN: Troll here Robin: Well, as long as the big fish are biting, I will, Curtis. Thinking of using my Max Squid now, instead of a lake troll. Thanks for showing me the spot where I should drop my line. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: CURTIS1: The thing is dear Ann... ROBIN1: One must assume, since this is all that Curtis has said to Ann, that this retort is sufficient to utterly destroy the substance and effect of what Ann has written to Curtis. CURTIS2: No one must not. One might not know it was a short response I did on my phone while standing in line at Starbucks before my show. One might even ask me if one was confused about the intent instead of going off on this rant. I wanted Ann to experience this line directed toward her to understand where I was coming from. ROBIN2: Bullshit, Curtis. ROBIN1:It is not. Ann has written a response to Curtis which requires that Curtis enter into it. CURTIS 2: Requires? You really need to get over yourself Robin. You are the guy who has been answering posts with enigmatic Youtube videos. Does this requirement only apply to me? ROBIN2: You are culpably selective and tendentious here, Curtis. You are proving my thesis. ROBIN1 :He refuses because his bloodhound instincts for the smell of truth have warned him: Do not go there. It is dangerous. CURTIS 2: Right and you are the arbiter of truth., gotchya wise man. ROBIN2: No, no, Curtis. It is not who is the arbiter of truth. Newton and Copernicus were not arbiters of the truth. The question is: Does what I am saying here explain your behaviour, Curtis. And I believe it does. But you, you *know* it does. Or am I wrong here, Curtis? Why not this response: Robin, what you are saying about me is not true. I do not avoid the truth, and I do not understand on what basis you can make such an outrageous and demeaning and trangressive statement. Shut up, Robin. You are wrong. But that would be taking too much of a chance. It's the metaphysic of your M.O., Curtis, and I have been describing it for some time now. You have never addressed the question--and you never will. This is the secret to understanding you, Curtis. You will not go anywhere near where reality might make trouble for you. ROBIN1: So what does he do instead? He capsizes the context to make it seem as if, in this ironic turning of a phrase of Ann's (in her addressing Share Long), *he has entirely dealt with the context of what Ann has said to him*. But there is a catch to this that most FFL readers will miss (Raunchy not one of them): Had anyone other than Curtis responded to someone as Curtis has here, *that person would lack the force of personality and will to make this response stand as in any way adequate to the challenge presented by Ann*. But because it is Curtis who has written it, it has that Manly Halo Good-Guy-That-I-Am-Always strength inside of it CURTIS2: You are being an asshole here Robin. ROBIN2: Explain how my assholeness is a more salient fact than what I am describing as the truth of how you act, Curtis. ROBIN1: --so, although ineffectual in the person of anyone else on FFL, with Curtis, it almost works. For at the very least, one has the illusory impression that Curtis has answered Ann. Which he has not. Do you see? This is a form of manipulation and deceit that is manifestly unfair to Ann and a form of insidious seduction of the reader. Consider this thought experiment: *Someone other than Curtis has written each one of the posts to Ann today* [that Curtis has in fact written]. Ann has responded as she has. Now consider that this X person (someone other than Curtis) responds to Ann's last post with this one sentence: The thing is dear Ann.. CURTIS2: Plenty of posters write short lines to express a perspective concisely. Concisely Robin, you might want to consider that concept. ROBIN2: Have I misjudged you, Curtis? I think Xeno's estimation of you significant. But you are making me lose confidence in you. This won't do at all. I am getting very angry with you, Curtis. Please stop with the names. ROBIN1: Think: How well would this go over? It would be a dying balloon. Almost embarrassing. [And note how Curtis has made of Ann's original approach to Share as if sneeringly condescending and foul--but it was not this inside Ann's heart: such is
[FairfieldLife] Re:to seventhray -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: snip To everyone: I am now automatically putting the posts of certain posters right into Trash. So obviously I won't be responding to those people. Setting an example of integrity and courage for us all. Hey, maybe I should try that. Then I could say anything I damn pleased and never worry about whether it was true or accurate or fair. I could just live in my own little solipsistic Disneyland.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra maskedzebra@ wrote: I will repeat what is obvious as long as you try to bullshit your way out of addressing what I say about you, Curtis. M: You have now defined yourself as a troll here Robin. Got it. Over and out. It's the *presumption* of this that blows my mind. That Curtis or anyone else owes him a response in which he addresses what he says about him. And that if Curtis doesn't do what he's being told to do, he's just going to keep calling him names until he does. M: That was kind of a startling admission wasn't it? Presumptive unfriendliness goes torrettes. That's what children throwing tantrums do. That's what chronic abusers do. That's what people suffer- ing from Narcissistic Personality Disorder do. That's what attention vampires do. That's what Robin does, it's what Judy does, and in a saddening trend it's what Ann is starting to do. It's NOT what normal people do. What would you do if some guy on the street walked up to you, yelled a bunch of disparaging things about you in your face, and then stood there demanding that you *debate* these things with him, and in detail? Wouldn't you be kinda tempted to point up to the sky and say Look...is that a UFO? ...and then run away? And yet put people on an Internet forum and they start to think that they can demand things of others that they would never dare to demand of them in real life.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra maskedzebra@ wrote: I will repeat what is obvious as long as you try to bullshit your way out of addressing what I say about you, Curtis. M: You have now defined yourself as a troll here Robin. Got it. Over and out. It's the *presumption* of this that blows my mind. That Curtis or anyone else owes him a response in which he addresses what he says about him. And that if Curtis doesn't do what he's being told to do, he's just going to keep calling him names until he does. That's what children throwing tantrums do. That's what chronic abusers do. That's what people suffer- ing from Narcissistic Personality Disorder do. That's what attention vampires do. That's what Robin does, it's what Judy does, and in a saddening trend it's what Ann is starting to do. It's NOT what normal people do. Actually, that's what reporters have been doing with Romney concerning the tax returns he has refused to release, just for one recent example in public life. Romney's excuse that he doesn't owe it to anybody to release the returns hasn't gone over too well. The reporters haven't been calling him names, but pundits sure have been, as has the Obama campaign. Come to think of it, it's also a tactic Barry has used many times: posing a question to someone, then if they don't respond, repeating the question over and over and calling them cowardly because they haven't answered him. I can think of several instances right off the bat; I suspect we all can. Gee, do we have yet another demonstration here of Barry's incomparable talent for inadvertent irony?
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
I will repeat what is obvious as long as you try to bullshit your way out of addressing what I say about you, Curtis. M: You have now defined yourself as a troll here Robin. Got it. Over and out. It's the *presumption* of this that blows my mind. That Curtis or anyone else owes him a response in which he addresses what he says about him. And that if Curtis doesn't do what he's being told to do, he's just going to keep calling him names until he does. That's what children throwing tantrums do. That's what chronic abusers do. That's what people suffer- ing from Narcissistic Personality Disorder do. That's what attention vampires do. That's what Robin does, it's what Judy does, and in a saddening trend it's what Ann is starting to do. It's NOT what normal people do. authfriend: Actually, that's what reporters have been doing with Romney concerning the tax returns he has refused to release, just for one recent example in public life. Romney's excuse that he doesn't owe it to anybody to release the returns hasn't gone over too well. The reporters haven't been calling him names, but pundits sure have been, as has the Obama campaign. Come to think of it, it's also a tactic Barry has used many times: posing a question to someone, then if they don't respond, repeating the question over and over and calling them cowardly because they haven't answered him. I can think of several instances right off the bat; I suspect we all can. Gee, do we have yet another demonstration here of Barry's incomparable talent for inadvertent irony? Barry said he would put his money on it, but when I accepted his wager and raised him $500, he wouldn't put his money where his mouth was, and he didn't fold, and he refused to show his hand, so Barry owes all of us big time by now, for fibbing. LoL!
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
tourquoiseb: It's the *presumption* of this that blows my mind. That Curtis or anyone else owes him a response in which he addresses what he says about him. And that if Curtis doesn't do what he's being told to do, he's just going to keep calling him names until he does. That's what children throwing tantrums do. That's what chronic abusers do. That's what people suffer- ing from Narcissistic Personality Disorder do. That's what attention vampires do. That's what Robin does, it's what Judy does, and in a saddening trend it's what Ann is starting to do. It's NOT what normal people do. What would you do if some guy on the street walked up to you, yelled a bunch of disparaging things about you in your face, and then stood there demanding that you *debate* these things with him, and in detail? Wouldn't you be kinda tempted to point up to the sky and say Look...is that a UFO? ...and then run away? And yet put people on an Internet forum and they start to think that they can demand things of others that they would never dare to demand of them in real life. So, it's all about Barry. LoL! Share, I tried to warn you. I will repeat what is obvious as long as you try to bullshit your way out of addressing what I say about you, Curtis. M: You have now defined yourself as a troll here Robin. Got it. Over and out.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Raunchy -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy's attributing words to me that I did not write or even think is Judy's alternate approach to supplying subtext?! Oh, wait, I think I get it. You're making a joke. Please tell me you're making a joke. And not twisting into a pretzel to avoid criticizing Judy.  It was clear to me from the get go that Judy wasn't quoting anything you actually said. That part of my statement still stands. However, Judy corrected me: What I normally do is put Translation: before the proposed subtext. In this case I was *adding* something to what Share had said (Especially when...) rather than supplying subtext for what she had said, so Translation: didn't apply. But I knew nobody would think it was something she herself had said, so I just left it in quotes. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320866 Apparently, Judy was fairly confident that nobody would think it was something you had *actually* said. IMO your objection to attributing words to you is a ruse to avoid the larger issue of having mistakes and falsehoods called to your attention. Raunchy, do you really think that the only parameter of fair fighting is keeping discussions out in the open?! I disagree. I think there are others that are at least equally important. You can fight fairly in private emails as much as you like and you can judge for yourself (without the benefit of feedback from a public forum) whether or not it was a fair fight. My point is that an open discussion on a public forum requires courage and integrity to be truthful with oneself and others. Openness keeps people honest, there's no place to hide. It's just you and the variety of mirrors of consciousness on the forum reflecting you back to you. I notice how you put all of this on me and none of it on Judy, totally ignoring how she responded to my apology. Of course that's what she did with the me and Robin kafufel. Perhaps a requirement to belong to her clique? Judy's response to you is between you and Judy. The clique requirement slam is wholly gratuitous and also untrue, since I don't know anything about your Robin kerfuffle, nor do I care. Share, I'd to make a correction. Nor do I care is harsh, dismissive and unfair. It doesn't convey what I would rather have said, which is that the Robin kerfuffle is not relevant to anything I've said to you. I would say rather if we can't be honest with ourselves, how can we be honest with others. Discerning respected others have told me that I am honest with myself about my shortcomings to a very good degree. Perhaps my memory is not as good as Judy's nor my ability to deal with the sheer volume of posts and archives. But my intention about and devotion to big and little truths is at least as strong as hers, if not stronger.     r#275;s ipsa loquitur From: raunchydog raunchydog@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 10:56 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words.àOr even think them.àMaybe herself?àOr someone from another decade?àPSàI'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter.àBTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster. ààYou've got a pretty strong charge going on there, Share. Maybe it's something to reflect upon. It's quite clear to me Judy wasn't quoting anything you actually said. Her alternate approach to supplying subtext, that I've seen her use with Barry, might have been: Says Share, especially disliking the negativity of having her mistakes and falsehoods called to her attention. She really hates that. Seems to me fighting fairly means keeping the discussion out in the open. Private emails, or even the gist of them that leak into the public discussion, Sal's for example, is more likely to engender reality-obfuscating as well as mistrust and room to stretch or avoid the truth. I don't see how anybody can ever hope to get anywhere near the larger Truth if they have no concern for the smaller truths of everyday life, including on this forum. If we can't be honest with each other, how can we ever be honest with ourselves? ~J. Stein
[FairfieldLife] Re: Devas and Architecture
Me referÃa a las técnicas avanzadas te idiota --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams richard@... wrote: mjackson74: The answer is of course that while this type of architecture may be nice and may be interesting, our health and well being and world peace are NOT enhanced by it, this is a bullshit lie... You have already been caught telling a fib here, Mr. Jackson - you only get one single bija mantra in TM. How you got more than one TM bija mantra from three TM teachers is beyond me. Obviously you haven't been practicing TM. Go figure. Our health and well being and world peace are enhanced, or not, by by EVERYTHING we do, both mental and physical. All actions are dependent on other actions. Why do you think they call the family fireplace a hearth? I noticed that you have not responded to the notion that if sthapatya veda is so important to health, well-being and world peace, seems like the Big M might have mentioned it a few years ago so it could be working its magic all these many years. MMY mentioned vastu before the erection of the Golden Dome at Fairfield, IA, in 1972. Why do you think it's a dome? http://www.mmyvv.com/machieve1.jsp Perhaps you were not directing this to me, but I am not a TM teacher, merely one of the peons who meditate. So, where did your TM bija mantra come from? The point I'm trying to make is that the bijas mantras used in TM practice came from the Sri Vidya sect. So, I don't think they were 'made up' by MMY or Satyanand or Nandakishore. This is probably the most important aspect of TM practice that was mentioned on Usenet posts which could discredit MMY, that TM was 'invented' by MMY, when in fact, it's a centuries old yoga technique used by Buddhists and Hindus since at least the time of the historical Buddha and the use of mandalas, if not long before in the Upper Paleolithic in South Asia, according to historians. To sum up what has been established: If SBS had in his possession a Sri Yantra, and placed it in the Brahmastan of his cave, worshipped it and meditated on it while muttering the Saraswati bija mantra, and since SBS posed in Padma Asana displaying the chit mudra, and since SBS's teacher was SKS of Sringeri, the headquarters of the Saraswati sannyasins, and since the Sri Yantra is placed on the mandir for worship at the Sringeri, in a vastu tantric temple which has a south facing entrance, and since all the Saraswati sannyasins of the Shankara order at Sringeri all adhere to the Soundarylahari in which is mentioned the TM bija mantra for Saraswati, and every Saraswati sannyasin meditates on the Saraswati bija mantra at least twice every day, most people would conclude that the TM bija derived from the Sri Vidya sect of Karnataka, since the TM bija mantra for Saraswati is mentioned in the most revered scripture of the Sri Vidya, and is enumerated in the Soundaryalahari, right? Work cited: 'History of the Tantric Religion' by Bhattacharyya, N. N. New Delhi: Manohar, 1999
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Raunchy -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: If you going to slander me, back it up with a specific instance or apologize. Fact: I made a case for honesty. Your opinion: It was empty rhetoric. Fact: You confuse fact with opinion and conflate the two in the same sentence. Evidence? Raunchy, You slandered Sal. I am sorry that I don't recall all the details. You can look it up if you want. But I think it was generally acknowledged that you made a factual representation, that you refused to back down from even when confronted when clear evidence that this was the case. And if I recall the incident correctly, and I think I do, you indicated that Sal was not worthy of an apology from you. So there you have it. So, once again, talk about Judy's superior logic, talk about Judy's trouncing her opponents in arguments, but please spare me your pontificating about the need for unflinching honesty when participating in a public forum. I am not seeing that in the way you operate here. So once again, Read what you just wrote. That's enough therapy for one day, Steve. Session over. Five cents, please.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Richard John -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Richard, I bet a really good jyotishi could tell us who it's going to be about tomorrow (-: John, what about Guru and Rahu in the 8th, opposed by Mars and Ketu in 2nd. Can't be good! From: Richard J. Williams rich...@rwilliams.us To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 12:26 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology tourquoiseb: It's the *presumption* of this that blows my mind. That Curtis or anyone else owes him a response in which he addresses what he says about him. And that if Curtis doesn't do what he's being told to do, he's just going to keep calling him names until he does. That's what children throwing tantrums do. That's what chronic abusers do. That's what people suffer- ing from Narcissistic Personality Disorder do. That's what attention vampires do. That's what Robin does, it's what Judy does, and in a saddening trend it's what Ann is starting to do. It's NOT what normal people do. What would you do if some guy on the street walked up to you, yelled a bunch of disparaging things about you in your face, and then stood there demanding that you *debate* these things with him, and in detail? Wouldn't you be kinda tempted to point up to the sky and say Look...is that a UFO? ...and then run away? And yet put people on an Internet forum and they start to think that they can demand things of others that they would never dare to demand of them in real life. So, it's all about Barry. LoL! Share, I tried to warn you. I will repeat what is obvious as long as you try to bullshit your way out of addressing what I say about you, Curtis. M: You have now defined yourself as a troll here Robin. Got it. Over and out.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Raunchy -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: snip Raunch, You have on at least on one occasion slandered someone, and when it was pointed out that you made an entirely inaccurate statement about this person you refused to back down or issue an apology. So when you talk about how we must be honest with ourselves and others, I find this to be empty rhetoric on your part. Oooopsie: Since there's such a big fuss about my having used Sal's comments about Jennifer Blair as an example of bullying, I found and read Sal's entire thread 'Email going around FF.' I see that I commented to Susan wayback71 on the thread by posting a link making fun of Sal's objection to milk and cookies. When I used Sal's thread as an example of bullying, all I remembered about it was that Sal lobbed one of her signature stink bombs criticizing a fundraiser for Jennifer, a lovely person, who lost everything in the Depot fire, as did many other people I know and care about, Max Sutherland, Marty Brodeur, and Duncan McMasters just to name a few. For the sake of accuracy I should have looked up the thread before posting about it.--raunchydog, 3/6/12 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/305686 Not only did Sal not take back her slur on Jennifer for serving milk and cookies at her fundraiser, BTW, she doubled down on it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Buddhist Meditation: A Management Skill?
Google has been teaching mindfulness practice for years. They have an advanced engineer/instructor, Chade-Meng Tang whose official title is Jolly Good Fellow. The course is one of the Company's most popular. His new book is Search Inside Yourself. I am currently reading it.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Ann WB -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Yes, cute dormouse, Ann. Not looking at all pompous or reality avoiding which of course were the nasty parts of the metaphor. Which metaphor had not been applied to you in the first place. Except by yourself, of course, in your attempt to demonstrate what a terrible person I am.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Raunchy -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Judy's attributing words to me that I did not write or even think I did not attribute words to you, Share. The rest of this is so distant from reality, it boggles the mind. is Judy's alternate approach to supplying subtext?! Oh, wait, I think I get it. You're making a joke. Please tell me you're making a joke. And not twisting into a pretzel to avoid criticizing Judy.  Raunchy, do you really think that the only parameter of fair fighting is keeping discussions out in the open?! I disagree. I think there are others that are at least equally important. I notice how you put all of this on me and none of it on Judy, totally ignoring how she responded to my apology. Of course that's what she did with the me and Robin kafufel. Perhaps a requirement to belong to her clique? I would say rather if we can't be honest with ourselves, how can we be honest with others. Discerning respected others have told me that I am honest with myself about my shortcomings to a very good degree. Perhaps my memory is not as good as Judy's nor my ability to deal with the sheer volume of posts and archives. But my intention about and devotion to big and little truths is at least as strong as hers, if not stronger.     From: raunchydog raunchydog@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 10:56 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words.àOr even think them.àMaybe herself?àOr someone from another decade?àPSàI'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter.àBTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster. ààYou've got a pretty strong charge going on there, Share. Maybe it's something to reflect upon. It's quite clear to me Judy wasn't quoting anything you actually said. Her alternate approach to supplying subtext, that I've seen her use with Barry, might have been: Says Share, especially disliking the negativity of having her mistakes and falsehoods called to her attention. She really hates that. Seems to me fighting fairly means keeping the discussion out in the open. Private emails, or even the gist of them that leak into the public discussion, Sal's for example, is more likely to engender reality-obfuscating as well as mistrust and room to stretch or avoid the truth. I don't see how anybody can ever hope to get anywhere near the larger Truth if they have no concern for the smaller truths of everyday life, including on this forum. If we can't be honest with each other, how can we ever be honest with ourselves? ~J. Stein From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement.àIf anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: New Ammachi Yahoo group list
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:35 AM, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002...@yahoo.com wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: snip Looks like the moderator of Ammachi_free_speech_zone has been pressured by MA Center to give up the moderator duties to an overtly biased Amma supporter and this mad yogi was duly kicked off :-) I'm sorry you've been derpived of an outlet to offer your opinion about things Ravi. However, I wonder if there is another side to the story? You know, their side? Opinion? Opinion? Goddammit - how dare you call it opinion Steve baby. It's drama, it's entertainment, it's performance, it's acting, it's stand-up comedy - the goal is captivate my audience and enthrall, entice and entertain them. There has to be stories, pathos - emotion, drama, love, hate, anger, greed, jealousy, sure lines prepared - yet the script totally unknown to me. The audience feels empathy with me - I make up, improvise as I go along based on the audience, the mood, is there a better actor than me on this entire fucking planet? - I don't need these stupid lists. If someone's offended it's their bias, their fears, their insecurities, their anxieties. It doesn't matter - even one person a day is enough and I find enough people to entertain in a given day, at work, at other places - it can even be the cashier at the checkout line. Why I was at the dentist's office the other day and I made sure he was thoroughly entertained, in fact the dental assistant can't stop giggling when she sees me. At the end I asked the dentist how he would rate me as a patient on a scale of 1-10, and he said - of course a 10. I asked me to rate me either a 9 or 9 and half because otherwise there would be no room for improvement, that I would have no motivation, he laughed and agreed.
[FairfieldLife] Re: New Ammachi Yahoo group list
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Why I was at the dentist's office the other day and I made sure he was thoroughly entertained, in fact the dental assistant can't stop giggling when she sees me. M: I am having so much trouble improving on this scene for a satire. Sometimes perfection just needs to stand alone. On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:35 AM, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: snip Looks like the moderator of Ammachi_free_speech_zone has been pressured by MA Center to give up the moderator duties to an overtly biased Amma supporter and this mad yogi was duly kicked off :-) I'm sorry you've been derpived of an outlet to offer your opinion about things Ravi. However, I wonder if there is another side to the story? You know, their side? Opinion? Opinion? Goddammit - how dare you call it opinion Steve baby. It's drama, it's entertainment, it's performance, it's acting, it's stand-up comedy - the goal is captivate my audience and enthrall, entice and entertain them. There has to be stories, pathos - emotion, drama, love, hate, anger, greed, jealousy, sure lines prepared - yet the script totally unknown to me. The audience feels empathy with me - I make up, improvise as I go along based on the audience, the mood, is there a better actor than me on this entire fucking planet? - I don't need these stupid lists. If someone's offended it's their bias, their fears, their insecurities, their anxieties. It doesn't matter - even one person a day is enough and I find enough people to entertain in a given day, at work, at other places - it can even be the cashier at the checkout line. Why I was at the dentist's office the other day and I made sure he was thoroughly entertained, in fact the dental assistant can't stop giggling when she sees me. At the end I asked the dentist how he would rate me as a patient on a scale of 1-10, and he said - of course a 10. I asked me to rate me either a 9 or 9 and half because otherwise there would be no room for improvement, that I would have no motivation, he laughed and agreed.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: New Ammachi Yahoo group list
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:35 AM, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002...@yahoo.com wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: snip Looks like the moderator of Ammachi_free_speech_zone has been pressured by MA Center to give up the moderator duties to an overtly biased Amma supporter and this mad yogi was duly kicked off :-) I'm sorry you've been derpived of an outlet to offer your opinion about things Ravi. However, I wonder if there is another side to the story? You know, their side? Opinion? Opinion? Goddammit - how dare you call it opinion Steve baby. It's drama, it's entertainment, it's performance, it's acting, it's stand-up comedy - the goal is captivate my audience and enthrall, entice and entertain them. There has to be stories, pathos - emotion, drama, love, hate, anger, greed, jealousy, sure lines prepared - yet the script totally unknown to me. The audience feels empathy with me - I make up, improvise as I go along based on the audience, the mood, is there a better actor than me on this entire fucking planet? - I don't need these stupid lists. If someone's offended it's their bias, their fears, their insecurities, their anxieties. It doesn't matter - even one person a day is enough and I find enough people to entertain in a given day, at work, at other places - it can even be the cashier at the checkout line. Why I was at the dentist's office the other day and I made sure he was thoroughly entertained, in fact the dental assistant can't stop giggling when she sees me. At the end I asked the dentist how he would rate me as a patient on a scale of 1-10, and he said - of course a 10. I asked me to rate me either a 9 or 9 and half because otherwise there would be no room for improvement, that I would have no motivation, he laughed and agreed. Yet, yet.. I just want to entertain my beloved for the rest of my life and she's mad at me - oh how cruel is this? May be this is all a practice for her, it will be all good once I earn her grace.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to seventhray -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Seventhray, thank you for all the reasonable points you've been making. And for being fair to everyone. And for being from my perspective both straightforward and profound. Whoops, sorry if sounding pompous (-: Anyway, I wonder if Raunchy really thinks that all mirrors, such as distorted ones which think they're undistorted, really add to truthfulness. And that one is guaranteed to get accurate and objective feedback as to the fairness of a fight from a forum like FFL! There is a very good reason that wise people ask professional peace makers to act as a mediator, especially in emotional situations. Even well meaning family and friends simply cannot be objective and fair to both parties.   To everyone: I am now automatically putting the posts of certain posters right into Trash. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUTfVsPbtQQ So obviously I won't be responding to those people.   From: seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 9:16 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Raunchy -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: You can fight fairly in private emails as much as you like and you can judge for yourself (without the benefit of feedback from a public forum) whether or not it was a fair fight. My point is that an open discussion on a public forum requires courage and integrity to be truthful with oneself and others. Openness keeps people honest, there's no place to hide. It's just you and the variety of mirrors of consciousness on the forum reflecting you back to you. Such noble words, but applied so selectively to only people you deem deserving a fair hearing.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Raunchy -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: snip Raunch, You have on at least on one occasion slandered someone, and when it was pointed out that you made an entirely inaccurate statement about this person you refused to back down or issue an apology. So when you talk about how we must be honest with ourselves and others, I find this to be empty rhetoric on your part. Oooopsie: Since there's such a big fuss about my having used Sal's comments about Jennifer Blair as an example of bullying, I found and read Sal's entire thread 'Email going around FF.' I see that I commented to Susan wayback71 on the thread by posting a link making fun of Sal's objection to milk and cookies. When I used Sal's thread as an example of bullying, all I remembered about it was that Sal lobbed one of her signature stink bombs criticizing a fundraiser for Jennifer, a lovely person, who lost everything in the Depot fire, as did many other people I know and care about, Max Sutherland, Marty Brodeur, and Duncan McMasters just to name a few. For the sake of accuracy I should have looked up the thread before posting about it.--raunchydog, 3/6/12 This sounds like someone too proud to make a clear unequivocal apology, which is what one might expect from after clear unequivocal misrepresentation.I mean you can find a half of an apology there if you look hard for it.So maybe with this doubling down you refer to at some point, maybe together those two constitute an apology, but I doubt it. But thank you for looking this up. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/305686 Not only did Sal not take back her slur on Jennifer for serving milk and cookies at her fundraiser, BTW, she doubled down on it.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Raunchy -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: snip Raunchy, You slandered Sal. I am sorry that I don't recall all the details. You can look it up if you want. You made the accusation. *You* should be the one to look it up to support the accusation. You should have looked it up, in fact, before you ever made it. Not just because that's the ethical thing to do, but because you would never have made the accusation if you had, and you'd have saved yourself the embarrassment of being wrong. But I think it was generally acknowledged that you made a factual representation, that you refused to back down from even when confronted when clear evidence that this was the case. Wrong, and wrong. Let's see if Steve backs down when he reads the post of raunchy's that I just reposted. And if I recall the incident correctly, and I think I do, you indicated that Sal was not worthy of an apology from you. You have that part correct. Of course, that involves opinion, not fact. I agree with raunchy: Sal has been so incredibly unpleasant here so often--as well as frequently getting her facts bollixed up--without ever making any apologies that she does not deserve to receive apologies from anybody. So there you have it. So, once again, talk about Judy's superior logic, talk about Judy's trouncing her opponents in arguments, but please spare me your pontificating about the need for unflinching honesty when participating in a public forum. I am not seeing that in the way you operate here. You are not seeing raunchy's unflinching honesty because you have a very poor memory and aren't willing to do your homework, so you see only what you want to see. I wouldn't call you dishonest per se in that regard, but I sure would say you significantly lack integrity.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Raunchy -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: snip Raunchy, You slandered Sal. I am sorry that I don't recall all the details. You can look it up if you want. You made the accusation. *You* should be the one to look it up to support the accusation. You should have looked it up, in fact, before you ever made it. Thank you Judy. I knew you would chime in here. Here's the first possible oint of contention, or parsing. What constitutes slander. Now Judy will say that slander is not the right term, and then we can go on and on about that. Not just because that's the ethical thing to do, but because you would never have made the accusation if you had, and you'd have saved yourself the embarrassment of being wrong. Judy, I think you saved everyone (or at least me) a lot of time on the whole matter by looking up, what you call Raunchy's apology in the post you made a few minutes ago. If not an apology, it sure seems like she's back tracking on something. But I think it was generally acknowledged that you made a factual representation, that you refused to back down from even when confronted when clear evidence that this was the case. Wrong, and wrong. Let's see if Steve backs down when he reads the post of raunchy's that I just reposted. And if I recall the incident correctly, and I think I do, you indicated that Sal was not worthy of an apology from you. You have that part correct. Of course, that involves opinion, not fact. I agree with raunchy: Sal has been so incredibly unpleasant here so often--as well as frequently getting her facts bollixed up--without ever making any apologies that she does not deserve to receive apologies from anybody. Judy, thank you. Bless you. This was all I wanted. I wanted the *. You know the importance of integrity and honesty on a public forum* *except when it doesn't apply. namely to people I think don't deserve it. Thank you again Judy. That is all I wanted to hear. So there you have it. So, once again, talk about Judy's superior logic, talk about Judy's trouncing her opponents in arguments, but please spare me your pontificating about the need for unflinching honesty when participating in a public forum. I am not seeing that in the way you operate here. You are not seeing raunchy's unflinching honesty because you have a very poor memory and aren't willing to do your homework, so you see only what you want to see. Judy, no doubt I have blind spots. Perhaps I have one here. But I don't think the evidence presented is indicating that. I wouldn't call you dishonest per se in that regard, but I sure would say you significantly lack integrity. Okay, I accept that. You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: New Ammachi Yahoo group list
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:16 AM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Why I was at the dentist's office the other day and I made sure he was thoroughly entertained, in fact the dental assistant can't stop giggling when she sees me. M: I am having so much trouble improving on this scene for a satire. Sometimes perfection just needs to stand alone. Yes indeed Curtis, The dentist was a San Diego conservative, among the many lines I used one of them was that I was a die-hard San Franciscan and that if I felt any pain I would organize a protest in front of his office. I also made fun that his conservative opinions were going unchallenged because he was stating them while working on my teeth giving me absolutely no chance to respond. Of course a bit earlier I established a common ground by letting him know that I appreciated the fiscal conservatism and that I was a liberal when it comes to morality. Anyway I messed up earlier when I said I want my audience to empathize with me. No, what I meant was I want my audience to connect with me, at a heart level, I refuse to be ignored - either they love me or hate me - either I'm a fun, loving guy or a rude, insulting asshole as in yours and Barry's case. There's no way anyone who interacts with me and isn't stirred at a heart level.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to seventhray -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Hey Share, Thanks. I hope I am not taking a liberty here, but there are some people, and I include myself in this, who are more comfortable operating on a more intuitive level. And therefore we might be more prone to be misunderstand by others who operate from a more analytical level. But I have noticed that when you ratchet up the analytical side of your personality that you hone right in on the issues. You are two parts Saraswati and one part Kali. Honestly the Kali part kind of turns me on. (-: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Seventhray, thank you for all the reasonable points you've been making. And for being fair to everyone. And for being from my perspective both straightforward and profound. Whoops, sorry if sounding pompous (-: Anyway, I wonder if Raunchy really thinks that all mirrors, such as distorted ones which think they're undistorted, really add to truthfulness. And that one is guaranteed to get accurate and objective feedback as to the fairness of a fight from a forum like FFL! There is a very good reason that wise people ask professional peace makers to act as a mediator, especially in emotional situations. Even well meaning family and friends simply cannot be objective and fair to both parties.   To everyone: I am now automatically putting the posts of certain posters right into Trash. So obviously I won't be responding to those people.   From: seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 9:16 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Raunchy -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: You can fight fairly in private emails as much as you like and you can judge for yourself (without the benefit of feedback from a public forum) whether or not it was a fair fight. My point is that an open discussion on a public forum requires courage and integrity to be truthful with oneself and others. Openness keeps people honest, there's no place to hide. It's just you and the variety of mirrors of consciousness on the forum reflecting you back to you. Such noble words, but applied so selectively to only people you deem deserving a fair hearing.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Raunchy -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: snip Raunch, You have on at least on one occasion slandered someone, and when it was pointed out that you made an entirely inaccurate statement about this person you refused to back down or issue an apology. So when you talk about how we must be honest with ourselves and others, I find this to be empty rhetoric on your part. Oooopsie: Since there's such a big fuss about my having used Sal's comments about Jennifer Blair as an example of bullying, I found and read Sal's entire thread 'Email going around FF.' I see that I commented to Susan wayback71 on the thread by posting a link making fun of Sal's objection to milk and cookies. When I used Sal's thread as an example of bullying, all I remembered about it was that Sal lobbed one of her signature stink bombs criticizing a fundraiser for Jennifer, a lovely person, who lost everything in the Depot fire, as did many other people I know and care about, Max Sutherland, Marty Brodeur, and Duncan McMasters just to name a few. For the sake of accuracy I should have looked up the thread before posting about it.--raunchydog, 3/6/12 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/305686 Not only did Sal not take back her slur on Jennifer for serving milk and cookies at her fundraiser, BTW, she doubled down on it. Wow! Judy, I just read the thread from the link you posted. That was one rip roaring good time. All the nuts fell out of the bag, rolled around on the floor and got crushed under foot. Barry was there in full metal flack jacket regalia, screaming about cunts, death threats, and poor Rush Limbaugh getting caught with a bottle of Viagra coming through customs from the Dominican Republic. What a hoot. Thanks for the memories.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Raunchy -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: snip Raunchy, You slandered Sal. I am sorry that I don't recall all the details. You can look it up if you want. You made the accusation. *You* should be the one to look it up to support the accusation. You should have looked it up, in fact, before you ever made it. Thank you Judy. I knew you would chime in here. Here's the first possible oint of contention, or parsing. What constitutes slander. Now Judy will say that slander is not the right term, and then we can go on and on about that. Not just because that's the ethical thing to do, but because you would never have made the accusation if you had, and you'd have saved yourself the embarrassment of being wrong. Judy, I think you saved everyone (or at least me) a lot of time on the whole matter by looking up, what you call Raunchy's apology in the post you made a few minutes ago. If not an apology, it sure seems like she's back tracking on something. But I think it was generally acknowledged that you made a factual representation, that you refused to back down from even when confronted when clear evidence that this was the case. Wrong, and wrong. Let's see if Steve backs down when he reads the post of raunchy's that I just reposted. And if I recall the incident correctly, and I think I do, you indicated that Sal was not worthy of an apology from you. You have that part correct. Of course, that involves opinion, not fact. I agree with raunchy: Sal has been so incredibly unpleasant here so often--as well as frequently getting her facts bollixed up--without ever making any apologies that she does not deserve to receive apologies from anybody. Judy, thank you. Bless you. This was all I wanted. I wanted the *. You know the importance of integrity and honesty on a public forum* *except when it doesn't apply. namely to people I think don't deserve it. Thank you again Judy. That is all I wanted to hear. So there you have it. So, once again, talk about Judy's superior logic, talk about Judy's trouncing her opponents in arguments, but please spare me your pontificating about the need for unflinching honesty when participating in a public forum. I am not seeing that in the way you operate here. You are not seeing raunchy's unflinching honesty because you have a very poor memory and aren't willing to do your homework, so you see only what you want to see. Judy, no doubt I have blind spots. Perhaps I have one here. But I don't think the evidence presented is indicating that. I wouldn't call you dishonest per se in that regard, but I sure would say you significantly lack integrity. Okay, I accept that. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Steve, you're starting to babble incoherently. Time for a rest.
[FairfieldLife] Fwd: Very Smart Meter Decision
Forwarded from a Fairfield Friend: Dear Friends, Please don't bother phoning either of these numbers just yet. The first one 472-2358 is the water plant. They will just refer you to the Water Department which is the 472-5343 number. If you phone that number today, they will tell you that it's not official until tonight's council meeting, and to call back tomorrow, Tues. Then, after you go sign a paper at the water department, it'll be 4-6 weeks before they'll trade out the RF meter for a fiber optic one. So, phone or go by the water department Tuesday to get your RF meter out without paying any fees. On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Dick Mays dickm...@lisco.com wrote: From: Einar Olsen fountains...@gmail.com Friends, The very positive news of Fairfield City Council Water and Sewer Committee's recently announced decision to move away from RF meters in favor of a fiber optic system deserves sincere and enthusiastic support and appreciation. The Committee's announcement also included no longer requiring fees to opt out of RF meters, as well as to refund opt out fees already paid. If your home has a Neptune RF water meter, you can easily have it replaced at no charge with a non-RF meter, just by calling City Hall or the Water Department 472-2358 or 472-5343 (http://cityoffairfieldiowa.com/index.aspx?nid=202), and also asking them to credit any opt-out fee you may have already paid. It's a great time to offer gratitude to Fairfield City leaders; I hope you will consider contacting them at this time to express appreciation: Water and Sewer Committee Members: 1. Daryn Hamilton dham...@yahoo.com (Chair) 2. Susan Silver silversforcitycoun...@hotmail.com 3. Tony Hammes thamme...@hotmail.com 4. Mayor Ed Malloy mayormal...@fairfieldcityhall.com 5. Carl Chandler, Water Department Director (http://cityoffairfieldiowa.com/index.aspx?nid=202) 6. City Administrator Kevin Flanagan 472-6193 (http://cityoffairfieldiowa.com/index.aspx?nid=113) Council Members who previously supported no opt-out fee: 7. John Revolinski jrevolin...@gmail.com 8. Connie Boyer bo...@lisco.com It would also be very appropriate and constructive to come to the City Council meeting this Monday, September 24, to express or show appreciation for this visionary, progressive decision (http://cityoffairfieldiowa.com/DocumentView.aspx?DID=401). Although the meeting begins at 7 PM, the change in meter topic is listed late on the agenda, so coming at 7:30 or even later should be fine. A more complete report is at the end of this email. Arthur Firstenberg, for decades one of the most influential U.S. leaders favoring the reduction and elimination of EMF/RF radiation, author of Microwaving Our Planet: The Environmental Impact of the Wireless Revolution, and organizer of the National Day of Protest against Smart Meters on Thursday, October 4 in Washington, D.C., called to offer his congratulations, saying, You have set a precedent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Firstenberg http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/ http://actiondaytostopsmartmeters.org/ It's also a good time to thank those who worked with the City of Fairfield leaders to come to this remarkable decision: the following people all made major, on-going, time-consuming contributions, listed alphabetically by last name (It is revealing that all but possibly one of the above people are frequent TM-Sidha participants in National Super Radiance Group Program, with fully half on the long IAA program): Christopher Bell, J.D. (former MOU faculty, current M.U.M. Sustainable Living faculty, and our only local certified Bau Biologist) Susan B. John Brown Robert David, M.D. Simon Davies Jennifer Diamond Brian Horsfield Robert Palma (http://rfreduce.com/resume.htm) George Reid (years ago, the first to actively and widely caution locally about EMF and RF radiation, measure many homes, and communicate strongly with utility companies) Kathryn Seranduk Bob Stone Richard Wolfson (PhD Physics, M.U.M. and MSAE Faculty https://sites.google.com/site/rwolfson108/home) The following also made significant to very significant contributions to this project: His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who was very concerned about electrosmog, wrote and spoke against VLF and ELF radiation, asked for the cessation of cell phone use, and took extended and vigorous measures to reduce and eliminate EMF/RF radiation from his home and headquarters of the Global Country of World Peace in Vlodrop, Holland. Also listed alphabetically by last name: All Who Came to Council Meetings, Contacted City Officials, Sent Emails, and Sent Letters to Local Publications John Andrews Lisa Ashelman Steve Briggs Marty Brodeur Arthur Firstenberg (cf. above for websites) Bill Goldstein, J.D. Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy (of Queens College, London, one of the leading researchers in
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Raunchy -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: snip Raunch, You have on at least on one occasion slandered someone, and when it was pointed out that you made an entirely inaccurate statement about this person you refused to back down or issue an apology. So when you talk about how we must be honest with ourselves and others, I find this to be empty rhetoric on your part. Oooopsie: Since there's such a big fuss about my having used Sal's comments about Jennifer Blair as an example of bullying, I found and read Sal's entire thread 'Email going around FF.' I see that I commented to Susan wayback71 on the thread by posting a link making fun of Sal's objection to milk and cookies. When I used Sal's thread as an example of bullying, all I remembered about it was that Sal lobbed one of her signature stink bombs criticizing a fundraiser for Jennifer, a lovely person, who lost everything in the Depot fire, as did many other people I know and care about, Max Sutherland, Marty Brodeur, and Duncan McMasters just to name a few. For the sake of accuracy I should have looked up the thread before posting about it.--raunchydog, 3/6/12 This sounds like someone too proud to make a clear unequivocal apology, which is what one might expect from after clear unequivocal misrepresentation. There was no such misrepresentation. Here's what raunchy wrote: When artist, Jennifer Blair lost everything in a fire Sal heartlessly, gratuitously, derided a fundraiser for her. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/305198 That is absolutely accurate. It is not, however, *complete*. When informed that Jennifer had lost everything in a fire, Sal said she hadn't been aware of that and hoped Jennifer made some money. She never took back her derision about how the fundraiser was being promoted and conducted--as I said, she doubled down on that. Raunchy had forgotten that Sal had ultimately wished Jennifer success with the fundraiser. That's what raunchy was referring to above when she says she should have looked up the whole thread. So no clear unequivocal misrepresentation to apologize for, and raunchy most certainly backed down when she checked the thread and found she'd left out Sal's wish for the fundraiser's success. Raunchy accurately described Sal's first reaction and accurately characterized Sal as a bully. You got it wrong, Steve. You're never too lazy to comment, but you're almost always too lazy to do your homework to ensure your comment is factually accurate.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Raunchy -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: snip Raunchy, You slandered Sal. I am sorry that I don't recall all the details. You can look it up if you want. You made the accusation. *You* should be the one to look it up to support the accusation. You should have looked it up, in fact, before you ever made it. Thank you Judy. I knew you would chime in here. Here's the first possible oint of contention, or parsing. What constitutes slander. Now Judy will say that slander is not the right term, and then we can go on and on about that. What do you bet that if Steve brings this up again, he'll claim I said slander wasn't the right term? I didn't, of course, nor would I, because it is the appropriate term. Not just because that's the ethical thing to do, but because you would never have made the accusation if you had, and you'd have saved yourself the embarrassment of being wrong. Judy, I think you saved everyone (or at least me) a lot of time on the whole matter by looking up, what you call Raunchy's apology in the post you made a few minutes ago. I did not call it Raunchy's apology. My God, you're *so* lazy you won't even bother to look at something that was posted only a few minutes ago to see whether you're representing it accurately. If not an apology, it sure seems like she's back tracking on something. Yes. So you were wrong, Steve. But I think it was generally acknowledged that you made a factual representation, that you refused to back down from even when confronted when clear evidence that this was the case. Wrong, and wrong. Let's see if Steve backs down when he reads the post of raunchy's that I just reposted. And if I recall the incident correctly, and I think I do, you indicated that Sal was not worthy of an apology from you. You have that part correct. Of course, that involves opinion, not fact. I agree with raunchy: Sal has been so incredibly unpleasant here so often--as well as frequently getting her facts bollixed up--without ever making any apologies that she does not deserve to receive apologies from anybody. Judy, thank you. Bless you. This was all I wanted. I wanted the *. You know the importance of integrity and honesty on a public forum* *except when it doesn't apply. namely to people I think don't deserve it. Well, you didn't get what you wanted, sorry about that. Raunchy's acknowledgment that she accidentally omitted part of the story satisfies the requirement of integrity and honesty. Apologies are a whole 'nother thing. They're a matter of courtesy only. Raunchy's refusal to offer that courtesy to one of the most discourteous people ever on this forum is fully justified. Thank you again Judy. That is all I wanted to hear. You heard what you wanted to hear. But it wasn't in anything I said. So there you have it. So, once again, talk about Judy's superior logic, talk about Judy's trouncing her opponents in arguments, but please spare me your pontificating about the need for unflinching honesty when participating in a public forum. I am not seeing that in the way you operate here. You are not seeing raunchy's unflinching honesty because you have a very poor memory and aren't willing to do your homework, so you see only what you want to see. Judy, no doubt I have blind spots. Perhaps I have one here. But I don't think the evidence presented is indicating that. I didn't think you'd acknowledge you had been wrong, even when presented with the evidence.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Raunchy -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: Steve, you're starting to babble incoherently. Time for a rest. I guess you know this is Judy's line. I will withdraw from the battle if you wish Raunch. Perhaps it will allow you to save a little face.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Raunchy -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: snip I didn't think you'd acknowledge you had been wrong, even when presented with the evidence. This has become your story Judy. For a long time, this has been your story.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Raunchy -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: snip You got it wrong, Steve. You're never too lazy to comment, but you're almost always too lazy to do your homework to ensure your comment is factually accurate. I think Judy, you pick the outcome you want, and then spin the data to make sure it conforms to this end. Hohum.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Raunchy -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: I can't believe they resurrected this old routine. Not so easy to spin if we look at Sal's exact words: #296961 On Nov 30, 2011, at 1:18 PM, Alex Stanley wrote: Hello everyone: We wanted to let you know that you have another chance to see Jennifer's ceramics and paintings at our house this Thursday night, 1 December, at 7pm. See map attached. We will provide cookies and milk. Sal: Presumably along with lollipops, balloons, and a game of duck-duck-goose as well. Unbelievable. Sal Alex: That's Jennifer Blair, whose studio was in the Depot Building that just burned to the ground. What is so unbelievable about trying to raise some money after experiencing a loss like that? Sal: Nothing at all, Alex, and it should be obvious that's not what I meant. Jesus! Clearly I didn't know that~~ it wasn't obvious from the email, you know. I just meant the cookies and milk bit. Well, I hope she raises some. Sal M: Yeah that's 'Ol Sal the bully making fun of cookies and milk at Fairfield events again. Poor cookies and milk, how can they stand this abuse? So what was Raunchy's comment about the above interaction: When artist, Jennifer Blair lost everything in a fire Sal heartlessly, gratuitously, derided a fundraiser for her. M: Yeah, nothing to apologize for there, I remember the weeping and wailing of those poor Ginger Snaps. Glad they have two people to stick up for them here on FFL. If they don't hold the line next there will be snickering over the Snicker Doodles. Heartlessly Gratuitously Bullying --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: snip I didn't think you'd acknowledge you had been wrong, even when presented with the evidence. This has become your story Judy. For a long time, this has been your story.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Raunchy -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Steve, you're starting to babble incoherently. Time for a rest. I guess you know this is Judy's line. I will withdraw from the battle if you wish Raunch. Perhaps it will allow you to save a little face. Stay, go, whatever. My face is just fine. Trouble is, you haven't a clue how or why you get slammed dunked so easily and so often. Sadly, you keep coming back for more and I'm starting to feel sorry for you. Here's a clue: You're never too lazy to comment, but you're almost always too lazy to do your homework to ensure your comment is factually accurate. ~J. Stein
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Raunchy -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: Stay, go, whatever. My face is just fine. Trouble is, you haven't a clue how or why you get slammed dunked so easily and so often. Sadly, you keep coming back for more and I'm starting to feel sorry for you. Here's a clue: You're never too lazy to comment, but you're almost always too lazy to do your homework to ensure your comment is factually accurate. ~J. Stein Raunch, I think you're doing a double down. You've got Judy down. And you do a damn good Ravi as well. You go girl!
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Raunchy -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: I can't believe they resurrected this old routine. Not so easy to spin if we look at Sal's exact words: Wow Curtis, I was too lazy to look it up. I guess that is what Judy was counting on. Trouble is, she gambled and she lost. Cuz I had back up! #296961 On Nov 30, 2011, at 1:18 PM, Alex Stanley wrote: Hello everyone: We wanted to let you know that you have another chance to see Jennifer's ceramics and paintings at our house this Thursday night, 1 December, at 7pm. See map attached. We will provide cookies and milk. Sal: Presumably along with lollipops, balloons, and a game of duck-duck-goose as well. Unbelievable. Sal Alex: That's Jennifer Blair, whose studio was in the Depot Building that just burned to the ground. What is so unbelievable about trying to raise some money after experiencing a loss like that? Sal: Nothing at all, Alex, and it should be obvious that's not what I meant. Jesus! Clearly I didn't know that~~ it wasn't obvious from the email, you know. I just meant the cookies and milk bit. Well, I hope she raises some. Sal M: Yeah that's 'Ol Sal the bully making fun of cookies and milk at Fairfield events again. Poor cookies and milk, how can they stand this abuse? So what was Raunchy's comment about the above interaction: When artist, Jennifer Blair lost everything in a fire Sal heartlessly, gratuitously, derided a fundraiser for her. M: Yeah, nothing to apologize for there, I remember the weeping and wailing of those poor Ginger Snaps. Glad they have two people to stick up for them here on FFL. If they don't hold the line next there will be snickering over the Snicker Doodles. Heartlessly Gratuitously Bullying --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: snip I didn't think you'd acknowledge you had been wrong, even when presented with the evidence. This has become your story Judy. For a long time, this has been your story.
[FairfieldLife] An open letter to Steve (Seventhray1)
Dear Steve, Let us say that I hate Raunchy and authfriend (Judy). I think Share very brave and true and strong. You are my best friend. I read through the correspondence among you, Raunchy, and Judy. Now recollect: I am much more disposed to take your part* in all this, given the biasses of my heart--and the sense (in order for me to hate and love like this) of how my heart has made the right decision in its judgment of these four persons. We are leaving, for the moment, Curtis and Barry out of this conversation (I am starting it [this conversation]; you can continue it once I have finished speaking). So, I am reading through these correspondence, desirous of having my feelings of attraction and aversion validated by what I read. That is, I want to see how my affection and respect for you is well placed--as is my repugnance or dislike of Raunchy and Judy. After some time I realize I am experiencing a bit of a dilemma: Raunchy, despite herself, is coming off as sincere, honest, confident in her good faith in the matter being disputed. I don't like the dissonance this creates inside of me--because I realize an important principle here, Steve: It is not possible for Raunchy to be acting in accordance with her conscience, certain she does not warrant the accusation you have made about her--and on the other hand, for you to be right in believing Raunchy is dishonest and prideful and ungracious. I am in a quandary here, Steve: I feel the truth of Raunchy's protestations of innocence (and therefore the appropriateness of Judy coming to her defence); I do not feel the conscious malice or deliberate obstinacy in my friend, Steve. What am I to do? Well, from my own point of view I am going to remain true to the love I have for my friend, Steve--BUT what I cannot escape is my responsibility for THE TRUTH THAT HAS AN EXISTENCE AND FORM INDEPENDENT OF THE PERSONALITIES ENGAGED IN THIS ARGUMENT. Now if I look objectively at all the evidence--even wishing fervently for my friend Steve to be vindicated and for there to be signs of disingenuousness and prevarication from the side of those two persons whom I despise--when I sift through everything that has been said, I realize an uncomfortable truth: Neither Raunchy nor Judy have ever had any doubt as to their bona fides when it comes to being honest in this argument--*and it shows, Steve*; it shows. Now since I love my friend Steve, I know he could not consciously oppose the fact that these two women are arguing honestly and truthfully [that is, knowing that he was doing this]--we are not just talking about the content of what they say here, Steve; we are talking about motive and intention: I exonerate them from all charges of subterfuge or distortion in their defence of the reputation of Raunchy. But Steve has come out against them: he is wrong; and yet I love him just as much in this. What am I to do? Well, two things: 1. Probe my knowledge of Steve to see if I can find there anything which could account for him finding himself in the position he is in: arguing for the wrong side of this issue--so wrong that he continues with every post to provide the opportunity for the person here slandered--Raunchy--to prove her good faith and sincerity in all this. 2. Try to show to Steve, my friend, how reality--that is, the secret providence at the back of everything that happens in the universe (the source, even, of this providence)--has judged Steve wrong. As in: what are the signs of Steve being wrong? or reality judging him wrong? And I am forced back upon myself and my love for Steve. And what do I come up with, Steve? That you are not when you throw out your opinions, your thoughts, your judgments, *in any way whatsoever contemplating their possible falseness, their possible disagreement with reality, the contingency of being contradicted at some point in the future*. This is your problem, Steve: you are anaesthetized to the living pressure of reality upon you when you write your animadversions against Raunchy and Judy--and when you, in a kind of psychological symmetry, must perforce take up the defence of someone who you perceive has been the victim of these two adversaries of yours: Share. It really comes down to something raw and simple and undeniable, Steve: It is the art of discriminating between a position that is being favoured by reality and a position which requires--since it is not favoured by reality--you to become daftly isolated and cut off from reality (and therefore truth). This is what keeps happening to you, Steve, despite the best of intentions (After all, in this scenario I love you and you are my best friend). You just don't know what it is like when reality has abandoned you and you are going it alone--therefore up against not just your opponents, but up against reality itself. This is what happened today in your correspondence with Raunchy and Judy--and by implication in your
[FairfieldLife] Re: Devas and Architecture
mjackson74: Me referÃa a las técnicas avanzadas te idiota You're not making any sense. You only get one bija mantra in TM. I got my first one from Jamie Vollmer, my second from Neil Patterson, the third from some Indian TM Sidhi administrator whose name no one could pronounce so they just called him Mr. Vaj or something like that. 320724 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320724 The answer is of course that while this type of architecture may be nice and may be interesting, our health and well being and world peace are NOT enhanced by it, this is a bullshit lie... You have already been caught telling a fib here, Mr. Jackson - you only get one single bija mantra in TM. How you got more than one TM bija mantra from three TM teachers is beyond me. Obviously you haven't been practicing TM. Go figure. Our health and well being and world peace are enhanced, or not, by by EVERYTHING we do, both mental and physical. All actions are dependent on other actions. Why do you think they call the family fireplace a hearth? I noticed that you have not responded to the notion that if sthapatya veda is so important to health, well-being and world peace, seems like the Big M might have mentioned it a few years ago so it could be working its magic all these many years. MMY mentioned vastu before the erection of the Golden Dome at Fairfield, IA, in 1972. Why do you think it's a dome? http://www.mmyvv.com/machieve1.jsp http://www.mmyvv.com/machieve1.jsp Perhaps you were not directing this to me, but I am not a TM teacher, merely one of the peons who meditate. So, where did your TM bija mantra come from? The point I'm trying to make is that the bijas mantras used in TM practice came from the Sri Vidya sect. So, I don't think they were 'made up' by MMY or Satyanand or Nandakishore. This is probably the most important aspect of TM practice that was mentioned on Usenet posts which could discredit MMY, that TM was 'invented' by MMY, when in fact, it's a centuries old yoga technique used by Buddhists and Hindus since at least the time of the historical Buddha and the use of mandalas, if not long before in the Upper Paleolithic in South Asia, according to historians. To sum up what has been established: If SBS had in his possession a Sri Yantra, and placed it in the Brahmastan of his cave, worshipped it and meditated on it while muttering the Saraswati bija mantra, and since SBS posed in Padma Asana displaying the chit mudra, and since SBS's teacher was SKS of Sringeri, the headquarters of the Saraswati sannyasins, and since the Sri Yantra is placed on the mandir for worship at the Sringeri, in a vastu tantric temple which has a south facing entrance, and since all the Saraswati sannyasins of the Shankara order at Sringeri all adhere to the Soundarylahari in which is mentioned the TM bija mantra for Saraswati, and every Saraswati sannyasin meditates on the Saraswati bija mantra at least twice every day, most people would conclude that the TM bija derived from the Sri Vidya sect of Karnataka, since the TM bija mantra for Saraswati is mentioned in the most revered scripture of the Sri Vidya, and is enumerated in the Soundaryalahari, right? Work cited: 'History of the Tantric Religion' by Bhattacharyya, N. N. New Delhi: Manohar, 1999
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Richard John -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Share, The 8th house represents transformation, mystery, taboo subjects, sexual practices, scientific discoveries, esoteric subjects and ancient civilizations. Oddly enough, it also represents writing compositions since this house is the 5th house (signifying creativity) from the 4th house(signifying the heart or thought). 1. Jupiter in the 8th house causes arguments among members since Jupiter is the lord of the 5th house or the mind/discussions of concepts. Also, Jupiter is a significator of the Guru. Thus, the forum engages in discussing the negative aspects, such as rumours of sexual encounters with female disciples, of spiritual movement gurus like MMY and others. 2. Rahu in Gemini and in the 8th house causes discussion of current scientific developments, particularly in cosmology and quantum theories. Since Rahu signifies something odd or foreign, the forum often discusses gay marriages, polygamy, and polyamorous relationships. Similarly, the forum has discussed topics like crop circles, UFOs, Atlantis, construction of the Egyptian pyramids, and the ancient Maya and Inca civilizations. 3. The combination of Jupiter and Rahu causes discussion of atheistic philosophies, particularly that of Richard Dawkins. 4. You will find all of these discussions in the archives, which represent the forum's written works and literature. So, there you have it--the forum activities in brief. JR --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Richard, I bet a really good jyotishi could tell us who it's going to be about tomorrow (-: John, what about Guru and Rahu in the 8th, opposed by Mars and Ketu in 2nd. Can't be good! From: Richard J. Williams richard@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 12:26 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  tourquoiseb: It's the *presumption* of this that blows my mind. That Curtis or anyone else owes him a response in which he addresses what he says about him. And that if Curtis doesn't do what he's being told to do, he's just going to keep calling him names until he does. That's what children throwing tantrums do. That's what chronic abusers do. That's what people suffer- ing from Narcissistic Personality Disorder do. That's what attention vampires do. That's what Robin does, it's what Judy does, and in a saddening trend it's what Ann is starting to do. It's NOT what normal people do. What would you do if some guy on the street walked up to you, yelled a bunch of disparaging things about you in your face, and then stood there demanding that you *debate* these things with him, and in detail? Wouldn't you be kinda tempted to point up to the sky and say Look...is that a UFO? ...and then run away? And yet put people on an Internet forum and they start to think that they can demand things of others that they would never dare to demand of them in real life. So, it's all about Barry. LoL! Share, I tried to warn you. I will repeat what is obvious as long as you try to bullshit your way out of addressing what I say about you, Curtis. M: You have now defined yourself as a troll here Robin. Got it. Over and out.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Raunchy -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: I can't believe they resurrected this old routine. Not so easy to spin if we look at Sal's exact words: Wow Curtis, I was too lazy to look it up. I guess that is what Judy was counting on. Trouble is, she gambled and she lost. Cuz I had back up! M: I can't imagine what they though would be different from the last time they went down this road. The facts speak for themselves so to see the spin machine at work is so revealing. And how about that Robin hitting send AFTER he read it? I guess this shouted sentence is now one of the comedic phrases of the year: Robin: I cannot escape is my responsibility for THE TRUTH THAT HAS AN EXISTENCE AND FORM INDEPENDENT OF THE PERSONALITIES ENGAGED IN THIS ARGUMENT. Turns out he can! Pretty easily too. #296961 On Nov 30, 2011, at 1:18 PM, Alex Stanley wrote: Hello everyone: We wanted to let you know that you have another chance to see Jennifer's ceramics and paintings at our house this Thursday night, 1 December, at 7pm. See map attached. We will provide cookies and milk. Sal: Presumably along with lollipops, balloons, and a game of duck-duck-goose as well. Unbelievable. Sal Alex: That's Jennifer Blair, whose studio was in the Depot Building that just burned to the ground. What is so unbelievable about trying to raise some money after experiencing a loss like that? Sal: Nothing at all, Alex, and it should be obvious that's not what I meant. Jesus! Clearly I didn't know that~~ it wasn't obvious from the email, you know. I just meant the cookies and milk bit. Well, I hope she raises some. Sal M: Yeah that's 'Ol Sal the bully making fun of cookies and milk at Fairfield events again. Poor cookies and milk, how can they stand this abuse? So what was Raunchy's comment about the above interaction: When artist, Jennifer Blair lost everything in a fire Sal heartlessly, gratuitously, derided a fundraiser for her. M: Yeah, nothing to apologize for there, I remember the weeping and wailing of those poor Ginger Snaps. Glad they have two people to stick up for them here on FFL. If they don't hold the line next there will be snickering over the Snicker Doodles. Heartlessly Gratuitously Bullying --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: snip I didn't think you'd acknowledge you had been wrong, even when presented with the evidence. This has become your story Judy. For a long time, this has been your story.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Richard John -- writing for the Church of $cientology
John, I don't know about the chart of FFL but you need to get a grip on your astrology basics man because you have so many elementary mistakes. Jupiter in the 8th house causes arguments among members since Jupiter is the lord of the 5th house or the mind/discussions of concepts. This is a ridiculous argument, arguments would have some airy influence so should involve 3/11 houses. 8th is not written composition, 8th is the gut, intuition - Jupiter in 8th wouldn't cause arguments more like Jupiter - higher intelligence directed towards 8th house matters - i.e. metaphysics. And no 5th house has nothing to do with mind, 5th house is for like you say elsewhere love( as opposed to marriage), creativity, mantra, innate hidden talents, children. The combination of Jupiter and Rahu causes discussion of atheistic philosophies, particularly that of Richard Dawkins. This again is ridiculous. Jupiter and Rahu is Guru Chandala Yoga - so this list would be against authority, against Gurus, against tradition (hence being in West opposed to mainstream Christianity, favoring Eastern religions) in the areas of metaphysics, spiritual transformation (8th). Stop confusing my Aunt Share you idiot !!! On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 2:15 PM, John jr_...@yahoo.com wrote: ** Share, The 8th house represents transformation, mystery, taboo subjects, sexual practices, scientific discoveries, esoteric subjects and ancient civilizations. Oddly enough, it also represents writing compositions since this house is the 5th house (signifying creativity) from the 4th house(signifying the heart or thought). 1. Jupiter in the 8th house causes arguments among members since Jupiter is the lord of the 5th house or the mind/discussions of concepts. Also, Jupiter is a significator of the Guru. Thus, the forum engages in discussing the negative aspects, such as rumours of sexual encounters with female disciples, of spiritual movement gurus like MMY and others. 2. Rahu in Gemini and in the 8th house causes discussion of current scientific developments, particularly in cosmology and quantum theories. Since Rahu signifies something odd or foreign, the forum often discusses gay marriages, polygamy, and polyamorous relationships. Similarly, the forum has discussed topics like crop circles, UFOs, Atlantis, construction of the Egyptian pyramids, and the ancient Maya and Inca civilizations. 3. The combination of Jupiter and Rahu causes discussion of atheistic philosophies, particularly that of Richard Dawkins. 4. You will find all of these discussions in the archives, which represent the forum's written works and literature. So, there you have it--the forum activities in brief. JR --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Richard, I bet a really good jyotishi could tell us who it's going to be about tomorrow (-: John, what about Guru and Rahu in the 8th, opposed by Mars and Ketu in 2nd. Can't be good! From: Richard J. Williams richard@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 12:26 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  tourquoiseb: It's the *presumption* of this that blows my mind. That Curtis or anyone else owes him a response in which he addresses what he says about him. And that if Curtis doesn't do what he's being told to do, he's just going to keep calling him names until he does. That's what children throwing tantrums do. That's what chronic abusers do. That's what people suffer- ing from Narcissistic Personality Disorder do. That's what attention vampires do. That's what Robin does, it's what Judy does, and in a saddening trend it's what Ann is starting to do. It's NOT what normal people do. What would you do if some guy on the street walked up to you, yelled a bunch of disparaging things about you in your face, and then stood there demanding that you *debate* these things with him, and in detail? Wouldn't you be kinda tempted to point up to the sky and say Look...is that a UFO? ...and then run away? And yet put people on an Internet forum and they start to think that they can demand things of others that they would never dare to demand of them in real life. So, it's all about Barry. LoL! Share, I tried to warn you. I will repeat what is obvious as long as you try to bullshit your way out of addressing what I say about you, Curtis. M: You have now defined yourself as a troll here Robin. Got it. Over and out.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Raunchy -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: I can't believe they resurrected this old routine. Not so easy to spin if we look at Sal's exact words: Exact words of Sal that Curtis did not want us to look at, for obvious reasons (Sal responding to Susan in the same thread, same day): = [Sal:] Well, yeah. Or any of a variety of other things that don't sound like she's expecting a bunch of 8-year olds to show up. First time I can recall such a pathetic, juvenile inducement to come somewhere. Only in this town. On Nov 30, 2011, at 4:30 PM, Susan wrote: I think Sal meant only that champagne and wine are usually the beverage of choice at art shows, not cookies and milk. Hope Jennifer can seel some of her work. ARtists rarely have it easy. = http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/296974 Curtis's spin (remember, he saw the above post too when he went to look up the ones he wanted to show us): M: Yeah that's Ol Sal the bully making fun of cookies and milk at Fairfield events again. Poor cookies and milk, how can they stand this abuse? So what was Raunchy's comment about the above interaction [now below--JS]: When artist, Jennifer Blair lost everything in a fire Sal heartlessly, gratuitously, derided a fundraiser for her. M: Yeah, nothing to apologize for there, I remember the weeping and wailing of those poor Ginger Snaps. Glad they have two people to stick up for them here on FFL. If they don't hold the line next there will be snickering over the Snicker Doodles. To make it crystal clear: Curtis chose to quote only Sal's more benign remarks, omitting the ones raunchy had been referring to that I just quoted. Let's look at them once again: Well, yeah. Or any of a variety of other things that don't sound like she's expecting a bunch of 8-year olds to show up. First time I can recall such a pathetic, juvenile inducement to come somewhere. Only in this town. So Curtis lied blatantly in order to take a shot at raunchy and me. It wasn't cookies and milk Sal had been deriding, it was Jennifer herself; and it wasn't Fairfield events in general, it was Jennifer's fundraiser specifically--the first time Sal could recall such behavior. And these derisive remarks, which raunchy characterized accurately as heartless and gratuitous, were made by Sal *after she had learned of the fire in which Jennifer had lost everything*. No wonder Curtis didn't want us to see them. #296961 On Nov 30, 2011, at 1:18 PM, Alex Stanley wrote: Hello everyone: We wanted to let you know that you have another chance to see Jennifer's ceramics and paintings at our house this Thursday night, 1 December, at 7pm. See map attached. We will provide cookies and milk. Sal: Presumably along with lollipops, balloons, and a game of duck-duck-goose as well. Unbelievable. Sal Alex: That's Jennifer Blair, whose studio was in the Depot Building that just burned to the ground. What is so unbelievable about trying to raise some money after experiencing a loss like that? Sal: Nothing at all, Alex, and it should be obvious that's not what I meant. Jesus! Clearly I didn't know that~~ it wasn't obvious from the email, you know. I just meant the cookies and milk bit. Well, I hope she raises some. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: An open letter to Steve (Seventhray1)
Hey Robin, I'm not really getting it this time. A few comments below. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: Dear Steve, Let us say that I hate Raunchy and authfriend (Judy). I think Share very brave and true and strong. You are my best friend. I read through the correspondence among you, Raunchy, and Judy. Now recollect: I am much more disposed to take your part* in all this, given the biasses of my heart--and the sense (in order for me to hate and love like this) of how my heart has made the right decision in its judgment of these four persons. We are leaving, for the moment, Curtis and Barry out of this conversation (I am starting it [this conversation]; you can continue it once I have finished speaking). So, I am reading through these correspondence, desirous of having my feelings of attraction and aversion validated by what I read. That is, I want to see how my affection and respect for you is well placed--as is my repugnance or dislike of Raunchy and Judy. After some time I realize I am experiencing a bit of a dilemma: Raunchy, despite herself, is coming off as sincere, honest, confident in her good faith in the matter being disputed. I don't like the dissonance this creates inside of me--because I realize an important principle here, Steve: It is not possible for Raunchy to be acting in accordance with her conscience, certain she does not warrant the accusation you have made about her--and on the other hand, for you to be right in believing Raunchy is dishonest and prideful and ungracious. I am in a quandary here, Steve: I feel the truth of Raunchy's protestations of innocence (and therefore the appropriateness of Judy coming to her defence); I do not feel the conscious malice or deliberate obstinacy in my friend, Steve. What am I to do? Well, from my own point of view I am going to remain true to the love I have for my friend, Steve--BUT what I cannot escape is my responsibility for THE TRUTH THAT HAS AN EXISTENCE AND FORM INDEPENDENT OF THE PERSONALITIES ENGAGED IN THIS ARGUMENT. Now if I look objectively at all the evidence--even wishing fervently for my friend Steve to be vindicated and for there to be signs of disingenuousness and prevarication from the side of those two persons whom I despise--when I sift through everything that has been said, I realize an uncomfortable truth: Neither Raunchy nor Judy have ever had any doubt as to their bona fides when it comes to being honest in this argument--*and it shows, Steve*; it shows. Now since I love my friend Steve, I know he could not consciously oppose the fact that these two women are arguing honestly and truthfully [that is, knowing that he was doing this]--we are not just talking about the content of what they say here, Steve; we are talking about motive and intention: I exonerate them from all charges of subterfuge or distortion in their defence of the reputation of Raunchy. But Steve has come out against them: he is wrong; and yet I love him just as much in this. What am I to do? Well, two things: 1. Probe my knowledge of Steve to see if I can find there anything which could account for him finding himself in the position he is in: arguing for the wrong side of this issue--so wrong that he continues with every post to provide the opportunity for the person here slandered--Raunchy--to prove her good faith and sincerity in all this. 2. Try to show to Steve, my friend, how reality--that is, the secret providence at the back of everything that happens in the universe (the source, even, of this providence)--has judged Steve wrong. As in: what are the signs of Steve being wrong? or reality judging him wrong? And I am forced back upon myself and my love for Steve. And what do I come up with, Steve? That you are not when you throw out your opinions, your thoughts, your judgments, *in any way whatsoever contemplating their possible falseness, their possible disagreement with reality, the contingency of being contradicted at some point in the future*. This is your problem, Steve: you are anaesthetized to the living pressure of reality upon you when you write your animadversions against Raunchy and Judy--and when you, in a kind of psychological symmetry, must perforce take up the defence of someone who you perceive has been the victim of these two adversaries of yours: Share. It really comes down to something raw and simple and undeniable, Steve: It is the art of discriminating between a position that is being favoured by reality and a position which requires--since it is not favoured by reality--you to become daftly isolated and cut off from reality (and therefore truth). This is what keeps happening to you, Steve, despite the best of intentions (After all, in this scenario I love you and you are my best friend). You just don't know what it is like when reality has abandoned you and you are going it alone--therefore up against not just your opponents, but up against reality itself. Do
[FairfieldLife] Re: An open letter to Steve (Seventhray1)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: snip *Since writing this, Steve, I note that Curtis has conscientiously provided the e-mail exchange that supposedly represents in its forceful indictment of the mendacity of Raunchy the entire case against Raunchy the person. I should just stipulate that even if there should be some ambiguity about the moral victory here in this particular incident *this does not go to the question of Raunchy's character*, which anyone, from reading her posts, can determine for themselves. She is a good and loving person, and her definition of herself as such is in accordance with the facts. Sadly, Robin, Curtis tried to take us all for a ride again. Curtis carefully *omitted* the post of Sal's that exonerates raunchy and removes all ambiguity about who has consistently held the high ground and who has remained on the low road.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Raunchy -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I can't believe they resurrected this old routine. Not so easy to spin if we look at Sal's exact words: Exact words of Sal that Curtis did not want us to look at, for obvious reasons (Sal responding to Susan in the same thread, same day): M: Yes if you don't include every post in the thread, it is a plot. Unfortunately for Judy, this just confirms the facts of what was going on. = [Sal:] Well, yeah. Or any of a variety of other things that don't sound like she's expecting a bunch of 8-year olds to show up. First time I can recall such a pathetic, juvenile inducement to come somewhere. Only in this town. M: Confirming that what as funny was a bunch of adults coming to a party advertizing cookies as the draw. It was not bullying some poor person who had a tragedy. Remember that TM celebrations involve cake for adults, so this snarkiness has a long history for people out of the TM mindset. On Nov 30, 2011, at 4:30 PM, Susan wrote: I think Sal meant only that champagne and wine are usually the beverage of choice at art shows, not cookies and milk. Hope Jennifer can seel some of her work. ARtists rarely have it easy. M: And Susan with out the get Sal agenda read it right. = http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/296974 Curtis's spin (remember, he saw the above post too when he went to look up the ones he wanted to show us): M: No I didn't I typed in her name and the one I posted came up first. But of course it doesn't matter at all. It is just a Judy mindreading spin to try to make me look bad through malicious imagination. M: Yeah that's Ol Sal the bully making fun of cookies and milk at Fairfield events again. Poor cookies and milk, how can they stand this abuse? So what was Raunchy's comment about the above interaction [now below--JS]: When artist, Jennifer Blair lost everything in a fire Sal heartlessly, gratuitously, derided a fundraiser for her. M: Yeah, nothing to apologize for there, I remember the weeping and wailing of those poor Ginger Snaps. Glad they have two people to stick up for them here on FFL. If they don't hold the line next there will be snickering over the Snicker Doodles. To make it crystal clear: Curtis chose to quote only Sal's more benign remarks, omitting the ones raunchy had been referring to that I just quoted. Let's look at them once again: Well, yeah. Or any of a variety of other things that don't sound like she's expecting a bunch of 8-year olds to show up. First time I can recall such a pathetic, juvenile inducement to come somewhere. Only in this town. So Curtis lied blatantly in order to take a shot at raunchy and me. M: Amazing but expected. I'll let the reader decide. It wasn't cookies and milk Sal had been deriding, it was Jennifer herself; and it wasn't Fairfield events in general, it was Jennifer's fundraiser specifically--the first time Sal could recall such behavior. M: So goofing on a person who put out the cookies rather than the cookies themselves is your big reveal? Judy world is a wonder unto itself amen. Judy: And these derisive remarks, which raunchy characterized accurately as heartless and gratuitous, were made by Sal *after she had learned of the fire in which Jennifer had lost everything*. M: Why compound your transparent malice toward Sal by showing up as an idiot as well? Your choice. Judy: No wonder Curtis didn't want us to see them. M: How magically your mind must work to know such a thing! What now do I post every post in this thread now or just wait for Judy to post them one by one to try to dig herself out of this? #296961 On Nov 30, 2011, at 1:18 PM, Alex Stanley wrote: Hello everyone: We wanted to let you know that you have another chance to see Jennifer's ceramics and paintings at our house this Thursday night, 1 December, at 7pm. See map attached. We will provide cookies and milk. Sal: Presumably along with lollipops, balloons, and a game of duck-duck-goose as well. Unbelievable. Sal Alex: That's Jennifer Blair, whose studio was in the Depot Building that just burned to the ground. What is so unbelievable about trying to raise some money after experiencing a loss like that? Sal: Nothing at all, Alex, and it should be obvious that's not what I meant. Jesus! Clearly I didn't know that~~ it wasn't obvious from the email, you know. I just meant the cookies and milk bit. Well, I hope she raises some. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Raunchy -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: I can't believe they resurrected this old routine. Not so easy to spin if we look at Sal's exact words: Sal's exact words: Well, yeah. Or any of a variety of other things that don't sound like she's expecting a bunch of 8-year olds to show up. First time I can recall such a pathetic, juvenile inducement to come somewhere. Only in this town. Wow Curtis, I was too lazy to look it up. I guess that is what Judy was counting on. Trouble is, she gambled and she lost. Cuz I had back up! M: I can't imagine what they though would be different from the last time they went down this road. The facts speak for themselves so to see the spin machine at work is so revealing. Curtis is angling for Barry's Master of Inadvertent Irony title. Oh, wait, no, he isn't. This malicious dishonesty was entirely deliberate, not inadvertent. Poor Steve's head must be spinning. And how about that Robin hitting send AFTER he read it? I guess this shouted sentence is now one of the comedic phrases of the year: Robin: I cannot escape is my responsibility for THE TRUTH THAT HAS AN EXISTENCE AND FORM INDEPENDENT OF THE PERSONALITIES ENGAGED IN THIS ARGUMENT. Turns out he can! Pretty easily too. Robin added a footnote (of which Curtis omits mention here) taking account of what Robin graciously (but erroneously) referred to as Curtis's conscientiously providing the posts in question. Obviously Robin didn't know when he added the footnote that Curtis had once again resorted to gross dishonesty. Curtis knew it, of course, while he was mocking Robin above. Why Curtis thought he could *get away* with it is a mystery.
