[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT
Dear Salyavin: I tried to post this--without success. So this may appear twice. I feel the same way I did when I sent the first one: there has been no change. Which means there is no reason to read both posts, because they are the same. But it is good to be able to now say Good Night (as well as what I said at the end of the post which I tried to post five minutes ago). It makes it a 24 hour thing. Don't worry: when you get to the end, it will all have been explained. Really good talking to you. I feel changed by having written that post to you. It sure is an interesting life--and it takes all types, Salyavin. You had every right to say what you said. Oh, I should just say: in this version I have added something more at the very end. Robin And here is the formal ending of our correspondence: From: Blue Caboose Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 3:56 PM Subject: what I wish to tell you now Dear Share, Robin1: I wish only for you to know that after everything we have said to each other that I respect you and love you and want you to be happy and to know whatever truth God would have you know and understand. I only want you to go to heaven, whatever that may be, Share. I have played and teased and challenged and danced and argued with you; but now it is at an end, and I must be quiet and accept the will of reality in all things. For us, Share, I believe that means that I must leave you to your life and your very earnest and sacrificial strivings. Please believe me when I tell you that I want only your happiness, and in my own way I shall pray for this. It has been a privilege of a kind to carry on our conversations all these months, but now, in the writing of this letter, I just want to express only my support for you. I have a feeling you will find your way in this terrible complexity and tragedy and beauty and miracle that is human existence in the 21st century. That is it, Share: I have said all that I have wanted to say, or need to say. Go safely and know that Robin loves you. Salyavin1: Jesus, you are one pompous, sanctimonios, self-righteous windbag aren't you. No need for professional qualifications to work that out! Robin2: This could not be true, salyavin. I really believe you are wrong about me. I am none of the things you accuse me of being based on this post. There must be some misunderstanding here; I am willing to look at myself very carefully because no one has ever levelled these charges against me before. I am an intense, friendly intelligent, nice guy. How could I be pompous, sanctimonious, self-righteous--and a windbag! That's certainly is not me, Salyavin. What could be the problem here? I am telling you straight-out: I am none of these things. You must believe me--again: I AM NOT THIS. *Now* do you believe me? You should, Salyavin, because you are really missing out on something if you think of me in these terms. My perception of myself does not accord with your perception--but I am not going to try to change your mind--You just have to accept my word for it. Inside the context I was writing, what I said here made perfect sense. But if I am pompous, sanctimonious, and self-righteous--and a windbag IT'S NEWS TO ME. How could this be true if I have gone 68 years and no one has ever said I was that? I didn't get no followers because I was a windbag--especially the version you describe here. Please, Salyavin, let us give this another go. There must be some mistake here. Have you considered the possibility you are misperceiving me? No, I will not accept this judgment of me--It is unfair. And, I believe, emphatically not true. There. I feel much better having defended myself against these absurd insults of yours. I bet you felt good knocking me down like that--Admit it, Salyavin: You liked the feeling you got from dissing me like this. Well, HAVE YOU EVER FELT WOULD IT WOULD BE LIKE IF YOU WERE CALLED NAMES LIKE THIS? Think about that for a minute, Salyavin--because I am sure you would not like it one bit. I am sorry if I have retaliated here in some way; I have only tried to protect my honour. I will not allow someone to demean me like this. And I believe I have done the right thing to stand up for myself and fight back, Salyavin. I give myself credit for THAT at least. And you must too. I think when people call someone names they should not take it. I have shown that I will not take it. And I feel much better. Sorry, if I sounded a little bitter. I didn't mean to be. But please don't call me these names again, Salyavin. It was not a nice experience at all. But I have told you how your post affected me, and somehow I have got back my confidence. So, I guess it was a good experience to go through. It was God challenging me, seeing if I could stand up to you. And I have. So THERE! No, I am willing to go half-way here with you, Salyavin--but I must at least sense your knowing that you have hurt me. But no matter: I have proved to
[FairfieldLife] Re: For Emily: A Question for a Washington State Resident
Emily, Thanks for the info. It sounds like the procedures are still being drafted and implemented later. Once all the rules are set, it might give me an incentive to visit Seattle again. JR --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: Hi John: This is the billion dollar question.  The feds have not weighed in yet on the latest legalization for the citizen population; this is a real experiment.  Re: medical marijuana, which was already legal, in August, the feds cracked down as follows and many places closed up/moved to get into compliance:  http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/08/23/feds-tell-23-pot-dispensaries-near-schools-to-shut-down-or-face-raidsview=comments Today (August 12, 2012), the Drug Enforcement Administration told 23 medical marijuana dispensariesâwhich have been visibly proliferating in the Seattle-area for last couple yearsâthat they have one month to relocate outside of school zones. For those dispensaries that fail to move outside a 1,000-foot radius of schools, playgrounds, and other school zone areas, federal authorizes may raid the properties, seize their assets, and seek federal criminal charges, says a letter sent today by DEA agent Matthew Barnes. Agent Barnes adds that the federal government makes no criminal exceptions for marijuana, even it it's medical, a word that his letter writes in italics and quotation marks. I heard a discussion on npr a few days ago on this topic.  While the quote below is true, there is no legal way to purchase it as a citizen without a medical marijuana prescription, which raises an interesting dilemna.  The Liquor Control Board has the unprecedented job to create an entire regulatory framework for retail stores, etc. and they have a year to do it.  The industry is expected to bring a lot of revenue to the State as a taxed industry. There will also be DUI limits. Starting tomorrow, people aged 21 and over will be able to legally possess up to one ounce of marijuana in Washington State. On Election Day last month, 55 percent of voters in both Washington State and Colorado voted to make marijuana legal, making those states the first two to approve legally regulating marijuana like alcohol. The Washington State Liquor Control Board has until December of next year to implement rules for the regulated market. From: John jr_esq@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 11:24 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] For Emily:  A Question for a Washington State Resident Are there now legal stores in Seattle where we can buy marijuana?  If yes, does the federal government allow it to open? Â
[FairfieldLife] Opportunity for Judy to apologize for having been WRONG
Having suckered Judy into uber-defensive-gotta-do- anything-I-can-to-repair-my-image mode and pissing away a day's worth of posts in a couple of hours, let's see if we can do it again, eh? :-) Back when the issue of her commenting on movies she had never seen came up, Judy tried to say that I had done the same thing, calling David Lynch's film Inland Empire stupid without seeing it. I did not. What I *did* was to comment on extensive clips from the movie that I *had* seen. Judy, back then: Unlike Barry, who pronounced judgment on Lynch's film, calling it stupid, without having seen it, I don't critique the quality of films I haven't seen. Barry, also back then: Now we get to the FUN part. I challenge what's- her-name to come up with a quote here on Fairfield Life in which I referred to David Lynch's Inland Empire as stupid. I just looked, and as far as I can tell, I never commented on the film itself at all. What I did was comment on a supposed excerpt from the film that was placed on the Net and suggest that if it was representative of the final film itself, I was underwhelmed and wasn't going to bother with it. I said many other even stronger things about the clip, but I don't think the word stupid was in them. That would have been an unnecessary slur on the concept of stupidity. What's-her-name is probably confused as to what I said and what I said it about because she never bothered to look at that film clip EITHER before commenting on it. :-) Judy, unable to come up with such a post, claimed that she HAD, TOO really seen a post in which I called Lynch's film stupid. DID, DID, DID, DID. :-) She then further claimed that the reason she couldn't produce the quote was *because I had deleted it*. Judy: As Barry knows, he's made this impossible, because he deleted the post in which he said it shortly after he made it--but not before I'd seen it. The post dumped on Lawson for defending, before seeing the film, what Barry then referred to as a stupid movie--although he hadn't seen it yet either. (And Lawson hadn't even been defending the film, only the creativity of the test film available on YouTube, which he *had* seen.) See post #126474 from me concerning this incident. Not surprisingly, Barry chose not to reply to it. (Note that I said I had seen it early morning Wednesday; I meant early morning Thursday. The missing post is #126412.) I replied, at the time: I had forgotten the level of paranoia and insanity I was dealing with. My apologies to FFL for having made that mistake, yet again. Now for the pièce de résistance. :-) This is the post that Judy claims I wrote and then deleted, retrieved by post number from the archives. (Even if posts are deleted from FFL itself, they are never deleted from the archives.) http://www.mail-archive.com/fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com/msg126412.html Notice that it *isn't* a post from me saying calling David Lynch's movie stupid. Note that it isn't even a post from *me*. Think she'll apologize? Think again... :-) :-) :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: ... And just what do you get from publishing something someone wanted kept off-list? And why are you so free of embarrassment that you wouldn't want *this* kept off-list? We have private correspondence from all sorts of people in history. Rule 1. If you don't want a chance it will not be published, don't write it. The most secure method is verbal communication direct, without electronics or anyone else anywhere near, and even here someone can relate what they heard. Nothing is private unless only one person knows it. True, but that won't stop people judging you for breaking confidentiality. No-one likes a sneak who thinks their ego is more important than friendship. It's like shouting Don't trust me! to everyone who cares to read it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Meaning of the Moola Mantra
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: (BTW, the reason for those foaming-at-the-mouth tirades is that Barry got his biggest buttons royally pressed when I said nobody much pays attention to him any more except to make fun of him. By God, he's going to MAKE FFL pay attention to him, even if he has to scream and jump up and down and stand on his head and lie until he's blue in the face. The Turqo: That's the same way I am these days with spiritual books. I tend to read them only after I've already had the experience they're discussing, to see how our impressions jibe, or don't. In a desperate attempt for attention he even hints that he has spiritual experiences, as if everyone who has been here for awhile doesn't know what beginners experiences they are :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: our place in the Universe to LaughingG
Yay! When I thought to send this as replacement for blooper, I wondered if your farm is in video. I couldn't remember where it is. BTW I bet some of the computer experts here could tell you how to do that freeze frame thingie. I can also ask the person who sent it to me. From: awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 9:46 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: our place in the Universe to LaughingG --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: LOL and of course I have no idea what happened. Here try this instead, beautiful music, southern Vancouver Island, another place in the Universe (-: http://vimeo.com/53986934 Ahhh, this is my island, my part of the world. You can see my 'farm' at 3mins 22seconds. The airport runways are visible at Vic airport and my 5 acres is in the cluster of trees near the water just to the right of the screen, north of the airport (the camera is looking south toward the City of Victoria). Cool. I wish I could freeze the picture and circle it! From: laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 5:29 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: our place in the Universe  OMG...the universe is so full of stars that it appears as solid white in this picture...no dark regions at all that I can detect. However, I do detect some larger red regions accompanied by clusters of smaller brown regions that appear in the shape of letters of our alphabet. Amazing! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:  ANTARES IS THE 15TH BRIGHTEST STAR IN THE SKY. IT IS MORE THAN 1000 LIGHT YEARS AWAY. -- .. THIS IS A HUBBLE TELESCOPE ULTRA DEEP FIELD INFRARED VIEW OF COUNTLESS 'ENTIRE' GALAXIES BILLIONS OF LIGHT-YEARS AWAY. BELOW IS A CLOSE UP OF ONE OF THE DARKEST REGIONS OF THE PHOTO ABOVE .
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT
Thank you Steve for all your support. Hope you and family are well and happy. I very much regret having hurt Ravi's feelings. From: seventhray1 lurkernomore20002...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 9:17 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT Share, Always consider the source. As Ravi has said, much of his dysfunctionality is a matter of the public record, except for those posts (a considerable amount) he has managed to have expunged. He is on the record here, saying that he issued an ultimatum to his wife that she renounce Amma as her guru and instead accept him as her guru. So, as I've said, consider the source. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Share - I have to add, your posts to this thread have hilarious in their utter clueless-ness. You are not a person who has, so far shown any awareness, sensitivity, maturity - intellectual and/or emotional, intelligence to understand the nuances of any issue to be really compassionate. There is a difference between fake niceness and genuine compassion - in the absence of above your responses to Robin's posts come across as hilarious or malicious depending on my mood. I would say you are very much like Barry except he is overtly mean and you are not. Anyway I don't know what the sound of two paranoid, delusional people conversing is - I don't think it's possible, they are too..well paranoid and alike to get along with each other. So you are better off spending your time on FFL chatting to people like LG, Xeno and others if you don't want people to pile on you. On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 4:34 PM, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy, whatever the quality of Robin's intentions, they would have been under the influence of his self proclaimed state of mystical hallucination. Your ignoring, in relation to his intentions, that self proclamation of his Of course, I don't ignore it. You say that without having any idea of how I view this: You just made it up. Typical. I *disagree* that Robin's intentions would have been affected, made somehow negative, by his enlightenment. I see no reason why that would have been the case. You are taking delusion and hallucination too literally; those terms are only very roughly approximate, because there simply is no vocabulary to describe what happened to him. He himself has said his enlightenment was *real*, so there's obviously a paradoxical element to this that you haven't bothered to take into account. perpetuates an aspect of hallucination into the PRESENT and is not IMO helpful in the present. This is what I am addressing, the present. Yes, I know you are. Your sole interest is in finding ways to portray him negatively *in the present*, and you'll make up whatever metaphysical rules you need to in order to do that. Your perpetuate an aspect of hallucination into the PRESENT doesn't make any sense. *You* don't even know what you mean by it. You have a desperate need to make Robin a Bad Guy to justify the disgusting way you've behaved toward him. I stand by what I said. The negative intelligences that brought about Robin's enlightenment *used* his good intentions--and those of everyone in his group--to further their own goals. That did not turn them into *bad* intentions. The bad intentions were those of the negative intelligences that took advantage of his innocence, his idealism, his loving nature, his desire to help others be the best they could possibly be. Though I recognize that I've made some mistakes about all this and will probably do so again, I will continue to address issues if I think it is helpful to do so. Robin is a good and honorable man who treated you with fairness, respect, and compassion even after you turned on him. You can do nothing helpful where Robin is concerned other than wake up, smell the coffee, and acknowledge how appallingly badly and dishonestly you've treated him due to your inability to face your own weaknesses. If you are incapable of dealing with that reality, just keep your poisonous trap shut about him. You are the most toxic personality I have ever encountered. You make my skin crawl. And I notice you slithered away from responding to my question: Yes, the whole situation became confusing, agonizing and eventually poignant. Even more reason to immediately name the hallucination or delusion or pragyaparadh when it appears so that unnecessary suffering can be avoided. And what is it that will do this naming for us, Share?
[FairfieldLife] Enlightenment in a box
This is from an older post I wrote about 10 years back. I guess it's a kind of fashion here to cite older posts. For me this post is interesting, because it describes my relationship to TM or actually any formal meditation practice even now, and I really didn't change my basic view. For some of you here, who may not know me so well, you can also more easily see where I am coming from, form here. Here it is: 1.While you are disallowed to have any expectation during meditation, it is nevertheless absolutely clear, that, before starting the process people do indeed have a lot of expectations from meditation, e.g. getting enlightened. This expectation is in itself counterproductive to realization. You will hardly be able to avoid, that such an expectation is still there in a subtle, and however hidden form during meditation (which you can of course call incorrect meditation). 2.Basically I think that there are two views on enlightenment: one view is the one from the relative side, which says, there is a way; while the other view is the one from the absolute side of it, which says there is no way, everyone is enlightened already. Both these views are diametrically opposite, and there is really nothing which connects them. To switch from one view to the other, can therefore only be a rather sudden shift. Even so Maharishi in his general teaching adheres to to the first view, he on many occasions, contradicted himself to present the second view. I especially remember one lecture series where he states at almost every lecture, that bit by bit (i.e.by practice) Brahman grows, just to say the very opposite in the next lecture, that this concept of Brahman growing is complete ignorance, as Brahman is already always whole, and that the whole path is illusory, in the desert of ignorance. So Maharishi gives different views, according to the level of understanding of his audience. 3. Don't forget, that the ego-mind has basically no interest in getting dissolved, and will therefore use anything to hide. And this can of course be meditation, the path, itself. In that way, the ego will try to *use* meditation, to avoid to be in the now. It will try to use anything, so its not the fault of the meditation-process. It will use other things too of course. 4. I think, that the explanation of how TM works is taken too absolute in the TM community. Maharishi once said, that an elephant has two kinds of teeth: two to show, and two to chew. This was with regard to some question about the prep. lecture, and the mechanics how thoughts arise. He thereby indicated that the explanation model was not absolutely accurate in the strict sense, but was sufficient to carry the basic message across. He also said once, that for each level of awareness, knowledge is different, and the teaching will be also different. What was a Truth on one level, maybe a lie on the next higher level. There is not one Truth for all levels. He also said once that the knowledge we learn now intellectually must be forgotten before we can actually experience this. For example, in order to reach enlightenment, all concepts of high and low, and of different states must be forgotten. Basically it is a process, which leads to the destruction of all concepts, especially the once so cherished ones, of how we can attain enlightenment, and what it actually is. A man whom I regard very highly once told me: the more you learn, the more you have to unlearn. 5. As such it may very well be, that someone will stop meditation, if this is found to be his last attachment, which has to be broken. Or he/she may carry on, but the process seems to be rather irrelevant now. Or meditation will occur by itself without volition on ones own side. I think in any of these cases, there simply won't be a choice any more (as there is no one there anymore who chooses). At this point its simply a surrender of the mind-ego complex, and the question of the technique is irrelevant. You might argue that this is the case only *after* you gained freedom, but this process of detachment and breaking concepts may take its time, and it will be hard to say, where the line of division is. Please don't misunderstand me here: I am not suggesting that you should stop meditating, nor am I saying that at a certain situation you should stop, or that you should change your practice. I am just saying that this might occur spontaneously in this situation. 6. In a certain way TM is really like enlightenment in a box. I mean during meditation, the process is completely guided by nature, you are just witnessing thoughts, there is no volition to achieve anything, and no expectation. This is not so in real life afterwards, as I already pointed out, there are lot of expectations about achieving something. (There are also lot of techniques and aids offered nowadays). Why not? It would certainly be a good idea to not meditate to become enlightened, but instead
[FairfieldLife] !Shop Local! Important Local Fundraising
80 vendors will be at the Dharma Holiday Trade Fair this Saturday, Dec 8 from 10-4:30 pm and Sunday, Dec 9 from 11-4:30 pm. New location: Farifield Arts and Convention Center. Check out all of the vendors here: https://www.dharmafoundation.org/fundraising-events.html Gift wrapping and shipping will be available.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: Salyavin1: Jesus, you are one pompous, sanctimonios, self-righteous windbag aren't you. No need for professional qualifications to work that out! Robin2: This could not be true, salyavin. I really believe you are wrong about me. I am none of the things you accuse me of being based on this post. There must be some misunderstanding here; I am willing to look at myself very carefully because no one has ever levelled these charges against me before. I am an intense, friendly intelligent, nice guy. How could I be pompous, sanctimonious, self-righteous--and a windbag! That's certainly is not me, Salyavin. What could be the problem here? I am telling you straight-out: I am none of these things. You must believe me--again: I AM NOT THIS. That's how you come across in this here letter old chap, maybe you want to take a look at that. Or at least provide sick bags if you intend publishing private e-mails with such cloying over-sentimentality again. But I'll change self-righteous to self-important though if that helps the ol' self image a bit. Seems a bit fairer now. *Now* do you believe me? You should, Salyavin, because you are really missing out on something if you think of me in these terms. My perception of myself does not accord with your perception--but I am not going to try to change your mind--You just have to accept my word for it. Inside the context I was writing, what I said here made perfect sense. But if I am pompous, sanctimonious, and self-righteous--and a windbag IT'S NEWS TO ME. How could this be true if I have gone 68 years and no one has ever said I was that? I didn't get no followers because I was a windbag--especially the version you describe here. I don't believe you. Please, Salyavin, let us give this another go. There must be some mistake here. Have you considered the possibility you are misperceiving me? I'd poke my own eyes out before writing Remember, Salyavin loves you... to someone I never even met. No, your letter here is too flowery, I've met people with your MO before - all excess flattery and artificial charm - maybe some get off on that but not me, it rings all the alarm bells that someone isn't being straight. I doubt you're even being straight here but I'll play along. No, I will not accept this judgment of me--It is unfair. And, I believe, emphatically not true. There. I feel much better having defended myself against these absurd insults of yours. I bet you felt good knocking me down like that--Admit it, Salyavin: You liked the feeling you got from dissing me like this. Well, HAVE YOU EVER FELT WOULD IT WOULD BE LIKE IF YOU WERE CALLED NAMES LIKE THIS? Think about that for a minute, Salyavin--because I am sure you would not like it one bit. No-one has ever has called me that particular set of names, probably because I'm not that sort of person. I am sorry if I have retaliated here in some way; I have only tried to protect my honour. I will not allow someone to demean me like this. And I believe I have done the right thing to stand up for myself and fight back, Salyavin. I give myself credit for THAT at least. And you must too. I think when people call someone names they should not take it. I have shown that I will not take it. And I feel much better. Sorry, if I sounded a little bitter. I didn't mean to be. But please don't call me these names again, Salyavin. It was not a nice experience at all. But I have told you how your post affected me, and somehow I have got back my confidence. So, I guess it was a good experience to go through. It was God challenging me, seeing if I could stand up to you. And I have. So THERE! No, I am willing to go half-way here with you, Salyavin--but I must at least sense your knowing that you have hurt me. But no matter: I have proved to myself I can take it--and give as good as I got. Robin Your response: I will miss you. Salyavin1:And just what do you get from publishing something someone wanted kept off-list? And why are you so free of embarrassment that you wouldn't want *this* kept off-list? Robin2: It just felt good to bring some discomfort to her. I like making people go through ordeals--as you may know. I thought: If I let this impulse of cruelty and hatred pass me by it might not come again. So I acted. It was pure malice. But there was no need to point this out, Salyavin. I knew it; everyone knew it. Think before you write what is so obvious. Aint nothing wrong with stating the obvious. And it did flow on nicely from my vomiting after reading your private letter so I'm happy to feel no shame here. At least we have cleared the air, Salyavin--at least this is how I feel after coming back at you hard. You with me on this? You get what I was doing, right, Salyavin? Obviously. It is pretty simple: I don't like someone
[FairfieldLife] The Warning Light
This is a dialog that is from a very old thread on AMT https://groups.google.com/group/alt.meditation.transcendental/browse_thread/thread/5c398dd9868e264e/f18a119c907c5ad0?hl=delnk=gstq=warning+light#f18a119c907c5ad0 There are at least 3 of the posters here now. Interesting, as our mutual relationship was quite different then. You can see that I am friendly with Barry AND Judy at the time, but on this issue happen to agree more with Barry. Interesting also, because I can see in it a pattern that becomes even more clear now, after about 10 years, which is the pattern of AVOIDANCE I can see with a certain poster here. Here is my summary: Shmendrik: I recently attented a lectcher by a great spiritual master who came into the hall with this beaming smiling look on his face (which he had obviusly practised in front of a miror) sat down and right off said we were already enlightened so I got up intending to leave thinking that was the end but noticed every body else just kept sitting there so I sat back down. It reminds me of when I was taking a airplane flight and we had to land becase of a malfuncton but after they said the plane was fine it was just the malfuntion indicater that was malfunctioning you see? there was nothing wrong wiht the plane. Its like that with us isn;'t it? it's just this warning light on our dashboard keeps coming on saying thers something wrong but its only something wronf with the warning light . Judy: Right, Melvin, but you have to fix the warning light. Shmendrik: why? Judy: Beecoz it says there's something wrong when there ain't. You could also disable it, or have it removed. Shmendrik: The mere ideas: 'fix', 'disable' or 'remove' ensure that the warning light stays on. It works so totally counter-intuitively that any and all strategies to fix it, cause it to stay on. To do anything is to fail. To do nothing is to fail. Me: Judy, I think the 'warning light' here is a symbol of the mind not being satisfied with what is. The warning light is constantly stirring up the mind, and is therefore the real problem. The warning light is an inbuilt tendency of the mind, to always want something, to actually project the Self out into the future. To fix the warning light would not really help, because its rather just adding to this mental tendency. Wanting to fix itself is the real problem. But thats of course not so easy. IOW we always want a remedy. The whole New Age is built on this, to get a quick fix. But if someone says, there are no remedies, you will say, that doesn't help me, I want a remedy. In this way, one stays in a loop. Why not just try to live a normal life, and not get anywhere spiritually specifically? I mean its okay, to meditate, and do all that, because its relaxing and enjoyable. But as it is, we built a whole world of expectations on it. We don't just simply live, no we are 'meditators', 'spiritual' etc. Just imagine you are enlightened, and there is nothing left to do anymore. What would you do?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: ... And just what do you get from publishing something someone wanted kept off-list? And why are you so free of embarrassment that you wouldn't want *this* kept off-list? We have private correspondence from all sorts of people in history. Rule 1. If you don't want a chance it will not be published, don't write it. The most secure method is verbal communication direct, without electronics or anyone else anywhere near, and even here someone can relate what they heard. Nothing is private unless only one person knows it. True, but that won't stop people judging you for breaking confidentiality. No-one likes a sneak who thinks their ego is more important than friendship. It's like shouting Don't trust me! to everyone who cares to read it. ... And just what do you get from publishing something someone wanted kept off-list? And why are you so free of embarrassment that you wouldn't want *this* kept off-list? We have private correspondence from all sorts of people in history. Rule 1. If you don't want a chance it will not be published, don't write it. The most secure method is verbal communication direct, without electronics or anyone else anywhere near, and even here someone can relate what they heard. Nothing is private unless only one person knows it. True, but that won't stop people judging you for breaking confidentiality. No-one likes a sneak who thinks their ego is more important than friendship. It's like shouting Don't trust me! to everyone who cares to read it. Salyavin: Look, Salyavin: I have explained myself in a very personal way to you. You at least owe me the good deed of considering what I had just said to you before replying to Xeno like this. Sometimes we act impulsively--without thinking: I meant that business about going into another state of consciousness (WC1) You obviously did not believe me. I did not even refer to that, just so I could take it upon myself to finally be responsible for what I did--And I must admit, here you did me a favour. But again: I have spent an entire post letting my feelings out so that you could know there is another way to see me other than just based on that one act. It's not a very nice experience to be told over and over again that one has acted against one's conscience. How about giving me a break, Salyavin?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do you trust the critics, or do you...uh...see the movie?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Go figure. Me, I'm more of a you have to have been there kinda guy. I'm gonna see the movie. :-) Me too. This is a fundamental spiritual policy: See the guy, do the practice (if it's a about practice), or go to the place. Form your own judgment. Btw. I followed you recommendation to see Cloud Atlas, and I really enjoyed it. Great film. snip That's the same way I am these days with spiritual books. I tend to read them only after I've already had the experience they're discussing, to see how our impressions jibe, or don't. Go figure. Yep. But what we observe here is, what I have understood to be a pattern of AVOIDANCE. People talk about teachers they have never met, they talk about practices they have never understood or done, they talk about enlightenment, without having experienced it, they talk about Maharishi without having ever seen him. Or when they saw him, they saw him very shortly, or only in a certain setting, of a lecture, or while attending a course, not really WORKING with the guy, never experiencing him when he meant business. They talk about the group effect, but don't participate, they talk about the movement without knowing it. They defend the ludicrously high course fee, and not take the fertilizers because they don't have the money, etc. In short, they don't walk the talk. How could we take them seriously? I observed this with a friend once. He had a certain difficulty with discipline. But then he talked about keeping discipline, and how good it was, just he didn't act on it. I realized then, that his talk was a means to avoid it. Talk, words, the ideas where a SUBSTITUTE for the real thing the words represented. Give me somebody to adore, so that I can keep him at a save distance. Something along the lines: dead gurus can't kick ass.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do you trust the critics, or do you...uh...see the movie?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Go figure. Me, I'm more of a you have to have been there kinda guy. I'm gonna see the movie. :-) Me too. This is a fundamental spiritual policy: See the guy, do the practice (if it's a about practice), or go to the place. Form your own judgment. Btw. I followed you recommendation to see Cloud Atlas, and I really enjoyed it. Great film. Thanks, but that probably wasn't me. I have commented on the book, I think (thanks to Susan for recommending it orginally), but the only copy of the movie I've found was too grainy and bad-piratey for me to comment on. I did watch it enough to realize that its structure was vastly different than that of the novel (and I preferred the novel structure more), but it was intriguing enough that I'll probably watch it again when I score a better copy. snip That's the same way I am these days with spiritual books. I tend to read them only after I've already had the experience they're discussing, to see how our impressions jibe, or don't. Go figure. Yep. But what we observe here is, what I have understood to be a pattern of AVOIDANCE. People talk about teachers they have never met, they talk about practices they have never understood or done, they talk about enlightenment, without having experienced it, they talk about Maharishi without having ever seen him. Or when they saw him, they saw him very shortly, or only in a certain setting, of a lecture, or while attending a course, not really WORKING with the guy, never experiencing him when he meant business. They talk about the group effect, but don't participate, they talk about the movement without knowing it. They defend the ludicrously high course fee, and not take the fertilizers because they don't have the money, etc. In short, they don't walk the talk. How could we take them seriously? Can't disagree. And you can't talk them out of their belief that none of this talk walking is necessary. I think that in the long run the best thing you can do for such people is laugh at them. Given enough time and enough laughter, maybe they can learn to lighten up and laugh at themselves. As G.K. Chesterton once said so wisely, Seriousness is not a virtue. :-) I observed this with a friend once. He had a certain difficulty with discipline. But then he talked about keeping discipline, and how good it was, just he didn't act on it. I realized then, that his talk was a means to avoid it. Talk, words, the ideas where a SUBSTITUTE for the real thing the words represented. Give me somebody to adore, so that I can keep him at a save distance. Something along the lines: dead gurus can't kick ass. I like that. Also the corollary -- live gurus can and often DO kick ass. It's tough to develop a lot of self- importance when every so often you've got someone to remind you how unimportant you really are.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: And here is the formal ending of our correspondence: From: Blue Caboose Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 3:56 PM Subject: what I wish to tell you now Dear Share, I wish only for you to know that after everything we have said to each other that I respect you and love you and want you to be happy and to know whatever truth God would have you know and understand. I only want you to go to heaven, whatever that may be, Share. I have played and teased and challenged and danced and argued with you; but now it is at an end, and I must be quiet and accept the will of reality in all things. For us, Share, I believe that means that I must leave you to your life and your very earnest and sacrificial strivings. Please believe me when I tell you that I want only your happiness, and in my own way I shall pray for this. It has been a privilege of a kind to carry on our conversations all these months, but now, in the writing of this letter, I just want to express only my support for you. I have a feeling you will find your way in this terrible complexity and tragedy and beauty and miracle that is human existence in the 21st century. That is it, Share: I have said all that I have wanted to say, or need to say. Go safely and know that Robin loves you. Jesus, you are one pompous, sanctimonios, self-righteous windbag aren't you. No need for professional qualifications to work that out! Robin Your response: I will miss you. And just what do you get from publishing something someone wanted kept off-list? And why are you so free of embarrassment that you wouldn't want *this* kept off-list? Only the English have a proper sense of embarrassment.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT
Okay Ravi, since you have accused me of slander, I will post your statement. Then advise if you wish to withdraw the charge of slander. One correction: The post was made on Batgap, not FFL From Batgap: Post 4466, Sunday May 16, 2010, 2:11 am Now she has her complete attention on me because of my energy..:-). I told her that she had to stop treating Amma as her guru and that I would be her Guru from today and she completely, innocently, with complete faith accepted it and I made her repeat it 3 times - I reject Amma and accept Ravi as my Guru..LOL.. Oh what a woman !!! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Steve baby - this is an example of why you are branded as an idiot. You can't even come up with something clever, pertinent, original, inventive, intelligent even while indulging in slander. On Dec 7, 2012, at 7:17 PM, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: Share, Always consider the source. As Ravi has said, much of his dysfunctionality is a matter of the public record, except for those posts (a considerable amount) he has managed to have expunged. He is on the record here, saying that he issued an ultimatum to his wife that she renounce Amma as her guru and instead accept him as her guru. So, as I've said, consider the source. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Share - I have to add, your posts to this thread have hilarious in their utter clueless-ness. You are not a person who has, so far shown any awareness, sensitivity, maturity - intellectual and/or emotional, intelligence to understand the nuances of any issue to be really compassionate. There is a difference between fake niceness and genuine compassion - in the absence of above your responses to Robin's posts come across as hilarious or malicious depending on my mood. I would say you are very much like Barry except he is overtly mean and you are not. Anyway I don't know what the sound of two paranoid, delusional people conversing is - I don't think it's possible, they are too..well paranoid and alike to get along with each other. So you are better off spending your time on FFL chatting to people like LG, Xeno and others if you don't want people to pile on you. On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 4:34 PM, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy, whatever the quality of Robin's intentions, they would have been under the influence of his self proclaimed state of mystical hallucination. Your ignoring, in relation to his intentions, that self proclamation of his Of course, I don't ignore it. You say that without having any idea of how I view this: You just made it up. Typical. I *disagree* that Robin's intentions would have been affected, made somehow negative, by his enlightenment. I see no reason why that would have been the case. You are taking delusion and hallucination too literally; those terms are only very roughly approximate, because there simply is no vocabulary to describe what happened to him. He himself has said his enlightenment was *real*, so there's obviously a paradoxical element to this that you haven't bothered to take into account. perpetuates an aspect of hallucination into the PRESENT and is not IMO helpful in the present. This is what I am addressing, the present. Yes, I know you are. Your sole interest is in finding ways to portray him negatively *in the present*, and you'll make up whatever metaphysical rules you need to in order to do that. Your perpetuate an aspect of hallucination into the PRESENT doesn't make any sense. *You* don't even know what you mean by it. You have a desperate need to make Robin a Bad Guy to justify the disgusting way you've behaved toward him. I stand by what I said. The negative intelligences that brought about Robin's enlightenment *used* his good intentions--and those of everyone in his group--to further their own goals. That did not turn them into *bad* intentions. The bad intentions were those of the negative intelligences that took advantage of his innocence, his idealism, his loving nature, his desire to help others be the best they could possibly be. Though I recognize that I've made some mistakes about all this and will probably do so again, I will continue to address issues if I think it is helpful to do so. Robin is a good and honorable man who treated you with fairness, respect, and compassion even after you turned on him. You can do nothing helpful where Robin is concerned other than wake up, smell the coffee, and acknowledge how appallingly badly and dishonestly you've treated him due
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Salyavin1: Jesus, you are one pompous, sanctimonios, self-righteous windbag aren't you. No need for professional qualifications to work that out! Robin2: This could not be true, salyavin. I really believe you are wrong about me. I am none of the things you accuse me of being based on this post. There must be some misunderstanding here; I am willing to look at myself very carefully because no one has ever levelled these charges against me before. I am an intense, friendly intelligent, nice guy. How could I be pompous, sanctimonious, self-righteous--and a windbag! That's certainly is not me, Salyavin. What could be the problem here? I am telling you straight-out: I am none of these things. You must believe me--again: I AM NOT THIS. Salyavin2:That's how you come across in this here letter old chap, maybe you want to take a look at that. Or at least provide sick bags if you intend publishing private e-mails with such cloying over-sentimentality again. Robin3: Look, Salyavin, I thought by acknowledging what I had done (and sort of defending myself at the same time) you would lay off. Now you are coming at me again. Have you never made a fool of yourself--EVER--in your life? I did something here (and I grant that you have exposed me for my cloying over-sentimentality--you called me other names before, so at least I should thank you for being a little easier on me now--and I do) that drew your criticism. I have done my very best to make you understand me. I would appreciate it if you would not just keep persecuting me. If you stop this, Salyavin, know that I will always keep in mind what you have said to me before I go and do something like that again. I hope you at least understand me better this time. Salyavin2: But I'll change self-righteous to self-important though if that helps the ol' self image a bit. Seems a bit fairer now. Robin3: You have no idea how much more reasonable this word is--I know it took some pity on your part for you to change the word--but it means everything to me, Salyavin. I won't forget this. For me, this is sort of a moment when we are moving closer to one another. At least here in Canada this is how one would interpret your gesture here. Thank you. Robin2: *Now* do you believe me? You should, Salyavin, because you are really missing out on something if you think of me in these terms. My perception of myself does not accord with your perception--but I am not going to try to change your mind--You just have to accept my word for it. Inside the context I was writing, what I said here made perfect sense. But if I am pompous, sanctimonious, and self-righteous--and a windbag IT'S NEWS TO ME. How could this be true if I have gone 68 years and no one has ever said I was that? I didn't get no followers because I was a windbag--especially the version you describe here. Salyavin2: I don't believe you. Robin3: Disappointing, this, Salyavin. I feel we have taken (actually YOU have taken) a step backward, just when I felt there was some common understanding here. I hope this is not a sign of things to come (in the rest of your post). But I will keep reading. Perhaps my writing to you a second time (that is a big deal, I think: that I would consider it so important--what we are discussing here--that I would write to you once yet again) will soften you and you will take this back. I mean what you say here. I don't believe you. Well, I believe you believe this when you say it. So I have got that far. But I can go no further, Salyavin. Am I making sense here? I know I am in my heart. The one thing I must avoid is sentimentality. Probably I should just not say anymore here and move on. This is what I am going to do. Robin2: Please, Salyavin, let us give this another go. There must be some mistake here. Have you considered the possibility you are misperceiving me? Salyavin2: I'd poke my own eyes out before writing Remember, Salyavin loves you... to someone I never even met. Robin3: That seems extreme to me. But I think I can get something from it--How so? Because this is the line I will remember whenever I get a little too sentimental. Now I really think I understand, Salyavin: this was the most powerful moment in our exchange. I appreciate this, Salyavin. (I'd poke my eyes out--Whew--that is what Oedipus did, as you know.) Salyavin2: No, your letter here is too flowery, I've met people with your MO before - all excess flattery and artificial charm - maybe some get off on that but not me, it rings all the alarm bells that someone isn't being straight. I doubt you're even being straight here but I'll play along. Robin3: This was OK until I got to the end: Now you are questioning my sincerity! That to me, Salyavin, is more serious than anything you have said so far. And
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do you trust the critics, or do you...uh...see the movie?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Go figure. Me, I'm more of a you have to have been there kinda guy. I'm gonna see the movie. :-) Me too. This is a fundamental spiritual policy: See the guy, do the practice (if it's a about practice), or go to the place. Form your own judgment. Btw. I followed you recommendation to see Cloud Atlas, and I really enjoyed it. Great film. Thanks, but that probably wasn't me. I have commented on the book, I think (thanks to Susan for recommending it orginally), but the only copy of the movie I've found was too grainy and bad-piratey for me to comment on. I did watch it enough to realize that its structure was vastly different than that of the novel (and I preferred the novel structure more), but it was intriguing enough that I'll probably watch it again when I score a better copy. snip That's the same way I am these days with spiritual books. I tend to read them only after I've already had the experience they're discussing, to see how our impressions jibe, or don't. Go figure. Yep. But what we observe here is, what I have understood to be a pattern of AVOIDANCE. People talk about teachers they have never met, they talk about practices they have never understood or done, they talk about enlightenment, without having experienced it, they talk about Maharishi without having ever seen him. Or when they saw him, they saw him very shortly, or only in a certain setting, of a lecture, or while attending a course, not really WORKING with the guy, never experiencing him when he meant business. They talk about the group effect, but don't participate, they talk about the movement without knowing it. They defend the ludicrously high course fee, and not take the fertilizers because they don't have the money, etc. In short, they don't walk the talk. How could we take them seriously? Can't disagree. And you can't talk them out of their belief that none of this talk walking is necessary. I think that in the long run the best thing you can do for such people is laugh at them. Given enough time and enough laughter, maybe they can learn to lighten up and laugh at themselves. As G.K. Chesterton once said so wisely, Seriousness is not a virtue. :-) I observed this with a friend once. He had a certain difficulty with discipline. But then he talked about keeping discipline, and how good it was, just he didn't act on it. I realized then, that his talk was a means to avoid it. Talk, words, the ideas where a SUBSTITUTE for the real thing the words represented. Give me somebody to adore, so that I can keep him at a save distance. Something along the lines: dead gurus can't kick ass. I like that. Also the corollary -- live gurus can and often DO kick ass. It's tough to develop a lot of self- importance when every so often you've got someone to remind you how unimportant you really are. See, you know it! You and me, we both have gone (and still are going) through that experience. Others just have a fantasy idea who it is to be with a live guru, an idealized version. And unless you have been through this YOURSELF, you can't really comment. Now, that brings me to another example, if I think of it, it is rather outrageously confirming my thesis: Think of one person here on our forum, which some people have met, some didn't, I mean Robin. Now, whatever we may think about him doesn't matter. But in the case somebody thinks very high of him to the extend of adoration, you would assume this person would be eager to actually meet him physically, right? You would certainly think so. But that's not the case, the person is actually AFRAID of meeting him. I mean one of his main supporters here on the forum, I will decline mentioning names, I am only commenting on the phenomena. Funny thing on the side: When Robin proposed, that the persons who wrote CULT, or any of the other people involved at the time, could meet him, to see how much he changed (supposedly), this person, actually afraid to see him him/herself challenged others that they could act upon such an invitation - which I could very well understand, why one wouldn't want to follow, if you were hurt enough at the time. Now, Barry, I myself would have no fear actually meeting Robin, given that this was easily coming about, not that this would be very high up on my list of interest, but I certainly do not fear such a meeting. I guess, and here I am probably differing from you, that for an hour or two, this could be a very entertaining conversation. I don't seek it, but I am not afraid either. Same with you btw. we could have a great talk once we actually would meet. But this is another example of
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Thank you Steve for all your support. Hope you and family are well and happy. I very much regret having hurt Ravi's feelings. Then talk TO him, don't talk ABOUT him. Grow a spine and address people directly, not through others. Put yourself out there where it can be a little bit scary and take a chance. Your hazy generalizations of how sorry you are or how misunderstood or how silly you think you can be at times just aren't cutting the mustard. Get out the steak knife and go for some real meat. Stop playing the damsel and GET REAL. You don't think I 'm going to take flak for this post? But at least I'm telling you how I really feel and showing you who I am, it doesn't come without consequences (especially here). Just look at the invective Robin is getting dealt right now. Now shit or get off the pot, woman. From: seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 9:17 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT  Share, Always consider the source. As Ravi has said, much of his dysfunctionality is a matter of the public record, except for those posts (a considerable amount) he has managed to have expunged. He is on the record here, saying that he issued an ultimatum to his wife that she renounce Amma as her guru and instead accept him as her guru. So, as I've said, consider the source. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Share - I have to add, your posts to this thread have hilarious in their utter clueless-ness. You are not a person who has, so far shown any awareness, sensitivity, maturity - intellectual and/or emotional, intelligence to understand the nuances of any issue to be really compassionate. There is a difference between fake niceness and genuine compassion - in the absence of above your responses to Robin's posts come across as hilarious or malicious depending on my mood. I would say you are very much like Barry except he is overtly mean and you are not. Anyway I don't know what the sound of two paranoid, delusional people conversing is - I don't think it's possible, they are too..well paranoid and alike to get along with each other. So you are better off spending your time on FFL chatting to people like LG, Xeno and others if you don't want people to pile on you. On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 4:34 PM, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy, whatever the quality of Robin's intentions, they would have been under the influence of his self proclaimed state of mystical hallucination. Your ignoring, in relation to his intentions, that self proclamation of his Of course, I don't ignore it. You say that without having any idea of how I view this: You just made it up. Typical. I *disagree* that Robin's intentions would have been affected, made somehow negative, by his enlightenment. I see no reason why that would have been the case. You are taking delusion and hallucination too literally; those terms are only very roughly approximate, because there simply is no vocabulary to describe what happened to him. He himself has said his enlightenment was *real*, so there's obviously a paradoxical element to this that you haven't bothered to take into account. perpetuates an aspect of hallucination into the PRESENT and is not IMO helpful in the present. This is what I am addressing, the present. Yes, I know you are. Your sole interest is in finding ways to portray him negatively *in the present*, and you'll make up whatever metaphysical rules you need to in order to do that. Your perpetuate an aspect of hallucination into the PRESENT doesn't make any sense. *You* don't even know what you mean by it. You have a desperate need to make Robin a Bad Guy to justify the disgusting way you've behaved toward him. I stand by what I said. The negative intelligences that brought about Robin's enlightenment *used* his good intentions--and those of everyone in his group--to further their own goals. That did not turn them into *bad* intentions. The bad intentions were those of the negative intelligences that took advantage of his innocence, his idealism, his loving nature, his desire to help others be the best they could possibly be. Though I recognize that I've made some mistakes about all this and will probably do so again, I will continue to address issues if I think it is helpful to do so. Robin is a good and honorable man who treated you with fairness, respect, and compassion even after you turned on him. You can do nothing helpful
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: And here is the formal ending of our correspondence: From: Blue Caboose Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 3:56 PM Subject: what I wish to tell you now Dear Share, I wish only for you to know that after everything we have said to each other that I respect you and love you and want you to be happy and to know whatever truth God would have you know and understand. I only want you to go to heaven, whatever that may be, Share. I have played and teased and challenged and danced and argued with you; but now it is at an end, and I must be quiet and accept the will of reality in all things. For us, Share, I believe that means that I must leave you to your life and your very earnest and sacrificial strivings. Please believe me when I tell you that I want only your happiness, and in my own way I shall pray for this. It has been a privilege of a kind to carry on our conversations all these months, but now, in the writing of this letter, I just want to express only my support for you. I have a feeling you will find your way in this terrible complexity and tragedy and beauty and miracle that is human existence in the 21st century. That is it, Share: I have said all that I have wanted to say, or need to say. Go safely and know that Robin loves you. Jesus, you are one pompous, sanctimonios, self-righteous windbag aren't you. No need for professional qualifications to work that out! Robin Your response: I will miss you. And just what do you get from publishing something someone wanted kept off-list? And why are you so free of embarrassment that you wouldn't want *this* kept off-list? Only the English have a proper sense of embarrassment. True, Feste, but I have partially made amends as you know if you have read my correspondence with Salyavin--subsequent to this ill-advised act of mine. One thing that I have to respect about you: In going after authfriend you bring to this the very same self which responded so generously to my writing (and even character). In other words, you don't evidently have to become any less attractive in your campaign of criticism of authfriend than you did when you praised me--although I know that is at an end now. I am not going to take back anything I have said about you. I want to have a positive memory of you--based upon that first exchange we had about reconciling the East and the West. Remember that? I must be judged not just on my evil deeds, feste, but on my good ones too. I think you are holding what is negative about me now as being primary, and the positive as being secondary. Do you think this right? Perhaps it is. I will accept it anyhow. And by the way: What you have said here is true. I only know how true after what I have gone through since my chastisement from England. Condign in every way, I believe. The elegance and wit and loveliness of yourself has not been influenced by your turning against authfriend either--This means a lot to me. I continue to respect you. Robin
[FairfieldLife] Re: For Emily: A Question for a Washington State Resident
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: Emily, Thanks for the info. It sounds like the procedures are still being drafted and implemented later. Once all the rules are set, it might give me an incentive to visit Seattle again. JR Pot is highly overrated. I figure anyone still smoking dope after the age of 16 needs to find a better hobby or a more demanding job or get a pet or something. (OK, I'm ready for the piling on.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: Hi John: This is the billion dollar question.  The feds have not weighed in yet on the latest legalization for the citizen population; this is a real experiment.  Re: medical marijuana, which was already legal, in August, the feds cracked down as follows and many places closed up/moved to get into compliance:  http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/08/23/feds-tell-23-pot-dispensaries-near-schools-to-shut-down-or-face-raidsview=comments Today (August 12, 2012), the Drug Enforcement Administration told 23 medical marijuana dispensariesâwhich have been visibly proliferating in the Seattle-area for last couple yearsâthat they have one month to relocate outside of school zones. For those dispensaries that fail to move outside a 1,000-foot radius of schools, playgrounds, and other school zone areas, federal authorizes may raid the properties, seize their assets, and seek federal criminal charges, says a letter sent today by DEA agent Matthew Barnes. Agent Barnes adds that the federal government makes no criminal exceptions for marijuana, even it it's medical, a word that his letter writes in italics and quotation marks. I heard a discussion on npr a few days ago on this topic.  While the quote below is true, there is no legal way to purchase it as a citizen without a medical marijuana prescription, which raises an interesting dilemna.  The Liquor Control Board has the unprecedented job to create an entire regulatory framework for retail stores, etc. and they have a year to do it.  The industry is expected to bring a lot of revenue to the State as a taxed industry. There will also be DUI limits. Starting tomorrow, people aged 21 and over will be able to legally possess up to one ounce of marijuana in Washington State. On Election Day last month, 55 percent of voters in both Washington State and Colorado voted to make marijuana legal, making those states the first two to approve legally regulating marijuana like alcohol. The Washington State Liquor Control Board has until December of next year to implement rules for the regulated market. From: John jr_esq@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 11:24 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] For Emily:  A Question for a Washington State Resident Are there now legal stores in Seattle where we can buy marijuana?  If yes, does the federal government allow it to open? Â
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do you trust the critics, or do you...uh...see the movie?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@... wrote: Funny thing on the side: When Robin proposed, that the persons who wrote CULT, or any of the other people involved at the time, could meet him, to see how much he changed (supposedly)... I don't bother to read Robin's...uh...proposals, but if you say he did this, it fits with my NPD analysis of the guy. ...this person, actually afraid to see him him/herself challenged others that they could act upon such an invitation... Do as I say, not as I do. ...which I could very well understand, why one wouldn't want to follow, if you were hurt enough at the time. Now, Barry, I myself would have no fear actually meeting Robin, given that this was easily coming about, not that this would be very high up on my list of interest, but I certainly do not fear such a meeting. I guess, and here I am probably differing from you, that for an hour or two, this could be a very entertaining conversation. I wouldn't be interested because I suspect it wouldn't be much of a conversation. It would be Robin talking and expecting you to listen. I don't seek it, but I am not afraid either. Same with you btw. we could have a great talk once we actually would meet. I'd even let you talk. Every so often. :-) Seriously, I suspect we'd find lots to talk about.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Let's talk about the movie Apocalypto
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Please note that the only hysterical person here is the Judester herself, which she will hopefully demonstrate for us all later tonight. :-) Well, actually I'll demonstrate how hysterical Barry was all morning. By using up a day's worth of posts in the first couple of hours of the new posting week. That was my whole intention, Jude. :-) I knew you'd have to double down on seeing nothing wrong with calling someone a Christian bigot on the basis of *a movie you'd never seen, and still have never seen*. But I also knew you'd feel your self image so threatened by the subject coming up again that you'd overcompensate and...uh...post away like a crazy person to do image repair and try to get the focus back on you again. You did. Mission accomplished. :-) See what I mean? Obsessed, pure and simple. You LIVE to 'get' Judy. Let it go, Barry, let it go. There is always stamp collecting to take up all that free time you will have once you do.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT
Share, I suppose it is a matter of hurting his feelings. But really this is just his M O 90% of time. Demeaning and insulting is what he does. It is how he interacts. He will sometimes defend those people he likes, but mostly he just insults and demeans the people he doesn't like. And it doesn't take much to go from one to the other. And that is why I am so perplexed how someone would ascribe loyalty as one of his traits. I mean DD came dangerous close to go from Ravi's friend list to his enemy's list with a comment he made. If DD had come up with an unfavorable follow up comment, then we likely would have seen the famous Ravi switch. BTW, I'll post DD's comment here, since I felt it was so appropiate. DD Ravi:The grinding sound is because you are stuck in first gear. Push in the clutch and shift into second, then third, etc. It was a good comment. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Thank you Steve for all your support. Hope you and family are well and happy. I very much regret having hurt Ravi's feelings. From: seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 9:17 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT  Share, Always consider the source. As Ravi has said, much of his dysfunctionality is a matter of the public record, except for those posts (a considerable amount) he has managed to have expunged. He is on the record here, saying that he issued an ultimatum to his wife that she renounce Amma as her guru and instead accept him as her guru. So, as I've said, consider the source. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Share - I have to add, your posts to this thread have hilarious in their utter clueless-ness. You are not a person who has, so far shown any awareness, sensitivity, maturity - intellectual and/or emotional, intelligence to understand the nuances of any issue to be really compassionate. There is a difference between fake niceness and genuine compassion - in the absence of above your responses to Robin's posts come across as hilarious or malicious depending on my mood. I would say you are very much like Barry except he is overtly mean and you are not. Anyway I don't know what the sound of two paranoid, delusional people conversing is - I don't think it's possible, they are too..well paranoid and alike to get along with each other. So you are better off spending your time on FFL chatting to people like LG, Xeno and others if you don't want people to pile on you. On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 4:34 PM, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy, whatever the quality of Robin's intentions, they would have been under the influence of his self proclaimed state of mystical hallucination. Your ignoring, in relation to his intentions, that self proclamation of his Of course, I don't ignore it. You say that without having any idea of how I view this: You just made it up. Typical. I *disagree* that Robin's intentions would have been affected, made somehow negative, by his enlightenment. I see no reason why that would have been the case. You are taking delusion and hallucination too literally; those terms are only very roughly approximate, because there simply is no vocabulary to describe what happened to him. He himself has said his enlightenment was *real*, so there's obviously a paradoxical element to this that you haven't bothered to take into account. perpetuates an aspect of hallucination into the PRESENT and is not IMO helpful in the present. This is what I am addressing, the present. Yes, I know you are. Your sole interest is in finding ways to portray him negatively *in the present*, and you'll make up whatever metaphysical rules you need to in order to do that. Your perpetuate an aspect of hallucination into the PRESENT doesn't make any sense. *You* don't even know what you mean by it. You have a desperate need to make Robin a Bad Guy to justify the disgusting way you've behaved toward him. I stand by what I said. The negative intelligences that brought about Robin's enlightenment *used* his good intentions--and those of everyone in his group--to further their own goals. That did not turn them into *bad* intentions. The bad intentions were those of the negative intelligences that took advantage of his innocence, his idealism, his loving nature, his desire to help others be the best they could possibly be. Though I recognize that I've made some mistakes about all this and will probably do so again, I will continue to address issues if I think it is helpful to do so. Robin is a
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Thank you Steve for all your support. Hope you and family are well and happy. I very much regret having hurt Ravi's feelings. Then talk TO him, don't talk ABOUT him. Grow a spine and address people directly, not through others. Put yourself out there where it can be a little bit scary and take a chance. Your hazy generalizations of how sorry you are or how misunderstood or how silly you think you can be at times just aren't cutting the mustard. Get out the steak knife and go for some real meat. Stop playing the damsel and GET REAL. You don't think I 'm going to take flak for this post? But at least I'm telling you how I really feel and showing you who I am, it doesn't come without consequences (especially here). Just look at the invective Robin is getting dealt right now. Now shit or get off the pot, woman. It's fascinating how people take on a role early in life and then can't seem to shake it. With Judy, it seems obvious that she spent some time as a hall monitor in school, and can't get past that. With Ann, all these years later, and she's still a recruiter for the Robin cult. As long as she never has to do herself what she demands that others do, of course. Do you think we should issue her an honorary hall monitor sash? :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do you trust the critics, or do you...uh...see the movie?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: This is not a continuation of the JudyApocalypto thang, merely a riff on that incident's real issue, and some musing about that phenomenon's relationship to spiritual practice. Would you feel that you knew enough about a movie to comment on it -- as if you were authoritative and knew what you were talking about -- if you'd only read a commentary on the movie, and never actually seen it? You'd be surprised at how many people would. I met a few of them once in front of a New York theater showing Martin Scorcese's The Last Temptation Of Christ. I was there to see the movie, on its opening day. They were there to picket the movie, waving signs that decried it as Anti-God and Blashemy! and Heresy! and The Work Of Satan. I'd arrived early, so instead of going straight in, I spent some time wandering around, talking to the picketers. In particular, I asked them whether they had ever seen the movie, or read the book by Nikos Kazantzakis on which it was based. I did not find a single picketer who had done either. They were there because some spiritual figure they trusted -- quite possibly their Catholic priest or bishop -- had told them that it was BAD. The picketers stayed outside picketing. I went inside. After all, I had read the book. Now I've seen the movie. I can speak somewhat authoritatively about both, having done so. I can, for example, say that I found both the book and the film to be among the most positively spiritual works I've ever read or seen. The picketers, on the other hand, would probably just as authoritatively still tell you that it's BAD. They *know* this because they were told it. They would never even *consider* actually seeing the movie they were picketing to find out about it, because they already know the Truth -- it's BAD. Go figure. Now segue to spirituality itself. Don't we find the same phenomenon there? There are, after all, millions and millions of people on this planet for whom spiritual experience is hearsay. It's called faith Barry and it is a well-known characteristic of religious people. There are also elements of hope as well. Oh, and while we're at it we could also mention charity, not something you're familiar with but here is a link to help you understand some of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_virtues They're basing everything they feel that they know on what they were TOLD about a spiritual figure, and about his/her experiences, and about what they meant. In very few cases is there any personal subjective experience to back up what they were TOLD. But they're more than willing to tell you -- rather authoritatively -- about these things they've only been TOLD about, and never experienced themselves. They'll tell you all about the miracles that a friend of a friend of someone another friend met on a course has assured you their teacher performed. They'll tell you how perfect he was, never having met him. Go figure. Me, I'm more of a you have to have been there kinda guy. I'm gonna see the movie. :-) Most of the time I don't even *read* critics and commentators on films. One reason for this is that I sometimes write reviews myself, and don't want my impressions to be tainted by having read other people's impressions. Another is that I don't want them to spoil the experience for me. I want to buy the ticket and buy the popcorn and enjoy the ride myself. *After* I've seen the movie I may read other people's commentaries about it, and nod when I agree with them and shrug when I don't. That's the same way I am these days with spiritual books. I tend to read them only after I've already had the experience they're discussing, to see how our impressions jibe, or don't. Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do you trust the critics, or do you...uh...see the movie?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Go figure. Me, I'm more of a you have to have been there kinda guy. I'm gonna see the movie. :-) Me too. This is a fundamental spiritual policy: See the guy, do the practice (if it's a about practice), or go to the place. Form your own judgment. Btw. I followed you recommendation to see Cloud Atlas, and I really enjoyed it. Great film. Thanks, but that probably wasn't me. Methinks it might have been. Isn't this you? Post #326452 I have commented on the book, I think (thanks to Susan for recommending it orginally), but the only copy of the movie I've found was too grainy and bad-piratey for me to comment on. I did watch it enough to realize that its structure was vastly different than that of the novel (and I preferred the novel structure more), but it was intriguing enough that I'll probably watch it again when I score a better copy. snip That's the same way I am these days with spiritual books. I tend to read them only after I've already had the experience they're discussing, to see how our impressions jibe, or don't. Go figure. Yep. But what we observe here is, what I have understood to be a pattern of AVOIDANCE. People talk about teachers they have never met, they talk about practices they have never understood or done, they talk about enlightenment, without having experienced it, they talk about Maharishi without having ever seen him. Or when they saw him, they saw him very shortly, or only in a certain setting, of a lecture, or while attending a course, not really WORKING with the guy, never experiencing him when he meant business. They talk about the group effect, but don't participate, they talk about the movement without knowing it. They defend the ludicrously high course fee, and not take the fertilizers because they don't have the money, etc. In short, they don't walk the talk. How could we take them seriously? Can't disagree. And you can't talk them out of their belief that none of this talk walking is necessary. I think that in the long run the best thing you can do for such people is laugh at them. Given enough time and enough laughter, maybe they can learn to lighten up and laugh at themselves. As G.K. Chesterton once said so wisely, Seriousness is not a virtue. :-) I observed this with a friend once. He had a certain difficulty with discipline. But then he talked about keeping discipline, and how good it was, just he didn't act on it. I realized then, that his talk was a means to avoid it. Talk, words, the ideas where a SUBSTITUTE for the real thing the words represented. Give me somebody to adore, so that I can keep him at a save distance. Something along the lines: dead gurus can't kick ass. I like that. Also the corollary -- live gurus can and often DO kick ass. It's tough to develop a lot of self- importance when every so often you've got someone to remind you how unimportant you really are.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: Then talk TO him, don't talk ABOUT him. Grow a spine and address people directly, not through others. Put yourself out there where it can be a little bit scary and take a chance. Your hazy generalizations of how sorry you are or how misunderstood or how silly you think you can be at times just aren't cutting the mustard. Get out the steak knife and go for some real meat. Stop playing the damsel and GET REAL. You don't think I 'm going to take flak for this post? But at least I'm telling you how I really feel and showing you who I am, it doesn't come without consequences (especially here). Just look at the invective Robin is getting dealt right now. Now shit or get off the pot, woman. Ann, these are certainly nice sentiments. But real dialogue is generally in short supply here. And really, I don't know if I would identify Ravi as one with whom one could have a meaningful dialogue. I don't know if he is even interested in such. His interaction over the three or four years is basically how we see him interacting with Share, Barry, me, and most others. So for you to suggest to engage Ravi in any kind of meaningful way, seems a bit misplaced. IMO of course.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do you trust the critics, or do you...uh...see the movie?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Go figure. Me, I'm more of a you have to have been there kinda guy. I'm gonna see the movie. :-) Me too. This is a fundamental spiritual policy: See the guy, do the practice (if it's a about practice), or go to the place. Form your own judgment. Btw. I followed you recommendation to see Cloud Atlas, and I really enjoyed it. Great film. Thanks, but that probably wasn't me. Methinks it might have been. Isn't this you? Post #326452 I think that's the post I read, but then I also read some posts of Bhairitu, and the very first post of Barry mentioning the movie before it came out. That is he got me hooked on even half a year earlier. Now, wait Ann, just to confirm our theory, did YOU see it, and do you have an opinion about it, or are you just being bored and want to talk to somebody? I have commented on the book, I think (thanks to Susan for recommending it orginally), but the only copy of the movie I've found was too grainy and bad-piratey for me to comment on. I did watch it enough to realize that its structure was vastly different than that of the novel (and I preferred the novel structure more), but it was intriguing enough that I'll probably watch it again when I score a better copy. snip That's the same way I am these days with spiritual books. I tend to read them only after I've already had the experience they're discussing, to see how our impressions jibe, or don't. Go figure. Yep. But what we observe here is, what I have understood to be a pattern of AVOIDANCE. People talk about teachers they have never met, they talk about practices they have never understood or done, they talk about enlightenment, without having experienced it, they talk about Maharishi without having ever seen him. Or when they saw him, they saw him very shortly, or only in a certain setting, of a lecture, or while attending a course, not really WORKING with the guy, never experiencing him when he meant business. They talk about the group effect, but don't participate, they talk about the movement without knowing it. They defend the ludicrously high course fee, and not take the fertilizers because they don't have the money, etc. In short, they don't walk the talk. How could we take them seriously? Can't disagree. And you can't talk them out of their belief that none of this talk walking is necessary. I think that in the long run the best thing you can do for such people is laugh at them. Given enough time and enough laughter, maybe they can learn to lighten up and laugh at themselves. As G.K. Chesterton once said so wisely, Seriousness is not a virtue. :-) I observed this with a friend once. He had a certain difficulty with discipline. But then he talked about keeping discipline, and how good it was, just he didn't act on it. I realized then, that his talk was a means to avoid it. Talk, words, the ideas where a SUBSTITUTE for the real thing the words represented. Give me somebody to adore, so that I can keep him at a save distance. Something along the lines: dead gurus can't kick ass. I like that. Also the corollary -- live gurus can and often DO kick ass. It's tough to develop a lot of self- importance when every so often you've got someone to remind you how unimportant you really are.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do you trust the critics, or do you...uh...see the movie?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: Btw. I followed you recommendation to see Cloud Atlas, and I really enjoyed it. Great film. Thanks, but that probably wasn't me. Methinks it might have been. Isn't this you? Post #326452 I stand (sit, actually) corrected. When I searched earlier, I searched for 'Cloud Atlas' in the body text of posts I had made. This one had it in the Subject line. I knew I'd written something short about it on some forum, but couldn't remember which one. Anything further will really have to wait for a decent copy, though.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Let's talk about the movie Apocalypto
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: See what I mean? Obsessed, pure and simple. You LIVE to 'get' Judy. Nonsense. Every so often I just like winding her up and letting her get herself, that's all. Happy to see it works for more than one wind-up toy... :-) [http://images.wikia.com/zenukchats/images/9/95/Monkey_cymbal.gif]
Re: [FairfieldLife] Do you trust the critics, or do you...uh...see the movie?
Reminds me of what I read about a film called Coonskin, retitled for DVD as Streetfight - its a Ralph Bakshi effort, who also gave us a very bad animated interpretation of the Hobbit. I've seen pieces of Coonskin and wasn't very impressed but it did generate the same type of controversy - I found this descrtiptoin online: When the film was finished, a showing was planned at the Museum of Modern Art. In a 1980 interview, Bakshi stated, the museum had seen the film and loved it, a breakthrough in animation. They set up a very special night to screen it for film people.[1] The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) surrounded the building before anyone had seen it yet, in a protest led by Al Sharpton.[9] According to Bakshi, The room was filled, although there weren't many protesters from CORE there, eight or nine. Screaming, 'You can't watch this film!' People pulling people out of their seats. It was that kind of night. The audience was very frightened. They were being attacked verbally throughout the movie. People kept running up and down the aisles in pitch blackness.[1] In a 1982 interview, Bakshi stated I had finished the film on a Friday, I screened it in California for the museum on a Monday, and on Wednesday when I came to New York to screen it there were pickets there. I brought the film on the plane with me, and no one had seen it but my animators and two guys from the museum. But there were pickets there, shouting that the film was racist. I never saw anything so set up in my life, but the press never picked up on that.[1] Bakshi asked Sharpton why he didn't come in and see the movie. In response, Sharpton announced, I don't got to see shit; I can smell shit![9] In a 2008 interview, Bakshi stated that I called Sharpton a black middle-class fucking sell-out, and I’ll say it to his face. Al Sharpton is one of those guys who abused the revolution to support whatever it was he wanted.[14] According to Bakshi, [Sharpton] brought in some bruisers, and I could hear them asking, 'Should we beat him up or cool it?' 'Ah, let's watch the film.'[9] They were geared to dislike it says Bakshi. They were booing at the titles! I guess it was an easy target. Or they were paid to do it. I don't know. It was very unusual. They were booing at something they hadn't even seen. This was interesting to me.[3] After the screening, Bakshi states that Sharpton charged up to the screen, but people didn’t want to follow Sharpton up the aisle. His own men! He was screaming to me on the podium and turning around to them, saying, 'Are you guys coming up?' But they didn’t want to, because they loved the movie.[1 I do love the theme song written by Ralph Bakshi and performed by Scatman Crothers - if Scatman is ok with it, so am I. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgdMJDD6oYQ From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 8, 2012 6:19 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Do you trust the critics, or do you...uh...see the movie? This is not a continuation of the JudyApocalypto thang, merely a riff on that incident's real issue, and some musing about that phenomenon's relationship to spiritual practice. Would you feel that you knew enough about a movie to comment on it -- as if you were authoritative and knew what you were talking about -- if you'd only read a commentary on the movie, and never actually seen it? You'd be surprised at how many people would. I met a few of them once in front of a New York theater showing Martin Scorcese's The Last Temptation Of Christ. I was there to see the movie, on its opening day. They were there to picket the movie, waving signs that decried it as Anti-God and Blashemy! and Heresy! and The Work Of Satan. I'd arrived early, so instead of going straight in, I spent some time wandering around, talking to the picketers. In particular, I asked them whether they had ever seen the movie, or read the book by Nikos Kazantzakis on which it was based. I did not find a single picketer who had done either. They were there because some spiritual figure they trusted -- quite possibly their Catholic priest or bishop -- had told them that it was BAD. The picketers stayed outside picketing. I went inside. After all, I had read the book. Now I've seen the movie. I can speak somewhat authoritatively about both, having done so. I can, for example, say that I found both the book and the film to be among the most positively spiritual works I've ever read or seen. The picketers, on the other hand, would probably just as authoritatively still tell you that it's BAD. They *know* this because they were told it. They would never even *consider* actually seeing the movie they were picketing to find out about it, because they already know the Truth -- it's BAD. Go figure. Now segue to spirituality itself. Don't we find the same phenomenon there? There are, after all, millions and millions of
[FairfieldLife] Re: Weighing In
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: Dang Judy what took you so long! Let's see. Home life is pretty good. I mean three teenagers, but sheesh, not bad at all. Business problems? Cash flow is always an issue, but overall things have been pretty good. But yes, business is stressful. But no more than usual. Stomach troubles? I'll be honest Judy, I would really love to lose a few pounds, but eating is so satisfying. Consider the source, Steve. This is probably more projection, coming from someone who possibly hasn't had a day *without* stomach trouble in a long time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chron%27s_disease Just sayin'. Read the symptoms. They explain a great deal about what might make someone like this. Interesting. even if the disease is in remission... (There is no cure for Crohn's disease and remission may not be possible or prolonged if achieved. In cases where remission is possible, relapse can be prevented and symptoms controlled with medication, lifestyle and dietary changes, changes to eating habits (eating smaller amounts more often), reduction of stress, moderate activity and exercise, . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chron's_disease ) ...it could have led to a certain psychic meme, to an attitude which sees in combat and aggression its main objective. Screenwriter Dan O'Bannon died from complications surrounding his 33-year battle with Crohn's disease. As some have noted (including himself, below), its effect on his life and his psyche might have had a great deal to do with the famous scene he wrote in Alien in which an alien presence causes excruciating abdominal pain. From an article written by another Crohn's sufferer when the cause of O'Bannon's death was announced: What does Crohn's feel like? It feels like an alien is about to pop out of your guts. You think I'm exaggerating? You have no idea. ...back to Alien: I happened on Dan O'Bannon's obituary in the NY Times over the holiday. O'Bannon wrote the screenplay for Alien, as well as several other horror and science fiction films. O'Bannon also had Crohn's disease in fact, the obit quotes him as saying, the idea for the the monster in 'Alien' originally came from a stomachache I had. I've seen Alien a half-dozen times, and now it makes perfect sense: how I've wished the monster gnawing at my guts would just kill me and/or scamper away. Of course, most doctors will tell you that Crohn's is incurable but not terminal so it's notable that the obit states, the cause [of death] was Crohn's disease. That could mean any number of things, from surgical complications to sepsis to self-assisted euthanasia there are a lot of ways to die from Crohn's disease. But the fact that you might identify a proximate cause of death in no way changes the underlying cause of death; so when doctors say Crohn's isn't terminal, what they mean is that in theory you could live a normal lifespan, if you can just avoid all the different ways people with Crohn's disease die prematurely. Props to whomever named Mr. O'Bannon's cause of death for what it was. Sad though Mr. O'Bannon's passing is, I am at least grateful I can finally claim a movie for my disease. People with AIDS have Philadelphia, and people with ALD have Lorenzo's Oil but those of us with Crohn's? We have frickin' Alien and that's a pretty badass movie to have. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: I'm glad you've found a way to save face Raunchy. That's important. Sort of like when Ravi misuses a word, gets embarassed, and then finds some tertiary definition to make it look like he knew what he was talking about. You have become such a creep, Steve. Home life not going so well? Business problems? Stomach trouble? I completely missed raunchy's irony about the Portuguese song. (Sorry, raunchy!) But I don't have any problem admitting it. Something along these lines. Good times. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Yep, reading comprehension never was your strong suit, Steve. It's why Ravi calls you a fucking retard and ask I you to get your facts straight so you don't always sound like you don't know what you're talking about. Here's the scoop: Ann uses dancing as a metaphor for the part that everyone played in generating and perpetuating
[FairfieldLife] Back From the Edge
I found this video quite instructive about BPD, possibly explaining some things we observe here. Please don't see this as an attempt to denigrate anybody, this is not my intention. I just want to share a source of background information that could be helpful to understand, or judge a situation. I am very aware that there is always a graduation between what may be termed mentally sane, and some kind of disorder, and if such a disorder is actually the case, that this is not a reason for denigration. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=967Ckat7f98
[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgnQ1m7N3ss --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: Here, IMO, is how to maximize the chances of increasingly aligning oneself with the movement and intention of reality. 1. Look for the truth separated from your own subjective desire for what that truth should be, what you want that truth to be, what you insist that truth *will* be. 2. Pretend to take a position which is against your own position as you formulate your argument: How could I argue against what I am saying here with sincerity and intelligence? Become a devil's advocate for your own point of view--and do this *at every stage of the development of your argument*. 3. Consider that this conflict, dispute, disagreement *exists for the benefit of your own evolution* as a person; that the last thing to read it as is the means to fortify your standard and habitual point of view; but that instead this debate is to throw you into the unknown, to subvert your point of view, to undermine you and release some fresh understanding and experience into you so that you walk away from this encounter altered in some way. Turn the circumstance into one of personal growth and maturation as a person. Not, then, as the means to reinforcing the rightness of your own point of view. Winning as an object is inimical to this more creative way of proceeding. 4. Always try to see what really is going on inside your experience of quarrelling with someone: what does my reaction to this person tell me about myself? Why am I reacting the way I am? Do I have a choice about the reaction I am having to this person? What other point of view could I possibly have about this issue if I were someone other than myself? 5. Seek above all one experience and only one experience: the experience, sensation, feeling of reality touching one, stimulating one, informing one--to whatever extent this is possible--as one writes and argues. The experience of feeling isolated from reality, defending the citadel of self against everything that seems opposed to one: this is the very situation most to avoid. Why? Because the extent to which we are committed to this orientation is the extent to which reality can never gain entrance into our consciousness, so as to allow us to be moulded and shaped by reality. A glorious experience. 6. Look for, in argument, the highest experience you can get: concerns about triumph, your own ego, reputation, status: these are just the potential enemies of making contact with truth. Ultimately, in my opinion, the only philosophy which survives--and I believe will survive right through the experience of dying--is that philosophy whereby *one is willing to do anything in order to know and represent what the truth is*--but not conceptually, dogmatically; rather through experimental knowledge. *What reality wants one to know and experience as the truth*. This is purely experiential. But it is that extraordinary confluence of the objective and the subjective. 7. Consider then there are always three points of view extant in any argument between two parties: the point of view of one person; the point of view of the other person; and the point of view of reality. Meaningful conversation about topics where there is profound disagreement can only move forward if both diverging parties conceive of the possibility of bringing their point of view into alignment with that third point of view. I say that reality seeks to make each human being aware of this approach, and it is there for those willing to be humble and innocent enough to make contact with this living energy and grace. Now the question comes at this point: Robin, did you represent the point of view of reality in giving us this disquisition on how to conduct a debate about some controversial issue--like Raunchy's honour, the use of C word as it applies to three women on this forum, the TM credentials of Vaj, the validity of the defence by Curtis of his friend Sal? Well, that is the question: Is what I have written blatantly and ironically *Robin's own personal point of view* about reality's point of view, or is it indeed a fair and honest and more or less accurate representation of what reality would like to be known about its own point of view? For those who respond to this post necessarily--*from my own point of view*--put themselves into an experimental situation whereby it may become possible to make a determination of the viability and plausibility of my post.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG7IGiBJU4c --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: Okay Ravi, since you have accused me of slander, I will post your statement. Then advise if you wish to withdraw the charge of slander. One correction: The post was made on Batgap, not FFL From Batgap: Post 4466, Sunday May 16, 2010, 2:11 am Now she has her complete attention on me because of my energy..:-). I told her that she had to stop treating Amma as her guru and that I would be her Guru from today and she completely, innocently, with complete faith accepted it and I made her repeat it 3 times - I reject Amma and accept Ravi as my Guru..LOL.. Oh what a woman !!! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Steve baby - this is an example of why you are branded as an idiot. You can't even come up with something clever, pertinent, original, inventive, intelligent even while indulging in slander. On Dec 7, 2012, at 7:17 PM, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: Share, Always consider the source. As Ravi has said, much of his dysfunctionality is a matter of the public record, except for those posts (a considerable amount) he has managed to have expunged. He is on the record here, saying that he issued an ultimatum to his wife that she renounce Amma as her guru and instead accept him as her guru. So, as I've said, consider the source. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Share - I have to add, your posts to this thread have hilarious in their utter clueless-ness. You are not a person who has, so far shown any awareness, sensitivity, maturity - intellectual and/or emotional, intelligence to understand the nuances of any issue to be really compassionate. There is a difference between fake niceness and genuine compassion - in the absence of above your responses to Robin's posts come across as hilarious or malicious depending on my mood. I would say you are very much like Barry except he is overtly mean and you are not. Anyway I don't know what the sound of two paranoid, delusional people conversing is - I don't think it's possible, they are too..well paranoid and alike to get along with each other. So you are better off spending your time on FFL chatting to people like LG, Xeno and others if you don't want people to pile on you. On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 4:34 PM, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy, whatever the quality of Robin's intentions, they would have been under the influence of his self proclaimed state of mystical hallucination. Your ignoring, in relation to his intentions, that self proclamation of his Of course, I don't ignore it. You say that without having any idea of how I view this: You just made it up. Typical. I *disagree* that Robin's intentions would have been affected, made somehow negative, by his enlightenment. I see no reason why that would have been the case. You are taking delusion and hallucination too literally; those terms are only very roughly approximate, because there simply is no vocabulary to describe what happened to him. He himself has said his enlightenment was *real*, so there's obviously a paradoxical element to this that you haven't bothered to take into account. perpetuates an aspect of hallucination into the PRESENT and is not IMO helpful in the present. This is what I am addressing, the present. Yes, I know you are. Your sole interest is in finding ways to portray him negatively *in the present*, and you'll make up whatever metaphysical rules you need to in order to do that. Your perpetuate an aspect of hallucination into the PRESENT doesn't make any sense. *You* don't even know what you mean by it. You have a desperate need to make Robin a Bad Guy to justify the disgusting way you've behaved toward him. I stand by what I said. The negative intelligences that brought about Robin's enlightenment *used* his good intentions--and those of everyone in his group--to further their own goals. That did not turn them into *bad* intentions. The bad intentions were those of the negative intelligences that took advantage of his innocence, his idealism, his loving nature, his desire to help others be the best they could possibly be. Though I recognize that I've made some mistakes about all this and will probably do so again, I will continue to address issues if I think it is helpful to do so. Robin is a good and honorable man who treated you with
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: ... And just what do you get from publishing something someone wanted kept off-list? And why are you so free of embarrassment that you wouldn't want *this* kept off-list? We have private correspondence from all sorts of people in history. Rule 1. If you don't want a chance it will not be published, don't write it. The most secure method is verbal communication direct, without electronics or anyone else anywhere near, and even here someone can relate what they heard. Nothing is private unless only one person knows it. True, but that won't stop people judging you for breaking confidentiality. No-one likes a sneak who thinks their ego is more important than friendship. It's like shouting Don't trust me! to everyone who cares to read it. ... And just what do you get from publishing something someone wanted kept off-list? And why are you so free of embarrassment that you wouldn't want *this* kept off-list? We have private correspondence from all sorts of people in history. Rule 1. If you don't want a chance it will not be published, don't write it. The most secure method is verbal communication direct, without electronics or anyone else anywhere near, and even here someone can relate what they heard. Nothing is private unless only one person knows it. True, but that won't stop people judging you for breaking confidentiality. No-one likes a sneak who thinks their ego is more important than friendship. It's like shouting Don't trust me! to everyone who cares to read it. Salyavin: Look, Salyavin: I have explained myself in a very personal way to you. You at least owe me the good deed of considering what I had just said to you before replying to Xeno like this. Sometimes we act impulsively--without thinking: I meant that business about going into another state of consciousness (WC1) You obviously did not believe me. I did not even refer to that, just so I could take it upon myself to finally be responsible for what I did--And I must admit, here you did me a favour. But again: I have spent an entire post letting my feelings out so that you could know there is another way to see me other than just based on that one act. It's not a very nice experience to be told over and over again that one has acted against one's conscience. How about giving me a break, Salyavin? Um, Robin I replied to this before I read your posts.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Let's talk about the movie Apocalypto
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Please note that the only hysterical person here is the Judester herself, which she will hopefully demonstrate for us all later tonight. :-) Well, actually I'll demonstrate how hysterical Barry was all morning. By using up a day's worth of posts in the first couple of hours of the new posting week. You're referring to the two posts I made yesterday evening?? In response to the seven posts you made? Barry's mental decline is getting really serious now. Well, there was one more post of his I had intended to take apart in which he attempts to justify his disastrous crash-and-burn, but maybe I should just leave it be out of compassion. That was my whole intention, Jude. :-) I knew you'd have to double down on seeing nothing wrong with calling someone a Christian bigot on the basis of *a movie you'd never seen, and still have never seen*. But I also knew you'd feel your self image so threatened by the subject coming up again that you'd overcompensate and...uh...post away like a crazy person to do image repair and try to get the focus back on you again. You did. Mission accomplished. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@... wrote: I found this video quite instructive about BPD, possibly explaining some things we observe here. Please don't see this as an attempt to denigrate anybody, this is not my intention. I just want to share a source of background information that could be helpful to understand, or judge a situation. I am very aware that there is always a graduation between what may be termed mentally sane, and some kind of disorder, and if such a disorder is actually the case, that this is not a reason for denigration. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=967Ckat7f98 It would be instructive for khazana to explain what he observes on FFLife as a reason for posting a video about BPD. He's not naming names, he's just trying to help everyone understand that we shouldn't denegrate people with BPD when we judge them. I guess he means we should have pity on those who must not be named for having a disability. As soon as khazana either tells me or I figure out who on FFLife has BPD, I'll be sure to judge the person kindly based on armchair diagnosis. Once I have someone neatly in a BPD box it will make my life so much easier because I'll feel good about myself that I can prejudge them with a proper measure of compassion, and won't have to bother reading or take seriously anything they have to say.
[FairfieldLife] Re: For Emily: A Question for a Washington State Resident
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: Emily, Thanks for the info. It sounds like the procedures are still being drafted and implemented later. Once all the rules are set, it might give me an incentive to visit Seattle again. JR Pot is highly overrated. I figure anyone still smoking dope after the age of 16 needs to find a better hobby or a more demanding job or get a pet or something. (OK, I'm ready for the piling on.) Aw, come on, give us mid twenties at *least* before we lose some credibility, the party spirit is still going strong then! I'd worry about people smoking dope *before* the age of 16, it's the worst time to be screwing with the grey stuff - but it's very common. Kids at school on hyper strong skunk! It scares me how they'll end up, sunken eyed schizos without any doubt.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: For Emily: A Question for a Washington State Resident
On 12/08/2012 06:37 AM, awoelflebater wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: Emily, Thanks for the info. It sounds like the procedures are still being drafted and implemented later. Once all the rules are set, it might give me an incentive to visit Seattle again. JR Pot is highly overrated. I figure anyone still smoking dope after the age of 16 needs to find a better hobby or a more demanding job or get a pet or something. (OK, I'm ready for the piling on.) I think the issue is that throwing people in jail or prison for possessing or using a rather innocuous herb is a bit insane. We know from history it was made illegal because as something they could arrest people who might disagree with their politics and keep them out of the way. If coffee were discovered today it would be made a controlled substance. Same with sugar. Our drug laws don't address the problem. In 1971 I played a concert for inmates at the Washington State Penitentiary. I talked with guys around my age who were inmates there because they got caught with joint or a bag of pot. They were bright individuals living a terrified life at that institution because so wackjob politician though it a good idea to make marijuana illegal. I would further say there is evidence that the reason marijuana legalization hasn't happened earlier is our corrupt political system where drug dealers pay off politicians to keep their source of revenue viable. Because once legalized the drug dealer's game goes away.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Do you trust the critics, or do you...uh...see the movie?
On 12/08/2012 03:19 AM, turquoiseb wrote: This is not a continuation of the JudyApocalypto thang, merely a riff on that incident's real issue, and some musing about that phenomenon's relationship to spiritual practice. Would you feel that you knew enough about a movie to comment on it -- as if you were authoritative and knew what you were talking about -- if you'd only read a commentary on the movie, and never actually seen it? You'd be surprised at how many people would. I met a few of them once in front of a New York theater showing Martin Scorcese's The Last Temptation Of Christ. I was there to see the movie, on its opening day. They were there to picket the movie, waving signs that decried it as Anti-God and Blashemy! and Heresy! and The Work Of Satan. I'd arrived early, so instead of going straight in, I spent some time wandering around, talking to the picketers. In particular, I asked them whether they had ever seen the movie, or read the book by Nikos Kazantzakis on which it was based. I did not find a single picketer who had done either. They were there because some spiritual figure they trusted -- quite possibly their Catholic priest or bishop -- had told them that it was BAD. The picketers stayed outside picketing. I went inside. After all, I had read the book. Now I've seen the movie. I can speak somewhat authoritatively about both, having done so. I can, for example, say that I found both the book and the film to be among the most positively spiritual works I've ever read or seen. The picketers, on the other hand, would probably just as authoritatively still tell you that it's BAD. They *know* this because they were told it. They would never even *consider* actually seeing the movie they were picketing to find out about it, because they already know the Truth -- it's BAD. Go figure. Now segue to spirituality itself. Don't we find the same phenomenon there? There are, after all, millions and millions of people on this planet for whom spiritual experience is hearsay. They're basing everything they feel that they know on what they were TOLD about a spiritual figure, and about his/her experiences, and about what they meant. In very few cases is there any personal subjective experience to back up what they were TOLD. But they're more than willing to tell you -- rather authoritatively -- about these things they've only been TOLD about, and never experienced themselves. They'll tell you all about the miracles that a friend of a friend of someone another friend met on a course has assured you their teacher performed. They'll tell you how perfect he was, never having met him. Go figure. Me, I'm more of a you have to have been there kinda guy. I'm gonna see the movie. :-) Most of the time I don't even *read* critics and commentators on films. One reason for this is that I sometimes write reviews myself, and don't want my impressions to be tainted by having read other people's impressions. Another is that I don't want them to spoil the experience for me. I want to buy the ticket and buy the popcorn and enjoy the ride myself. *After* I've seen the movie I may read other people's commentaries about it, and nod when I agree with them and shrug when I don't. That's the same way I am these days with spiritual books. I tend to read them only after I've already had the experience they're discussing, to see how our impressions jibe, or don't. Go figure. More addressing the title, I've mentioned before that film critics often don't get several genres and I often have to see those for myself. Principally a lot of them don't get science fiction, horror or . spiritual films. Now that may have changed a little in recent years as younger critics grew up being fans of Star Trek and other science fiction and even horror genre. But they may also be a little weak in the spiritual department. In the 1970s I noted that one Seattle up and coming film critic made bad calls on science fiction films. The bass player I worked with had a relatives who leased the Neptune theater in the University District and he was invited to attend distributor showings which are the showings for booking films and where many critics see a film in advance (nowadays they send them DVD and maybe even Bluray screeners). He happened to discuss this issue with said critic at a showing and indeed the critic admitted he didn't get science fiction films. Also with this genre a lot of American for some reason want to see certain things in these kinds of films or they are not good. Netflix, IMDB, Redbox and a lot of other sites allow for critical comments and ratings of films. I don't know how many times I've seen a film rated 1 star because it didn't fit these peoples preconceived notion of what the film should be. In some cases I've posted a 3 or 4 star rating because these dummies didn't get it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Salyavin1: Jesus, you are one pompous, sanctimonios, self-righteous windbag aren't you. No need for professional qualifications to work that out! Robin2: This could not be true, salyavin. I really believe you are wrong about me. I am none of the things you accuse me of being based on this post. There must be some misunderstanding here; I am willing to look at myself very carefully because no one has ever levelled these charges against me before. I am an intense, friendly intelligent, nice guy. How could I be pompous, sanctimonious, self-righteous--and a windbag! That's certainly is not me, Salyavin. What could be the problem here? I am telling you straight-out: I am none of these things. You must believe me--again: I AM NOT THIS. Salyavin2:That's how you come across in this here letter old chap, maybe you want to take a look at that. Or at least provide sick bags if you intend publishing private e-mails with such cloying over-sentimentality again. Robin3: Look, Salyavin, I thought by acknowledging what I had done (and sort of defending myself at the same time) you would lay off. Now you are coming at me again. Have you never made a fool of yourself--EVER--in your life? I did something here (and I grant that you have exposed me for my cloying over-sentimentality--you called me other names before, so at least I should thank you for being a little easier on me now--and I do) that drew your criticism. I have done my very best to make you understand me. I would appreciate it if you would not just keep persecuting me. If you stop this, Salyavin, know that I will always keep in mind what you have said to me before I go and do something like that again. I hope you at least understand me better this time. Salyavin2: But I'll change self-righteous to self-important though if that helps the ol' self image a bit. Seems a bit fairer now. Robin3: You have no idea how much more reasonable this word is--I know it took some pity on your part for you to change the word--but it means everything to me, Salyavin. I won't forget this. For me, this is sort of a moment when we are moving closer to one another. At least here in Canada this is how one would interpret your gesture here. Thank you. Robin2: *Now* do you believe me? You should, Salyavin, because you are really missing out on something if you think of me in these terms. My perception of myself does not accord with your perception--but I am not going to try to change your mind--You just have to accept my word for it. Inside the context I was writing, what I said here made perfect sense. But if I am pompous, sanctimonious, and self-righteous--and a windbag IT'S NEWS TO ME. How could this be true if I have gone 68 years and no one has ever said I was that? I didn't get no followers because I was a windbag--especially the version you describe here. Salyavin2: I don't believe you. Robin3: Disappointing, this, Salyavin. I feel we have taken (actually YOU have taken) a step backward, just when I felt there was some common understanding here. I hope this is not a sign of things to come (in the rest of your post). But I will keep reading. Perhaps my writing to you a second time (that is a big deal, I think: that I would consider it so important--what we are discussing here--that I would write to you once yet again) will soften you and you will take this back. I mean what you say here. I don't believe you. Well, I believe you believe this when you say it. So I have got that far. But I can go no further, Salyavin. Am I making sense here? I know I am in my heart. The one thing I must avoid is sentimentality. Probably I should just not say anymore here and move on. This is what I am going to do. Robin2: Please, Salyavin, let us give this another go. There must be some mistake here. Have you considered the possibility you are misperceiving me? Salyavin2: I'd poke my own eyes out before writing Remember, Salyavin loves you... to someone I never even met. Robin3: That seems extreme to me. But I think I can get something from it--How so? Because this is the line I will remember whenever I get a little too sentimental. Now I really think I understand, Salyavin: this was the most powerful moment in our exchange. I appreciate this, Salyavin. (I'd poke my eyes out--Whew--that is what Oedipus did, as you know.) Salyavin2: No, your letter here is too flowery, I've met people with your MO before - all excess flattery and artificial charm - maybe some get off on that but not me, it rings all the alarm bells that someone isn't being straight. I doubt you're even being straight here but I'll play along.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do you trust the critics, or do you...uh...see the movie?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: More addressing the title, I've mentioned before that film critics often don't get several genres and I often have to see those for myself. Principally a lot of them don't get science fiction, horror or . spiritual films. Now that may have changed a little in recent years as younger critics grew up being fans of Star Trek and other science fiction and even horror genre. But they may also be a little weak in the spiritual department. Either that, or it holds no interest for them. That is the way I am these days about most horror films. There is so little there there that it isn't worth investing any of my time in seeing something that is merely a repetition of old cliches. Unless the film does something to either play with those cliches or play off of them (like The Cabin in the Woods), I rarely find myself interested enough in the film to bother with it. Some critics may feel the same way about SciFi, and about anything spiritual. In the 1970s I noted that one Seattle up and coming film critic made bad calls on science fiction films. The bass player I worked with had a relatives who leased the Neptune theater in the University District and he was invited to attend distributor showings which are the showings for booking films and where many critics see a film in advance (nowadays they send them DVD and maybe even Bluray screeners). He happened to discuss this issue with said critic at a showing and indeed the critic admitted he didn't get science fiction films. Well, they require more of a suspension of disbelief than many films, and many people aren't good at that unless they have a predilection in that direction already. As a corollary, I find it near-to-impossible to get interested in angst films that, for me, stray into the realm of sappy drama queenery. Suffice it to say that makes me *not* a fan of most Italian films and a few French ones. :-) Not to mention the American films that have more of a Lifetime network mentality than an American Beauty mentality. It's not that I don't get those films, it's that they simply don't do anything for me. It's like watching people wallow in their misery and overindulge in the afflictive emotions. In my youth, I would have had no problem with drama queeny films, because -- being young -- I was probably one myself. Now, not so much. Pure, honest emotion, *not* used to suck in a jaded audience by going for the melodramatic or sappy...no problem. But the sappy shit...I say save it for those who still get off on that sorta stuff. Also with this genre a lot of American for some reason want to see certain things in these kinds of films or they are not good. Netflix, IMDB, Redbox and a lot of other sites allow for critical comments and ratings of films. I don't know how many times I've seen a film rated 1 star because it didn't fit these peoples preconceived notion of what the film should be. In some cases I've posted a 3 or 4 star rating because these dummies didn't get it. I've done the same thing. It's a matter of learning what the boundaries of one's taste are and following them, as far as I'm concerned. After all, the crappy films (of any genre) wouldn't still be being made if there weren't a perceived market for them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Opportunity for Judy to apologize for having been WRONG
Oh, this is fun. *This* hysterical outburst of Barry's is based on his misconception that the FFL post-numbering sequence at the Mail Archive site (which is independent of the Yahoo archive) corresponds to Yahoo's. It does not. He didn't even notice the discrepancy in dates. The post he deleted was made on December 21, 2006; the one in the Mail Archive he *claims* is the deleted post--because it has the same number as did the deleted Yahoo post--was made on June 6, 2008. Here's the post (Yahoo #126412) that Barry deleted shortly after he made it (but not before I'd seen it): http://www.mail-archive.com/fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com/msg79437.html http://tinyurl.com/a3qbc5q I do have to apologize for saying he called the film he hadn't seen stupid, though. I'd only read the post once before he deleted it, so I couldn't check to make sure I was remembering it correctly. Actually he referred to Inland Empire as this mess of a film by a TMer, imaginatively putting words in Lawson's mouth: I live in France. I am *used* to reviewers 'seeing' some- thing profound in a film that is basically a mess and says nothing, for the primary purpose of trying to get readers to believe that the reviewer is intelligent and they are not. *That* is understandable, if a little pathetic. More pathetic is the person who says, essentially, 'Look at this, all you stupid people...here is a review that says that this mess of a film by a TMer is brilliant. Therefore TM is a good thing and you are all stupid.' *That* is why you posted this review. (He did use the word stupid, twice, but it was how he imagined Lawson referring to FFL readers.) This was in response to Lawson having posted a link to a favorable review of Inland Empire from L.A. Weekly. Barry must have decided he was being, um, overly reactive, especially since he hadn't seen the film. Too bad, Barry, I know your heart must have leaped for joy when you thought you had found something else to bash me with. And now it turns out you had just made yet another STOPID mistake. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Having suckered Judy into uber-defensive-gotta-do- anything-I-can-to-repair-my-image mode and pissing away a day's worth of posts in a couple of hours, let's see if we can do it again, eh? :-) Back when the issue of her commenting on movies she had never seen came up, Judy tried to say that I had done the same thing, calling David Lynch's film Inland Empire stupid without seeing it. I did not. What I *did* was to comment on extensive clips from the movie that I *had* seen. Judy, back then: Unlike Barry, who pronounced judgment on Lynch's film, calling it stupid, without having seen it, I don't critique the quality of films I haven't seen. Barry, also back then: Now we get to the FUN part. I challenge what's- her-name to come up with a quote here on Fairfield Life in which I referred to David Lynch's Inland Empire as stupid. I just looked, and as far as I can tell, I never commented on the film itself at all. What I did was comment on a supposed excerpt from the film that was placed on the Net and suggest that if it was representative of the final film itself, I was underwhelmed and wasn't going to bother with it. I said many other even stronger things about the clip, but I don't think the word stupid was in them. That would have been an unnecessary slur on the concept of stupidity. What's-her-name is probably confused as to what I said and what I said it about because she never bothered to look at that film clip EITHER before commenting on it. :-) Judy, unable to come up with such a post, claimed that she HAD, TOO really seen a post in which I called Lynch's film stupid. DID, DID, DID, DID. :-) She then further claimed that the reason she couldn't produce the quote was *because I had deleted it*. Judy: As Barry knows, he's made this impossible, because he deleted the post in which he said it shortly after he made it--but not before I'd seen it. The post dumped on Lawson for defending, before seeing the film, what Barry then referred to as a stupid movie--although he hadn't seen it yet either. (And Lawson hadn't even been defending the film, only the creativity of the test film available on YouTube, which he *had* seen.) See post #126474 from me concerning this incident. Not surprisingly, Barry chose not to reply to it. (Note that I said I had seen it early morning Wednesday; I meant early morning Thursday. The missing post is #126412.) I replied, at the time: I had forgotten the level of paranoia and insanity I was dealing with. My apologies to FFL for having made that mistake, yet again. Now for the pièce de résistance. :-) This is the post that Judy claims I wrote and then deleted, retrieved by post number from the archives. (Even if
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Salyavin1: Jesus, you are one pompous, sanctimonios, self-righteous windbag aren't you. No need for professional qualifications to work that out! Robin2: This could not be true, salyavin. I really believe you are wrong about me. I am none of the things you accuse me of being based on this post. There must be some misunderstanding here; I am willing to look at myself very carefully because no one has ever levelled these charges against me before. I am an intense, friendly intelligent, nice guy. How could I be pompous, sanctimonious, self-righteous--and a windbag! That's certainly is not me, Salyavin. What could be the problem here? I am telling you straight-out: I am none of these things. You must believe me--again: I AM NOT THIS. Salyavin2:That's how you come across in this here letter old chap, maybe you want to take a look at that. Or at least provide sick bags if you intend publishing private e-mails with such cloying over-sentimentality again. Robin3: Look, Salyavin, I thought by acknowledging what I had done (and sort of defending myself at the same time) you would lay off. Now you are coming at me again. Have you never made a fool of yourself--EVER--in your life? I did something here (and I grant that you have exposed me for my cloying over-sentimentality--you called me other names before, so at least I should thank you for being a little easier on me now--and I do) that drew your criticism. I have done my very best to make you understand me. I would appreciate it if you would not just keep persecuting me. If you stop this, Salyavin, know that I will always keep in mind what you have said to me before I go and do something like that again. I hope you at least understand me better this time. Salyavin2: But I'll change self-righteous to self-important though if that helps the ol' self image a bit. Seems a bit fairer now. Robin3: You have no idea how much more reasonable this word is--I know it took some pity on your part for you to change the word--but it means everything to me, Salyavin. I won't forget this. For me, this is sort of a moment when we are moving closer to one another. At least here in Canada this is how one would interpret your gesture here. Thank you. Robin2: *Now* do you believe me? You should, Salyavin, because you are really missing out on something if you think of me in these terms. My perception of myself does not accord with your perception--but I am not going to try to change your mind--You just have to accept my word for it. Inside the context I was writing, what I said here made perfect sense. But if I am pompous, sanctimonious, and self-righteous--and a windbag IT'S NEWS TO ME. How could this be true if I have gone 68 years and no one has ever said I was that? I didn't get no followers because I was a windbag--especially the version you describe here. Salyavin2: I don't believe you. Robin3: Disappointing, this, Salyavin. I feel we have taken (actually YOU have taken) a step backward, just when I felt there was some common understanding here. I hope this is not a sign of things to come (in the rest of your post). But I will keep reading. Perhaps my writing to you a second time (that is a big deal, I think: that I would consider it so important--what we are discussing here--that I would write to you once yet again) will soften you and you will take this back. I mean what you say here. I don't believe you. Well, I believe you believe this when you say it. So I have got that far. But I can go no further, Salyavin. Am I making sense here? I know I am in my heart. The one thing I must avoid is sentimentality. Probably I should just not say anymore here and move on. This is what I am going to do. Robin2: Please, Salyavin, let us give this another go. There must be some mistake here. Have you considered the possibility you are misperceiving me? Salyavin2: I'd poke my own eyes out before writing Remember, Salyavin loves you... to someone I never even met. Robin3: That seems extreme to me. But I think I can get something from it--How so? Because this is the line I will remember whenever I get a little too sentimental. Now I really think I understand, Salyavin: this was the most powerful moment in our exchange. I appreciate this, Salyavin. (I'd poke my eyes out--Whew--that is what Oedipus did, as you know.) Salyavin2: No, your letter here is too flowery, I've met people with your MO before - all excess flattery and
[FairfieldLife] Bogus Fiscal Cliff Screws the Working Class
Obama is about to give away the farm...again. Ezra Klein reports Obama is negotiating a 37% tax rate for the upper earners and a raise in the Medicare eligibility age. I had hoped Obama would give us a reason for voting for him but no. He's going to screw us before the inauguration. Krugman: Second, why on earth would Obama be selling Medicare away to raise top tax rates when he gets a big rate rise on January 1 just by doing nothing? And no, vague promises about closing loopholes won't do it: a rate rise is the real deal, no questions, and should not be traded away for who knows what. So this looks crazy to me; it looks like a deal that makes no sense either substantively or in terms of the actual bargaining strength of the parties. And if it does happen, the disillusionment on the Democratic side would be huge. All that effort to reelect Obama, and the first thing he does is give away two years of Medicare? How's that going to play in future attempts to get out the vote? http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/i-hope-this-isnt-true/ David Dayen, Firedoglake: The one thing we know will be a side effect of increasing the Medicare eligibility age is that insurance premiums will skyrocket. It will make Medicare more expensive because they lose relatively healthy 65 and 66 year-olds from their risk pool, and it will make private insurance more expensive because they add relatively sick 65 and 66 year-olds to their risk pool. Insurers hate the idea for just this reason. As a result, everyone's premiums will rise, and cost-shifting will ensue from the government to its citizens. People with busy lives don't differentiate between what provisions in health care can be attributed to the Affordable Care Act and what provisions come from a fiscal deal. They'll just know that the ACA got implemented in 2014, and as a result their insurance rates jumped. Let the Republicans go over the fiscal cliff. On January 1 lower the tax rate on the working class and then make the Tea Party look like idiots if they argue against lower taxes. We don't need to touch Medicare. Just raise the cap on Social Security.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: I found this video quite instructive about BPD, possibly explaining some things we observe here. Please don't see this as an attempt to denigrate anybody, this is not my intention. I just want to share a source of background information that could be helpful to understand, or judge a situation. I am very aware that there is always a graduation between what may be termed mentally sane, and some kind of disorder, and if such a disorder is actually the case, that this is not a reason for denigration. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=967Ckat7f98 It would be instructive for khazana to explain what he observes on FFLife as a reason for posting a video about BPD. Oh, he couldn't be posting it with reference to anybody on FFL. Nobody with any sense would think a personality disorder, or even a tendency toward a personality disorder, could be diagnosed from posts on an Internet forum, especially by a layperson. He must be thinking that some FFLers probably have people in their personal lives who have been diagnosed with BPD and could make use of a little additional understanding. Really very compassionate and helpful of him. He's not naming names, he's just trying to help everyone understand that we shouldn't denegrate people with BPD when we judge them. I guess he means we should have pity on those who must not be named for having a disability. As soon as khazana either tells me or I figure out who on FFLife has BPD, I'll be sure to judge the person kindly based on armchair diagnosis. Once I have someone neatly in a BPD box it will make my life so much easier because I'll feel good about myself that I can prejudge them with a proper measure of compassion, and won't have to bother reading or take seriously anything they have to say.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: You are funny Robin, I'll give you that Oh, you mean I was funny--*and didn't know it*. More sarcasm, then, Salyavin? No Robin, not more sarcasm, you have a nice turn of phrase and I can see a few questions there you'd like serious answers to but I was just cooking me dinner and thought I'd pay your playfulness a compliment, and just kind of let you know I had read the post. Or am I being paranoid here? You may have earned the right to feel paranoid today. I didn't feel funny when I read your blistering attack on me. That was NOT funny. But if funny came in somewhere here (where, specifically, you will have to show me), then I guess that's good. I don't take myself seriously after WC1--although having discovered this state before anyone else, there will be persons who will look askance at that term--and say: I don't believe Robin was ever in WC1--*some day*, that is. Future (when others have 'slipped into WC1'--for me, it was through a kind of violent means). I think just to leave that word funny as it is. Ambiguous. It could mean just about anything. But certainly it was not funny that I posted that letter. We are clear about that--as is dear feste. But that it ended in merriment, somehow (assuming you are not being ironic here)--that's seems rather a nice ending, don't you think? Albion retribution, then transnational humour. Hey! We here in Canada stayed true to the King. Remember that. All I know, Salyavin, is you took me places--and I am better for it. Robin
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: For Emily: A Question for a Washington State Resident
Throwing people in jail for such that you mention below *is* exactly the issue for me. The amount of money it costs us taxpayers and the damage done to the individual from being in jail far outweigh the crime. Pot is far less dangerous than alcohol in terms of its potential to kill oneself and others, and Ann, there are definite benefits for those that suffer severe pain, nausea from chemotherapy for example, glaucoma (from what I've heard), etc. Better than getting addicted to pain pills or alcohol. One must think about the relative harm. I am a proponent of the research on how to get the benefits from the plant without the high - most adults that need it for pain have no interest in the negative side effects. The conflict between federal law and voters/State's rights will be interesting to see play out here in WA. It's a tough one and I don't think anyone knows how to proceed. We tax cigarettes and alcohol and have normalized them with education in the schools, we have sex education, why not add marijuana to the list? Making it a taboo and a crime and a moral issue by default just destroys lives. Teens experiment - look at all the deaths from car wrecks due to alcohol. Marijuana isn't going away and responsible education on its effects and regulation would be a far better solution than filling our jails. From: Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 8, 2012 9:28 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: For Emily: A Question for a Washington State Resident On 12/08/2012 06:37 AM, awoelflebater wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: Emily, Thanks for the info. It sounds like the procedures are still being drafted and implemented later. Once all the rules are set, it might give me an incentive to visit Seattle again. JR Pot is highly overrated. I figure anyone still smoking dope after the age of 16 needs to find a better hobby or a more demanding job or get a pet or something. (OK, I'm ready for the piling on.) I think the issue is that throwing people in jail or prison for possessing or using a rather innocuous herb is a bit insane. We know from history it was made illegal because as something they could arrest people who might disagree with their politics and keep them out of the way. If coffee were discovered today it would be made a controlled substance. Same with sugar. Our drug laws don't address the problem. In 1971 I played a concert for inmates at the Washington State Penitentiary. I talked with guys around my age who were inmates there because they got caught with joint or a bag of pot. They were bright individuals living a terrified life at that institution because so wackjob politician though it a good idea to make marijuana illegal. I would further say there is evidence that the reason marijuana legalization hasn't happened earlier is our corrupt political system where drug dealers pay off politicians to keep their source of revenue viable. Because once legalized the drug dealer's game goes away.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The End of the World as we Know It
Thanks Susan, you are right that my question missed the bottom line. Given that most of the population in the world lives on the edges of continents, I see a complete redistribution of our population patterns coming, eventually. I don't think we have as much control as we think we do at this point and although we, as a species, should take it all very seriously, I believe we will, as a species be forced to adapt to die, as it has always been. Nature is far more powerful than are we. From: Susan waybac...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 4:12 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The End of the World as we Know It --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@ wrote: Emily - just catching up on the last day or so on FFL. Most scientists agree that we humans have made climate change happen much faster than it would have otherwise - at the very least we have a big part in the process. Whether we would be going thru some cyclical, natural climate change without humans on the planet is a question that, from what I understand, no one can answer. But it is not the rigth question - because there is no doubt from scientists that our actions, greenhouse gas release etc are making this happen more intensely and faster. Whether we are the sole cause or simply making it all happen faster and bigger, does not matter any more. We have to slow this down or things will be very bad for us all. At this point, the question is can we slow this down, and if so, how? If we as a planet changed how we live, things would be much better than they are going to be if we don't. But it requires major major changes in lifestyle to make much of a difference. That will not happen. So some genius science invention is the answer. Even if we change our lifestyles now the changes will continue for some time (not sure for how long). The stuff is in the air already and it is hard to go backward. There is the concept of a tipping point beyond which the changes will be inevitable and happen very very fast indeed. That tipping point is considered to be when the methane gases that are stored in tundra and underneath the seabeds is released in huge bubbles and bursts. There is tons and tons and tons of that stored. The warming of the seas will cause it to be released in vast quantities. Then things will change very very fast indeed and be unstoppable. Like a landslide. I don't mean to sound negative, but this is my understanding from what I have read. The melting of the ice at the polar caps that is happening and allowing shipping in once frozen waters - that's what is the first stage of the release of the methane stored in the tundra up there. Methane release in tundra is already happening. An article from almost 3 years ago: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/14/arctic-permafrost-methane Yes, it is already happening, faster and faster. Thanks for the link, Xeno. Oy So, we need brilliant scientists to work on how to counteract greenhouse gases that already are in the air and those that will be released, or to develop ways to take the heat out of the atmosphere (seeding clouds with tiny mirrors to reflect sunlight away from earth is one such project). There are people researching these things, but they worry that their solutions may affect our climate in other, unforseen ways that could also wreak havoc. This is THE issue for the planet and unless it is somehow corrected, not much else is going to be important. Life will change dramatically. I hold great hope for the scientists, but it is a race against time. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Dear Buck, Please note that the grass is NOT greener on the other side of the fence. It just appears that way. Sincerely, The grass on the other side of the fence We done this to ourselves burning fossil fuels. Look at the 70 unit coal trains per day roaring through Fairfield to points east and coming back again empty every day. That black coal is carbon, beautiful nearly pure carbon. Where do you think it goes at that rate of 70 trains full a day? It is kind of elementary science. There should not even be a debate. The question now is what are we going to do about it? Plant wheat or soybeans? Which one is more drought resistant and provides more food? I got 50 acres I need to plant. It is a real question. Would seeding hay pasture and alfalfa even take in a dry hot year like last year again? The ground subsoil water is not re-charging. The People who
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@... wrote: I found this video quite instructive about BPD, possibly explaining some things we observe here. Please don't see this as an attempt to denigrate anybody, this is not my intention. I just want to share a source of background information that could be helpful to understand, or judge a situation. I am very aware that there is always a graduation between what may be termed mentally sane, and some kind of disorder, and if such a disorder is actually the case, that this is not a reason for denigration. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=967Ckat7f98 One thing we know, khazana: psychology and psychiatry have penetrated the mystique of mental illness. Two thousand years ago, God (as Jesus) seemed to indicate it was caused by demons; well we know he was wrong. Still, I feel there is a ways to go in making me feel that persons who are psychotic--apart from pharmacological remedies--have the hope of a full recovery based upon what Freud figured out--and everyone after him. I feel a mental patient defeats the powers of human knowledge. He is metaphysically isolated where nothing can reach him/her. At least this is very often the case. My own experience and observation is that, as acrimonious as things get on FFL, I haven't sensed anyone who seems unbalanced in the way that is pertinent to this video. People seem obtuse, invulnerable, stupid, petty, biassed, and naive (I like thinking of my adversaries like this: it always helps), but unhealthy mentally? I haven't seen any sign of this, khazana. And if you have, then that just proves how superficial psychology really is in its attempts to describe the human soul. I think if any poster was truly sick in this way, all of us would sense this. And we would be merciful. No matter what names persons are called around here, the aggression and vehemence with which this is done is incompatible with any real belief in what is being said--else there would be, instead of this hostility, some form of compensation for that person. People who attempt to bring in mental illness on this forum are always persons who are using that as a weapon to protect themselves against the challenge that person or persons poses to them. You don't get angry at someone who has lost touch with reality. So, until we collectively feel some form of compassion for a single poster here, I think we can assume that your video has absolutely no relevance whatsoever. Although I am aware of Alex's posting of reaction formation. Acutely aware of it. Starbucks invitation still stands. Robin
[FairfieldLife] Re: Weighing In
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: snip Stomach troubles? I'll be honest Judy, I would really love to lose a few pounds, but eating is so satisfying. Consider the source, Steve. This is probably more projection, coming from someone who possibly hasn't had a day *without* stomach trouble in a long time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chron%27s_disease Just sayin'. Read the symptoms. They explain a great deal about what might make someone like this. Interesting. even if the disease is in remission... When it's in complete remission, as mine has been for more than 10 years, it's actually quite boring: no symptoms at all. The only interesting thing about it is how expensive the medication is that keeps it in remission. (There is no cure for Crohn's disease and remission may not be possible or prolonged if achieved. In cases where remission is possible, relapse can be prevented and symptoms controlled with medication, lifestyle and dietary changes, changes to eating habits (eating smaller amounts more often), reduction of stress, moderate activity and exercise, . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chron's_disease ) I'm very fortunate. I haven't needed to make any lifestyle or dietary adjustments either. ...it could have led to a certain psychic meme, to an attitude which sees in combat and aggression its main objective. giggle No, it couldn't have. I was just as combative before I ever came down with it. So much effort today, khazana, for so little reward. I really feel for you. How's your tummy, by the way? Been bothering you lately?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do you trust the critics, or do you...uh...see the movie?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: Me too. This is a fundamental spiritual policy: See the guy, do the practice (if it's a about practice), or go to the place. Form your own judgment. Btw. I followed you recommendation to see Cloud Atlas, and I really enjoyed it. Great film. Thanks, but that probably wasn't me. Methinks it might have been. Isn't this you? Post #326452 I think that's the post I read, but then I also read some posts of Bhairitu, and the very first post of Barry mentioning the movie before it came out. That is he got me hooked on even half a year earlier. Now, wait Ann, just to confirm our theory, did YOU see it, and do you have an opinion about it, or are you just being bored and want to talk to somebody? I think she was pointing out that Barry had made *yet another mistake*. What was your theory, again?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: You are funny Robin, I'll give you that Oh, you mean I was funny--*and didn't know it*. More sarcasm, then, Salyavin? No Robin, not more sarcasm, you have a nice turn of phrase and I can see a few questions there you'd like serious answers to but I was just cooking me dinner and thought I'd pay your playfulness a compliment, and just kind of let you know I had read the post. Or am I being paranoid here? You may have earned the right to feel paranoid today. Ah, Salyavin being as subtle as it gets. I like this. Don't post anything which ignores this level of your wit--PLEASE. You have set the bar now. Don't ignore the Salyavin who gets represented in this perfect rejoinder. I love it. First time you have scored. Unless you meant something else than I thought you meant--this comment resists understanding almost successfully--so I thought I got it. But if it was a putdown of me, then I am confused, Salyavin. Let's just keep it funny from now on, OK? This is all in the attempt to act as a deterrent next time you want to go after me for some outrageous act I perform on FFL. I am thinking that You may have earned the right to feel paranoid today could mean something less complimentary than I first thought. Or is that my paranoia coming through? Hey, Salyavin: let's just drop this whole thing. I am going to be a nice guy from now on. It's all about that Negative Capability thing--which feste knows all about. I like Keats. I like Hopkins more. Time for me to shut up. My problem: I take things so damn seriously. Honest. Being as funny as I can be, Robin I didn't feel funny when I read your blistering attack on me. That was NOT funny. But if funny came in somewhere here (where, specifically, you will have to show me), then I guess that's good. I don't take myself seriously after WC1--although having discovered this state before anyone else, there will be persons who will look askance at that term--and say: I don't believe Robin was ever in WC1--*some day*, that is. Future (when others have 'slipped into WC1'--for me, it was through a kind of violent means). I think just to leave that word funny as it is. Ambiguous. It could mean just about anything. But certainly it was not funny that I posted that letter. We are clear about that--as is dear feste. But that it ended in merriment, somehow (assuming you are not being ironic here)--that's seems rather a nice ending, don't you think? Albion retribution, then transnational humour. Hey! We here in Canada stayed true to the King. Remember that. All I know, Salyavin, is you took me places--and I am better for it. Robin
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: Then talk TO him, don't talk ABOUT him. Grow a spine and address people directly, not through others. Put yourself out there where it can be a little bit scary and take a chance. Your hazy generalizations of how sorry you are or how misunderstood or how silly you think you can be at times just aren't cutting the mustard. Get out the steak knife and go for some real meat. Stop playing the damsel and GET REAL. You don't think I 'm going to take flak for this post? But at least I'm telling you how I really feel and showing you who I am, it doesn't come without consequences (especially here). Just look at the invective Robin is getting dealt right now. Now shit or get off the pot, woman. Ann, these are certainly nice sentiments. But real dialogue is generally in short supply here. And really, I don't know if I would identify Ravi as one with whom one could have a meaningful dialogue. Hmm. Ann doesn't seem to be saying anything about dialogue per se. Maybe you should read what she wrote again?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Global Country
The Global Country of World Peace is a nation without borders promoting unity in consciousness and the reduction of the narrow nationalism that divides humanity from humanity. It is a home for peace-loving people everywhere. The domain of the Global Country of World Peace is CONSCIOUSNESSthe prime mover of lifethe ground state of natural law, the field of all possibilities. The Global Country of World Peace is a non-political, non-religious global organization and does not usurp any of the functions of existing governments, nor does it replace them in any way. Research shows that even a small number of experts in spiritual meditation technologies of consciousness can reduce conflict and social stress and transform the trends of time towards a new era of peace and prosperity for their nation and the entire world family.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT
Share, do you very much regret having hurt mine, given that you assigned me to a cult, refused to discuss on what basis you did this, and completely dismissed and ignored me telling you how it was making me feel? From: Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 8, 2012 4:40 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT Thank you Steve for all your support. Hope you and family are well and happy. I very much regret having hurt Ravi's feelings. From: seventhray1 lurkernomore20002...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 9:17 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT Share, Always consider the source. As Ravi has said, much of his dysfunctionality is a matter of the public record, except for those posts (a considerable amount) he has managed to have expunged. He is on the record here, saying that he issued an ultimatum to his wife that she renounce Amma as her guru and instead accept him as her guru. So, as I've said, consider the source. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Share - I have to add, your posts to this thread have hilarious in their utter clueless-ness. You are not a person who has, so far shown any awareness, sensitivity, maturity - intellectual and/or emotional, intelligence to understand the nuances of any issue to be really compassionate. There is a difference between fake niceness and genuine compassion - in the absence of above your responses to Robin's posts come across as hilarious or malicious depending on my mood. I would say you are very much like Barry except he is overtly mean and you are not. Anyway I don't know what the sound of two paranoid, delusional people conversing is - I don't think it's possible, they are too..well paranoid and alike to get along with each other. So you are better off spending your time on FFL chatting to people like LG, Xeno and others if you don't want people to pile on you. On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 4:34 PM, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy, whatever the quality of Robin's intentions, they would have been under the influence of his self proclaimed state of mystical hallucination. Your ignoring, in relation to his intentions, that self proclamation of his Of course, I don't ignore it. You say that without having any idea of how I view this: You just made it up. Typical. I *disagree* that Robin's intentions would have been affected, made somehow negative, by his enlightenment. I see no reason why that would have been the case. You are taking delusion and hallucination too literally; those terms are only very roughly approximate, because there simply is no vocabulary to describe what happened to him. He himself has said his enlightenment was *real*, so there's obviously a paradoxical element to this that you haven't bothered to take into account. perpetuates an aspect of hallucination into the PRESENT and is not IMO helpful in the present. This is what I am addressing, the present. Yes, I know you are. Your sole interest is in finding ways to portray him negatively *in the present*, and you'll make up whatever metaphysical rules you need to in order to do that. Your perpetuate an aspect of hallucination into the PRESENT doesn't make any sense. *You* don't even know what you mean by it. You have a desperate need to make Robin a Bad Guy to justify the disgusting way you've behaved toward him. I stand by what I said. The negative intelligences that brought about Robin's enlightenment *used* his good intentions--and those of everyone in his group--to further their own goals. That did not turn them into *bad* intentions. The bad intentions were those of the negative intelligences that took advantage of his innocence, his idealism, his loving nature, his desire to help others be the best they could possibly be. Though I recognize that I've made some mistakes about all this and will probably do so again, I will continue to address issues if I think it is helpful to do so. Robin is a good and honorable man who treated you with fairness, respect, and compassion even after you turned on him. You can do nothing helpful where Robin is concerned other than wake up, smell the coffee, and acknowledge how appallingly badly and dishonestly you've treated him due to your inability to face your own weaknesses. If you are incapable of dealing with that reality, just keep your poisonous trap shut about him. You are the most toxic personality I have ever encountered. You make my skin
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Thank you Steve for all your support. Hope you and family are well and happy. I very much regret having hurt Ravi's feelings. Then talk TO him, don't talk ABOUT him. Grow a spine and address people directly, not through others. Put yourself out there where it can be a little bit scary and take a chance. Your hazy generalizations of how sorry you are or how misunderstood or how silly you think you can be at times just aren't cutting the mustard. Get out the steak knife and go for some real meat. Stop playing the damsel and GET REAL. You don't think I 'm going to take flak for this post? But at least I'm telling you how I really feel and showing you who I am, it doesn't come without consequences (especially here). Just look at the invective Robin is getting dealt right now. Now shit or get off the pot, woman. It's fascinating how people take on a role early in life and then can't seem to shake it. With Judy, it seems obvious that she spent some time as a hall monitor in school, and can't get past that. Actually there were no hall monitors where I went to school. I'm not even sure what hall monitors do. With Ann, all these years later, and she's still a recruiter for the Robin cult. Interesting that you would perceive this in what she wrote. I don't suppose you'd want to identify what it was that you saw, would you? You know, rather than just making a hazy generalization? As long as she never has to do herself what she demands that others do, of course. You mean, speaking up and addressing people directly, even when that risks consequences? Ann does this *all the time*. I guess you must not be reading her posts. guffaw
[FairfieldLife] Re: Let's talk about the movie Apocalypto
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Please note that the only hysterical person here is the Judester herself, which she will hopefully demonstrate for us all later tonight. :-) Well, actually I'll demonstrate how hysterical Barry was all morning. By using up a day's worth of posts in the first couple of hours of the new posting week. That was my whole intention, Jude. :-) I knew you'd have to double down on seeing nothing wrong with calling someone a Christian bigot on the basis of *a movie you'd never seen, and still have never seen*. But I also knew you'd feel your self image so threatened by the subject coming up again that you'd overcompensate and...uh...post away like a crazy person to do image repair and try to get the focus back on you again. You did. Mission accomplished. :-) See what I mean? Obsessed, pure and simple. You LIVE to 'get' Judy. Let it go, Barry, let it go. There is always stamp collecting to take up all that free time you will have once you do. But that won't get folks at FFL to pay attention to him. That's why he went off the deep end on this, because I'd explained to Michael that nobody was paying him much attention any longer except to make fun of him. And he just *had* to do something to prove me wrong...giving us all a whole bunch of opportunities to make fun of him.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Global Country
If the truth was in you, Buck, we would respect the uncreated sincerity behind your homilies. As it is, your satisfaction (or so it seems to me) comes from the fact that you are always in ironic relationship to all that you profess. Is this true? If you will just deny my theory, I will not raise it again. I would like to hear you say: Robin, you profoundly mistake my motives and my beliefs. That would do. Maybe it's my problem, but if anyone can make someone not take TM and Buck in the Dome seriously, it is reading your propaganda. It seems you are very subtly having us all on. Please deliver me from this perception by an outright contradiction of this. Else I always feel, when I read a post of yours, that you are getting more fun out of it than the person who laughs at it--or at least considers it somewhat ludicrous in its moral posturing. Where is the beauty, intensity, drama, love in what you believe in? You are mocking Maharishi, Buck.--something I don't mind by the way. If I am correct, I envy the potency of your means of destruction. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: The Global Country of World Peace is a nation without borders promoting unity in consciousness and the reduction of the narrow nationalism that divides humanity from humanity. It is a home for peace-loving people everywhere. The domain of the Global Country of World Peace is CONSCIOUSNESSthe prime mover of lifethe ground state of natural law, the field of all possibilities. The Global Country of World Peace is a non-political, non-religious global organization and does not usurp any of the functions of existing governments, nor does it replace them in any way. Research shows that even a small number of experts in spiritual meditation technologies of consciousness can reduce conflict and social stress and transform the trends of time towards a new era of peace and prosperity for their nation and the entire world family.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Qualities of the Unified Field
Integrating Self-Referral Invincibility Perfect Balance Fully Awake Within Itself Total Potential of Natural Law Unmanifest Simplicity Harmonizing Infinite Correlation Infinite Silence Pure Knowledge Infinite Organizing Power Perfect Orderliness Infinite Creativity Purifying Immortality Nourishing Evolutionary Omnipresence Ominiscience Ominipotence Bountiful Discriminating Infinite Dynamism
[FairfieldLife] Re: Qualities of the Unified Field
And where have you seen this manifested, Buck? If Maharishi had not described the United Field, would we, from our meditation, even know of its existence? Would we have any concept of it based upon our own experiences? If you had some intuitive or idealistic connection to the actual reality of what you are posting for the hundredth time, then it would mean something. But the effect of this is just to gradually kill off its vitality. Is your purpose, Buck? You make TM, Maharishi, Buck in the Dome seem anti-exciting in the extreme. The opposite of sexiness, then. But I hear you raise beautiful horses. I think if you described them, you would be much more persuasive. This post just reminds me of Jesus Loves Me This I Know--and a boring Protestant sermon I had to listen to when I went to church with my parents. You are sterilizing the magic of Maharishi and TM, Buck. Do you know that? Are you an initiator, by the way? I can't believe you ever taught someone to meditate. Born-again Christianity seems poetic compared to your posts, Buck. How about bringing some supernatural wrath down upon me! But I know what you will do: Nothing. Sweetness and light--even that would be charming. But all I can say is: Where's The Party, Buck? Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: Integrating Self-Referral Invincibility Perfect Balance Fully Awake Within Itself Total Potential of Natural Law Unmanifest Simplicity Harmonizing Infinite Correlation Infinite Silence Pure Knowledge Infinite Organizing Power Perfect Orderliness Infinite Creativity Purifying Immortality Nourishing Evolutionary Omnipresence Ominiscience Ominipotence Bountiful Discriminating Infinite Dynamism
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Warning Light
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@... wrote: This is a dialog that is from a very old thread on AMT https://groups.google.com/group/alt.meditation.transcendental/browse_thread/thread/5c398dd9868e264e/f18a119c907c5ad0?hl=delnk=gstq=warning+light#f18a119c907c5ad0 Terrific thread. Puts what goes on on FFL to shame. There are at least 3 of the posters here now. Interesting, as our mutual relationship was quite different then. You can see that I am friendly with Barry AND Judy at the time, but on this issue happen to agree more with Barry. Interesting also, because I can see in it a pattern that becomes even more clear now, after about 10 years, which is the pattern of AVOIDANCE I can see with a certain poster here. Which poster would that be, kazhana? You know, you're coming across as quite a coward saying all these negative things about certain posters without naming them. Not naming them immunizes you from taking responsibility; it also enables you to say any damn thing that comes into your head whether it's true or not, without fear of challenge. Why don't you grow a pair and face up to the people you have a grudge against instead of resorting to this weasely, mean- girl crap? Don't be such a sissy. This is just an Internet forum, after all.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Warning Light
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: This is a dialog that is from a very old thread on AMT https://groups.google.com/group/alt.meditation.transcendental/browse_thread/thread/5c398dd9868e264e/f18a119c907c5ad0?hl=delnk=gstq=warning+light#f18a119c907c5ad0 Terrific thread. Puts what goes on on FFL to shame. There are at least 3 of the posters here now. Interesting, as our mutual relationship was quite different then. You can see that I am friendly with Barry AND Judy at the time, but on this issue happen to agree more with Barry. Interesting also, because I can see in it a pattern that becomes even more clear now, after about 10 years, which is the pattern of AVOIDANCE I can see with a certain poster here. Which poster would that be, kazhana? Just read and recognize. As you know it, what's your problem? You know, you're coming across as quite a coward saying all these negative things about certain posters without naming them. Not naming them immunizes you from taking responsibility; it also enables you to say any damn thing that comes into your head whether it's true or not, without fear of challenge. Why don't you grow a pair and face up to the people you have a grudge against instead of resorting to this weasely, mean- girl crap? Don't be such a sissy. This is just an Internet forum, after all.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Warning Light
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: This is a dialog that is from a very old thread on AMT https://groups.google.com/group/alt.meditation.transcendental/browse_thread/thread/5c398dd9868e264e/f18a119c907c5ad0?hl=delnk=gstq=warning+light#f18a119c907c5ad0 Terrific thread. Puts what goes on on FFL to shame. There are at least 3 of the posters here now. Interesting, as our mutual relationship was quite different then. You can see that I am friendly with Barry AND Judy at the time, but on this issue happen to agree more with Barry. Interesting also, because I can see in it a pattern that becomes even more clear now, after about 10 years, which is the pattern of AVOIDANCE I can see with a certain poster here. Which poster would that be, kazhana? Just read and recognize. As you know it, what's your problem? It's not my problem, toots, it's yours. You pretend to be all tough, but you're really a wimp, afraid to put it out there, afraid of challenge. You've been doing this all day, post after post after post. Cheesy, lame-o, 'nadless. You know, you're coming across as quite a coward saying all these negative things about certain posters without naming them. Not naming them immunizes you from taking responsibility; it also enables you to say any damn thing that comes into your head whether it's true or not, without fear of challenge. Why don't you grow a pair and face up to the people you have a grudge against instead of resorting to this weasely, mean- girl crap? Don't be such a sissy. This is just an Internet forum, after all.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A physical basis of the ritum level -- fourth state of water
And again I post this, cuz THIS. IS. SPIRITUALITY. IDENTIFIED. BY. SCIENCE! This is the kind of thing Domesh would have DIED TO KNOW back when he was still the movement's darling. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@... wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=XVBEwn6iWOo Maybe Being is OBVIOUS. Maybe it's VISIBLE to the naked eye. Spill a bit of water, and you've made A BATTERY. I'm excited! Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do you trust the critics, or do you...uh...see the movie?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@... wrote: Oh, well, never mind. You won't understand it. Not in this life at least, maybe in the next. Don't count on that. Can you imagine -- given the reactive narcissism with which she defends her illusions about her self in this life -- that's she's going to have an easy trip through the Bardo, one that would allow her the luxury of a higher birth? The classic description of the Bardo is that along its Way you will encounter every image that you have been afraid of or hated or been averse to in your current lifetime. Each of them will rise up and try to get you to focus on them and do battle with them, to preserve your sense of self. The more you do, the lower your rebirth. Given what we've seen on Fairfield Life, how do you think she'll fare at this? Just sayin'...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: I found this video quite instructive about BPD, possibly explaining some things we observe here. Please don't see this as an attempt to denigrate anybody, this is not my intention. I just want to share a source of background information that could be helpful to understand, or judge a situation. I am very aware that there is always a graduation between what may be termed mentally sane, and some kind of disorder, and if such a disorder is actually the case, that this is not a reason for denigration. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=967Ckat7f98 One thing we know, khazana: psychology and psychiatry have penetrated the mystique of mental illness. Two thousand years ago, God (as Jesus) seemed to indicate it was caused by demons; well we know he was wrong. You do? Then you changed your mind rather abruptly, one might say. Still, I feel there is a ways to go in making me feel that persons who are psychotic--apart from pharmacological remedies--have the hope of a full recovery based upon what Freud figured out--and everyone after him. I feel a mental patient defeats the powers of human knowledge. He is metaphysically isolated where nothing can reach him/her. At least this is very often the case. Borderline is not necessarily completely psychotic, or may be it's a special case of it. My own experience and observation is that, as acrimonious as things get on FFL, I haven't sensed anyone who seems unbalanced in the way that is pertinent to this video. People seem obtuse, invulnerable, stupid, petty, biassed, and naive (I like thinking of my adversaries like this: it always helps), but unhealthy mentally? I haven't seen any sign of this, khazana. And if you have, then that just proves how superficial psychology really is in its attempts to describe the human soul. Well some have seen signs of it, not everybody of course. But more than one. Also please understand, I am not trying to prove anything here to anybody, neither to you or anybody else. It is actually just a link I share about a subject that is I think interesting, and could well explain a certain set of behaviors that can be observed here as well, that of strong mood-swings for example: Splitting in BPD includes a switch between idealizing and demonizing others (absolute good or love versus absolute evil or hate with no middle term). from Wikipedia. We can to a certain degree see this tendency in many people, but in some it seems stronger and exaggerated. I think there is no clear cut border between mental health and disease, there is an overlap, a line between what is considered healthy (which is also only a social norm) and termed sick. I think if any poster was truly sick in this way, all of us would sense this. Or just some. And we would be merciful. How that? We should be, yes, but this depends on our recognition, and our insight. No matter what names persons are called around here, the aggression and vehemence with which this is done is incompatible with any real belief in what is being said--else there would be, instead of this hostility, some form of compensation for that person. People who attempt to bring in mental illness on this forum are always persons who are using that as a weapon to protect themselves against the challenge that person or persons poses to them. You may assume so, but may be some people just try to find out the truth. They don't need to be hostile. You don't get angry at someone who has lost touch with reality. So, until we collectively feel some form of compassion for a single poster here, I think we can assume that your video has absolutely no relevance whatsoever. It would be good, but, no, you can't assume that. I mean Hitler was sick, mad, possessed, but does this mean people feel compassion about him. Or Charles Manson. (I am not comparing anybody here with Hitler or Charly Manson, just pointing out the principle.) Although I am aware of Alex's posting of reaction formation. Acutely aware of it. Starbucks invitation still stands. Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that you should have understanding if people who have been hurt by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your purpose. Why don't you just leave them and wish them peace? Robin
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Warning Light
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: This is a dialog that is from a very old thread on AMT https://groups.google.com/group/alt.meditation.transcendental/browse_thread/thread/5c398dd9868e264e/f18a119c907c5ad0?hl=delnk=gstq=warning+light#f18a119c907c5ad0 Terrific thread. Puts what goes on on FFL to shame. There are at least 3 of the posters here now. Interesting, as our mutual relationship was quite different then. You can see that I am friendly with Barry AND Judy at the time, but on this issue happen to agree more with Barry. Interesting also, because I can see in it a pattern that becomes even more clear now, after about 10 years, which is the pattern of AVOIDANCE I can see with a certain poster here. Which poster would that be, kazhana? Just read and recognize. As you know it, what's your problem? It's not my problem, toots, it's yours. You pretend to be all tough, but you're really a wimp, afraid to put it out there, afraid of challenge. You've been doing this all day, post after post after post. Cheesy, lame-o, 'nadless. Are you still trying to warm up, or are you already in operating temperature? You know, you're coming across as quite a coward saying all these negative things about certain posters without naming them. Not naming them immunizes you from taking responsibility; it also enables you to say any damn thing that comes into your head whether it's true or not, without fear of challenge. Why don't you grow a pair and face up to the people you have a grudge against instead of resorting to this weasely, mean- girl crap? Don't be such a sissy. This is just an Internet forum, after all.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: snip One thing we know, khazana: psychology and psychiatry have penetrated the mystique of mental illness. Two thousand years ago, God (as Jesus) seemed to indicate it was caused by demons; well we know he was wrong. You do? Then you changed your mind rather abruptly, one might say. Right, the 25-plus years it took him to do it is just the blink of an eye, isn't it, khazana? snip It is actually just a link I share about a subject that is I think interesting, and could well explain a certain set of behaviors that can be observed here as well, that of strong mood-swings for example: Splitting in BPD includes a switch between idealizing and demonizing others (absolute good or love versus absolute evil or hate with no middle term). from Wikipedia. Mood-swings can have many, many different causes. snip People who attempt to bring in mental illness on this forum are always persons who are using that as a weapon to protect themselves against the challenge that person or persons poses to them. You may assume so, but may be some people just try to find out the truth. They don't need to be hostile. The circumstances under which mental illness on this forum are brought up indicates that it is virtually always a function of hostility, not wanting to find out the truth. snip Starbucks invitation still stands. Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that you should have understanding if people who have been hurt by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your purpose. He's done neither. It's an invitation, an offer, to anyone who genuinely wants to know whether he has changed.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do you trust the critics, or do you...uh...see the movie?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: snip Now, that brings me to another example, if I think of it, it is rather outrageously confirming my thesis: Think of one person here on our forum, which some people have met, some didn't, I mean Robin. I think only Ann and Lord Knows have met him (except for Bill Howell and Brahmi, and they just did hit-and-runs here). And Lord Knows hasn't become a regular. Now, whatever we may think about him doesn't matter. But in the case somebody thinks very high of him to the extend of adoration, you would assume this person would be eager to actually meet him physically, right? You would certainly think so. But that's not the case, the person is actually AFRAID of meeting him. I mean one of his main supporters here on the forum, I will decline mentioning names, I am only commenting on the phenomena. Wow, this is fascinating. His main supporters here on the forum are me, Ann, raunchy, Emily, and Ravi. None of them has ever said anything about being afraid to meet Robin. I'd love to meet him, myself. Are you doing some mind- reading thing? Nope, I was told in email at the time. At what time? And I am not revealing private email exchange (and I don't expect other's to do so). Maybe the person wouldn't own up to what s/he said at the time, but then I couldn't care less. I think you are lying, actually.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do you trust the critics, or do you...uh...see the movie?
Barry is going to be in mega-freakout mode for some time given the abysmal failure of what he thought was a sure- fire get Judy gambit, which turned out to be a ruinous Barry defeat (about his deleted post back in 2006). Barry is nothing if not narcissistically reactive. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: Oh, well, never mind. You won't understand it. Not in this life at least, maybe in the next. Don't count on that. Can you imagine -- given the reactive narcissism with which she defends her illusions about her self in this life -- that's she's going to have an easy trip through the Bardo, one that would allow her the luxury of a higher birth? The classic description of the Bardo is that along its Way you will encounter every image that you have been afraid of or hated or been averse to in your current lifetime. Each of them will rise up and try to get you to focus on them and do battle with them, to preserve your sense of self. The more you do, the lower your rebirth. Given what we've seen on Fairfield Life, how do you think she'll fare at this? Just sayin'...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: snip One thing we know, khazana: psychology and psychiatry have penetrated the mystique of mental illness. Two thousand years ago, God (as Jesus) seemed to indicate it was caused by demons; well we know he was wrong. You do? Then you changed your mind rather abruptly, one might say. Right, the 25-plus years it took him to do it is just the blink of an eye, isn't it, khazana? What are you talking about? Not even a month ago he defended the existence of demons. I am of course referring to what Robin wrote above, and not what you imagine he wrote. snip It is actually just a link I share about a subject that is I think interesting, and could well explain a certain set of behaviors that can be observed here as well, that of strong mood-swings for example: Splitting in BPD includes a switch between idealizing and demonizing others (absolute good or love versus absolute evil or hate with no middle term). from Wikipedia. Mood-swings can have many, many different causes. snip People who attempt to bring in mental illness on this forum are always persons who are using that as a weapon to protect themselves against the challenge that person or persons poses to them. You may assume so, but may be some people just try to find out the truth. They don't need to be hostile. The circumstances under which mental illness on this forum are brought up indicates that it is virtually always a function of hostility, not wanting to find out the truth. snip Starbucks invitation still stands. Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that you should have understanding if people who have been hurt by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your purpose. He's done neither. It's an invitation, an offer, to anyone who genuinely wants to know whether he has changed. Yet, he posted it in the form of a challenge, and that is very inappropriate.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT
It's not the actual comments that I object to Steve baby, it's the fact that you take them seriously because you don't have any insight into the context, my motivations, my state of mind. The smilies, the LOL's, the sarcasm - in oh what a woman in the message - do you they give you any clues to your retarded brain? I was fucking with her just as I fuck with retards like you here and I had a blast, her whole life was based on fantasies of a Guru. She would fashion herself as a traditional, conservative Hindu woman, she would talk about her love, innocence, devotion but she was totally alienated from reality. She couldn't even love her own husband and her actual actions were totally opposite to her fantasies. In retrospect I was so mystically intoxicated that I myself was unaware of my behavior and it genuinely scared the crap out of her..LOL, because you only read about it in books to actually witness and be with an ordinary man who was blissed and intoxicated was too much for her, would have too much for anyone so I feel sympathy, pity for her regardless - no way she could ever imagine the state of mind I was in. She stayed away from me after that :-), we had already been separated over a year at that point. So it's still slander Steve baby, any time retards try to judge me - it's slander :-) On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 6:17 AM, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002...@yahoo.comwrote: ** Okay Ravi, since you have accused me of slander, I will post your statement. Then advise if you wish to withdraw the charge of slander. One correction: The post was made on Batgap, not FFL *From Batgap: * *Post 4466, Sunday May 16, 2010, 2:11 am* Now she has her complete attention on me because of my energy..:-). I told her that she had to stop treating Amma as her guru and that I would be her Guru from today and she completely, innocently, with complete faith accepted it and I made her repeat it 3 times - I reject Amma and accept Ravi as my Guru..LOL.. Oh what a woman !!! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Steve baby - this is an example of why you are branded as an idiot. You can't even come up with something clever, pertinent, original, inventive, intelligent even while indulging in slander. On Dec 7, 2012, at 7:17 PM, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: Share, Always consider the source. As Ravi has said, much of his dysfunctionality is a matter of the public record, except for those posts (a considerable amount) he has managed to have expunged. He is on the record here, saying that he issued an ultimatum to his wife that she renounce Amma as her guru and instead accept him as her guru. So, as I've said, consider the source. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@wrote: Share - I have to add, your posts to this thread have hilarious in their utter clueless-ness. You are not a person who has, so far shown any awareness, sensitivity, maturity - intellectual and/or emotional, intelligence to understand the nuances of any issue to be really compassionate. There is a difference between fake niceness and genuine compassion - in the absence of above your responses to Robin's posts come across as hilarious or malicious depending on my mood. I would say you are very much like Barry except he is overtly mean and you are not. Anyway I don't know what the sound of two paranoid, delusional people conversing is - I don't think it's possible, they are too..well paranoid and alike to get along with each other. So you are better off spending your time on FFL chatting to people like LG, Xeno and others if you don't want people to pile on you. On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 4:34 PM, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@wrote: Judy, whatever the quality of Robin's intentions, they would have been under the influence of his self proclaimed state of mystical hallucination. Your ignoring, in relation to his intentions, that self proclamation of his Of course, I don't ignore it. You say that without having any idea of how I view this: You just made it up. Typical. I *disagree* that Robin's intentions would have been affected, made somehow negative, by his enlightenment. I see no reason why that would have been the case. You are taking delusion and hallucination too literally; those terms are only very roughly approximate, because there simply is no vocabulary to describe what happened to him. He himself has said his enlightenment was *real*, so there's obviously a paradoxical element to this that you haven't bothered to take into account. perpetuates an aspect of hallucination into the PRESENT and is not IMO
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com wrote: ** Thank you Steve for all your support. Hope you and family are well and happy. I very much regret having hurt Ravi's feelings. You are a crazy person dear Share and you cannot hurt my feelings, you never have. Get a grip on yourself - how hilarious..LOL..if Emily, Ann, Judy or raunchy got upset on me that may hurt my feelings not you dear. -- *From:* seventhray1 lurkernomore20002...@yahoo.com *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Friday, December 7, 2012 9:17 PM *Subject:* [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT Share, Always consider the source. As Ravi has said, much of his dysfunctionality is a matter of the public record, except for those posts (a considerable amount) he has managed to have expunged. He is on the record here, saying that he issued an ultimatum to his wife that she renounce Amma as her guru and instead accept him as her guru. So, as I've said, consider the source. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Share - I have to add, your posts to this thread have hilarious in their utter clueless-ness. You are not a person who has, so far shown any awareness, sensitivity, maturity - intellectual and/or emotional, intelligence to understand the nuances of any issue to be really compassionate. There is a difference between fake niceness and genuine compassion - in the absence of above your responses to Robin's posts come across as hilarious or malicious depending on my mood. I would say you are very much like Barry except he is overtly mean and you are not. Anyway I don't know what the sound of two paranoid, delusional people conversing is - I don't think it's possible, they are too..well paranoid and alike to get along with each other. So you are better off spending your time on FFL chatting to people like LG, Xeno and others if you don't want people to pile on you. On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 4:34 PM, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy, whatever the quality of Robin's intentions, they would have been under the influence of his self proclaimed state of mystical hallucination. Your ignoring, in relation to his intentions, that self proclamation of his Of course, I don't ignore it. You say that without having any idea of how I view this: You just made it up. Typical. I *disagree* that Robin's intentions would have been affected, made somehow negative, by his enlightenment. I see no reason why that would have been the case. You are taking delusion and hallucination too literally; those terms are only very roughly approximate, because there simply is no vocabulary to describe what happened to him. He himself has said his enlightenment was *real*, so there's obviously a paradoxical element to this that you haven't bothered to take into account. perpetuates an aspect of hallucination into the PRESENT and is not IMO helpful in the present. This is what I am addressing, the present. Yes, I know you are. Your sole interest is in finding ways to portray him negatively *in the present*, and you'll make up whatever metaphysical rules you need to in order to do that. Your perpetuate an aspect of hallucination into the PRESENT doesn't make any sense. *You* don't even know what you mean by it. You have a desperate need to make Robin a Bad Guy to justify the disgusting way you've behaved toward him. I stand by what I said. The negative intelligences that brought about Robin's enlightenment *used* his good intentions--and those of everyone in his group--to further their own goals. That did not turn them into *bad* intentions. The bad intentions were those of the negative intelligences that took advantage of his innocence, his idealism, his loving nature, his desire to help others be the best they could possibly be. Though I recognize that I've made some mistakes about all this and will probably do so again, I will continue to address issues if I think it is helpful to do so. Robin is a good and honorable man who treated you with fairness, respect, and compassion even after you turned on him. You can do nothing helpful where Robin is concerned other than wake up, smell the coffee, and acknowledge how appallingly badly and dishonestly you've treated him due to your inability to face your own weaknesses. If you are incapable of dealing with that reality, just keep your poisonous trap shut about him. You are the most toxic personality I have ever encountered. You make my skin crawl. And I notice you slithered away from responding to my question: Yes,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Lets celebrate the beauty of slander on FFL!
Definitive! Love the staging on that walkway. He makes the most of it. What a fabulous aria, too. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@... wrote: The Delight of Culumny - A stunning performance by the Canadian Bass-Baritone John Relyea (at the 2007 Met Opera) of La calunnia é un venticello from Rossini's Barber of Seville: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreenN 1v=eWaFyY9aSLA http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreenN%201v=eWaFyY9aSLA The Calumny The calumny is a little wind, a very gentle little breeze which numbly, softly, lightly, kindly, begins to whisper. Little by little, mildly, in a low voice, hissing, it goes flowing, it goes buzzing; in people's ears it enters deftly and makes heads and brains stun and blow. Getting out from the mouth the clamor grows: it slowly strengthens, it already flies from one place to another. It seems like the thunder, like the storm that in the depth of the forest go whistling, grumbling, and makes your blood run cold. In the end it spills over and blow up, it spreads, it doubles and provokes an explosion like a cannon shot, an earthquake, a rain storm, a general tumult which makes the air peal. And the miserable one who is defamed, degraded, trampled, scourged by the public opinion fortunately dies. http://lyricstranslate.com http://lyricstranslate.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Do you trust the critics, or do you...uh...see the movie?
On 12/08/2012 09:51 AM, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: More addressing the title, I've mentioned before that film critics often don't get several genres and I often have to see those for myself. Principally a lot of them don't get science fiction, horror or . spiritual films. Now that may have changed a little in recent years as younger critics grew up being fans of Star Trek and other science fiction and even horror genre. But they may also be a little weak in the spiritual department. Either that, or it holds no interest for them. That is the way I am these days about most horror films. There is so little there there that it isn't worth investing any of my time in seeing something that is merely a repetition of old cliches. Unless the film does something to either play with those cliches or play off of them (like The Cabin in the Woods), I rarely find myself interested enough in the film to bother with it. Some critics may feel the same way about SciFi, and about anything spiritual. In the 1970s I noted that one Seattle up and coming film critic made bad calls on science fiction films. The bass player I worked with had a relatives who leased the Neptune theater in the University District and he was invited to attend distributor showings which are the showings for booking films and where many critics see a film in advance (nowadays they send them DVD and maybe even Bluray screeners). He happened to discuss this issue with said critic at a showing and indeed the critic admitted he didn't get science fiction films. Well, they require more of a suspension of disbelief than many films, and many people aren't good at that unless they have a predilection in that direction already. As a corollary, I find it near-to-impossible to get interested in angst films that, for me, stray into the realm of sappy drama queenery. Suffice it to say that makes me *not* a fan of most Italian films and a few French ones. :-) Not to mention the American films that have more of a Lifetime network mentality than an American Beauty mentality. It's not that I don't get those films, it's that they simply don't do anything for me. It's like watching people wallow in their misery and overindulge in the afflictive emotions. In my youth, I would have had no problem with drama queeny films, because -- being young -- I was probably one myself. Now, not so much. Pure, honest emotion, *not* used to suck in a jaded audience by going for the melodramatic or sappy...no problem. But the sappy shit...I say save it for those who still get off on that sorta stuff. Also with this genre a lot of American for some reason want to see certain things in these kinds of films or they are not good. Netflix, IMDB, Redbox and a lot of other sites allow for critical comments and ratings of films. I don't know how many times I've seen a film rated 1 star because it didn't fit these peoples preconceived notion of what the film should be. In some cases I've posted a 3 or 4 star rating because these dummies didn't get it. I've done the same thing. It's a matter of learning what the boundaries of one's taste are and following them, as far as I'm concerned. After all, the crappy films (of any genre) wouldn't still be being made if there weren't a perceived market for them. I'm a big fan of horror but it has to be done well. Spain has been producing some good horror lately and so has South America. There is some good British horror too. And my all time favorite is Asian especially Thai horror. The latter deals a lot with concepts of ghosts and things in Eastern philosophy and they actually know how to make a film creepy. There are too many people peeing on a Hollywood production to make horror very good unless it is a indie shot by people who work on the tentpoles as something to do in between tentpoles. Not so many people peeing on those. BTW, this very subject of reviews came up this morning talking to a friend at Starbucks. He mentioned that he likes sci-fi and horror too but finds that he can't go by reviews on places like Netflix since people *do* have these preconceived notions. He though that Monsters was great but it got a lot of one stars on Netflix.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: snip One thing we know, khazana: psychology and psychiatry have penetrated the mystique of mental illness. Two thousand years ago, God (as Jesus) seemed to indicate it was caused by demons; well we know he was wrong. You do? Then you changed your mind rather abruptly, one might say. Right, the 25-plus years it took him to do it is just the blink of an eye, isn't it, khazana? What are you talking about? Not even a month ago he defended the existence of demons. Read it again, khazana. Pay attention to the context. snip Starbucks invitation still stands. Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that you should have understanding if people who have been hurt by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your purpose. He's done neither. It's an invitation, an offer, to anyone who genuinely wants to know whether he has changed. Yet, he posted it in the form of a challenge, and that is very inappropriate. Very much au contraire. He did not post it in the form of a challenge.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: snip One thing we know, khazana: psychology and psychiatry have penetrated the mystique of mental illness. Two thousand years ago, God (as Jesus) seemed to indicate it was caused by demons; well we know he was wrong. You do? Then you changed your mind rather abruptly, one might say. Right, the 25-plus years it took him to do it is just the blink of an eye, isn't it, khazana? What are you talking about? Not even a month ago he defended the existence of demons. Read it again, khazana. Pay attention to the context. Nope sight I read it several times, and I am not really talking to you here, I am talking to Robin, so STFU, and leave it to him if he wants to respond or not. snip Starbucks invitation still stands. Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that you should have understanding if people who have been hurt by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your purpose. He's done neither. It's an invitation, an offer, to anyone who genuinely wants to know whether he has changed. Yet, he posted it in the form of a challenge, and that is very inappropriate. Very much au contraire. He did not post it in the form of a challenge. That's debatable. It was repeated by you and several others here as a challenge, and still is. So, own up to it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: snip One thing we know, khazana: psychology and psychiatry have penetrated the mystique of mental illness. Two thousand years ago, God (as Jesus) seemed to indicate it was caused by demons; well we know he was wrong. You do? Then you changed your mind rather abruptly, one might say. Right, the 25-plus years it took him to do it is just the blink of an eye, isn't it, khazana? What are you talking about? Not even a month ago he defended the existence of demons. I am of course referring to what Robin wrote above, and not what you imagine he wrote. snip It is actually just a link I share about a subject that is I think interesting, and could well explain a certain set of behaviors that can be observed here as well, that of strong mood-swings for example: Splitting in BPD includes a switch between idealizing and demonizing others (absolute good or love versus absolute evil or hate with no middle term). from Wikipedia. Mood-swings can have many, many different causes. snip People who attempt to bring in mental illness on this forum are always persons who are using that as a weapon to protect themselves against the challenge that person or persons poses to them. You may assume so, but may be some people just try to find out the truth. They don't need to be hostile. The circumstances under which mental illness on this forum are brought up indicates that it is virtually always a function of hostility, not wanting to find out the truth. snip Starbucks invitation still stands. Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that you should have understanding if people who have been hurt by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your purpose. He's done neither. It's an invitation, an offer, to anyone who genuinely wants to know whether he has changed. Yet, he posted it in the form of a challenge, and that is very inappropriate. Not true, khazana: if I posed it as a challenge I would disprove my very assertion. I do not challenge anyone these days. You have seriously misread my first letter to Bill Howell. Lord Knows had no fear of me--even ten years ago. He wanted to meet with me. I was not ready to meet with anyone at that time. He did not come for our scheduled visit in September not because he was afraid of me, but (I believe) because he disapproved of me, and was offended that I did not agree to the conditions which he set for our time together. I think he thought me unworthy of his company. You are working with concepts here, Khazana. I am dealing with things at the level of my experience and perception. Ann Woelfle Bater knows me as well as anyone from this period of time in my life. She has been confronted (as an evil being), she has confronted me, and we are friends. My best friend was confronted (and declared evil) many times. I see him almost every day. And he confronted me maybe 10,000 times in the past twenty-five and one half years. You know nothing about this, Khazana. The person who is posting as Robin, he is all right. I say you are misreading me, Khazana. Where is the experimental evidence that I am wrong in this? You want your world of beliefs preserved at all costs. It doesn't work that way. We refute people not be arguing against them; but by getting a deeper experience of reality. The story is so complex, Khazana. I am doing my best--and I am very very different. But you will do what you will do. I continue to have love in my heart.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
Khazana baby what is this madness, in a quest to get back at Judy and Robin you don't even mind enabling the tactics of someone with psychological issues like Barry. I disagree with Robin - from my perspective there are two people who have psychological issues based on their posts here - Barry and Share and people like you and Steve are doing a huge disservice by enabling them. On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 1:21 PM, khazana108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: snip One thing we know, khazana: psychology and psychiatry have penetrated the mystique of mental illness. Two thousand years ago, God (as Jesus) seemed to indicate it was caused by demons; well we know he was wrong. You do? Then you changed your mind rather abruptly, one might say. Right, the 25-plus years it took him to do it is just the blink of an eye, isn't it, khazana? What are you talking about? Not even a month ago he defended the existence of demons. Read it again, khazana. Pay attention to the context. Nope sight I read it several times, and I am not really talking to you here, I am talking to Robin, so STFU, and leave it to him if he wants to respond or not.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: snip One thing we know, khazana: psychology and psychiatry have penetrated the mystique of mental illness. Two thousand years ago, God (as Jesus) seemed to indicate it was caused by demons; well we know he was wrong. You do? Then you changed your mind rather abruptly, one might say. Right, the 25-plus years it took him to do it is just the blink of an eye, isn't it, khazana? What are you talking about? Not even a month ago he defended the existence of demons. I am of course referring to what Robin wrote above, and not what you imagine he wrote. snip It is actually just a link I share about a subject that is I think interesting, and could well explain a certain set of behaviors that can be observed here as well, that of strong mood-swings for example: Splitting in BPD includes a switch between idealizing and demonizing others (absolute good or love versus absolute evil or hate with no middle term). from Wikipedia. Mood-swings can have many, many different causes. snip People who attempt to bring in mental illness on this forum are always persons who are using that as a weapon to protect themselves against the challenge that person or persons poses to them. You may assume so, but may be some people just try to find out the truth. They don't need to be hostile. The circumstances under which mental illness on this forum are brought up indicates that it is virtually always a function of hostility, not wanting to find out the truth. snip Starbucks invitation still stands. Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that you should have understanding if people who have been hurt by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your purpose. He's done neither. It's an invitation, an offer, to anyone who genuinely wants to know whether he has changed. Yet, he posted it in the form of a challenge, and that is very inappropriate. What's a guy gotta do to please you, khazana? Robin offered a friendly invitation to prove he is a normal human being. Why are you are choosing to see this as a challenge? Can you imagine what it must feel like be in a position where you need to prove you are good and decent person, now changed from 25 years ago? What else would you have him do? Where's the compassion you spoke of? Diagnosing Robin with BPD is a heaping pile of inappropriateness on your part, IMO.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: snip One thing we know, khazana: psychology and psychiatry have penetrated the mystique of mental illness. Two thousand years ago, God (as Jesus) seemed to indicate it was caused by demons; well we know he was wrong. You do? Then you changed your mind rather abruptly, one might say. Right, the 25-plus years it took him to do it is just the blink of an eye, isn't it, khazana? What are you talking about? Not even a month ago he defended the existence of demons. I am of course referring to what Robin wrote above, and not what you imagine he wrote. snip It is actually just a link I share about a subject that is I think interesting, and could well explain a certain set of behaviors that can be observed here as well, that of strong mood-swings for example: Splitting in BPD includes a switch between idealizing and demonizing others (absolute good or love versus absolute evil or hate with no middle term). from Wikipedia. Mood-swings can have many, many different causes. snip People who attempt to bring in mental illness on this forum are always persons who are using that as a weapon to protect themselves against the challenge that person or persons poses to them. You may assume so, but may be some people just try to find out the truth. They don't need to be hostile. The circumstances under which mental illness on this forum are brought up indicates that it is virtually always a function of hostility, not wanting to find out the truth. snip Starbucks invitation still stands. Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that you should have understanding if people who have been hurt by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your purpose. He's done neither. It's an invitation, an offer, to anyone who genuinely wants to know whether he has changed. Yet, he posted it in the form of a challenge, and that is very inappropriate. Not true, khazana: if I posed it as a challenge I would disprove my very assertion. I do not challenge anyone these days. You have seriously misread my first letter to Bill Howell. Maybe, Robin, but then, if I misread it, that is to say, if I misunderstood your intentions, so may have done others who are actually concerned. I am just saying that I don't understand this move of you, trying to 'prove' something (that you have changed). Why not just own up to all of them, and let them have their judgments, no matter what they where? It is, as if you can't accept these judgments, that is why you have to prove to them that you are different now. Lord Knows had no fear of me--even ten years ago. He wanted to meet with me. I was not ready to meet with anyone at that time. He did not come for our scheduled visit in September not because he was afraid of me, but (I believe) because he disapproved of me, and was offended that I did not agree to the conditions which he set for our time together. I think he thought me unworthy of his company. I have no idea of course. I would say, whatever you meet now, in the form of Lord Knows and others, is your karma. Why not just accept it as it is? Why not just say: I am sorry, i was wrong all along. You are working with concepts here, Khazana. I am dealing with things at the level of my experience and perception. Sure, I can only see you through the imperfect uttering's of either others or yourself, that is necessarily imperfect. And I am not making any final judgment about you. I have already formed a judgment about you after reading the very first post, somewhere in November last year, it was a post addressed to Seventhray. At that time I had not heard the name Robin Carlsen, had no idea about you having been a 'Cult-Leader', about anything that went on at the time, no idea about confrontations, I just knew you as yet another poster on FFL. And yet, Robin, my first judgment about you is still very much the way I perceive you now. So, call me stubborn if you like. Ann Woelfle Bater knows me as well as anyone from this period of time in my life. She has been confronted (as an evil being), she has confronted me, and we are friends. Good for you both. As long as it gives peace of mind to you both. But you can't do anything about it that others see you different. You have to accept it, if they are right or
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: snip One thing we know, khazana: psychology and psychiatry have penetrated the mystique of mental illness. Two thousand years ago, God (as Jesus) seemed to indicate it was caused by demons; well we know he was wrong. You do? Then you changed your mind rather abruptly, one might say. Right, the 25-plus years it took him to do it is just the blink of an eye, isn't it, khazana? What are you talking about? Not even a month ago he defended the existence of demons. Read it again, khazana. Pay attention to the context. Nope sight I read it several times, and I am not really talking to you here, I am talking to Robin, so STFU, and leave it to him if he wants to respond or not. (What does sight mean here? Appears to be gibberish.) Don't tell me what I may or may not comment on. This is a public forum, and I don't give a rusty nail who you think you're talking to. And obviously Robin can respond or not as he chooses. You are getting WAAY above yourself here, khazana. You aren't that smart and you're seriously lacking in insight, plus which you have your difficulties with English, as I've pointed out before, and you all too often lose track of the context of a post or don't get it in the first place. You are not in a position to lay down the law to anyone about anything. Starbucks invitation still stands. Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that you should have understanding if people who have been hurt by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your purpose. He's done neither. It's an invitation, an offer, to anyone who genuinely wants to know whether he has changed. Yet, he posted it in the form of a challenge, and that is very inappropriate. Very much au contraire. He did not post it in the form of a challenge. That's debatable. It was repeated by you and several others here as a challenge, and still is. So, own up to it. It was not repeated by me here as a challenge, and I don't recall anyone else doing so. You either misread something, or you're lying. Prove me wrong. Quote the posts.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: snip One thing we know, khazana: psychology and psychiatry have penetrated the mystique of mental illness. Two thousand years ago, God (as Jesus) seemed to indicate it was caused by demons; well we know he was wrong. You do? Then you changed your mind rather abruptly, one might say. Right, the 25-plus years it took him to do it is just the blink of an eye, isn't it, khazana? What are you talking about? Not even a month ago he defended the existence of demons. I am of course referring to what Robin wrote above, and not what you imagine he wrote. snip It is actually just a link I share about a subject that is I think interesting, and could well explain a certain set of behaviors that can be observed here as well, that of strong mood-swings for example: Splitting in BPD includes a switch between idealizing and demonizing others (absolute good or love versus absolute evil or hate with no middle term). from Wikipedia. Mood-swings can have many, many different causes. snip People who attempt to bring in mental illness on this forum are always persons who are using that as a weapon to protect themselves against the challenge that person or persons poses to them. You may assume so, but may be some people just try to find out the truth. They don't need to be hostile. The circumstances under which mental illness on this forum are brought up indicates that it is virtually always a function of hostility, not wanting to find out the truth. snip Starbucks invitation still stands. Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that you should have understanding if people who have been hurt by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your purpose. He's done neither. It's an invitation, an offer, to anyone who genuinely wants to know whether he has changed. Yet, he posted it in the form of a challenge, and that is very inappropriate. What's a guy gotta do to please you, khazana? Just be normal HERE. Robin offered a friendly invitation to prove he is a normal human being. To whom? Obviously I am not in question. I am living in a different continent and have only marginal interest in all of this. I base my judgments on what I read here, based and backed up by my experience of a lifetime of meeting all kinds of people, crazy and sane. Why are you are choosing to see this as a challenge? What's the point in trying to 'prove' anything at all, especially to people who were harmed once? Don't you see where they may perceive the danger? The very harm was in those 'confrontations'. So, Raunchy, be realistic, how would those people feel, who were once manipulated, when they where asked to meet the man who obviously manipulated them, because he needed to tell them something 'very important', and that would be that he has changed? Why can't he just say 'Mea Culpa, mea maxima culpa'? What if Charly Manson invited everybody to convince you that he is actually a nice guy, would you go and meet him? (I am not saying that Robin is like Manson!) Can you imagine what it must feel like be in a position where you need to prove you are good and decent person, now changed from 25 years ago? That's my point: where's the need to prove it? That's so absurd. And then Raunchy, anyone, anywhere, will not just be a trustful to believe someone has changed just on the hearsay of it. So what? Why the NEED to convince? That in itself makes him suspicious. What else would you have him do? Nothing. Just let people have their opinions. Where's the compassion you spoke of? Diagnosing Robin with BPD is a heaping pile of inappropriateness on your part, IMO. I didn't even mention Robin when posting the link. You are interpreting a little too much into this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: snip Starbucks invitation still stands. Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that you should have understanding if people who have been hurt by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your purpose. [I wrote:] He's done neither. It's an invitation, an offer, to anyone who genuinely wants to know whether he has changed. Yet, he posted it in the form of a challenge, and that is very inappropriate. Not true, khazana: if I posed it as a challenge I would disprove my very assertion. I do not challenge anyone these days. You have seriously misread my first letter to Bill Howell. Maybe, Robin, but then, if I misread it, that is to say, if I misunderstood your intentions, so may have done others who are actually concerned. That does not follow. Your command of English is faulty, and you have enormous hostility toward Robin, so you're prone to misunderstand him in a way that supports your own pre/misconceptions. I am just saying that I don't understand this move of you, trying to 'prove' something (that you have changed). Why not just own up to all of them, and let them have their judgments, no matter what they where? It is, as if you can't accept these judgments, that is why you have to prove to them that you are different now. Perfect example of what I just described. Howell, Brahmi, and Lord Knows have claimed he has not changed. Why would Robin own up to what they claim if he believes he *has* changed? Why would he accept what he feels is an incorrect judgment? It's entirely appropriate for him to *offer* to prove he has changed to anyone who doubts it. And he has said *dozens* of times that he accepts the judgments of him from 25 years ago, so that was never in any kind of dispute. Moreover, his own judgment of himself has been more severe than anyone else's. Lord Knows had no fear of me--even ten years ago. He wanted to meet with me. I was not ready to meet with anyone at that time. He did not come for our scheduled visit in September not because he was afraid of me, but (I believe) because he disapproved of me, and was offended that I did not agree to the conditions which he set for our time together. I think he thought me unworthy of his company. I have no idea of course. I would say, whatever you meet now, in the form of Lord Knows and others, is your karma. Why not just accept it as it is? Why not just say: I am sorry, i was wrong all along. What the *freak* is wrong with you, khazana? If he's said once that he was wrong 25 years ago, he's said it literally dozens of times. Again, that has never been in dispute.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: snip Robin offered a friendly invitation to prove he is a normal human being. To whom? To anyone who is interested, obviously. Obviously I am not in question. I am living in a different continent and have only marginal interest in all of this. I base my judgments on what I read here, based and backed up by my experience of a lifetime of meeting all kinds of people, crazy and sane. Non sequitur. The issue is, why are you carping at Robin because he invited people to come meet him? That makes no sense whatsoever. Why are you are choosing to see this as a challenge? What's the point in trying to 'prove' anything at all, especially to people who were harmed once? Don't you see where they may perceive the danger? The very harm was in those 'confrontations'. So, Raunchy, be realistic, how would those people feel, who were once manipulated, when they where asked to meet the man who obviously manipulated them, because he needed to tell them something 'very important', and that would be that he has changed? This is insane. Nobody *has* to come meet him. It was an *offer*, an invitation, not a demand. Why can't he just say 'Mea Culpa, mea maxima culpa'? HE'S DONE THAT ALREADY MANY, MANY, MANY TIMES. Can you imagine what it must feel like be in a position where you need to prove you are good and decent person, now changed from 25 years ago? That's my point: where's the need to prove it? That's so absurd. And then Raunchy, anyone, anywhere, will not just be a trustful to believe someone has changed just on the hearsay of it. So what? Why the NEED to convince? That in itself makes him suspicious. This person is mentally ill. That is not a normal way of looking at this. What else would you have him do? Nothing. Just let people have their opinions. He's doing that. He's also offering to let them see what he's like now, if they're interested. Where's the compassion you spoke of? Diagnosing Robin with BPD is a heaping pile of inappropriateness on your part, IMO. I didn't even mention Robin when posting the link. You are interpreting a little too much into this. Everybody here knows why you posted it, khazana. You didn't have to mention Robin for that to be obvious. Your dishonesty is not helping you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: snip Starbucks invitation still stands. Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that you should have understanding if people who have been hurt by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your purpose. [I wrote:] He's done neither. It's an invitation, an offer, to anyone who genuinely wants to know whether he has changed. Yet, he posted it in the form of a challenge, and that is very inappropriate. Not true, khazana: if I posed it as a challenge I would disprove my very assertion. I do not challenge anyone these days. You have seriously misread my first letter to Bill Howell. Maybe, Robin, but then, if I misread it, that is to say, if I misunderstood your intentions, so may have done others who are actually concerned. That does not follow. Your command of English is faulty, and you have enormous hostility toward Robin, so you're prone to misunderstand him in a way that supports your own pre/misconceptions. I am just saying that I don't understand this move of you, trying to 'prove' something (that you have changed). Why not just own up to all of them, and let them have their judgments, no matter what they where? It is, as if you can't accept these judgments, that is why you have to prove to them that you are different now. Perfect example of what I just described. Howell, Brahmi, and Lord Knows have claimed he has not changed. Why would Robin own up to what they claim if he believes he *has* changed? Why would he accept what he feels is an incorrect judgment? Wait, wait, you get it wrong. He offered this AFTER starting to read CULT, and being dissatisfied with the way he was portrayed there. CULT is only about his past, and being dissatisfied with the perception of his ex-followers about these past proceedings, he made this offer. I don't call that owning up to it. It's entirely appropriate for him to *offer* to prove he has changed to anyone who doubts it. And it is just as appropriate for them to say: Sorry, we are not interested, you stole us a major part of our adult life, it took us years to get out, we need not invest more time. And he has said *dozens* of times that he accepts the judgments of him from 25 years ago, so that was never in any kind of dispute. No, He didn't. Ask him yourself, or best read his posts, where he states that he doesn't recognize himself in the book, and that this is not the truth about him. For me that mean that he is in DENIAL. And he still wants to influence them by 'proving' to them how much he has changed. Moreover, his own judgment of himself has been more severe than anyone else's. So you believe. Other's seem to think different. Lord Knows had no fear of me--even ten years ago. He wanted to meet with me. I was not ready to meet with anyone at that time. He did not come for our scheduled visit in September not because he was afraid of me, but (I believe) because he disapproved of me, and was offended that I did not agree to the conditions which he set for our time together. I think he thought me unworthy of his company. I have no idea of course. I would say, whatever you meet now, in the form of Lord Knows and others, is your karma. Why not just accept it as it is? Why not just say: I am sorry, i was wrong all along. What the *freak* is wrong with you, khazana? If he's said once that he was wrong 25 years ago, he's said it literally dozens of times. Again, that has never been in dispute. Then what he wants the f*ck to prove? Why keep haunting these poor people?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: snip One thing we know, khazana: psychology and psychiatry have penetrated the mystique of mental illness. Two thousand years ago, God (as Jesus) seemed to indicate it was caused by demons; well we know he was wrong. You do? Then you changed your mind rather abruptly, one might say. Right, the 25-plus years it took him to do it is just the blink of an eye, isn't it, khazana? What are you talking about? Not even a month ago he defended the existence of demons. I am of course referring to what Robin wrote above, and not what you imagine he wrote. snip It is actually just a link I share about a subject that is I think interesting, and could well explain a certain set of behaviors that can be observed here as well, that of strong mood-swings for example: Splitting in BPD includes a switch between idealizing and demonizing others (absolute good or love versus absolute evil or hate with no middle term). from Wikipedia. Mood-swings can have many, many different causes. snip People who attempt to bring in mental illness on this forum are always persons who are using that as a weapon to protect themselves against the challenge that person or persons poses to them. You may assume so, but may be some people just try to find out the truth. They don't need to be hostile. The circumstances under which mental illness on this forum are brought up indicates that it is virtually always a function of hostility, not wanting to find out the truth. snip Starbucks invitation still stands. Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that you should have understanding if people who have been hurt by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your purpose. He's done neither. It's an invitation, an offer, to anyone who genuinely wants to know whether he has changed. Yet, he posted it in the form of a challenge, and that is very inappropriate. What's a guy gotta do to please you, khazana? Just be normal HERE. Robin offered a friendly invitation to prove he is a normal human being. To whom? Obviously I am not in question. I am living in a different continent and have only marginal interest in all of this. I base my judgments on what I read here, based and backed up by my experience of a lifetime of meeting all kinds of people, crazy and sane. Why are you are choosing to see this as a challenge? What's the point in trying to 'prove' anything at all, especially to people who were harmed once? Don't you see where they may perceive the danger? The very harm was in those 'confrontations'. So, Raunchy, be realistic, how would those people feel, who were once manipulated, when they where asked to meet the man who obviously manipulated them, because he needed to tell them something 'very important', and that would be that he has changed? Why can't he just say 'Mea Culpa, mea maxima culpa'? What if Charly Manson invited everybody to convince you that he is actually a nice guy, would you go and meet him? (I am not saying that Robin is like Manson!) Can you imagine what it must feel like be in a position where you need to prove you are good and decent person, now changed from 25 years ago? That's my point: where's the need to prove it? That's so absurd. And then Raunchy, anyone, anywhere, will not just be a trustful to believe someone has changed just on the hearsay of it. So what? Why the NEED to convince? That in itself makes him suspicious. What else would you have him do? Nothing. Just let people have their opinions. Where's the compassion you spoke of? Diagnosing Robin with BPD is a heaping pile of inappropriateness on your part, IMO. I didn't even mention Robin when posting the link. You are interpreting a little too much into this. In my opinion you're an opinionated, chucklehead. Now, here and forevermore, everyone who reads FFLife will know this is my opinion of you. It doesn't matter whether it's true or not. If I repeat it often enough, someone might believe it, maybe someone you love and respect will believe it and you're O.K. with that, right. You needn't defend yourself, because it's only my
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: So it's still slander Steve baby, any time retards try to judge me - it's slander :-) Whatever you say Ravi. Whatever you say. And evidently that is the attitude you must have shown to the judge, because from what you've said here, and on other forums, you got nothing, and she got everything.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT
But having said that, let me at least congratulate you on interacting in such a way to gain insight into some of your motivations. At least you saved the insults until the end. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: So it's still slander Steve baby, any time retards try to judge me - it's slander :-) Whatever you say Ravi. Whatever you say. And evidently that is the attitude you must have shown to the judge, because from what you've said here, and on other forums, you got nothing, and she got everything.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: snip Robin offered a friendly invitation to prove he is a normal human being. To whom? To anyone who is interested, obviously. Obviously I am not in question. I am living in a different continent and have only marginal interest in all of this. I base my judgments on what I read here, based and backed up by my experience of a lifetime of meeting all kinds of people, crazy and sane. Non sequitur. The issue is, why are you carping at Robin because he invited people to come meet him? That makes no sense whatsoever. Why are you are choosing to see this as a challenge? What's the point in trying to 'prove' anything at all, especially to people who were harmed once? Don't you see where they may perceive the danger? The very harm was in those 'confrontations'. So, Raunchy, be realistic, how would those people feel, who were once manipulated, when they where asked to meet the man who obviously manipulated them, because he needed to tell them something 'very important', and that would be that he has changed? This is insane. Nobody *has* to come meet him. It was an *offer*, an invitation, not a demand. A challenge. Why can't he just say 'Mea Culpa, mea maxima culpa'? HE'S DONE THAT ALREADY MANY, MANY, MANY TIMES. But not convincingly though. For that there is too much self-defense in it. There are too many aspects in the whole thing he still believes in. For example the idea that he has a special access to the 1st person ontology of people. And that's a very serious one, believe me, not something to joke about. Can you imagine what it must feel like be in a position where you need to prove you are good and decent person, now changed from 25 years ago? That's my point: where's the need to prove it? That's so absurd. And then Raunchy, anyone, anywhere, will not just be a trustful to believe someone has changed just on the hearsay of it. So what? Why the NEED to convince? That in itself makes him suspicious. This person is mentally ill. That is not a normal way of looking at this. You should now feel some compassion toward me :- What else would you have him do? Nothing. Just let people have their opinions. He's doing that. He's also offering to let them see what he's like now, if they're interested. Now that 'also offering' is contradicting the first statement. It is undermining it directly, and more so as he does so only as a reaction to his perceived 'wrong' portrayal in CULT. Now, if he would have evolved in a major way, he would be able to accept the way he was perceived. He would not try to convince people that he is different. His very wish to INFLUENCE people even now is the problem. ACCEPTANCE of the status quo would be the solution. Of course IMHO Where's the compassion you spoke of? Diagnosing Robin with BPD is a heaping pile of inappropriateness on your part, IMO. I didn't even mention Robin when posting the link. You are interpreting a little too much into this. Everybody here knows why you posted it, khazana. You didn't have to mention Robin for that to be obvious. Your dishonesty is not helping you. I was thinking of him, yes, but this was not a clear cut 'diagnosis' at all. It was just a piece of information for myself, to form an opinion, which I shared. Only one aspect, a consideration, and I phrased it very carefully, with the intention not to hurt anybody, knowing the likes of insensitive people like you would just madly jump at it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: I was fucking with her just as I fuck with retards like you here and I had a blast, her whole life was based on fantasies of a Guru. She would fashion herself as a traditional, conservative Hindu woman, she would talk about her love, innocence, devotion but she was totally alienated from reality. She couldn't even love her own husband and her actual actions were totally opposite to her fantasies. In retrospect I was so mystically intoxicated that I myself was unaware of my behavior and it genuinely scared the crap out of her..LOL, because you only read about it in books to actually witness and be with an ordinary man who was blissed and intoxicated was too much for her, would have too much for anyone so I feel sympathy, pity for her regardless - no way she could ever imagine the state of mind I was in. She stayed away from me after that :-), we had already been separated over a year at that point. So it's still slander Steve baby, any time retards try to judge me - it's slander :-) You are such a hot head Ravi. That results in retarded thinking. Judging almost everyone as a retard reveals a lot of retarded sensitivities in your brain. Difficult to figure out. Takes one to know one. The situation you describe here, regardless of what your experiences at the time were, and even what they are now, must have been very painful for you. When dealing with people's fantasies you have to kind of walk on the cracks between them, and that is really difficult to do, especially if we are loaded with our own fantasies. Even if we have really clear spiritual experiences, learning to live those experiences in a way that does not cause problems with people close to us, and people not so close to us may be very challenging.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: So it's still slander Steve baby, any time retards try to judge me - it's slander :-) Whatever you say Ravi. Whatever you say. And evidently that is the attitude you must have shown to the judge, because from what you've said here, and on other forums, you got nothing, and she got everything. Pay no attention to Steve, folks. He's just jealous that Ravi's I.Q. is over 100.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: snip One thing we know, khazana: psychology and psychiatry have penetrated the mystique of mental illness. Two thousand years ago, God (as Jesus) seemed to indicate it was caused by demons; well we know he was wrong. You do? Then you changed your mind rather abruptly, one might say. Right, the 25-plus years it took him to do it is just the blink of an eye, isn't it, khazana? What are you talking about? Not even a month ago he defended the existence of demons. I am of course referring to what Robin wrote above, and not what you imagine he wrote. snip It is actually just a link I share about a subject that is I think interesting, and could well explain a certain set of behaviors that can be observed here as well, that of strong mood-swings for example: Splitting in BPD includes a switch between idealizing and demonizing others (absolute good or love versus absolute evil or hate with no middle term). from Wikipedia. Mood-swings can have many, many different causes. snip People who attempt to bring in mental illness on this forum are always persons who are using that as a weapon to protect themselves against the challenge that person or persons poses to them. You may assume so, but may be some people just try to find out the truth. They don't need to be hostile. The circumstances under which mental illness on this forum are brought up indicates that it is virtually always a function of hostility, not wanting to find out the truth. snip Starbucks invitation still stands. Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that you should have understanding if people who have been hurt by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your purpose. He's done neither. It's an invitation, an offer, to anyone who genuinely wants to know whether he has changed. Yet, he posted it in the form of a challenge, and that is very inappropriate. What's a guy gotta do to please you, khazana? Just be normal HERE. Robin offered a friendly invitation to prove he is a normal human being. To whom? Obviously I am not in question. I am living in a different continent and have only marginal interest in all of this. I base my judgments on what I read here, based and backed up by my experience of a lifetime of meeting all kinds of people, crazy and sane. Why are you are choosing to see this as a challenge? What's the point in trying to 'prove' anything at all, especially to people who were harmed once? Don't you see where they may perceive the danger? The very harm was in those 'confrontations'. So, Raunchy, be realistic, how would those people feel, who were once manipulated, when they where asked to meet the man who obviously manipulated them, because he needed to tell them something 'very important', and that would be that he has changed? Why can't he just say 'Mea Culpa, mea maxima culpa'? What if Charly Manson invited everybody to convince you that he is actually a nice guy, would you go and meet him? (I am not saying that Robin is like Manson!) Can you imagine what it must feel like be in a position where you need to prove you are good and decent person, now changed from 25 years ago? That's my point: where's the need to prove it? That's so absurd. And then Raunchy, anyone, anywhere, will not just be a trustful to believe someone has changed just on the hearsay of it. So what? Why the NEED to convince? That in itself makes him suspicious. What else would you have him do? Nothing. Just let people have their opinions. Where's the compassion you spoke of? Diagnosing Robin with BPD is a heaping pile of inappropriateness on your part, IMO. I didn't even mention Robin when posting the link. You are interpreting a little too much into this. In my opinion you're an opinionated, chucklehead. Now, here and forevermore, everyone who reads FFLife will know this is my opinion of you. It doesn't matter whether it's true or not. If I
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
Dear Khazana, It is not possible for you to understand any of this. You have your fixed point of view--and you don't even know how all this (my past, me, what has happened) can been seen in a different way. You are not capable of a form of sophistication and complexity of apprehension that would even begin to do justice to what happened in those Ten Years. You don't have any feeling for the person that I am at all, and if reading the first 93 pages of CULT has led to your present impression of me, then the book is worse than I thought. But no one can do anything to make you see things in a different light--You must be right in how you see reality and me. There is nothing I can do to change this; so you can just have the satisfaction of knowing that anyone (like authfriend or raunchy or Ann or those who know and love me in my present life) who disagrees with you must be wrong. Because this is how you will always feel. Nothing can penetrate this, Khazana. So I will accept that your judgment about me is what it will be--and that anyone who sees me very differently from you (persons who have known me for 35 years)--they are deceived, and you have the correct perception. It is not necessarily that you are at fault here; but your understanding is being determined in a particular way which will brook no compromise or modification. You are dead wrong in some vital respects concerning me; but you are carrying out a good deed in the eyes of those who would view me as you do. In that regard, you are preserving a view of myself which is out there. But if there is anyone who has got a certain immovable and unchangeable view of myself, it is you--way beyond Bill Howell and Lord Knows (who will be delighted at your obstinacy and implacability). I am sorry you so misunderstand me, Khazana, but that is our destiny. Of course I am only telling you what I think, how I feel. But the system you are employing to understand me, that is a closed system and is not subject to being influenced by anything--including the truth. You will see things quite differently than this of course. You a very simple-minded fellow, Khazana. But who knows? I am not God. Perhaps he sees things exactly as you do. But in that case I will have to tell Him he is wrong. :-) You have a fatal condition of fixed context of apprehension. It is, I believe, entirely innocent. You are doing your best--that will have to be enough for me. But we have nothing to say to each other. Which is disappointing to me. Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: snip Starbucks invitation still stands. Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that you should have understanding if people who have been hurt by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your purpose. [I wrote:] He's done neither. It's an invitation, an offer, to anyone who genuinely wants to know whether he has changed. Yet, he posted it in the form of a challenge, and that is very inappropriate. Not true, khazana: if I posed it as a challenge I would disprove my very assertion. I do not challenge anyone these days. You have seriously misread my first letter to Bill Howell. Maybe, Robin, but then, if I misread it, that is to say, if I misunderstood your intentions, so may have done others who are actually concerned. That does not follow. Your command of English is faulty, and you have enormous hostility toward Robin, so you're prone to misunderstand him in a way that supports your own pre/misconceptions. I am just saying that I don't understand this move of you, trying to 'prove' something (that you have changed). Why not just own up to all of them, and let them have their judgments, no matter what they where? It is, as if you can't accept these judgments, that is why you have to prove to them that you are different now. Perfect example of what I just described. Howell, Brahmi, and Lord Knows have claimed he has not changed. Why would Robin own up to what they claim if he believes he *has* changed? Why would he accept what he feels is an incorrect judgment? Wait, wait, you get it wrong. He offered this AFTER starting to read CULT, and being dissatisfied with the way he was portrayed there. CULT is only about his past, and being dissatisfied with the perception of his ex-followers about these past proceedings, he made this offer. I don't call that owning up to it. It's entirely appropriate for him
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: snip Robin offered a friendly invitation to prove he is a normal human being. To whom? To anyone who is interested, obviously. Obviously I am not in question. I am living in a different continent and have only marginal interest in all of this. I base my judgments on what I read here, based and backed up by my experience of a lifetime of meeting all kinds of people, crazy and sane. Non sequitur. The issue is, why are you carping at Robin because he invited people to come meet him? That makes no sense whatsoever. Why are you are choosing to see this as a challenge? What's the point in trying to 'prove' anything at all, especially to people who were harmed once? Don't you see where they may perceive the danger? The very harm was in those 'confrontations'. So, Raunchy, be realistic, how would those people feel, who were once manipulated, when they where asked to meet the man who obviously manipulated them, because he needed to tell them something 'very important', and that would be that he has changed? This is insane. Nobody *has* to come meet him. It was an *offer*, an invitation, not a demand. A challenge. Why can't he just say 'Mea Culpa, mea maxima culpa'? HE'S DONE THAT ALREADY MANY, MANY, MANY TIMES. But not convincingly though. For that there is too much self-defense in it. There are too many aspects in the whole thing he still believes in. For example the idea that he has a special access to the 1st person ontology of people. And that's a very serious one, believe me, not something to joke about. Can you imagine what it must feel like be in a position where you need to prove you are good and decent person, now changed from 25 years ago? That's my point: where's the need to prove it? That's so absurd. And then Raunchy, anyone, anywhere, will not just be a trustful to believe someone has changed just on the hearsay of it. So what? Why the NEED to convince? That in itself makes him suspicious. This person is mentally ill. That is not a normal way of looking at this. You should now feel some compassion toward me :- What else would you have him do? Nothing. Just let people have their opinions. He's doing that. He's also offering to let them see what he's like now, if they're interested. Now that 'also offering' is contradicting the first statement. It is undermining it directly, and more so as he does so only as a reaction to his perceived 'wrong' portrayal in CULT. Now, if he would have evolved in a major way, he would be able to accept the way he was perceived. He would not try to convince people that he is different. His very wish to INFLUENCE people even now is the problem. ACCEPTANCE of the status quo would be the solution. Of course IMHO Where's the compassion you spoke of? Diagnosing Robin with BPD is a heaping pile of inappropriateness on your part, IMO. I didn't even mention Robin when posting the link. You are interpreting a little too much into this. Everybody here knows why you posted it, khazana. You didn't have to mention Robin for that to be obvious. Your dishonesty is not helping you. I was thinking of him, yes, but this was not a clear cut 'diagnosis' at all. It was just a piece of information for myself, to form an opinion, which I shared. Only one aspect, a consideration, and I phrased it very carefully, with the intention not to hurt anybody, knowing the likes of insensitive people like you would just madly jump at it. Having now admitted what everyone suspected, that you posted about BPD with Robin in mind, did it feel good to validate your *opinion* of him so that you could denigrate him in good conscience? I'd say you were pretty darn insensitive yourself and slanderously presumptuous, to go balls out BPD on him, I might add.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: snip One thing we know, khazana: psychology and psychiatry have penetrated the mystique of mental illness. Two thousand years ago, God (as Jesus) seemed to indicate it was caused by demons; well we know he was wrong. You do? Then you changed your mind rather abruptly, one might say. Right, the 25-plus years it took him to do it is just the blink of an eye, isn't it, khazana? What are you talking about? Not even a month ago he defended the existence of demons. I am of course referring to what Robin wrote above, and not what you imagine he wrote. snip It is actually just a link I share about a subject that is I think interesting, and could well explain a certain set of behaviors that can be observed here as well, that of strong mood-swings for example: Splitting in BPD includes a switch between idealizing and demonizing others (absolute good or love versus absolute evil or hate with no middle term). from Wikipedia. Mood-swings can have many, many different causes. snip People who attempt to bring in mental illness on this forum are always persons who are using that as a weapon to protect themselves against the challenge that person or persons poses to them. You may assume so, but may be some people just try to find out the truth. They don't need to be hostile. The circumstances under which mental illness on this forum are brought up indicates that it is virtually always a function of hostility, not wanting to find out the truth. snip Starbucks invitation still stands. Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that you should have understanding if people who have been hurt by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your purpose. He's done neither. It's an invitation, an offer, to anyone who genuinely wants to know whether he has changed. Yet, he posted it in the form of a challenge, and that is very inappropriate. What's a guy gotta do to please you, khazana? Just be normal HERE. Robin offered a friendly invitation to prove he is a normal human being. To whom? Obviously I am not in question. I am living in a different continent and have only marginal interest in all of this. I base my judgments on what I read here, based and backed up by my experience of a lifetime of meeting all kinds of people, crazy and sane. Why are you are choosing to see this as a challenge? What's the point in trying to 'prove' anything at all, especially to people who were harmed once? Don't you see where they may perceive the danger? The very harm was in those 'confrontations'. So, Raunchy, be realistic, how would those people feel, who were once manipulated, when they where asked to meet the man who obviously manipulated them, because he needed to tell them something 'very important', and that would be that he has changed? Why can't he just say 'Mea Culpa, mea maxima culpa'? What if Charly Manson invited everybody to convince you that he is actually a nice guy, would you go and meet him? (I am not saying that Robin is like Manson!) Can you imagine what it must feel like be in a position where you need to prove you are good and decent person, now changed from 25 years ago? That's my point: where's the need to prove it? That's so absurd. And then Raunchy, anyone, anywhere, will not just be a trustful to believe someone has changed just on the hearsay of it. So what? Why the NEED to convince? That in itself makes him suspicious. What else would you have him do? Nothing. Just let people have their opinions. Where's the compassion you spoke of? Diagnosing Robin with BPD is a heaping pile of inappropriateness on your part, IMO. I didn't even mention Robin when posting the link. You are interpreting a little too much into
[FairfieldLife] Re: For Emily: A Question for a Washington State Resident
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: Emily, Thanks for the info. It sounds like the procedures are still being drafted and implemented later. Once all the rules are set, it might give me an incentive to visit Seattle again. JR Pot is highly overrated. I figure anyone still smoking dope after the age of 16 needs to find a better hobby or a more demanding job or get a pet or something. (OK, I'm ready for the piling on.) Awoe, It all depends on how you define overrated. The state of Washington estimates that it would earn $550 million dollars from taxes on MJ sales. That means the state estimates that a significant amount of the population would be smoking pot if legalized. Also, for you information, the state of Washington does not have income taxes. So, the state is a pioneer or creative in finding sources of income to pay for government expenses. Further, if the state is successful in raising taxes this way, other states in the country could very well follow suit. JR
