[FairfieldLife] The academic fields with the least discipline...
...and the most ego. I found this chart interesting, in that the longest Ph.D. dissertations seem to be in the fields most subject to opinion -- history, antrhopology, political science, communication, english, sociology, and education. It's almost as if the grad students in those fields are already preparing for an academic life characterized by the belief that the more they say about their opinions, the more they can pretend they aren't opinion. The chart reminds me of an old college professor of mine who had a big rubber stamp that he would wield mercilessly on papers he thought deserved it. It was the letters B.S. -- always stamped in red over offending paragraphs or pages. When asked what the initials stood for, he would smile and say, Bloated Syntax. http://priceonomics.com/the-average-length-of-dissertations/ http://priceonomics.com/the-average-length-of-dissertations/ This said, I disagree with whoever suggested that Stephen King needs editing. I find reading his latest work a refreshing throwback to the days in which writers didn't pander to attention spans shortened by a lifetime's exposure to sound bites and artificially shortened exposition. The thing I like most about him as a writer is that he *takes his time* creating characters, so that the reader gets to feel that he *knows* them, before he does something with them in the plot. In The Stand, King lovingly spent the first third of the book creating a character who was the quintessential great guy. And then he killed him, suddenly and unexpectedly, as the result of a mindless act of terrorism. You FELT that. You FELT the loss, almost as if it had been a great guy you knew personally. I am not convinced that this would have happened if he had given the character buildup short shrift the way most writers do these days. But that's just opinion, too. At least I didn't require 500 pages to express it. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] The academic fields with the least discipline...
Ok, turq, here's a question for you: what goes to battle with ego? Being? Truth? Love? I don't think so. Other egos? Hmmm...I'd guess yes. But that's just my opinion. Once again I don't understand why you get so het up about people having and sharing opinions. It's what we all do. Especially after we've survived our midlife crisis! I think most people share opinions for the purpose of benefiting others. If they're misguided in that, well, there's obviously a learning curve involved. And maybe wanting to benefit others is the last stronghold of the ego. Hmmm... And really, if you added up all your writing online, I bet you'd get close to 500 pages (-: About character development, I'm making my way through the 5 previous seasons of Castle and it's so gratifying to watch the unfolding of all the different characters. But of course especially Castle and Beckett as they realize their love for each other more and more. On Thursday, November 7, 2013 2:26 AM, TurquoiseB turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote: ...and the most ego. I found this chart interesting, in that the longest Ph.D. dissertations seem to be in the fields most subject to opinion -- history, antrhopology, political science, communication, english, sociology, and education. It's almost as if the grad students in those fields are already preparing for an academic life characterized by the belief that the more they say about their opinions, the more they can pretend they aren't opinion. The chart reminds me of an old college professor of mine who had a big rubber stamp that he would wield mercilessly on papers he thought deserved it. It was the letters B.S. -- always stamped in red over offending paragraphs or pages. When asked what the initials stood for, he would smile and say, Bloated Syntax. http://priceonomics.com/the-average-length-of-dissertations/ This said, I disagree with whoever suggested that Stephen King needs editing. I find reading his latest work a refreshing throwback to the days in which writers didn't pander to attention spans shortened by a lifetime's exposure to sound bites and artificially shortened exposition. The thing I like most about him as a writer is that he *takes his time* creating characters, so that the reader gets to feel that he *knows* them, before he does something with them in the plot. In The Stand, King lovingly spent the first third of the book creating a character who was the quintessential great guy. And then he killed him, suddenly and unexpectedly, as the result of a mindless act of terrorism. You FELT that. You FELT the loss, almost as if it had been a great guy you knew personally. I am not convinced that this would have happened if he had given the character buildup short shrift the way most writers do these days. But that's just opinion, too. At least I didn't require 500 pages to express it. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] The academic fields with the least discipline...
Also turq, I do find it interesting that Geography, Geology and Chemistry appear in the top 12. To me that indicates a deeper principle at work. On Thursday, November 7, 2013 6:34 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com wrote: Ok, turq, here's a question for you: what goes to battle with ego? Being? Truth? Love? I don't think so. Other egos? Hmmm...I'd guess yes. But that's just my opinion. Once again I don't understand why you get so het up about people having and sharing opinions. It's what we all do. Especially after we've survived our midlife crisis! I think most people share opinions for the purpose of benefiting others. If they're misguided in that, well, there's obviously a learning curve involved. And maybe wanting to benefit others is the last stronghold of the ego. Hmmm... And really, if you added up all your writing online, I bet you'd get close to 500 pages (-: About character development, I'm making my way through the 5 previous seasons of Castle and it's so gratifying to watch the unfolding of all the different characters. But of course especially Castle and Beckett as they realize their love for each other more and more. On Thursday, November 7, 2013 2:26 AM, TurquoiseB turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote: ...and the most ego. I found this chart interesting, in that the longest Ph.D. dissertations seem to be in the fields most subject to opinion -- history, antrhopology, political science, communication, english, sociology, and education. It's almost as if the grad students in those fields are already preparing for an academic life characterized by the belief that the more they say about their opinions, the more they can pretend they aren't opinion. The chart reminds me of an old college professor of mine who had a big rubber stamp that he would wield mercilessly on papers he thought deserved it. It was the letters B.S. -- always stamped in red over offending paragraphs or pages. When asked what the initials stood for, he would smile and say, Bloated Syntax. http://priceonomics.com/the-average-length-of-dissertations/ This said, I disagree with whoever suggested that Stephen King needs editing. I find reading his latest work a refreshing throwback to the days in which writers didn't pander to attention spans shortened by a lifetime's exposure to sound bites and artificially shortened exposition. The thing I like most about him as a writer is that he *takes his time* creating characters, so that the reader gets to feel that he *knows* them, before he does something with them in the plot. In The Stand, King lovingly spent the first third of the book creating a character who was the quintessential great guy. And then he killed him, suddenly and unexpectedly, as the result of a mindless act of terrorism. You FELT that. You FELT the loss, almost as if it had been a great guy you knew personally. I am not convinced that this would have happened if he had given the character buildup short shrift the way most writers do these days. But that's just opinion, too. At least I didn't require 500 pages to express it. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The academic fields with the least discipline...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Ok, turq, here's a question for you: what goes to battle with ego? There is rarely a *need* for battle if there are no egos involved. Being? Truth? Love? I don't think so. Other egos? Hmmm... I'd guess yes. But that's just my opinion. Once again I don't understand why you get so het up about people having and sharing opinions. It's what we all do. Especially after we've survived our midlife crisis! I have no issue at all with people having opinions. It's when they try to present them as something *other than* opinion -- as truth, or worse, as some kind of cosmic Truth -- that I cry bullshit. I think most people share opinions for the purpose of benefiting others. And *that* is ego. Believing that your opinion is so cool or so right or so Truth-y that sharing it will benefit others. If they're misguided in that, well, there's obviously a learning curve involved. And maybe wanting to benefit others is the last stronghold of the ego. Hmmm... Certainly believing that their opinion has the *ability* to benefit others is one of the last strongholds of ego. And really, if you added up all your writing online, I bet you'd get close to 500 pages (-: But -- unlike some here -- I neither expect people to read what I post, or throw hissy-fits when others don't. Some here actually throw tantrums when people don't *respond* to what they've written. :-) About character development, I'm making my way through the 5 previous seasons of Castle and it's so gratifying to watch the unfolding of all the different characters. But of course especially Castle and Beckett as they realize their love for each other more and more. It's a completely formulaic series, but its strength is in the actors, and the way they fill out the characters as written. Nathan is a tour de force in this regard, no matter what he's in, but Stana Katic is pretty good at being interesting, too.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The academic fields with the least discipline...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Also turq, I do find it interesting that Geography, Geology and Chemistry appear in the top 12. To me that indicates a deeper principle at work. With chemistry, it's probably because the grad students are already trying to land a high-paying job, and believing that the more words they write, the more prospective employers might be impressed. Geology might be the same if they're trying to get jobs in the petroleum industry. But geography? Go figure. Maybe it's just so boring that they feel they have to write a lot to justify majoring in it. :-) On Thursday, November 7, 2013 2:26 AM, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: ...and the most ego. I found this chart interesting, in that the longest Ph.D. dissertations seem to be in the fields most subject to opinion -- history, antrhopology, political science, communication, english, sociology, and education. It's almost as if the grad students in those fields are already preparing for an academic life characterized by the belief that the more they say about their opinions, the more they can pretend they aren't opinion. The chart reminds me of an old college professor of mine who had a big rubber stamp that he would wield mercilessly on papers he thought deserved it. It was the letters B.S. -- always stamped in red over offending paragraphs or pages. When asked what the initials stood for, he would smile and say, Bloated Syntax. http://priceonomics.com/the-average-length-of-dissertations/ This said, I disagree with whoever suggested that Stephen King needs editing. I find reading his latest work a refreshing throwback to the days in which writers didn't pander to attention spans shortened by a lifetime's exposure to sound bites and artificially shortened exposition. The thing I like most about him as a writer is that he *takes his time* creating characters, so that the reader gets to feel that he *knows* them, before he does something with them in the plot. In The Stand, King lovingly spent the first third of the book creating a character who was the quintessential great guy. And then he killed him, suddenly and unexpectedly, as the result of a mindless act of terrorism. You FELT that. You FELT the loss, almost as if it had been a great guy you knew personally. I am not convinced that this would have happened if he had given the character buildup short shrift the way most writers do these days. But that's just opinion, too. At least I didn't require 500 pages to express it. :-)
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
Om, II. TM meditators are effortless meditators. Not all Buddhist meditators are effortless meditators. [see preparatory introductory lecture to learning TM]. Therefore, not all Buddhists are transcendental meditators. Om, There are TM meditators There are Buddhist meditators Anyone who meditates with the aim of samadhi is a Buddhist. Therefore, Transcendental Meditators are Buddhists. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: It is said, Anyone who meditates with the aim of samadhi is a Buddhist. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Ok, Richard, nobody else is gonna challenge you on this. Actually I'm not either. But it would be great if you could say more about it. Seems revolutionary (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: Anyone who meditates with the aim of samadhi is a Buddhist. On 11/3/2013 4:42 PM, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote: Is it possible to be a Buddhist and practice meditation effortlessly? Yes, according to MMY. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Should TM'er Buddhists even be allowed to have a Dome badge? Is it possible to be a buddhist and practice meditation effortlessly? -Buck ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote: Re The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's not complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang.: The Yin and Yang concepts point to a Tao that includes the opposites. Imagining that one side of a pair of opposites could gain the upper hand over the other would be a vulgar error. As the little we know about Manichaeism and similar dualist religions/philosophies comes to us from hostile sources isn't it possible that these beliefs weren't as dualist as they've been painted but perhaps also had the idea of a Transcendence that reconciled the positive and negative aspects of life? ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... mailto:punditster@... wrote: So, let's review what we know about the prophet Mani. The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's not complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang, which is probably derived from the Indian Sankhya, a radical dualism, and later tantra- a theory of polarity which posits male and female energies. The name 'Mani' is Sanskrit. Mani traveled and lived in India for several years, visiting Buddhist lands such as Bamiyan in Afghanistan, so it is not surprising that Buddhist influences would be apparent. Mani apparently adopted his theory of the reincarnation (transmigration of souls) from the Buddhists. Mani's sect structure was apparently based on the Buddhist Sangha, that is, Arhants and the lay follower community. On 11/2/2013 11:31 AM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote: No wonder the Near-Eastern realm got so mixed up. It seems that as Manichean ideology spread to the East it incorporated Buddhist concepts along the way in a effort to show the superiority of the Religion of Light. Mani lived during the third century of the current era. Mani used the epitaph Buddha of Light and identified himself as Maitreya. He and his followers specifically borrowed from early Pure Land Sutras and Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka philosophy. As it entered the region of Gandhara and spread to China it used the Buddhist Hinayana tradition to support its views of matter, the body and the world. MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM David A. Scott Christ Church College of Higher Education
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Is the Holy Spirit on vacation?
MZ is short for Masked Zebra, which was Robin's handle. It's his idea Yifuzero is talking about. Seraphina wrote: Re An interesting speculative idea by MZ - that the Holy Spirit vacated the scene after the WWII Monte Cassino bombing. I've heard that idea before - but can't recall who said it. So who is MZ and why do you expect us to recognise the initials? Surely the Holy Spirit doesn't split when the going gets tough? Actually Robin thought it was the Holy Trinity en masse, as it were, who fled the scene and was no longer accessible to human beans. He never really said why he thought that. I always inferred it was similar to God inflicting the Flood on humankind: The extraordinary brutality of WWII led God to become fed up with human behavior and decide to leave us to our own devices. Why the Monte Cassino bombing was the straw the camel stepped on and broke, I have no idea.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Who#39;s who on FFL?
You ought to be able to pick the real names up pretty quickly, actually, just as the rest of us have, by associating the handle (what you're calling a sign-on name) in the attribution line of posts quoting a person with how that person is addressed or how they sign their posts (e.g., Buck, although Buck is also a handle). Also, a number of folks here use only their handles because they prefer to remain anonymous. I suppose it is confusing for newcomers, but we've all had to deal with it. If you're confused about a particular name or handle, just ask. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Can I mention something else that's been bugging me about FFL? I am Seraphita. That is Seraphita = Seraphita = Seraphita. That's the name I selected when registering with FFL. That's the name I always use. Simple OK? But we know there are a lot of people who have a sign-on name but who are also addressed by a familiar name. Correct me if I'm wrong but . . . authfriend = Judy TurquoiseB = Barry dhamilton = Buck and the Lord knows who wgm4u and awoelflebater are! For the sake of new arrivals to FFL and the occasional lurker could some kind soul list the different aliases of the posters to this site so that everyone knows who is saying what to whom. It would make life so much simpler.
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
What's yer problem? We're saying we like this kind of thing, the fancier and more elaborate the better. Love the costumes in this clip, the different coordinated black-and-white prints for the vestments. Russian liturgical music is kind of an acquired taste for most Westerners, but it's magnificent once you develop an ear for it. I told you my sister sang with an amateur (but superb) Russian chorus in Boston some years ago, didn't I? They did a tour of Russia at one point, where they had very eager Russian audiences. Choral performance of liturgical music had almost become a lost art under Communism, so people were actually re-learning the style and fine points from them. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: You're all sounding like desiccated corpses drying in the desert. There is another type of Christian life here in America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0M94z3Pev4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0M94z3Pev4 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Seraphita wrote: Re Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship context and joined the church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple of years but wasn't inspired enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the Personal God aspect of the belief system (or Christ as savior). God as Unified Field, the ultimate (and unworshipable) abstraction, is about as far as I can go. : Again very close to my view. Here in the UK, the Anglican Church is essentially a wishy- washy nostalgia circus for reminding grown-ups of their childhood. (With bits of Arthurian romance added to the mix.) So all pretty harmless. Even arch-atheist Richard Dawkins has confessed to occasionally popping into a church just to enjoy the aesthetic experience! Heehee. Be fun to see that guy Spufford look up from his prayers and clap eyes on Dawkins. Having always been intrigued by the occult fringe, I've also seen some attraction in the Catholic position: the Mass as a magical ritual and the unembarrassed veneration of those medieval mystics. Even such unregenerates as Oscar Wilde, Baudelaire and Huysmans finally turned to Rome as they sensed it was the more poetical religion. Huh, I'm attracted by the poetry/music/incense/art/theatrical aspects as well. Goes way back with me to the (wonderful) Audrey Hepburn film The Nun's Story. I think I'd need a Peter Finch equivalent, though. To this day I have no idea whether my late father had any religious sensibility whatsoever, but he adored churches and religious music and painting. I guess it's in the genes. I might be tempted to pop into a Catholic church at some point if they were doing a mass in Latin. There's something really magical about Latin. Like Sanskrit, I suppose, but the music is a lot better. ;-) I once memorized the Hail Mary in Latin just because I loved the sound of it. My Presbyterian ancestors (Huguenots, no less) must have spun themselves nearly out of their graves.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Re: The academic fields with the least discipline...
Barry wrote: I think most people share opinions for the purpose of benefiting others And *that* is ego. Believing that your opinion is so cool or so right or so Truth-y that sharing it will benefit others. Something Barry never does. (horselaugh) (snip) But -- unlike some here -- I neither expect people to read what I post, or throw hissy-fits when others don't. Some here actually throw tantrums when people don't *respond* to what they've written. :-) No, they don't. They're making the point that Barry can't respond to criticism or pull his weight in a debate.
[FairfieldLife] RE: The academic fields with the least discipline...
Barry wrote: (snip) This said, I disagree with whoever suggested that Stephen King needs editing. As if Barry didn't know who that person was. What a coward. I find reading his latest work a refreshing throwback to the days in which writers didn't pander to attention spans shortened by a lifetime's exposure to sound bites and artificially shortened exposition. Bullshit. That isn't what editing is, and it isn't what King needed. As he so often does, Barry simply made a stopid assumption that would give him a reason to take a shot at me for making a point he didn't understand in the first place. Such a phony. I dare him to read Duma Key and tell us he thought its second half didn't need to be heavily pruned and shaped. (Remember, I said the first half--where the exposition takes place--was brilliant.) I don't, frankly, know (and neither does Barry) whether in his heyday King himself had an infallible sense of how much was enough, or whether it was a savvy editor. But if it was his own sense, for sure he had lost it in some of his recent books and lacked an editor with the guts to keep him on track. If he has regained it (or has realized he needed an editor), good for him.
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
Yes Our Mystical America heritage, Moravians too. Yea the Moravians too were a group of mystical and spiritual Meissner effect 'independents' in old Europe. Going back centuries in European history. In the history of the spiritual West, Moravians too met a fate against an ignorance of faith-orthodoxy the likes of Catholics, Anglicans, and Lutheran religionists and eventually made it safe to America. May the Unified Field bless and keep safe spiritual America always free! -Buck in the Dome Seraphita wrote: (snip) I went to a Moravian school originally founded in 1753 as a utopian community. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: What's yer problem? We're saying we like this kind of thing, the fancier and more elaborate the better. Love the costumes in this clip, the different coordinated black-and-white prints for the vestments. Russian liturgical music is kind of an acquired taste for most Westerners, but it's magnificent once you develop an ear for it. I told you my sister sang with an amateur (but superb) Russian chorus in Boston some years ago, didn't I? They did a tour of Russia at one point, where they had very eager Russian audiences. Choral performance of liturgical music had almost become a lost art under Communism, so people were actually re-learning the style and fine points from them. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: You're all sounding like desiccated corpses drying in the desert. There is another type of Christian life here in America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0M94z3Pev4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0M94z3Pev4 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Seraphita wrote: Re Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship context and joined the church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple of years but wasn't inspired enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the Personal God aspect of the belief system (or Christ as savior). God as Unified Field, the ultimate (and unworshipable) abstraction, is about as far as I can go. : Again very close to my view. Here in the UK, the Anglican Church is essentially a wishy- washy nostalgia circus for reminding grown-ups of their childhood. (With bits of Arthurian romance added to the mix.) So all pretty harmless. Even arch-atheist Richard Dawkins has confessed to occasionally popping into a church just to enjoy the aesthetic experience! Heehee. Be fun to see that guy Spufford look up from his prayers and clap eyes on Dawkins. Having always been intrigued by the occult fringe, I've also seen some attraction in the Catholic position: the Mass as a magical ritual and the unembarrassed veneration of those medieval mystics. Even such unregenerates as Oscar Wilde, Baudelaire and Huysmans finally turned to Rome as they sensed it was the more poetical religion. Huh, I'm attracted by the poetry/music/incense/art/theatrical aspects as well. Goes way back with me to the (wonderful) Audrey Hepburn film The Nun's Story. I think I'd need a Peter Finch equivalent, though. To this day I have no idea whether my late father had any religious sensibility whatsoever, but he adored churches and religious music and painting. I guess it's in the genes. I might be tempted to pop into a Catholic church at some point if they were doing a mass in Latin. There's something really magical about Latin. Like Sanskrit, I suppose, but the music is a lot better. ;-) I once memorized the Hail Mary in Latin just because I loved the sound of it. My Presbyterian ancestors (Huguenots, no less) must have spun themselves nearly out of their graves.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The academic fields with the least discipline...
See Share, *this* is what I mean about the difference between simply presenting one's opinion, and getting one's ego-panties in a twist, and trying to turn it into a battle that's all going on inside the egomaniac's head. All I did is present an opinion. I even said at the end that that was *all* it was. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Barry wrote: (snip) This said, I disagree with whoever suggested that Stephen King needs editing. As if Barry didn't know who that person was. What a coward. I find reading his latest work a refreshing throwback to the days in which writers didn't pander to attention spans shortened by a lifetime's exposure to sound bites and artificially shortened exposition. Bullshit. That isn't what editing is, and it isn't what King needed. As he so often does, Barry simply made a stopid assumption that would give him a reason to take a shot at me for making a point he didn't understand in the first place. Such a phony. I dare him to read Duma Key and tell us he thought its second half didn't need to be heavily pruned and shaped. (Remember, I said the first half--where the exposition takes place--was brilliant.) I don't, frankly, know (and neither does Barry) whether in his heyday King himself had an infallible sense of how much was enough, or whether it was a savvy editor. But if it was his own sense, for sure he had lost it in some of his recent books and lacked an editor with the guts to keep him on track. If he has regained it (or has realized he needed an editor), good for him.
[FairfieldLife] RE: The academic fields with the least discipline...
The rumor at the school where I did my PhD was that they weighed the dissertations rather than read them. I took that rumor seriously enough to make sure that mine was extra fat and typed on the heaviest paper I could find. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: ...and the most ego. I found this chart interesting, in that the longest Ph.D. dissertations seem to be in the fields most subject to opinion -- history, antrhopology, political science, communication, english, sociology, and education. It's almost as if the grad students in those fields are already preparing for an academic life characterized by the belief that the more they say about their opinions, the more they can pretend they aren't opinion. The chart reminds me of an old college professor of mine who had a big rubber stamp that he would wield mercilessly on papers he thought deserved it. It was the letters B.S. -- always stamped in red over offending paragraphs or pages. When asked what the initials stood for, he would smile and say, Bloated Syntax. http://priceonomics.com/the-average-length-of-dissertations/ http://priceonomics.com/the-average-length-of-dissertations/ This said, I disagree with whoever suggested that Stephen King needs editing. I find reading his latest work a refreshing throwback to the days in which writers didn't pander to attention spans shortened by a lifetime's exposure to sound bites and artificially shortened exposition. The thing I like most about him as a writer is that he *takes his time* creating characters, so that the reader gets to feel that he *knows* them, before he does something with them in the plot. In The Stand, King lovingly spent the first third of the book creating a character who was the quintessential great guy. And then he killed him, suddenly and unexpectedly, as the result of a mindless act of terrorism. You FELT that. You FELT the loss, almost as if it had been a great guy you knew personally. I am not convinced that this would have happened if he had given the character buildup short shrift the way most writers do these days. But that's just opinion, too. At least I didn't require 500 pages to express it. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The academic fields with the least discipline...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 wrote: The rumor at the school where I did my PhD was that they weighed the dissertations rather than read them. I took that rumor seriously enough to make sure that mine was extra fat and typed on the heaviest paper I could find. That's like the old tech writer joke for those unfortunate enough to have to do guvmint work according to MIL-SPECS. How do you know when a battleship under construction is finished? Every day you weigh the battleship, and the documentation. When they weigh the same, the ship is finished. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@ wrote: ...and the most ego. I found this chart interesting, in that the longest Ph.D. dissertations seem to be in the fields most subject to opinion -- history, antrhopology, political science, communication, english, sociology, and education. It's almost as if the grad students in those fields are already preparing for an academic life characterized by the belief that the more they say about their opinions, the more they can pretend they aren't opinion. The chart reminds me of an old college professor of mine who had a big rubber stamp that he would wield mercilessly on papers he thought deserved it. It was the letters B.S. -- always stamped in red over offending paragraphs or pages. When asked what the initials stood for, he would smile and say, Bloated Syntax. http://priceonomics.com/the-average-length-of-dissertations/ http://priceonomics.com/the-average-length-of-dissertations/ This said, I disagree with whoever suggested that Stephen King needs editing. I find reading his latest work a refreshing throwback to the days in which writers didn't pander to attention spans shortened by a lifetime's exposure to sound bites and artificially shortened exposition. The thing I like most about him as a writer is that he *takes his time* creating characters, so that the reader gets to feel that he *knows* them, before he does something with them in the plot. In The Stand, King lovingly spent the first third of the book creating a character who was the quintessential great guy. And then he killed him, suddenly and unexpectedly, as the result of a mindless act of terrorism. You FELT that. You FELT the loss, almost as if it had been a great guy you knew personally. I am not convinced that this would have happened if he had given the character buildup short shrift the way most writers do these days. But that's just opinion, too. At least I didn't require 500 pages to express it. :-)
[FairfieldLife] RE: The academic fields with the least discipline...
Barry wrote: ...and the most ego. I found this chart interesting, in that the longest Ph.D. dissertations seem to be in the fields most subject to opinion -- history, antrhopology, political science, communication, english, sociology, and education. It's almost as if the grad students in those fields are already preparing for an academic life characterized by the belief that the more they say about their opinions, the more they can pretend they aren't opinion. There are so many things wrong with this, it's hard to know where to start. It displays the most incredibly lazy thinking. If you click anywhere on the chart, it will take you to the blog post it illustrates, and you'll find the point of it was not about what dissertation length in various fields signifies, but rather was about a data-mining formula the blogger had devised. Barry probably didn't even read the post, or he'd have seen the single paragraph that mentioned the potential significance of the results--only to dismiss it: I’ve selected the top fifty majors with the highest number of dissertations and created boxplots to show relative distributions. Not many differences are observed among the majors, although some exceptions are apparent. Economics, mathematics, and biostatistics had the lowest median page lengths, whereas anthropology, history, and political science had the highest median page lengths. This distinction makes sense given the nature of the disciplines. IOW, the disciplines in question are what determine the page length. It takes more pages to do justice to topics in some disciplines than in others. That ego is involved is only Barry's fantasy, for which he has no evidence or basis. As is so often the case, he simply felt the need to take a dump and rant for the zillionth time about what he fondly imagines are the inflated egos of others--the implication being, as always, that he is blessedly free of such a flaw. Seems to me that having an obsession with others' egos is the most definitive possible sign that one has serious problems with one's own ego. But that's just my opinion. (snicker) The chart reminds me of an old college professor of mine who had a big rubber stamp that he would wield mercilessly on papers he thought deserved it. It was the letters B.S. -- always stamped in red over offending paragraphs or pages. When asked what the initials stood for, he would smile and say, Bloated Syntax. Why Barry thinks this has anything whatsoever to do with his topic is...uh...unclear. Bloated syntax is a problem in academic writing generally, and it has to do more with poor writing skills than anything else. Whether bloated syntax characterizes longer dissertations in particular fields (at the single university from which the stats were derived) is unknown; you'd have to, you know, actually read them. So Barry, how long was your dissertation? http://priceonomics.com/the-average-length-of-dissertations/ http://priceonomics.com/the-average-length-of-dissertations/
[FairfieldLife] RE: The academic fields with the least discipline...
---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Ok, turq, here's a question for you: what goes to battle with ego? There is rarely a *need* for battle if there are no egos involved. Barry, egos are a fact of life. Whether you believe the old hokey dokey about becoming egoless sometime in one's development approaching or having achieved some imaginary state of enlightenment then good for you but I think it is a fairytale. In your continued railing against egos all you do is show your own ego, which is fine by me but evidently not fine by you. Being? Truth? Love? I don't think so. Other egos? Hmmm... I'd guess yes. But that's just my opinion. Once again I don't understand why you get so het up about people having and sharing opinions. It's what we all do. Especially after we've survived our midlife crisis! I have no issue at all with people having opinions. It's when they try to present them as something *other than* opinion -- as truth, or worse, as some kind of cosmic Truth -- that I cry bullshit. And you cry bullshit precisely why? Well, dear man, because you believe so strongly about what you are crying b.s. about. This starts to look like your bullshit opinion is some mega universal Barry truth. I think most people share opinions for the purpose of benefiting others. And *that* is ego. Believing that your opinion is so cool or so right or so Truth-y that sharing it will benefit others. Here is your big demon ego again. Lighten up, what did ego ever do to you? Oh, it made you into the opinionated, judgmental person you are, I forgot for an instant. If they're misguided in that, well, there's obviously a learning curve involved. And maybe wanting to benefit others is the last stronghold of the ego. Hmmm... Certainly believing that their opinion has the *ability* to benefit others is one of the last strongholds of ego. I think you're making this up. And anyway, if someone is hoping what they might have to offer to a conversation is possibly interesting or new or helpful how does that make it so bad? Oh yea, because you think it indicates ego that terrible, dreadful bugaboo. And really, if you added up all your writing online, I bet you'd get close to 500 pages (-: But -- unlike some here -- I neither expect people to read what I post, or throw hissy-fits when others don't. Some here actually throw tantrums when people don't *respond* to what they've written. :-) Please show me an example of a tantrum. I have yet to see one. The only hissy fits I've ever seen here are when people do respond to someone else, not when they don't. I think you've got it backwards. But then you have a lot of things just plain old wrong. About character development, I'm making my way through the 5 previous seasons of Castle and it's so gratifying to watch the unfolding of all the different characters. But of course especially Castle and Beckett as they realize their love for each other more and more. It's a completely formulaic series, but its strength is in the actors, and the way they fill out the characters as written. Nathan is a tour de force in this regard, no matter what he's in, but Stana Katic is pretty good at being interesting, too.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Before the British Invasion
It didn't take long for this thread to turn into shit. Go figure. On 11/6/2013 6:30 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote: The California dreamin' scene we both liked was maybe a false dawn? The paradisiacal image of a sunny, optimistic, carefree lifestyle that appealed to me was given the lie by the sordid revelations of the antics of Papa John Phillips of The Mamas the Papas. Turns out he was a fully-paid-up sleazeball. And Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys spent his life tormented by his personal demons and his musical vision could take a very dark turn. The superficial gloss of that Californian sound is probably what made some of the other FFL posters find more satisfaction in sardonic Dylan songs or the hard-edged Detroit scene. (Way, way too hard edged for me. Listening to MC5 playing Kick Out the Jams has always been a consciousness-lowering endurance test.) So the Wuthering Heights gothic, doomed-romanticism vibe with its perverse appeal is maybe a safer route to take. At least life won't disappoint you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UI5qEQAvOcY ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Seraphita, I chuckled at your comment because I've been experiencing exactly what you're writing about. Why? Because of the weather! October was mostly glorious here, moderate temps, golden sunlight pouring down day after day, gentle breezes, blue skies, the leaves on trees bursting in crimson, peachy orange and saffron yellow. I reveled in walking around town, drinking in all of it. Now November is happening with rain and gusty winds, both of which have torn hundreds of leaves from trees. The bare branches are wet and loamy brown. I find myself drowning willingly in heavy, dark, gray clouds that sit swollen in the sky. They have their own kind of beauty which nourishes my soul. I may prefer sunny skies but I also love cloudy ones. Just grateful for that polarity, for being human, for being alive. On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 10:26 PM, s3raphita@... s3raphita@... wrote: Re And how about the California Dreamin music scene: Mamas and Papas, Beach Boys, etc: Yes. As a Brit they were the acts that most impressed me. They conjured up a paradisiacal image of a sunny, optimistic, carefree lifestyle very, very far removed from the cold, wet, repressed north east of England where I was growing up. I'm not complaining though, as I went to school a few miles from Haworth where Emily Brontë wrote Wuthering Heights and that kind of doomed-romanticism vibe has a perverse appeal of its own. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: And how about California dreamin music scene: Mamas and Papas, Beach Boys, etc. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote: Before for the Beatles it was regional rock groups that were the scene in the US. There was Northwest Rock which included the Kingsmen, Sonics and way back the Ventures (playing their cover of a jazz tune Walk Don't Run). Then the northwest do-wap groups like the Fleetwoods (I played on a revival album they did). There was also an east coast scene, a Chicago area scene and New Orleans scene. These were often regional because the labels were regional without national distribution. Also before the Beatles let's not forget folk period which includes The Kingston Trio, Lamplighters (I backed them up once) and other spin offs. Those morphed into folk rock groups in the later 60s. Regional music scenes in the US would be a lot like European country's and their own scenes. Romance languages didn't translate well into rock so you have the soft muzak rock those countries created. On 11/05/2013 10:37 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita wrote: Yep, but we were talking about British imitation rock so Vince Taylor and Cliff Richard are two important pioneers in the UK. I'm guessing one reason they never made a name for themselves in the States is because Americans didn't need second-rate copies of their own stars. Couldn't have said it better. :-) Plus, the music industry mechanism really wasn't in place to allow for mass distribution of non-US acts at that time. There was no market perceived for it, so it didn't really exist. BTW, you find the same thing in France, but for another reason -- the language difference. Plus the fact that rock sounds *terrible* in French. Rap, it can handle, but rock, fuggedaboudit. In France, old pop stars like Francoise Hardy are still minor goddesses, but old rockers like Johnny Hallyday are major Gods, right up there with Thor. :-) The Beatles probably made it because they came along after rock 'n' roll's heyday and added enough original touches of their own to make it more appealing than the saccharine-sweet pop that had by then become the norm. Tell it, sista. The US pop music scene was really in its doldrums before the Beatles. Many
[FairfieldLife] RE: Who#39;s who on FFL?
To clarify - I don't believe in anonymity. If I choose to post or subject others to my opinions and generally interact with them then I am more than happy to let them know my name. If I didn't want to associate myself with what I have written then I wouldn't write it. I don't totally understand the need for anonymity other than to keep oneself safe from repercussions that might arise as a result of what one might believe in. But then I'm all for accountability. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Can I mention something else that's been bugging me about FFL? I am Seraphita. That is Seraphita = Seraphita = Seraphita. That's the name I selected when registering with FFL. That's the name I always use. Simple OK? But we know there are a lot of people who have a sign-on name but who are also addressed by a familiar name. Correct me if I'm wrong but . . . authfriend = Judy TurquoiseB = Barry dhamilton = Buck and the Lord knows who wgm4u and awoelflebater are! For the sake of new arrivals to FFL and the occasional lurker could some kind soul list the different aliases of the posters to this site so that everyone knows who is saying what to whom. It would make life so much simpler. Simple: awoelflebater is Ann
[FairfieldLife] RE: Re: The academic fields with the least discipline...
Translation: Barry's attempt to trash me got trashed, and he's pissed off. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: See Share, *this* is what I mean about the difference between simply presenting one's opinion, and getting one's ego-panties in a twist, and trying to turn it into a battle that's all going on inside the egomaniac's head. All I did is present an opinion. I even said at the end that that was *all* it was. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Barry wrote: (snip) This said, I disagree with whoever suggested that Stephen King needs editing. As if Barry didn't know who that person was. What a coward. I find reading his latest work a refreshing throwback to the days in which writers didn't pander to attention spans shortened by a lifetime's exposure to sound bites and artificially shortened exposition. Bullshit. That isn't what editing is, and it isn't what King needed. As he so often does, Barry simply made a stopid assumption that would give him a reason to take a shot at me for making a point he didn't understand in the first place. Such a phony. I dare him to read Duma Key and tell us he thought its second half didn't need to be heavily pruned and shaped. (Remember, I said the first half--where the exposition takes place--was brilliant.) I don't, frankly, know (and neither does Barry) whether in his heyday King himself had an infallible sense of how much was enough, or whether it was a savvy editor. But if it was his own sense, for sure he had lost it in some of his recent books and lacked an editor with the guts to keep him on track. If he has regained it (or has realized he needed an editor), good for him.
[FairfieldLife] RE: The academic fields with the least discipline...
Well, his dissertations here, all being roughly about the identical one or two subjects, have been, seemingly, endless. Not only is it the subjective sense I have of the never-ending ranting about the same subjects but I am sure if someone was to actually count the words on all the forums over all the years that Barry has blessed us with they would create a veritable library of dross. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Barry wrote: ...and the most ego. I found this chart interesting, in that the longest Ph.D. dissertations seem to be in the fields most subject to opinion -- history, antrhopology, political science, communication, english, sociology, and education. It's almost as if the grad students in those fields are already preparing for an academic life characterized by the belief that the more they say about their opinions, the more they can pretend they aren't opinion. There are so many things wrong with this, it's hard to know where to start. It displays the most incredibly lazy thinking. If you click anywhere on the chart, it will take you to the blog post it illustrates, and you'll find the point of it was not about what dissertation length in various fields signifies, but rather was about a data-mining formula the blogger had devised. Barry probably didn't even read the post, or he'd have seen the single paragraph that mentioned the potential significance of the results--only to dismiss it: I’ve selected the top fifty majors with the highest number of dissertations and created boxplots to show relative distributions. Not many differences are observed among the majors, although some exceptions are apparent. Economics, mathematics, and biostatistics had the lowest median page lengths, whereas anthropology, history, and political science had the highest median page lengths. This distinction makes sense given the nature of the disciplines. IOW, the disciplines in question are what determine the page length. It takes more pages to do justice to topics in some disciplines than in others. That ego is involved is only Barry's fantasy, for which he has no evidence or basis. As is so often the case, he simply felt the need to take a dump and rant for the zillionth time about what he fondly imagines are the inflated egos of others--the implication being, as always, that he is blessedly free of such a flaw. Seems to me that having an obsession with others' egos is the most definitive possible sign that one has serious problems with one's own ego. But that's just my opinion. (snicker) The chart reminds me of an old college professor of mine who had a big rubber stamp that he would wield mercilessly on papers he thought deserved it. It was the letters B.S. -- always stamped in red over offending paragraphs or pages. When asked what the initials stood for, he would smile and say, Bloated Syntax. Why Barry thinks this has anything whatsoever to do with his topic is...uh...unclear. Bloated syntax is a problem in academic writing generally, and it has to do more with poor writing skills than anything else. Whether bloated syntax characterizes longer dissertations in particular fields (at the single university from which the stats were derived) is unknown; you'd have to, you know, actually read them. So Barry, how long was your dissertation? http://priceonomics.com/the-average-length-of-dissertations/ http://priceonomics.com/the-average-length-of-dissertations/
[FairfieldLife] RE: Re: The academic fields with the least discipline...
LOL! And of course, everyone knows that the bibliography in a dissertation refers not to works consulted in the preparation of this dissertation but to books, the titles of which are known to me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 wrote: The rumor at the school where I did my PhD was that they weighed the dissertations rather than read them. I took that rumor seriously enough to make sure that mine was extra fat and typed on the heaviest paper I could find. That's like the old tech writer joke for those unfortunate enough to have to do guvmint work according to MIL-SPECS. How do you know when a battleship under construction is finished? Every day you weigh the battleship, and the documentation. When they weigh the same, the ship is finished. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@ wrote: ...and the most ego. I found this chart interesting, in that the longest Ph.D. dissertations seem to be in the fields most subject to opinion -- history, antrhopology, political science, communication, english, sociology, and education. It's almost as if the grad students in those fields are already preparing for an academic life characterized by the belief that the more they say about their opinions, the more they can pretend they aren't opinion. The chart reminds me of an old college professor of mine who had a big rubber stamp that he would wield mercilessly on papers he thought deserved it. It was the letters B.S. -- always stamped in red over offending paragraphs or pages. When asked what the initials stood for, he would smile and say, Bloated Syntax. http://priceonomics.com/the-average-length-of-dissertations/ http://priceonomics.com/the-average-length-of-dissertations/ http://priceonomics.com/the-average-length-of-dissertations/ http://priceonomics.com/the-average-length-of-dissertations/ This said, I disagree with whoever suggested that Stephen King needs editing. I find reading his latest work a refreshing throwback to the days in which writers didn't pander to attention spans shortened by a lifetime's exposure to sound bites and artificially shortened exposition. The thing I like most about him as a writer is that he *takes his time* creating characters, so that the reader gets to feel that he *knows* them, before he does something with them in the plot. In The Stand, King lovingly spent the first third of the book creating a character who was the quintessential great guy. And then he killed him, suddenly and unexpectedly, as the result of a mindless act of terrorism. You FELT that. You FELT the loss, almost as if it had been a great guy you knew personally. I am not convinced that this would have happened if he had given the character buildup short shrift the way most writers do these days. But that's just opinion, too. At least I didn't require 500 pages to express it. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Before the British Invasion
How dare you , Share, butting into the conversation abut early British rock music and posting about the weather and those California bands - like Crosby, Stills, and Nash and Young! This is just outrageous! LoL! On 11/6/2013 6:30 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote: The California dreamin' scene we both liked was maybe a false dawn? The paradisiacal image of a sunny, optimistic, carefree lifestyle that appealed to me was given the lie by the sordid revelations of the antics of Papa John Phillips of The Mamas the Papas. Turns out he was a fully-paid-up sleazeball. And Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys spent his life tormented by his personal demons and his musical vision could take a very dark turn. The superficial gloss of that Californian sound is probably what made some of the other FFL posters find more satisfaction in sardonic Dylan songs or the hard-edged Detroit scene. (Way, way too hard edged for me. Listening to MC5 playing Kick Out the Jams has always been a consciousness-lowering endurance test.) So the Wuthering Heights gothic, doomed-romanticism vibe with its perverse appeal is maybe a safer route to take. At least life won't disappoint you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UI5qEQAvOcY ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Seraphita, I chuckled at your comment because I've been experiencing exactly what you're writing about. Why? Because of the weather! October was mostly glorious here, moderate temps, golden sunlight pouring down day after day, gentle breezes, blue skies, the leaves on trees bursting in crimson, peachy orange and saffron yellow. I reveled in walking around town, drinking in all of it. Now November is happening with rain and gusty winds, both of which have torn hundreds of leaves from trees. The bare branches are wet and loamy brown. I find myself drowning willingly in heavy, dark, gray clouds that sit swollen in the sky. They have their own kind of beauty which nourishes my soul. I may prefer sunny skies but I also love cloudy ones. Just grateful for that polarity, for being human, for being alive. On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 10:26 PM, s3raphita@... s3raphita@... wrote: Re And how about the California Dreamin music scene: Mamas and Papas, Beach Boys, etc: Yes. As a Brit they were the acts that most impressed me. They conjured up a paradisiacal image of a sunny, optimistic, carefree lifestyle very, very far removed from the cold, wet, repressed north east of England where I was growing up. I'm not complaining though, as I went to school a few miles from Haworth where Emily Brontë wrote Wuthering Heights and that kind of doomed-romanticism vibe has a perverse appeal of its own. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: And how about California dreamin music scene: Mamas and Papas, Beach Boys, etc. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote: Before for the Beatles it was regional rock groups that were the scene in the US. There was Northwest Rock which included the Kingsmen, Sonics and way back the Ventures (playing their cover of a jazz tune Walk Don't Run). Then the northwest do-wap groups like the Fleetwoods (I played on a revival album they did). There was also an east coast scene, a Chicago area scene and New Orleans scene. These were often regional because the labels were regional without national distribution. Also before the Beatles let's not forget folk period which includes The Kingston Trio, Lamplighters (I backed them up once) and other spin offs. Those morphed into folk rock groups in the later 60s. Regional music scenes in the US would be a lot like European country's and their own scenes. Romance languages didn't translate well into rock so you have the soft muzak rock those countries created. On 11/05/2013 10:37 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita wrote: Yep, but we were talking about British imitation rock so Vince Taylor and Cliff Richard are two important pioneers in the UK. I'm guessing one reason they never made a name for themselves in the States is because Americans didn't need second-rate copies of their own stars. Couldn't have said it better. :-) Plus, the music industry mechanism really wasn't in place to allow for mass distribution of non-US acts at that time. There was no market perceived for it, so it didn't really exist. BTW, you find the same thing in France, but for another reason -- the language difference. Plus the fact that rock sounds *terrible* in French. Rap, it can handle, but rock, fuggedaboudit. In France, old pop stars like Francoise Hardy are still minor goddesses, but old rockers like Johnny Hallyday are major Gods, right up there with Thor. :-) The Beatles probably made it because they came along after rock 'n' roll's heyday and added enough original touches of their own to make it more appealing than the
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
This thread is looking like it's headed for the outhouse. On 11/6/2013 10:10 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: You're all sounding like desiccated corpses drying in the desert. There is another type of Christian life here in America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0M94z3Pev4 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: *Seraphita wrote: * Re Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship context and joined the church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple of years but wasn't inspired enoughto continue, since I really wasn't into the Personal God aspect of the belief system (orChrist as savior). God as Unified Field, the ultimate (and unworshipable) abstraction, is about as far as I can go. : Again very close to my view. Here in the UK, the Anglican Church is essentially a wishy- washy nostalgia circus for reminding grown-ups of their childhood. (With bits of Arthurian romance added to the mix.) So all pretty harmless. Even arch-atheist Richard Dawkins has confessed to occasionally popping into a church just to enjoy the aesthetic experience! *Heehee. Be fun to see that guy Spufford look up from his prayers and clap eyes on Dawkins.* * * ** Having always been intrigued by the occult fringe, I've also seen some attraction in the Catholic position: the Mass as a magical ritual and the unembarrassed veneration of those medieval mystics. Even such unregenerates as Oscar Wilde, Baudelaire and Huysmans finallyturned to Rome as they sensed it was the more poetical religion. *Huh, I'm attracted by the poetry/music/incense/art/theatrical aspects as well. Goes way back with me to the (wonderful) Audrey Hepburn film The Nun's Story. I think I'd need a Peter Finch equivalent, though.* * * *To this day I have no idea whether my late father had any religious sensibility whatsoever, but he adored churches and religious music and painting. I guess it's in the genes.* *I might be tempted to pop into a Catholic church at some point if they were doing a mass in Latin. There's something really magical about Latin. Like Sanskrit, I suppose, but the music is a lot better. ;-) I once memorized the Hail Mary in Latin just because I loved the sound of it. My Presbyterian ancestors (Huguenots, no less) must have spun themselves nearly out of their graves.*
Re: [FairfieldLife] How vulgar can you get?
Addressing the important issues! Apparently, pretty vulgar: It looked like a pretty vulgar scene on TV hat showed the anarchists throwing a molotov cocktail at Buckingham Palace. Go figure. On 11/6/2013 9:05 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote: Two women wore 9/11 Twin Towers fancy-dress costumes and won a Halloween contest. Their outfits included models of the two hijacked planes crashing into the New York skyscrapers and tiny model people falling to their deaths. Funny old world we're living in. http://tinyurl.com/kro9mn7
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Before the British Invasion
Richard, sorr! But I think the thread had become about regional music scenes in the US, which I find fascinating. And I find weather fascinating too. Don't shoot me, ok? (-: On Thursday, November 7, 2013 9:29 AM, Richard J. Williams pundits...@gmail.com wrote: How dare you , Share, butting into the conversation abut early British rock music and posting about the weather and those California bands - like Crosby, Stills, and Nash and Young! This is just outrageous! LoL! On 11/6/2013 6:30 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote: The California dreamin' scene we both liked was maybe a false dawn? The paradisiacal image of a sunny, optimistic, carefree lifestyle that appealed to me was given the lie by the sordid revelations of the antics of Papa John Phillips of The Mamas the Papas. Turns out he was a fully-paid-up sleazeball. And Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys spent his life tormented by his personal demons and his musical vision could take a very dark turn. The superficial gloss of that Californian sound is probably what made some of the other FFL posters find more satisfaction in sardonic Dylan songs or the hard-edged Detroit scene. (Way, way too hard edged for me. Listening to MC5 playing Kick Out the Jams has always been a consciousness-lowering endurance test.) So the Wuthering Heights gothic, doomed-romanticism vibe with its perverse appeal is maybe a safer route to take. At least life won't disappoint you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UI5qEQAvOcY ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Seraphita, I chuckled at your comment because I've been experiencing exactly what you're writing about. Why? Because of the weather! October was mostly glorious here, moderate temps, golden sunlight pouring down day after day, gentle breezes, blue skies, the leaves on trees bursting in crimson, peachy orange and saffron yellow. I reveled in walking around town, drinking in all of it. Now November is happening with rain and gusty winds, both of which have torn hundreds of leaves from trees. The bare branches are wet and loamy brown. I find myself drowning willingly in heavy, dark, gray clouds that sit swollen in the sky. They have their own kind of beauty which nourishes my soul. I may prefer sunny skies but I also love cloudy ones. Just grateful for that polarity, for being human, for being alive. On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 10:26 PM, s3raphita@... s3raphita@... wrote: Re And how about the California Dreamin music scene: Mamas and Papas, Beach Boys, etc: Yes. As a Brit they were the acts that most impressed me. They conjured up a paradisiacal image of a sunny, optimistic, carefree lifestyle very, very far removed from the cold, wet, repressed north east of England where I was growing up. I'm not complaining though, as I went to school a few miles from Haworth where Emily Brontë wrote Wuthering Heights and that kind of doomed-romanticism vibe has a perverse appeal of its own. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: And how about California dreamin music scene: Mamas and Papas, Beach Boys, etc. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote: Before for the Beatles it was regional rock groups that were the scene in the US. There was Northwest Rock which included the Kingsmen, Sonics and way back the Ventures (playing their cover of a jazz tune Walk Don't Run). Then the northwest do-wap groups like the Fleetwoods (I played on a revival album they did). There was also an east coast scene, a Chicago area scene and New Orleans scene. These were often regional because the labels were regional without national distribution. Also before the Beatles let's not forget folk period which includes The Kingston Trio, Lamplighters (I backed them up once) and other spin offs. Those morphed into folk rock groups in the later 60s. Regional music scenes in the US would be a lot like European country's and their own scenes. Romance languages didn't translate well into rock so you have the soft muzak rock those countries created. On 11/05/2013
Re: [FairfieldLife] How vulgar can you get?
Richard, the story was at the top of yahoo stories this morning. Anyway, vulgar is a very interesting word, from Latin and referring to the spoken language. On Thursday, November 7, 2013 9:35 AM, Richard J. Williams pundits...@gmail.com wrote: Addressing the important issues! Apparently, pretty vulgar: It looked like a pretty vulgar scene on TV hat showed the anarchists throwing a molotov cocktail at Buckingham Palace. Go figure. On 11/6/2013 9:05 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote: Two women wore 9/11 Twin Towers fancy-dress costumes and won a Halloween contest. Their outfits included models of the two hijacked planes crashing into the New York skyscrapers and tiny model people falling to their deaths. Funny old world we're living in. http://tinyurl.com/kro9mn7
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
This may a good time to take a reality check: To meditate means to think things over. Meditation is based on thinking, and there's hardly a person on the planet who doesn't pause at least once or twice every day and take stock of their own mental contents. And, everyone is transcending all the time, even without a technique. Anyone who can think can meditate. MMY meditation: –noun 1 to think calm thoughts in order to relax or as a religious activity: Sophie meditates for 20 minutes every day. 2 to think seriously about something for a long time: He meditated on the consequences of his decision. Source: Cambridge University Dictionary: http://tinyurl.com/dz5ut2 On 11/7/2013 7:20 AM, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: *Om, II.* *TM meditators are effortless meditators.* *Not all Buddhist meditators are effortless meditators.* *[see preparatory introductory lecture to learning TM].* *Therefore, not all Buddhists are transcendental meditators.* *Om,* *There are TM meditators* *There are Buddhist meditators* Anyone who meditates with the aim of samadhi is a Buddhist. Therefore, Transcendental Meditators are Buddhists. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: It is said, Anyone who meditates with the aim of samadhi is a Buddhist. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Ok, Richard, nobody else is gonna challenge you on this. Actually I'm not either. But it would be great if you could say more about it. Seems revolutionary (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: Anyone who meditates with the aim of samadhi is a Buddhist. On 11/3/2013 4:42 PM, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote: *Is it possible to be a Buddhist and practice meditation effortlessly?* Yes, according to MMY. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com wrote: *Should TM'er Buddhists even be allowed to have a Dome badge? Is it possible to be a buddhist and practice meditation effortlessly?* *-Buck* ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote: Re The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's not complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang.: The Yin and Yang concepts point to a Tao that includes the opposites. Imagining that one side of a pair of opposites could gain the upper hand over the other would be a vulgar error. As the little we know about Manichaeism and similar dualist religions/philosophies comes to us from hostile sources isn't it possible that these beliefs weren't as dualist as they've been painted but perhaps also had the idea of a Transcendence that reconciled the positive and negative aspects of life? ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... mailto:punditster@... wrote: So, let's review what we know about the prophet Mani. The Gnostic prophet Mani taught radical dualist cosmology; a struggle between the opposing forces of good and evil, spiritual light versus the material world darkness. Humans are composed of two opposing elements in a battle for power. There is a soul, but it is influenced by elements of both good and evil. Manichaeism is similar to the dualistic Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars. It's not complicated. Adepts in China and the Far East would probably relate to this with their own notions of Yin and Yang, which is probably derived from the Indian Sankhya, a radical dualism, and later tantra- a theory of polarity which posits male and female energies. The name 'Mani' is Sanskrit. Mani traveled and lived in India for several years, visiting Buddhist lands such as Bamiyan in Afghanistan, so it is not surprising that Buddhist influences would be apparent. Mani apparently adopted his theory of the reincarnation (transmigration of souls) from the Buddhists. Mani's sect structure was apparently based on the Buddhist Sangha, that is, Arhants and the lay follower community. On 11/2/2013 11:31 AM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote: No wonder the Near-Eastern realm got so mixed up. *//* It seems that as Manichean ideology spread to the East it incorporated Buddhist concepts along the way in a effort to show the superiority of the Religion of Light. Mani lived during the third century of the current era. Mani used the epitaph Buddha of Light and identified himself as Maitreya. He and
[FairfieldLife] RE: Re: The academic fields with the least discipline...
turq, imho, ego-panties deserves an award for the FFL phrase of the year! If I use it in my dissertation about online communities, I promise to give you a footnote (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: See Share, *this* is what I mean about the difference between simply presenting one's opinion, and getting one's ego-panties in a twist, and trying to turn it into a battle that's all going on inside the egomaniac's head. All I did is present an opinion. I even said at the end that that was *all* it was. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Barry wrote: (snip) This said, I disagree with whoever suggested that Stephen King needs editing. As if Barry didn't know who that person was. What a coward. I find reading his latest work a refreshing throwback to the days in which writers didn't pander to attention spans shortened by a lifetime's exposure to sound bites and artificially shortened exposition. Bullshit. That isn't what editing is, and it isn't what King needed. As he so often does, Barry simply made a stopid assumption that would give him a reason to take a shot at me for making a point he didn't understand in the first place. Such a phony. I dare him to read Duma Key and tell us he thought its second half didn't need to be heavily pruned and shaped. (Remember, I said the first half--where the exposition takes place--was brilliant.) I don't, frankly, know (and neither does Barry) whether in his heyday King himself had an infallible sense of how much was enough, or whether it was a savvy editor. But if it was his own sense, for sure he had lost it in some of his recent books and lacked an editor with the guts to keep him on track. If he has regained it (or has realized he needed an editor), good for him.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Who's who on FFL?
You can call me Prairie Dog: [image: Inline image 1] On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:32 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote: Can I mention something else that's been bugging me about FFL? I am Seraphita. That is Seraphita = Seraphita = Seraphita. That's the name I selected when registering with FFL. That's the name I always use. Simple OK? But we know there are a lot of people who have a sign-on name but who are also addressed by a familiar name. Correct me if I'm wrong but . . . authfriend = Judy TurquoiseB = Barry dhamilton = Buck and the Lord knows who wgm4u and awoelflebater are! For the sake of new arrivals to FFL and the occasional lurker could some kind soul list the different aliases of the posters to this site so that everyone knows who is saying what to whom. It would make life so much simpler.
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
Richard! Did you even look at the clip?! It's beautiful, not outhousy at all! Go figure! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: This thread is looking like it's headed for the outhouse. On 11/6/2013 10:10 PM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote: You're all sounding like desiccated corpses drying in the desert. There is another type of Christian life here in America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0M94z3Pev4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0M94z3Pev4 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: Seraphita wrote: Re Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship context and joined the church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple of years but wasn't inspired enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the Personal God aspect of the belief system (or Christ as savior). God as Unified Field, the ultimate (and unworshipable) abstraction, is about as far as I can go. : Again very close to my view. Here in the UK, the Anglican Church is essentially a wishy- washy nostalgia circus for reminding grown-ups of their childhood. (With bits of Arthurian romance added to the mix.) So all pretty harmless. Even arch-atheist Richard Dawkins has confessed to occasionally popping into a church just to enjoy the aesthetic experience! Heehee. Be fun to see that guy Spufford look up from his prayers and clap eyes on Dawkins. Having always been intrigued by the occult fringe, I've also seen some attraction in the Catholic position: the Mass as a magical ritual and the unembarrassed veneration of those medieval mystics. Even such unregenerates as Oscar Wilde, Baudelaire and Huysmans finally turned to Rome as they sensed it was the more poetical religion. Huh, I'm attracted by the poetry/music/incense/art/theatrical aspects as well. Goes way back with me to the (wonderful) Audrey Hepburn film The Nun's Story. I think I'd need a Peter Finch equivalent, though. To this day I have no idea whether my late father had any religious sensibility whatsoever, but he adored churches and religious music and painting. I guess it's in the genes. I might be tempted to pop into a Catholic church at some point if they were doing a mass in Latin. There's something really magical about Latin. Like Sanskrit, I suppose, but the music is a lot better. ;-) I once memorized the Hail Mary in Latin just because I loved the sound of it. My Presbyterian ancestors (Huguenots, no less) must have spun themselves nearly out of their graves.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Re: The academic fields with the least discipline...
turq, about formulaic series, I'm old enough to have seen several in the crime team genre: Blue Moon, Remington Steele come to mind. What I enjoy is seeing how the formula itself has evolved. It's as if with each new artist or group of artists, the formula itself gets transformed in some essential way. Subsequent series must at least meet the new level or get axed. Just my opinion but I like it! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Ok, turq, here's a question for you: what goes to battle with ego? There is rarely a *need* for battle if there are no egos involved. Being? Truth? Love? I don't think so. Other egos? Hmmm... I'd guess yes. But that's just my opinion. Once again I don't understand why you get so het up about people having and sharing opinions. It's what we all do. Especially after we've survived our midlife crisis! I have no issue at all with people having opinions. It's when they try to present them as something *other than* opinion -- as truth, or worse, as some kind of cosmic Truth -- that I cry bullshit. I think most people share opinions for the purpose of benefiting others. And *that* is ego. Believing that your opinion is so cool or so right or so Truth-y that sharing it will benefit others. If they're misguided in that, well, there's obviously a learning curve involved. And maybe wanting to benefit others is the last stronghold of the ego. Hmmm... Certainly believing that their opinion has the *ability* to benefit others is one of the last strongholds of ego. And really, if you added up all your writing online, I bet you'd get close to 500 pages (-: But -- unlike some here -- I neither expect people to read what I post, or throw hissy-fits when others don't. Some here actually throw tantrums when people don't *respond* to what they've written. :-) About character development, I'm making my way through the 5 previous seasons of Castle and it's so gratifying to watch the unfolding of all the different characters. But of course especially Castle and Beckett as they realize their love for each other more and more. It's a completely formulaic series, but its strength is in the actors, and the way they fill out the characters as written. Nathan is a tour de force in this regard, no matter what he's in, but Stana Katic is pretty good at being interesting, too.
[FairfieldLife] More Beauty For The Whole World To Enjoy
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/11/05/hoard_of_1400_nazilooted_art_includes_chagall_matisse_picasso.html?google_editors_picks=true http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/11/05/hoard_of_1400_nazilooted_art_includes_chagall_matisse_picasso.html?google_editors_picks=true
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] The academic fields with the least discipline...
Share: You continue to be fascinated by men who are douche's. Here is Nathan Fillion talking about his character. http://www.tv.com/news/castles-nathan-fillion-on-his-new-role-hes-a-douche-12874/ http://www.tv.com/news/castles-nathan-fillion-on-his-new-role-hes-a-douche-12874/ Nathan Fillion: Hmm, a good question. Ah, you know what? I'll put Richard Castle up againstDr. Horrible's Sing-along Blog's Captain Hammer. Here he is, he's a guy who--he's fairly into himself. He's quite vain. He thinks very highly of himself anyway, and whereas Captain Hammer is a bit stupid, Castle is rather just a bit childlike. He lacks a bit of a filter, where some of us might say, Ooh, you know, this might be true but I'm not going to say it. Castle would say it. TV.com: Yeah. Don't take this the wrong way, but you play pompous characters very well. Nathan Fillion: You know what? It's something I like to do for fun with my friends [to play] pompous. I like to pretend I'm pompous often. I think it's funny because it's also fun to take that pompous guy down. It's not so easy to play stupid when you're pompous, because you just play that you don't know that you're stupid. TV.com: With a lot of the characters that fans know you for, you're pretty much a leading man, or the rough-and-ready type of guy. But in Castle you take a backseat to Stana's character who--you know, she wears the gun. Is it a nice change of pace to play the non-hero? Nathan Fillion: Absolutely! And I think that that's real life. I mean in real life, I don't know a whole lot of go-to guys. So if the chips were really down, and something was really actually important and dangerous and there were guns involved, I don't know a lot of the guys that you would turn to, Hey, I need your help on this one. And Castle is certainly not that guy. That's Kate Beckett. Kate Beckett's ready to go. She's trained. She knows what to do. She's sharp. Castle's--he's not the go-to guy. [laugh] He's a bit of a douche. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Ok, turq, here's a question for you: what goes to battle with ego? Being? Truth? Love? I don't think so. Other egos? Hmmm...I'd guess yes. But that's just my opinion. Once again I don't understand why you get so het up about people having and sharing opinions. It's what we all do. Especially after we've survived our midlife crisis! I think most people share opinions for the purpose of benefiting others. If they're misguided in that, well, there's obviously a learning curve involved. And maybe wanting to benefit others is the last stronghold of the ego. Hmmm... And really, if you added up all your writing online, I bet you'd get close to 500 pages (-: About character development, I'm making my way through the 5 previous seasons of Castle and it's so gratifying to watch the unfolding of all the different characters. But of course especially Castle and Beckett as they realize their love for each other more and more. On Thursday, November 7, 2013 2:26 AM, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: ...and the most ego. I found this chart interesting, in that the longest Ph.D. dissertations seem to be in the fields most subject to opinion -- history, antrhopology, political science, communication, english, sociology, and education. It's almost as if the grad students in those fields are already preparing for an academic life characterized by the belief that the more they say about their opinions, the more they can pretend they aren't opinion. The chart reminds me of an old college professor of mine who had a big rubber stamp that he would wield mercilessly on papers he thought deserved it. It was the letters B.S. -- always stamped in red over offending paragraphs or pages. When asked what the initials stood for, he would smile and say, Bloated Syntax. http://priceonomics.com/the-average-length-of-dissertations/ http://priceonomics.com/the-average-length-of-dissertations/ This said, I disagree with whoever suggested that Stephen King needs editing. I find reading his latest work a refreshing throwback to the days in which writers didn't pander to attention spans shortened by a lifetime's exposure to sound bites and artificially shortened exposition. The thing I like most about him as a writer is that he *takes his time* creating characters, so that the reader gets to feel that he *knows* them, before he does something with them in the plot. In The Stand, King lovingly spent the first third of the book creating a character who was the quintessential great guy. And then he killed him, suddenly and unexpectedly, as the result of a mindless act of terrorism. You FELT that. You FELT the loss, almost as if it had been a great guy you knew personally. I am not convinced that this would have happened if he had given the character buildup short shrift the way most writers do these days. But that's just opinion, too.
Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] The academic fields with the least discipline...
Emily, I don't really find the Rick Castle character fascinating until he starts to feel and exhibit real love for Kate Beckett. On Thursday, November 7, 2013 10:21 AM, emilymae...@yahoo.com emilymae...@yahoo.com wrote: Share: You continue to be fascinated by men who are douche's. Here is Nathan Fillion talking about his character. http://www.tv.com/news/castles-nathan-fillion-on-his-new-role-hes-a-douche-12874/ Nathan Fillion: Hmm, a good question. Ah, you know what? I'll put Richard Castle up againstDr. Horrible's Sing-along Blog's Captain Hammer. Here he is, he's a guy who--he's fairly into himself. He's quite vain. He thinks very highly of himself anyway, and whereas Captain Hammer is a bit stupid, Castle is rather just a bit childlike. He lacks a bit of a filter, where some of us might say, Ooh, you know, this might be true but I'm not going to say it. Castle would say it. TV.com: Yeah. Don't take this the wrong way, but you play pompous characters very well. Nathan Fillion: You know what? It's something I like to do for fun with my friends [to play] pompous. I like to pretend I'm pompous often. I think it's funny because it's also fun to take that pompous guy down. It's not so easy to play stupid when you're pompous, because you just play that you don't know that you're stupid. TV.com: With a lot of the characters that fans know you for, you're pretty much a leading man, or the rough-and-ready type of guy. But in Castle you take a backseat to Stana's character who--you know, she wears the gun. Is it a nice change of pace to play the non-hero? Nathan Fillion: Absolutely! And I think that that's real life. I mean in real life, I don't know a whole lot of go-to guys. So if the chips were really down, and something was really actually important and dangerous and there were guns involved, I don't know a lot of the guys that you would turn to, Hey, I need your help on this one. And Castle is certainly not that guy. That's Kate Beckett. Kate Beckett's ready to go. She's trained. She knows what to do. She's sharp. Castle's--he's not the go-to guy. [laugh] He's a bit of a douche. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Ok, turq, here's a question for you: what goes to battle with ego? Being? Truth? Love? I don't think so. Other egos? Hmmm...I'd guess yes. But that's just my opinion. Once again I don't understand why you get so het up about people having and sharing opinions. It's what we all do. Especially after we've survived our midlife crisis! I think most people share opinions for the purpose of benefiting others. If they're misguided in that, well, there's obviously a learning curve involved. And maybe wanting to benefit others is the last stronghold of the ego. Hmmm... And really, if you added up all your writing online, I bet you'd get close to 500 pages (-: About character development, I'm making my way through the 5 previous seasons of Castle and it's so gratifying to watch the unfolding of all the different characters. But of course especially Castle and Beckett as they realize their love for each other more and more. On Thursday, November 7, 2013 2:26 AM, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: ...and the most ego. I found this chart interesting, in that the longest Ph.D. dissertations seem to be in the fields most subject to opinion -- history, antrhopology, political science, communication, english, sociology, and education. It's almost as if the grad students in those fields are already preparing for an academic life characterized by the belief that the more they say about their opinions, the more they can pretend they aren't opinion. The chart reminds me of an old college professor of mine who had a big rubber stamp that he would wield mercilessly on papers he thought deserved it. It was the letters B.S. -- always stamped in red over offending paragraphs or pages. When asked what the initials stood for, he would smile and say, Bloated Syntax. http://priceonomics.com/the-average-length-of-dissertations/ This said, I disagree with whoever suggested that Stephen King needs editing. I find reading his latest work a refreshing throwback to the days in which writers didn't pander to attention spans shortened by a lifetime's exposure to sound bites and artificially shortened exposition. The thing I like most about him as a writer is that he *takes his time* creating characters, so that the reader gets to feel that he *knows* them, before he does something with them in the plot. In The Stand, King lovingly spent the first third of the book creating a character who was the quintessential great guy. And then he killed him, suddenly and unexpectedly, as the result of a mindless act of terrorism. You FELT that. You FELT the loss, almost as if it had been a great guy you knew personally. I am not convinced that this would have happened if he had given the character buildup short shrift the way
Re: [FairfieldLife] Who's who on FFL?
Richard, imho, this cute little critter should be the official FFL mascot! On Thursday, November 7, 2013 9:57 AM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.com wrote: You can call me Prairie Dog: On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:32 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote: Can I mention something else that's been bugging me about FFL? I am Seraphita. That is Seraphita = Seraphita = Seraphita. That's the name I selected when registering with FFL. That's the name I always use. Simple OK? But we know there are a lot of people who have a sign-on name but who are also addressed by a familiar name. Correct me if I'm wrong but . . . authfriend = Judy TurquoiseB = Barry dhamilton = Buck and the Lord knows who wgm4u and awoelflebater are! For the sake of new arrivals to FFL and the occasional lurker could some kind soul list the different aliases of the posters to this site so that everyone knows who is saying what to whom. It would make life so much simpler.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Who#39;s who on FFL?
Re I don't believe in anonymity. If I choose to post or subject others to my opinions and generally interact with them then I am more than happy to let them know my name. If I didn't want to associate myself with what I have written then I wouldn't write it. I don't totally understand the need for anonymity other than to keep oneself safe from repercussions that might arise as a result of what one might believe in. But then I'm all for accountability.: If I'm understanding you, isn't the problem here that when people post comments and opinions using their real, given name it means that when they apply for a new job (say) the employee can Google the name and see everything they've said. You could learn a lot about someone from chasing up all their opinions - things it might be wiser to keep secret. Might it not be a good idea to protect yourself with an alias? You're still free to reveal to whoever you choose what aliases you've used on-line - but *you* have that choice. By using your real name you're giving hostages to fortune. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: To clarify - I don't believe in anonymity. If I choose to post or subject others to my opinions and generally interact with them then I am more than happy to let them know my name. If I didn't want to associate myself with what I have written then I wouldn't write it. I don't totally understand the need for anonymity other than to keep oneself safe from repercussions that might arise as a result of what one might believe in. But then I'm all for accountability. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Can I mention something else that's been bugging me about FFL? I am Seraphita. That is Seraphita = Seraphita = Seraphita. That's the name I selected when registering with FFL. That's the name I always use. Simple OK? But we know there are a lot of people who have a sign-on name but who are also addressed by a familiar name. Correct me if I'm wrong but . . . authfriend = Judy TurquoiseB = Barry dhamilton = Buck and the Lord knows who wgm4u and awoelflebater are! For the sake of new arrivals to FFL and the occasional lurker could some kind soul list the different aliases of the posters to this site so that everyone knows who is saying what to whom. It would make life so much simpler. Simple: awoelflebater is Ann
[FairfieldLife] RE: Who#39;s who on FFL?
You're too cute to be the guy who always sees shit in everything and then tries to convince everyone else of the fact. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: You can call me Prairie Dog: On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:32 PM, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote: Can I mention something else that's been bugging me about FFL? I am Seraphita. That is Seraphita = Seraphita = Seraphita. That's the name I selected when registering with FFL. That's the name I always use. Simple OK? But we know there are a lot of people who have a sign-on name but who are also addressed by a familiar name. Correct me if I'm wrong but . . . authfriend = Judy TurquoiseB = Barry dhamilton = Buck and the Lord knows who wgm4u and awoelflebater are! For the sake of new arrivals to FFL and the occasional lurker could some kind soul list the different aliases of the posters to this site so that everyone knows who is saying what to whom. It would make life so much simpler.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Who#39;s who on FFL?
Re I don't believe in anonymity. If I choose to post or subject others to my opinions and generally interact with them then I am more than happy to let them know my name. If I didn't want to associate myself with what I have written then I wouldn't write it. I don't totally understand the need for anonymity other than to keep oneself safe from repercussions that might arise as a result of what one might believe in. But then I'm all for accountability.: If I'm understanding you, isn't the problem here that when people post comments and opinions using their real, given name it means that when they apply for a new job (say) the employer can Google the name and see everything they've said. You could learn a lot about someone from chasing up all their opinions - things it might be wiser to keep secret. Might it not be a good idea to protect yourself with an alias? You're still free to reveal to whoever you choose what aliases you've used on-line - but *you* have that choice. By using your real name you're giving hostages to fortune. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: To clarify - I don't believe in anonymity. If I choose to post or subject others to my opinions and generally interact with them then I am more than happy to let them know my name. If I didn't want to associate myself with what I have written then I wouldn't write it. I don't totally understand the need for anonymity other than to keep oneself safe from repercussions that might arise as a result of what one might believe in. But then I'm all for accountability. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Can I mention something else that's been bugging me about FFL? I am Seraphita. That is Seraphita = Seraphita = Seraphita. That's the name I selected when registering with FFL. That's the name I always use. Simple OK? But we know there are a lot of people who have a sign-on name but who are also addressed by a familiar name. Correct me if I'm wrong but . . . authfriend = Judy TurquoiseB = Barry dhamilton = Buck and the Lord knows who wgm4u and awoelflebater are! For the sake of new arrivals to FFL and the occasional lurker could some kind soul list the different aliases of the posters to this site so that everyone knows who is saying what to whom. It would make life so much simpler. Simple: awoelflebater is Ann
Re: [FairfieldLife] Who#39;s who on FFL?
There is an anomaly (or design flaw) regarding Yahoo Groups in that your handle may be displayed differently if you use email and the web site. When the post count was important Alex would have to look to see if some posters did both during the week because the posts would come under different handles. I found later that the Yahoo Groups email headers had the Yahoo ID in them and was able to create a Python script which totaled the count that way with each user under the same ID regardless of how they posted. It was easy to do with Python but not PHP though I have found a way to do it but I don't think Alex wants to mess with the script anymore. On 11/06/2013 08:32 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote: Can I mention something else that's been bugging me about FFL? I am Seraphita. That is Seraphita = Seraphita = Seraphita. That's the name I selected when registering with FFL. That's the name I always use. Simple OK? But we know there are a lot of people who have a sign-on name but who are also addressed by a familiar name. Correct me if I'm wrong but . . . authfriend = Judy TurquoiseB = Barry dhamilton = Buck and the Lord knows who wgm4u and awoelflebater are! For the sake of new arrivals to FFL and the occasional lurker could some kind soul list the different aliases of the posters to this site so that everyone knows who is saying what to whom. It would make life so much simpler.
[FairfieldLife] RE: More Beauty For The Whole World To Enjoy
This is such an extraordinary story. It would be astonishing even without the connection to Nazi looting and Hitler's ideas on degenerate art. But with that background, it just takes your breath away. Here's a NYTimes report with a slide show of seven of the most impressive works in this treasure trove: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/arts/design/german-officials-provide-details-on-looted-art-trove.html?ref=design Apparently these are photos of slides shown by the German authorities at the press conference announcing the find, so they aren't the best reproductions, but they're decent-sized, and you certainly can get enough of a flavor of the quality of the works (especially the stunning Matisse) to appreciate the importance of the discovery. This is another Times piece on the find, a moving historical perspective with detailed commentary on several of the works and artists: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/arts/design/in-a-rediscovered-trove-of-art-a-triumph-over-the-nazis-will.html More on the Nazis' exhibit of degenerate art: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art#The_Entartete_Kunst_exhibit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art#The_Entartete_Kunst_exhibit http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24819441 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24819441 About three times as many people attended this exhibit as attended another one of Nazi-approved art (much of it propagandistic) running at the same time. It's not hard to imagine that many of the visitors to the degenerate exhibit came not to sneer and criticize but to appreciate the much higher quality of its works before the Nazis did away with them. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/11/05/hoard_of_1400_nazilooted_art_includes_chagall_matisse_picasso.html?google_editors_picks=true http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/11/05/hoard_of_1400_nazilooted_art_includes_chagall_matisse_picasso.html?google_editors_picks=true
[FairfieldLife] RE: Who#39;s who on FFL?
---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re I don't believe in anonymity. If I choose to post or subject others to my opinions and generally interact with them then I am more than happy to let them know my name. If I didn't want to associate myself with what I have written then I wouldn't write it. I don't totally understand the need for anonymity other than to keep oneself safe from repercussions that might arise as a result of what one might believe in. But then I'm all for accountability.: If I'm understanding you, isn't the problem here that when people post comments and opinions using their real, given name it means that when they apply for a new job (say) the employer can Google the name and see everything they've said. You could learn a lot about someone from chasing up all their opinions - things it might be wiser to keep secret. Might it not be a good idea to protect yourself with an alias? You're still free to reveal to whoever you choose what aliases you've used on-line - but *you* have that choice. By using your real name you're giving hostages to fortune. All sorts of things can be dredged up but if my would-be employer were to choose not to give me a job based on my opinions herein expressed then I don't want the job. What I say on this forum is what I believe and it conveys pretty accurately who I am. I still say, if you don't want what you represent yourself to be on these public places then don't participate and if you do then be brave enough to face the consequences. (FFL is the one and only 'forum' I have ever engaged with. I have no time or inclination to spend my day roving the ether for opportunities to either vent or expose myself in great quantities. Big Brother may be watching but if he finds himself interested in me then God help us.) ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: To clarify - I don't believe in anonymity. If I choose to post or subject others to my opinions and generally interact with them then I am more than happy to let them know my name. If I didn't want to associate myself with what I have written then I wouldn't write it. I don't totally understand the need for anonymity other than to keep oneself safe from repercussions that might arise as a result of what one might believe in. But then I'm all for accountability. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Can I mention something else that's been bugging me about FFL? I am Seraphita. That is Seraphita = Seraphita = Seraphita. That's the name I selected when registering with FFL. That's the name I always use. Simple OK? But we know there are a lot of people who have a sign-on name but who are also addressed by a familiar name. Correct me if I'm wrong but . . . authfriend = Judy TurquoiseB = Barry dhamilton = Buck and the Lord knows who wgm4u and awoelflebater are! For the sake of new arrivals to FFL and the occasional lurker could some kind soul list the different aliases of the posters to this site so that everyone knows who is saying what to whom. It would make life so much simpler. Simple: awoelflebater is Ann
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Rare Picture of Vivian Leigh
It probably has something to do with Devanagari script where the short a is not written but understood. So only long vowels would be pronounced. Marshy sounds the way Indians would pronounce it. As for the technical terms, remember some folks are tossing those around just to impress people, not that they know anything. Then there is the word kapha. There is no f sounding word in Sanskrit so kapha should be pronounced more like kappa because the h is an aspiration and doesn't mean we should pronounce it like kaffa. I noted that in a Frontline report on ayurveda where the Indian ayurvedic doctor pronounced the reporter as being pitta kappa. But that confuses western ayurevedists. My tantra teacher would pronounce yoga yog dropping the final a. On 11/06/2013 10:11 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote: Sanskrit/Indian pronunciation has always bemused me. The most obvious example to us is that Maharishi should be Marshy. But most everyone in the world of common folk says Maharishi. It's the smug insiders who like to say Marshy. And when it comes to the longer, technical terms used in Advaita-Vedanta the correct pronunciation becomes positively impossible for westerners to grasp - or guess at. I take the laziest course and always pronounce terms as they are written - which is clearly incorrect. The common thread is that there seems to be a collapse of the vowels. Is there some simple rule one can follow so as not to make a fool of oneself? ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote: An Indian friend who ran an little grocery store had a boy working for her who was from the Punjab. She told me she could barely understand him because of his accent. Indian accents very from region to region. And it also depends on education too. One thing that Maharishi had going for him was that his English was understandable for westerners. Going to ACVA events there were always a wide range of speakers and some folks had difficulty with some of the Indian accents. If you learn some Hindi then you'll understand the origins of Indian accents. I also have heard that there is northern and southern Sanskrit pronunciations. This I found out when I noticed that a friend who had studied Sanskrit elsewhere pronounced words differently than how I learned to pronounce them (from the American Sanskrit Institute materials). On 11/06/2013 07:43 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... wrote: Bhairitu, It's actually cool to have an Indian accent, especially if you're a guru of some kind. Also, if one comes to the USA after 16 years old or so, it's difficult to adopt the American accent even if you tried. One's native tongue is hard to erase. I believe MMY stated that it's better to speak your native tongue for physiological and psychological reasons. Here's Russell Peters on the subject of accents: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2W8aGgmn1A ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote: Re I tried to help my tantra teacher take some accent-reduction courses. Online there were some videos and they were able to boil down to a few points the way for someone from India to sound American.: Why so? Isn't hearing your own tongue spoken with a foreign accent rather appealing? In fact, it's often regarded as rather sexy to hear English spoken with a Continental accent! Could be a selling point for a tantric teacher . . . ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... wrote: Seems that British actors are very good at doing various American accents. Although in the commentary of the movie The Ward Jared Harris (Richard Harris's son) says there are some British accents that he finds difficult to do. It seems there is a better drama tradition in the UK whereas the US has cut many of their programs from schools. Doing accents shouldn't be that difficult. There are experts in training actors to learn them in short work. I tried to help my tantra teacher take some accent reduction courses. Online there were some videos and they were able to boil down to a few points the way for someone from India to sound American. On 11/06/2013 03:57 PM, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote: Interesting video link. The funny thing is, I've always found the Southern drawl one of the most appealing of American accents. I used to work for the BBC and I can tell you that whenever BBC Radio broadcast a play which featured an American character, listeners would always write in to complain about the producer using an English actor or actress and expecting him or her to fake an American accent that sounded obviously phony. Why, O why, they said, doesn't the BBC employ an American actor for the part. And every time that complaint was made the producer was always able to reply that actually the actor
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: It must be more Jingoism
What do you mean about Robbie Svoboda's guru? On 11/06/2013 05:30 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: OK. Not Vimalananda there! ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote: I don't think we ever discussed it. On 11/06/2013 12:58 PM, Share Long wrote: noozguru, I'm curious is your tantric teacher ever talked about synchronicity and such. What would he say about this kind of happening? On Wednesday, November 6, 2013 1:16 PM, Bhairitu noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... wrote: What empty is afraid of is NOT socialism nor communism nor neo-liberalism (what is really happening) but authoritarianism. It can exist in any political system. To see it growing in the US is appalling but you see how fast some people including some FFL'ers give it a pass. Funny thing: I actually listen to Alex Jones because his show is a hoot and some of the best radio around. I don't think empty ever listens to him, he just likes the pictures. Just as I was typing the work authoritarianism, Jones said the word. How 'bout that for synchronicity? On 11/06/2013 06:36 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: How the Government Spied on Me My complaint to the FBI about a stalker was regarded as an invitation to invade my privacy. http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702303482504579179670250714560-lMyQjAxMTAzMDAwNTEwNDUyWj?tesla=y http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702303482504579179670250714560-lMyQjAxMTAzMDAwNTEwNDUyWj?tesla=y%20 All these pinko commie wusses complaining that their rights were violated. They should just consider themselves fortunate that they didn't do a rolling stop at a stop sign in New Mexico: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/new-mexico-man-david-eckert-subjected-repeated-anal-probes-after-routine-traffic#
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Rare Picture of Vivian Leigh
Bevan and other TMO suits tend to pronounce it Ma-HAR-shi. It seems to be the first i that got short shrift, not the a. I don't remember who started spelling it Marshy here, but it was intended, as I recall, to show disrespect. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote: It probably has something to do with Devanagari script where the short a is not written but understood. So only long vowels would be pronounced. Marshy sounds the way Indians would pronounce it. As for the technical terms, remember some folks are tossing those around just to impress people, not that they know anything. Then there is the word kapha. There is no f sounding word in Sanskrit so kapha should be pronounced more like kappa because the h is an aspiration and doesn't mean we should pronounce it like kaffa. I noted that in a Frontline report on ayurveda where the Indian ayurvedic doctor pronounced the reporter as being pitta kappa. But that confuses western ayurevedists. My tantra teacher would pronounce yoga yog dropping the final a. On 11/06/2013 10:11 PM, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote: Sanskrit/Indian pronunciation has always bemused me. The most obvious example to us is that Maharishi should be Marshy. But most everyone in the world of common folk says Maharishi. It's the smug insiders who like to say Marshy. And when it comes to the longer, technical terms used in Advaita-Vedanta the correct pronunciation becomes positively impossible for westerners to grasp - or guess at. I take the laziest course and always pronounce terms as they are written - which is clearly incorrect. The common thread is that there seems to be a collapse of the vowels. Is there some simple rule one can follow so as not to make a fool of oneself? ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... wrote: An Indian friend who ran an little grocery store had a boy working for her who was from the Punjab. She told me she could barely understand him because of his accent. Indian accents very from region to region. And it also depends on education too. One thing that Maharishi had going for him was that his English was understandable for westerners. Going to ACVA events there were always a wide range of speakers and some folks had difficulty with some of the Indian accents. If you learn some Hindi then you'll understand the origins of Indian accents. I also have heard that there is northern and southern Sanskrit pronunciations. This I found out when I noticed that a friend who had studied Sanskrit elsewhere pronounced words differently than how I learned to pronounce them (from the American Sanskrit Institute materials). On 11/06/2013 07:43 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... wrote: Bhairitu, It's actually cool to have an Indian accent, especially if you're a guru of some kind. Also, if one comes to the USA after 16 years old or so, it's difficult to adopt the American accent even if you tried. One's native tongue is hard to erase. I believe MMY stated that it's better to speak your native tongue for physiological and psychological reasons. Here's Russell Peters on the subject of accents: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2W8aGgmn1A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2W8aGgmn1A ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote: Re I tried to help my tantra teacher take some accent-reduction courses. Online there were some videos and they were able to boil down to a few points the way for someone from India to sound American.: Why so? Isn't hearing your own tongue spoken with a foreign accent rather appealing? In fact, it's often regarded as rather sexy to hear English spoken with a Continental accent! Could be a selling point for a tantric teacher . . . ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... wrote: Seems that British actors are very good at doing various American accents. Although in the commentary of the movie The Ward Jared Harris (Richard Harris's son) says there are some British accents that he finds difficult to do. It seems there is a better drama tradition in the UK whereas the US has cut many of their programs from schools. Doing accents shouldn't be that difficult. There are experts in training actors to learn them in short work. I tried to help my tantra teacher take some accent reduction courses. Online there were some videos and they were able to boil down to a few points the way for someone from India to sound American. On 11/06/2013 03:57 PM, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote: Interesting video link. The funny thing is, I've always found the Southern drawl one of the most appealing of American accents. I used to work for the BBC and I can tell you that
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The academic fields with the least discipline...
On 11/07/2013 05:16 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Also turq, I do find it interesting that Geography, Geology and Chemistry appear in the top 12. To me that indicates a deeper principle at work. With chemistry, it's probably because the grad students are already trying to land a high-paying job, and believing that the more words they write, the more prospective employers might be impressed. Geology might be the same if they're trying to get jobs in the petroleum industry. But geography? Go figure. Maybe it's just so boring that they feel they have to write a lot to justify majoring in it. :-) On another forum I get into debates with apparently unemployed software engineers about bitrates and frame resolution on streaming sites like Netflix and Hulu. Unless they can find something written online they won't believe that Hulu may be streaming some titles at 1080p. They only see things in technical terms and have never edited and encoded videos a I have. I can tell the difference between a 720p and 1080p stream with my eyes. I don't no stinkin' docs to prove what I see. Plus some of these techs have NEVER written a video player (I've written two). Hulu has to keep up with the Jones or the Netflixes in this case. Also reminds me of managing programmers. I found there are two types: ones that jump in, roll up their sleeves and get the job done and others who will not write one line of code until they have read about and understand the entire API. The two types would fight with each other all the time too. The company owners want to see results not expertise.
RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] The academic fields with the least discipline...
Oh God, Share. Real love? In my humble opinion, both characters are very shallowly and superficially presented and developed in the show, particularly in terms of their relationship. (Yes, I've seen it, but it bores me). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Emily, I don't really find the Rick Castle character fascinating until he starts to feel and exhibit real love for Kate Beckett. On Thursday, November 7, 2013 10:21 AM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Share: You continue to be fascinated by men who are douche's. Here is Nathan Fillion talking about his character. http://www.tv.com/news/castles-nathan-fillion-on-his-new-role-hes-a-douche-12874/ http://www.tv.com/news/castles-nathan-fillion-on-his-new-role-hes-a-douche-12874/ Nathan Fillion: Hmm, a good question. Ah, you know what? I'll put Richard Castle up againstDr. Horrible's Sing-along Blog's Captain Hammer. Here he is, he's a guy who--he's fairly into himself. He's quite vain. He thinks very highly of himself anyway, and whereas Captain Hammer is a bit stupid, Castle is rather just a bit childlike. He lacks a bit of a filter, where some of us might say, Ooh, you know, this might be true but I'm not going to say it. Castle would say it. TV.com: Yeah. Don't take this the wrong way, but you play pompous characters very well. Nathan Fillion: You know what? It's something I like to do for fun with my friends [to play] pompous. I like to pretend I'm pompous often. I think it's funny because it's also fun to take that pompous guy down. It's not so easy to play stupid when you're pompous, because you just play that you don't know that you're stupid. TV.com: With a lot of the characters that fans know you for, you're pretty much a leading man, or the rough-and-ready type of guy. But in Castle you take a backseat to Stana's character who--you know, she wears the gun. Is it a nice change of pace to play the non-hero? Nathan Fillion: Absolutely! And I think that that's real life. I mean in real life, I don't know a whole lot of go-to guys. So if the chips were really down, and something was really actually important and dangerous and there were guns involved, I don't know a lot of the guys that you would turn to, Hey, I need your help on this one. And Castle is certainly not that guy. That's Kate Beckett. Kate Beckett's ready to go. She's trained. She knows what to do. She's sharp. Castle's--he's not the go-to guy. [laugh] He's a bit of a douche. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Ok, turq, here's a question for you: what goes to battle with ego? Being? Truth? Love? I don't think so. Other egos? Hmmm...I'd guess yes. But that's just my opinion. Once again I don't understand why you get so het up about people having and sharing opinions. It's what we all do. Especially after we've survived our midlife crisis! I think most people share opinions for the purpose of benefiting others. If they're misguided in that, well, there's obviously a learning curve involved. And maybe wanting to benefit others is the last stronghold of the ego. Hmmm... And really, if you added up all your writing online, I bet you'd get close to 500 pages (-: About character development, I'm making my way through the 5 previous seasons of Castle and it's so gratifying to watch the unfolding of all the different characters. But of course especially Castle and Beckett as they realize their love for each other more and more. On Thursday, November 7, 2013 2:26 AM, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: ...and the most ego. I found this chart interesting, in that the longest Ph.D. dissertations seem to be in the fields most subject to opinion -- history, antrhopology, political science, communication, english, sociology, and education. It's almost as if the grad students in those fields are already preparing for an academic life characterized by the belief that the more they say about their opinions, the more they can pretend they aren't opinion. The chart reminds me of an old college professor of mine who had a big rubber stamp that he would wield mercilessly on papers he thought deserved it. It was the letters B.S. -- always stamped in red over offending paragraphs or pages. When asked what the initials stood for, he would smile and say, Bloated Syntax. http://priceonomics.com/the-average-length-of-dissertations/ http://priceonomics.com/the-average-length-of-dissertations/ This said, I disagree with whoever suggested that Stephen King needs editing. I find reading his latest work a refreshing throwback to the days in which writers didn't pander to attention spans shortened by a lifetime's exposure to sound bites and artificially shortened exposition. The thing I like most about him as a writer is that he *takes his time* creating characters, so that the reader gets to feel that he *knows* them, before he does
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Rare Picture of Vivian Leigh
Marshy was the way a number of teachers pronounced it back in the 1970s and they did not intend any disrespect. They thought it was the proper pronunciation because they heard Indians say it that way. Of course the Brits thought that Indians were saying Bombay when they were saying Mumbai. :-D On 11/07/2013 09:14 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Bevan and other TMO suits tend to pronounce it Ma-HAR-shi. It seems to be the first i that got short shrift, not the a. I don't remember who started spelling it Marshy here, but it was intended, as I recall, to show disrespect. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote: It probably has something to do with Devanagari script where the short a is not written but understood. So only long vowels would be pronounced. Marshy sounds the way Indians would pronounce it. As for the technical terms, remember some folks are tossing those around just to impress people, not that they know anything. Then there is the word kapha. There is no f sounding word in Sanskrit so kapha should be pronounced more like kappa because the h is an aspiration and doesn't mean we should pronounce it like kaffa. I noted that in a Frontline report on ayurveda where the Indian ayurvedic doctor pronounced the reporter as being pitta kappa. But that confuses western ayurevedists. My tantra teacher would pronounce yoga yog dropping the final a. On 11/06/2013 10:11 PM, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote: Sanskrit/Indian pronunciation has always bemused me. The most obvious example to us is that Maharishi should be Marshy. But most everyone in the world of common folk says Maharishi. It's the smug insiders who like to say Marshy. And when it comes to the longer, technical terms used in Advaita-Vedanta the correct pronunciation becomes positively impossible for westerners to grasp - or guess at. I take the laziest course and always pronounce terms as they are written - which is clearly incorrect. The common thread is that there seems to be a collapse of the vowels. Is there some simple rule one can follow so as not to make a fool of oneself? ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... wrote: An Indian friend who ran an little grocery store had a boy working for her who was from the Punjab. She told me she could barely understand him because of his accent. Indian accents very from region to region. And it also depends on education too. One thing that Maharishi had going for him was that his English was understandable for westerners. Going to ACVA events there were always a wide range of speakers and some folks had difficulty with some of the Indian accents. If you learn some Hindi then you'll understand the origins of Indian accents. I also have heard that there is northern and southern Sanskrit pronunciations. This I found out when I noticed that a friend who had studied Sanskrit elsewhere pronounced words differently than how I learned to pronounce them (from the American Sanskrit Institute materials). On 11/06/2013 07:43 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... wrote: Bhairitu, It's actually cool to have an Indian accent, especially if you're a guru of some kind. Also, if one comes to the USA after 16 years old or so, it's difficult to adopt the American accent even if you tried. One's native tongue is hard to erase. I believe MMY stated that it's better to speak your native tongue for physiological and psychological reasons. Here's Russell Peters on the subject of accents: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2W8aGgmn1A ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote: Re I tried to help my tantra teacher take some accent-reduction courses. Online there were some videos and they were able to boil down to a few points the way for someone from India to sound American.: Why so? Isn't hearing your own tongue spoken with a foreign accent rather appealing? In fact, it's often regarded as rather sexy to hear English spoken with a Continental accent! Could be a selling point for a tantric teacher . . . ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... wrote: Seems that British actors are very good at doing various American accents. Although in the commentary of the movie The Ward Jared Harris (Richard Harris's son) says there are some British accents that he finds difficult to do. It seems there is a better drama tradition in the UK whereas the US has cut many of their programs from schools. Doing accents shouldn't be that difficult. There are experts in training actors to learn them in short work. I tried to help my tantra teacher take some accent reduction courses. Online there were some videos and they were able to boil down to a few points the way for someone from
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Rare Picture of Vivian Leigh
With regard to disrespect, I was talking about spelling it Marshy, obviously. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote: Marshy was the way a number of teachers pronounced it back in the 1970s and they did not intend any disrespect. They thought it was the proper pronunciation because they heard Indians say it that way. Of course the Brits thought that Indians were saying Bombay when they were saying Mumbai. :-D On 11/07/2013 09:14 AM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: Bevan and other TMO suits tend to pronounce it Ma-HAR-shi. It seems to be the first i that got short shrift, not the a. I don't remember who started spelling it Marshy here, but it was intended, as I recall, to show disrespect. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... wrote: It probably has something to do with Devanagari script where the short a is not written but understood. So only long vowels would be pronounced. Marshy sounds the way Indians would pronounce it. As for the technical terms, remember some folks are tossing those around just to impress people, not that they know anything. Then there is the word kapha. There is no f sounding word in Sanskrit so kapha should be pronounced more like kappa because the h is an aspiration and doesn't mean we should pronounce it like kaffa. I noted that in a Frontline report on ayurveda where the Indian ayurvedic doctor pronounced the reporter as being pitta kappa. But that confuses western ayurevedists. My tantra teacher would pronounce yoga yog dropping the final a. On 11/06/2013 10:11 PM, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote: Sanskrit/Indian pronunciation has always bemused me. The most obvious example to us is that Maharishi should be Marshy. But most everyone in the world of common folk says Maharishi. It's the smug insiders who like to say Marshy. And when it comes to the longer, technical terms used in Advaita-Vedanta the correct pronunciation becomes positively impossible for westerners to grasp - or guess at. I take the laziest course and always pronounce terms as they are written - which is clearly incorrect. The common thread is that there seems to be a collapse of the vowels. Is there some simple rule one can follow so as not to make a fool of oneself? ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... wrote: An Indian friend who ran an little grocery store had a boy working for her who was from the Punjab. She told me she could barely understand him because of his accent. Indian accents very from region to region. And it also depends on education too. One thing that Maharishi had going for him was that his English was understandable for westerners. Going to ACVA events there were always a wide range of speakers and some folks had difficulty with some of the Indian accents. If you learn some Hindi then you'll understand the origins of Indian accents. I also have heard that there is northern and southern Sanskrit pronunciations. This I found out when I noticed that a friend who had studied Sanskrit elsewhere pronounced words differently than how I learned to pronounce them (from the American Sanskrit Institute materials). On 11/06/2013 07:43 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... wrote: Bhairitu, It's actually cool to have an Indian accent, especially if you're a guru of some kind. Also, if one comes to the USA after 16 years old or so, it's difficult to adopt the American accent even if you tried. One's native tongue is hard to erase. I believe MMY stated that it's better to speak your native tongue for physiological and psychological reasons. Here's Russell Peters on the subject of accents: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2W8aGgmn1A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2W8aGgmn1A ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote: Re I tried to help my tantra teacher take some accent-reduction courses. Online there were some videos and they were able to boil down to a few points the way for someone from India to sound American.: Why so? Isn't hearing your own tongue spoken with a foreign accent rather appealing? In fact, it's often regarded as rather sexy to hear English spoken with a Continental accent! Could be a selling point for a tantric teacher . . . ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... wrote: Seems that British actors are very good at doing various American accents. Although in the commentary of the movie The Ward Jared Harris (Richard Harris's son) says there are some British accents that he finds difficult to do. It seems there is a better drama tradition in the UK whereas the US has cut many of their programs from schools.
RE: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] The academic fields with the least discipline...
Shhh, Emily. She has to love the show so she can pander to Barry. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Oh God, Share. Real love? In my humble opinion, both characters are very shallowly and superficially presented and developed in the show, particularly in terms of their relationship. (Yes, I've seen it, but it bores me). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Emily, I don't really find the Rick Castle character fascinating until he starts to feel and exhibit real love for Kate Beckett. On Thursday, November 7, 2013 10:21 AM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Share: You continue to be fascinated by men who are douche's. Here is Nathan Fillion talking about his character. http://www.tv.com/news/castles-nathan-fillion-on-his-new-role-hes-a-douche-12874/ http://www.tv.com/news/castles-nathan-fillion-on-his-new-role-hes-a-douche-12874/ Nathan Fillion: Hmm, a good question. Ah, you know what? I'll put Richard Castle up againstDr. Horrible's Sing-along Blog's Captain Hammer. Here he is, he's a guy who--he's fairly into himself. He's quite vain. He thinks very highly of himself anyway, and whereas Captain Hammer is a bit stupid, Castle is rather just a bit childlike. He lacks a bit of a filter, where some of us might say, Ooh, you know, this might be true but I'm not going to say it. Castle would say it. TV.com: Yeah. Don't take this the wrong way, but you play pompous characters very well. Nathan Fillion: You know what? It's something I like to do for fun with my friends [to play] pompous. I like to pretend I'm pompous often. I think it's funny because it's also fun to take that pompous guy down. It's not so easy to play stupid when you're pompous, because you just play that you don't know that you're stupid. TV.com: With a lot of the characters that fans know you for, you're pretty much a leading man, or the rough-and-ready type of guy. But in Castle you take a backseat to Stana's character who--you know, she wears the gun. Is it a nice change of pace to play the non-hero? Nathan Fillion: Absolutely! And I think that that's real life. I mean in real life, I don't know a whole lot of go-to guys. So if the chips were really down, and something was really actually important and dangerous and there were guns involved, I don't know a lot of the guys that you would turn to, Hey, I need your help on this one. And Castle is certainly not that guy. That's Kate Beckett. Kate Beckett's ready to go. She's trained. She knows what to do. She's sharp. Castle's--he's not the go-to guy. [laugh] He's a bit of a douche. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Ok, turq, here's a question for you: what goes to battle with ego? Being? Truth? Love? I don't think so. Other egos? Hmmm...I'd guess yes. But that's just my opinion. Once again I don't understand why you get so het up about people having and sharing opinions. It's what we all do. Especially after we've survived our midlife crisis! I think most people share opinions for the purpose of benefiting others. If they're misguided in that, well, there's obviously a learning curve involved. And maybe wanting to benefit others is the last stronghold of the ego. Hmmm... And really, if you added up all your writing online, I bet you'd get close to 500 pages (-: About character development, I'm making my way through the 5 previous seasons of Castle and it's so gratifying to watch the unfolding of all the different characters. But of course especially Castle and Beckett as they realize their love for each other more and more. On Thursday, November 7, 2013 2:26 AM, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: ...and the most ego. I found this chart interesting, in that the longest Ph.D. dissertations seem to be in the fields most subject to opinion -- history, antrhopology, political science, communication, english, sociology, and education. It's almost as if the grad students in those fields are already preparing for an academic life characterized by the belief that the more they say about their opinions, the more they can pretend they aren't opinion. The chart reminds me of an old college professor of mine who had a big rubber stamp that he would wield mercilessly on papers he thought deserved it. It was the letters B.S. -- always stamped in red over offending paragraphs or pages. When asked what the initials stood for, he would smile and say, Bloated Syntax. http://priceonomics.com/the-average-length-of-dissertations/ http://priceonomics.com/the-average-length-of-dissertations/ This said, I disagree with whoever suggested that Stephen King needs editing. I find reading his latest work a refreshing throwback to the days in which writers didn't pander to attention spans shortened by a lifetime's exposure to sound bites and artificially shortened exposition. The thing I like most about him as
[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
On the topic of religious rituals - and to take this thread even further away from Mani - were there ever any group ceremonies (puja) performed at the various HQs where Maharishi established himself in Switzerland and Holland? And did those attending training courses as TM teachers ever have communal puja chanting or anything else suggesting a cult? Maybe the sacrifice of a maiden on a stone slab? Or did it never deviate from individual and group TM/Sidhi practice and SCI lectures? ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: What's yer problem? We're saying we like this kind of thing, the fancier and more elaborate the better. Love the costumes in this clip, the different coordinated black-and-white prints for the vestments. Russian liturgical music is kind of an acquired taste for most Westerners, but it's magnificent once you develop an ear for it. I told you my sister sang with an amateur (but superb) Russian chorus in Boston some years ago, didn't I? They did a tour of Russia at one point, where they had very eager Russian audiences. Choral performance of liturgical music had almost become a lost art under Communism, so people were actually re-learning the style and fine points from them. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: You're all sounding like desiccated corpses drying in the desert. There is another type of Christian life here in America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0M94z3Pev4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0M94z3Pev4 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Seraphita wrote: Re Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship context and joined the church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple of years but wasn't inspired enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the Personal God aspect of the belief system (or Christ as savior). God as Unified Field, the ultimate (and unworshipable) abstraction, is about as far as I can go. : Again very close to my view. Here in the UK, the Anglican Church is essentially a wishy- washy nostalgia circus for reminding grown-ups of their childhood. (With bits of Arthurian romance added to the mix.) So all pretty harmless. Even arch-atheist Richard Dawkins has confessed to occasionally popping into a church just to enjoy the aesthetic experience! Heehee. Be fun to see that guy Spufford look up from his prayers and clap eyes on Dawkins. Having always been intrigued by the occult fringe, I've also seen some attraction in the Catholic position: the Mass as a magical ritual and the unembarrassed veneration of those medieval mystics. Even such unregenerates as Oscar Wilde, Baudelaire and Huysmans finally turned to Rome as they sensed it was the more poetical religion. Huh, I'm attracted by the poetry/music/incense/art/theatrical aspects as well. Goes way back with me to the (wonderful) Audrey Hepburn film The Nun's Story. I think I'd need a Peter Finch equivalent, though. To this day I have no idea whether my late father had any religious sensibility whatsoever, but he adored churches and religious music and painting. I guess it's in the genes. I might be tempted to pop into a Catholic church at some point if they were doing a mass in Latin. There's something really magical about Latin. Like Sanskrit, I suppose, but the music is a lot better. ;-) I once memorized the Hail Mary in Latin just because I loved the sound of it. My Presbyterian ancestors (Huguenots, no less) must have spun themselves nearly out of their graves.
RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] The academic fields with the least discipline...
God bless it, I'm so slow sometimes. I was just about to tell her to dig deep. Lucky for me, I try to be anonymous. Smile. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Shhh, Emily. She has to love the show so she can pander to Barry. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Oh God, Share. Real love? In my humble opinion, both characters are very shallowly and superficially presented and developed in the show, particularly in terms of their relationship. (Yes, I've seen it, but it bores me). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Emily, I don't really find the Rick Castle character fascinating until he starts to feel and exhibit real love for Kate Beckett. On Thursday, November 7, 2013 10:21 AM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Share: You continue to be fascinated by men who are douche's. Here is Nathan Fillion talking about his character. http://www.tv.com/news/castles-nathan-fillion-on-his-new-role-hes-a-douche-12874/ http://www.tv.com/news/castles-nathan-fillion-on-his-new-role-hes-a-douche-12874/ Nathan Fillion: Hmm, a good question. Ah, you know what? I'll put Richard Castle up againstDr. Horrible's Sing-along Blog's Captain Hammer. Here he is, he's a guy who--he's fairly into himself. He's quite vain. He thinks very highly of himself anyway, and whereas Captain Hammer is a bit stupid, Castle is rather just a bit childlike. He lacks a bit of a filter, where some of us might say, Ooh, you know, this might be true but I'm not going to say it. Castle would say it. TV.com: Yeah. Don't take this the wrong way, but you play pompous characters very well. Nathan Fillion: You know what? It's something I like to do for fun with my friends [to play] pompous. I like to pretend I'm pompous often. I think it's funny because it's also fun to take that pompous guy down. It's not so easy to play stupid when you're pompous, because you just play that you don't know that you're stupid. TV.com: With a lot of the characters that fans know you for, you're pretty much a leading man, or the rough-and-ready type of guy. But in Castle you take a backseat to Stana's character who--you know, she wears the gun. Is it a nice change of pace to play the non-hero? Nathan Fillion: Absolutely! And I think that that's real life. I mean in real life, I don't know a whole lot of go-to guys. So if the chips were really down, and something was really actually important and dangerous and there were guns involved, I don't know a lot of the guys that you would turn to, Hey, I need your help on this one. And Castle is certainly not that guy. That's Kate Beckett. Kate Beckett's ready to go. She's trained. She knows what to do. She's sharp. Castle's--he's not the go-to guy. [laugh] He's a bit of a douche. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Ok, turq, here's a question for you: what goes to battle with ego? Being? Truth? Love? I don't think so. Other egos? Hmmm...I'd guess yes. But that's just my opinion. Once again I don't understand why you get so het up about people having and sharing opinions. It's what we all do. Especially after we've survived our midlife crisis! I think most people share opinions for the purpose of benefiting others. If they're misguided in that, well, there's obviously a learning curve involved. And maybe wanting to benefit others is the last stronghold of the ego. Hmmm... And really, if you added up all your writing online, I bet you'd get close to 500 pages (-: About character development, I'm making my way through the 5 previous seasons of Castle and it's so gratifying to watch the unfolding of all the different characters. But of course especially Castle and Beckett as they realize their love for each other more and more. On Thursday, November 7, 2013 2:26 AM, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: ...and the most ego. I found this chart interesting, in that the longest Ph.D. dissertations seem to be in the fields most subject to opinion -- history, antrhopology, political science, communication, english, sociology, and education. It's almost as if the grad students in those fields are already preparing for an academic life characterized by the belief that the more they say about their opinions, the more they can pretend they aren't opinion. The chart reminds me of an old college professor of mine who had a big rubber stamp that he would wield mercilessly on papers he thought deserved it. It was the letters B.S. -- always stamped in red over offending paragraphs or pages. When asked what the initials stood for, he would smile and say, Bloated Syntax. http://priceonomics.com/the-average-length-of-dissertations/ http://priceonomics.com/the-average-length-of-dissertations/ This said, I disagree with whoever suggested that Stephen King needs editing. I find reading his latest work a refreshing
[FairfieldLife] RE: Rare Picture of Vivian Leigh
Re Bevan and other TMO suits tend to pronounce it Ma-HAR-shi.: That makes sense as Ramana Maharshi was (presumably) pronounced likewise but the Sanskrit Maharishi title given to Ramana and Mahesh would have been the same. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Bevan and other TMO suits tend to pronounce it Ma-HAR-shi. It seems to be the first i that got short shrift, not the a. I don't remember who started spelling it Marshy here, but it was intended, as I recall, to show disrespect.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Who#39;s who on FFL?
Re Ann's: What I say on this forum is what I believe and it conveys pretty accurately who I am.: And if a prospective employer was prejudiced against your opinions you'd not get that longed-for job/pay rise/promotion. You may be financially secure enough to not care less but there are a lot of people out there who might be in more desperate straits. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re I don't believe in anonymity. If I choose to post or subject others to my opinions and generally interact with them then I am more than happy to let them know my name. If I didn't want to associate myself with what I have written then I wouldn't write it. I don't totally understand the need for anonymity other than to keep oneself safe from repercussions that might arise as a result of what one might believe in. But then I'm all for accountability.: If I'm understanding you, isn't the problem here that when people post comments and opinions using their real, given name it means that when they apply for a new job (say) the employer can Google the name and see everything they've said. You could learn a lot about someone from chasing up all their opinions - things it might be wiser to keep secret. Might it not be a good idea to protect yourself with an alias? You're still free to reveal to whoever you choose what aliases you've used on-line - but *you* have that choice. By using your real name you're giving hostages to fortune. All sorts of things can be dredged up but if my would-be employer were to choose not to give me a job based on my opinions herein expressed then I don't want the job. What I say on this forum is what I believe and it conveys pretty accurately who I am. I still say, if you don't want what you represent yourself to be on these public places then don't participate and if you do then be brave enough to face the consequences. (FFL is the one and only 'forum' I have ever engaged with. I have no time or inclination to spend my day roving the ether for opportunities to either vent or expose myself in great quantities. Big Brother may be watching but if he finds himself interested in me then God help us.) ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: To clarify - I don't believe in anonymity. If I choose to post or subject others to my opinions and generally interact with them then I am more than happy to let them know my name. If I didn't want to associate myself with what I have written then I wouldn't write it. I don't totally understand the need for anonymity other than to keep oneself safe from repercussions that might arise as a result of what one might believe in. But then I'm all for accountability. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Can I mention something else that's been bugging me about FFL? I am Seraphita. That is Seraphita = Seraphita = Seraphita. That's the name I selected when registering with FFL. That's the name I always use. Simple OK? But we know there are a lot of people who have a sign-on name but who are also addressed by a familiar name. Correct me if I'm wrong but . . . authfriend = Judy TurquoiseB = Barry dhamilton = Buck and the Lord knows who wgm4u and awoelflebater are! For the sake of new arrivals to FFL and the occasional lurker could some kind soul list the different aliases of the posters to this site so that everyone knows who is saying what to whom. It would make life so much simpler. Simple: awoelflebater is Ann
Re: RE: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] The academic fields with the least discipline...
turq didn't at all sound like a big fan of the show to me. On Thursday, November 7, 2013 12:08 PM, emilymae...@yahoo.com emilymae...@yahoo.com wrote: God bless it, I'm so slow sometimes. I was just about to tell her to dig deep. Lucky for me, I try to be anonymous. Smile. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Shhh, Emily. She has to love the show so she can pander to Barry. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Oh God, Share. Real love? In my humble opinion, both characters are very shallowly and superficially presented and developed in the show, particularly in terms of their relationship. (Yes, I've seen it, but it bores me). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Emily, I don't really find the Rick Castle character fascinating until he starts to feel and exhibit real love for Kate Beckett. On Thursday, November 7, 2013 10:21 AM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Share: You continue to be fascinated by men who are douche's. Here is Nathan Fillion talking about his character. http://www.tv.com/news/castles-nathan-fillion-on-his-new-role-hes-a-douche-12874/ Nathan Fillion: Hmm, a good question. Ah, you know what? I'll put Richard Castle up againstDr. Horrible's Sing-along Blog's Captain Hammer. Here he is, he's a guy who--he's fairly into himself. He's quite vain. He thinks very highly of himself anyway, and whereas Captain Hammer is a bit stupid, Castle is rather just a bit childlike. He lacks a bit of a filter, where some of us might say, Ooh, you know, this might be true but I'm not going to say it. Castle would say it. TV.com: Yeah. Don't take this the wrong way, but you play pompous characters very well. Nathan Fillion: You know what? It's something I like to do for fun with my friends [to play] pompous. I like to pretend I'm pompous often. I think it's funny because it's also fun to take that pompous guy down. It's not so easy to play stupid when you're pompous, because you just play that you don't know that you're stupid. TV.com: With a lot of the characters that fans know you for, you're pretty much a leading man, or the rough-and-ready type of guy. But in Castle you take a backseat to Stana's character who--you know, she wears the gun. Is it a nice change of pace to play the non-hero? Nathan Fillion: Absolutely! And I think that that's real life. I mean in real life, I don't know a whole lot of go-to guys. So if the chips were really down, and something was really actually important and dangerous and there were guns involved, I don't know a lot of the guys that you would turn to, Hey, I need your help on this one. And Castle is certainly not that guy. That's Kate Beckett. Kate Beckett's ready to go. She's trained. She knows what to do. She's sharp. Castle's--he's not the go-to guy. [laugh] He's a bit of a douche. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Ok, turq, here's a question for you: what goes to battle with ego? Being? Truth? Love? I don't think so. Other egos? Hmmm...I'd guess yes. But that's just my opinion. Once again I don't understand why you get so het up about people having and sharing opinions. It's what we all do. Especially after we've survived our midlife crisis! I think most people share opinions for the purpose of benefiting others. If they're misguided in that, well, there's obviously a learning curve involved. And maybe wanting to benefit others is the last stronghold of the ego. Hmmm... And really, if you added up all your writing online, I bet you'd get close to 500 pages (-: About character development, I'm making my way through the 5 previous seasons of Castle and it's so gratifying to watch the unfolding of all the different characters. But of course especially Castle and Beckett as they realize their love for each other more and more. On Thursday, November 7, 2013 2:26 AM, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: ...and the most ego. I found this chart interesting, in that the longest Ph.D. dissertations seem to be in the fields most subject to opinion -- history, antrhopology, political science, communication, english, sociology, and education. It's almost as if the grad students in those fields are already preparing for an academic life characterized by the belief that the more they say about their opinions, the more they can pretend they aren't opinion. The chart reminds me of an old college professor of mine who had a big rubber stamp that he would wield mercilessly on papers he thought deserved it. It was the letters B.S. -- always stamped in red over offending paragraphs or pages. When asked what the initials stood for, he would smile and say, Bloated Syntax. http://priceonomics.com/the-average-length-of-dissertations/ This said, I disagree with whoever suggested that Stephen King needs editing. I find reading his latest work a refreshing throwback to the days in
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Rare Picture of Vivian Leigh
India has regional dialects of Hindi not to mention other languages such as Urdu, Malayalam and Tamil. So you can get differences in pronunciation that way. Transliteration is another issue. One thing about the sheets we got on TTC with the puja was that they had taken pains to use transliterations that made it easy for Americans. On 11/07/2013 10:11 AM, s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote: Re Bevan and other TMO suits tend to pronounce it Ma-HAR-shi.: That makes sense as Ramana Maharshi was (presumably) pronounced likewise but the Sanskrit Maharishi title given to Ramana and Mahesh would have been the same. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Bevan and other TMO suits tend to pronounce it Ma-HAR-shi. It seems to be the first i that got short shrift, not the a. I don't remember who started spelling it Marshy here, but it was intended, as I recall, to show disrespect.
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Who#39;s who on FFL?
It is way better than just anonymity, I hacked this guy's yahoo mail account a long long time ago and use it at my free will. Ha! The sap, he's never figured it out. I bet he'd be really mad at me for using his account for my purposes if he ever figured it out. However someone here actually equating his name with me, I think the FFL moderator here should ban whoever did that for violating the FFL guidelines about revealing people's identities on FFL. Outing people who wish to remain anonymous or lurk on FFL, that really is foul. -Buck ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re Ann's: What I say on this forum is what I believe and it conveys pretty accurately who I am.: And if a prospective employer was prejudiced against your opinions you'd not get that longed-for job/pay rise/promotion. You may be financially secure enough to not care less but there are a lot of people out there who might be in more desperate straits. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re I don't believe in anonymity. If I choose to post or subject others to my opinions and generally interact with them then I am more than happy to let them know my name. If I didn't want to associate myself with what I have written then I wouldn't write it. I don't totally understand the need for anonymity other than to keep oneself safe from repercussions that might arise as a result of what one might believe in. But then I'm all for accountability.: If I'm understanding you, isn't the problem here that when people post comments and opinions using their real, given name it means that when they apply for a new job (say) the employer can Google the name and see everything they've said. You could learn a lot about someone from chasing up all their opinions - things it might be wiser to keep secret. Might it not be a good idea to protect yourself with an alias? You're still free to reveal to whoever you choose what aliases you've used on-line - but *you* have that choice. By using your real name you're giving hostages to fortune. All sorts of things can be dredged up but if my would-be employer were to choose not to give me a job based on my opinions herein expressed then I don't want the job. What I say on this forum is what I believe and it conveys pretty accurately who I am. I still say, if you don't want what you represent yourself to be on these public places then don't participate and if you do then be brave enough to face the consequences. (FFL is the one and only 'forum' I have ever engaged with. I have no time or inclination to spend my day roving the ether for opportunities to either vent or expose myself in great quantities. Big Brother may be watching but if he finds himself interested in me then God help us.) ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: To clarify - I don't believe in anonymity. If I choose to post or subject others to my opinions and generally interact with them then I am more than happy to let them know my name. If I didn't want to associate myself with what I have written then I wouldn't write it. I don't totally understand the need for anonymity other than to keep oneself safe from repercussions that might arise as a result of what one might believe in. But then I'm all for accountability. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Can I mention something else that's been bugging me about FFL? I am Seraphita. That is Seraphita = Seraphita = Seraphita. That's the name I selected when registering with FFL. That's the name I always use. Simple OK? But we know there are a lot of people who have a sign-on name but who are also addressed by a familiar name. Correct me if I'm wrong but . . . authfriend = TurquoiseB = Buck = and the Lord knows who wgm4u and awoelflebater are! For the sake of new arrivals to FFL and the occasional lurker could some kind soul list the different aliases of the posters to this site so that everyone knows who is saying what to whom. It would make life so much simpler. Simple: awoelflebater is Ann
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: Who#39;s who on FFL?
If you wanted to be nasty to JOHN DOE (say) couldn't you open a free web email account using their name; then join an on-line forum and use John Doe as the handle; then post lots of messages on the forum saying what a splendid but misunderstood chap Hitler was, and so on . . . Then, when a would-be employer Googled John Doe to check his worthiness for the post . . . well, you get the picture. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: It is way better than just anonymity, I hacked this guy's yahoo mail account a long long time ago and use it at my free will. Ha! The sap, he's never figured it out. I bet he'd be really mad at me for using his account for my purposes if he ever figured it out. However someone here actually equating his name with me, I think the FFL moderator here should ban whoever did that for violating the FFL guidelines about revealing people's identities on FFL. Outing people who wish to remain anonymous or lurk on FFL, that really is foul. -Buck ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re Ann's: What I say on this forum is what I believe and it conveys pretty accurately who I am.: And if a prospective employer was prejudiced against your opinions you'd not get that longed-for job/pay rise/promotion. You may be financially secure enough to not care less but there are a lot of people out there who might be in more desperate straits. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re I don't believe in anonymity. If I choose to post or subject others to my opinions and generally interact with them then I am more than happy to let them know my name. If I didn't want to associate myself with what I have written then I wouldn't write it. I don't totally understand the need for anonymity other than to keep oneself safe from repercussions that might arise as a result of what one might believe in. But then I'm all for accountability.: If I'm understanding you, isn't the problem here that when people post comments and opinions using their real, given name it means that when they apply for a new job (say) the employer can Google the name and see everything they've said. You could learn a lot about someone from chasing up all their opinions - things it might be wiser to keep secret. Might it not be a good idea to protect yourself with an alias? You're still free to reveal to whoever you choose what aliases you've used on-line - but *you* have that choice. By using your real name you're giving hostages to fortune. All sorts of things can be dredged up but if my would-be employer were to choose not to give me a job based on my opinions herein expressed then I don't want the job. What I say on this forum is what I believe and it conveys pretty accurately who I am. I still say, if you don't want what you represent yourself to be on these public places then don't participate and if you do then be brave enough to face the consequences. (FFL is the one and only 'forum' I have ever engaged with. I have no time or inclination to spend my day roving the ether for opportunities to either vent or expose myself in great quantities. Big Brother may be watching but if he finds himself interested in me then God help us.) ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: To clarify - I don't believe in anonymity. If I choose to post or subject others to my opinions and generally interact with them then I am more than happy to let them know my name. If I didn't want to associate myself with what I have written then I wouldn't write it. I don't totally understand the need for anonymity other than to keep oneself safe from repercussions that might arise as a result of what one might believe in. But then I'm all for accountability. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Can I mention something else that's been bugging me about FFL? I am Seraphita. That is Seraphita = Seraphita = Seraphita. That's the name I selected when registering with FFL. That's the name I always use. Simple OK? But we know there are a lot of people who have a sign-on name but who are also addressed by a familiar name. Correct me if I'm wrong but . . . authfriend = TurquoiseB = Buck = and the Lord knows who wgm4u and awoelflebater are! For the sake of new arrivals to FFL and the occasional lurker could some kind soul list the different aliases of the posters to this site so that everyone knows who is saying what to whom. It would make life so much simpler. Simple: awoelflebater is Ann
[FairfieldLife] Re: RE: Who's who on FFL?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: If you wanted to be nasty to JOHN DOE (say) couldn't you open a free web email account using their name; then join an on-line forum and use John Doe as the handle; then post lots of messages on the forum saying what a splendid but misunderstood chap Hitler was, and so on . . . Then, when a would-be employer Googled John Doe to check his worthiness for the post . . . well, you get the picture. Or you could simply do it the way some people here on FFL did to Curtis, a former member. Curtis patiently explained to the forum that his work (he is a Blues artist, but also teaches using his music in public schools) made him very sensitive to things said about him on the Internet. Every principal of every school he wants to work for Googles his name the minute he leaves their office after their interview. So what do a few wonderful people on FFL do? They not only start using his full name in posts here (thus making them Google-able), they write occasional posts *POSING AS HIM* and/or signing his name to what they wrote. Both Robin and Ravi (who Judy seems to have No Problem With) did this, and continued to do it *after* Curtis asked them not to. Ravi was thrown off the forum at one point because of it.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Re: RE: Who#39;s who on FFL?
Barry is, as usual, deliberately not telling the truth. I'm not going to bother to go into the whole story Barry is lying about; anyone who's been around FFL for awhile knows he lies like a rug about his critics. A particular specialty of his is to lie about things that happened in the past when he thinks the person he's telling the lies to wasn't around. For some reason he never expects the folks who were around are going to call him on the lies. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: If you wanted to be nasty to JOHN DOE (say) couldn't you open a free web email account using their name; then join an on-line forum and use John Doe as the handle; then post lots of messages on the forum saying what a splendid but misunderstood chap Hitler was, and so on . . . Then, when a would-be employer Googled John Doe to check his worthiness for the post . . . well, you get the picture. Or you could simply do it the way some people here on FFL did to Curtis, a former member. Curtis patiently explained to the forum that his work (he is a Blues artist, but also teaches using his music in public schools) made him very sensitive to things said about him on the Internet. Every principal of every school he wants to work for Googles his name the minute he leaves their office after their interview. So what do a few wonderful people on FFL do? They not only start using his full name in posts here (thus making them Google-able), they write occasional posts *POSING AS HIM* and/or signing his name to what they wrote. Both Robin and Ravi (who Judy seems to have No Problem With) did this, and continued to do it *after* Curtis asked them not to. Ravi was thrown off the forum at one point because of it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Who's who on FFL?
On Thursday, November 7, 2013 10:57:55 AM, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: It is way better than just anonymity, I hacked this guy's yahoo mail account a long long time ago and use it at my free will. Ha! The sap, he's never figured it out. I bet he'd be really mad at me for using his account for my purposes if he ever figured it out. However someone here actually equating his name with me, I think the FFL moderator here should ban whoever did that for violating the FFL guidelines about revealing people's identities on FFL. Outing people who wish to remain anonymous or lurk on FFL, that really is foul. -Buck ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re Ann's: What I say on this forum is what I believe and it conveys pretty accurately who I am.: And if a prospective employer was prejudiced against your opinions you'd not get that longed-for job/pay rise/promotion. You may be financially secure enough to not care less but there are a lot of people out there who might be in more desperate straits. If I was in a position to have to care I would not post at all. I don't like someone holding me hostage through/by my viewpoints and have a really deep seated rebellious streak if I feel I were to be censured for being who I am. If someone were to read what I wrote who actually had the power to fire or hire me (which seems unlikely) then I would need to be conscious of such a possibility and be prepared to live with the consequences if it came to that. I acknowledge other people's desire and need for anonymity but it just ain't me. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re I don't believe in anonymity. If I choose to post or subject others to my opinions and generally interact with them then I am more than happy to let them know my name. If I didn't want to associate myself with what I have written then I wouldn't write it. I don't totally understand the need for anonymity other than to keep oneself safe from repercussions that might arise as a result of what one might believe in. But then I'm all for accountability.: If I'm understanding you, isn't the problem here that when people post comments and opinions using their real, given name it means that when they apply for a new job (say) the employer can Google the name and see everything they've said. You could learn a lot about someone from chasing up all their opinions - things it might be wiser to keep secret. Might it not be a good idea to protect yourself with an alias? You're still free to reveal to whoever you choose what aliases you've used on-line - but *you* have that choice. By using your real name you're giving hostages to fortune. All sorts of things can be dredged up but if my would-be employer were to choose not to give me a job based on my opinions herein expressed then I don't want the job. What I say on this forum is what I believe and it conveys pretty accurately who I am. I still say, if you don't want what you represent yourself to be on these public places then don't participate and if you do then be brave enough to face the consequences. (FFL is the one and only 'forum' I have ever engaged with. I have no time or inclination to spend my day roving the ether for opportunities to either vent or expose myself in great quantities. Big Brother may be watching but if he finds himself interested in me then God help us.) ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: To clarify - I don't believe in anonymity. If I choose to post or subject others to my opinions and generally interact with them then I am more than happy to let them know my name. If I didn't want to associate myself with what I have written then I wouldn't write it. I don't totally understand the need for anonymity other than to keep oneself safe from repercussions that might arise as a result of what one might believe in. But then I'm all for accountability. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Can I mention something else that's been bugging me about FFL? I am Seraphita. That is Seraphita = Seraphita = Seraphita. That's the name I selected when registering with FFL. That's the name I always use. Simple OK? But we know there are a lot of people who have a sign-on name but who are also addressed by a familiar name. Correct me if I'm wrong but . . . authfriend = TurquoiseB = Buck = and the Lord knows who wgm4u and awoelflebater are! For the sake of new arrivals to FFL and the occasional lurker could some kind soul list the different aliases of the posters to this site so that everyone knows who is saying what to whom. It would make life so much simpler. Simple: awoelflebater is Ann
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Who's who on FFL?
That just about wrecks this thread - gone to shit in just 24 hours. There are at least four people on this forum that should be banned for using people's real name in messages. Go figure. On 11/7/2013 1:49 PM, Ann Woelfle Bater wrote: On Thursday, November 7, 2013 10:57:55 AM, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: It is way better than just anonymity, I hacked this guy's yahoo mail account a long long time ago and use it at my free will. Ha! The sap, he's never figured it out. I bet he'd be really mad at me for using his account for my purposes if he ever figured it out. However someone here actually equating his name with me, I think the FFL moderator here should ban whoever did that for violating the FFL guidelines about revealing people's identities on FFL. Outing people who wish to remain anonymous or lurk on FFL, that really is foul. -Buck ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re Ann's: What I say on this forum is what I believe and it conveys pretty accurately who I am.: And if a prospective employer was prejudiced against your opinions you'd not get that longed-for job/pay rise/promotion. You may be financially secure enough to not care less but there are a lot of people out there who might be in more desperate straits. If I was in a position to have to care I would not post at all. I don't like someone holding me hostage through/by my viewpoints and have a really deep seated rebellious streak if I feel I were to be censured for being who I am. If someone were to read what I wrote who actually had the power to fire or hire me (which seems unlikely) then I would need to be conscious of such a possibility and be prepared to live with the consequences if it came to that. I acknowledge other people's desire and need for anonymity but it just ain't me. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re I don't believe in anonymity. If I choose to post or subject others to my opinions and generally interact with them then I am more than happy to let them know my name. If I didn't want to associate myself with what I have written then I wouldn't write it. I don't totally understand the need for anonymity other than to keep oneself safe from repercussions that might arise as a result of what one might believe in. But then I'm all for accountability.: If I'm understanding you, isn't the problem here that when people post comments and opinions using their real, given name it means that when they apply for a new job (say) the employer can Google the name and see everything they've said. You could learn a lot about someone from chasing up all their opinions - things it might be wiser to keep secret. Might it not be a good idea to protect yourself with an alias? You're still free to reveal to whoever you choose what aliases you've used on-line - but *you* have that choice. By using your real name you're giving hostages to fortune. All sorts of things can be dredged up but if my would-be employer were to choose not to give me a job based on my opinions herein expressed then I don't want the job. What I say on this forum is what I believe and it conveys pretty accurately who I am. I still say, if you don't want what you represent yourself to be on these public places then don't participate and if you do then be brave enough to face the consequences. (FFL is the one and only 'forum' I have ever engaged with. I have no time or inclination to spend my day roving the ether for opportunities to either vent or expose myself in great quantities. Big Brother may be watching but if he finds himself interested in me then God help us.) ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: To clarify - I don't believe in anonymity. If I choose to post or subject others to my opinions and generally interact with them then I am more than happy to let them know my name. If I didn't want to associate myself with what I have written then I wouldn't write it. I don't totally understand the need for anonymity other than to keep oneself safe from repercussions that might arise as a result of what one might believe in. But then I'm all for accountability. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Can I mention something else that's been bugging me about FFL? I am Seraphita. That is Seraphita = Seraphita = Seraphita. That's the name I selected when registering with FFL. That's the name I always use. Simple OK? But we know there are a lot of people who have a sign-on name but who are also addressed by a familiar name. Correct me if I'm wrong but . . . authfriend = TurquoiseB = Buck = and the Lord knows who wgm4u and awoelflebater are! For the sake of new arrivals to FFL and the occasional lurker could some kind soul list the different aliases of the
[FairfieldLife] RE: Re: RE: Who#39;s who on FFL?
Because Barry's misrepresentation of what happened here in the past is so malicious, I changed my mind; I'm going to point out the many lies in these two paragraphs: (snip) So what do a few wonderful people on FFL do? They not only start using his full name in posts here (thus making them Google-able), they write occasional posts *POSING AS HIM* and/or signing his name to what they wrote. Both Robin and Ravi (who Judy seems to have No Problem With) did this, and continued to do it *after* Curtis asked them not to. Ravi was thrown off the forum at one point because of it. 1. Nobody wrote any posts posing as Curtis that used his last name. 2. Robin used his last name in a post one single time. Curtis asked him to delete and repost it without using his last name. Robin apologized and immediately did so. It had been a slip, unintentional, and he never did it again. 3. Ravi once quoted something from a newspaper that Curtis had told a reporter about TM; the reporter had introduced the quote using Curtis's last name. Ravi was not thrown off for that. He was thrown off for using somebody else's real name in a post. Other than that quote, Curtis's last name never appeared in a post from Ravi. 4. Other people had used Curtis's last name quite a few times before he decided in recent years that he'd rather they didn't. I used it as recently as 2007. Not only did Curtis not object to my using it, he made a big point of how open he was about his name--for the purpose of dumping on someone else who used a handle. Rick left a post in 2010 wishing him happy birthday and using his real last name. On alt.m.t, Curtis used his real name rather than a handle. IOW, Curtis's TM involvement is easily Googleable whether anyone has used his full name here since he said he preferred otherwise or not. And nobody has done so maliciously, contrary to Barry's claim. The malice is all his. Bottom line: Barry made up virtually everything in those two paragraphs hoping to convince Seraphita that his sharpest critics were bad people. If she reads this, she now knows one of the main reasons why he has such critics.
RE: Re: RE: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] The academic fields with the least discipline...
Enjoy the show Share. I watched it long enough to have an opinion - what does that say about me? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: turq didn't at all sound like a big fan of the show to me. On Thursday, November 7, 2013 12:08 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: God bless it, I'm so slow sometimes. I was just about to tell her to dig deep. Lucky for me, I try to be anonymous. Smile. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Shhh, Emily. She has to love the show so she can pander to Barry. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Oh God, Share. Real love? In my humble opinion, both characters are very shallowly and superficially presented and developed in the show, particularly in terms of their relationship. (Yes, I've seen it, but it bores me). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Emily, I don't really find the Rick Castle character fascinating until he starts to feel and exhibit real love for Kate Beckett. On Thursday, November 7, 2013 10:21 AM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Share: You continue to be fascinated by men who are douche's. Here is Nathan Fillion talking about his character. http://www.tv.com/news/castles-nathan-fillion-on-his-new-role-hes-a-douche-12874/ http://www.tv.com/news/castles-nathan-fillion-on-his-new-role-hes-a-douche-12874/ Nathan Fillion: Hmm, a good question. Ah, you know what? I'll put Richard Castle up againstDr. Horrible's Sing-along Blog's Captain Hammer. Here he is, he's a guy who--he's fairly into himself. He's quite vain. He thinks very highly of himself anyway, and whereas Captain Hammer is a bit stupid, Castle is rather just a bit childlike. He lacks a bit of a filter, where some of us might say, Ooh, you know, this might be true but I'm not going to say it. Castle would say it. TV.com: Yeah. Don't take this the wrong way, but you play pompous characters very well. Nathan Fillion: You know what? It's something I like to do for fun with my friends [to play] pompous. I like to pretend I'm pompous often. I think it's funny because it's also fun to take that pompous guy down. It's not so easy to play stupid when you're pompous, because you just play that you don't know that you're stupid. TV.com: With a lot of the characters that fans know you for, you're pretty much a leading man, or the rough-and-ready type of guy. But in Castle you take a backseat to Stana's character who--you know, she wears the gun. Is it a nice change of pace to play the non-hero? Nathan Fillion: Absolutely! And I think that that's real life. I mean in real life, I don't know a whole lot of go-to guys. So if the chips were really down, and something was really actually important and dangerous and there were guns involved, I don't know a lot of the guys that you would turn to, Hey, I need your help on this one. And Castle is certainly not that guy. That's Kate Beckett. Kate Beckett's ready to go. She's trained. She knows what to do. She's sharp. Castle's--he's not the go-to guy. [laugh] He's a bit of a douche. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Ok, turq, here's a question for you: what goes to battle with ego? Being? Truth? Love? I don't think so. Other egos? Hmmm...I'd guess yes. But that's just my opinion. Once again I don't understand why you get so het up about people having and sharing opinions. It's what we all do. Especially after we've survived our midlife crisis! I think most people share opinions for the purpose of benefiting others. If they're misguided in that, well, there's obviously a learning curve involved. And maybe wanting to benefit others is the last stronghold of the ego. Hmmm... And really, if you added up all your writing online, I bet you'd get close to 500 pages (-: About character development, I'm making my way through the 5 previous seasons of Castle and it's so gratifying to watch the unfolding of all the different characters. But of course especially Castle and Beckett as they realize their love for each other more and more. On Thursday, November 7, 2013 2:26 AM, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: ...and the most ego. I found this chart interesting, in that the longest Ph.D. dissertations seem to be in the fields most subject to opinion -- history, antrhopology, political science, communication, english, sociology, and education. It's almost as if the grad students in those fields are already preparing for an academic life characterized by the belief that the more they say about their opinions, the more they can pretend they aren't opinion. The chart reminds me of an old college professor of mine who had a big rubber stamp that he would wield mercilessly on papers he thought deserved it. It was the letters B.S. -- always stamped in red over offending paragraphs or pages. When asked what the
[FairfieldLife] Much Ado About Nothing
No, this is not a cafe rap about Fairfield Life and its daily squabbles. It's a review of a film that I have been dying to see, but have been unable to because it won't be officially released either in France or in the Netherlands until January. But the pirateverse hath come to the rescue -- I scored a 1080p version, and just finished watching it. To fully appreciate the film, it really helps to know a little about the making of the film. It was produced, directed, shot, and scored by Joss Whedon, while on leave from the filming of The Avengers during a contractually-forced two week hiatus. Some guys, especially if they were in the middle of making the film that would go on to become the highest-grossing film in history, would kick back and relax during those two weeks. Joss made a movie instead. He paid for it himself, recruited former actors he'd worked with before to appear in it, and shot it all in 12 days. In his house. This last bit is important, because Joss first conceived of the idea in that house (designed by his wife) years earlier when they were hosting Shakespeare readings at the house. He shoots using hand-held cameras and found lighting -- Our lighting package rose in the east and set in the west. And while making the movie itself was Joss' way of having fun, one aspect of the production he described as terrifying. He wrote the music, along the way scoring two of the songs that Shakespeare wrote for the play. The songs were recorded by Joss' brother Jed and his wife Maurissa Tancharoen, while Joss' wife kinda ran both the production and the household as her house was invaded by a host of actors and film crew for two weeks. So it was a real family affair. That said, the play's afoot...let us proceed. Suffice it to say that this is a film adaptation by Joss Whedon, so there has to be a *twist*, some way of seeing the Bard's words anew, as no one else has ever seen them before. Joss manages all of this with one scene, shown in silence before the credits. I can say no more (insert Zip it! sketch here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32C0eKRQVt8 ), except to say that this one scene *completely* transforms Shakespeare's play into something infinitely more understandable in our era, and renders the interplay between Beatrice (Amy Acker) and Benedick (Alexis Denisof) more believable in a more sexually liberated era. I am a *serious* fan of Amy Acker, and she doth not disappoint in this retelling of the Bard's tale. Nathan Fillion is charming in a short cameo as Dogberry, one of the most inept cops in playwriting history. The other cast (many of them faces, if not names, you'll know from Joss' other works) are equally up to their task of Having Fun. I really liked Much Ado About Nothing, and recommend it highly to 1) Shakespeare fans -- you'll never see a more creative adaptation of the Bard's work, 2) Joss Whedon fans -- your love for the man will only be increased by your knowledge of what the place he lives in looks like, and 3) lovers of great comedy -- this play is considered one of Shakespeare's best comedies -- produced lovingly, well, and with abundant humor. Think about it. The entire movie was done by A Group Of Friends On Vacation, doing all of this for FUN. There is a certain magic in this.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Much Ado About Nothing
It's been available at Redbox for a few weeks but I was vested in a 31 days of horror fest so haven't gotten to it yet. On 11/07/2013 02:07 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: No, this is not a cafe rap about Fairfield Life and its daily squabbles. It's a review of a film that I have been dying to see, but have been unable to because it won't be officially released either in France or in the Netherlands until January. But the pirateverse hath come to the rescue -- I scored a 1080p version, and just finished watching it. To fully appreciate the film, it really helps to know a little about the making of the film. It was produced, directed, shot, and scored by Joss Whedon, while on leave from the filming of The Avengers during a contractually-forced two week hiatus. Some guys, especially if they were in the middle of making the film that would go on to become the highest-grossing film in history, would kick back and relax during those two weeks. Joss made a movie instead. He paid for it himself, recruited former actors he'd worked with before to appear in it, and shot it all in 12 days. In his house. This last bit is important, because Joss first conceived of the idea in that house (designed by his wife) years earlier when they were hosting Shakespeare readings at the house. He shoots using hand-held cameras and found lighting -- Our lighting package rose in the east and set in the west. And while making the movie itself was Joss' way of having fun, one aspect of the production he described as terrifying. He wrote the music, along the way scoring two of the songs that Shakespeare wrote for the play. The songs were recorded by Joss' brother Jed and his wife Maurissa Tancharoen, while Joss' wife kinda ran both the production and the household as her house was invaded by a host of actors and film crew for two weeks. So it was a real family affair. That said, the play's afoot...let us proceed. Suffice it to say that this is a film adaptation by Joss Whedon, so there has to be a *twist*, some way of seeing the Bard's words anew, as no one else has ever seen them before. Joss manages all of this with one scene, shown in silence before the credits. I can say no more (insert Zip it! sketch here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32C0eKRQVt8), except to say that this one scene *completely* transforms Shakespeare's play into something infinitely more understandable in our era, and renders the interplay between Beatrice (Amy Acker) and Benedick (Alexis Denisof) more believable in a more sexually liberated era. I am a *serious* fan of Amy Acker, and she doth not disappoint in this retelling of the Bard's tale. Nathan Fillion is charming in a short cameo as Dogberry, one of the most inept cops in playwriting history. The other cast (many of them faces, if not names, you'll know from Joss' other works) are equally up to their task of Having Fun. I really liked Much Ado About Nothing, and recommend it highly to 1) Shakespeare fans -- you'll never see a more creative adaptation of the Bard's work, 2) Joss Whedon fans -- your love for the man will only be increased by your knowledge of what the place he lives in looks like, and 3) lovers of great comedy -- this play is considered one of Shakespeare's best comedies -- produced lovingly, well, and with abundant humor. Think about it. The entire movie was done by A Group Of Friends On Vacation, doing all of this for FUN. There is a certain magic in this.
[FairfieldLife] Heirloom Grains
For those of you who like non-GMO stuff, there is an outfit here in South Carolina called Anson Mills that sells non-GMO heirloom grains if you wanna check it out. http://ansonmills.com/ http://ansonmills.com/ Here is an interesting tid bit from their site, talking about the guy who started Anson Mills: The research began with corn. In 1995, Glenn explored rural back roads looking for the famous white Carolina mill corn that was revered in Antebellum plantation inventories and recipes for its high mineral and floral characteristics and its creamy mouthfeel. He found this corn in a bootlegger’s field near Dillon, South Carolina in 1997, and planted and harvested his own first crop of 30 acres in 1998. Known as Carolina Gourdseed White, the single-family hand-select dated back to the late 1600s. Glenn passed the Gourdseed grits around to chefs in Charleston and Atlanta, and they all went crazy. The discovery of Carolina Gourdseed White, and of other nearly extinct varieties of Southern mill corn, fueled Glenn’s efforts to preserve nutrition and flavor in heirloom corn. But he knew the corn would have to be milled as carefully as it was grown. Returning to historic documents, Glenn read about an heirloom that had been bred to blow down in late fall for hand harvest under snow in deep winter. The corn, an 1850 yellow dent of Appalachian provenance called John Haulk, was known to have made the “finest cornbread and mush.” The fact that it was milled under freezing conditions after full field ripening and drying puzzled Glenn until he froze and milled his own Gourdseed White. The flavors of the cold-milled corn were stunning. With this experiment, Glenn “rediscovered” cold milling and, in so doing, found a way to offset the heat damage grains experience between two stones. He also found a perfect place to store his seed corn: in the freezer.
[FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 08-Nov-13 00:15:05 UTC
Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): 11/02/13 00:00:00 End Date (UTC): 11/09/13 00:00:00 497 messages as of (UTC) 11/07/13 23:10:23 72 authfriend 50 Bhairitu 42 s3raphita 40 Share Long 35 awoelflebater 31 TurquoiseB 31 Richard J. Williams 25 wgm4u 22 emptybill 22 dhamiltony2k5 18 jr_esq 17 sharelong60 17 emilymaenot 17 doctordumbass 12 Michael Jackson 10 Richard Williams 5 yifuxero 5 Dick Mays 5 Ann Woelfle Bater 4 feste37 4 Duveyoung 3 Rick Archer 3 Mike Dixon 2 j_alexander_stanley 2 cardemaister 2 anartaxius 1 mjackson74 Posters: 27 Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times = Daylight Saving Time (Summer): US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM Standard Time (Winter): US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Who#39;s who on FFL?
I have yet to figure out who the “Dick Mays” is who posts here. It's a great anonymous handle. However, who so ever he may be I do appreciate the substantial content he often does bring to FFL. He is always on topic here and I value that. If it is his real name I sure hope his employer does not sack him for posting here. -Buck ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: On Thursday, November 7, 2013 10:57:55 AM, dhamiltony2k5@... dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: It is way better than just anonymity, I hacked this guy's yahoo mail account a long long time ago and use it at my free will. Ha! The sap, he's never figured it out. I bet he'd be really mad at me for using his account for my purposes if he ever figured it out. However someone here actually equating his name with me, I think the FFL moderator here should ban whoever did that for violating the FFL guidelines about revealing people's identities on FFL. Outing people who wish to remain anonymous or lurk on FFL, that really is foul. -Buck ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re Ann's: What I say on this forum is what I believe and it conveys pretty accurately who I am.: And if a prospective employer was prejudiced against your opinions you'd not get that longed-for job/pay rise/promotion. You may be financially secure enough to not care less but there are a lot of people out there who might be in more desperate straits. If I was in a position to have to care I would not post at all. I don't like someone holding me hostage through/by my viewpoints and have a really deep seated rebellious streak if I feel I were to be censured for being who I am. If someone were to read what I wrote who actually had the power to fire or hire me (which seems unlikely) then I would need to be conscious of such a possibility and be prepared to live with the consequences if it came to that. I acknowledge other people's desire and need for anonymity but it just ain't me. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re I don't believe in anonymity. If I choose to post or subject others to my opinions and generally interact with them then I am more than happy to let them know my name. If I didn't want to associate myself with what I have written then I wouldn't write it. I don't totally understand the need for anonymity other than to keep oneself safe from repercussions that might arise as a result of what one might believe in. But then I'm all for accountability.: If I'm understanding you, isn't the problem here that when people post comments and opinions using their real, given name it means that when they apply for a new job (say) the employer can Google the name and see everything they've said. You could learn a lot about someone from chasing up all their opinions - things it might be wiser to keep secret. Might it not be a good idea to protect yourself with an alias? You're still free to reveal to whoever you choose what aliases you've used on-line - but *you* have that choice. By using your real name you're giving hostages to fortune. All sorts of things can be dredged up but if my would-be employer were to choose not to give me a job based on my opinions herein expressed then I don't want the job. What I say on this forum is what I believe and it conveys pretty accurately who I am. I still say, if you don't want what you represent yourself to be on these public places then don't participate and if you do then be brave enough to face the consequences. (FFL is the one and only 'forum' I have ever engaged with. I have no time or inclination to spend my day roving the ether for opportunities to either vent or expose myself in great quantities. Big Brother may be watching but if he finds himself interested in me then God help us.) ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: To clarify - I don't believe in anonymity. If I choose to post or subject others to my opinions and generally interact with them then I am more than happy to let them know my name. If I didn't want to associate myself with what I have written then I wouldn't write it. I don't totally understand the need for anonymity other than to keep oneself safe from repercussions that might arise as a result of what one might believe in. But then I'm all for accountability. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Can I mention something else that's been bugging me about FFL? I am Seraphita. That is Seraphita = Seraphita = Seraphita. That's the name I selected when registering with FFL. That's the name I always use. Simple OK? But we know there are a lot of people who have a sign-on name but who are also addressed by a familiar name. Correct me if I'm wrong but . . . authfriend =
RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Who#39;s who on FFL?
Anonymity, you know I work really hard to protect the identity of all my sources when I write here on FFL. People locally know that I publish here so I do get told a lot of things that people would like to have on FFL that they won't or can't share for themselves. And then there is Yahoo making it incredibly obtuse for people to even lurk let alone post here. Yet the private e-mails that come in subsequent to a thread on the side often are most interesting. -Buck ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: I have yet to figure out who the “Dick Mays” is who posts here. It's a great anonymous handle. However, who so ever he may be I do appreciate the substantial content he often does bring to FFL. He is always on topic here and I value that. If it is his real name I sure hope his employer does not sack him for posting here. -Buck ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: On Thursday, November 7, 2013 10:57:55 AM, dhamiltony2k5@... Buck wrote: It is way better than just anonymity, I hacked this guy's yahoo mail account a long long time ago and use it at my free will. Ha! The sap, he's never figured it out. I bet he'd be really mad at me for using his account for my purposes if he ever figured it out. However someone here actually equating his name with me, I think the FFL moderator here should ban whoever did that for violating the FFL guidelines about revealing people's identities on FFL. Outing people who wish to remain anonymous or lurk on FFL, that really is foul. -Buck ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re Ann's: What I say on this forum is what I believe and it conveys pretty accurately who I am.: And if a prospective employer was prejudiced against your opinions you'd not get that longed-for job/pay rise/promotion. You may be financially secure enough to not care less but there are a lot of people out there who might be in more desperate straits. If I was in a position to have to care I would not post at all. I don't like someone holding me hostage through/by my viewpoints and have a really deep seated rebellious streak if I feel I were to be censured for being who I am. If someone were to read what I wrote who actually had the power to fire or hire me (which seems unlikely) then I would need to be conscious of such a possibility and be prepared to live with the consequences if it came to that. I acknowledge other people's desire and need for anonymity but it just ain't me. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re I don't believe in anonymity. If I choose to post or subject others to my opinions and generally interact with them then I am more than happy to let them know my name. If I didn't want to associate myself with what I have written then I wouldn't write it. I don't totally understand the need for anonymity other than to keep oneself safe from repercussions that might arise as a result of what one might believe in. But then I'm all for accountability.: If I'm understanding you, isn't the problem here that when people post comments and opinions using their real, given name it means that when they apply for a new job (say) the employer can Google the name and see everything they've said. You could learn a lot about someone from chasing up all their opinions - things it might be wiser to keep secret. Might it not be a good idea to protect yourself with an alias? You're still free to reveal to whoever you choose what aliases you've used on-line - but *you* have that choice. By using your real name you're giving hostages to fortune. All sorts of things can be dredged up but if my would-be employer were to choose not to give me a job based on my opinions herein expressed then I don't want the job. What I say on this forum is what I believe and it conveys pretty accurately who I am. I still say, if you don't want what you represent yourself to be on these public places then don't participate and if you do then be brave enough to face the consequences. (FFL is the one and only 'forum' I have ever engaged with. I have no time or inclination to spend my day roving the ether for opportunities to either vent or expose myself in great quantities. Big Brother may be watching but if he finds himself interested in me then God help us.) ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: To clarify - I don't believe in anonymity. If I choose to post or subject others to my opinions and generally interact with them then I am more than happy to let them know my name. If I didn't want to associate myself with what I have written then I wouldn't write it. I don't totally understand the need for anonymity other than to keep oneself safe from repercussions that might arise as a result of what one might believe in. But then I'm all for accountability.
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Rare Picture of Vivian Leigh
Your mistakes, Bhairitu, including this one, are usually made because you don't pay attention to what the person you're trying to ague with has said. And then you get things all screwed up in your head and you stop making sense. Everything I said in this exchange was sensible and logical and in its proper context. But when I corrected your initial mistake--you had thought I was saying people who pronounced his name Marshy were doing it to be disrespectful (I highlighted it in red below so you can't deny it)--you stopped being able to think rationally. And now, ludicrously, you're claiming it was I who made the mistake. When you're in a hole, you need to quit digging. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote: http://youtu.be/TBZuJKQMh_I http://youtu.be/TBZuJKQMh_I No, you are taking the argument out of context to fit your mistake. You just can't stand to be wrong. On 11/07/2013 01:49 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: BZZT! You still aren't getting it. If I had never seen the name Maharishi spelled out and had only heard the pronunciation Marshy, that would be how I'd spell it. However, the person who spelled it Marshy was a long-time TMer and a regular on FFL who had seen Maharishi spelled out hundreds of times and heard people pronouncing it both ways (mostly Ma-ha-RISH-i, since he was an American) probably thousands of times. The misspelling was intentional and meant to be demeaning. Give it up, bub. You're just making yourself look silly. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... wrote: Bzzz! Wrong answer. I didn't ask how you would spell Maharishi but Marshy if you heard it pronounced the latter way. Obviously to communicate how the person said it you would spell it Marshy. This is a superb example of how Indians tend to drop vowels. On 11/07/2013 11:43 AM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: Actually, I'd spell it the way the TMO and everyone else does. Duh. Bhairitu wrote: So how else would you spell it given someone pronouncing it that way? On 11/07/2013 09:50 AM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: With regard to disrespect, I was talking about spelling it Marshy, obviously. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... wrote: Marshy was the way a number of teachers pronounced it back in the 1970s and they did not intend any disrespect. They thought it was the proper pronunciation because they heard Indians say it that way. Of course the Brits thought that Indians were saying Bombay when they were saying Mumbai. :-D On 11/07/2013 09:14 AM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: Bevan and other TMO suits tend to pronounce it Ma-HAR-shi. It seems to be the first i that got short shrift, not the a. I don't remember who started spelling it Marshy here, but it was intended, as I recall, to show disrespect. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... wrote: It probably has something to do with Devanagari script where the short a is not written but understood. So only long vowels would be pronounced. Marshy sounds the way Indians would pronounce it.
[FairfieldLife] Transcendental Meditation Revolutionary Mission:
“We will count ourselves successful only when the problems of today's world are substantially reduced and eventually eliminated and the educational institutions of every country are capable of producing fully developed citizens.” -Maharishi, from the founding catalog of Maharishi International University, 1974
[FairfieldLife] RE: Who#39;s who on FFL?
I once emailed a writer I respected who had set up his own website to ask him a question about his past experiences and was annoyed later to find my query had been posted on-line on his site giving my full name. If you were to Google my real name it is the one and only hit you'd come across. Fortunately, my query was fairly innocuous and nothing I'd be embarrassed about but a co-worker once mentioned to me she'd Googled my name and had come across the post and how she'd found it interesting. What really struck me was the sense I had lost control of who I could permit to probe my past. I never repeated that mistake - I always used aliases after that - as I want to control what info about me is available for all and sundry to see. One male colleague I worked with was arrested for paedophile abuses. I Googled his name to see what came up about his court appearance and got no result. I wonder if the police and court system are now wise to the reach of the web and deliberately keep people's criminal records away from the public gaze - excepting serious crime cases obviously - to give them a second chance. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: I have yet to figure out who the “Dick Mays” is who posts here. It's a great anonymous handle. However, who so ever he may be I do appreciate the substantial content he often does bring to FFL. He is always on topic here and I value that. If it is his real name I sure hope his employer does not sack him for posting here. -Buck ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: On Thursday, November 7, 2013 10:57:55 AM, dhamiltony2k5@... dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: It is way better than just anonymity, I hacked this guy's yahoo mail account a long long time ago and use it at my free will. Ha! The sap, he's never figured it out. I bet he'd be really mad at me for using his account for my purposes if he ever figured it out. However someone here actually equating his name with me, I think the FFL moderator here should ban whoever did that for violating the FFL guidelines about revealing people's identities on FFL. Outing people who wish to remain anonymous or lurk on FFL, that really is foul. -Buck ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re Ann's: What I say on this forum is what I believe and it conveys pretty accurately who I am.: And if a prospective employer was prejudiced against your opinions you'd not get that longed-for job/pay rise/promotion. You may be financially secure enough to not care less but there are a lot of people out there who might be in more desperate straits. If I was in a position to have to care I would not post at all. I don't like someone holding me hostage through/by my viewpoints and have a really deep seated rebellious streak if I feel I were to be censured for being who I am. If someone were to read what I wrote who actually had the power to fire or hire me (which seems unlikely) then I would need to be conscious of such a possibility and be prepared to live with the consequences if it came to that. I acknowledge other people's desire and need for anonymity but it just ain't me. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re I don't believe in anonymity. If I choose to post or subject others to my opinions and generally interact with them then I am more than happy to let them know my name. If I didn't want to associate myself with what I have written then I wouldn't write it. I don't totally understand the need for anonymity other than to keep oneself safe from repercussions that might arise as a result of what one might believe in. But then I'm all for accountability.: If I'm understanding you, isn't the problem here that when people post comments and opinions using their real, given name it means that when they apply for a new job (say) the employer can Google the name and see everything they've said. You could learn a lot about someone from chasing up all their opinions - things it might be wiser to keep secret. Might it not be a good idea to protect yourself with an alias? You're still free to reveal to whoever you choose what aliases you've used on-line - but *you* have that choice. By using your real name you're giving hostages to fortune. All sorts of things can be dredged up but if my would-be employer were to choose not to give me a job based on my opinions herein expressed then I don't want the job. What I say on this forum is what I believe and it conveys pretty accurately who I am. I still say, if you don't want what you represent yourself to be on these public places then don't participate and if you do then be brave enough to face the consequences. (FFL is the one and only 'forum' I have ever engaged with. I have no time or inclination to spend my day roving the ether for opportunities to
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Rare Picture of Vivian Leigh
You're being ridiculous again (not unusual). On 11/07/2013 06:06 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Your mistakes, Bhairitu, including this one, are usually made because you don't pay attention to what the person you're trying to ague with has said. And then you get things all screwed up in your head and you stop making sense. Everything I said in this exchange was sensible and logical and in its proper context. But when I corrected your initial mistake--you had thought I was saying people who pronounced his name Marshy were doing it to be disrespectful (I highlighted it in red below so you can't deny it)--you stopped being able to think rationally. And now, ludicrously, you're claiming it was I who made the mistake. When you're in a hole, you need to quit digging. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote: http://youtu.be/TBZuJKQMh_I No, you are taking the argument out of context to fit your mistake. You just can't stand to be wrong. On 11/07/2013 01:49 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: BZZT! You still aren't getting it. If I had never seen the name Maharishi spelled out and had only heard the pronunciation Marshy, that would be how I'd spell it. However, the person who spelled it Marshy was a long-time TMer and a regular on FFL who had seen Maharishi spelled out hundreds of times and heard people pronouncing it both ways (mostly Ma-ha-RISH-i, since he was an American) probably thousands of times. The misspelling was intentional and meant to be demeaning. Give it up, bub. You're just making yourself look silly. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... wrote: Bzzz! Wrong answer. I didn't ask how you would spell Maharishi but Marshy if you heard it pronounced the latter way. Obviously to communicate how the person said it you would spell it Marshy. This is a superb example of how Indians tend to drop vowels. On 11/07/2013 11:43 AM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: Actually, I'd spell it the way the TMO and everyone else does. Duh. Bhairitu wrote: So how else would you spell it given someone pronouncing it that way? On 11/07/2013 09:50 AM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: *With regard to disrespect, I was talking about /spelling/ it Marshy, obviously.* ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... wrote: Marshy was the way a number of teachers pronounced it back in the 1970s and they did not intend any disrespect. They thought it was the proper pronunciation because they heard Indians say it that way. Of course the Brits thought that Indians were saying Bombay when they were saying Mumbai. :-D On 11/07/2013 09:14 AM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: Bevan and other TMO suits tend to pronounce it Ma-HAR-shi. It seems to be the first i that got short shrift, not the a. I don't remember who started spelling it Marshy here, but it was intended, as I recall, to show disrespect. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... wrote: It probably has something to do with Devanagari script where the short a is not written but understood. So only long vowels would be pronounced. Marshy sounds the way Indians would pronounce it.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Much Ado About Nothing
You won't believe this but I watched the movie yesterday! Really! Maybe there is something in the idea of synchronicity. I was going to recommend it to FFL also - under the title Shakespeare without Tears. The tricky choice with the Bard's plays is always whether you show them in period costume or go for a modern setting and somehow have to make allowances for the archaic speech. Much Ado simply ignored the dilemma and played it straight. One of the best film adaptations of Shakespeare I've ever seen. I've never heard of Amy Acker, before but she was fantastic. Actually all the cast were good but she was outstanding. Shot in black-and-white - apparently to give a nod to the old screwball comedies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk5kkLNPg8g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk5kkLNPg8g ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote: It's been available at Redbox for a few weeks but I was vested in a 31 days of horror fest so haven't gotten to it yet. On 11/07/2013 02:07 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: No, this is not a cafe rap about Fairfield Life and its daily squabbles. It's a review of a film that I have been dying to see, but have been unable to because it won't be officially released either in France or in the Netherlands until January. But the pirateverse hath come to the rescue -- I scored a 1080p version, and just finished watching it. To fully appreciate the film, it really helps to know a little about the making of the film. It was produced, directed, shot, and scored by Joss Whedon, while on leave from the filming of The Avengers during a contractually-forced two week hiatus. Some guys, especially if they were in the middle of making the film that would go on to become the highest-grossing film in history, would kick back and relax during those two weeks. Joss made a movie instead. He paid for it himself, recruited former actors he'd worked with before to appear in it, and shot it all in 12 days. In his house. This last bit is important, because Joss first conceived of the idea in that house (designed by his wife) years earlier when they were hosting Shakespeare readings at the house. He shoots using hand-held cameras and found lighting -- Our lighting package rose in the east and set in the west. And while making the movie itself was Joss' way of having fun, one aspect of the production he described as terrifying. He wrote the music, along the way scoring two of the songs that Shakespeare wrote for the play. The songs were recorded by Joss' brother Jed and his wife Maurissa Tancharoen, while Joss' wife kinda ran both the production and the household as her house was invaded by a host of actors and film crew for two weeks. So it was a real family affair. That said, the play's afoot...let us proceed. Suffice it to say that this is a film adaptation by Joss Whedon, so there has to be a *twist*, some way of seeing the Bard's words anew, as no one else has ever seen them before. Joss manages all of this with one scene, shown in silence before the credits. I can say no more (insert Zip it! sketch here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32C0eKRQVt8), except to say that this one scene *completely* transforms Shakespeare's play into something infinitely more understandable in our era, and renders the interplay between Beatrice (Amy Acker) and Benedick (Alexis Denisof) more believable in a more sexually liberated era. I am a *serious* fan of Amy Acker, and she doth not disappoint in this retelling of the Bard's tale. Nathan Fillion is charming in a short cameo as Dogberry, one of the most inept cops in playwriting history. The other cast (many of them faces, if not names, you'll know from Joss' other works) are equally up to their task of Having Fun. I really liked Much Ado About Nothing, and recommend it highly to 1) Shakespeare fans -- you'll never see a more creative adaptation of the Bard's work, 2) Joss Whedon fans -- your love for the man will only be increased by your knowledge of what the place he lives in looks like, and 3) lovers of great comedy -- this play is considered one of Shakespeare's best comedies -- produced lovingly, well, and with abundant humor. Think about it. The entire movie was done by A Group Of Friends On Vacation, doing all of this for FUN. There is a certain magic in this.
[FairfieldLife] RE: It must be more Jingoism
Synchronicity: Coincidences http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/coincidence that seem to be meaningfully http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/meaningfully related http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/related; supposedly the result of universal http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/universal forces http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/force;. Robert: from Old High German http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_High_German Hruodberht bright with glory (a compound of hruod http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hro%C3%B0r fame, glory and berht http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berht bright). Svaboda: from Sanskrit/Prakrit Svabodha to know one's own Vimala-ananda: Immaculate Joy Tantra: the warp woof of a weaving web Tantra Vidya: knowledge of the goddess powers (devi shakti) driving and ruling the cosmos ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote: What do you mean about Robbie Svoboda's guru? On 11/06/2013 05:30 PM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote: OK. Not Vimalananda there! ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... wrote: I don't think we ever discussed it. On 11/06/2013 12:58 PM, Share Long wrote: noozguru, I'm curious is your tantric teacher ever talked about synchronicity and such. What would he say about this kind of happening? On Wednesday, November 6, 2013 1:16 PM, Bhairitu noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... wrote: What empty is afraid of is NOT socialism nor communism nor neo-liberalism (what is really happening) but authoritarianism. It can exist in any political system. To see it growing in the US is appalling but you see how fast some people including some FFL'ers give it a pass. Funny thing: I actually listen to Alex Jones because his show is a hoot and some of the best radio around. I don't think empty ever listens to him, he just likes the pictures. Just as I was typing the work authoritarianism, Jones said the word. How 'bout that for synchronicity? On 11/06/2013 06:36 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: How the Government Spied on Me My complaint to the FBI about a stalker was regarded as an invitation to invade my privacy. http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702303482504579179670250714560-lMyQjAxMTAzMDAwNTEwNDUyWj?tesla=y All these pinko commie wusses complaining that their rights were violated. They should just consider themselves fortunate that they didn't do a rolling stop at a stop sign in New Mexico: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/new-mexico-man-david-eckert-subjected-repeated-anal-probes-after-routine-traffic# http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/new-mexico-man-david-eckert-subjected-repeated-anal-probes-after-routine-traffic#
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: It must be more Jingoism
And just when we thought things couldn't get any weirder on FFL. :-D On 11/07/2013 06:38 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: Synchronicity: Coincidences http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/coincidence that seem to be meaningfully http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/meaningfully related http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/related; supposedly the result of universal http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/universal forces http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/force. Robert: from Old High German http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_High_German /Hruodberht/ bright with glory (a compound of /hruod http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hro%C3%B0r/ fame, glory and /berht http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berht/ bright). Svaboda: from Sanskrit/Prakrit Svabodha to know one's own Vimala-ananda: Immaculate Joy Tantra: the warp woof of a weaving web Tantra Vidya: knowledge of the goddess powers (devi shakti) driving and ruling the cosmos ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote: What do you mean about Robbie Svoboda's guru? On 11/06/2013 05:30 PM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote: OK. Not Vimalananda there! ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... wrote: I don't think we ever discussed it. On 11/06/2013 12:58 PM, Share Long wrote: noozguru, I'm curious is your tantric teacher ever talked about synchronicity and such. What would he say about this kind of happening? On Wednesday, November 6, 2013 1:16 PM, Bhairitu noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... wrote: What empty is afraid of is NOT socialism nor communism nor neo-liberalism (what is really happening) but authoritarianism. It can exist in any political system. To see it growing in the US is appalling but you see how fast some people including some FFL'ers give it a pass. Funny thing: I actually listen to Alex Jones because his show is a hoot and some of the best radio around. I don't think empty ever listens to him, he just likes the pictures. Just as I was typing the work authoritarianism, Jones said the word. How 'bout that for synchronicity? On 11/06/2013 06:36 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: How the Government Spied on Me My complaint to the FBI about a stalker was regarded as an invitation to invade my privacy. http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702303482504579179670250714560-lMyQjAxMTAzMDAwNTEwNDUyWj?tesla=y http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702303482504579179670250714560-lMyQjAxMTAzMDAwNTEwNDUyWj?tesla=y%20 All these pinko commie wusses complaining that their rights were violated. They should just consider themselves fortunate that they didn't do a rolling stop at a stop sign in New Mexico: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/new-mexico-man-david-eckert-subjected-repeated-anal-probes-after-routine-traffic#
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
authfriend wrote: 'My parents sent me to Sunday School at a nearby nondenominational Christian church a couple of times when I was around 10 or so, feeling they should at least give me some exposure to religion. I didn't like it, and they didn't make me go again. I had a brief flirtation with Unitarianism in my teens, but it didn't last. Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship context and joined the church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple of years but wasn't inspired enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the Personal God aspect of the belief system (or Christ as savior). God as Unified Field, the ultimate (and unworshipable) abstraction, is about as far as I can go.' My exposure to religion was rather slight, and by high school I was essentially agnostic although at times early influences would kick in on the emotional level. What you said here is pretty much what is available to agnostics, atheists, and non-theistic religions or philosophies (such as Zen Buddhism; Tao). One pretty much has to bypass that conception of a personal level of 'creation' (assuming there really is creation). It is possible other conceptual states might take the place of the personal god concept. What I found as time went on was I would make the attempt not to visualise the goal, I would easily try to deflect the tendency to give it a form. This worked for me. But a lot of people have trouble without some kind of concrete image in the mind, I find it interesting that TM takes the mind away from concrete imaging, yet when people come out of the meditation, it does not seem to register that that experience of formlessness has something to do with what one experiences through the senses. Ultimately that empty blank is what is experienced as being all the forms. The Bhagavad-Gita says that those bent on the unmanifest may have a tough time of it - a few translations follow, Chapter 12 Verse 5: 'For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.' 'Those whose minds are attached to the unmanifest aspect have much greater tribulations, because devoid of any perceptible form and attributes, success is achieved with great difficulty due to the beings identifying with the body.' 'There is greater trouble for those whose minds are attached to the unmanifest. For, the path of the unmanifest is difficult to attain by the embodied.' As a kind of space case, perhaps I was attracted to a less concrete view of the universe. For example, without wanting to be a Buddhist, I was attracted to its Zen lineage because of the lack of conceptualisation and emphasis on direct experience. I found the emphasis on devotion to the guru in the TM movement always disconcerting as it did not seem to have any relevance to my so-called path. Others, of course, found devotion quite amenable to them, if it was natural; but faking devotion because one sees others doing it that way probably would be a disaster. I have seen people in the movement live and on tape seemingly straining to appear devoted when it seemed (as it appeared to me) they were just doing it out of peer pressure. Devotion is a property of what you like the most, whatever is most likable to you, that is your devotion, what you pursue, and that pursuit continues until it is fulfilled, or completely thwarted.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Transcendental Meditation Revolutionary Mission:
So far, on the mat and counted out. This is pretty much the goal of every organisation that wants to better the world. Interesting that the dire situation at hand never seems to get resolved. I suspect most religions began with such laudable goals in mind. Could it be that this inability to fulfill such a goal is hard-wired into the universe? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: “We will count ourselves successful only when the problems of today's world are substantially reduced and eventually eliminated and the educational institutions of every country are capable of producing fully developed citizens.” -Maharishi, from the founding catalog of Maharishi International University, 1974
[FairfieldLife] Let's see if this works
Three big pigs:
[FairfieldLife] RE: MANICHAEAN VIEWS OF BUDDHISM
Re I found the emphasis on devotion to the guru in the TM movement always disconcerting: What emphasis? Maharishi was never a guru - he was a teacher of meditation. The guru-shishya tradition is the transmission of teachings from a guru to a disciple. In this relationship, subtle and advanced knowledge is conveyed and received through the student's respect, commitment, devotion and obedience. That sounds nothing like the usual experience of learning TM in which one is given a mantra and left to get on with it on one's own. No devotion or obedience was ever expected. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote: authfriend wrote: 'My parents sent me to Sunday School at a nearby nondenominational Christian church a couple of times when I was around 10 or so, feeling they should at least give me some exposure to religion. I didn't like it, and they didn't make me go again. I had a brief flirtation with Unitarianism in my teens, but it didn't last. Then after starting TM I began to feel a need for a worship context and joined the church where I'd attended Sunday School, stayed a couple of years but wasn't inspired enough to continue, since I really wasn't into the Personal God aspect of the belief system (or Christ as savior). God as Unified Field, the ultimate (and unworshipable) abstraction, is about as far as I can go.' My exposure to religion was rather slight, and by high school I was essentially agnostic although at times early influences would kick in on the emotional level. What you said here is pretty much what is available to agnostics, atheists, and non-theistic religions or philosophies (such as Zen Buddhism; Tao). One pretty much has to bypass that conception of a personal level of 'creation' (assuming there really is creation). It is possible other conceptual states might take the place of the personal god concept. What I found as time went on was I would make the attempt not to visualise the goal, I would easily try to deflect the tendency to give it a form. This worked for me. But a lot of people have trouble without some kind of concrete image in the mind, I find it interesting that TM takes the mind away from concrete imaging, yet when people come out of the meditation, it does not seem to register that that experience of formlessness has something to do with what one experiences through the senses. Ultimately that empty blank is what is experienced as being all the forms. The Bhagavad-Gita says that those bent on the unmanifest may have a tough time of it - a few translations follow, Chapter 12 Verse 5: 'For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.' 'Those whose minds are attached to the unmanifest aspect have much greater tribulations, because devoid of any perceptible form and attributes, success is achieved with great difficulty due to the beings identifying with the body.' 'There is greater trouble for those whose minds are attached to the unmanifest. For, the path of the unmanifest is difficult to attain by the embodied.' As a kind of space case, perhaps I was attracted to a less concrete view of the universe. For example, without wanting to be a Buddhist, I was attracted to its Zen lineage because of the lack of conceptualisation and emphasis on direct experience. I found the emphasis on devotion to the guru in the TM movement always disconcerting as it did not seem to have any relevance to my so-called path. Others, of course, found devotion quite amenable to them, if it was natural; but faking devotion because one sees others doing it that way probably would be a disaster. I have seen people in the movement live and on tape seemingly straining to appear devoted when it seemed (as it appeared to me) they were just doing it out of peer pressure. Devotion is a property of what you like the most, whatever is most likable to you, that is your devotion, what you pursue, and that pursuit continues until it is fulfilled, or completely thwarted.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Much Ado About Nothing
---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: You won't believe this but I watched the movie yesterday! Really! Maybe there is something in the idea of synchronicity. I was going to recommend it to FFL also - under the title Shakespeare without Tears. The tricky choice with the Bard's plays is always whether you show them in period costume or go for a modern setting and somehow have to make allowances for the archaic speech. Much Ado simply ignored the dilemma and played it straight. One of the best film adaptations of Shakespeare I've ever seen. I've never heard of Amy Acker, before but she was fantastic. Actually all the cast were good but she was outstanding. Shot in black-and-white - apparently to give a nod to the old screwball comedies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk5kkLNPg8g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk5kkLNPg8g Great, I love the music and the preview certainly made me want to see this. Looking forward to it. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote: It's been available at Redbox for a few weeks but I was vested in a 31 days of horror fest so haven't gotten to it yet. On 11/07/2013 02:07 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: No, this is not a cafe rap about Fairfield Life and its daily squabbles. It's a review of a film that I have been dying to see, but have been unable to because it won't be officially released either in France or in the Netherlands until January. But the pirateverse hath come to the rescue -- I scored a 1080p version, and just finished watching it. To fully appreciate the film, it really helps to know a little about the making of the film. It was produced, directed, shot, and scored by Joss Whedon, while on leave from the filming of The Avengers during a contractually-forced two week hiatus. Some guys, especially if they were in the middle of making the film that would go on to become the highest-grossing film in history, would kick back and relax during those two weeks. Joss made a movie instead. He paid for it himself, recruited former actors he'd worked with before to appear in it, and shot it all in 12 days. In his house. This last bit is important, because Joss first conceived of the idea in that house (designed by his wife) years earlier when they were hosting Shakespeare readings at the house. He shoots using hand-held cameras and found lighting -- Our lighting package rose in the east and set in the west. And while making the movie itself was Joss' way of having fun, one aspect of the production he described as terrifying. He wrote the music, along the way scoring two of the songs that Shakespeare wrote for the play. The songs were recorded by Joss' brother Jed and his wife Maurissa Tancharoen, while Joss' wife kinda ran both the production and the household as her house was invaded by a host of actors and film crew for two weeks. So it was a real family affair. That said, the play's afoot...let us proceed. Suffice it to say that this is a film adaptation by Joss Whedon, so there has to be a *twist*, some way of seeing the Bard's words anew, as no one else has ever seen them before. Joss manages all of this with one scene, shown in silence before the credits. I can say no more (insert Zip it! sketch here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32C0eKRQVt8), except to say that this one scene *completely* transforms Shakespeare's play into something infinitely more understandable in our era, and renders the interplay between Beatrice (Amy Acker) and Benedick (Alexis Denisof) more believable in a more sexually liberated era. I am a *serious* fan of Amy Acker, and she doth not disappoint in this retelling of the Bard's tale. Nathan Fillion is charming in a short cameo as Dogberry, one of the most inept cops in playwriting history. The other cast (many of them faces, if not names, you'll know from Joss' other works) are equally up to their task of Having Fun. I really liked Much Ado About Nothing, and recommend it highly to 1) Shakespeare fans -- you'll never see a more creative adaptation of the Bard's work, 2) Joss Whedon fans -- your love for the man will only be increased by your knowledge of what the place he lives in looks like, and 3) lovers of great comedy -- this play is considered one of Shakespeare's best comedies -- produced lovingly, well, and with abundant humor. Think about it. The entire movie was done by A Group Of Friends On Vacation, doing all of this for FUN. There is a certain magic in this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Much Ado About Nothing
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: You won't believe this but I watched the movie yesterday! Really! Maybe there is something in the idea of synchronicity. I was going to recommend it to FFL also - under the title Shakespeare without Tears. The tricky choice with the Bard's plays is always whether you show them in period costume or go for a modern setting and somehow have to make allowances for the archaic speech. Much Ado simply ignored the dilemma and played it straight. One of the best film adaptations of Shakespeare I've ever seen. I've never heard of Amy Acker, before but she was fantastic. Actually all the cast were good but she was outstanding. Amy has worked with Joss many times in the past, starting with a long stint as Illyria http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0004931/ / Winifred 'Fred' Burkle http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0004932/ on Angel, then with a major role as Dr. Claire Saunders http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0076511/ / Whiskey http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0175829/ in Dollhouse. Along the way she's had long, repeating roles on Alias and a meaty role in Joss' The Cabin in the Woods. Currently she's landed a plum role on Johnathan Nolan's Person Of Interest, as the charmingly beautiful psychopath Root, who thinks she is talking to God and, in fact, is, because the all-knowing, all-seeing God talks back to her. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@ wrote: It's been available at Redbox for a few weeks but I was vested in a 31 days of horror fest so haven't gotten to it yet. On 11/07/2013 02:07 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: No, this is not a cafe rap about Fairfield Life and its daily squabbles. It's a review of a film that I have been dying to see, but have been unable to because it won't be officially released either in France or in the Netherlands until January. But the pirateverse hath come to the rescue -- I scored a 1080p version, and just finished watching it. To fully appreciate the film, it really helps to know a little about the making of the film. It was produced, directed, shot, and scored by Joss Whedon, while on leave from the filming of The Avengers during a contractually-forced two week hiatus. Some guys, especially if they were in the middle of making the film that would go on to become the highest-grossing film in history, would kick back and relax during those two weeks. Joss made a movie instead. He paid for it himself, recruited former actors he'd worked with before to appear in it, and shot it all in 12 days. In his house. This last bit is important, because Joss first conceived of the idea in that house (designed by his wife) years earlier when they were hosting Shakespeare readings at the house. He shoots using hand-held cameras and found lighting -- Our lighting package rose in the east and set in the west. And while making the movie itself was Joss' way of having fun, one aspect of the production he described as terrifying. He wrote the music, along the way scoring two of the songs that Shakespeare wrote for the play. The songs were recorded by Joss' brother Jed and his wife Maurissa Tancharoen, while Joss' wife kinda ran both the production and the household as her house was invaded by a host of actors and film crew for two weeks. So it was a real family affair. That said, the play's afoot...let us proceed. Suffice it to say that this is a film adaptation by Joss Whedon, so there has to be a *twist*, some way of seeing the Bard's words anew, as no one else has ever seen them before. Joss manages all of this with one scene, shown in silence before the credits. I can say no more (insert Zip it! sketch here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32C0eKRQVt8), except to say that this one scene *completely* transforms Shakespeare's play into something infinitely more understandable in our era, and renders the interplay between Beatrice (Amy Acker) and Benedick (Alexis Denisof) more believable in a more sexually liberated era. I am a *serious* fan of Amy Acker, and she doth not disappoint in this retelling of the Bard's tale. Nathan Fillion is charming in a short cameo as Dogberry, one of the most inept cops in playwriting history. The other cast (many of them faces, if not names, you'll know from Joss' other works) are equally up to their task of Having Fun. I really liked Much Ado About Nothing, and recommend it highly to 1) Shakespeare fans -- you'll never see a more creative adaptation of the Bard's work, 2) Joss Whedon fans -- your love for the man will only be increased by your knowledge of what the place he lives in looks like, and 3) lovers of great comedy -- this play is considered one of Shakespeare's best comedies -- produced lovingly, well, and with abundant humor. Think about it. The entire movie was done by A Group Of Friends On Vacation, doing all of this for FUN. There is a certain magic in this.
