[FairfieldLife] Is Turquoise Showing Her Colors

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anon_astute_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
 wrote:
   snip
Some have been trained to think of practices that 
involve exercising some control over one's thoughts
and emotions as mood making, and to look down on
them as artificial.
   
   And others have been trained to look down on
   such people as living in a lower mindstate and
   to congratulate themselves on exercising control
   over their thoughts so as to avoid dwelling in
   that mindstate.
  
  Or others who are sitting on the edge of their seat just waiting 
  for Barry to post something so they can make a caustic remark, even 
  though hasn't responded in over a month to your childish rants.
 
 Actually he's been attacking me quite regularly,
 both directly and indirectly, and not even in
 response to any rants from me. Funny how you
 seem to have missed it.
 
  I guess that does prove who is the one who tried (oh so
  desperately) to keep the negativity going. And who probably
  started it. We now have scientific evidence!
 
 Oh, blow it out your I/O port. Barry doesn't need
 me to keep the negativity going. He was trashing
 me on this forum before I even *got* here and is by
 far the most consistently negative poster on FFL.

You are perhaps assuming the posting under anon_astute_ff in this post
is not Turquoise. IMO, all its missing is a :) at the end of the post
to be classic Turquoise. Particularly the 'irony of the We now have
scientific evidence! -- a mocking of those who believe science,
statistics and rational thought have a role in both spiritual and
mundane life.

 And if you were to go back and look at the early
 alt.m.t traffic, you'd have all the scientific
 evidence you needed to know which of us started it
 and which of us relentlessly pursued it, as well as
 which of us *resisted* it for quite some time until
 it became clear that resistance was a mug's game.
 
 And if you didn't happen to be in a mood to attack
 me today, you'd have pointed out the hypocrisy in
 his post just as I did above.

I may be mistaken, apologies if so, but I am guessing you have pegged
a particular personality as posting under anon_astute_ff, or any/all
anons. Not always the case. While I post under anon at times, and some
apparently peg that name to a particular personality, I have the
advantage of knowing what posts are by others, not by me. Several, if
not a number of, posters use the anon handles. The value of which is
that it (may) be to have people focus on the content of each post,
judging it on its merits, not pre-pegging it to ones expectations of a
particular personality (a form of profiling and prejudice --
pre-judgement, imo). 

The usefulness of this attempt to reduce profiling may be waning --
if it ever had much merit. I, a frequent user of the public anon
handles, will discontinue their use.

It appears to me that Turquoise is having some fun and posting under
public anon names to provide support for his views -- since few if
any apparently do -- or even read his posts penned under his nom de
plume turq. 
 
 
  
  Thanks for the anti-coherence Judy, you could negate a hundred 
 yogic flyers with your 
  negative energy.

Again, classic Turq.











To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Maharishi university of management
  
  
Maharishi mahesh yogi
  
  
Ramana maharshi
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Jyotish

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote:
 
   Maharishi has always claimed that Jyotish is a science and that 
   therefore a computer would be the best practitioner.
   
   To my eyes the biggest pointer to it being a huge load of 
   Anthropomorphism is the fact that all of the planets beyond the 
   orbit of saturn are missing from the jyotish calculations. Do they 
   not have an effect? 

As someone touched on, M. holds that jyotish is not about effects
casued from a distance (external planets) but rather are like a cosmic
clock that correspond to internal clocks -- presumably governing the
fructification of various vasanas.

or is it because they are not visible to the 
   naked eye and consequently the ancients couldn't have known about 
   them?

Thus the cosmic clock system is not dependent of outer planets, nor 
billions of other things, to tell what time it is.



 Charts don't say anything, they need to be interpreted, and the common
 experience is that 10 jyotishes will give 10 different interpretations

That is a common experience today, though not to the extreme you
imply. Most jyotishees will generally agree on what a particular
grahaplacement means. Where greater differences appear is determining
and interpreting the net result of a 100 + various influences taken
together.

 People who believe in astrology always point to famous peoples' charts
 and find something in it that corresponds to the famous quality of
 stupidity or beauty or whatever in that person. Astrology is a
 sufficiently complex system that you can always find something in a
 chart that corresponds to some quality in a person, and if you're a TB
 then your psychology will conveniently ignore all the other aspects of
 the chart that contradict your conclusion,  -- though it's
 a complex enough system that you can always explain it away somehow.
 
 Anyway, keep waiting for that scientific proof of jyotish - that's an
 even longer wait than for the pundits.

 
That is not a characteristic unique to jyotish or jyotish believers,
its a broad characteristic common to all bad science practiced by
people who are clueless about statistical evidence.

It is a weak and nearly menningless finding, in jyotish or any
research, to say Y occurs when X happens. The SP 500 rises on days
that the Sun rises meets the preceeding criteria. Its true, yet
meaningless. 

What is of interest are statements such as Y occurs when X happens,
AND Y does NOT occur when X happens. (And verified by appropriate
statistical tests that the effects found would not usually occur if
the cause or dose or X did not happen. Not usually means
itss better than 20 to one odds). 
 
 PS -- A long time ago I did a fairly vigorous statistical look at
 jyotish application for investing and found no objective basis 

I would guess you looked at a few jyotish positions, based on jyotish
basics, found in any introductory jyotish book. And these few jyotish
positions you looked at are were only a handful of 100's of possible
combinations and effects. And the analysis did not examine at all
virtually 1000's of effects(from combinations of effects brough to
light by advanced methods (e.g., various dasha systems, etc). If so,
your research, while probably of merit, was hardly exhaustive -- and
leaves open the door 1000x + well structured research projects, some
ofwhich may find some useful correlations in some areas of life. 

My guess is that if some statistically valid predictions are made by
jyotish, it will come about from reinterpreting and calibrating 
what ancient texts say regarding results of a particular jyotish
position, in terms of modern life. Gaining many wives, many cows, and
comfortable beds may mean something quite unique in modern life, and
distinct from what it referred to in life 5000 years ago -- though the
results may be in similar areas of life. 

This will come from a lot of exploratory research. For example, if a
certain position calls for increased wealth, then look at 100
different wealth modern paramters (income, total assests, purchasing
power, etc) for 1000 + subjects and see if some correlate with the
existance, and lack thereof, of the noted jyotish position that is
said to promote wealth.










To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Maharishi university of management
  
  
Maharishi mahesh yogi
  
  
Ramana maharshi
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Getting To Computer Nirvana

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jyouells2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley
 j_alexander_stanley@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonyff anonyff@ wrote:
  
   Alex (et al)
   
   I disagree with this based on my personal experience.
   Four years ago I bought a Dell Dimension, I have it going
   probably 12 hours per day for business. It, too, has performed
   flawlessly for 4 straight years with zero problems. Finally,
   at 4 years it is starting to have some problems-slowing down,
   stalling a lot more. I'm good at tweaking it, keeping it clean,
   tracking down problems with it, and with all that it's still
   finally in need of replacement. I am so impressed with Dell
   that I am ordering a new one.
  
  And, based on my personal experience, I still think a brand name
  motherboard is crucial: My webserver, http://alex.natel.net/ , is an
  old Micron system that I bought in 1998. It's a 733MHz Pentium III
  running on a Tyan Trinity 400 motherboard.
  
 
 I agree with Alex about a quality motherboard. Although I have found
 that the corporate lines of the major makers are much more stable than
 the home user lines. In the past year I have done some large desktop
 migrations: 1250 IBM's for a health insurance co, 700 HP/Compaq's for
 BOA, and 60 Dells for retail distribution center. All theses were
 corporate line machines, very stable and better constructed than I
 thought they would be. 
 
 For myself each generation of motherboards generall produces a low
 cost board or two that is fast, stable and flexible. The trick is
 picking them out of the crowd. In the Athlon era the Shuttle An35n was
 one, and I'm currently running an Asrock939DualSataII with a Dual core
 4400+ (chip recommended by Akasha108). Both have been excellent
 running both gentoo linux and all versions of Windows including Server
 2k3. The fun part is trying to pick the good ones before they get
 popular. Good quality powersupplys and memory are important as speed
 goes up. They all can be had at pretty resonable prices. If you elect
 to build your own check out a few enthusiast sites and you'll see a
 group of folks just below the hardcore folks that pick the best
 price/performance ratio stuff. That's the stuff to look at
 
 JohnY


http://www.extremetech.com/default/0,1556,,00.asp

I find ExtremeTech is a good information source. And past articles of
reviews is helpful.











To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Maharishi university of management
  
  
Maharishi mahesh yogi
  
  
Ramana maharshi
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Getting To Yes

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In 
  FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis 
  tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlist@ wrote:
 snip
   Throw in the towel and see what can happen. Being a not seeker 
   may be a new and wondeful experience full of freedom. What have 
   you got to lose. You haven't gotten it with all that seeking. Tom
  
  Tom, I understand why you feel this way. (IMO, of course.)
  It's because this approach worked for you. So naturally,
  you think it'll work for everyone. I have no such illusions.
  Different strokes for different folks is not just about
  preferences...it's about predilection, a way of saying that 
  the approach to enlightenment that allows some people to 
  realize it Just Wouldn't Work for other people.
  
  In this case, I would think that the person you are recom-
  mending this approach to really would benefit more from
  the *opposite* approach -- a heavy regimen of focus and
  focused intent. But that's a guess on my part, and it's 
  irrelevant in any case because she's firmly locked into 
  Waiting Mode, probably for the rest of the incarnation.
  There is not an ice cube's chance in Hell that she's
  ever going to try anything new, ever again in this life
  so any suggestions to the contrary are just wasted breath.
 
 Neither Tom nor Barry has the *foggiest* idea of what
 my approach is. Neither seems to be capable of
 conceiving of an approach that is neither throw in the
 towel nor Waiting Mode nor a heavy regimen of focus
 and focused intent.
 
 And of course in his current little rant Barry is
 contradicting himself six ways to Sunday. In earlier
 posts he's mocked those who take the seeker approach
 of *trying* to become enlightened instead of simply
 being open to enlightenment; likewise he has dumped
 on people for not trusting their own experience.
 
 And here he's advocating that I do both.

Its Brahman Barry. He IS the paradox of Brahman. 

This is true (and you are a total dumbshit for not beleiving it). And
btw that (complete opposite) is true (and you are a total dumbshit for
not beleiving it). And though I see Self in all beings, I am way
better than you.











To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Maharishi university of management
  
  
Maharishi mahesh yogi
  
  
Ramana maharshi
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

[FairfieldLife] Bush Sings Anthem in Spanish

[anony_sleuth_ff]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash7.htm









To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Maharishi university of management
  
  
Maharishi mahesh yogi
  
  
Ramana maharshi
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Speech by Salt Lake City mayor

[anony_sleuth_ff]

http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_3762929

Yes, SLC is quite liberal. Surrounding communities in SL county are
more conservative -- with liberal outposts. I would guess places like
Park City are liberal. As would be the mass armies of dope-smoking
snow boarders :).












To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Maharishi university of management
  
  
Maharishi mahesh yogi
  
  
Ramana maharshi
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Friday Indian Lunch-this Friday May 5

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

Mixed vegetable Curry (No Cabbage )

Does Amma recoomend against cabbage (and related vegs such as brussel
sprouts)? These vegs appear to be vatta and balance kapha and pitta --
good for some.











To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Maharishi university of management
  
  
Maharishi mahesh yogi
  
  
Ramana maharshi
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

[FairfieldLife] Building a World Class Economy and Culture for the Future

[anony_sleuth_ff]

Sobering. World class educational system to build and sustain a world
class economy and culture for the future.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/02/D8HBMF5O0.html

--
Despite the wall-to-wall coverage of the damage from Hurricane
Katrina, nearly one-third of young Americans recently polled couldn't
locate Louisiana on a map and nearly half were unable to identify
Mississippi.

Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 fared even worse with foreign
locations: six in 10 couldn't find Iraq, according to a Roper poll
conducted for National Geographic.

Geographic illiteracy impacts our economic well-being, our
relationships with other nations and the environment, and isolates us
from the world, National Geographic president John Fahey said in
announcing a program to help remedy the problem. It's hoping to enlist
businesses, nonprofit groups and educators in a bid to improve
geographic literacy.

Planned is a five-year, multimedia campaign called My Wonderful World
that will target children 8 to 17. The goal is to motivate parents and
educators to expand geographic offerings in school, at home and in
their communities.

They will have their task cut out for them, judging by the results of
the survey of 510 people interviewed in December and January.

Among the findings:

_ One-third of respondents couldn't pinpoint Louisiana on a map and 48
percent were unable to locate Mississippi.

_ Fewer than three in 10 think it important to know the locations of
countries in the news and just 14 percent believe speaking another
language is a necessary skill.

_ Two-thirds didn't know that the earthquake that killed 70,000 people
in October 2005 occurred in Pakistan.

_ Six in 10 could not find Iraq on a map of the Middle East.

_ While the outsourcing of jobs to India has been a major U.S.
business story, 47 percent could not find the Indian subcontinent on a
map of Asia.

_ While Israeli-Palestinian strife has been in the news for the entire
lives of the respondents, 75 percent were unable to locate Israel on a
map of the Middle East.

_ Nearly three-quarters incorrectly named English as the most widely
spoken native language.

_ Six in 10 did not know the border between North and South Korea is
the most heavily fortified in the world. Thirty percent thought the
most heavily fortified border was between the United States and Mexico.

Joining in the effort to improve geographic knowledge will be the 4-H,
American Federation of Teachers, Asia Society, Association of American
Geographers, National Basketball Association, National Council of La
Raza, National PTA, Smithsonian Institution and others.

Geography exposes children and adults to diverse cultures, different
ideas and the exchange of knowledge from around the world, said Anna
Marie Weselak, president of the National PTA. This campaign will help
make sure our children get their geography _ so they can become
familiar with other cultures during their school years and move
comfortably and confidently in a global economy as adults.

___ 









To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Maharishi university of management
  
  
Maharishi mahesh yogi
  
  
Ramana maharshi
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: May 1st Illegal's boycott

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 Yes, it looks like the impact to the criminals who employ all of the 
 illegal immigrants were barely affected. Too bad.

Yes, Great post. Thank you. Important issue.

You are probably like me and don't just spout empty slogans but put
action behind your beliefs. I find its so hypocritical of whiny slogan
throwers to want to throw in jail all those criminals who employ all 
the illegal immigrants -- and then go and buy and use products made
by the companies of these crimnals. Like me, I am sure you don't do
such a hypocrital thing.
 
I tried to find a house or apartment that was criminal hiring of
illegal immigrant free. Sadly, I couldn't. So I pitched a tent in the
forest until I found out that the damned manufacturer and retailer of
the tent criminally used illegal aliens in thier businesses. So I
dichted the tent. I started to make a lean-too with a hatchet, cutting
down some smaller trees and shrubs, but damn, again, found out those
criminal retailers who sell the hatchet also criminally hire illegal
aliens. So I am now using my barfe hands. Its hard, but at least Iam
not supporting those business criminals. At least I am free of
hypocracy. Though I am fading a bit just eating blackberries I saved
up from last summer. And I am sill healing from the mosquito bites
from last summer when I started going naked. And still suffering from
this winter's frostbite. But its worth it, not to be a empty-slogan
spouting hypocrite.

How are you coping with your efforts to be hypoctite-free and not
support any criminal businesses and retailers who hire illegal aliens?












To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Maharishi university of management
  
  
Maharishi mahesh yogi
  
  
Ramana maharshi
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Colbert @ W.H. Correspondent's Dinner

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 
 I couldn't watch Colbert's presentation because nobody 
 was laughing. 

Perhaps an indication of the degree that humor (and truth) are social
contsructs. We find something more funny if others are laughing, less
funny if they are not.

I found the lack of audience laughter (more an artifact of camera
angles than actual audience reactions -- those attending said there
was laughter) discomforting from the apparent tension in the room, but
that did not take away from Colbert's biting humor. I thought for the
most part he was quite funny -- excepting the skit -- which may have
been a longer, deeper rip that may hold up with later viewings. 
Reading the transcript reinforces that he was funny, IMO. 

I wonder for those that did not find him funny, are you familiar with
his work? Or was this a (near) first time view? I think he may be an
aquired taste. The first few times I watched him, I thought he was a
bit of a smartalec. Now I get more of what he is doing and more
appreciate his subtle but biting satire.





Reading it here was much easier.
 
 Upon reading it, I see its purpose was not to amuse people. It 
 was to speak truth to power. Colbert may have flopped as a 
 humorist, but he soared as a citizen.











To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Maharishi university of management
  
  
Maharishi mahesh yogi
  
  
Ramana maharshi
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Colbert @ W.H. Correspondent's Dinner

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@
  wrote:
  
   
   I couldn't watch Colbert's presentation because nobody 
   was laughing. 
  
  Perhaps an indication of the degree that humor (and truth) are
  social contsructs. We find something more funny if others are 
  laughing, less funny if they are not.
 
 Don't know if this was the case with Patrick, but I
 find it horrendously uncomfortable to watch a comic
 who is bombing with his live audience, even if I
 find him hilarious myself. I squirm in empathetic
 embarrassment, thinking how the comic must feel.

Yes. I felt the empathetic embarrasment, and some sympathy for those I
felt in the crowd who knew it was funny but thought it inappropriate
to laugh -- in front of the prez and bosses -- while I laughing out
loud at Colbert's jabs. The combinatation was a heightened and
exquisite tension (perhaps like an action film) -- keeping me glued
to the screen and on the edge of my chair, while laughing. 

 
  I wonder for those that did not find him funny, are you familiar 
 with
  his work? Or was this a (near) first time view? I think he may be an
  aquired taste. The first few times I watched him, I thought he was a
  bit of a smartalec. Now I get more of what he is doing and more
  appreciate his subtle but biting satire.
 
 I've never been taken with his show, but the format
 is very different, much looser, and not as coherent
 or pointed for that reason. 

OTOH, in his interviews on the show, he is often quite focussed, and
is the interviewer with the quickest wits and response time I have
ever seen. 

The dinner routine was
 more like standup, extremely tight and finely honed.

If he had been able to do the routine live for various audiences, I
think he would have honed it to a devestating level of finese, timeing
and polish. 












To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Maharishi university of management
  
  
Maharishi mahesh yogi
  
  
Ramana maharshi
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: If you could make a single change to improve Yahoo! groups, what would it be

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@ 
 wrote:
 
  Comments interleaved below.
  
  --- TurquoiseB wrote:
  
   
   It's an interesting idea, but IMO the only way
   you could make such a system useful is to make
   voting mandatory. 

While I understand and appreciate the problem you are addressing, the
solution apppears onerous. Can you imagine having to evaluate each and
every one of Sparaig's posts?

And some posts don't register a reaction. They just are.


  I admit that a vote-for-post system would be subject 
  to flaws and misinformation. I only suggest it here 
  because the topic speaks to my larger interest in chat 
  group dynamics. I'm interested not just in the content 
  of posts, but in the larger phenomenon of online 
  discussions. The meta matters, if you will.

 
 The problem with a rating system is that it's all too
 easy for folks to misuse to vent their spleen,
 particularly because it's so anonymous. 


But they need not be, such as Amazon's. But theirs is a three level
system: book, review of book (signed) and was this review useful
(unsighned). 

 
 Also, given, as you note, that such a system would
 be available only on the Web interface, it would give
 those who read this forum on the Web a disproportionate
 say. I don't know who-all reads on the Web (I do), but
 they're not necessarily representative of the entire
 group, so it might produce a sense of the meeting
 that was significantly distorted.

I would think a reply to recieved e-mail going to an evaluation e-mail
address would be easy to implement.

 
 Personally, if I *had* to rate each post before I could
 move on to the next, I'd probably quit the forum rather
 than have to deal with such a pain in the butt.

Yes. 

Here is an idea -- food for thought and discussion. 

Have three evaluation buttons focussed on : i) the post's idea -- was
this an useful insight or information, ii) the post's supporting
evidence and logic -- that is, is the insight or information credible,
based in reality -- or some bs spinning, iii) the poster -- do you
generally like to read the poster.

Scores could be positive or negative. A zero for idea evaluations
means ho hum. A negative for an evidence post would mean -- bad
logic, incorrect information. A zero would be normal. A positive
would highlight the strong logic and and cites of evidence.

In addition to a numeric score, an evaluator could also submit
comments -- such as why the post is illogical and factually wrong, or
why the poster is a chronic liar and low-life. And the inverse. This
would move such discussions to secondary threads devoted just to this,
and the main thread would be devoted to discussion of ideas.

If a poster posts evidence or poster critiques in the main thread,
a fourth button could be pushed miscategorization of post (similar
to Craig's list). 

Each poster would have a clickable profile containing key summaries
of their posts and evaluations, links to their posts and evaluations
-- both numeric and verbal.

Type II evidence and Type III poster evaluation posts could also
have the same four buttons -- so the value of these evaluations could
also be rated 

Scores for all four categories: ideas, evidence/logic, poster,
miscategorizations. (The amount and percentage of mis-characterized
posts (if limits are reached some restriction would be placed on them))

Above scores would be reported i) raw -- as is, and ii) weighted by
the scores of the evaluators. For example, the logic evaluations made
by a poster who consistently recieves high scores for evidence and
logic would have a higher weight applied to it. And vice versa. A
poster who has a low poster evaluation, would have a low weight
applied to their evaluations of other posters.












To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Maharishi university of management
  
  
Maharishi mahesh yogi
  
  
Ramana maharshi
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: If you could make a single change to improve Yahoo! groups, what would it be

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@
 wrote:
 
  Here is an idea -- food for thought and discussion. 
  
  Have three evaluation buttons focussed on : i) the post's idea -- was
  this an useful insight or information, ii) the post's supporting
  evidence and logic -- that is, is the insight or information credible,
  based in reality -- or some bs spinning, iii) the poster -- do you
  generally like to read the poster.
  
  Scores could be positive or negative. A zero for idea evaluations
  means ho hum. A negative for an evidence post would mean -- bad
  logic, incorrect information. A zero would be normal. A positive
  would highlight the strong logic and and cites of evidence.
 
 I don't know about the categories you suggest, it seems maybe a bit
 too complicated, 

Too complicated to use? Four buttons are beyond your attention and
skill level? :)

Too complicated to program? I could put toegther a prototype within an
hour. I don't see any huge obstacles to implementation.

Where is the excess in complication?


but there should be a reward for having many stars, for
 example, a column with the best rated posts this day or week or month,
 could be displayed on the main page. 

Like NYT's Most E'Mailed article

A 'Best rated' could be there for
 all of Yahoo groups, or even for special sections of Yahoo-Groups,
 like spiritual. I am against rating people, that would possibly
 automatically show up from their profile.

Why? Its not an evaluation of the person, but of the overall
usefulness, logic and supporting evidence of their posts. Several
people have said they like Rick's and Mark M. posts. Are you against
such comments?
 
 There is a rating system at Google, but as I checked it on several
 groups, its hardly used. I imagine, if good rated posts are
 prominently placed, that could change. It could also change the way
 people post, because posts people find valuable, are not necessarily
 those most commented upon. 

If content, vs logic/support vs poster are distinguished this may
change. 

It would be then an important feedback.
 Lets say I send some interesting quotes or links, people usually won't
 comment on, 

Why? I think that was Patricks original point. There is now way to say
kudos and give encouragement -- quickly -- without clogging up the
system with one line posts -- and sounding like a mutal appreciation
society.

 And there could be this list underneath a good post: people who rated
 this post high, also voted for the following 10 posts ...
 ;-)

yes.










To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'





  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

[FairfieldLife] The Wisdom of Crowds (was Group changes / polling posts)

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 The dumping could be counteracted if positive votes couldn't be
 cancelled out by negatives and vice versa, both would show up. 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385721706/sr=8-1/qid=1145988564/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-1423200-8312725?%5Fencoding=UTF8

The Wisdom of Crowds really changed my view on, well, the wisdom of
crowds. By getting a large set of independent and diverse views,
errors on each side cancel each other out and often the group
consensus is better than that of experts. Really its basic
statistics -- sampling theory -- but cloaked in relatively
non-statistical terms and lots of modern examples.
 
Note the need for a large number of independent and diverse views.
When these conditions are not met, ignorance manifests. The book
implicity provides a huge agrument against the consolidation of media.
And ties to recent discussions of the media's weakness (lack of 
diversification, IMO) resulting in the manifestation of ignorance, not
wisdom, in the past two presidnetial elections.

>From the link:

While our culture generally trusts experts and distrusts the wisdom
of the masses, New Yorker business columnist Surowiecki argues that
under the right circumstances, groups are remarkably intelligent, and
are often smarter than the smartest people in them. To support this
almost counterintuitive proposition, Surowiecki explores problems
involving cognition (we're all trying to identify a correct answer),
coordination (we need to synchronize our individual activities with
others) and cooperation (we have to act together despite our
self-interest). His rubric, then, covers a range of problems,
including driving in traffic, competing on TV game shows, maximizing
stock market performance, voting for political candidates, navigating
busy sidewalks, tracking SARS and designing Internet search engines
like Google. If four basic conditions are met, a crowd's collective
intelligence will produce better outcomes than a small group of
experts, Surowiecki says, even if members of the crowd don't know all
the facts or choose, individually, to act irrationally. Wise crowds
need (1) diversity of opinion; (2) independence of members from one
another; (3) decentralization; and (4) a good method for aggregating
opinions. The diversity brings in different information; independence
keeps people from being swayed by a single opinion leader; people's
errors balance each other out; and including all opinions guarantees
that the results are smarter than if a single expert had been in
charge. Surowiecki's style is pleasantly informal, a tactical disguise
for what might otherwise be rather dense material. He offers a great
introduction to applied behavioral economics and game theory.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier
Inc. All rights reserved.

>From Bookmarks Magazine
Surowiecki first developed his ideas for Wisdom of Crowds in his
Financial Page column of The New Yorker. Many critics found his
premise to be an interesting twist on the long held notion that
Americans generally question the masses and eschew groupthink. A
socialist might draw some optimistic conclusions from all of this,
wrote The New York Times. But Surowiecki's framework is decidedly
capitalist. Some reviewers felt that the academic language and
business speak decreased the impact of the argument. Still, it's a
thought-provoking, timely book: the TV studio audience of Who Wants to
Be a Millionaire guesses correctly 91 percent of the time, compared to
experts who guess only 65 percent correctly. Keep up the good work,
comrades.


Reviewer: Craig L. Howe www.craighowe.com - Home of the Pointed
Pundit (Darien, CT United States) - See all my reviews
(TOP 500 REVIEWER) (REAL NAME) 
In 1906, Francis Galton, known for his work on statistics and
heredity, came across a weight-judging contest at the West of England
Fat Stock and Poultry Exhibition. This encounter was to challenge the
foundations of his life's study.

An ox was on display and for six-pence fair-goers could buy a stamped
and numbered ticket, fill in their names and their guesses of the
animal's weight after it had been slaughtered and dressed. The best
guess received a prize.

Eight hundred people tried their luck. They were diverse. Many had no
knowledge of livestock; others were butchers and farmers. In Galton's
mind this was a perfect analogy for democracy. He wanted to prove the
average voter was capable of very little. Yet to his surprise, when he
averaged the guesses, the total came to 1197 pounds. After the ox had
been slaughtered, it weighted 1198.

James Surowiecki takes Galton's counterintuitive notion and explores
its ramification for business, government, science and the economy. It
is a book about the world as it is. At the same time, it is a book
about the world as it might be. Most of us believe that valuable
nuggets of knowledge are concentrated in few minds. We believe the
solution 

[FairfieldLife] Re: If you could make a single change to improve Yahoo! groups, what would it be

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@
 wrote:
 
   I don't know about the categories you suggest, it seems maybe a bit
   too complicated, 
  
  Too complicated to use? Four buttons are beyond your attention and
  skill level? :)
 
 Its not just the buttons, you first have to get the idea across, what
 exactly they are evaluating. If you do it well, why not? ButI still
 think you emphazise one overall category, and can still add the other
 two categories.

Any NEW interface seems complicated at first: a cell phone's options,
a cable TV remote and on screen options, various web sites, women
(jk), etc. But after a few times navigating such, it becomes second
nature.











To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Maharishi university of management
  
  
Maharishi mahesh yogi
  
  
Ramana maharshi
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Discussion Groups or F*CK OFF you Pissant EGO Groups

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 --- anony_sleuth_ff wrote:
 
  As I said, so much for the concept of discussion in discussion
  groups. Perhaps we can just call them ego groups.
 
 Sometimes I wonder what percentage of my posts 
 may actually contribute to my ultimate awakening, 
 and what percentage merely buttress my ego. 
 Although you gotta love the irony of a spirituality
 discussion group that's a front for ego-reinforcement.

I think a Group is working well (best?) when the various discussions
induces, motivates,sparks one to post something, some insight,
revlation, about something they did not realize before.

Or reading posts that allow one to see the value inherent in
alternative -- even opposing views.

Not the same as being convinced by anothers argument. Though that is
good too. Particualry if it leads to a new, expanded,even opposite view.


 










To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'





  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: If you could make a single change to improve Yahoo! groups, what would it be

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I agree. One could give it a shot. But I'm not Yahoo :-)


No? Who are you then? London? 

(old FFL joke, refering to Tat Walla Baba's comment when asked if he
would come to London to lecture.)










To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'





  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Wisdom of Crowds (was Group changes / polling posts)

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote:
  
   
   The dumping could be counteracted if positive votes couldn't be
   cancelled out by negatives and vice versa, both would show up. 
  
 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385721706/sr=8-1/qid=1145988564/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-1423200-8312725?%5Fencoding=UTF8
  
  The Wisdom of Crowds really changed my view on, well, the wisdom of
  crowds. By getting a large set of independent and diverse views,
  errors on each side cancel each other out and often the group
  consensus is better than that of experts. Really its basic
  statistics -- sampling theory -- but cloaked in relatively
  non-statistical terms and lots of modern examples.
  
  Note the need for a large number of independent and diverse views.
 
 Which would mean that the system is highly accepted, that is people
 would actually vote


Well, even 30-40% voting is quite large -- both in absolute numbers,
and as a compared to good sample sizes (which are much smaller). 

If the voters are diverse (different regions, incomes, educations,
family backgrounds, occupations, etc, and independent (less than
10%-20%of voters listen to Fox News, Rush or PBS Newshour) then the
wisdom of crowds manifests. Thus the % of voters is less an issue --
but the concentration of media is. 

The hopeful savior is the internet -- as more people get news and
information from much more diverse sources -- papers across country
and world, diverse mags, journals and blogs, web casts of diverse news
sources, etc.
 
  When these conditions are not met, ignorance manifests. The book
  implicity provides a huge agrument against the consolidation of media.
  And ties to recent discussions of the media's weakness (lack of 
  diversification, IMO) resulting in the manifestation of ignorance, not
  wisdom, in the past two presidnetial elections.
 
 Thanks.











To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'





  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Wisdom of Crowds (was Group changes / polling posts)

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@
 wrote:
 
   Which would mean that the system is highly accepted, that is people
   would actually vote
  
  
  Well, even 30-40% voting is quite large -- both in absolute numbers,
  and as a compared to good sample sizes (which are much smaller). 
  
  If the voters are diverse (different regions, incomes, educations,
  family backgrounds, occupations, etc, and independent (less than
  10%-20%of voters listen to Fox News, Rush or PBS Newshour) then the
  wisdom of crowds manifests. Thus the % of voters is less an issue --
  but the concentration of media is. 
 
 Right, yet I was refering to votes at Y-groups, if you wanted to apply
 the same here.

Well, if you, Vaj, Rick, Mark, Ken H, Barry, Judy, sparaig, Peter S. ,
Shemp, Jim, Unstressor, Sal, Wayback, and I etc. voted regularly, a
fairly diverse and independent set of views would be represented.












To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'





  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

[FairfieldLife] Dad shoots at computer, saying son spends too much time playing games

[anony_sleuth_ff]

Dad shoots at computer, saying son spends too much time playing games

A Dunedin dad probably made his point about his son spending too much
time on the computer. Pinellas Sheriff's deputies say he shot at the
monitor as his son sat near-by. Forty-four-year-old Joseph
Langenderfer was arrested Monday afternoon at his home on Frances Street.



Late breaking update: The son shot at his dad's computer saying he
spends way too much time on some wierd-ass discussion groupd called FFL.











To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Maharishi university of management
  
  
Maharishi mahesh yogi
  
  
Ramana maharshi
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Eckhart Tolle

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonyff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Lasting Happiness - an mp3 recording of a satsang with Eckhart Tolle,
 is available via bit torrent from http://www.mininova.org/tor/291427


A torrent of bits creates lasting happiness?









To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Maharishi university of management
  
  
Maharishi mahesh yogi
  
  
Ramana maharshi
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: 911 Commission on 911 Puts apparently suspicious con...

[anony_sleuth_ff]

Oh my. The bizzare little dream worlds people weave for themselves. A
coping mechanism I suppose. Posts like are wonderful tools for
culturing compassion -- by building recognizing and remembering how
challenged and deluded some people are.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
 wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote:
  
   The Raja of Compton California now declares this thread
   boring and ended!
  
  Either that or it should be retitled,
  How three people with out of control egos
  hijacked a spiritual group and brought it
  down to the level of infantile egobabble.
 
 I think there is a lesson to be learned from
 the veritable orgy of flatulence that was FFL
 this weekend.
 
 A few people, with different political leanings
 but with one thing in common, managed to side-
 track ALL spiritual discussion on the newsgroup
 and turn Fairfield Life into a 500+-post demon-
 stration of, It's all about US...*WE* are what's 
 important here!
 
 The one thing that these three posters have in
 common?  All three have a history of being a little 
 light in the loafers in terms of personal, subjective 
 spiritual experience, and all three have a history of 
 reacting badly and agressively when people here who 
 *have* had such experiences choose to report them.
 
 One might suggest that the people who have no exper-
 iences with higher states of consciousness of their
 own to talk about, and who have a history of being
 agressive and skeptical when others talk about them,
 might subconsciously be wanting to shift the focus of
 Fairfield Life *AWAY* from such discussions, and 
 *TOWARDS* discussions that focus on I am right, you
 are wrong, I have no hidden agenda but you have one,
 and I'm smart and you're not. In other words, the 
 mundane level at which *they* live and operate.
 
 Voila.  A few 500-post slugfests and all that gets
 talked about is mundane, everyday political bull-
 shit, and no one is talking about enlightenment
 any more.
 
 Welcome to the alt.meditation.transcendalization
 of Fairfield Life.  
 
 :-)  :-)  :-)







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Mark 'Check this out/New Stuff on 9/11' - Options stuff

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@
 wrote:
 
 Thanks for the link. I'll have to find the daily options data again. 
 I didn't look at American, but at United. I looked only at 2001 up to
 that point and the volume for the week looked unusually high given no
 specific public news and it not being an expiration week.  I didn't
 look at the calls as this guy did, which is interesting. 
 

this guy was me. I put that blog together yesterday to look at this
issue. 

I am surprise UAL was not accessable by my provider. Usually expired
symbols still have data. I would have liked to have seen that pattern.

 I think to
 really figure this out, you need to do the volume statistics, but also
 see if there is some obvious fundamental reason or not for each of
 daily volume peaks.  

 See the Snopes link. It traces down the large trades.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp

Also see if the volume surge is industry wide or
 company specific and why.  For now I'm back to neutral on this topic!

 
 PS -  it's really stupid to try to profit from inside knowledge about
 9/11 by trading specific company options where you would really stand
 out - you should just short sp futures where you get leverage but can
 hide in the large volume crowd.


Yes. 
 


  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002
  markmeredith@ wrote:
   
   The trading anomolies were in the options trading of the 2 airlines
   involved in 9/11 hijackings.  The data is easily available - I do
   options trading for a living.  I compared the options trading in the
   relevant airlines the prior week to 9/11 to the prior year and
it was
   clearly statistically significant, no doubt about it, and it was all
   predicting a downward movement, ie, purchase of put options.  
   
  
  
  Mark, I pulled together the data over a two year range prior to 9/11
  and I don't see anything that looks out of normal regularly occuring
  trading ranges. I have yet to see how many standard deviations the
  events are from the long-run mean, but you can see from the graphs,
  its not going to be that high.
  
  Where are you finding clearly statistically significant, no doubt
  about it anomolies?
  
  http://911-stock-anomolies.blogspot.com/
  
  
  AMR Stock price dropped about 5% in 10 trading days prior to 9/11, but
  as one can see there six  or more such drops of this size or greater
  in a 1-2week period, over the prior two years.
  
  Stock volume hit 1.3 million shares in the 10 trading days prior to
  9/11, but this is just a bit above the 90 day moving average. There
  are 6 other days in the prior two years where over 4 million shares
  were traded. 
  
  Put volume reached 2300 one day in the 10 trading days prior to 9/11--
  but this was reached on 11 days over the prior two years, on average
  once every two months or so. It was hardly a rare event. On six days
  in that two year range, over 5000 contracts were traded, double the
  highest day in the 10 trading days prior to 9/11, once every 4 months.
  Even twice the just-prior-to 9/11 level was hardly a rare event. 
  
  Interestingly Call volume reached 2500 in the 10 trading days prior to
  9/11, higher than the peak level of puts during this period. 
  
  The regular frequency of the peak Put volume in the 10 trading days
  prior to 9/11 over the prior two-year, and more greater number of 
  Calls in that 10-day period, dampens the speculation that Put volume
  was abnormal high, out of any sense of ordinary trading range.
   
  
  Boeing: Stock price dropped about 5% in the 10 trading days to 9/11,
  but as one can see there four or more days that such drops of this
  size or greater in a 1-2week period, over the prior two years.
  
  Stock volume hit 8 million shares in the 10 trading days prior to
  9/11, but there are 13 other days in the prior two years where this
  occurred -- on average once every couple ofmonths. Once almost double
  that volume was achieved. Frequently, volume hit the 6 million share
  range.
  
  Put volume reached 15,000 and 20,000 contracts in the 10 trading days
  prior to 9/11-- but this was reached 12 and 6 times respectively over
  the prior two years.
  
  Interestingly Call volume reached 15,000 and 25,000 contracts in the
  10 trading days prior to 9/11. 25,000 had been reached only 2 times
  previously in the past two years. Thus, it appears Call trades were
  more out of the ordinary than puts.
  
  The regular frequency of the peak Put volume in the 10 trading days
  prior to 9/11 over the prior 2-year period, and the higher level --
  and more rare level of Calls in that week -- dampens the speculation
  that Put volume was abnormal high, out of any sense of ordinary
  trading range.
  
  United Airlines data is not accessable. Old symbol UAL was retired
  when the firm came out of bankrupcy and new stock was issued as UAUA

[FairfieldLife] Re: Mark 'Check this out/New Stuff on 9/11' - Options stuff

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 PS -  it's really stupid to try to profit from inside knowledge about
 9/11 by trading specific company options where you would really stand
 out - you should just short sp futures where you get leverage but can
 hide in the large volume crowd.

I added a chart of SPY the high volume ETF that covers the SP 500.

SPY (SP 500 ETF) which has very high overall volume, and would be a
natural choice to hide advanced knowledge trades, did show  a 5% or
so decline the last 10 days prior to 9/11, under relatively heavy
volume, 34 million shares. But this was part of a 15 % or so decline
since mid May 2001 and a 30% decline from a year prior to 9/11.

While volume was relatively high, it was only half the peak daily
volume achieved in mid-march 2001. And the long term trend of volume
on SPY was increasing as more investors and traders began to use the
recently introduced ETFS (exchange traded funds)

http://911-stock-anomolies.blogspot.com/





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Mark Meredith, please comment

[anony_sleuth_ff]

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1090580208105680.xml

SEC probe finds no evidence of Sept. 11 terrorist trade schemes
Friday, July 23, 2004
Associated Press

Washington- After an extensive investigation, the government has found
no evidence that terrorists tried to profit from stock and options
trading before the Sept. 11 attacks, the Securities and Exchange
Commission said Thursday.

In the course of that review, we did not develop any evidence
suggesting that anyone who had advance knowledge of the Sept. 11
attacks traded on the basis of that information, the SEC said.

That conclusion, included in the final report issued Thursday by the
Sept. 11 commission, was the government's first public statement on
the findings of the trading investigation. SEC spokesmen would not say
when the inquiry was completed.

The world's largest options market, the Chicago Board Options
Exchange, said in September 2001 that it was investigating reports of
unusual trading activity before the attacks on the World Trade Center
and the Pentagon. Germany's stock market regulator said it was looking
into claims of suspicious short-selling of insurance company shares
just before the attacks. Investors engaged in short selling profit if
a stock's price falls.

http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=25253285postID=114401127481088517


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ 
 wrote:
 
  Mark: now that you have been informed (by the snopes posting by Anon) 
  that the American Airlines put options purchase was counterbalanced 
  by the purchase by the same institutional buyer of American stock, do 
  you still feel that this was a suspicious trade, as you indicated in 
  a previous post?
 
 Let's not forget, by the way, that the suspicious trading
 involved far more than stock in just the two airline
 companies.
 
 There was unusual trading in the stock of firms whose
 offices were in the World Trade Center, including Morgan
 Stanley, Lehman Bros., Bank of America, and Marsh 
 McLennan; insurance companies Munich Re (Germany) and AXA
 Group (France), which combined were on the hook for about
 $2 billion in damages from the attacks, as well as American
 International Group, Swiss Reinsurance, Chubb, Cigna, CNA
 Financial, John Hancock, and MetLife; plus General Motors,
 Raytheon, Continental, Delta, Northwest, Southwest,
 USAirways, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Citigroup (38
 companies in all); there was also a surge in the purchase
 of five-year Treasury notes and unusual movement in gold
 and oil prices.
 
 Also, as of September 29, 2001, according to the San
 Francisco Chronicle:
 
 Investors have yet to collect more than $2.5 million in profits they 
 made trading options in the stock of United Airlines before the Sept. 
 11 terrorist attacks, according to a source familiar with the trades 
 and market data. 
 
 The uncollected money raises suspicions that the investors -- whose 
 identities and nationalities have not been made public -- had advance 
 knowledge of the strikes. 
 
 Usually, if someone has a windfall like that, you take the money and 
 run, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Whoever 
 did this thought the exchange would not be closed for four days. 
 
 This smells real bad. 
 
 The source and others in the financial industry speculate that the 
 purchaser or purchasers -- having initially assumed the money could be 
 picked up without detection -- now fear exposure, or that the account 
 has been frozen. 
 
 The markets were closed for four days after the attack, giving 
 investigators time to notice the anomalous trades.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Mark Meredith, please comment

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  
 http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1090580
 208105680.xml
  
  SEC probe finds no evidence of Sept. 11 terrorist trade schemes
  Friday, July 23, 2004
  Associated Press
  
  Washington- After an extensive investigation, the government has
  found no evidence that terrorists tried to profit from stock and 
  options trading before the Sept. 11 attacks, the Securities and 
  Exchange Commission said Thursday.
 
  In the course of that review, we did not develop any evidence
  suggesting that anyone who had advance knowledge of the Sept. 11
  attacks traded on the basis of that information, the SEC said.
 
 That's nice, but I'd prefer to hear this from an
 organization not under the thumb of the administration.

Beyond just declaring it is so, you will have to make an actual case
that SEC is under the administrations thumb, or that the admin
influenced the report, before using it as a credible argument.
 
 
 And did the SEC investigate *all* the following
 unusual tradinng.

Its not clear. They may have. I am looking for the full report.


 
 And what about the $2.5 million gain that hadn't been
 claimed as of September 29, 2001?  Did anybody 
 investigate that?  *Was* it claimed subsequently?
 
 (Can somebody explain to me how a trader could have
 made $2.5 million and nobody would know who it
 belonged to unless it was claimed?  I'm still wondering
 about who has the information on who traded what,
 and what it would take to pry it loose.)

Can anyone explain how  someone can set up a brokerage account in
America without a named account? 

Can anyone explain to Judy that most investors and traders don't close
their accounts after each trade. They usually keep them open for many
years, and often don't withdraw the proceeds of their investments for
decades.










 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Mark 'Check this out/New Stuff on 9/11' - Options stuff

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002 
 markmeredith@ wrote:
 snip
  PS -  it's really stupid to try to profit from inside knowledge
  about 9/11 by trading specific company options where you would 
  really stand out - you should just short sp futures where you get 
  leverage but can hide in the large volume crowd.
 
 That may be the best argument yet against these
 anomalies having anything to do with 9/11.

I am glad it only took two days for this to sink in. (I posted the
same thought on Saturday.)








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] No, THIS one is more worthy of Dr. Pete's attention

[anony_sleuth_ff]

I just received this one. I can smell wire transfer in her next
e-mail (if I were to respond. )

 Hello How are u doing i saw ur profile and loved it i am Chika Powell
29 f Single and Looking for a Serious Relationship i am Not in the
state Right now i am Currently in west africa Nigeria i came Down here
for some Reasons i Lost My Father on January 5th 2006 so i came down
to Africa Nigeria for some Family Reason But would be Back as soon as
Possible i am The Only Child Of My Dad and i need to be there for His
Funeral Ceremony. i would love to get to know u better . i like
reading Dancing tennis Playing Movie watching Swimming Camping. i am
looking for someone that beleives in true Love , someone who is
willing to share ..someone sweet,someone that would appreciate a nice
kiss early in the morning ,that would appreciate being dressed up for
work in the morning and breakfast in the morning ,someone that would
respect me and understand me ...be there for me ..someone that would
appreciate a nice phone call at work when you tell him you were
thinking about him and missing him so much ...just wanted to hear his
sweet voice ...someone that is drama free ..thats be kind of person
Someone in my heart beyond all my pride,Holds a secret desire so
intense deep inside.Imprisoned with all my passion and love,Unknown to
anyone but the lord up above.

A desire for someone to cherish and hold,The need for love to call my
own.Someone who keeps me shining day and night,Someone to kiss and
make up with after a fight.Someone who appreciates and respects all I
can be,Someone whos strong enough to commit and love only me.Someone
who will be there to kiss away my tears,Secure my doubts and release
my fears.Someone who can restore my faith in love once again. i am
looking for ..if you are that someone pls let me know and if you have
a yahoo messanger we can chat on there i am [EMAIL PROTECTED] or
hotmail [EMAIL PROTECTED] hope to hear from you soon







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Mark Meredith, please comment

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 From the SF Chronicle, September 29, 2001 (posted before
 but apparently not read by you):

Yes I read it. I commented on it. It unsubstantiated crap from unnamed
sources.  Didn't you get that the first time? 
 
 Investors have yet to collect more than $2.5 million in profits they 
 made trading options in the stock of United Airlines before the Sept. 
 11 terrorist attacks, according to a source familiar with the trades 
 and market data. 
 
 The uncollected money raises suspicions that the investors -- whose 
 identities and nationalities have not been made public -- had advance 
 knowledge of the strikes. 
 
 Usually, if someone has a windfall like that, you take the money and 
 run, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. 

Which is crap. millions of investors keep their windfalls in their
accounts for decades. 



 This smells real bad. 

To a fool, perhaps.
 
 The source and others in the financial industry 

still unnamed, 

 speculate that the 
 purchaser or purchasers -- having initially assumed the money could 
 be picked up without detection -- now fear exposure, or that the 
 account has been frozen.

And they are fools for speculating this.

Here is another unnamed source with a contrary view.

Some cite an alleged occurance of a $2.5 million gain that hadn't been
claimed as of September 29, 2001. And that the owner of account is
unknown.

While, this may indicate some inside knowldge of 9/11, by itself, its
a weak case. Setting up (all or most) brokerage account in the US
requires a named account, with much identifying information, including
addresss, ss # etc. I assume the securities firm are required to do
some cross checks to verify the information -- perhaps readers can
confirm this. And deposits need to come from named accounts -- the
same name as the account holder. So it appears implausible that
investigators cannot trace the owner of the account.

Further, most investors and traders don't close their accounts after
each trade. They usually keep the same account(s) open for many years,
and often don't withdraw the proceeds of their investments for
decades. So the non-withdrawl of profits in this case is the same for
millions of other brokerage accounts.

http://911-stock-anomolies.blogspot.com/

Sometimes one has to use real world experience and rational thinking
and weed out unsubstantiated news reports and not take every newspaper
article as the gospel.











To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Mark Meredith, please comment

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
   wrote:
   From the SF Chronicle, September 29, 2001 (posted before
   but apparently not read by you):
  
  Yes I read it. I commented on it. It unsubstantiated crap from
  unnamed sources.  Didn't you get that the first time?
 
 If I had, why would I suggest you hadn't read it?
 
 snip
   Usually, if someone has a windfall like that, you take the money
   and run, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. 
  
  Which is crap. millions of investors keep their windfalls in their
  accounts for decades.
 
 I very seriously doubt anybody keeps $2.5 million
 just sitting, uninvested, in their account.


Well you are quite the non-worldy fool then.

 
 But in any case, it appears to me as though the source
 is talking about those who profit illegally from
 insider info--Take the money and run before anybody
 notices.


Lynne Howard, a spokeswoman for the Chicago Board Options Exchange
(CBOE), stated that information about who made the trades was
available immediately. We would have been aware of any unusual
activity right away. It would have been triggered by any unusual
volume. There is an automated system called 'blue sheeting,' or the
CBOE Market Surveillance System, that everyone in the business knows
about. It provides information on the trades - the name and even the
Social Security number on an account - and these surveillance systems
are set up specifically to look into insider trading. The system would
look at the volume, and then a real person would take over and review
it, going back in time and looking at other unusual activity. 
http://tbrnews.org/Archives/a048.htm

And its quite hard to do so anonomously. Next to impossible.


 
 snip
  Here is another unnamed source with a contrary view.
  
  Some cite an alleged occurance of a $2.5 million gain that hadn't 
  been claimed as of September 29, 2001. And that the owner of 
  account is unknown.
  
  While, this may indicate some inside knowldge of 9/11, by itself, 
  its a weak case. Setting up (all or most) brokerage account in the 
  US requires a named account, with much identifying information, 
  including addresss, ss # etc. I assume the securities firm are 
  required to do some cross checks to verify the information -- 
  perhaps readers can confirm this. And deposits need to come from 
  named accounts -- the same name as the account holder. So it 
  appears implausible that investigators cannot trace the owner of 
  the account.
 
 Did somebody say investigators could not trace
 the owner of the account?  Or did you make that up?

The source and others in the financial industry speculate that the
purchaser or purchasers -- having initially assumed the money could
be picked up without detection -- now fear exposure
[Judy's post]

I realize one has to use a modest amount of brain power here. Sorry
its over your head. Let me spell it out for you,step by step. 

1) The unnamed sources speculated that the investors, by, withdrawing
the money would reveal their idnetities.

2) This is a silly argument in that the account owners in the US are
easily traced. See CBOT above

3) The implied assumption of the unnamed sources was that #2 was not
true ---investigators could not trace
the owner of the account.

OK. Clear now?


 
  Further, most investors and traders don't close their accounts after
  each trade.
 
 Did somebody suggest they did?  Or did you make that up?


Usually, if someone has a windfall like that, you take the money and
run,
[Judy's post]

Taking the money and running is essentially closing out the account.
If it has a zero balance it is often shutdown within months.
 
  They usually keep the same account(s) open for many years,
  and often don't withdraw the proceeds of their investments for
  decades. So the non-withdrawl of profits in this case is the same
  for millions of other brokerage accounts.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Mark Meredith, please comment

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ 
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
   wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ 
  wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff 
  no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 From the SF Chronicle, September 29, 2001 (posted before
 but apparently not read by you):

Yes I read it. I commented on it. It unsubstantiated crap from
unnamed sources.  Didn't you get that the first time?
   
   If I had, why would I suggest you hadn't read it?
   
   snip
 Usually, if someone has a windfall like that, you take the 
 money and run, said the source, who spoke on condition of 
 anonymity. 

Which is crap. millions of investors keep their windfalls in 
their accounts for decades.
   
   I very seriously doubt anybody keeps $2.5 million
   just sitting, uninvested, in their account.
  
  That's because you have no experience with the real world.
  
  I do estate planning.  I often see investors keep hundreds of 
  thousands of dollars uninvested in their accounts.
  
  It is usually parked in a money market account.
  
  This is often done by investors who have, perhaps, cashed out of 
  bonds or equities because they feel that particular market is going 
  to go down, so they park it in their money market account so that
  it at least draws some interest.
  
  They then will reinvest it if they feel the market will make a move 
  upwards.
 
 However, I was talking about parking *$2.5 million*,
 not hundreds of thousands, for *decades*, not for a
 few months or even a few years.
 
 And there's no indication this money had been invested
 in a money-market account.
 
 Plus which, we're talking about a windfall purportedly
 made on the basis of insider information about a coming
 disaster that would kill people, which is obviously a
 criminal act.

Your references are not clear [to me]

Are you saying that a windfall 
made on the basis of insider information about a coming
disaster is  a criminal act. 

I am not sure thats the case. Can you site the statute.

Insider trading in their own stocks, based on non-public information
of their stock, by principals in a public company is illegal.

Insider trading in any stocks, based on non-public information of any
stock, gained through their work, by US Senators and Congress persons,
in any public company is  CURRENTLY LEGAL.


Insider trading in any stocks, based on non-public information of a
pendng terror act, by anyoneis CURRENTLY LEGAL to my knowledge. Cite
statue if I am not up to date on this.








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Mark Meredith, please comment

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 snip
   Plus which, we're talking about a windfall purportedly
   made on the basis of insider information about a coming
   disaster that would kill people, which is obviously a
   criminal act.
  
  Your references are not clear [to me]
  
  Are you saying that a windfall 
  made on the basis of insider information about a coming
  disaster is  a criminal act.
 
 Having information about a planned murder and 
 withholding that information from authorities
 is a criminal act (it's the one for which
 Moussaoui was convicted).  The trading itself
 may not be criminal, but it could be evidence
 of a criminal act.

Its a crime to withhold knowledge of a planned murder if interogated
about it by Law Eenforcement Officers -- that is the Moussaoui case as
I understand it. 

The applicable question is it a crime to withhold knowledge of a
planned murder or crime if not interogated -- as would presumably be
the case of insiders making stock trades based on prior knowledge.









To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Mark Meredith, please comment

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff 
 no_reply@ 
   wrote:
   snip
 Plus which, we're talking about a windfall purportedly
 made on the basis of insider information about a coming
 disaster that would kill people, which is obviously a
 criminal act.

Your references are not clear [to me]

Are you saying that a windfall 
made on the basis of insider information about a coming
disaster is  a criminal act.
   
   Having information about a planned murder and 
   withholding that information from authorities
   is a criminal act (it's the one for which
   Moussaoui was convicted).  The trading itself
   may not be criminal, but it could be evidence
   of a criminal act.
  
  Its a crime to withhold knowledge of a planned murder if 
 interogated
  about it by Law Eenforcement Officers -- that is the Moussaoui 
 case as
  I understand it. 
  
  The applicable question is it a crime to withhold knowledge of a
  planned murder or crime if not interogated -- as would presumably 
 be
  the case of insiders making stock trades based on prior knowledge.
 
 
 
 It was a crime for Michael Fortier who received a 12 year sentence 
 for withholding info on the Oklahoma City bombing.  See: 
 http://tinyurl.com/mwglh

Assuming you are addressing my point above, your cite does not appear
to answer the question.

who previously received a 12-year sentence for withholding
information about the bombing,

does not indicated if he withheld it during interrogation by LE, or
was just mum.









To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Keep MUM and Go toJail

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 snip
The applicable question is it a crime to withhold knowledge of a
planned murder or crime if not interogated -- as would
presumably be the case of insiders making stock trades based on 
prior knowledge.
   
   It was a crime for Michael Fortier who received a 12 year 
   sentence for withholding info on the Oklahoma City bombing.  See: 
   http://tinyurl.com/mwglh
  
  Assuming you are addressing my point above,
 
 Hmm.  What other point might he be addressing,
 I wonder?

I was extending Shemp the courtesy of realizing he might be making a
general observation. People do that -- not commenting on a specific
point. I notice that some, particularly you, often mistakenly assume a
post is about your points, when the post is realy a general
observation, or perhaps a response to another posters point. And you
flare out in your usual flaming style. 

In this case, I specifically was being diplomatic, becasue I didn't
wand to come across like I have a huge stick up my ass, like you
appear to often.


  your cite does not appear to answer the question.
  
  who previously received a 12-year sentence for withholding
  information about the bombing,
  
  does not indicated if he withheld it during interrogation by LE, or
  was just mum.
 
 From the link (which you apparently didn't read):

Ah the stick up you ass again. It must really be painful Judy. Or
perhaps its some deep trauma you have suffered that makes you
perpetually snide and condescending. You have my sympathy and
compassion for your pain.
 
 Fortier was also asked to participate in the deadly scheme, yet he 
 refused to be a part of it. He didn't alert the police of the plot 
 because he didn't believe Nichols and McVeigh would actually follow 
 through with their plans, Newsday reported. It was a mistake that 
 cost 168 lives.

While this implies he was just mum, it is not definitive that he was
not also interogated by the police -- but not covered by the short
story -- and it was on THAT withholding of information that he was
convicted.

The reason I question this is that the law as some imply (just being
mum) quickly gets into very wierd territory. If one hears some old
babbling off-meds street person make some odd threat while one is
rushing to work, and you brush it off, and the event does happen, then
you could be liable for perhaps 12 years in prison? It jsut seems to
draconian.

We all could be liable. We all have had advanced knowledge of great
disasters pending upon the US. (And and the UK). We have assumed the
warnings are not credible, even though they come from a man we all
have greatly respcted, honored, and given great trust. And we have the
knowledge to prevent it. What happens if they come true. Will we have
cellblock FFL in Leavenworth?








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Mark 'Check this out/New Stuff on 9/11' - Options stuff

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002 
   markmeredith@ wrote:
   snip
PS -  it's really stupid to try to profit from inside knowledge
about 9/11 by trading specific company options where you would 
really stand out - you should just short sp futures where you 
 get 
leverage but can hide in the large volume crowd.
   
   That may be the best argument yet against these
   anomalies having anything to do with 9/11.
  
  I am glad it only took two days for this to sink in. (I posted the
  same thought on Saturday.)
 
 Guess it depends on one's opinion of the smarts and
 integrity of the person who posted it, eh?

Thats a brave implied confession from you judy. The implication being
that you don't have the smarts, or judgement or self-confidence to
look at a statement and make an independent judgement about it. You
need to depend on the approval of select others before you decide if
you will support an idea.








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Mark Meredith, please comment

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
   wrote:
   
 snip
Which is crap. millions of investors keep their windfalls in
their accounts for decades.
   
   I very seriously doubt anybody keeps $2.5 million
   just sitting, uninvested, in their account.
  
  Well you are quite the non-worldy fool then.
 
 Ah, and your evidence that lots of people keep as
 much as $2.5 million in their accounts for decades?
 (Putting it back into stocks to reap more profits
 would be non-worldly??)
 
   But in any case, it appears to me as though the source
   is talking about those who profit illegally from
   insider info--Take the money and run before anybody
   notices.
  
  Lynne Howard, a spokeswoman for the Chicago Board Options Exchange
  (CBOE), stated that information about who made the trades was
  available immediately. We would have been aware of any unusual
  activity right away. It would have been triggered by any unusual
  volume. There is an automated system called 'blue sheeting,' or the
  CBOE Market Surveillance System, that everyone in the business knows
  about. It provides information on the trades - the name and even the
  Social Security number on an account - and these surveillance 
 systems
  are set up specifically to look into insider trading. The system 
 would
  look at the volume, and then a real person would take over and 
 review
  it, going back in time and looking at other unusual activity. 
 
  http://tbrnews.org/Archives/a048.htm
 
 Just for the record, TBR News is an anti-Semitic,
 neo-Nazi-type site.  This particular quote (which
 was lifted, I believe, from the article I linked 
 to in the Sierra Times), is neutral in that regard,
 but you may have noticed that the TBR article itself
 claims the suspicious trades were made by Israelis.

OH MY! Then you are right. They must be NAZIs!! Anyone that criticises
an israeli or israel must be a full fledged NAZI. 

 
  And its quite hard to do so anonomously. Next to impossible.
 
 According to the article at CNN.com:
 
 One problem is that some of the more complex market transactions, 
 like short-selling of shares, are not directly visible to regulators. 

Short-selling is as visable as long positions. The talking heads at
CNN and FOX and other stations,reading the teleprompter that some
staffer or analyst pasted together 2 minutes earlier, is not always
deep truth. 

 But that doesn't mean there isn't a trail. Even shell companies can 
 be pried apart. 
 
So they are visible.

And who said the 2.5mil transaction was a shell company. All reports
are that it was an individual. 

 Normally, shell companies, special banks, jurisdictional problems 
 are all set up to make a paper trail more difficult for regulators to 
 follow. The nature of this atrocity, however, is such that there are 
 signs that people who don't usually cooperate will cooperate this 
 time, says Jeffrey Robinson, author of The Laundrymen. 

HUH

 
 snip
   Did somebody say investigators could not trace
   the owner of the account?  Or did you make that up?
  
  The source and others in the financial industry speculate that the
  purchaser or purchasers -- having initially assumed the money could
  be picked up without detection -- now fear exposure
  [Judy's post]
  
  I realize one has to use a modest amount of brain power here. Sorry
  its over your head. Let me spell it out for you,step by step. 
  
  1) The unnamed sources speculated that the investors, by, 
  withdrawing the money would reveal their idnetities.
  
  2) This is a silly argument in that the account owners in the US are
  easily traced. See CBOT above
  
  3) The implied assumption of the unnamed sources was that #2 was not
  true ---investigators could not trace
  the owner of the account.
   
  OK. Clear now?
 
 Even *if* the accounts were easily traced (which the
 CNN article appears to contradict), 

CNN was not talking about this specific account. And they are simply
wrong about short selling being less visable.







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Keep MUM and Go to Jail

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 Do you get to collect $200 first?
 
 Actually, between MUM and jail, it's kind of a tossup.  If you chose 
 the latter you'd  at least run into saner management.  And, at this 
 point, probably better food too.
 
 Sal

But they both have segreated sexes at their dances.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: This is your Democratic Party

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ 
 snip
   
   Careful, Jim.  You don't want to get on Barry's list
   of people who argue about politics because they have
   no spiritual experiences to report.

If one is reporting spiritual experiences as mine, the experiences
are at best trivial. 

Having a list of such ones claiming their individual specialness
is kind of funny.

Barry going to great lengths to show how special, spiritual and
superior (the S tribeca), that he is because he has such a list, and
is on it, is priceless.

  
  Ha Ha! Barry or you can put me on any list you want.  
 (says Jim, hastily reporting an experience so
 Barry won't put him on the list)
 
 ;-)







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Mark Meredith, please comment

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ 
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ 
   wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ 
  wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff 
   no_reply@ 
 wrote:
snip
In the course of that review, we did not develop any 
   evidence
suggesting that anyone who had advance knowledge of 
 the 
   Sept. 
11 attacks traded on the basis of that information, 
 the 
   SEC 
said.
   
   That's nice, but I'd prefer to hear this from an
   organization not under the thumb of the administration.
  
  Beyond just declaring it is so, you will have to make an 
   actual 
  case that SEC is under the administrations thumb, or that 
 the 
  admin influenced the report, before using it as a credible 
  argument.

Since I wasn't using it as an argument, merely stating
my preference, I don't have to do anything.

But out of the kindness of my heart, for anyone who
has been living in a cave for the past several years:

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1816

That's just a taste; there's plenty more along the
same lines.
   
   I guess Janet Reno was under the then Clinton Administration 
 thumb 
   when she approved all of Kenneth Starr's requests for 
 prosecutions 
   under the MonicaGate scandal...
  
  Non sequitur.
 
 
 
 Number of times Judy Stein has used the term non sequitur on 
 google groups: 280.
 
 Evidence: http://tinyurl.com/nvpq3

Number of times it has been an actual non sequitur: 7

Number of times the explcit or implied logic sequence simply flew over
Judy's head: 273

Evidence: Just read these posts:
http://tinyurl.com/nvpq3











To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Keep MUM and Go toJail

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
Assuming you are addressing my point above,
   
   Hmm.  What other point might he be addressing,
   I wonder?
  
  I was extending Shemp the courtesy of realizing he might be making a
  general observation. People do that -- not commenting on a
specific point. I notice that some, particularly you, often mistakenly
  assume a post is about your points, when the post is realy a
general observation, or perhaps a response to another posters point.
And you flare out in your usual flaming style.
 
 I'm sure you can locate and cite some examples, right?
 
  In this case, I specifically was being diplomatic, becasue I
didn't wand to come across like I have a huge stick up my ass, like
you appear to often.
 
 Actually, since Shemp's post *directly* addressed
 your claim, I believe you were doing your usual
 passive-aggressive thing, suggesting that his
 comment was somehow *not* really responsive to your
 point, and that that was the reason you weren't sure
 he was addressing it.  It was a nasty little dig, not
 an act of diplomacy.

No, I consciously thought and re-wrote that post to qualify it if you
were addressing my post. I once questioned a post of sal's assuming
she was addressing a specific point of mine and I was wrong, and she
said, paraphrasing don't be silly, I was making a general point.
That stuck in my mind. Rory and I used to have off-line correspondence
and once he commented on some point of a post assuming it was he being
pointed to, and I cautioned him Not all posts are about YOU. We both
laughed. That incident also stuck in my mind.

But only you would make a huge issue over a six word innocuous
qualification if you were addressing my post.

I appreciate your psychobabble analysis a stranger. Perhaps fertile
ground to look at your possible areas of projection.

 
 
   Fortier was also asked to participate in the deadly scheme, yet 
   he refused to be a part of it. He didn't alert the police of the 
   plot because he didn't believe Nichols and McVeigh would actually
   follow through with their plans, Newsday reported. It was a 
   mistake that cost 168 lives.
  
  While this implies he was just mum, it is not definitive that he was
  not also interogated by the police -- but not covered by the short
  story -- and it was on THAT withholding of information that he was
  convicted.
 
 The biggest problem you have with your attempts at
 analysis is your inability to grasp aspects of 
 proportionality with regard to likelihood.

Oh good. I glad thats only my biggest problem. That means al my other
problems are smaller. Yipppeee!!!
 


 
 
  The reason I question this is that the law as some imply (just being
  mum) quickly gets into very wierd territory. If one hears some old
  babbling off-meds street person make some odd threat while one is
  rushing to work, and you brush it off, and the event does happen, 
  then you could be liable for perhaps 12 years in prison? It jsut 
  seems to draconian.
 
 Indeed.  But it's usually fairly easy to make a
 distinction between what a babbling off-meds street
 person says and what two apparently fully rational
 people say about their detailed plans for a bombing
 that's likely to kill many people.
 
 Proportionality again.

The above situation is parallel -- though exaggerated -- to the one
cited. It raises a valid point. Where is the line drawn IF (yet to be
established) the law only requires mumness not interogation. 

   
  We all could be liable. We all have had advanced knowledge of great
  disasters pending upon the US. (And and the UK). We have assumed the
  warnings are not credible, even though they come from a man we all
  have greatly respcted, honored, and given great trust. And we have 
 the
  knowledge to prevent it. What happens if they come true. Will we 
 have
  cellblock FFL in Leavenworth?
 







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: This is your Democratic Party

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 snip
  Barry going to great lengths to show how special, spiritual and
  superior (the S tribeca)
 
 (Trifecta; Tribeca is an area in downtown NYC.)

yes, good correction. It sounded off when I typed it. 







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Check this out/New Stuff on 9/11'

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ 
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
   wrote:
   snip
   [I wrote:]
 If so, you're aware that what the newspapers were
 reporting was that large numbers of financial agencies
 around the world were investigating the anomalous
 trades.  I'm fairly confident that if it had all been
 mere speculation and irrelevant, they wouldn't have
 bothered.

Many things that are investigated turn out to be insignificant. To say
that an investigation legitimately creates confidence in wrongdoing is
parallel to saying someone is automatically guilty because they are as
suspect in an  investigation -- prior to indictment, prior to trial.

 
 The person I was responding to above, and several
 others--yourself included, earlier--have been** trying  
 to say there wasn't anything unusual about the stock 
 market activity prior to 9/11.

Quite untrue. Being a major respondent, I am quite open to the 
possibility that  there was statistically significant anomolies in the
stock or options markets prior to 9/11. I have said so repeatededly.
What we have asked for is some actual  data and analysis cites. All
that has been provided are some articles citing some investigations
and sucpicions, and several ambiguously defined small trades.
And the video, from where this discussion started, clearly sliced and
diced the data. Thus a call for the actual data and analysis to see
upon what the claims of unusual are. My whole point has simple been,
that what appears unusual to the naive may be quite normal, aka
within the main body of a normal distribution. 






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Check this out/New Stuff on 9/11'

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ 
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
   wrote:
 snip
   You now have more than enough information to track it
   down, if you were actually interested in getting to the 
   bottom of it.  But you aren't.
  
  Why should HE do it, you friggin' hypocrite.
  
  YOU'RE the one who made the claim so it is YOU who should do the 
  friggin' research to back up what YOU said.
 
 The only claim I made was that there were big anomalies
 in the trading data before 9/11.  You yourself have
 admitted that everybody knew this was the case.
 
 As to the specifics with regard to the actual trading,
 I don't have the expertise or the motivation to provide
 those.  It's enough for me to point out that financial
 institutions all over the world were concerned enough
 about the anomalies to launch investigations.
 
 The poster I was responding to was suggesting there
 *were* no such anomalies (just as you were earlier),
 which is ludicrous on its face.  

You are clerarly not reading my posts judy, so its hard to intervene
with your debate with some phantom posts. I never said there were no
anomolies, I simply asked for data and analysis so could understand
how anomolous and unsual were being defined. The press gets quite
excited and report sensational stuff all the time, that upon analysis,
is much ado about nothing. 

For example, a trade at 5x daily volume might be a statistically
significant anomoly, or it might be quite normal. Just to cite 5x
trade as the sole evidence of something anomolous, as done in the
video, is just a cheap manipulative trick to fool the naive.
Particularly when, for the same stock, different daily intervals were
used to define daily average



He's the one who needs
 to prove *his* claims; I'm under no obligation to
 *disprove* them.







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Check this out/New Stuff on 9/11'

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  
  The premise  I gather from judy's weak hypothesis is that Bush
  administration insiders profited from insider a la advanced
  knowleedge of 9/11.  Thats a hardsell IMO.
 
 I never advanced such a hypothesis.  *Somebody*
 profited from insider information about the attacks,
 however, and that's what needs to be determined: Who?


Ok, I stand clarified as to your views. The above view that Bush
administration insiders profited from insider a la advanced
knowleedge of 9/11 does appear to be the premise of the video.  That
still is a hardsell IMO. And the video, made little progress in
scaling that peak.
 
  First, A) one needs to show that ANYONE profited from advanced
  knowledge of 9/11.
 
 That isn't in question.
 
  Second, Judy needs to show that it was not (only)
  saudi royal/rich, al-qauda insiders, other middle eastern
  power/knowledge brokers that profited from A, but also 
  specifically Bush admin insiders. A very hard sell.
 
 Um, why do I need to show that?  My whole *point* was
 that it has never been determined who made the trades.

Ok, I stand further clarified as to your views. The above view that
Bush administration insiders profited from insider a la advanced
knowleedge of 9/11 does appear to be the premise of the video.  That
still is a hardsell IMO. And the video, made little progress in that.








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Check this out/New Stuff on 9/11'

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ 
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
 snip
So if everyone knows itw asthe terrorists who did it, why is 
there no public record that it WAS the terrorists?
   
   Idiot: the media IS the public record.
  
  Actually, the media dropped this line of enquiry apparently.
 
 Exactly.  Shemp seems to have hallucinated some
 public revelation as to who made the trades.
 
 The 9/11 commission said it had investigated the
 anomalies and that there were innocuous explanations
 for all of them.  But it did not say what those
 explanations were, and the media never asked.

Then why do you repeatedly state that statistically significant
anomolous trades are a matter of established fact? Where is it
established? The commission, with all its power to call witness,and
staffs / experts oncall to do analysis could not make a definitive
case, who did? 





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Check this out/New Stuff on 9/11'

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 snip
  Can you provide any data, or any statistical analysis, or cites to
  such, to support your opinion that a) there were statistically
  anomolous (that is, sigma 4-5 events, using 90-360 day series)
  trades in airline, oil or gold  stocks or options, in the week(s) 
  prior to 9/11?
 
 It isn't my opinion that there were trading anomalies;
 it's a matter of public record.  

No. Its a public record that there were speculations about and
investigations into such. Nothing conclusive was presented. No
definitive anomoly was cited as being a statistically significant event.

 I provided cites to
 news reports on what they were. 

None of which provided: 
 1)any definition of a stock trading anomoly (For example, was
it simply a 5x daily averge trade, or a trade 5 stndard deviations
from a 3-12 month trading volume average.The latter is meaningful, the
former is not), 
 2) what specific trades were in question -- specific securites or
options, dates, times, volumes (I have access to the tick by tick
trading data for most securities, I  would like to view the trades in
question in the context of the overall longer run trading volume of
the security). 


 If you disagree with
 the newspaper reports, it's up to you to prove they
 were wrong (and that the financial institutions all
 over the world that were the source of the newspaper
 reports were wrong).

I don't think the articles you cited were wrong. They reported
speculations about and investigations into possible anomolies. That is
certainly true. There were speculations about and investigations into
possible anomolies. 

What was not reported was any definitive anomoly being found as a
statistically significant event.

When you provide such articles, pointing to specific stocks or
options, their volumes, days and time of traade, I will look at it in
the context of the longer run trading volume and prices and state my
opinion, with statistically based reasoning as to if and how rare an
event such was.

Until then, I am to the possibility that there was trading based on
advanced knowledge of the attacks. But I remain unimpressed with such
claims based solely on there were 5x trades or there was an
investigation into such with no known conclusion.









To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Check this out/New Stuff on 9/11'

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk 
 shempmcgurk@ 
   wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff 
 no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 snip
 [I wrote:]
   If so, you're aware that what the newspapers were
   reporting was that large numbers of financial agencies
   around the world were investigating the anomalous
   trades.  I'm fairly confident that if it had all been
   mere speculation and irrelevant, they wouldn't have
   bothered.
  
  Many things that are investigated turn out to be insignificant.
  To say that an investigation legitimately creates confidence in
  wrongdoing is parallel to saying someone is automatically guilty 
  because they are as suspect in an  investigation -- prior to 
  indictment, prior to trial.
 
 Except, of course, that I never said any such thing.
 Like Barry and Shemp, you seem unable to hold a
 discussion without putting words in other people's
 mouths.

I am not putting words in your mouth. You said:

If so, you're aware that what the newspapers were
  reporting was that large numbers of financial agencies
  around the world were investigating the anomalous
  trades.  I'm fairly CONFIDENT that if it had all been
  mere speculation and irrelevant, they wouldn't have
  bothered.

[caps added]

To me that implies a view that if there is smoke, you are CONFIDENT 
there is a fire. If thats not what you meant, ok. Clarify it. But its
what was impled to me. 
 

in response to your attempt
 to pooh-pooh the idea that there had been any such
 anomalies.

First, how many times are you going to misunderstand my position. Its
not that difficult Judy. I will repeat it more slowly if that helps.
I am not  pooh-pooh the idea that there had been any such
 anomalies. Indeed I am interested to see such. I am quite open to
the possibility that itoccured.  Just show me what trades, what days
and time. etc. Or cites pointing to specific statistical analysis. 
Its really not that hard of a position to understand. 

 
   The person I was responding to above, and several
   others--yourself included, earlier--have been** trying  
   to say there wasn't anything unusual about the stock 
   market activity prior to 9/11.
  
  Quite untrue.
 
 Well, no, as noted, you've been pooh-poohing the whole
 notion.

All i can guess is that you have a mental block and cannot read whats
written. 

How many times are you going to misunderstand my position? Its not
that difficult Judy. I will repeat it more slowly if that helps.
I am not  pooh-pooh the idea that there had been any such
 anomalies. Indeed I am interested to see such. I am quite open to
the possibility that itoccured.  Just show me what trades, what days
and time. etc. Or cites pointing to specific statistical analysis. 
Its really not that hard of a position to understand. 


 
  Being a major respondent, I am quite open to the 
  possibility that  there was statistically significant anomolies in 
  the stock or options markets prior to 9/11. I have said so 
  repeatededly.
  What we have asked for is some actual  data and analysis cites. All
  that has been provided are some articles citing some investigations
  and sucpicions, and several ambiguously defined small trades.
  And the video, from where this discussion started, clearly sliced 
  and diced the data.
 
 
  Thus a call for the actual data and analysis to see
  upon what the claims of unusual are.
 
 And as I've already pointed out, there's *enough*
 information in the news reports for you to research
 the anomalies.

OK. maybe inyour world it appears to be. But Ideal in such data every
day and I state definatively that you actually need to identify the
specific stock or options, their date and time of the trades, and the
volumes for me to be able to find them in the  raw tick data and look
at them in the context of the longer range trading patterns of that
securtity. 

Tell me, in your world, how would you conduct statistical analysis on
a security without knowing what it is, when the trades in quesion
occurred?

   My whole point has simple been,
  that what appears unusual to the naive may be quite normal, aka
  within the main body of a normal distribution.
 
 Which is why I pointed out that *experts*--not the
 naive--considered the anomalies significant enough to
 warrant investigations.

Yes. Agreed. There was enough preliminary findings to warrant
further investigation. And what did the investigations find? That is
what I am asking. No results of any investigation has been cited,
except the 9/11 commission which said nothing conclusive could be found. 

(Not to say that means no statisticaly

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Check this out/New Stuff on 9/11'

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 snip
   The poster I was responding to was suggesting there
   *were* no such anomalies (just as you were earlier),
   which is ludicrous on its face.  
  
  You are clerarly not reading my posts judy, so its hard to intervene
  with your debate with some phantom posts. I never said there were no
  anomolies, I simply asked for data and analysis so could understand
  how anomolous and unsual were being defined. The press gets
  quite excited and report sensational stuff all the time, that upon 
  analysis, is much ado about nothing.
 
 One more time: The press didn't make up the idea that
 there were anomalies.  The press reported that financial
 institutions all over the world thought there were
 anomalies significant enough to investigate.

Yes. There was speculation based on initial viewing of the data,
towarrantan investigation. And what were the results of the
investigations? I have seen nothing other than the 9/11 Commission.
Have you? If so, please cite. I assume nothing was reported on the
conclusions of the investigations was because no conclusive
statistically significant  anomolies were found. The 9/11 Commission
said nothing conclusive was found. So what investigation produced a
conclusion that conclusive statistically significant  anomolies occurred? 


 So drop the straw man about the press, please.  

I have no idea what you mean by that. You keep referring to evidence
to conclusive statistically significant  anomolies cited in the press.
I keep asking, Where?
 

 And
 stop pretending 

How can you possibly say I am pretending. That you may have an
unsubstntiated opinion of such is fine. But that hardly makes it so.

I work with stock price and volume data every day. I am interested in
seeing any anomolies. What more can I say. 


you haven't been expressing extreme
 skepticism that there were any such anomalies.

Where is the extreme skepticism? Cite any quotes to support this
bizzare contention.










To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Check this out/New Stuff on 9/11'

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 The trading anomolies were in the options trading of the 2 airlines
 involved in 9/11 hijackings.  The data is easily available - I do
 options trading for a living.  I compared the options trading in the
 relevant airlines the prior week to 9/11 to the prior year and it was
 clearly statistically significant, no doubt about it, and it was all
 predicting a downward movement, ie, purchase of put options.  

AMR and United? What about Boeing? 
Do you recall which specific put contracts did you look at? 
Do you recall which days and times of the trades?

 
 The government panel investigating 9/11 look at this issue and came up
 with some reasons for the unusual trading - it being unusual wasn't
 questioned.  They didn't give enough info on the source documents for
 me to find them and do my own analysis, 

Did they cite which put contracts? on which days?
Did they look at just AMR and United? or gold, oil etc as some
articles cited as having possible anomolies?

but their reasons seemed weak,
 for example they referred to an options newsletter that went bearish
 on airlines that week, which would be relevant if all airlines saw
 bearish trading, but only the 2 involved in 9/11 showed bearish
 trading.  There were some other weakass explanations as well.  

Picking the two major US carriers doesn't seem highly unreasonable for
someone following the  predictions of the newsletter. Proxies for the
industry. 

  Though data on options trading is publicly available, info on the
 accts involved in the trading is not and I'm not sure what they know
 about the accts and account holders involved in the unusually high
 volume trading.  That to me is the key.








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Check this out/New Stuff on 9/11'

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I'm pointing out that it's 
 nonsensical for you to ask *me* to prove the experts
 were right in thinking there were anomalies significant
 enough to warrant investigation.

If all you are saying inall of this is the experts thoughtthere were
anomalies significant enough to warrant investigation fine, no
disagreemnt. I have said nothing to contradict this obvious point.

My repeated point, quite different from the above, is that no
investigation, article or person to my knowledge has shown any
analysis that the trading deviated from the long-run norm in
statistical significant way.

We have such a huge semantic gap here, further discussion seems
unproductive.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Check this out/New Stuff on 9/11'

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 snip
   One more time: The press didn't make up the idea that
   there were anomalies.  The press reported that financial
   institutions all over the world thought there were
   anomalies significant enough to investigate.
  
  Yes. There was speculation based on initial viewing of the data,
  towarrantan investigation. And what were the results of the
  investigations? I have seen nothing other than the 9/11 Commission.
  Have you? If so, please cite. I assume nothing was reported on the
  conclusions of the investigations was because no conclusive
  statistically significant  anomolies were found.
 
 The investigations were *of* the statistically 
 significant anomalies.  The anomalies were a given.
 That's why there were investigations.
 
 No *explanations* for the anomalies, to my knowledge,
 have been reported.
 
  The 9/11 Commission said nothing conclusive was found.
 
 No, you made that up.  The 9/11 commission (sixth time
 now) said there were innocuous explanations for the
 anomalies.

I am missing your point. True, I interpret innocuous explanations as
non-conclusive in finding any trading that could not be explained as
normal business. 
 
Innocuous
producing no injury : HARMLESS
2 : not likely to give offense or to arouse strong feelings or
hostility : INOFFENSIVE 




 
  So what investigation produced a
  conclusion that conclusive statistically significant  anomolies 
  occurred?
 
 The investigations were based on the *fact* that
 there were statistically significant anomalies.  That's
 what they were investigating, you see, the statistically
 significant anomalies.  If there were no statistically
 significant anomalies, there'd have been nothing to
 investigate.

You apparently have no idea what statistical significance refers to.
There are such huge semantic gaps here, further discussion I can only
assume will be unproductive.



 
 duh








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Check this out/New Stuff on 9/11'

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   I'm pointing out that it's 
   nonsensical for you to ask *me* to prove the experts
   were right in thinking there were anomalies significant
   enough to warrant investigation.
  
  If all you are saying inall of this is the experts thoughtthere were
  anomalies significant enough to warrant investigation fine, no
  disagreemnt. I have said nothing to contradict this obvious point.
 
 That's all I've ever said.  Why have you been arguing
 with me if you agree?


Because you have said the stock volumes have factually been shown to
be statistically significant anomolies of normal long run trading
patterns, yet you failed to cite any study or investigation that
concludes that. I have simply and repeated asked, what studies, what
data, what analysis. Where have you been?






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Check this out/New Stuff on 9/11'

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
   
   No, you made that up.  The 9/11 commission (sixth time
   now) said there were innocuous explanations for the
   anomalies.
  
  I am missing your point. True, I interpret innocuous explanations
  as non-conclusive in finding any trading that could not be 
  explained as normal business.
 
 Uh-huh, *now* you interpret it that way.


I am sorry, that is how I have always interpreted it. If you find
instances where believe I said otehr wise, simple cite them .
 
 snip  
So what investigation produced a
conclusion that conclusive statistically significant  anomolies 
occurred?
   
   The investigations were based on the *fact* that
   there were statistically significant anomalies.  That's
   what they were investigating, you see, the statistically
   significant anomalies.  If there were no statistically
   significant anomalies, there'd have been nothing to
   investigate.
  
  You apparently have no idea what statistical significance refers to.
  There are such huge semantic gaps here, further discussion I can
  only assume will be unproductive.
 
 No, you're just unable to back down from your
 initial mistaken assumptions.  You assumed at
 first that the media had started  the story of
 the statistically significant anomalies, 


When did I EVER assume that. I asked for cites of your presumption
that the trades were IN FACT outside normal patterns in a
statistically significant way (Sigma 4 or 5 event) and you cited
newspapers -- that did no such thing.

then
 when you learned otherwise, 
you tried to punt
 and claim the investigations were to find out
 *whether* there were statistically significant
 anomalies, rather than to invest igate the
 anomalies themselves and try to find out who
 was responsible for them.

Based on the above, I rest my case: You apparently have no idea what
statistical significance refers to. There are such huge semantic gaps
here, further discussion I can only assume will be unproductive.











To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Check this out/New Stuff on 9/11'

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
   wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ 
 wrote:

 I'm pointing out that it's 
 nonsensical for you to ask *me* to prove the experts
 were right in thinking there were anomalies significant
 enough to warrant investigation.

If all you are saying inall of this is the experts thoughtthere 
 were
anomalies significant enough to warrant investigation fine, no
disagreemnt. I have said nothing to contradict this obvious 
 point.
   
   That's all I've ever said.  Why have you been arguing
   with me if you agree?
  
  Because you have said the stock volumes have factually been shown to
  be statistically significant anomolies of normal long run trading
  patterns, yet you failed to cite any study or investigation that
  concludes that.
 
 Because that was the *premise* of the investigations,
 not what the investigations were trying to determine.
 They investigated *because* the anomalies were
 statistically significant, as Mark Meredith has just
 told you, and as I've been telling you all along.

Mark eyeballed it and said it was statistically significant. I have
been defining such as a sigma 4 or 5 event, 4-5 standard deviations
from a quarterly or annual average. Mark has yet to demonstrate that.

I just graphed the data for AMR and Boeing and the trading in puts,
and the stock  was clearly NOT out of the ordinary over a two year view. 

And its quite funny, trading in calls just prior to 911 was much
higher than in puts.

Read the 911 commission statement I posted. (And the Snops post.) They
found 

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also
known as the 9/11 Commission) 

Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11
generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in
companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual
trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an
innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options —
instruments that pay off only when a stock drops in price — surged in
the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American
Airlines on September 10 — highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet,
further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection
with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no
conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on
September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying
115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the
seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to
a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its
subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.
The SEC and FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry,
devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including
securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These
investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently
proved innocuous.

Which words did you not understand? 








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Check this out/New Stuff on 9/11'

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ 
 wrote:
 snip
 [I wrote:]
   It isn't my opinion that there were trading anomalies;
   it's a matter of public record.  I provided cites to
   news reports on what they were.
  
  But just because someone who writes a newspaper story says 
  something and comes to a certain conclusion, Judy, doesn't make it 
  so.
 
 No, Shemp.  Pay attention, please.  The newspaper stories
 were about financial institutions all over the world that
 had seen these anomalies and then undertaken to investigate
 them.  It wasn't something the newspapers made up on their
 own.


An issue here is judy appears to equate anomoly with statistical
significant anomoly perhaps because she has little under standing of
statistics and the term statistical significance. 

I have further defined what level of statistical significance I am
referring to in three or more posts: 4-5 standard deviations from the
average over a 90-360 day period.

Judy appears to make no distinction between some oddity -- any old an
anomoly, and the above: 4-5 standard deviations from the average over
a 90-360 day period. 

That is why I have been saying there is a huge semantic chasm here. If
some parties of the dsicussion have no clue as to technical and
precise terms being used in the discussion, its doomed to failure.









 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Snoops: 9/11 Put Options Urban Myth is False

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp
  
  Claim:   In the days just prior to the 11 September 2001, large
  quantities of stock in United and American Airlines were traded by
  persons with foreknowledge of the upcoming 9/11 attacks.
  
  Status:   False.
 
 This appears to be based on the 9/11 commission's
 findings reported by Mark Meredith.  As he says, they're
 quite weak as explanations.


The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
(also known as the 9/11 Commission) investigated these rumors and
found that although some unusual (and initially seemingly suspicious)
trading activity did occur in the days prior to September 11, it was
all coincidentally innocuous and not the result of insider trading by
parties with foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks:


Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11
generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in
companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual
trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an
innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options —
instruments that pay off only when a stock drops in price — surged in
the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American
Airlines on September 10 — highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet,
further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection
with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no
conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on
September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying
115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the
seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to
a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its
subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.
The SEC and FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry,
devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including
securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These
investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently
proved innocuous.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Snoops: 9/11 Put Options Urban Myth is False

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
   wrote:
   
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp

Claim:   In the days just prior to the 11 September 2001, large
quantities of stock in United and American Airlines were traded 
 by
persons with foreknowledge of the upcoming 9/11 attacks.

Status:   False.
   
   This appears to be based on the 9/11 commission's
   findings reported by Mark Meredith.  As he says, they're
   quite weak as explanations.
 
 Just out of curiosity, why are you reposting this
 from Snopes for the fifth time now?

Because nothing you have said reflects that you have read it. 







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Mark 'Check this out/New Stuff on 9/11'

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 The trading anomolies were in the options trading of the 2 airlines
 involved in 9/11 hijackings.  The data is easily available - I do
 options trading for a living.  I compared the options trading in the
 relevant airlines the prior week to 9/11 to the prior year and it was
 clearly statistically significant, no doubt about it, and it was all
 predicting a downward movement, ie, purchase of put options.  
 


Mark, I pulled together the data over a two year range prior to 9/11
and I don't see anything that looks out of normal regularly occuring
trading ranges. I have yet to see how many standard deviations the
events are from the long-run mean, but you can see from the graphs,
its not going to be that high.

Where are you finding clearly statistically significant, no doubt
about it anomolies?

http://911-stock-anomolies.blogspot.com/


AMR Stock price dropped about 5% in 10 trading days prior to 9/11, but
as one can see there six  or more such drops of this size or greater
in a 1-2week period, over the prior two years.

Stock volume hit 1.3 million shares in the 10 trading days prior to
9/11, but this is just a bit above the 90 day moving average. There
are 6 other days in the prior two years where over 4 million shares
were traded. 

Put volume reached 2300 one day in the 10 trading days prior to 9/11--
but this was reached on 11 days over the prior two years, on average
once every two months or so. It was hardly a rare event. On six days
in that two year range, over 5000 contracts were traded, double the
highest day in the 10 trading days prior to 9/11, once every 4 months.
Even twice the just-prior-to 9/11 level was hardly a rare event. 

Interestingly Call volume reached 2500 in the 10 trading days prior to
9/11, higher than the peak level of puts during this period. 

The regular frequency of the peak Put volume in the 10 trading days
prior to 9/11 over the prior two-year, and more greater number of 
Calls in that 10-day period, dampens the speculation that Put volume
was abnormal high, out of any sense of ordinary trading range.
 

Boeing: Stock price dropped about 5% in the 10 trading days to 9/11,
but as one can see there four or more days that such drops of this
size or greater in a 1-2week period, over the prior two years.

Stock volume hit 8 million shares in the 10 trading days prior to
9/11, but there are 13 other days in the prior two years where this
occurred -- on average once every couple ofmonths. Once almost double
that volume was achieved. Frequently, volume hit the 6 million share
range.

Put volume reached 15,000 and 20,000 contracts in the 10 trading days
prior to 9/11-- but this was reached 12 and 6 times respectively over
the prior two years.

Interestingly Call volume reached 15,000 and 25,000 contracts in the
10 trading days prior to 9/11. 25,000 had been reached only 2 times
previously in the past two years. Thus, it appears Call trades were
more out of the ordinary than puts.

The regular frequency of the peak Put volume in the 10 trading days
prior to 9/11 over the prior 2-year period, and the higher level --
and more rare level of Calls in that week -- dampens the speculation
that Put volume was abnormal high, out of any sense of ordinary
trading range.

United Airlines data is not accessable. Old symbol UAL was retired
when the firm came out of bankrupcy and new stock was issued as UAUA.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Time Cover Story on Global Warming

[anony_sleuth_ff]

Sunday, Mar. 26, 2006
Polar Ice Caps Are Melting Faster Than Ever... More And More Land Is
Being Devastated By Drought... Rising Waters Are Drowning Low-Lying
Communities... By Any Measure, Earth Is At ... The Tipping Point
The climate is crashing, and global warming is to blame. Why the
crisis hit so soon--and what we can do about it
By JEFFREY KLUGER

No one can say exactly what it looks like when a planet takes ill, but
it probably looks a lot like Earth. Never mind what you've heard about
global warming as a slow-motion emergency that would take decades to
play out. Suddenly and unexpectedly, the crisis is upon us.

It certainly looked that way last week as the atmospheric bomb that
was Cyclone Larry--a Category 4 storm with wind bursts that reached
125 m.p.h.--exploded through northeastern Australia. It certainly
looked that way last year as curtains of fire and dust turned the
skies of Indonesia orange, thanks to drought-fueled blazes sweeping
the island nation. It certainly looks that way as sections of ice the
size of small states calve from the disintegrating Arctic and
Antarctic. And it certainly looks that way as the sodden wreckage of
New Orleans continues to molder, while the waters of the Atlantic
gather themselves for a new hurricane season just two months away.
Disasters have always been with us and surely always will be. But when
they hit this hard and come this fast--when the emergency becomes
commonplace--something has gone grievously wrong. That something is
global warming.

The image of Earth as organism--famously dubbed Gaia by
environmentalist James Lovelock-- has probably been overworked, but
that's not to say the planet can't behave like a living thing, and
these days, it's a living thing fighting a fever. From heat waves to
storms to floods to fires to massive glacial melts, the global climate
seems to be crashing around us. Scientists have been calling this shot
for decades. This is precisely what they have been warning would
happen if we continued pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere,
trapping the heat that flows in from the sun and raising global
temperatures.

Environmentalists and lawmakers spent years shouting at one another
about whether the grim forecasts were true, but in the past five years
or so, the serious debate has quietly ended. Global warming, even most
skeptics have concluded, is the real deal, and human activity has been
causing it. If there was any consolation, it was that the glacial pace
of nature would give us decades or even centuries to sort out the problem.

But glaciers, it turns out, can move with surprising speed, and so can
nature. What few people reckoned on was that global climate systems
are booby-trapped with tipping points and feedback loops, thresholds
past which the slow creep of environmental decay gives way to sudden
and self-perpetuating collapse. Pump enough CO2 into the sky, and that
last part per million of greenhouse gas behaves like the 212th degree
Fahrenheit that turns a pot of hot water into a plume of billowing
steam. Melt enough Greenland ice, and you reach the point at which
you're not simply dripping meltwater into the sea but dumping whole
glaciers. By one recent measure, several Greenland ice sheets have
doubled their rate of slide, and just last week the journal Science
published a study suggesting that by the end of the century, the world
could be locked in to an eventual rise in sea levels of as much as 20
ft. Nature, it seems, has finally got a bellyful of us.

Things are happening a lot faster than anyone predicted, says Bill
Chameides, chief scientist for the advocacy group Environmental
Defense and a former professor of atmospheric chemistry. The last 12
months have been alarming. Adds Ruth Curry of the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts: The ripple through the
scientific community is palpable.

And it's not just scientists who are taking notice. Even as nature
crosses its tipping points, the public seems to have reached its own.
For years, popular skepticism about climatological science stood in
the way of addressing the problem, but the naysayers--many of whom
were on the payroll of energy companies--have become an increasingly
marginalized breed. In a new TIME/ ABC News/ Stanford University poll,
85% of respondents agree that global warming probably is happening.
Moreover, most respondents say they want some action taken. Of those
polled, 87% believe the government should either encourage or require
lowering of power-plant emissions, and 85% think something should be
done to get cars to use less gasoline. Even Evangelical Christians,
once one of the most reliable columns in the conservative base, are
demanding action, most notably in February, when 86 Christian leaders
formed the Evangelical Climate Initiative, demanding that Congress
regulate greenhouse gases.

A collection of new global-warming books is hitting the shelves in
response to that awakening interest, followed closely by TV and

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Check this out/New Stuff on 9/11'

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 And I think there is *some*.  The most glaring evidence
 that something funny was going on is what happened on
 the stock market in the days before the attack.  I
 haven't seen anybody even attempt to make a case that
 that was benign.

From the Loose  Change video, their argument was that trading in
Boeing options volume was 2x,3x and 5x or something some days or weeks
prior to 9/11. In itself, that means nothing. Stock or option volume
can vary widely -- on any number of factors -- including quite mundane
and benign ones. Look to the Force Luke (and Judy) -- aka the
statistics 101 class you took years ago. 

How many standard deviations from the mean was the event(s)? The above
numbers could have been 1 SD -- quite frequent, or a six-sigma event
--- very, very rare. Present the statistics (Yahoo Finance may have),
then make a case. 

For fun I might look up the data and see. I bet it was an event
happening once every 3-12 months, or 1-4 times a year or more. 

And why focus only on Boeing? If the market as a whole dumped after
9/11 (after market reopenened in 3-4 days, as I recall. Why not just
short the SP 500 or buy puts options on the SP 500. That would be
much harder to see and trace anomolies due to volume. 


 





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Global Warming Scam

[anony_sleuth_ff]

I am currently reading State of Fear by Michael Critcheon -- with a
global warming theme. The book makes some good points about the
selectivity of the media -- particularly that written by
non-scientists -- which is almost all the articles. And the biases and
agendas of environmetal groups --not unique -- all NGOs and
non-profits get a bit twisted in making their message regarding
complex issues understandable -- and critical enough to drive
continued funding.

I laughed when I saw the title of the Time article Be Scared, Be
Very, Very Scarred .. (or similar) becuase that is the theme and
title of the book -- the state of fear created by media (to get
ratings and ad dollars), NGOs to raise funds, politicians to get vots,
universities -- well for multiple reasons.

But some facts aka claims in the article are new (to me) and
alarming. I do seek, the larger balanced picture. Shemps article is
interesting, though I would like to see those claims countered also.

With climate scince, it is so complex, take any part of the proverbial
  elephant and one can make a compelling case for or against.

However the argument no longer appears to be is there an greenhouse
effect occurring, rather, how strong is it, what are the
ramifications,how soon will they occur, how much is man-made vs.
natural cycles, and what can be done to mitigate the most damaging
effects.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 The Global Warming Scam
 by Nima Sanandaji and Fred Goldberg
 by Nima Sanandaji and Fred Goldberg
 
  
 
 The media portrays a dramatic image of how the ice is melting in the 
 polar regions as a consequence of global warming. We are warned that 
 the North Pole might become icefree during the summer months at the 
 end of this century and that the polar bears might become extinct 
 due to this development. 
 
 But is this really a realistic image? Sure, there is research that 
 indicates that the ice sheets are being reduced, but there are also 
 studies that show the complete opposite. An example of this is a 
 study in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letter where 
 the Swedish researcher Peter Winsor compares data collected by 
 submarines below the Arctic ice. His conclusions are that the 
 thickness of the ice has been almost constant between 1986 and 1997.
 
 If you look at the South Pole there are studies that show an 
 increase in the mass of the ice. In a study published in the journal 
 Nature a number of polar researchers showed that they had observed a 
 net cooling of 0.7 degrees in the region between 1986 and 2000. 
 Another study published in Science showed that the East-Antarctic 
 ice sheet had grown with 45 million metric tones between 1992 and 
 2003.
 
 Are the ices growing or melting? The simple answer is that there 
 exist studies that point to both directions, perhaps indicating that 
 scientists know relatively little about global climate. But what 
 counts to most ordinary people is what media is reporting, and media 
 is often highlighting the most alarming studies and seldom report of 
 studies that go against the notion that human activity leads to 
 global warming. To put it simply, the news is filtered through an 
 environmentalist view of the world. 
 
 
 An interesting example of how media sometimes gets it wrong is how 
 journalists reported that there had never been so little ice in the 
 Arctic than in 2005. This claim was based on satellite images by 
 NASA which showed that the geographic extent of the ice sheet had 
 never been so small since measurement began in 1979. One must 
 however keep in fact that about half of the ice in the Arctic melts 
 each summer and that two months before this measurment the extent of 
 the ice sheet was the same as the previous year. The problem is that 
 satellite images show the surface of the ice but not the thickness. 
 
 Capten Årnell at the summer expedition with the polar-ship Oden 
 could tell that he had never seen so much ice in the Arctic than in 
 2005. It was with great difficulty that he had passed through the 
 region. What had happened in 2005 seems to be that the ice had 
 packed densely against the Canadian part of the Arctic. The 
 geographical extent had been reduced but the ice was thicker.
 
 As for polar bears, much points to that their numbers are increasing 
 rather than diminishing. Mitch Taylor, a Canadian expert on animal 
 populations, estimates that the number of polar bears in Canada has 
 increased from 12 000 to 15 000 the past decade. Steven C Amstrup 
 and his college have studied a population of polar bears in Alaska 
 and reported that the number of females had increased from 600 to 
 900 between 1976 and 1992. Even a report from the WWF which is 
 entitled Polar bears at risk and warns that the populations of the 
 polar bears might become extinct due to global warming, supports 
 that the number of polar bears is increasing. In the report the 
 polar 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Check this out/New Stuff on 9/11'

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   
   And I think there is *some*.  The most glaring evidence
   that something funny was going on is what happened on
   the stock market in the days before the attack.  I
   haven't seen anybody even attempt to make a case that
   that was benign.
  
  From the Loose  Change video, their argument was that trading in
  Boeing options volume was 2x,3x and 5x or something some days or 
 weeks
  prior to 9/11. In itself, that means nothing. Stock or option 
 volume
  can vary widely -- on any number of factors -- including quite 
 mundane
  and benign ones. Look to the Force Luke (and Judy) -- aka the
  statistics 101 class you took years ago. 
  
  How many standard deviations from the mean was the event(s)? The 
 above
  numbers could have been 1 SD -- quite frequent, or a six-sigma 
 event
  --- very, very rare. Present the statistics (Yahoo Finance may 
 have),
  then make a case. 
  
  For fun I might look up the data and see. I bet it was an event
  happening once every 3-12 months, or 1-4 times a year or more. 
  
  And why focus only on Boeing? If the market as a whole dumped after
  9/11 (after market reopenened in 3-4 days, as I recall. Why not 
 just
  short the SP 500 or buy puts options on the SP 500. That would be
  much harder to see and trace anomolies due to volume.
 
 
 
 Fortunately, the good people at Yahoo! Finance lets you see the 
 historical trading volume and prices for any given stock.
 
 For Boeing from August 1, 2001 to September 11, 2001, here is the 
 daily volume and closing prices of the stock (hey, I got to do 
 another tiny url!):
 
 http://tinyurl.com/ncl7l
 
 One can take any stock and do similar research for it.
 
 So I fully expect Judy-Petooty to roll up her sleeves and back up 
 the nutty statement she made in a previous post regarding that this 
 is where the key evidence is to be found.
 
 Get to work, Judy!

I think the video referred to Boeing OPTIONS not stock. The volume
options is usually more volatile than stocks. But even the stock, in
July, had 4:1 spikes in volume. Not so unusual. And I am sure the
options volume fluctuated more. Supporting Shemps point, and my point
in adjacent post. A 4:1 spike means nothing by itself. One needs to
see how many standard deviations from the mean that is. Or some other
appropriate statistical test -- e.g., a regression line of options
volume, and deviations from it. 

Which supports the point I made in an adjacent post. 






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Check this out/New Stuff on 9/11'

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   
   And I think there is *some*.  The most glaring evidence
   that something funny was going on is what happened on
   the stock market in the days before the attack.  I
   haven't seen anybody even attempt to make a case that
   that was benign.
  
  From the Loose  Change video, their argument was that trading in
  Boeing options volume was 2x,3x and 5x or something some days or 
 weeks
  prior to 9/11. In itself, that means nothing. Stock or option 
 volume
  can vary widely -- on any number of factors -- including quite 
 mundane
  and benign ones. Look to the Force Luke (and Judy) -- aka the
  statistics 101 class you took years ago. 
  
  How many standard deviations from the mean was the event(s)? The 
 above
  numbers could have been 1 SD -- quite frequent, or a six-sigma 
 event
  --- very, very rare. Present the statistics (Yahoo Finance may 
 have),
  then make a case. 
  
  For fun I might look up the data and see. I bet it was an event
  happening once every 3-12 months, or 1-4 times a year or more. 
  
  And why focus only on Boeing? If the market as a whole dumped after
  9/11 (after market reopenened in 3-4 days, as I recall. Why not 
 just
  short the SP 500 or buy puts options on the SP 500. That would be
  much harder to see and trace anomolies due to volume.
 
 
 
 Fortunately, the good people at Yahoo! Finance lets you see the 
 historical trading volume and prices for any given stock.
 
 For Boeing from August 1, 2001 to September 11, 2001, here is the 
 daily volume and closing prices of the stock (hey, I got to do 
 another tiny url!):
 
 http://tinyurl.com/ncl7l
 
 One can take any stock and do similar research for it.
 
 So I fully expect Judy-Petooty to roll up her sleeves and back up 
 the nutty statement she made in a previous post regarding that this 
 is where the key evidence is to be found.
 
 Get to work, Judy!

And if I heard it correctly, I believe the video said $28 million was
made on the options. Hardly much of a sum for the cost and
ramifications of creating 9/11.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Check this out/New Stuff on 9/11'

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   
   And I think there is *some*.  The most glaring evidence
   that something funny was going on is what happened on
   the stock market in the days before the attack.  I
   haven't seen anybody even attempt to make a case that
   that was benign.
  
  From the Loose  Change video, their argument was that trading in
  Boeing options volume was 2x,3x and 5x or something some days or
  weeks prior to 9/11. In itself, that means nothing. Stock or option 
  volume can vary widely -- on any number of factors -- including 
  quite mundane and benign ones. Look to the Force Luke (and Judy) -- 
  aka the statistics 101 class you took years ago. 
  
  How many standard deviations from the mean was the event(s)? The 
  above numbers could have been 1 SD -- quite frequent, or a six-
  sigma event --- very, very rare. Present the statistics (Yahoo 
  Finance may have), then make a case. 
  
  For fun I might look up the data and see. I bet it was an event
  happening once every 3-12 months, or 1-4 times a year or more. 
  
  And why focus only on Boeing? If the market as a whole dumped after
  9/11 (after market reopenened in 3-4 days, as I recall. Why not just
  short the SP 500 or buy puts options on the SP 500. That would be
  much harder to see and trace anomolies due to volume.
 
 Read this and get back to me, OK?
 
 http://tinyurl.com/bmjgg
 
 Didn't have anything to do with Boeing.  It *did*
 have to do with put options, nearly 100 times greater
 than normal on American Airlines, for example.

Boeing options was my recollection from the video. And the
deviations observered was three days of volumes 2x, 3x and 5x
normal. Or similar. Are you saying you heard something completely
different from the video? I may have got it jumbled. Anyone listening
to it afresh, can you provide a rough transcript of this part.

I was simply referencing (my recollection of) the video, not
definatively cataloging all claims of abnormal trading prior to 9/11.
Your cited article, below, does provide some more extreme trading
variations. I will look at the data. (Though the source seems to be
some fringe group -- at first glance looks a kooky right-wing group,
but thats a 10-second, non-firm impression.)


American Airlines saw a 6,000 percent jump in put options above
normal the day before the attacks. However, there was no similar
trading activity on any other airlines, according to market reports.

The brokerage houses that had offices in the WTC, Morgan Stanley and
Merrill-Lynch, saw 27-fold and 12-fold increases in the purchases of
put options on their respective shares between Sept. 7 and Sept. 10.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Check this out/New Stuff on 9/11'

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 snip
  Boeing options was my recollection from the video.
 
 They may have said Boeing, but I've never heard
 anything about funny business with Boeing options.
 The video may have just gotten it wrong (which makes
 you wonder how reliable the rest of it is).
 
 snip
  I was simply referencing (my recollection of) the video, not
  definatively cataloging all claims of abnormal trading prior to 
  9/11.
 ?
  Your cited article, below, does provide some more extreme trading
  variations. I will look at the data. (Though the source seems to be
  some fringe group -- at first glance looks a kooky right-wing group,
  but thats a 10-second, non-firm impression.)
 
 I think it is a fringe group, but it was the first
 site I found.  There have been *many* articles on this,
 including in the mainstream media.  This is just a
 recap.
 
  American Airlines saw a 6,000 percent jump in put options above
  normal the day before the attacks. However, there was no similar
  trading activity on any other airlines, according to market reports.
  
  The brokerage houses that had offices in the WTC, Morgan Stanley and
  Merrill-Lynch, saw 27-fold and 12-fold increases in the purchases of
  put options on their respective shares between Sept. 7 and Sept. 
  10.


Ok I checked the video.About 5 minutes into it, it says,

On Sept 6, 3150 put options on AA 4x daily put volume average.
On Sept 7, 27,294 put options on Boeing 5x daily put volume average.
On Sept 10, 4516 put options on AA 11x daily put volume average.

So both were cited. There were more than 3x Boeing options than American.

The above 11x is quite a bit smaller than 60x or nearly 100x cited
by artical and you. 11x seems in normal range. 100x does seem high.
And it all hinges on what period one uses for averaging. I will take a
look at the raw data (one of these days, maybe sooner) and provide an
assessment.








 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Check this out/New Stuff on 9/11'

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
  wrote:
  snip
   Boeing options was my recollection from the video.
  
  They may have said Boeing, but I've never heard
  anything about funny business with Boeing options.
  The video may have just gotten it wrong (which makes
  you wonder how reliable the rest of it is).
  
  snip
   I was simply referencing (my recollection of) the video, not
   definatively cataloging all claims of abnormal trading prior to 
   9/11.
  ?
   Your cited article, below, does provide some more extreme trading
   variations. I will look at the data. (Though the source seems to be
   some fringe group -- at first glance looks a kooky right-wing group,
   but thats a 10-second, non-firm impression.)
  
  I think it is a fringe group, but it was the first
  site I found.  There have been *many* articles on this,
  including in the mainstream media.  This is just a
  recap.
  
   American Airlines saw a 6,000 percent jump in put options above
   normal the day before the attacks. However, there was no similar
   trading activity on any other airlines, according to market reports.
   
   The brokerage houses that had offices in the WTC, Morgan Stanley and
   Merrill-Lynch, saw 27-fold and 12-fold increases in the purchases of
   put options on their respective shares between Sept. 7 and Sept. 
   10.
 
 
 Ok I checked the video.About 5 minutes into it, it says,
 
 On Sept 6, 3150 put options on AA 4x daily put volume average.
 On Sept 7, 27,294 put options on Boeing 5x daily put volume average.
 On Sept 10, 4516 put options on AA 11x daily put volume average.
 
 So both were cited. There were more than 3x Boeing options than
American.
 
 The above 11x is quite a bit smaller than 60x or nearly 100x cited
 by artical and you. 11x seems in normal range. 100x does seem high.
 And it all hinges on what period one uses for averaging. I will take a
 look at the raw data (one of these days, maybe sooner) and provide an
 assessment.


haha, I just noticed -- within 4 days, a less than 50% increase in AMR
puts volume was cited as resulting in almost a tripling in comparing
daily averages (4x vs 11x). Thus, either they are using bad data, OR
they are using a different interval of days to calculate daily
averages for sept 6 and sept 10. Which is totally bogus. 

Or simply using THAT day's average. Thats crap as far as seeing if the
figures are statistically abnormal. The daily average should be
calculated over at least 30 trading days, better, over a year. 

The figures were sliced, diced and cherry picked.










To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Check this out/New Stuff on 9/11'

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 snip
  haha, I just noticed -- within 4 days, a less than 50% increase in 
 AMR
  puts volume was cited as resulting in almost a tripling in comparing
  daily averages (4x vs 11x). Thus, either they are using bad data, OR
  they are using a different interval of days to calculate daily
  averages for sept 6 and sept 10. Which is totally bogus. 
  
  Or simply using THAT day's average. Thats crap as far as seeing if 
  the figures are statistically abnormal. The daily average should 
  be calculated over at least 30 trading days, better, over a year. 
  
  The figures were sliced, diced and cherry picked.
 
 Whatever the problems with the figures in this specific
 article, suspicious trading prior to 9/11 was *very*
 widely reported in the major news media. 

Which means nothing if nothing was substantiated.

 The 9/11
 commission even investigated it, concluding there were
 innocuous explanations, but without saying what they
 were.  I believe the SEC investigated also, but did not
 release a report.

Undoubtedly because there was nothing significant to report. Unless
you are suggesting a massive cover-up.

 
 I'm astonished that so many of you weren't aware that
 this was a major concern after the attacks.  It isn't
 just something the conspiracy theorists dreamed up.

Who cares who dreamed it up or presented it. I am not impressed with
 secondary and tierchiary sources reporting a loop of speculation. I
am impressed, in a case like this, that there was a statisticaly
significant anomoly, not something that sounds wierd and would make a
good, witty -- but irrelevant -- story Barry could tell around the
campfire or on the barstool.  But data, or cites to, the analysis
needs to be provided. Simply saying that a put option was place at 5x
or 11x daily  average is MEANINGLESS. But its a good story, so it
gets reported WIDELY.


G/






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Check this out/New Stuff on 9/11'

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 snip
   Whatever the problems with the figures in this specific
   article, suspicious trading prior to 9/11 was *very*
   widely reported in the major news media. 
  
  Which means nothing if nothing was substantiated.
 
 No, no, you aren't getting it.  Substantiated isn't
 an issue.  The data aren't in question.  The data are
 what caused the flap in the first place.

 No, no, you aren't getting it.  Substantiated means, per my use,
that the data reported is a statisticallysignificant anomoly. 5 or
10 x over daily volume may quite normal (that is within resonable
expectations ofa noral distribution). 

 
   The 9/11
   commission even investigated it, concluding there were
   innocuous explanations, but without saying what they
   were.  I believe the SEC investigated also, but did not
   release a report.
  
  Undoubtedly because there was nothing significant to report. Unless
  you are suggesting a massive cover-up.
 
 Not impossible, depending on whose ox would be gored.

Ok. So you speculate that. Thats nice. Any substance to support it?
 
   I'm astonished that so many of you weren't aware that
   this was a major concern after the attacks.  It isn't
   just something the conspiracy theorists dreamed up.
  
  Who cares who dreamed it up or presented it. I am not impressed 
  with  secondary and tierchiary sources reporting a loop of 
  speculation.
 
 Again, it isn't speculation.  The anomalous trading
 *did* occur.  

We may differ on the meaning of anomolous. I mean statistically rare.
Like would not normally occur more than once every 3-5years. Show me
where that has been shown.



  I am impressed, in a case like this, that there was a statisticaly
  significant anomoly,
 
 There were significant anomalies.  That isn't in
 question. 

It is. See above. 5x volume is not per se a statistically significant
anomoly. Its only an apparent anomoly, good  for headlines and Barry
bar stool stories. 
 
  not something that sounds wierd and would make 
  a good, witty -- but irrelevant -- story Barry could tell around 
  the campfire or on the barstool.  But data, or cites to, the 
  analysis needs to be provided. Simply saying that a put option was 
  place at 5x or 11x daily  average is MEANINGLESS. But its a good 
  story, so it gets reported WIDELY.
 
 You did read the articles I posted links to, right?

I am working through them. Not finished. Did any show a  statistically
significant anomoly? I have not seen any yet. All I have seen is stuff
that make good Barry type bar stool antecdotes.  Worth a smirk, but
not much more.
 
 If so, you're aware that what the newspapers were
 reporting was that large numbers of financial agencies
 around the world were investigating the anomalous
 trades.  I'm fairly confident that if it had all been
 mere speculation and irrelevant, they wouldn't have
 bothered.

uh, hahah,are you serious? Show me results, not investigations.

 







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Check this out/New Stuff on 9/11'

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 snip
  Ok I checked the video.About 5 minutes into it, it says,
  
  On Sept 6, 3150 put options on AA 4x daily put volume average.
  On Sept 7, 27,294 put options on Boeing 5x daily put volume average.
  On Sept 10, 4516 put options on AA 11x daily put volume average.
  
  So both were cited. There were more than 3x Boeing options than 
 American.
  
  The above 11x is quite a bit smaller than 60x or nearly 100x cited
  by artical and you. 11x seems in normal range. 100x does seem 
 high.
  And it all hinges on what period one uses for averaging. I will 
 take a
  look at the raw data (one of these days, maybe sooner) and provide 
 an
  assessment.
 
 I can't speak to the specific figures.  But here's an
 article from the San Francisco Chronicle from September
 29, 2001, that discusses the anomalies in more general
 terms:
 
 http://tinyurl.com/hc6tk
 
 And a follow-up from October 3:
 
 http://tinyurl.com/fh3sl
 
 Here's one from April 2003 from the Sierra Times
 in Nevada (not really mainstream but goes into
 some detail):
 
 http://www.sierratimes.com/03/04/10/gaddy.htm
 
 From CNN.com, September 24, 2001:
 
 http://tinyurl.com/ho227
 
 And the News Telegraph (UK), September 23, 2001:
 
 http://tinyurl.com/j943h



Article 1)
Investors have yet to collect more than $2.5 million in profits they
made trading options in the stock of United Airlines before the Sept.
11 terrorist attacks, according to a source familiar with the trades
and market data.

The uncollected money raises suspicions that the investors -- whose
identities and nationalities have not been made public -- had advance
knowledge of the strikes.

So now we are down to a windfall of 2.5 million for creating 9/11?

I don't get it. Who bought the puts? The high jackers? Did they think
Allah would resurrect their physical bodies after the impact. They
would have to be crazy or christian to beelieve that.




---

Article 2) 

The Investment Dealers Association of Canada told its 190 members
that the SEC has identified 38 companies -- including the parent firms
of United and American airlines, which lost four aircraft -- whose
shares were traded at abnormally high levels in the weeks prior to the
attacks, suggesting that buyers and sellers had advance knowledge of
planned terrorist acts.


Ok,fine. What specifically was abnormal? Let us verify it. My point
is that I am not rejecting the idea that there was anomolous trading,
but not one has presented the verifiable data, or specific trades that
indicate this. All easily done. So my base hypothesis is that many
regional newspapers - ESPECIALLY the SF CHRONICLE are whores that picl
up stories without any origianl investigation.


Article 3)

An examination of put options during this period with the
above-mentioned companies would reveal the following:
On Sept. 6, 2001, the Thursday before the tragedy, 2,075 put options
were made on United Airlines and on Sept. 10, the day before the
attacks, 2,282 put options were recorded for American Airlines. Given
the prices at the time, this could have yielded speculators between $2
mirofit?w
llion and $4 million in profit. This averages out to 75 times the
number of normal activity on these entities. BFD. is the premise that
9/11 was created so some insider speculators could make 2-4
million profit? I mean how loony conspiratorial is this?



Artcle 4 )

Germany's central bank governor, Ernst Welteke, says there were signs
of suspicious movements in oil and gold prices before the attack.
Investigators in Europe are also looking at trading in insurance and
airline stocks.

um, suspicions and looking are the key words. Key missing words
are found definitive and statistically significant.


Article 5

He reported an unusual rise in oil prices before the attacks. This
could mean that people had bought oil contracts, and later sold them
at a higher price. Gold-market movements also needed explaining.

OK. A lead to investigate. What future contracts,in what exchanges.
What was SD of the anomoly over a 3month period.

Vaguen induendos and secondary sources are hardly anargument.


Gold, a traditional refuge for investors in times of crisis, has
risen in price each day since the attack. Oil prices soared 13 per
cent within 24 hours of the atrocities. Well, um who whould expect
other wise. The issue is was there significant insider trading prior
to the attack. No evidence presented. 

==


Overall, nothng of substance presented. I am open to, quite eager to
validate actual, the hypothesis that statistically abnormal  trading
occured in airline stocks, gold, oil or whatever occured just prior to
9/11. Just show me the SPECIFIC DATA or better yer, the actual
STATISTICAL analysis that indicates this was a sigma 4 or 5 event over
a 90 or 360 day period.








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Check this out/New Stuff on 9/11'

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 snip
 [I wrote:]
   If so, you're aware that what the newspapers were
   reporting was that large numbers of financial agencies
   around the world were investigating the anomalous
   trades.  I'm fairly confident that if it had all been
   mere speculation and irrelevant, they wouldn't have
   bothered.
  
  uh, hahah,are you serious? Show me results, not investigations.
 
 You just totally destroyed your last shreds of
 credibility with this comment.
 
 You have no interest in actually getting to the
 bottom of anything.  All you're interested in is
 trying to make yourself look smarter than other
 people.
 
 But in this attempt, you demonstrate exactly the
 opposite.
 
 Funny the way that works.  Very much the way Barry,
 in trying to make himself look more spiritual than
 other people, demonstrates exactly the opposite.
 
 Like him, you're a phony.


My, you have some issues,apparently.

Show me results, some statistically signifcant analysis,and cited
data, that trades in airline, gold, oil, or whatever stock or options
 were statisical anomolies, a sigma 4 or 5 event, over a 3 or 12 month
period. 

Short of that, its all speculation. Or opinion mot based on scientific
method. Which is the same as prejudice.

I am much less impressed with or interested in mere investigations
that someone has speculations that such MAY have occured.

Apparently you are impressed with such. La De Da.





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Check this out/New Stuff on 9/11'

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 snip
  The uncollected money raises suspicions that the investors -- whose
  identities and nationalities have not been made public -- had 
  advance knowledge of the strikes.
  
  So now we are down to a windfall of 2.5 million for creating 9/11?
  
  I don't get it. Who bought the puts? The high jackers? Did they
  think Allah would resurrect their physical bodies after 
  the impact. They would have to be crazy or christian to beelieve 
  that.
 
 Straw man.

In what way?
 
 You continue to give yourself away.

How is that?

 snip
  Overall, nothng of substance presented. I am open to, quite eager to
  validate actual, the hypothesis that statistically abnormal  trading
  occured in airline stocks, gold, oil or whatever occured just prior\
  to 9/11. Just show me the SPECIFIC DATA or better yer, the actual
  STATISTICAL analysis that indicates this was a sigma 4 or 5 event 
  over a 90 or 360 day period.
 
 You now have more than enough information to track it
 down, if you were actually interested in getting to the 
 bottom of it.  

No, you clearly have not provided enough information.

What options contracts? Do you realize there are  10 or more options
contracts for any given stock? (e.g.dif expiration dates, dif strike
prices)

But if YOU KNOW there is a statistically significant anomoly, simply
show me, or cite the SPECIFIC data and analysis. Why lead me on a wild
goose chase? If you have a statistically validated point, make it!
Point to the specific data of your or others analysis , not a bunch of
sevnvondary cites to speculations.

 But you aren't.  

How can you possibly say I  am not interested? I am competent in this
type of statistical analysis. I have served as an expert witness in
state regulatory proceedings on such and related issues. I am quite
open to and intrigued by insider (aka prior knowledge of) 9/11. I am
simply asking for some concrete data. 

The data I have analyzed, on this stranage wild goose chase of
advocacy that you favor, does not show what you state. 

 Plus which, you are nothere
w aware that many financial
 institutions around the world, which have *vastly*
 more expertise than you do in this area, launched
 serious investigations into the anomalies.

They have NO more experience or expertise than I in showing the
standard devuiation of the 3-12 month series in question, and viewing
the standard deviation of the suspected trades in relation to this
series..  Thats all I am asking, the data, or cited analysis, where
fairly standard statistical analysis showed specific trades were
anomolous.  Until now, all that has been citsd is speculation.

If they have some advanced econometric analysis, I may be able to
follow. And surely can appreciate. Please cite the studies. Otherwise
its all a speculative loop of secondary sources.
 
 You're a joke.

And why is that?

When not able to discuss the facts, many resort to unsupported
personal attack. You appear to fit that mold. 

Why is my simple  request of specific data, or cited statistical
analysis, so threatening to you?










 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Check this out/New Stuff on 9/11'

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ 
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
   wrote:
   snip
haha, I just noticed -- within 4 days, a less than 50% increase 
  in 
   AMR
puts volume was cited as resulting in almost a tripling in 
  comparing
daily averages (4x vs 11x). Thus, either they are using bad 
  data, OR
they are using a different interval of days to calculate daily
averages for sept 6 and sept 10. Which is totally bogus. 

Or simply using THAT day's average. Thats crap as far as seeing 
  if 
the figures are statistically abnormal. The daily average 
  should 
be calculated over at least 30 trading days, better, over a 
  year. 

The figures were sliced, diced and cherry picked.
   
   Whatever the problems with the figures in this specific
   article, suspicious trading prior to 9/11 was *very*
   widely reported in the major news media.  The 9/11
   commission even investigated it, concluding there were
   innocuous explanations, but without saying what they
   were.  I believe the SEC investigated also, but did not
   release a report.
   
   I'm astonished that so many of you weren't aware that
   this was a major concern after the attacks.  It isn't
   just something the conspiracy theorists dreamed up.
  
  
  
  Yes, I was well aware of it, as I've written.
  
  But big deal, Judy.  Why did YOU make such a big deal of it in the 
  context of what we were discussing?
  
  Like I said before, the terrorists would have been idiots if they 
  didn't take advantage of the insider trader knowledge of the 
 attacks 
  and speculate accordingly.
  
  Hey, do you guys have any idea how much you could have made on 
  Google's approximately 100 point drop in its stock price earlier 
  this year had you bought put options at the right time?
  
  A $5,000 investment could have turned into about $8 million in 
 about 
  a month.  Now, THAT'S the power of put options!
 
 
 The real question you should be asking is: if it was the terrorists, 
 why wasn't this made clear in subsequent investigations?
 
 The answer should be obvious: either no windfall profits (or whatever 
 you call stock options trading) were actually made, or the terrorists 
 were found NOT to be theones doing it.
 
 If the latter case, my guess would be that several government-related 
 investments were made, probably by various Saudi royals, and it was 
 too big a scandal to let that become public knowledge, even though 
 the Saudis cleaned house within a few months with various royal 
 cousins suddenly being lost in the desert and so on.


haha

yes,many angles to the insider knowldge thing. 

The premise  I gather from judy's weak hypothesis is that Bush
administration insiders profited from insider a la advanced
knowleedge of 9/11.  Thats a hardsell IMO. 

First, A) one needs to show that ANYONE profited from advanced
knowledge of 9/11. Second, Judy needs to show that it was not (only)
saudi royal/rich, al-qauda insiders, other middle eastern
power/knowledge brokers that profited from A, but also specifically
Bush admin insiders. A very hard sell. 

 






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Check this out/New Stuff on 9/11'

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ 
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk 
  shempmcgurk@ 

[...]
 $28 million would be a snivel.


Not for the terrorists or whoever was involved in financing 
 them.
   
   
   
   Yes, it would have.  Bin Laden is from a family worth at least 
 $1 
   billion.  Osama financed alot of Al-Quada's operations himself 
 from 
   the many millions he had.  One can assume he had at least 
  rudimentary 
   knowledge of finances and investing and one doesn't have to know 
  much 
   to know about put options and what they can do for you.
  
  
  Bin Laden himself was worth about $100 million at that point. $28 
  percent of his total worth wasn't chicken feed. ALso, we don't 
 know 
  how much money was actually involved --assuming that there was a 
  genuine issue to discuss of course.
 
 
 
 Well, I think it was Judy that told us that 100s of times more than 
 usual volume of put options were bought.
 
 If that was the case and the terrorists bought them, well, Spare 
 Egg, it wouldn't be the piddling $28 million earned but many, many 
 times more.
 
 You need to educate yourself on how put and call options work...do 
 you know?

Rest quite assured judy doesn't.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Check this out/New Stuff on 9/11'

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
 You're a joke.

I'll do better than that. I stipulate that I am a total dickwad. I
have scores of people more than happy to testify under oath their
opinion supporting such. OK. Personal issues Done! Off the table.

Now can now we focus on the issue? 

Can you provide any data, or any statistical analysis, or cites to
such, to support your opinion that a) there were statistically
anomolous (that is, sigma 4-5 events, using 90-360 day series) trades
in airline, oil or gold  stocks or options, in the week(s) prior to 9/11?

If not, your opinion is devoid analytical and factual substance and is
thus simply prejudice. 

 






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Mike Scozarri being sued

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ 
 wrote:
 
  I was made a teacher in Fiuggi in June of 1972.  I'm pretty sure I
  remember Jerry talking to us at some point about our obligations to
  the teaching and Maharishi in a somewhat legal-sounding way but I 
  know that we never signed any document.
 
 Thanks for posting that. I was in Fiuggi, too, and
 certainly don't remember signing or being presented
 with any kind of document. But I've run into people
 from those courses in Fiuggi who claimed otherwise,
 so I've always wondered whether the document signing 
 thang they talk about happened only in their minds
 or whether it really happened on some day when I didn't 
 attend a meeting. Your account makes me tend to lean 
 towards the former interpretation.


That's not the point. The point is that TM is a trademarked name owned
by the TMO/Maharishi. Scozarri doesn't have the right to use it any
more. He's not teaching TM the way Maharishi wants it taught now. 

If he wants to teach, he should do so without using the TM name, just
advertise that he teaches meditation. His background as a 30+ year TM
teacher, trained by Maharishi is a powerful and impressive
qualification. Publicizing his background  training, while explaining
that he can no longer use the TM name is a simple and honest solution,
and frankly I think he'd have far greater enrollment doing that than
he does by using the TM name. 







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Mike Scozarri being sued

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis 
 reavismarek@ 
   wrote:
   
I was made a teacher in Fiuggi in June of 1972.  I'm pretty 
sure I remember Jerry talking to us at some point about our 
obligations to the teaching and Maharishi in a somewhat 
legal-sounding way but I know that we never signed any 
document.
   
   Thanks for posting that. I was in Fiuggi, too, and
   certainly don't remember signing or being presented
   with any kind of document. But I've run into people
   from those courses in Fiuggi who claimed otherwise,
   so I've always wondered whether the document signing 
   thang they talk about happened only in their minds
   or whether it really happened on some day when I didn't 
   attend a meeting. Your account makes me tend to lean 
   towards the former interpretation.
  
  That's not the point. The point is that TM is a trademarked 
  name owned by the TMO/Maharishi. Scozarri doesn't have the 
  right to use it any more. He's not teaching TM the way 
  Maharishi wants it taught now. 
 
 It seems obvious that your definition of legal revolves
 around how Maharishi wants things, but I somehow doubt
 that the legal system's definition of legal is defined
 quite the same way.  :-)


Well, that's completely true, and I also have no idea of the actual
legal definition. 

Big shame all around, isn't it, though? 







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: TruthAboutTM.com

[anony_sleuth_ff]

This whole DOJ thing smells so insincere. 

So we are to beleive that for years DOJ stood by and watched Domash,
Haglin Bevin and other faculty fairly openly get tons of student /
staff / community wife nookie, and undoubtlely heard their exploits --
as he worked closely with them. And then after 30 years, FINALLY he
decided he would, for the VERY FIRST time, venture down the road
towards student nookiedom. BUT was so inept at making a pass (such a
quaint word) he apparently pissed the target off so much that she
raised a huge ruckus causing a minor scandal?

What is wrong with this picture?

1) Is this the type of thing one STARTS at age 62 (or so) for the VERY
FIRST TIME?  

2) Do women who receive ONE single  gentle and discrete pass by a
person of stature generally raise a huge ruckus about it? Or do they
smile, take it as a compliment, firmly say no (if they are not
inclined) and wait for repeated and cruder attempts before raising a
ruckus?

3) Does one issue a highly parased, highly specific denial of some
limited events if they are not trying trying to divert attention from
a broader set of events? Maybe, but why? 

4) Does a well published, world traveled, mature, professor of
psychology make that inept of a pass?



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 
 On Feb 22, 2006, at 4:52 PM, a_non_moose_ff wrote:
 
   Thats why David's highly parsed note appears odd to me. I have never
   before or since made a pass. OK. Few if any professors who have sex
   with students, staff or even CPs do make passes. Maybe David just has
   an innocent way about him, and is oblivious to the ways of student or
   staff / factulty affairs. Hard to believe, but perhaps.
 
 The sentence, And contrary to the rumor, I have never before or since 
 made a pass at any course participant, or staff. is easily the most 
 interesting part, IMO, since it pretty much leaves open the question of 
 whether or not he was making passes at anyone *not* a course 
 participant, or staff...like students, or anyone else.
 
   Of course, it raises the question -- is this any of our business?
 
 Or course not, but since when did that stop any conversations here?  
 For me, at least, it's not what any of these current or former TMO 
 bigwigs do or didn't do, it's the hypocrisy--telling everyone else to 
 do one set of things, and then surreptitiously doing the opposite.  Is 
 that possibly why they were asked to leave?  If so, how do the others 
 keep getting away with it? And what about Rhoda's response?  I think I 
 see the makings of a soap opera here.
 
  For
   the most part, probably not. But student faculty affairs at a
   university promoting celibacy among its students, seems a bit
   inappropriate. And David's highly parsed response just raises more
   questions than it answers.







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Getting Rid of Negativity -- Unburdening Yourself ... Counseling

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jyouells2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote:
 
  Oh go f*ck yourself you mood-making twit! Counsel this
  ()
  -Peter L. Sutphen, Psy.D.  
  Licensed Clinical Psychologist
  Impulse Control Disorder
  Raja of Coconut Creek, Florida
  
 Oh my gosh, I didn't know you were a Raja, Raja Peter! 

And it appears all the coconuts are quite pleased with his reign.








 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bode - Satva

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, a_non_moose_ff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I wrote the following letter to the New York Times last weekend. They
 refused to publish it.  Well just goes to show how low the Times'
 standards have sunk in recent years. :)
 
 The letter has a reference to the Gita: Pitiful are those that live
 for the fruits of action. Know that you have control over action
 alone, not over its fruits. so it must be relevant. :)
 
 ==
 
 Your article stated [Miller] continued his run of mediocrity Monday in
 the giant slalom, finishing in a tie for sixth.
 
 I wish I could be that mediocre in skiing or in any areas of my life.
 A fifth in downhill, a sixth in GS, a near gold in the combined, and a
 fast run (fastest at that point?) in Super G when some freak thing
 bounced him out of the course (did you see his recovery? He should
 have gotten an honorary gold for that).
 
 Your writer, perhaps your paper, exemplifies what is so shallow about
 Olympic media coverage. For you, its all about medals. Quite a
 corruption of the Olympic spirit. Bode exemplifies what the Olympics
 used to be and was meant to be. Its all about the run. Seeking
 perfection. Doing ones best in the moment, each and every moment.
 Going all out. Being creative and couragous enough to put it all on
 the line every moment, to break new boundaries.
 
 An ancient book of the East says Pitiful are those that live for the
 fruits of action. Know that you have control over action alone, not
 over its fruits. This is the wisdom and path of liberation. To me, of
 any athlete, Bode best lives and exemplifies the profundity of these
 words.


I just saw a segment on NBC of the explosion of sports psychologists
practicing at the olympics, and the regular part of many sports teams.
And that many CEOs are hiring sports psychologists to help them
achieve peak performance. (It rumored Barry even hired one for the
bedroom.) And what is the primary advice given by sports psychologists
 -- according to one interviewed? Focus on the process, not the
result Krishna in the boardroom?





 
 I could give a rat's posterior if Bode wins all or no medals. He is a
 joy is watch. He is in the Moment. He is the Olympics. Medals be
 damned.







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Action Happens

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 why -- if you truly
 believe that the universe runs everything


I have not followed all of this thread -- so I may not have seen this
quote but its my impression that this is a false simplification of
Trinity's view. 

Regardless, you appear to be setting up a false dichotomy: either a)
I run everything (in my life) or b) the universe is micro managed
and 'someone' runs it all.

Neither fits my experience -- and the view stemming from it: 
Each component of the world is both reactive and learning. On the
level of human action, senses work according to their inherent nature.
Mind reacts to sensory input reacts according to its inherent nature.
Mind reacts to memories and habits according to its inherent nature.
Memories and habits unfold according to their inherent natures. The
intellect churns away and analyzes what the mind brings it,
distinguishing this from that, and assessing value. 

There is no I doing all of this. There is no I necessary to turn
on the eye and guides the retina and inner cones and all, directing
resulting electrical impulses  to the brain, operating the brains
functioning, etc. It simply happens. According to the nature of the
eye and brain. 

There is no I that directs my heart to beat. There is no I that
structures thoughts and has them appear in my mind. Thoughts HAPPEN!
(My god man,weren't you every properly checked?! :) ) 

The intellect, senses, heart, memory, mind all do their thing. It
seems the height of comedy if not theivery to claim, I did it --
whether in creating the eye and directing its inner funcioning, making
thoughts appear, making the intellect work etc. 

If you REALLY think that YOU are the thinker of thoughts, then turn it
off. Suspend all thoughts RIGHT NOW. If you can't, how can you claim
to be the force behind their creation?

Many get all this regarding thoughts. Yes, you are right, thoughts
happen. But I make the decisions around here. (As many husbands are
deluded into thinking.)  Its a more subtle thing, but the intellect
also happens. It has its skills and nature. It does its thing
without any help from a guiding I. But by its nature, it can seem
like it is an I, an independent decider. Because it appears to be
able to choose this or I arises.

But ever ask a group of kids  if they want some cake? There is no
real choice. (I once saw SSRS point this out once, in a real life
situation of kids running for cake. It was hilarious. And so true.)

A big breathtrough occurs,in my experience,when the intellect figures
out that it is NOT the I. And that it is NOT what remains when no
I, no director,no doer, is found. As many point out, the intellect
cannot understand effulgence / unboundedness, but it can
effectively point out  what is NOT that. Neti Neti. When it realizes
--per its own nature -- that it is neither the I, nor purusha, it
wakes up into adulthood.

 and that
 no one in it is really doing anything -- you keep
 suggesting that I change my behavior and/or my
 beliefs?  

I can't speak for Trinity, (but from what I have read of his posts, he
appears to be saying the same thing as above, perhaps with minor
variations), but there is nothing inconsistent with the above
apparatus (senses, mind,memory, intellect) all working according to
their inherent natures, without any guidance from a I, director or
doer -- promoting change in the world, in others, and in themselves. 

The apparatus is not only reactive, it is highly adaptive and a
learning machine. Children absorb everything around them and learn
how to funcion quite naturally. Its their nature to learn. That
nature never ceases. The apparatus gets feedback from all quarters.
The intellect determines what feedback is useful (per its nature
--which may be limited at the moment).  It adopts useful things. 

Trinity and any number of things are part of your feedback mechanisms.
They, the  whole universe for that matter, provide you constant
feedback - according to their natures. According to the nature of your
apparatus, you constantly utilize or reject the myriad of feedback you
receive. 

No DOER in any of this. Events happen. Sensory experience happen.
Thoughts happen. Feedback happens. Intellect making distinctions and
weighing value happens. 

Where is the paradox or contradiction?








 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Action Happens

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 why -- if you truly
 believe that the universe runs everything


I have not followed all of this thread -- so I may not have seen this
quote but its my impression that this is a false simplification of
Trinity's view.

Regardless, you appear to be setting up a false dichotomy: either a)
I run everything (in my life) or b) the universe is micro managed
and 'someone' runs it all.

Neither fits my experience -- and the view stemming from it:
Each component of the world is both reactive and learning. On the
level of human action, senses work according to their inherent nature.
Mind reacts to sensory input reacts according to its inherent nature.
Mind reacts to memories and habits according to its inherent nature.
Memories and habits unfold according to their inherent natures. The
intellect churns away and analyzes what the mind brings it,
distinguishing this from that, and assessing value.

There is no I doing all of this. There is no I necessary to turn
on the eye and guides the retina and inner cones and all, directing
resulting electrical impulses  to the brain, operating the brains
functioning, etc. It simply happens. According to the nature of the
eye and brain.

There is no I that directs my heart to beat. There is no I that
structures thoughts and has them appear in my mind. Thoughts HAPPEN!
(My god man,weren't you every properly checked?! :) )

The intellect, senses, heart, memory, mind all do their thing. It
seems the height of comedy if not theivery to claim, I did it --
whether in creating the eye and directing its inner funcioning, making
thoughts appear, making the intellect work etc.

If you REALLY think that YOU are the thinker of thoughts, then turn it
off. Suspend all thoughts RIGHT NOW. If you can't, how can you claim
to be the force behind their creation?

Many get all this regarding thoughts. Yes, you are right, thoughts
happen. But I make the decisions around here. (As many husbands are
deluded into thinking.)  Its a more subtle thing, but the intellect
also happens. It has its skills and nature. It does its thing
without any help from a guiding I. But by its nature, it can seem
like it is an I, an independent decider. Because it appears to be
able to choose this or that, a deep sense of I and doer arises.

But ever ask a group of kids  if they want some cake? There is no
real choice. (I once saw SSRS point this out once, in a real life
situation of kids running for cake. It was hilarious. And so true.)

A big breathtrough occurs,in my experience, when the intellect figures
out that it is NOT the I, not the doer, not an independent decider.  

When it figures out that it is NOT the I, and it is not what remains
when no I, no director,no doer, is found. As many point out, the
intellect cannot understand effulgence / unboundedness, but it can
effectively point out what is NOT that. Neti Neti. When it realizes
--per its own nature -- that it is neither the I, nor purusha aka
unboudnedness, it wakes up into adulthood.

 and that
 no one in it is really doing anything -- you keep
 suggesting that I change my behavior and/or my
 beliefs?

I can't speak for Trinity, (but from what I have read of his posts, he
appears to be saying the same thing as above, perhaps with minor
variations). There is nothing inconsistent with the above
apparatus (senses, mind,memory, intellect) all working according to
their inherent natures, without any guidance from a I, director or
doer -- promoting change in the world, in others, and in themselves.

The apparatus is not only reactive, it is highly adaptive and a
learning machine. Children absorb everything around them and learn
how to funcion quite naturally. Its their nature to learn. That
learning nature never ceases. The apparatus gets feedback from all
quarters. The intellect determines what feedback is useful (per its
nature --which may be limited at the moment).  It adopts useful things.

Trinity and any number of things are part of your feedback mechanisms.
They, the  whole universe for that matter, provide you constant
feedback - according to their natures. According to the nature of your
apparatus, you constantly utilize or reject the myriad of feedback you
receive.

No DOER in any of this: Events happen. Sensory experience happen.
Thoughts happen. Feedback happens. Intellect making distinctions and
weighing value happens.

Where is the I. Where is the paradox or contradiction?








 





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:

[FairfieldLife] Mind Modelling

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ 
 wrote:
  
  The interesting thing about this discussion is that
  according to MMY, he took this same path with Guru
  Dev of attuning one's thinking to that of the teacher.
  
  If it's true that when you do this, you take on all
  the qualities of mind of the teacher, what does that
  say about the qualities of MMY's mind that are so
  often criticized here?
 
 Go back and read the discussion. No one ever 
 suggested that it was an all-or-nothing process,
 or that everyone is successful at modeling the
 mind of their teacher. I know that all I meant
 to suggest is that it's something that one works
 at over a long period of time -- years, or decades.
 And not everyone is successful at doing it.
 
 I would suggest that Maharishi wasn't particularly
 successful at doing it, since one of his first 
 actions after Guru Dev's death was to not obey
 what he'd told him to do (that is, go into seclusion,
 and not teach). 
 
 In addition, the effects of mind-modeling only last 
 so long. After almost fifty years, I suspect that
 Maharishi has had an opportunity to pick up a few
 kinks of his own.  :-)

I take a different slant on mind modelling. It has little if anyting
to do with content. Its a process of structuring freedom, of
dissolving all inner boundaries, attachments and sanskaras. When
that  is done, content happens. It may be like the teachers', it may
be a quite new angle. 

Ricks example of those around him now I think is false. They are
works in progress. Better examples are SSRS. Perhaps Chopra. For
more finsihed works.

Look at the holy tradition. Was each master a clone of his master?
Hardly, it seems. What is passed down is consciousness awakened to
itself. Content is not the thing.








 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Mind Modelling

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 I would agree. 

You would. ? 

would is the present conditional. It implies an if.

You would agree IF [what]?

Don't worry. I am just having fun with language. I say, I would
agree sometimes too. I am really commenting on my own foibles.

I think in the recess of my mind I would agree is shorthand implied
I would tend to agree. It gives some wiggle room I suppose.

But simple declarative statements are a good thing, my mind says.

I agree. it answered.








 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Mind Modelling

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
   
   I would agree. 
  
  You would. ? 
  
  would is the present conditional. It implies an if.
  
  You would agree IF [what]?
 
 If you asked me whether I agreed is what that
 construction implies, I suspect.  That's how I
 use it, at any rate.

Yes, good point.
 
Of course I didn't ask Barry if he agreed. He just butted in. :)

But how would that conversation go down?

Anony: Barry, If I asked you whether you agreed, what would you say? 

Barry: I would say I agreed. Are you asking?

Anony: No, if I was asking, I would ask. I was just wondering IF I
had asked you, what you would have said.

Barry: Thats bizzarre

Anony: Yeah, go figure.

Barry: Seen Godot yet?

Anony: Nope. You?

Barry: Nope. But I would have. If he had appeared. If the universe
had wanted it to happen.

Anony: The universe would have liked that.

Barry: How would you know? Are you the Universe's little confidant?
Jeez. Such a little Universe-Pleaser. The Universe always liked you best.

 






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Yet another article- G harrison/Maharsihi

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Judy, by now I suspect that almost everyone here
 has figured out 

Gee, I haven't. I must be slow. 

But it is amusing when people feel the need to express the feelings of
the group. If your points don't stand on their own merits, and/or your
own personal endorsement, I fail to see how invoking your perception
of group consensus helps.

Btw, how is a perception of group consensus accuratly gained? If it
was obvious -- that is 20-30 posts all in agreement of the point,
then it would be, well obvious. 

Without such overwheming explicit evidence, how do you draw such
conclusions? Are you silently polling people behind the scenes? If so,
cool. But hey, you forgot me. Well, maybe thats because you figure
that I am slow. Well, I can't argue much on that one with you.

Being a Dylan fan, I know you must like this verse, as do I:
...she knows too much to argue or to judge.



 that the *only* reason you try 
 get involved in discussions with me is to use them
 as part of your ongoing crusade to put me down, 

And you not only know what the group thinks, you have a deep
understanding of Judy's  inner world,psycho-dynamics and motivation.
Wow, you ARE good!

 
 I hope that this quest brings you great pleasure.

And compassionate -- sincerely wishing Judy all happiness and
pleasure. Omnicient and compassionate. You are truly a Saint.

 Doing this with Vaj and myself and sometimes Paul 
 seems to be one of the only things in your life

Well at least she is one pointed.

 so in the interest
 of furthering joy in the universe I would not 
 interfere with it.

Wise move.
 
 On the other hand, there is nothing that says I
 have to participate in it, 

or apparently anything of substance to say

so carry on all by
 yourself.  :-)

Thats all there IS. Or haven't you noticed?






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Value of Tradition

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anon_astute_ff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Nelson nelsonriddle2001@
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anon_astute_ff no_reply@
wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
 wrote:

Sorry dude, that's just chicken sh*t...
   
   That is one of the most insightful, powerful, well thought out,
cogent
   and compelling postions I have ever read on FFL.
  
  +++ The subtle differences in the types of used food is indeed
  amazing.
 
 Yes indeed. We need more original posts with profund insights like
 Jim's here. I have read it over now 16 times and I get chills, hair
 standing on end, deeper meanings, each time I read it. This is really
 heavy stuff.

The real issue is, do you identify with chicken-shit -- and see
chicken-shit in all beings, or do you identify with goat-droppings. 








 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Value of Tradition

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anon_astute_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Nelson nelsonriddle2001@
  wrote:
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anon_astute_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin 
 jflanegi@
  wrote:
 
 Sorry dude, that's just chicken sh*t...

That is one of the most insightful, powerful, well thought 
out, cogent and compelling postions I have ever read on FFL.
   
   +++ The subtle differences in the types of used food is indeed
   amazing.
  
  Yes indeed. We need more original posts with profund insights like
  Jim's here. I have read it over now 16 times and I get chills, hair
  standing on end, deeper meanings, each time I read it. This is 
  really heavy stuff.
 
 You're the proverbial cheap date, easily entertained.
 If you think Jim's stuff is hot, wait until you hear
 the lurid details of Paul's monkey.

They say that he who can distinguish monkey-doo from chicken-doo, all
knowledge blooms. 


As stressor undoubtedly has heard from his sources, the next big
course will be focused on culturing the ability to do so.

They are feeding pauls monkey 24/7 to have enough to go around. 

The course AFTER that, already being planned, is to be able to
distinguish shit from shinola. Since that ability has dissappeared, or
 was never present, for all  TBs.








 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Value of Tradition

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  
  They say that he who can distinguish monkey-doo from chicken-doo, all
  knowledge blooms. 
  
  
  As stressor undoubtedly has heard from his sources, the next big
  course will be focused on culturing the ability to do so.
  
  They are feeding pauls monkey 24/7 to have enough to go around. 
  
  The course AFTER that, already being planned, is to be able to
  distinguish shit from shinola. Since that ability has dissappeared, or
   was never present, for all  TBs.
 
 +++  Shinola?  That saying reaches pretty far back. Probably only a
 few of us dinosaurs could really appreciate it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinola






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Jessica is Hot for Anonyff and Shemp

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonyff anonyff@ wrote:
  Jessica (who is really ugly) Simpson,
  
  
  
  This is the most astute observation I've seen in a long time.
  
  How this woman became an icon of beauty I'll never know...
 
 Thats ironic. I was talking to her the other day and she said she
 thought you two were the hottest 60 yr olds she had ever seen. And
 made hints about wanting  a three-some.
 
 http://www.crazydevils.ch/Jessica%20Simpson.jpg

oh, and she said to bring the monkey.









 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Jessica is Hot for Anonyff and Shemp

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonyff anonyff@ wrote:
 Jessica (who is really ugly) Simpson,
 
 
 
 This is the most astute observation I've seen in a long time.
 
 How this woman became an icon of beauty I'll never know...

Thats ironic. I was talking to her the other day and she said she
thought you two were the hottest 60 yr olds she had ever seen. And
made hints about wanting  a three-some.

http://www.crazydevils.ch/Jessica%20Simpson.jpg






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Jessica is Hot for Anonyff and Shemp

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonyff anonyff@ wrote:
   Jessica (who is really ugly) Simpson,
   
   
   
   This is the most astute observation I've seen in a long time.
   
   How this woman became an icon of beauty I'll never know...
  
  Thats ironic. I was talking to her the other day and she said she
  thought you two were the hottest 60 yr olds she had ever seen. And
  made hints about wanting  a three-some.
  
  http://www.crazydevils.ch/Jessica%20Simpson.jpg
 
 
 
 That photo that you link to is the exact reason I made the comments 
 I did.
 
 She is the quintessential American ideal of beauty and it is not 
 one I subscribe to.

Actually I share your opinion. I have never found her attractive. The
parts may be there that are associated with beauty, but there is no
inner glow  or something --- to hold it all together, to make it breath. 










 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Jessica is Hot for Anonyff and Shemp

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 
 --- shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
  anony_sleuth_ff no_reply@ 
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
  shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@
   wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonyff
  anonyff@ wrote:
Jessica (who is really ugly) Simpson,



This is the most astute observation I've seen in
  a long time.

How this woman became an icon of beauty I'll
  never know...
   
   Thats ironic. I was talking to her the other day
  and she said she
   thought you two were the hottest 60 yr olds she
  had ever seen. And
   made hints about wanting  a three-some.
   
   http://www.crazydevils.ch/Jessica%20Simpson.jpg
  
  
  
  That photo that you link to is the exact reason I
  made the comments 
  I did.
  
  She is the quintessential American ideal of beauty
  and it is not 
  one I subscribe to.
 
 I know how you guys feel. Even if she begged me to
 have sex with her and offered me $ I'd just laugh. I
 mean really, who does she think I am? I do have
 standards. Jeez!

Holding out for Ashley huh? (her sister) 





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Buddhism: twice as good.

[anony_sleuth_ff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, coshlnx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Independent of all other considerations, the Shankara party line 
 (from the words of Shankara Himself, and all successors to this day); 
 is that after Enlightenment (Self-Realization), when the physical 
 body dies, there's no further individual finite existence for 
 the person referred to before. Although one can find individual 
 cases which refute this fate (such as the case of Ramakrishna - an 
 Enlightened person who stated he's incarnating again on the physical 
 plane of existence). In spite of such evidence to the contrary, TB's 
 (thanks - contributor...True Believers) continue to spout the party 
 line in spite of evidence to the contrary.
   Buddhism is different since there's TWO options: existence, or non-
 existence. Therefore, Buddhism is twice as good as the TMO religion 
 of nihilist non-existence which springs from Shankara.
  In the words of Chan Master sheng Yen, p. 10 of Chan Magazine, 
 Winter 2006, After Nirvana, a Buddha may enter into any time and 
 any space in order to help sentient beings.  In other words, a 
 Buddha may take the Bodhisattva vow to help others attain 
 Enlightenment, using a finite transformation body suitable for the 
 purpose.
  Ramana Maharshi, HWL Poonja, Gangaji, and other Neo-Advaitins are in 
 the Nihilist school also: no further existence after people become 
 Enlightened and drop the physical body.

Lets see. In enlightenment, individuality is seen as not existing, a
mirage. True Existence is lived 24/7. 

Then the body drops off. And you are feeling a loss because true
Existance remains and the bundle of karma formerly known as your
limited individuality, which never was there anyway, a mirage, is gone? 

Oh my! Its like gaining the palace and crying my hut, my hut, I miss
my little mud hut.







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/