[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Thanks for the detailed response Raunchy. I don't believe the group is as wide eyed about Obama as you seem to think. I think you mean wild-eyed not wide-eyed meaning they actually see Obama's flaws, which I believe they do not. Perhaps it's true for you because you didn't seem to be as passionate about any of the candidates but not so for folks like Robert, Vaj, Dr. Peter, Rick and a few others that would go to the mat defending Obama. (snip) There was and still is a lot of emotional energy, in response to Barack Obama's personality, around the world. Part of the reason for this, I believe, is his willingness to reveal his flaws... He is human, and therefore is not perfect like an image of the Divine, like you would see in religious settings. The passion for Hillary was just as 'wild' and much of what you see in 'kool aid drinking, Obama loving fans'...is just a mirror image of those with the vision of Hillary, as Commander in Chief, 'ready on day 1'...and all that jazz. So, for us Obama folks, we're just looking for 'enlightened leadership'...someone with presence, patience, stamina, groundedness, balance and the personality that is perfect for this time period, and perfect by having really smart people around him, not being intimidated, but rather, wanting to hear all sides and have all possible input. So, now with the Clintons on board, what's da matter witha you? Get with the program, girl! R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for the detailed response Raunchy. I don't believe the group is as wide eyed about Obama as you seem to think. And seeing Turq as the Antichrist seems to me to make him into a one dimensional figure that misses what is great about his contributions here. Wait'll you see me on Leno in my Antichrist outfit! :-) Talk about multi-dimensional -- its sock padding alone makes Reagan's missile envy look puny in comparison! And my backup singers -- the Beelzebub Babes -- they are so hot that even BillyG will whack off watching them on TV. Here's a taste of the rap song we're going to (reluctantly, like all of Jay's guests) be coaxed into performing: Well, you say I'm the Antichrist, WTF You should thank your God to have such luck I'm here for your Auntie, yes sirree But I might save a little antijizz just for thee . . . It's basically a love song. Not everyone will get that. But I think they'll get my sound economic policy, which is basically Take all your money and give it to me and your life will be better and you'll get to take credit for saving the world Hey, it worked for Maharishi...
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There was and still is a lot of emotional energy, in response to Barack Obama's personality, around the world. Part of the reason for this, I believe, is his willingness to reveal his flaws... Robert, You must be smokin' somethin'. What flaws has he revealed? That's the problem. He is the least vetted of any candidate ever with a thin resume, virtually no paper trail, an adoring media, an in the tank DNC and questionable affiliations, many of whom now recently crawled from under the bus. I had plenty to criticize about Obama and you refused to see any it, gazing wild-eyed and blinded by the glow of his halo. No one ever had any such illusions about Hillary except those who subscribed to CDS, Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Although it's moot point now, your post makes my case. So, for us Obama folks, we're just looking for 'enlightened leadership'...someone with presence, patience, stamina, groundedness, balance and the personality that is perfect for this time period, and perfect by having really smart people around him, not being intimidated, but rather, wanting to hear all sides and have all possible input. One can hope. Yes we can hope. So, now with the Clintons on board, what's da matter witha you? Get with the program, girl! Hillary has been on board since the primary. She did 130 campaign stops for him. I'm am on board because I respect the office of the presidency, no matter who serves our country. Could you have said the same had Hillary won the election? I think not.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 24, 2008, at 6:39 PM, do.rflex wrote: I don't what your sources are Vaj, but: Abraham: The root of three religions http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/bios/b1abraham.htm Actually there's no legit evidence that Abraham, or any of the others existed until you get to Solomon. Yeah. Other than the Biblical texts themselves, I recently read that there's no historical corroborating evidence of a Moses or a Pharoah who enslaved the Israelites or Israelites wandering the desert for 40 years. It appears that it's just tribal myths passed along. My own personal opinion is that the creepy, sadistic, bloody, murdering, jealous and vengeful 'god' of the Old Testament was a politically useful creation of the character of the quasi-savage/barbaric peoples of the times. As baby Abraham gave his first lusty cry at being brought into this cold and cruel world, few would have guessed that his influence would be felt down through the ages. Three of today's major religions trace their roots back to him, each viewing him as their founder or at least their forefather. Although Judaism, Christianity, and Islam see Abraham as an important character in their past, each sees him this way for a different reason. Abraham is very important to Judaism. Jews believe that God called Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldees (Mesopotamia) in order to make a covenant with him. Through this covenant, God would bless him and give Abraham's descendants a new land. Abraham left his home to become a wandering herdsman because he had faith in God's promise: I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you. (Genesis 12:2-4) God led Abraham through a series of trials in order to test whether or not Abraham really believed God's promise. The most drastic trial Abraham experienced occurred when God told Abraham to sacrifice his only son Isaac through whom the future Messiah (Savior) was promised. Although greatly troubled, Abraham went through with God's request because he reasoned that God would still somehow fulfill his promise. God rewarded Abraham's obedience by sending and angel to stop him from killing Isaac and providing a lamb to take Isaac's place. In essence, without Abraham, Jews would not be the chosen people among the nations through which a Savior would later come. Abraham is indispensable to Christianity, but for a far different reason than he is to Judaism or Islam. Christians hold to the same historical account as the Jews do; but Christians make a further-reaching conclusion. Christians view God's interaction and covenant with Abraham as something leading up to the coming of Jesus Christ. God's love for his creation was so infinite that he determined to somehow bridge the immeasurable gap that man had made when he sinned. To this end God made the first covenant with Abraham which included the promise of a future savior, Jesus, who would come through Abraham's descendants. Any covenant that was made demanded blood to seal the pact. Just as Abraham killed a heifer, a goat, and a ram each three years old, along with a dove and young pigeon, (NIV, Genesis 15:9) to seal the first covenant, Christians believe that Christ's blood, when he died on the cross, sealed the second. Christians draw many parallels between Jesus and Abraham's life. One of the best known examples is the story of Isaac. Isaac was Abrahams dearly loved, only son through whom God had promised the future salvation of the world. Yet God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac to see if Abraham's faith extended that far. Just before Abraham was about to plunge the knife into his only son, an angel stopped him and God provided a ram to die in Isaac's stead. Christians see Jesus as God's only son whom he loved infinitely, yet for the sake of mankind God sacrificed his only son. Jesus became the sacrificial lamb so that: Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord [Jesus] will be saved. (NIV, Romans 10:13) In conclusion, although they don't trace their lineage back to Abraham, Christians view themselves as adopted sons because they consider themselves sons of Jesus who was the future promise for Abraham's descendents. Abraham's role in Islam is different from that which he plays in either Christianity or Judaism. Arab Muslims trace their lineage back to Abraham through Ishmael. Call me Ishmael... Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 24, 2008, at 6:18 PM, do.rflex wrote: A peculiar side note: Both Islam and Judaism hold their God to be the -same- God of Abraham. And therein lies the crux of our disagreement: a claim. Please understand that to a practicing or observant Jew, that's all it really is, a claim made thousands and thousands of years later. Really, if you tried to appreciate the wild separation of timeline along with the claim (of Allah-IHVH similitude) you might appreciate how bizarre a claim it really is. However (conversely) if you look at the two (IHVH and Allah) as contemporaneous, it sounds downright friendly. Shouldn't we all just be friends? Let's fudge for friendship and ignore the relative realities! It's this disparity you seem to be missing. And given that Islam has a known historical date of origin, it's a pretty difficult span to breach, unless one is an adherent of a philosophia perennis (aperennialist) or a theosophist. From the Arabian side, it's much easier at so late a date to make such a wild claim (that Allah is IHVH or G*d). My comment was in terms of generally accepted religious views, not orthodox or historically established technicalities. If you want to get into scientific or academic areas, you can debunk just about any 'religious' claims.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
On Nov 25, 2008, at 5:55 AM, do.rflex wrote: Actually there's no legit evidence that Abraham, or any of the others existed until you get to Solomon. Yeah. Other than the Biblical texts themselves, I recently read that there's no historical corroborating evidence of a Moses or a Pharoah who enslaved the Israelites or Israelites wandering the desert for 40 years. It appears that it's just tribal myths passed along. Correct. Sometime in the early 90s someone found something with House of David written on it, from that period, so up until then there was no evidence of him either. And that actually isn't evidence so much of one person as of a lineage. My own personal opinion is that the creepy, sadistic, bloody, murdering, jealous and vengeful 'god' of the Old Testament was a politically useful creation of the character of the quasi-savage/barbaric peoples of the times. And he was fairly liberal by the standards of the day! Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
Both points by Do and Sal were fascinating. You hear these names thrown around so much it is easy to forget that scripture was really never meant to be history as much as an advocacy piece for a POV. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 25, 2008, at 5:55 AM, do.rflex wrote: Actually there's no legit evidence that Abraham, or any of the others existed until you get to Solomon. Yeah. Other than the Biblical texts themselves, I recently read that there's no historical corroborating evidence of a Moses or a Pharoah who enslaved the Israelites or Israelites wandering the desert for 40 years. It appears that it's just tribal myths passed along. Correct. Sometime in the early 90s someone found something with House of David written on it, from that period, so up until then there was no evidence of him either. And that actually isn't evidence so much of one person as of a lineage. My own personal opinion is that the creepy, sadistic, bloody, murdering, jealous and vengeful 'god' of the Old Testament was a politically useful creation of the character of the quasi-savage/barbaric peoples of the times. And he was fairly liberal by the standards of the day! Sal
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of raunchydog Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 12:04 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife The territory Judy claims on FF Life is calling Barry out on his BS, and refusing to let his trollish behavior go unanswered. Her analytical abilities are awesome and I am thankful she stands on principle that no one should tolerate lying. I respect her integrity as a writer and I rely on her to take out the garbage. Whenever Judy takes Barry to the woodshed for the spanking he deserves, I'm sure some part of him masochistically enjoys his foray to the woodshed because he always comes back for more. I wonder how many read their squabbling posts? Maybe only you. They might do better to squabble through personal emails, and save their 50 posts for topics others will actually read.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
On Nov 25, 2008, at 9:42 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Both points by Do and Sal were fascinating. You hear these names thrown around so much it is easy to forget that scripture was really never meant to be history as much as an advocacy piece for a POV. And as far as I know, there's not even any credible evidence for Jesus' existence either, outside of one reference by, I think, Tacitus. Keep the faith...I'll take the fortune! Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
On Nov 25, 2008, at 9:52 AM, Rick Archer wrote: I wonder how many read their squabbling posts? Maybe only you. They might do better to squabble through personal emails, and save their 50 posts for topics others will actually read. Wouldn't be nearly as much fun for them. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
(snip) It's called Fairfield Life, right? Well, remember there's always been the conflict in Fairfield, Between the Ru's and the Townie's... So, just think of it like that...it's sort of built into the equation. I actually think that some of the townies are possessed by bad spirits which get released, as the many people, who have passed through Fairfield, probably a few bad spirits got dropped off... And may have attatched to some on the south side, so be careful, out there... I just know that there's more going on than meets the eye. All of this fighting and conflict, just gives an opportunity, To feel it and let it go. Don't let it 'pull you in'... Stay balanced. This is the challenge of our time...as well. Many old 'stuff' is being released and revealed... There is much fear, of the economic situation, and the change for some that scare them about Barack Obama. So, the challenge becomes, to stay 'in the light'... In a vibration of acceptance, instead of fighting the bad, or running from it. There's nothing to fear, but the vibration of fear... R.G.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
On Nov 25, 2008, at 11:11 AM, Sal Sunshine wrote: On Nov 25, 2008, at 9:42 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Both points by Do and Sal were fascinating. You hear these names thrown around so much it is easy to forget that scripture was really never meant to be history as much as an advocacy piece for a POV. And as far as I know, there's not even any credible evidence for Jesus' existence either, outside of one reference by, I think, Tacitus. What about the Talmud and Josephus?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
On Nov 25, 2008, at 10:16 AM, Vaj wrote:On Nov 25, 2008, at 9:42 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:Both points by Do and Sal were fascinating.You hear these namesthrown around so much it is easy to forget that scripture was reallynever meant to be "history" as much as an advocacy piece for a POV.And as far as I know, there's not even any credible evidencefor Jesus' existence either, outside of one reference by, Ithink, Tacitus.What about the Talmud and Josephus?Josephus on JesusFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaChristianity portalThis article is part of theJesus and historyseries of articles.There are two extant references inJosephus on Jesus, the one directly concerningJesushas come to be known as theTestimonium Flavianum. These passages appear inThe Antiquities of the Jews, written in the year 93 by the Jewish historianJosephus. All extant copies of this work, which all derive from Christian sources, even the recently recovered Arabic version, contain the two passages aboutJesus. The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it was a forgery. This consensus was questioned in the 20th century. The other passage simply mentions Jesus as the brother ofJames, also known as James the Just. Though most scholars consider this passage genuine[1], its authenticity has been disputed byEmil Schüreras well by several recent popular writers.http://tinyurl.com/5r3sbIn like manner, references in the Talmud to various historical figures were said to be coded references to Jesus, despite Jewish insistence that the Talmud refers to other, actual persons. A prominent example isBalaamson of Beor, a pagan prophet who lived approximately 1000 years before Jesus, whose actions are portrayed in the Bible, in Numbers 22 through 31. The Talmud's harsh words against Balaam echo the Bible's own condemnation in Deuteronomy 23 and Nehemiah 13. Yet, these references were said to be secretly about Jesus.And:Despite the numerous mentions ofEdomwhich may refer to Christendom, the Talmud makes little mention of Jesus directly or the early Christians. There are a number of quotes about one or more individuals designated "Yeshu" that once existed in editions of the Talmud, although details about Yeshu do not match the known facts about Jesus' trial and death.http://tinyurl.com/hgglhSound credible to you?Sal
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 10:14 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife (snip) It's called Fairfield Life, right? Well, remember there's always been the conflict in Fairfield, Between the Ru's and the Townie's... So, just think of it like that...it's sort of built into the equation. I actually think that some of the townies are possessed by bad spirits which get released, as the many people, who have passed through Fairfield, probably a few bad spirits got dropped off... And may have attatched to some on the south side, so be careful, out there... Watch it bub. Sal and I live on the south side. You want a knuckle sandwich?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
Rick, Barry whines like an aggrieved innocent waif, But do me a favor and keep a mental track of the number of posts she spends trashing Barry over the next few months. It won't ever be 100%, but it'll consistently be 20-40% of the total, as it has been now for years. Then he feigns contriteness while promising disrespect, That's a lot of cheek turning and mooning ahead of me. I might as well take my pants off now and leave them off. Judy is the only one that refuses to let Barry get away with lying. IMO she is not trashing Barry; she is just taking out the trash. I consider her ability to sort through Barry's distortions and expose his fraudulence to be a much-needed public service. Mooning invites spanking so Barry gets what he deserves. I sure hope you don't start censoring individual posts on this forum. I shudder at prospect of the Thought Police tampering with anyone's First Amendment rights, even Barry's. If anyone wants to play Big Brother or advocates it, please don't encourage them. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: That's really the issue. Many of the people who talk -- or really, shout -- on this forum the most are shouting about the same old same old, over and over and over and over. The extraordinary irony of *Barry* making such a statement is, as usual, completely lost on him. Everybody else here knows it. But I'm the only one who will point it out. And the real reason is that they don't HAVE anything else to talk about. They haven't had any experiences of their own to talk about in decades, so they argue incessantly about other peoples' exper- iences. They don't have anything going on in their personal lives, so they try to start arguments about politics, or even more boring, sexual politics. Barry mysteriously knows everything there is to know about the lives of those he's talking about. Does anybody else find this odd? I've said it before, I'll say it again: In all his elaborate fantasizing about my personal life, Barry has not *once* gotten it right. snip Just to follow up -- because this subject makes a great troll in itself, and the people I'm talking about will reply to it in *exactly* the way I'm describing them -- the problem on FFL really IS boredom. How bored does one have to be to not only make trolling posts but then boast endlessly about how one is doing so? Vaj's Carlsen posts, on one level, really were trolls. On another, however, he was again hoping for some -- any -- intelligent discussion about the differences in the points of view (not to mention View) being discussed. Of course, none of that happened. Instead, some- one who long ago proved that she is pretty much incapable of having an original thought tried to turn it into a bash Vaj session, and tried to suck in anyone stupid enough to join in. Says He Who Claims Not to Read My Posts. snicker Of course, Barry seems *not* to have read the post in which I attempted to start a discussion with Vaj about the differences in point of view of the Carlsen material, to no response from Vaj. Barry didn't do so and still hasn't. Instead, he's so bored that he's written three different posts about how bored and unoriginal he imagines me to be. She actually found one this time, a newb who IMO has not posted a single original thought since she arrived here. Actually she has posted more original thoughts than Barry has since she arrived here. snip Well, IMO it's original thought. As guyfawkes said so well, who CARES who the Mistress Of Unorig- inal Thought is bashing this week to cover her lack of original thought? Um, that's not what he said, of course. For that matter, who CARES what Maharishi said on some subject? He's dead, and we've been over it a thousand times already. Barry's fourth post this morning was a MMY-bashing post, a repetition of things he's already said many times. snip And WHY are those experiences fun to read, while the Vaj-bashing and the Barry-bashing And Judy-bashing by Barry. Three different Judy- bashing posts from Barry since he got up this morning, plus two more in response to Rick. snip The chronic same old same olders don't HAVE any such experiences to share. Or choose not to share them, since experience posts typically invoke more bashing than anything else, especially from Barry. From another Judy-bashing post of Barry's this morning: I say learn a little something from the way that a few of the obvious Trolls With Nothing To Say react when a lot of people *ignore* what they post for a while. They freak out, and melt down. And then their first response is to troll *more*, and try to start arguments with new
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of tkrystofiak Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 9:10 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife Attacks, personal aspersions, outright ridicule, intimidation - who needs it? Vaj quoted something, in a different context, about diamonds in the excrement. Picking them out is possible, I suppose, but not how I prefer to spend my time. How about washing the diamonds before posting? I happen to believe that the Golden Rule - treating others as you would want to be treated - is a spiritual practice, and failing to abide by it retards one's spiritual development. I don't always live up to it, but if one really takes that to heart, one is less inclined to trash people. It also helps to remember that we're dealing with living, breathing human beings here, not just pixels on our monitors. Would we speak as harshly to one another if we were sitting face to face?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
On Nov 25, 2008, at 10:43 AM, Rick Archer wrote: It's called Fairfield Life, right? Well, remember there's always been the conflict in Fairfield, Between the Ru's and the Townie's... So, just think of it like that...it's sort of built into the equation. I actually think that some of the townies are possessed by bad spirits which get released, as the many people, who have passed through Fairfield, probably a few bad spirits got dropped off... And may have attatched to some on the south side, so be careful, out there... Watch it bub. Sal and I live on the south side. You want a knuckle sandwich? No kidding. Have they come to any conclusions about the cause of that fire, Rick? Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
On Nov 25, 2008, at 11:27 AM, Sal Sunshine wrote: Sound credible to you? I seem to remember a quote from the Talmud (or some Aramaic text) that describes a magician named Jesus/Jeshua which claimed that he was crucified for sorcery--or something along those lines. It sounded plausible to me. Re: Josephus, one passage always seemed to be a clear forgery to me, with Josephus, a Jew, lauding Jesus as Christ or some such highly improbable thing. The other mention (Jesus and James), who knows? I certainly don't. All the evidence seems somewhat shakey to me. I took a course on the historical Jesus from the Luke scholar E. Earle Ellis in college and I remember being left with the conclusion that we really didn't know if he was an historical person at all and wondering why we were never taught that in Sunday school (of course it could be because I was kicked out :-)).
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of tkrystofiak Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 9:10 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife Attacks, personal aspersions, outright ridicule, intimidation - who needs it? Vaj quoted something, in a different context, about diamonds in the excrement. Picking them out is possible, I suppose, but not how I prefer to spend my time. How about washing the diamonds before posting? I happen to believe that the Golden Rule - treating others as you would want to be treated - is a spiritual practice, and failing to abide by it retards one's spiritual development. I don't always live up to it, but if one really takes that to heart, one is less inclined to trash people. It also helps to remember that we're dealing with living, breathing human beings here, not just pixels on our monitors. Would we speak as harshly to one another if we were sitting face to face? Let's call it for what it is: Washing the Diamonds is censorship. Applying the Golden Rule every moment to one's life is a laudable endeavor and an individual choice. We cannot enforce it. Of course pixel bashing is safer, we are not within arm's reach of each other. Posting on a forum is not as if we're sitting down to tea. The beauty of writing is that it can be raw and impolite as well as filled with diamonds. It's a matter of taste. Do you prefer your tea bland or spicy?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
Raunchy, You are buying in hook line and sinker to Judy's own personal mythology about her role here. I am a fan of both Judy and Turq's contributions here, but I also understand how their personal metaphors shape their contributions. (as mine affect mine) Your role here is a provocateur which is closer to Turq's personal metaphor IMO. First Judy: Although you have elevated her role as the single defender of what is pure and true, this is a PR version. At her best she can serve this role in specific discussions, and I appreciate her for it. I dig how she is willing to engage and work through complex issues and point out perspective I have missed. But I am real clear that what she is up to with Turq is out of her delight in belittling him. Most of what you seem to be elevating to exposing fraudulence is just her disagreeing in the most contentious insulting way. When Judy gets focused on a topic I am interested there is no poster here who adds more value to the discussion. But the Turq war is not an example of that. I see that for what it is, a personal feud with a little more mean spiritedness than I am comfortable with on both sides. And so that part of their contributions is none of my business. I don't believe they should be censored for something they obviously enjoy. Now Turq, Do you really believe that the rest of us are unable to notice when Turq is letting something fly just to stir the shit? You do it all the time so you should be able to understand. Judy takes everything with equal seriousness as a challenge to her sense of what is right and wrong and Turq winds her up just to see her react. He has said as much. This isn't that deep. Turq is a creative writer whose contributions are valued (by me) because he is willing to write a bunch of stuff that he hasn't edited so much that no one can disagree. It provokes thought. Sometimes it is clearly to antagonize Judy. I usually skip those because they are written for an audience of one. I use the name Turq in context of his persona here because that is consistent with how his role as provocateur is only a part of Barry the person. Barry is a writer and Judy is an editor. They are forever destined to be cobra and mongoose. As highly intelligent people who are willing to spend time writing a lot here, they are both huge assets to my intellectual life. They are driven by their own personal metaphors that go beyond my choices sometimes. Hallelujah! That is what I am here for. Their personal feud has nothing to do with me. But any attempt to demonize either one of them, or censor their prolific contributions, seems misguided to me. They are a force of nature to be enjoyed and appreciated for what they are. Two imperfect people writing like crazy on a public board. I appreciate your contributions the same way Raunchy. Even when I disagree I appreciate that you took the time to contribute to my intellectual universe here. Writing takes time and effort and I applaud the posters who make this place stimulating. (ooh baby baby!) No one here is inhabiting higher ground. We are all just bozos on this bus. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rick, Barry whines like an aggrieved innocent waif, But do me a favor and keep a mental track of the number of posts she spends trashing Barry over the next few months. It won't ever be 100%, but it'll consistently be 20-40% of the total, as it has been now for years. Then he feigns contriteness while promising disrespect, That's a lot of cheek turning and mooning ahead of me. I might as well take my pants off now and leave them off. Judy is the only one that refuses to let Barry get away with lying. IMO she is not trashing Barry; she is just taking out the trash. I consider her ability to sort through Barry's distortions and expose his fraudulence to be a much-needed public service. Mooning invites spanking so Barry gets what he deserves. I sure hope you don't start censoring individual posts on this forum. I shudder at prospect of the Thought Police tampering with anyone's First Amendment rights, even Barry's. If anyone wants to play Big Brother or advocates it, please don't encourage them. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: That's really the issue. Many of the people who talk -- or really, shout -- on this forum the most are shouting about the same old same old, over and over and over and over. The extraordinary irony of *Barry* making such a statement is, as usual, completely lost on him. Everybody else here knows it. But I'm the only one who will point it out. And the real reason is that they don't HAVE anything else to talk about. They haven't had any experiences of their own to talk
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
Let's call it for what it is: Washing the Diamonds is censorship. Applying the Golden Rule every moment to one's life is a laudable endeavor and an individual choice. We cannot enforce it. Of course pixel bashing is safer, we are not within arm's reach of each other. Posting on a forum is not as if we're sitting down to tea. The beauty of writing is that it can be raw and impolite as well as filled with diamonds. It's a matter of taste. Do you prefer your tea bland or spicy? YES! Nothing to add except thanks for posting this. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of tkrystofiak Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 9:10 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife Attacks, personal aspersions, outright ridicule, intimidation - who needs it? Vaj quoted something, in a different context, about diamonds in the excrement. Picking them out is possible, I suppose, but not how I prefer to spend my time. How about washing the diamonds before posting? I happen to believe that the Golden Rule - treating others as you would want to be treated - is a spiritual practice, and failing to abide by it retards one's spiritual development. I don't always live up to it, but if one really takes that to heart, one is less inclined to trash people. It also helps to remember that we're dealing with living, breathing human beings here, not just pixels on our monitors. Would we speak as harshly to one another if we were sitting face to face? Let's call it for what it is: Washing the Diamonds is censorship. Applying the Golden Rule every moment to one's life is a laudable endeavor and an individual choice. We cannot enforce it. Of course pixel bashing is safer, we are not within arm's reach of each other. Posting on a forum is not as if we're sitting down to tea. The beauty of writing is that it can be raw and impolite as well as filled with diamonds. It's a matter of taste. Do you prefer your tea bland or spicy?
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of raunchydog Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 11:11 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife Let's call it for what it is: Washing the Diamonds is censorship. Applying the Golden Rule every moment to one's life is a laudable endeavor and an individual choice. We cannot enforce it. Of course pixel bashing is safer, we are not within arm's reach of each other. Posting on a forum is not as if we're sitting down to tea. The beauty of writing is that it can be raw and impolite as well as filled with diamonds. It's a matter of taste. Do you prefer your tea bland or spicy? Spicy is nice, but not rancid (I'm not into that Tibeten rancid yak butter tea). BTW, let me take this opportunity to say that although I've disagreed with you on many issues, psychoanalyzed you, etc., I hold no personal animosity toward you, and in fact I like you. Keep that in mind if we encounter each other around town.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
I wonder how many read their squabbling posts? Maybe only you. They might do better to squabble through personal emails, and save their 50 posts for topics others will actually read. Right, I enjoy reading one and I've got the other on block. Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no `you,' only love. - Amma --- On Tue, 11/25/08, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, November 25, 2008, 10:52 AM From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of raunchydog Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 12:04 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife The territory Judy claims on FF Life is calling Barry out on his BS, and refusing to let his trollish behavior go unanswered. Her analytical abilities are awesome and I am thankful she stands on principle that no one should tolerate lying. I respect her integrity as a writer and I rely on her to take out the garbage. Whenever Judy takes Barry to the woodshed for the spanking he deserves, I'm sure some part of him masochistically enjoys his foray to the woodshed because he always comes back for more. I wonder how many read their squabbling posts? Maybe only you. They might do better to squabble through personal emails, and save their 50 posts for topics others will actually read.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
Vaj wrote: However the unfortunate thing is, it isn't just all about Barry as Willy might say... Now it's all about Willy? From: Judy Stein Subject: Challenge to Judy Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 http://tinyurl.com/5eugo2 Barry Wright writes: TM is the fastest, most effective technique on the planet to enable anyone, anywhere to become enlightened school of thought. Even if I have misread you and that is not true, you should be able to answer a simple question for me:
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
Vaj wrote: ...The Puranas actually list the rock which exists in Kaabah, the Ruknu Al-Aswad, as an ancient lingam of Shiva... The sacred center of the universe of Arabia is termed 'Omphali' by Arabs, from the prakrit mantra 'Om' and 'phal', meaning the 'Omphalos' of the Great Goddess, that is, Omphalo, the female 'generative' organ, i.e. the vulva of Mother Nature, the direct counterpart to the phalus of the Great Sky God, i.e. Omphalus, that is, the Phalus, maha Linga, the upright generative organ of man, thus the Axis Mundi and Mother Goddess as the sacred ridge pole set into a splayed base of the physical universe, divine, worthy of worship, a black stone from heaven, a sign of connection to the Most High, that is, Hecate, the inventor of human sex and procreation. Read more: Author: willytex Subject: Q'ubes, Q'res, Q'rans, and the Queen of Sheba. Forum: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: 09/22/2001 http://tinyurl.com/6m35bc
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
John wrote: My own personal opinion is that the creepy, sadistic, bloody, murdering, jealous and vengeful 'god' of the Old Testament was a politically useful creation of the character of the quasi-savage/barbaric peoples of the times. The entire Levant is probably Vedic. Not for nothing did they call him 'Abrahm' and her 'Sarai. From which root words we get 'Brahma' and 'Saraswati'. But, in fact, there is no historical 'Abraham' or 'Sarah' who came from Ur or Mari; its just a myth, a story, to illustrate a political point. There are many myths surrounding the person of 'Abraham'. Read more: 'False testament: archaeology refutes the Bible's claim to history' by Daniel Lazare Harper's Magazine March 2002 Titles of interest: 'Unearthing the Bible' by Israel Finklestein and Neil Asher Siberman The Free Press, 2001 'The Mythic Past' by Thomas L. Thompson Basic Books, 2001
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
Rick Archer wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of tkrystofiak Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 9:10 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife Attacks, personal aspersions, outright ridicule, intimidation - who needs it? Vaj quoted something, in a different context, about diamonds in the excrement. Picking them out is possible, I suppose, but not how I prefer to spend my time. How about washing the diamonds before posting? I happen to believe that the Golden Rule - treating others as you would want to be treated - is a spiritual practice, and failing to abide by it retards one's spiritual development. I don't always live up to it, but if one really takes that to heart, one is less inclined to trash people. It also helps to remember that we're dealing with living, breathing human beings here, not just pixels on our monitors. Would we speak as harshly to one another if we were sitting face to face? It would be interesting to see how FFL would fare as a forum. The difference would be you could have specific sections including a General for all kinds of topics. Heck you could Turq and Judy their own section. One dynamic with a forum that doesn't occur with Yahoo Groups is that some authors could see how many people actually viewed their topic.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bhairitu Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 2:16 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife It would be interesting to see how FFL would fare as a forum. The difference would be you could have specific sections including a General for all kinds of topics. Heck you could Turq and Judy their own section. One dynamic with a forum that doesn't occur with Yahoo Groups is that some authors could see how many people actually viewed their topic. It would be cool if you could choose a forum interface if you preferred it, yet still have the other viewing options.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raunchy, You are buying in hook line and sinker to Judy's own personal mythology about her role here. Barry lies and Judy calls him out on it. I don't see any mythology there. I am a fan of both Judy and Turq's contributions here, but I also understand how their personal metaphors shape their contributions. (as mine affect mine) Your role here is a provocateur which is closer to Turq's personal metaphor IMO. O.K. you have identified metaphors for raunchy[top]dog and Barry [bottom]dog as provocateurs. What is Judy's personal metaphor? Raunchydog Provocateur I like how that sounds, but a more complete metaphor is defender of truth, justice and the American way (Superwoman) Truth: I've been an defender of Hillary and anti-Obama detractor. I did my best to present my case to an audience hostile to the very idea that anyone could possibly find anything to criticize about the beloved Obama. Bursting the Obama bubble isn't easy. American Way: Call me old fashioned, but I do respect for the office of the presidency and I will respect Obama as my president. However, it does not mean I drank any Kool Aid or that I cannot criticize or disagree with him in the future. Justice: I will always take a stand against sexism and misogyny, a subject which has certainly generated some spirited writing around here. More Justice: Whenever Barry attacks with lies or distortions and imagines crap about me, he can expect a smack down. First Judy: Although you have elevated her role as the single defender of what is pure and true, this is a PR version. At her best she can serve this role in specific discussions, and I appreciate her for it. I dig how she is willing to engage and work through complex issues and point out perspective I have missed. Agreed. But I am real clear that what she is up to with Turq is out of her delight in belittling him. Most of what you seem to be elevating to exposing fraudulence is just her disagreeing in the most contentious insulting way. Turn about is fair play. If Barry is contentious and insulting, she responds in kind and he gets what he deserves. When Judy gets focused on a topic I am interested there is no poster here who adds more value to the discussion. But the Turq war is not an example of that. I see that for what it is, a personal feud with a little more mean spiritedness than I am comfortable with on both sides. And so that part of their contributions is none of my business. I don't believe they should be censored for something they obviously enjoy. Agreed. Now Turq, Do you really believe that the rest of us are unable to notice when Turq is letting something fly just to stir the shit? You do it all the time so you should be able to understand. I know you recognize shit when you see it and I appreciate your ability to jump into the middle of a shit storm while maintaining a demeanor of kindness and respect. Judy takes everything with equal seriousness as a challenge to her sense of what is right and wrong I'm respect her for her sense of right and wrong. Ethical standards, a moral compass and respect for others is the glue of society that anarchists abhor. I may be a provocateur but Barry is often an anarchist. and Turq winds her up just to see her react. He has said as much. This isn't that deep. Turq is a creative writer whose contributions are valued (by me) because he is willing to write a bunch of stuff that he hasn't edited so much that no one can disagree. It provokes thought. Sometimes it is clearly to antagonize Judy. I usually skip those because they are written for an audience of one. I use the name Turq in context of his persona here because that is consistent with how his role as provocateur is only a part of Barry the person. Barry is a writer and Judy is an editor. They are forever destined to be cobra and mongoose. Judy the mongoose out maneuvers her poisonous foe with deadly speed and agility. As highly intelligent people who are willing to spend time writing a lot here, they are both huge assets to my intellectual life. They are driven by their own personal metaphors that go beyond my choices sometimes. Hallelujah! That is what I am here for. Their personal feud has nothing to do with me. But any attempt to demonize either one of them, or censor their prolific contributions, seems misguided to me. They are a force of nature to be enjoyed and appreciated for what they are. Two imperfect people writing like crazy on a public board. Agreed. I appreciate your contributions the same way Raunchy. Even when I disagree I appreciate that you took the time to contribute to my intellectual universe here. Writing takes time and effort and I applaud the posters who make this place stimulating. (ooh baby baby!) No one here is inhabiting higher ground. We are all
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
Thanks for the detailed response Raunchy. I don't believe the group is as wide eyed about Obama as you seem to think. And seeing Turq as the Antichrist seems to me to make him into a one dimensional figure that misses what is great about his contributions here. I think that Judy's mythology, that she is somehow uniquely capable of upholding ethical standards, is a bit far fetched. I can think of plenty of posters whose ethical compass seems to match my own. (I know, insert snark here!) But we both seem to appreciate her contributions and see beyond the feud which shouldn't define either of them IMO. Thanks for hitting the ball back with your own special spin Raunchydog Provocateur! (I'll reserve the title of Superwoman for the woman in my life if you don't mind. She pretty much has to be to put up with me!) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Raunchy, You are buying in hook line and sinker to Judy's own personal mythology about her role here. Barry lies and Judy calls him out on it. I don't see any mythology there. I am a fan of both Judy and Turq's contributions here, but I also understand how their personal metaphors shape their contributions. (as mine affect mine) Your role here is a provocateur which is closer to Turq's personal metaphor IMO. O.K. you have identified metaphors for raunchy[top]dog and Barry [bottom]dog as provocateurs. What is Judy's personal metaphor? Raunchydog Provocateur I like how that sounds, but a more complete metaphor is defender of truth, justice and the American way (Superwoman) Truth: I've been an defender of Hillary and anti-Obama detractor. I did my best to present my case to an audience hostile to the very idea that anyone could possibly find anything to criticize about the beloved Obama. Bursting the Obama bubble isn't easy. American Way: Call me old fashioned, but I do respect for the office of the presidency and I will respect Obama as my president. However, it does not mean I drank any Kool Aid or that I cannot criticize or disagree with him in the future. Justice: I will always take a stand against sexism and misogyny, a subject which has certainly generated some spirited writing around here. More Justice: Whenever Barry attacks with lies or distortions and imagines crap about me, he can expect a smack down. First Judy: Although you have elevated her role as the single defender of what is pure and true, this is a PR version. At her best she can serve this role in specific discussions, and I appreciate her for it. I dig how she is willing to engage and work through complex issues and point out perspective I have missed. Agreed. But I am real clear that what she is up to with Turq is out of her delight in belittling him. Most of what you seem to be elevating to exposing fraudulence is just her disagreeing in the most contentious insulting way. Turn about is fair play. If Barry is contentious and insulting, she responds in kind and he gets what he deserves. When Judy gets focused on a topic I am interested there is no poster here who adds more value to the discussion. But the Turq war is not an example of that. I see that for what it is, a personal feud with a little more mean spiritedness than I am comfortable with on both sides. And so that part of their contributions is none of my business. I don't believe they should be censored for something they obviously enjoy. Agreed. Now Turq, Do you really believe that the rest of us are unable to notice when Turq is letting something fly just to stir the shit? You do it all the time so you should be able to understand. I know you recognize shit when you see it and I appreciate your ability to jump into the middle of a shit storm while maintaining a demeanor of kindness and respect. Judy takes everything with equal seriousness as a challenge to her sense of what is right and wrong I'm respect her for her sense of right and wrong. Ethical standards, a moral compass and respect for others is the glue of society that anarchists abhor. I may be a provocateur but Barry is often an anarchist. and Turq winds her up just to see her react. He has said as much. This isn't that deep. Turq is a creative writer whose contributions are valued (by me) because he is willing to write a bunch of stuff that he hasn't edited so much that no one can disagree. It provokes thought. Sometimes it is clearly to antagonize Judy. I usually skip those because they are written for an audience of one. I use the name Turq in context of his persona here because that is consistent with how his role as provocateur is only a part of Barry the person. Barry is a writer and Judy is an editor. They are forever destined to be cobra
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 10:14 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife (snip) It's called Fairfield Life, right? Well, remember there's always been the conflict in Fairfield, Between the Ru's and the Townie's... So, just think of it like that...it's sort of built into the equation. I actually think that some of the townies are possessed by bad spirits which get released, as the many people, who have passed through Fairfield, probably a few bad spirits got dropped off... And may have attatched to some on the south side, so be careful, out there... Watch it bub. Sal and I live on the south side. You want a knuckle sandwich? Sorry, big feller... I was just remembering an incident on the South side, where some crazy teenagers were giving me the finger, etc, when I was visting Faifield in 2000, and my children were with me... So, nothing against the you guys... R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for the detailed response Raunchy. I don't believe the group is as wide eyed about Obama as you seem to think. I think you mean wild-eyed not wide-eyed meaning they actually see Obama's flaws, which I believe they do not. Perhaps it's true for you because you didn't seem to be as passionate about any of the candidates but not so for folks like Robert, Vaj, Dr. Peter, Rick and a few others that would go to the mat defending Obama. And seeing Turq as the Antichrist seems to me to make him into a one dimensional figure that misses what is great about his contributions here. Not Antichrist. ANARCHIST 1. a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism. 2. a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed. 3. a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom. An Antichrist is a one dimensional mythological figure. An anarchist is a multi-dimensional narcissist who thrives on chaos. When the anarchist goes shopping, he takes what he wants, then spits in the face of the cashier as he walks out the door believing he doesn't have to pay a price for anything. He steals more than goods and services. He steals trust, faith in social order and the good will of others. An anarchist is truly an ethically challenged, mean-spirited, nasty little bugger. I think that Judy's mythology, that she is somehow uniquely capable of upholding ethical standards, is a bit far fetched. Of course Judy is not uniquely capable of upholding ethical standards. Everyone has that ability. I'm making the point that she is the only one that consistently chooses to hold Barry accountable for his lack of ethical standards and she's damn good at it. I can think of plenty of posters whose ethical compass seems to match my own. (I know, insert snark here!) Without a doubt you are beyond reproach. But we both seem to appreciate her contributions and see beyond the feud which shouldn't define either of them IMO. Yes. Thanks for hitting the ball back with your own special spin Raunchydog Provocateur! (I'll reserve the title of Superwoman for the woman in my life if you don't mind. She pretty much has to be to put up with me!) I'll bet she's hot. Lucky guy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, guyfawkes91 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The point is that it is so curious that this group of people � the most active posters � tolerates and promotes and even seems to thrive on a style of communication that is, to me, so much at odds with any recognizable process of community-building, mutual discovery, or a generous sharing of diversity. It's a case of the bad posters driving away the good people. There are a lot of people like you who have ideas which they can express with eloquence and conviction. But they don't lead anywhere. No one in the TMO wants to hear thoughts from outside the box, and everyone here is so well versed in the problems of the TMO that it gets repetitive to go over that ground again. Which doesn't leave much room for creative, entertaining and sometimes insightful posting. With nothing much to say that hasn't already been said it leaves the ground open to those who don't have anything useful to say and are keen to make sure everyone knows about it. The way to redress the balance is to increase the quantity of posts that are worth reading, which makes more people read, and hopefully more people write other intelligent tracts. WELL SAID. That's really the issue. Many of the people who talk -- or really, shout -- on this forum the most are shouting about the same old same old, over and over and over and over. And the real reason is that they don't HAVE anything else to talk about. They haven't had any experiences of their own to talk about in decades, so they argue incessantly about other peoples' exper- iences. They don't have anything going on in their personal lives, so they try to start arguments about politics, or even more boring, sexual politics. That's why I was trying to taunt/challenge Tom to stick around and not limit his remarks to a drive by hooting. He at least seems to have something to say that is out of the ordinary and new. Whatever he has to say, it's got to be better than the stuff posted by those who have spent 50 posts a week for months or years proving that they DON'T have anything new or interesting to say.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's really the issue. Many of the people who talk -- or really, shout -- on this forum the most are shouting about the same old same old, over and over and over and over. And the real reason is that they don't HAVE anything else to talk about. They haven't had any experiences of their own to talk about in decades, so they argue incessantly about other peoples' exper- iences. They don't have anything going on in their personal lives, so they try to start arguments about politics, or even more boring, sexual politics. That's why I was trying to taunt/challenge Tom to stick around and not limit his remarks to a drive by hooting. He at least seems to have something to say that is out of the ordinary and new. Whatever he has to say, it's got to be better than the stuff posted by those who have spent 50 posts a week for months or years proving that they DON'T have anything new or interesting to say. Just to follow up -- because this subject makes a great troll in itself, and the people I'm talking about will reply to it in *exactly* the way I'm describing them -- the problem on FFL really IS boredom. Vaj's Carlsen posts, on one level, really were trolls. On another, however, he was again hoping for some -- any -- intelligent discussion about the differences in the points of view (not to mention View) being discussed. Of course, none of that happened. Instead, some- one who long ago proved that she is pretty much incapable of having an original thought tried to turn it into a bash Vaj session, and tried to suck in anyone stupid enough to join in. She actually found one this time, a newb who IMO has not posted a single original thought since she arrived here. So they had fun bashing Vaj. Even sparaig wisely stayed out of this time, as did pretty much everyone else except Curtis, who weighed in to provide some balance, as he often does. So what's the alternative to having to wade through post after post after post of this garbage, the *same* garbage every time? What might the thing be that would actually entice lurkers to come out of their closets and join in? Well, IMO it's original thought. As guyfawkes said so well, who CARES who the Mistress Of Unorig- inal Thought is bashing this week to cover her lack of original thought? For that matter, who CARES what Maharishi said on some subject? He's dead, and we've been over it a thousand times already. Me, I'd like to hear a little something different. Some original experiences, told *as they happened*, and without trying to link them to some exper- ience in the past in some scripture or lecture. I'd like to hear *happy* stuff, stuff that really turns you on. (One of the reasons it was great to see Marek's name again was that I used to love his descriptions of surfing and what it meant to him; they were the most *alive* posts I've ever seen on this forum. Those and when Curtis talks about his music. And WHY are those experiences fun to read, while the Vaj-bashing and the Barry-bashing and the tired old reruns of the same old same old are not? Because they're HERE AND NOW. Someone is *having* those experiences, in real time. And that makes them *alive*, something that other alive people can participate in and derive joy from reading about. The chronic same old same olders don't HAVE any such experiences to share. That's why they dredge up the same old same old every week. I say it's about time for those on this forum who actually HAVE lives to write about them a little, to remind those who don't what they're missing, and to remind those of us who also have lives that we could be writing about them, too. Instead of this tired old shit that *everyone* is tired of except a few who really don't have anything else going on for them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
All we have to do is get rid of the ankle-biting pundits who post lies to get attention! No, that's not possible. More people need to post more thoughtful messages. Eventually if enough thoughtful discussion takes place on this group there will be a phase transition ;-) and it'll flip over into a more restrained tone. People emulate each other, and they like to think they're getting some sort of cred from the groups they're in. Even if it's back to front cred from people responding emotively to one's posts. If it becomes apparent that there's no cred to be gained from emotionally charged yet information free posting it'll die out.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, guyfawkes91 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All we have to do is get rid of the ankle-biting pundits who post lies to get attention! No, that's not possible. More people need to post more thoughtful messages. Eventually if enough thoughtful discussion takes place on this group there will be a phase transition ;-) and it'll flip over into a more restrained tone. People emulate each other, and they like to think they're getting some sort of cred from the groups they're in. Even if it's back to front cred from people responding emotively to one's posts. If it becomes apparent that there's no cred to be gained from emotionally charged yet information free posting it'll die out. That's really the issue. If you're so bored that you bite on obvious trollbait and respond to it *in exactly the way that the troll hopes you will*, you are perpetuating the trolling. I say learn a little something from the way that a few of the obvious Trolls With Nothing To Say react when a lot of people *ignore* what they post for a while. They freak out, and melt down. And then their first response is to troll *more*, and try to start arguments with new people, since the old ones aren't falling for it any more. But the second response is to try to post something that actually has some interest quotient to it, and is flame-free and troll-free. True, they only resort to this when they're *really* freaked out about being ignored, but they do it. So those who are smart should take advantage of these freakout moments in the trolls and respond only to the moments in which the trolls are so worried about losing their audience that they resort to being human beings to try to preserve it.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of guyfawkes91 Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 12:27 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife The way to redress the balance is to increase the quantity of posts that are worth reading, which makes more people read, and hopefully more people write other intelligent tracts. I agree. Limiting the weekly posts to 50 was effective because it change the proportions of the mix. More constructive, substantive contributions will naturally change the ratio of useful posts to those which involve petty bickering.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 3:43 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife That's why I was trying to taunt/challenge Tom to stick around and not limit his remarks to a drive by hooting. He at least seems to have something to say that is out of the ordinary and new. Whatever he has to say, it's got to be better than the stuff posted by those who have spent 50 posts a week for months or years proving that they DON'T have anything new or interesting to say. But you see Barry, you're part of the problem insofar as you ended your post with an implicit dig at Judy. If you did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to egg her on, and COMPLETELY IGNORED all attempts she might make to engage you in an argument, the whole Barry/Judy thing might fizzle out once and for all. Just think of yourself has being one of those Hindu gods with lots of heads, and therefore plenty of cheeks. Keep turning them no matter what she does and see what happens.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 4:18 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife Of course, none of that happened. Instead, some- one who long ago proved that she is pretty much incapable of having an original thought tried to turn it into a bash Vaj session, and tried to suck in anyone stupid enough to join in. She actually found one this time, a newb who IMO has not posted a single original thought since she arrived here. You see? There you go again. Sucked into the old Barry/Judy game. I'm giving you a hard time about this because I think you have greater capacity to drop the game than she does, but theoretically, either of you could end it once and for all.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of guyfawkes91 Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 4:31 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife All we have to do is get rid of the ankle-biting pundits who post lies to get attention! No, that's not possible. More people need to post more thoughtful messages. Eventually if enough thoughtful discussion takes place on this group there will be a phase transition ;-) and it'll flip over into a more restrained tone. People emulate each other, and they like to think they're getting some sort of cred from the groups they're in. Even if it's back to front cred from people responding emotively to one's posts. If it becomes apparent that there's no cred to be gained from emotionally charged yet information free posting it'll die out. Well put Guy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Behalf Of TurquoiseB That's why I was trying to taunt/challenge Tom to stick around and not limit his remarks to a drive by hooting. He at least seems to have something to say that is out of the ordinary and new. Whatever he has to say, it's got to be better than the stuff posted by those who have spent 50 posts a week for months or years proving that they DON'T have anything new or interesting to say. But you see Barry, you're part of the problem insofar as you ended your post with an implicit dig at Judy. If you did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to egg her on,and COMPLETELY IGNORED all attempts she might make to engage you in an argument, the whole Barry/Judy thing might fizzle out once and for all. With all due respect, Rick, get real. Judy *lives* to wreak her imagined revenge for the imagined affronts done to her. You've seen how she reacts anytime Andrew Skolnick's name comes up here, or John Knapp's, and they haven't been a part of her life for years, in Skolnick's case for over a decade. I've tried to lay low, and will continue to do so, BUT IT WON'T CHANGE A THING. Judy will continue to try to demonize me and to recruit others into her demonization club because that is JUST WHAT SHE DOES. She doesn't have any other speed on the dial of who and what she is. Just think of yourself has being one of those Hindu gods with lots of heads, and therefore plenty of cheeks. Keep turning them no matter what she does and see what happens. That might work if I imagine that the cheeks I'm turning to her are somewhat further south in my anatomy than the ones on my face. :-) Seriously, Rick, I get what you're saying and I will do my best to try to ignore her attempts to suck me back into the only game she knows how to play. But it really IS the only game she knows how to play, and for that reason alone it will never stop. If I manage to ignore her presence for ten more years she will still react the same way whenever my name comes up then that she does when Skolnick's name comes up. Judy will die just as angry at me and the other people on this forum who refuse to take her ser- iously as she is today. And she knows that, which only makes her angrier. Us ignoring her is only going to make that anger stronger.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 7:51 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife Seriously, Rick, I get what you're saying and I will do my best to try to ignore her attempts to suck me back into the only game she knows how to play. If you do that, and even if she devotes 100% of her posts to trashing you, the percentage of good stuff in your posts will be higher, and thus the overall mix in the stew will be more palatable. I'm just picking on you because when most of us think of bickering on FFL, we think of the eternal Barry/Judy dance. It may take two to tango, but you don't have to be one of the two if you so choose. Let her dance with others or solo, if no others accept her invitation. Maybe then she'll get tired of the dance too.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Seriously, Rick, I get what you're saying and I will do my best to try to ignore her attempts to suck me back into the only game she knows how to play. If you do that, and even if she devotes 100% of her posts to trashing you, the percentage of good stuff in your posts will be higher, and thus the overall mix in the stew will be more palatable. I'm just picking on you because when most of us think of bickering on FFL, we think of the eternal Barry/Judy dance. It may take two to tango, but you don't have to be one of the two if you so choose. Let her dance with others or solo, if no others accept her invitation. Maybe then she'll get tired of the dance too. OK, I'll give it another shot. But do me a favor and keep a mental track of the number of posts she spends trashing Barry over the next few months. It won't ever be 100%, but it'll consistently be 20-40% of the total, as it has been now for years. That's a lot of cheek turning and mooning ahead of me. I might as well take my pants off now and leave them off. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 4:18 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife Of course, none of that happened. Instead, some- one who long ago proved that she is pretty much incapable of having an original thought tried to turn it into a bash Vaj session, and tried to suck in anyone stupid enough to join in. She actually found one this time, a newb who IMO has not posted a single original thought since she arrived here. You see? There you go again. Sucked into the old Barry/Judy game. Sucked into?? By whom, Rick? Not by me. *Most* of Barry's Judy-bashing posts are de novo, not in response to anything I've said about him. That's the case with all four of the Judy-bashing posts he's made this morning. I'm giving you a hard time about this because I think you have greater capacity to drop the game than she does If you really think that, you haven't been paying attention. Plus which, you don't say a word, again, about his incredibly unfair and simply untrue bash above of enlightened_dawn, who has posted far more original stuff since she's been here than Barry has in that period. There's something horribly wrong with your sense of fairness where Barry is concerned. The ratio of his bashing to nonbashing posts--and not just those bashing me--is way higher than anybody else's here. From a subsequent post of Barry's, his fourth this morning bashing me: Judy *lives* to wreak her imagined revenge for the imagined affronts done to her. You've seen how she reacts anytime Andrew Skolnick's name comes up here, or John Knapp's, and they haven't been a part of her life for years, in Skolnick's case for over a decade. Rick, seriously, do you realize how utterly absurd this claim is? Or are you sitting there nodding your head thinking, Yes, that's right? If the latter, I'll be happy to explain to you why it's so wildly off base. I've tried to lay low, and will continue to do so, BUT IT WON'T CHANGE A THING. Barry has not tried to lay low, to the contrary. How can you read that, Rick, and not be appalled by the fantasy quotient? Do you think he's simply forgotten all his boasts about how his posts are designed to evoke a response from me or one of his other favorite targets? The only sense in which he could be said to be laying low is that he doesn't respond *directly* to my or his other targets' posts. Judy will continue to try to demonize me and to recruit others into her demonization club because that is JUST WHAT SHE DOES. She doesn't have any other speed on the dial of who and what she is. Barry's right that I'll continue to criticize him as long as he continues to behave the way he has for the 12 years I've known him. But if you can't recognize the ludicrousness of his assertion that I have no other speed on my dial, you're as sunk in unreality as Barry is. BTW, there's a big difference between my bashing of Barry and Barry's bashing of me and others: mine is accurate and truthful, and his almost never is. That's another huge blind spot you and others have, the notion that there's a moral equivalency between my bashing and his bashing. Part of your problem, I think, is that you don't bother to read his or my bashes. That's understandable, but it also means you aren't in any position to evaluate the situation overall.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: That's really the issue. Many of the people who talk -- or really, shout -- on this forum the most are shouting about the same old same old, over and over and over and over. The extraordinary irony of *Barry* making such a statement is, as usual, completely lost on him. Everybody else here knows it. But I'm the only one who will point it out. And the real reason is that they don't HAVE anything else to talk about. They haven't had any experiences of their own to talk about in decades, so they argue incessantly about other peoples' exper- iences. They don't have anything going on in their personal lives, so they try to start arguments about politics, or even more boring, sexual politics. Barry mysteriously knows everything there is to know about the lives of those he's talking about. Does anybody else find this odd? I've said it before, I'll say it again: In all his elaborate fantasizing about my personal life, Barry has not *once* gotten it right. snip Just to follow up -- because this subject makes a great troll in itself, and the people I'm talking about will reply to it in *exactly* the way I'm describing them -- the problem on FFL really IS boredom. How bored does one have to be to not only make trolling posts but then boast endlessly about how one is doing so? Vaj's Carlsen posts, on one level, really were trolls. On another, however, he was again hoping for some -- any -- intelligent discussion about the differences in the points of view (not to mention View) being discussed. Of course, none of that happened. Instead, some- one who long ago proved that she is pretty much incapable of having an original thought tried to turn it into a bash Vaj session, and tried to suck in anyone stupid enough to join in. Says He Who Claims Not to Read My Posts. snicker Of course, Barry seems *not* to have read the post in which I attempted to start a discussion with Vaj about the differences in point of view of the Carlsen material, to no response from Vaj. Barry didn't do so and still hasn't. Instead, he's so bored that he's written three different posts about how bored and unoriginal he imagines me to be. She actually found one this time, a newb who IMO has not posted a single original thought since she arrived here. Actually she has posted more original thoughts than Barry has since she arrived here. snip Well, IMO it's original thought. As guyfawkes said so well, who CARES who the Mistress Of Unorig- inal Thought is bashing this week to cover her lack of original thought? Um, that's not what he said, of course. For that matter, who CARES what Maharishi said on some subject? He's dead, and we've been over it a thousand times already. Barry's fourth post this morning was a MMY-bashing post, a repetition of things he's already said many times. snip And WHY are those experiences fun to read, while the Vaj-bashing and the Barry-bashing And Judy-bashing by Barry. Three different Judy- bashing posts from Barry since he got up this morning, plus two more in response to Rick. snip The chronic same old same olders don't HAVE any such experiences to share. Or choose not to share them, since experience posts typically invoke more bashing than anything else, especially from Barry. From another Judy-bashing post of Barry's this morning: I say learn a little something from the way that a few of the obvious Trolls With Nothing To Say react when a lot of people *ignore* what they post for a while. They freak out, and melt down. And then their first response is to troll *more*, and try to start arguments with new people, since the old ones aren't falling for it any more. But the second response is to try to post something that actually has some interest quotient to it, and is flame-free and troll-free. You really have to laugh at the transparency of Barry's tactic. He's claiming that any non- bashing posts from the folks he's demonizing *are a response to being ignored*. Talk about trying to have it both ways!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
On Nov 24, 2008, at 9:02 AM, Rick Archer wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 7:51 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife Seriously, Rick, I get what you're saying and I will do my best to try to ignore her attempts to suck me back into the only game she knows how to play. If you do that, and even if she devotes 100% of her posts to trashing you, the percentage of good stuff in your posts will be higher, and thus the overall mix in the stew will be more palatable. I’m just picking on you because when most of us think of bickering on FFL, we think of the eternal Barry/Judy dance. It may take two to tango, but you don’t have to be one of the two if you so choose. Let her dance with others or solo, if no others accept her invitation. Maybe then she’ll get tired of the dance too. Since most email programs have very easy rules or scripting to allow you to file emails, that may be the perfect solution. All I have to do is pick the name appearing in the email and then choose where I want it to go, like for example, the trash, or perhaps a folder of posters I'm fond of. You never see the posts from the whacky posters, they go straight to the trash!
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 8:28 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife But do me a favor and keep a mental track of the number of posts she spends trashing Barry over the next few months. It won't ever be 100%, but it'll consistently be 20-40% of the total, as it has been now for years. That's a lot of cheek turning and mooning ahead of me. I might as well take my pants off now and leave them off. :-) Think of yourself as Kevin Costner in Dances with Wolves where he rides back and forth in front of the Confederate troops, hoping to be shot, but they all miss him and exhaust their ammunition, allowing the Union troops to charge and defeat them.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 8:45 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife You see? There you go again. Sucked into the old Barry/Judy game. Sucked into?? By whom, Rick? Not by me. Agreed. Sucked in by his own habit patterns. *Most* of Barry's Judy-bashing posts are de novo, not in response to anything I've said about him. That's the case with all four of the Judy-bashing posts he's made this morning. Again agreed. I'm giving you a hard time about this because I think you have greater capacity to drop the game than she does If you really think that, you haven't been paying attention. You're both guilty. I get the impression that Barry may be better able to break the cycle, but please prove me wrong. Plus which, you don't say a word, again, about his incredibly unfair and simply untrue bash above of enlightened_dawn, who has posted far more original stuff since she's been here than Barry has in that period. Haven't been following that discussion closely. There's something horribly wrong with your sense of fairness where Barry is concerned. The ratio of his bashing to nonbashing posts--and not just those bashing me--is way higher than anybody else's here. Could be. I don't like the bashing whoever's doing it. Nobody's innocent. I was just looking for a possible way to stop it. Part of your problem, I think, is that you don't bother to read his or my bashes. That's understandable, but it also means you aren't in any position to evaluate the situation overall. True. In fact, I just snipped a bunch of stuff without reading it, because it was getting too long and I have to get to work.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Behalf Of TurquoiseB But do me a favor and keep a mental track of the number of posts she spends trashing Barry over the next few months. It won't ever be 100%, but it'll consistently be 20-40% of the total, as it has been now for years. That's a lot of cheek turning and mooning ahead of me. I might as well take my pants off now and leave them off. :-) Think of yourself as Kevin Costner in Dances with Wolves where he rides back and forth in front of the Confederate troops, hoping to be shot, but they all miss him and exhaust their ammunition, allowing the Union troops to charge and defeat them. I'll do it if it means that I get to shack up with Mary McDonnell like Costner did in that movie. She's always been one of my faves. Heck, I'd rather shack up with her character Laura Roslin in Battlestar Galactica than with Tricia Helfer's Number Six, that's how much of a fave she is. :-)
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
You see? There you go again. Sucked into the old Barry/Judy game. I’m giving you a hard time about this because I think you have greater capacity to drop the game than she does, but theoretically, either of you could end it once and for all. I suggest we have a one-month moratorium in honor of the spirit of the holiday season, from November 26th through December 26th, inclusive. No personal attacks, no name-calling will be allowed. Violations will result in the the following: The post will be deleted, which means all members who read FFL at the message page will not even come across the message. The violator will be placed on moderation until December 27th, which means his or her posts will have to be approved before being released to the group. The posts will be deleted rather than be made available to the group if they are also in violation. The moderators will take their time to review these posts. Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no `you,' only love. - Amma --- On Mon, 11/24/08, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, November 24, 2008, 8:38 AM From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 4:18 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife Of course, none of that happened. Instead, some- one who long ago proved that she is pretty much incapable of having an original thought tried to turn it into a bash Vaj session, and tried to suck in anyone stupid enough to join in. She actually found one this time, a newb who IMO has not posted a single original thought since she arrived here. You see? There you go again. Sucked into the old Barry/Judy game. I’m giving you a hard time about this because I think you have greater capacity to drop the game than she does, but theoretically, either of you could end it once and for all.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gullible fool Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 10:39 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife You see? There you go again. Sucked into the old Barry/Judy game. I?m giving you a hard time about this because I think you have greater capacity to drop the game than she does, but theoretically, either of you could end it once and for all. I suggest we have a one-month moratorium in honor of the spirit of the holiday season, from November 26th through December 26th, inclusive. No personal attacks, no name-calling will be allowed. Violations will result in the the following: The post will be deleted, which means all members who read FFL at the message page will not even come across the message. The violator will be placed on moderation until December 27th, which means his or her posts will have to be approved before being released to the group. The posts will be deleted rather than be made available to the group if they are also in violation. The moderators will take their time to review these posts. Would you want to take on this moderation duty, presuming we agreed on it? It would mean reading all the posts, and making a subjective judgment as to their tone, intent, etc. I don't have the time, the patience, nor the wisdom for it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: someone who long ago proved that she is pretty much incapable of having an original thought tried to turn it into a bash Vaj session, and tried to suck in anyone stupid enough to join in. She actually found one this time, a newb who IMO has not posted a single original thought since she arrived here. So they had fun bashing Vaj. -snip- i made it clear i was not bashing vaj. i expressed some strong, original-lol-, thoughts about what he has written, and though my language was strong i was being constuctive based on my experience. isn't that what we should do here? if we disagree with someone, at least make it constructive and honest. there is no need to bash or insult anyone here. i know you see it differently and frequently insult others and call them awful names. but that is your choice B. it isn't mine.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gullible fool Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 10:39 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife You see? There you go again. Sucked into the old Barry/Judy game. I?m giving you a hard time about this because I think you have greater capacity to drop the game than she does, but theoretically, either of you could end it once and for all. I suggest we have a one-month moratorium in honor of the spirit of the holiday season, from November 26th through December 26th, inclusive. No personal attacks, no name-calling will be allowed. Violations will result in the the following: The post will be deleted, which means all members who read FFL at the message page will not even come across the message. The violator will be placed on moderation until December 27th, which means his or her posts will have to be approved before being released to the group. The posts will be deleted rather than be made available to the group if they are also in violation. The moderators will take their time to review these posts. Would you want to take on this moderation duty, presuming we agreed on it? It would mean reading all the posts, and making a subjective judgment as to their tone, intent, etc. I don't have the time, the patience, nor the wisdom for it. there are many of us here who already filter content here on the basis of common sense and preference. since we are all grown ups here, i vote we continue to do this.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
Would you want to take on this moderation duty, presuming we agreed on it? It would mean reading all the posts, and making a subjective judgment as to their tone, intent, etc. I don’t have the time, the patience, nor the wisdom for it. But we're all used to you being the bad cop, Rick. I'd do it, but I do not read all the posts and do not want to. Anyone who feels aggrieved will have to report the offending post to the three moderators with an email that has a link in the following format: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/199301 It would have to wait until after we are back from Detroit, so maybe begin on the 8th. Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no `you,' only love. - Amma --- On Mon, 11/24/08, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, November 24, 2008, 11:46 AM From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gullible fool Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 10:39 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife You see? There you go again. Sucked into the old Barry/Judy game. I?m giving you a hard time about this because I think you have greater capacity to drop the game than she does, but theoretically, either of you could end it once and for all. I suggest we have a one-month moratorium in honor of the spirit of the holiday season, from November 26th through December 26th, inclusive. No personal attacks, no name-calling will be allowed. Violations will result in the the following: The post will be deleted, which means all members who read FFL at the message page will not even come across the message. The violator will be placed on moderation until December 27th, which means his or her posts will have to be approved before being released to the group. The posts will be deleted rather than be made available to the group if they are also in violation. The moderators will take their time to review these posts. Would you want to take on this moderation duty, presuming we agreed on it? It would mean reading all the posts, and making a subjective judgment as to their tone, intent, etc. I don’t have the time, the patience, nor the wisdom for it.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gullible fool Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 11:23 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife Would you want to take on this moderation duty, presuming we agreed on it? It would mean reading all the posts, and making a subjective judgment as to their tone, intent, etc. I don?t have the time, the patience, nor the wisdom for it. But we're all used to you being the bad cop, Rick. I'd do it, but I do not read all the posts and do not want to. Anyone who feels aggrieved will have to report the offending post to the three moderators with an email that has a link in the following format: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/199301 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/199301 It would have to wait until after we are back from Detroit, so maybe begin on the 8th. I think we're not going to do it. it's too heavy-handed. As someone just pointed out, people can pick and choose among posts, based on the track record of the posters. If some folks want to spend a lot of time writing things that most people won't read, just to indulge their desire to vent, then I guess that's their choice. And it's unfortunate, because most people who do that also make substantive contributions, but they're going to lose a lot of people who don't want to sift through their posts looking for it.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
I think we’re not going to do it. it’s too heavy-handed. It doesn't matter to me, because I block most of the trolls, anyway. Just trying to offer the group an option, which I think they should vote on as a whole. A far as it being heavy-handed, it's what all the other successful forums always do. As someone just pointed out, people can pick and choose among posts, based on the track record of the posters. That someone is a newcomer. Perhaps some of the long-term regulars will weigh in. Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no `you,' only love. - Amma --- On Mon, 11/24/08, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, November 24, 2008, 12:31 PM From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gullible fool Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 11:23 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife Would you want to take on this moderation duty, presuming we agreed on it? It would mean reading all the posts, and making a subjective judgment as to their tone, intent, etc. I don?t have the time, the patience, nor the wisdom for it. But we're all used to you being the bad cop, Rick. I'd do it, but I do not read all the posts and do not want to. Anyone who feels aggrieved will have to report the offending post to the three moderators with an email that has a link in the following format: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/199301 It would have to wait until after we are back from Detroit, so maybe begin on the 8th. As someone just pointed out, people can pick and choose among posts, based on the track record of the posters. If some folks want to spend a lot of time writing things that most people won’t read, just to indulge their desire to vent, then I guess that’s their choice. And it’s unfortunate, because most people who do that also make substantive contributions, but they’re going to lose a lot of people who don’t want to sift through their posts looking for it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
enlightened_dawn11 wrote:- there are many of us here who already filter content here on the basis of common sense and preference. since we are all grown ups here, i vote we continue to do this. I agree. As I have done before the ones so unhappy with the content of FFL should set up their own Yahoo Group, which is easily done, and they can moderate it all they want. Which should be easy to moderate as they will probably have no members. :-D
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: enlightened_dawn11 wrote:- there are many of us here who already filter content here on the basis of common sense and preference. since we are all grown ups here, i vote we continue to do this. I agree. As I have done before the ones so unhappy with the content of FFL should set up their own Yahoo Group, which is easily done, and they can moderate it all they want. Which should be easy to moderate as they will probably have no members. :-D yep, the club of one- the more freewheeling this place is, the better. and there is the posting limit on here already.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 8:45 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife You see? There you go again. Sucked into the old Barry/Judy game. Sucked into?? By whom, Rick? Not by me. Agreed. Sucked in by his own habit patterns. *Most* of Barry's Judy-bashing posts are de novo, not in response to anything I've said about him. That's the case with all four of the Judy-bashing posts he's made this morning. Again agreed. I'm giving you a hard time about this because I think you have greater capacity to drop the game than she does If you really think that, you haven't been paying attention. You're both guilty. I get the impression that Barry may be better able to break the cycle, but please prove me wrong. You're well aware that Barry has vowed to stop *innumerable* times but never has. How can you suggest he's better able to break the cycle? We're both guilty of bashing each other, but what you're not getting is how much worse his bashing is than mine. He *initiates* most of the bashes; and the vast, vast majority involve blatant lies and gross distortions. My bashes are largely reactive, consisting of pointing out those lies and distortions. But you don't read them, so you aren't aware of this. Plus which, you don't say a word, again, about his incredibly unfair and simply untrue bash above of enlightened_dawn, who has posted far more original stuff since she's been here than Barry has in that period. Haven't been following that discussion closely. It's not just that discussion, Rick. Barry's saying (in what you snipped) that she's never posted *anything* original here. That's simply false; she's posted quite a bit--more, as I said, than Barry has since she arrived. There's something horribly wrong with your sense of fairness where Barry is concerned. The ratio of his bashing to nonbashing posts--and not just those bashing me--is way higher than anybody else's here. Could be. I don't like the bashing whoever's doing it. Nobody's innocent. I was just looking for a possible way to stop it. Nobody's innocent, but some are guiltier than others. You're correct to direct your attempt at Barry, who is by *far* the worst offender; but not on the basis that he's better able to stop. Part of your problem, I think, is that you don't bother to read his or my bashes. That's understandable, but it also means you aren't in any position to evaluate the situation overall. True. In fact, I just snipped a bunch of stuff without reading it, because it was getting too long and I have to get to work. As I said, that's understandable. But then you turn around and suggest that Barry's the one being victimized, and that he should just turn the other cheek, which doesn't address what's actually going on. You don't *know* what's going on. You can't hope to take effective measures if you don't know what you're taking measures *against*. The moratorium notion, with gullible_fool as the ultimate judge, is absurd. He's made it amply clear he loathes me, and he's a huge fan of Barry's. He doesn't read my posts, so he has no idea either how atrociously dishonest Barry's bashes are (and he wouldn't care even if he did). You know damn well what would happen. Barry would post one of his anonymous bashes in which he doesn't actually use names but makes it very clear who he's targeting. gullible_fool would give it a pass because with no names used, it wasn't a personal attack. If I responded to correct the lies and distortions, he'd find me guilty of bashing. He's incapable of being a fair judge. As far as I can see, there's only one way to stop it, and that's for everyone to read both Barry's and my posts, come down hard on whoever they think is being dishonest and unfair, and refuse to interact with that person until they clean up their act. But that's not going to happen, of course. Also, if you think the only bashing that goes on here is that between Barry and me, again, you haven't been paying attention. Plus which, there's baseless bashing just for the sake of bashing (which is what Barry normally does), and there's critical, reasoned commentary in response to what someone has said (which is what I normally do). What you want to stop is the former; if you try to stop the latter too, you'll end up with utter blandness.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 3:06 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife You're correct to direct your attempt at Barry, who is by *far* the worst offender; but not on the basis that he's better able to stop. OK, then show us that you're better able to stop. I presume that you and Barry both defend yourselves against the other's attacks to convince the rest of us that you are innocent of the charges made, but I for one would be more impressed if either of you managed to completely ignore the other's attacks and focus instead on intelligent discussion of other issues. I don't believe something about you merely because Barry said it, and vice versa. It's the overall impression one makes that's important to me, and a tendency to bicker detracts from the positive impressions I've gotten of both of you. I read quite a few posts from both you and Barry, but I immediately delete them if they're an attack on the other. I don't care who's right or who's wrong. Both of you are wrong to continue this game.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 3:06 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife You're correct to direct your attempt at Barry, who is by *far* the worst offender; but not on the basis that he's better able to stop. OK, then show us that you're better able to stop. I have zero intention of ignoring it when Barry attacks me, or anyone else, with falsehoods and distortions. That's against my ethical principles. Dishonesty and unfairness poison everyone who comes in contact with them. They should not be tolerated among decent people. I presume that you and Barry both defend yourselves against the other's attacks to convince the rest of us that you are innocent of the charges made Like I said, you haven't been paying attention. I don't care who's right or who's wrong. That's obvious. And as long as you don't, you'll never be able to deal with this effectively.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
Rick Archer wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 3:06 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife You're correct to direct your attempt at Barry, who is by *far* the worst offender; but not on the basis that he's better able to stop. OK, then show us that you're better able to stop. I presume that you and Barry both defend yourselves against the other's attacks to convince the rest of us that you are innocent of the charges made, but I for one would be more impressed if either of you managed to completely ignore the other's attacks and focus instead on intelligent discussion of other issues. I don't believe something about you merely because Barry said it, and vice versa. It's the overall impression one makes that's important to me, and a tendency to bicker detracts from the positive impressions I've gotten of both of you. I read quite a few posts from both you and Barry, but I immediately delete them if they're an attack on the other. I don't care who's right or who's wrong. Both of you are wrong to continue this game. I often wonder why two sensible people would carry on like this unless they've been at it. for lifetimes. :-D
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 3:06 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife You're correct to direct your attempt at Barry, who is by *far* the worst offender; but not on the basis that he's better able to stop. OK, then show us that you're better able to stop. I presume that you and Barry both defend yourselves against the other's attacks to convince the rest of us that you are innocent of the charges made, but I for one would be more impressed if either of you managed to completely ignore the other's attacks and focus instead on intelligent discussion of other issues. I don't believe something about you merely because Barry said it, and vice versa. It's the overall impression one makes that's important to me, and a tendency to bicker detracts from the positive impressions I've gotten of both of you. I read quite a few posts from both you and Barry, but I immediately delete them if they're an attack on the other. I don't care who's right or who's wrong. Both of you are wrong to continue this game. As far as I can tell, this pointless crap between the two of them has been going on for over a decade going back into alt.meditation.transcendental - maybe even further. I really doubt *anyone* actually pays any attention at all to the petty details anymore - or even wants to see any of it. I sure as hell don't.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
On Nov 24, 2008, at 5:05 PM, do.rflex wrote: As far as I can tell, this pointless crap between the two of them has been going on for over a decade going back into alt.meditation.transcendental - maybe even further. I really doubt *anyone* actually pays any attention at all to the petty details anymore - or even wants to see any of it. I sure as hell don't. However the unfortunate thing is, it isn't just all about Barry as Willy might say. It's really about the fact that a deranged personality will lash out at whoever, i.e. anyone. You certainly are not immune from Judy's vitriolic spew. The plain facts are, personality disordered people are the bane of internet discussion groups and Usenet. I realize this is un-kosher to state openly, and it's certainly not tactful (it's rarely appropriate to make a medical diagnosis via a discussion group), but it does seem to be the consensus among professional I know who've watched her vent her spleen year after year year. Hell, it's probably decade after decade at this point. :-) But as the saying goes, it does take two to tango.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
On Nov 24, 2008, at 4:50 PM, Bhairitu wrote: I often wonder why two sensible people would carry on like this unless they've been at it. for lifetimes. :-D I already have Judy's chart, all I would need is Barry's. :-)
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 3:47 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife I don't care who's right or who's wrong. That's obvious. And as long as you don't, you'll never be able to deal with this effectively. Your snip took me out of context. The point I was making is that many see it as wrong that either of you keep this going. It's like the damned Arabs and Israelis. Either could unilaterally end the end the conflict if they handled it correctly.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
On Nov 24, 2008, at 5:25 PM, Rick Archer wrote: I don't care who's right or who's wrong. That's obvious. And as long as you don't, you'll never be able to deal with this effectively. Your snip took me out of context. The point I was making is that many see it as “wrong” that either of you keep this going. It’s like the damned Arabs and Israelis. Either could unilaterally end the end the conflict if they handled it correctly. As long as either the Jews or the Muslims continue to hold onto the belief that land can be held by some superior being that is extremely unlikely. And continued conflict only exacerbates the fundamentalist view that my tribal god is what matters. Yours be damned. It's the classic blue- and red-meme samsaric theme: egocentric power-gods and absolutist-domination mythic tribal patterns. Israel is already starting to go green, Islamic countries are not. That means we need to foster a green-meme collective consciousness in Islamic countries. The only way to stop it is to stop warring against the Islamic countries. Only then will they begin to evolve towards a bleeding-edge green-meme, collective and holistic mindset: our god instead of my god. Can't you see the same process here?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
On Nov 24, 2008, at 5:53 PM, Vaj wrote: Israel is already starting to go green, Islamic countries are not. I shouldn't say that. Turkey is is very unusual exception--there may be others that I'm not aware of. About five years ago I carried on a long correspondence with a follower of the Messiah Sabbatai Zevi who was living in Turkey and was a leading example of those who could marry the Lurianic Kabbalah and Islam. It was very universal. It was beginning to seed all over Turkey. So was a universalist Freemasonry, generally considered anathema and heretical in Islamic countries (the Egyptian government sponsored a 33-part series on the evils of Freemasonry throughout the middle east). The moral of that story is--to me anyways--is that we should allow this liberalizing trend to spread from Turkey. The only way for this to happen is to disallow conflict with her neighbors. Favor liberal diplomacy. Look at a map and you'll see how important this is.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 24, 2008, at 5:05 PM, do.rflex wrote: As far as I can tell, this pointless crap between the two of them has been going on for over a decade going back into alt.meditation.transcendental - maybe even further. I really doubt *anyone* actually pays any attention at all to the petty details anymore - or even wants to see any of it. I sure as hell don't. However the unfortunate thing is, it isn't just all about Barry as Willy might say. It's really about the fact that a deranged personality will lash out at whoever, i.e. anyone. You certainly are not immune from Judy's vitriolic spew. The plain facts are, personality disordered people are the bane of internet discussion groups and Usenet. I realize this is un-kosher to state openly, and it's certainly not tactful (it's rarely appropriate to make a medical diagnosis via a discussion group), but it does seem to be the consensus among professional I know who've watched her vent her spleen year after year year. Hell, it's probably decade after decade at this point. :-) But as the saying goes, it does take two to tango. it does indeed take two to tango. i'll take as an example what i recently wrote to you and about you, and our respective reactions. yours has been to just carry on business as usual, as i have too. i am not trying to ram anything down your throat nor are you trying to counter what i said to you in a personally offensive or insulting way. this is the way most topics go here. people express themselves, perhaps even disagree a bit, and then they move on. however such is not the case with B. and Judy. he always finds a way to dig at her, and vice versa. so if you are diagnosing her as having a personality disorder, and the only one with whom she has this consistent negative interaction with is B., why can't we assume the same thing about B., that just as judy has a personality disorder, B. too has a personality disorder? i am not asking in order to confirm that B. too has a personality disorder, but it would seem that both of them present the same amount of evidence, as shown by their ten year negative interaction, to reach the same conclusion about both, despite who's side we may take (if at all) for any given disagreement they may have with one another, or other opinions they may have. so if it is in fact accurate to say judy has a personality disorder, it is perfectly logical to say that B. also has a personality disorder, no?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 24, 2008, at 5:25 PM, Rick Archer wrote: I don't care who's right or who's wrong. That's obvious. And as long as you don't, you'll never be able to deal with this effectively. Your snip took me out of context. The point I was making is that many see it as wrong that either of you keep this going. It's like the damned Arabs and Israelis. Either could unilaterally end the end the conflict if they handled it correctly. As long as either the Jews or the Muslims continue to hold onto the belief that land can be held by some superior being that is extremely unlikely. And continued conflict only exacerbates the fundamentalist view that my tribal god is what matters. Yours be damned. It's the classic blue- and red-meme samsaric theme: egocentric power-gods and absolutist-domination mythic tribal patterns. Israel is already starting to go green, Islamic countries are not. That means we need to foster a green-meme collective consciousness in Islamic countries. The only way to stop it is to stop warring against the Islamic countries. Only then will they begin to evolve towards a bleeding-edge green-meme, collective and holistic mindset: our god instead of my god. Can't you see the same process here? A peculiar side note: Both Islam and Judaism hold their God to be the -same- God of Abraham.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
On Nov 24, 2008, at 6:29 PM, do.rflex wrote: A peculiar side note: Both Islam and Judaism hold their God to be the -same- God of Abraham. Depends on who you ask. Some consider the revelations of Mohammed to be those of a mad man. Others draw a distinction between IHVH/Jehovah and Allah as a descendent of a pagan Arabian moon-god; they're not the same god. Some Kabbalists draw a similar distinction. Yet others consider Allah to be a Vast Face expression of IHVH, thus the insistence on no physical representation--and thus the Islamic fundie insistence on no physical representation of ANY god. The Puranas actually list the rock which exists in Kaabah, the Ruknu Al-Aswad, as an ancient lingam of Shiva.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 24, 2008, at 6:29 PM, do.rflex wrote: A peculiar side note: Both Islam and Judaism hold their God to be the -same- God of Abraham. Depends on who you ask. Some consider the revelations of Mohammed to be those of a mad man. Others draw a distinction between IHVH/Jehovah and Allah as a descendent of a pagan Arabian moon-god; they're not the same god. Some Kabbalists draw a similar distinction. Yet others consider Allah to be a Vast Face expression of IHVH, thus the insistence on no physical representation--and thus the Islamic fundie insistence on no physical representation of ANY god. The Puranas actually list the rock which exists in Kaabah, the Ruknu Al-Aswad, as an ancient lingam of Shiva. I don't what your sources are Vaj, but: Abraham: The root of three religions http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/bios/b1abraham.htm As baby Abraham gave his first lusty cry at being brought into this cold and cruel world, few would have guessed that his influence would be felt down through the ages. Three of today's major religions trace their roots back to him, each viewing him as their founder or at least their forefather. Although Judaism, Christianity, and Islam see Abraham as an important character in their past, each sees him this way for a different reason. Abraham is very important to Judaism. Jews believe that God called Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldees (Mesopotamia) in order to make a covenant with him. Through this covenant, God would bless him and give Abraham's descendants a new land. Abraham left his home to become a wandering herdsman because he had faith in God's promise: I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you. (Genesis 12:2-4) God led Abraham through a series of trials in order to test whether or not Abraham really believed God's promise. The most drastic trial Abraham experienced occurred when God told Abraham to sacrifice his only son Isaac through whom the future Messiah (Savior) was promised. Although greatly troubled, Abraham went through with God's request because he reasoned that God would still somehow fulfill his promise. God rewarded Abraham's obedience by sending and angel to stop him from killing Isaac and providing a lamb to take Isaac's place. In essence, without Abraham, Jews would not be the chosen people among the nations through which a Savior would later come. Abraham is indispensable to Christianity, but for a far different reason than he is to Judaism or Islam. Christians hold to the same historical account as the Jews do; but Christians make a further-reaching conclusion. Christians view God's interaction and covenant with Abraham as something leading up to the coming of Jesus Christ. God's love for his creation was so infinite that he determined to somehow bridge the immeasurable gap that man had made when he sinned. To this end God made the first covenant with Abraham which included the promise of a future savior, Jesus, who would come through Abraham's descendants. Any covenant that was made demanded blood to seal the pact. Just as Abraham killed a heifer, a goat, and a ram each three years old, along with a dove and young pigeon, (NIV, Genesis 15:9) to seal the first covenant, Christians believe that Christ's blood, when he died on the cross, sealed the second. Christians draw many parallels between Jesus and Abraham's life. One of the best known examples is the story of Isaac. Isaac was Abrahams dearly loved, only son through whom God had promised the future salvation of the world. Yet God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac to see if Abraham's faith extended that far. Just before Abraham was about to plunge the knife into his only son, an angel stopped him and God provided a ram to die in Isaac's stead. Christians see Jesus as God's only son whom he loved infinitely, yet for the sake of mankind God sacrificed his only son. Jesus became the sacrificial lamb so that: Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord [Jesus] will be saved. (NIV, Romans 10:13) In conclusion, although they don't trace their lineage back to Abraham, Christians view themselves as adopted sons because they consider themselves sons of Jesus who was the future promise for Abraham's descendents. Abraham's role in Islam is different from that which he plays in either Christianity or Judaism. Arab Muslims trace their lineage back to Abraham through Ishmael. They also see Ishmael as the one through whom God's covenant would be fulfilled. The Koran says about Ishmael: And mention Ishmael in the Book; surely he was truthful in (his) promise, and he was an apostle, a prophet. And he enjoined on his family prayer and almsgiving, and was one in whom his Lord was well pleased. (Marium 19:54-55). Islam's
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
On Nov 24, 2008, at 6:39 PM, do.rflex wrote: I don't what your sources are Vaj, but: Abraham: The root of three religions http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/bios/b1abraham.htm Actually there's no legit evidence that Abraham, or any of the others existed until you get to Solomon. As baby Abraham gave his first lusty cry at being brought into this cold and cruel world, few would have guessed that his influence would be felt down through the ages. Three of today's major religions trace their roots back to him, each viewing him as their founder or at least their forefather. Although Judaism, Christianity, and Islam see Abraham as an important character in their past, each sees him this way for a different reason. Abraham is very important to Judaism. Jews believe that God called Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldees (Mesopotamia) in order to make a covenant with him. Through this covenant, God would bless him and give Abraham's descendants a new land. Abraham left his home to become a wandering herdsman because he had faith in God's promise: I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you. (Genesis 12:2-4) God led Abraham through a series of trials in order to test whether or not Abraham really believed God's promise. The most drastic trial Abraham experienced occurred when God told Abraham to sacrifice his only son Isaac through whom the future Messiah (Savior) was promised. Although greatly troubled, Abraham went through with God's request because he reasoned that God would still somehow fulfill his promise. God rewarded Abraham's obedience by sending and angel to stop him from killing Isaac and providing a lamb to take Isaac's place. In essence, without Abraham, Jews would not be the chosen people among the nations through which a Savior would later come. Abraham is indispensable to Christianity, but for a far different reason than he is to Judaism or Islam. Christians hold to the same historical account as the Jews do; but Christians make a further-reaching conclusion. Christians view God's interaction and covenant with Abraham as something leading up to the coming of Jesus Christ. God's love for his creation was so infinite that he determined to somehow bridge the immeasurable gap that man had made when he sinned. To this end God made the first covenant with Abraham which included the promise of a future savior, Jesus, who would come through Abraham's descendants. Any covenant that was made demanded blood to seal the pact. Just as Abraham killed …a heifer, a goat, and a ram each three years old, along with a dove and young pigeon, (NIV, Genesis 15:9) to seal the first covenant, Christians believe that Christ's blood, when he died on the cross, sealed the second. Christians draw many parallels between Jesus and Abraham's life. One of the best known examples is the story of Isaac. Isaac was Abrahams dearly loved, only son through whom God had promised the future salvation of the world. Yet God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac to see if Abraham's faith extended that far. Just before Abraham was about to plunge the knife into his only son, an angel stopped him and God provided a ram to die in Isaac's stead. Christians see Jesus as God's only son whom he loved infinitely, yet for the sake of mankind God sacrificed his only son. Jesus became the sacrificial lamb so that: Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord [Jesus] will be saved. (NIV, Romans 10:13) In conclusion, although they don't trace their lineage back to Abraham, Christians view themselves as adopted sons because they consider themselves sons of Jesus who was the future promise for Abraham's descendents. Abraham's role in Islam is different from that which he plays in either Christianity or Judaism. Arab Muslims trace their lineage back to Abraham through Ishmael. Call me Ishmael... Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 24, 2008, at 5:25 PM, Rick Archer wrote: I don't care who's right or who's wrong. That's obvious. And as long as you don't, you'll never be able to deal with this effectively. Your snip took me out of context. The point I was making is that many see it as wrong that either of you keep this going. It's like the damned Arabs and Israelis. Either could unilaterally end the end the conflict if they handled it correctly. As long as either the Jews or the Muslims continue to hold onto the belief that land can be held by some superior being that is extremely unlikely. And continued conflict only exacerbates the fundamentalist view that my tribal god is what matters. Yours be damned. It's the classic blue- and red-meme samsaric theme: egocentric power-gods and absolutist-domination mythic tribal patterns. Israel is already starting to go green, Islamic countries are not. That means we need to foster a green-meme collective consciousness in Islamic countries. The only way to stop it is to stop warring against the Islamic countries. Only then will they begin to evolve towards a bleeding-edge green-meme, collective and holistic mindset: our god instead of my god. Can't you see the same process here? A peculiar side note: Both Islam and Judaism hold their God to be the -same- God of Abraham.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
As far as I can tell, this pointless crap between the two of them has been going on for over a decade going back into alt.meditation.transcendental - maybe even further. Reminds me of these two characters, chasing after each other on their dead planet at the end of the episode: Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no `you,' only love. - Amma --- On Mon, 11/24/08, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, November 24, 2008, 5:05 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 3:06 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife You're correct to direct your attempt at Barry, who is by *far* the worst offender; but not on the basis that he's better able to stop. OK, then show us that you're better able to stop. I presume that you and Barry both defend yourselves against the other's attacks to convince the rest of us that you are innocent of the charges made, but I for one would be more impressed if either of you managed to completely ignore the other's attacks and focus instead on intelligent discussion of other issues. I don't believe something about you merely because Barry said it, and vice versa. It's the overall impression one makes that's important to me, and a tendency to bicker detracts from the positive impressions I've gotten of both of you. I read quite a few posts from both you and Barry, but I immediately delete them if they're an attack on the other. I don't care who's right or who's wrong. Both of you are wrong to continue this game. As far as I can tell, this pointless crap between the two of them has been going on for over a decade going back into alt.meditation.transcendental - maybe even further. I really doubt *anyone* actually pays any attention at all to the petty details anymore - or even wants to see any of it. I sure as hell don'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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
On Nov 24, 2008, at 7:39 PM, do.rflex wrote: I don't what your sources are Vaj, but: Do, it's one thing to claim you're descendent of Abraham and it's quite another to make a post hoc claim of being such a descendant, let alone a latter day Avatar of IHVH. Most Jews I know would consider such a claim not just incredibly offensive but also historically untenable. I'll have to look into it, but the Hebrew equivalent of Allah is fairly well appreciated in the Jewish Orthodox community--I'm not saying that it's right, I'm just saying it is or was the most viable explanation I'd ever heard.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
On Nov 24, 2008, at 6:18 PM, do.rflex wrote: A peculiar side note: Both Islam and Judaism hold their God to be the -same- God of Abraham. And therein lies the crux of our disagreement: a claim. Please understand that to a practicing or observant Jew, that's all it really is, a claim made thousands and thousands of years later. Really, if you tried to appreciate the wild separation of timeline along with the claim (of Allah-IHVH similitude) you might appreciate how bizarre a claim it really is. However (conversely) if you look at the two (IHVH and Allah) as contemporaneous, it sounds downright friendly. Shouldn't we all just be friends? Let's fudge for friendship and ignore the relative realities! It's this disparity you seem to be missing. And given that Islam has a known historical date of origin, it's a pretty difficult span to breach, unless one is an adherent of a philosophia perennis (aperennialist) or a theosophist. From the Arabian side, it's much easier at so late a date to make such a wild claim (that Allah is IHVH or G*d).
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't care who's right or who's wrong. That's obvious. And as long as you don't, you'll never be able to deal with this effectively. Your snip took me out of context. The point I was making is that many see it as wrong that either of you keep this going. It's like the damned Arabs and Israelis. Either could unilaterally end the conflict if they handled it correctly. Comparing Arabs and Israelis to Barry and Judy may be an allegory for an intractable argument over the same territory, but does nothing to help us understand the dynamics of the battle. Therefore, as Judy would say, Non Sequitur. The territory Barry famously claims on FF Life, in his own words, is pride in his ability to push buttons. He does this using distortions, personal attacks and imagining or lying about the motives of others. Sadly, when he does so, he is so horribly irony impaired that he chronically, and predictably projects his own motivations on others and muddles the clarity of his intent. One has to ask is he talking about himself or someone else? The territory Judy claims on FF Life is calling Barry out on his BS, and refusing to let his trollish behavior go unanswered. Her analytical abilities are awesome and I am thankful she stands on principle that no one should tolerate lying. I respect her integrity as a writer and I rely on her to take out the garbage. Whenever Judy takes Barry to the woodshed for the spanking he deserves, I'm sure some part of him masochistically enjoys his foray to the woodshed because he always comes back for more.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 24, 2008, at 6:29 PM, do.rflex wrote: A peculiar side note: Both Islam and Judaism hold their God to be the -same- God of Abraham. Depends on who you ask. Some consider the revelations of Mohammed to be those of a mad man. And, to throw out that out of the box thinking that someone said was so missing here a while back, some consider the revelations of Buddha and Jesus, although they were both far less militant than Mohammed's, to be the ravings of madmen. All three were, by society's standards, so far removed from the values and qualities of that society that they clearly qualified as madmen. However, a rather large number of people on this planet make *exceptions* for religious madmen. They consider *some* madmen blessed by God or the incarnations of God or enlightened. So the issue is clearly NOT whether the person in question acts and speaks like a madman, compared to the daily values and qualities of the society around them. Some do this, and get put away. Others do this, and get put on a pedestal, and millions worship them. Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tkrystofiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vitriol, aggression, ridicule, backbiting, summary judgment, baiting, obsession, acting out. How many of those terms, would you say, characterize the posts on FairfieldLife? Not all the posts, by any means, just too many for my taste. There is also intelligence, wit, creativity, clarity, insight, and fairness. And that is why I continue to scan the summaries, dipping in occasionally. I find some real value here. But it is so unfortunately mixed with that first list of qualities that I periodically wonder whether I should just sign off altogether. I realize that no one would know or care if I did, but that is not the point. The point is that it is so curious that this group of people the most active posters tolerates and promotes and even seems to thrive on a style of communication that is, to me, so much at odds with any recognizable process of community-building, mutual discovery, or a generous sharing of diversity. Many of the active posters may immediately want to suggest, now, that this is inevitable because of the stupid, obsessive, closed-minded, deluded, egocentric, or otherwise devilish characters of their opposition in this group that they cannot help but dish out what they do in response. Pavlov? I think we have a bit more freedom than that. What would I suggest (assuming anyone cared)? Drop 100% of the personal attacks. Cut way back on ridicule, innuendos, and punitive diagnoses. If someone launches an attack against you, let it fly into the void. If someone says something you think is stupid or dead- wrong, engage the idea if you like, but quit spraying the person with bullets. Just drop the obsessive, relentless attacks and counter- attacks. (This would simply make FairfieldLife more attractive to me; I realize it may make it less attractive for some of you.) I can only think that the battles and the sniper fire that rage here constitute entertainment for the participants. Some people find physical abuse exciting; others' taste tends to the verbal. I like satire well enough. I am nothing if not critical. But I look to the apparent intent. If the intent is to harm or truly diminish someone, I get a bad taste in my mouth. Do I sermonize? My apologies. I tried to keep this to a statement of my own preferences, with just enough detail to put some meat on the bones. This is what I see, this is how I react, this is what I would prefer. Who am I to get on this soapbox? No one in particular. A frequent poster in the earliest days of FairfieldLife. For what it's worth, I was never the brunt of the kind of attacks I discuss here today. I am just very tired of reading them when directed against others. - Thom Krystofiak Hear,here ++ The combined knowledge and experience of this group would probably cover almost everything and so in serious sharing of it, I would think that some of our own areas of ignorance might be improved. N.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
Nelson wrote: The combined knowledge and experience of this group would probably cover almost everything and so in serious sharing of it, I would think that some of our own areas of ignorance might be improved. All we have to do is get rid of the ankle-biting pundits who post lies to get attention! Willytex is an example of someone who *does* do this. He's a classic troll. But more people tend to engage him about his lies than they do Barry about his. - Judy Stein FairfieldLife/message/199066
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tkrystofiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vitriol, aggression, ridicule, backbiting, summary judgment, baiting, obsession, acting out. The White Knight is mounting his horse, in preparation to save the county. Krishna comes, to destroy the wicked and bless righteous. How many of those terms, would you say, characterize the posts on FairfieldLife? The nobleman tosses out the rhetorical question to the adoring crowds Not all the posts, by any means, just too many for my taste. Ah, the wise, benevolent response. A true gentleman. There is also intelligence, wit, creativity, clarity, insight, and fairness. And that is why I continue to scan the summaries, dipping in occasionally. I find some real value here. WE ARE NOT WORTHY OF THIS BOON. WE ARE NOT WORTHY But it is so unfortunately mixed with that first list of qualities that I periodically wonder whether I should just sign off altogether. I realize that no one would know or care if I did, but that is not the point. No, please, not that, not that please. How will we survive. Truly you can't mean this. The point is that it is so curious that this group of people the most active posters tolerates and promotes and even seems to thrive on a style of communication that is, to me, so much at odds with any recognizable process of community-building, mutual discovery, or a generous sharing of diversity. An analysis on par with Freud, or Peaarls. Fascinating Many of the active posters may immediately want to suggest, now, that this is inevitable because of the stupid, obsessive, closed-minded, deluded, egocentric, or otherwise devilish characters of their opposition in this group that they cannot help but dish out what they do in response. Pavlov? I think we have a bit more freedom than that. The analysis is picking up steam. The author is liking what he is writing, it's profundity. The first point deserving it's own commentary. What would I suggest (assuming anyone cared)? Drop 100% of the personal attacks. Cut way back on ridicule, innuendos, and punitive diagnoses. If someone launches an attack against you, let it fly into the void. If someone says something you think is stupid or dead- wrong, engage the idea if you like, but quit spraying the person with bullets. Just drop the obsessive, relentless attacks and counter- attacks. (This would simply make FairfieldLife more attractive to me; I realize it may make it less attractive for some of you.) Good solid social engineering. Why not. Why the hell not. Whereas, Whereas, Whereas, So Be Resolved I can only think that the battles and the sniper fire that rage here constitute entertainment for the participants. Some people find physical abuse exciting; others' taste tends to the verbal. Deep. I like satire well enough. I am nothing if not critical. Please take tht back. This modesty does not become you, and certainly it is not warranted. Not you. But I look to the apparent intent. If the intent is to harm or truly diminish someone, I get a bad taste in my mouth. X-Ray vision. Who can stand up to this penetrating gaze. Do I sermonize? My apologies. I tried to keep this to a statement of my own preferences, with just enough detail to put some meat on the bones. This is what I see, this is how I react, this is what I would prefer. It is poetry in motion. And I may miss going to church today, so at least I have gotten the benefit of a sermon. So, thank you for that. Who am I to get on this soapbox? No one in particular. A frequent poster in the earliest days of FairfieldLife. For what it's worth, I was never the brunt of the kind of attacks I discuss here today. I am just very tired of reading them when directed against others. - Thom Krystofiak Points for posting under your real name. More than I do. What was it Ghandi said? Live the change you want to see
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hear,here ++ The combined knowledge and experience of this group would probably cover almost everything and so in serious sharing of it, I would think that some of our own areas of ignorance might be improved. N. There's a movement a foot. Let's clean up Dodge. The riff raff are taking over again.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
On Nov 23, 2008, at 10:24 AM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tkrystofiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vitriol, aggression, ridicule, backbiting, summary judgment, baiting, obsession, acting out. The White Knight is mounting his horse, in preparation to save the county. Krishna comes, to destroy the wicked and bless righteous. How many of those terms, would you say, characterize the posts on FairfieldLife? The nobleman tosses out the rhetorical question to the adoring crowds Etc, etc... Great response, lurk. I knew when I read this someone would come up with some high-class snark, and you did not disappoint! :) Glad someone was up to it today. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
Thom, Who am I to get on this soapbox? No one in particular. A frequent poster in the earliest days of FairfieldLife. For what it's worth, I was never the brunt of the kind of attacks I discuss here today. I am just very tired of reading them when directed against others. I can appreciate that your intention was sincere, but I believe the focus of the post is fundamentally misguided. You are requesting other people to act differently. But you miss the point that your criticism has the same motivation as the so called aggressive posts, changing someone else's behavior. That isn't an option. There is no reason for you to be tired of reading certain posts, just don't read them. Most posters here select what they read, why can't you? Create a thread on a topic you want to discuss and follow it with anyone whose response you value. Ignore all others. It is easy to judge other people's posts as too much of one thing or not enough of another. The hard thing is to generate good conversation yourself. Am I right? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tkrystofiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vitriol, aggression, ridicule, backbiting, summary judgment, baiting, obsession, acting out. How many of those terms, would you say, characterize the posts on FairfieldLife? Not all the posts, by any means, just too many for my taste. There is also intelligence, wit, creativity, clarity, insight, and fairness. And that is why I continue to scan the summaries, dipping in occasionally. I find some real value here. But it is so unfortunately mixed with that first list of qualities that I periodically wonder whether I should just sign off altogether. I realize that no one would know or care if I did, but that is not the point. The point is that it is so curious that this group of people the most active posters tolerates and promotes and even seems to thrive on a style of communication that is, to me, so much at odds with any recognizable process of community-building, mutual discovery, or a generous sharing of diversity. Many of the active posters may immediately want to suggest, now, that this is inevitable because of the stupid, obsessive, closed-minded, deluded, egocentric, or otherwise devilish characters of their opposition in this group that they cannot help but dish out what they do in response. Pavlov? I think we have a bit more freedom than that. What would I suggest (assuming anyone cared)? Drop 100% of the personal attacks. Cut way back on ridicule, innuendos, and punitive diagnoses. If someone launches an attack against you, let it fly into the void. If someone says something you think is stupid or dead- wrong, engage the idea if you like, but quit spraying the person with bullets. Just drop the obsessive, relentless attacks and counter- attacks. (This would simply make FairfieldLife more attractive to me; I realize it may make it less attractive for some of you.) I can only think that the battles and the sniper fire that rage here constitute entertainment for the participants. Some people find physical abuse exciting; others' taste tends to the verbal. I like satire well enough. I am nothing if not critical. But I look to the apparent intent. If the intent is to harm or truly diminish someone, I get a bad taste in my mouth. Do I sermonize? My apologies. I tried to keep this to a statement of my own preferences, with just enough detail to put some meat on the bones. This is what I see, this is how I react, this is what I would prefer. Who am I to get on this soapbox? No one in particular. A frequent poster in the earliest days of FairfieldLife. For what it's worth, I was never the brunt of the kind of attacks I discuss here today. I am just very tired of reading them when directed against others. - Thom Krystofiak
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
Thom, I believe it's typical for newsgroup habitues to read only the posts of respected authors, passing over the writers who tend to disappoint. Is that reading style not practical for you for some reason? I can imagine many reasons why you may not want to read that way, but I'd rather read those reasons articulated by you, rather than generate them in my imagination. Thanks. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tkrystofiak wrote: Vitriol, aggression, ridicule, backbiting, summary judgment, baiting, obsession, acting out.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
Curtis - Your points are well taken. But I find it hard to just avoid the stuff that grates on me, as it is interspersed with more interesting stuff, and often written by posters that frequently enough have something I'd like to read. I realize this is not your, or anyone else's problem - I'm just stating my experience. I got involved here originally because I have an interest in the subject of Life In Fairfield. As the group morphed into other things, I became a casual scanner. In any case, I have no right to tell anyone what to do. The fruitlessness of trying to change someone else? In general, I agree. Still, having someone (like me) post a summary reaction to the tone of things in this group - once every 5 years or so - might not be too out of line. It's just my reaction: hack it up, spit it out, do what you do with it. BTW, Curtis, I enjoy your posts --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thom, Who am I to get on this soapbox? No one in particular. A frequent poster in the earliest days of FairfieldLife. For what it's worth, I was never the brunt of the kind of attacks I discuss here today. I am just very tired of reading them when directed against others. I can appreciate that your intention was sincere, but I believe the focus of the post is fundamentally misguided. You are requesting other people to act differently. But you miss the point that your criticism has the same motivation as the so called aggressive posts, changing someone else's behavior. That isn't an option. There is no reason for you to be tired of reading certain posts, just don't read them. Most posters here select what they read, why can't you? Create a thread on a topic you want to discuss and follow it with anyone whose response you value. Ignore all others. It is easy to judge other people's posts as too much of one thing or not enough of another. The hard thing is to generate good conversation yourself. Am I right?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
The fruitlessness of trying to change someone else? In general, I agree. Still, having someone (like me) post a summary reaction to the tone of things in this group - once every 5 years or so - might not be too out of line. It's just my reaction: hack it up, spit it out, do what you do with it. BTW, Curtis, I enjoy your posts \ Thanks for your response. I hope my response encourages you to post more about topics that you do like. I think FFL needs more writing. That way we will have more to choose from. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tkrystofiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curtis - Your points are well taken. But I find it hard to just avoid the stuff that grates on me, as it is interspersed with more interesting stuff, and often written by posters that frequently enough have something I'd like to read. I realize this is not your, or anyone else's problem - I'm just stating my experience. I got involved here originally because I have an interest in the subject of Life In Fairfield. As the group morphed into other things, I became a casual scanner. In any case, I have no right to tell anyone what to do. The fruitlessness of trying to change someone else? In general, I agree. Still, having someone (like me) post a summary reaction to the tone of things in this group - once every 5 years or so - might not be too out of line. It's just my reaction: hack it up, spit it out, do what you do with it. BTW, Curtis, I enjoy your posts --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Thom, Who am I to get on this soapbox? No one in particular. A frequent poster in the earliest days of FairfieldLife. For what it's worth, I was never the brunt of the kind of attacks I discuss here today. I am just very tired of reading them when directed against others. I can appreciate that your intention was sincere, but I believe the focus of the post is fundamentally misguided. You are requesting other people to act differently. But you miss the point that your criticism has the same motivation as the so called aggressive posts, changing someone else's behavior. That isn't an option. There is no reason for you to be tired of reading certain posts, just don't read them. Most posters here select what they read, why can't you? Create a thread on a topic you want to discuss and follow it with anyone whose response you value. Ignore all others. It is easy to judge other people's posts as too much of one thing or not enough of another. The hard thing is to generate good conversation yourself. Am I right?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can appreciate that your intention was sincere, but I believe the focus of the post is fundamentally misguided. You are requesting other people to act differently. But you miss the point that your criticism has the same motivation as the so called aggressive posts, changing someone else's behavior. That isn't an option. No, it really isn't. It's an attempt, however noble in intent, to change people's behavior by proclaiming what proper behavior should be. If you are as open-minded about the TMO as your earlier post on the ME indicates, you should be aware that this never worked for them, either. The only way to encourage better behavior in my opinion is to display it. There is no reason for you to be tired of reading certain posts, just don't read them. It's really as simple as that. Most posters here select what they read, why can't you? Create a thread on a topic you want to discuss and follow it with anyone whose response you value. Ignore all others. It is easy to judge other people's posts as too much of one thing or not enough of another. The hard thing is to generate good conversation yourself. Am I right? I think Curtis is right. I said essentially the same thing to a woman who exited noisily a few days ago, pausing at the door to give everyone a supposedly well-deserved drive by hooting before departing in the Huff that was obviously waiting for her. The thing is, she hadn't posted anything since January. That kinda makes driving off in a Huff a little silly, doncha think? I second Curtis' suggestion. Based on that initial sample that got posted here, I think you'd have some interesting things to say. You talked some good talk about your intent in what you wrote in response to someone here, about wanting to walk more of a middle line in what you write. Well, with all due respect, put up or shut up. Walk your walk. Don't whine about the place not living down to your expectations -- DO something. You don't like our style? Show us yours. See who responds, and how. When you've done that, and *demonstrated* the kind of writing you think is more approp- riate, THEN you can lecture those who don't live up to your shining example.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
curtisdeltablues wrote: The fruitlessness of trying to change someone else? In general, I agree. Still, having someone (like me) post a summary reaction to the tone of things in this group - once every 5 years or so - might not be too out of line. It's just my reaction: hack it up, spit it out, do what you do with it. BTW, Curtis, I enjoy your posts \ Thanks for your response. I hope my response encourages you to post more about topics that you do like. I think FFL needs more writing. That way we will have more to choose from. More writing? I hope not longer posts. After all who has time to read those? Good writing is actually being able to convey a thought or idea in as few words as possible. I've often said this is also not a writing contest. Some people here can say more in one line as some in many paragraphs. TM tends to make people verbose for some reason. I always wondered why the MIU stuff in the late 70's were so wordy with little actually said. It's an interesting phenomena. One TM teacher friend once said it was due to overstimulated intellects. Then we have the absolute worst case of people who write lots of words but never learned proper writing and post a wall of words. They are unable to break their thoughts up into paragraphs. Those I don't bother reading.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The flavor of FairfieldLife
The point is that it is so curious that this group of people � the most active posters � tolerates and promotes and even seems to thrive on a style of communication that is, to me, so much at odds with any recognizable process of community-building, mutual discovery, or a generous sharing of diversity. It's a case of the bad posters driving away the good people. There are a lot of people like you who have ideas which they can express with eloquence and conviction. But they don't lead anywhere. No one in the TMO wants to hear thoughts from outside the box, and everyone here is so well versed in the problems of the TMO that it gets repetitive to go over that ground again. Which doesn't leave much room for creative, entertaining and sometimes insightful posting. With nothing much to say that hasn't already been said it leaves the ground open to those who don't have anything useful to say and are keen to make sure everyone knows about it. The way to redress the balance is to increase the quantity of posts that are worth reading, which makes more people read, and hopefully more people write other intelligent tracts.
