[FairfieldLife] Re: What I believe, here and now
Congratulation , young dude, nice shamanic but melodic rap We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.George Bernard Shaw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMCf7SNUb-Qfeature=player_embedded#at=34 http://tinyurl.com/3ukjztn mmmh the bubble Was that's the different between a turquoiseb rap and a -let's say-Bach's Chaconne? Just a IHMO's non-Truth-seeking question and Life applause --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Since some on this forum seem to have funny ideas about what exactly I believe, I thought I'd take advantage of a work holiday to rap about it, from my point of view. What follows is just a rap, One Man's Opinion. I make no attempt to claim it's true, let alone Truth. It's just how I see things, based on my subjective experiences and intuition following a somewhat spiritual path for over 50 years. It does not affect you and what you believe in any way *unless you allow it to*. As for the nature of the universe, I believe that it is eternal, and was never created. That elimin- ates the need for me to ponder a Creator, or God. None appears necessary, given my perception of the world around me, so given the principles of Occam's Razor I postulate that none exists. As for whether the universe is real or Maya, I have no clue, and don't much care. It's real *to me* in certain states of attention, less real in others. Big whoop. It's a given that one's state of attention is the filter through which we experience the world around us, so *of course* that's going to affect our perceptions. What, after all, is real? In the dream plane (because I studied lucid dreaming for some time, and got pretty good at it), I am definitely a co-creator of that reality. I can cause whole worlds to manifest and then play in them. In waking state...uh...not so much. :-) However, what I honestly believe is that the universe is co-created, and was not Created by some entity called God or the Laws Of Nature. The universe, whether real or a Maya-like hologram, is IMO co-created by the collective thoughts and actions of all the sentient beings that inhabit it. It is the *sum* of all of these sentient beings' thoughts and actions. IMO, no one has inherently more power or value in that co-creation process than another. Enlightened, schmit- ened...if they can't remake the world around them *on demand*, in such a way that other sentient beings perceive it as changed, then they ain't got no more creator status than I have. I think it's a group effort. That said, IMO *all* members of the group have total free will, and the ability to make their own decisions. If you think about it, the idea of karma *can't work* if there is no free will. Karma merely produces a set of influences, based on past thoughts and actions. But those influences are not binding. People *can* change, as the result of their own intent and will. If that will did not exist, there would be only predestination, and that is not how I perceive the world, or even how most people perceive it. As for enlightenment, and its possible value, I feel that while it may be a neat thing for an individual, subjectively, it has absolutely zero objective value, and I have seen no evidence that it has any value for anyone else other than the person experiencing it. In a very real sense, enlightenment is the most selfish act a sentient being could perform. It's all about what *they* feel and think and experience. Subjectively, I have experience this state from time to time. Big whoop. While it was fun at the time, 50 years on the path have convinced me that it was no more fun, and certainly no more valuable to others, than any other state of attention I have experienced. I no longer seek enlightenment, and wouldn't cross the street if it were being sold for a quarter at a hot dog stand. I am content with experiencing the fleeting states of attention that come and go for me on a daily basis, and seek no state of attention in particular. That said, there is still the element of focus or attention. Although I live in a co-created universe, and experience things that were Not Of My Doing, some of them...uh...less than positive, I don't have to focus on them to the exclusion of the more positive things. I have free will. I can *choose* what to focus my attention on. And so I choose to focus it on shinier, happier mind- states, and on actions that seem to have a more beneficial effect on the other sentient beings around me than they do a negative one. And that's it...all I can think of for this particular rap. It was written in one quick typing spurt, in about ten minutes, sitting in a Dutch cafe over coffee, with no editing and no pauses. As I said at the beginning of the rap, what I say does not affect you and what *you* believe in any way, *unless you allow it to*. It's just a rap, One Man's Opinion. That man believes
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I believe, here and now
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: And that's it...all I can think of for this particular rap. It was written in one quick typing spurt, in about ten minutes, sitting in a Dutch cafe over coffee, with no editing and no pauses. Strangely enough some posters on this forum seems to believ this myth you are trying to create for yourself. Even Jim appear to buy your bluff. Others who knows how many hours you put into posting on FFL and other forums daily; not so much. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I believe, here and now
Hey Turq, given your machine gun writing technique, I have a new appreciation for this post for example. As you say, its a rap, and if I read it like you wrote it, straight through, no pauses, it comes through possibly more as you intend it, as a rap, vs. a statement. I get it more. Thanks. When something is expressed artfully, no matter what the opinion or sentiment, I can enjoy the art for what it is. If you remember Diane Arbus's photos. Very disturbing, yet really good. Same with Helen Frankenthaler's paintings, or the king of disturbed, Edvard Munch. I am not drawing any kind of a comparison between you and these other artists, just a similarity in technique that all of us share, in order to communicate. Seeing it so obviously in words is a new one for me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Since some on this forum seem to have funny ideas about what exactly I believe, I thought I'd take advantage of a work holiday to rap about it, from my point of view. What follows is just a rap, One Man's Opinion. I make no attempt to claim it's true, let alone Truth. It's just how I see things, based on my subjective experiences and intuition following a somewhat spiritual path for over 50 years. It does not affect you and what you believe in any way *unless you allow it to*. As for the nature of the universe, I believe that it is eternal, and was never created. That elimin- ates the need for me to ponder a Creator, or God. None appears necessary, given my perception of the world around me, so given the principles of Occam's Razor I postulate that none exists. As for whether the universe is real or Maya, I have no clue, and don't much care. It's real *to me* in certain states of attention, less real in others. Big whoop. It's a given that one's state of attention is the filter through which we experience the world around us, so *of course* that's going to affect our perceptions. What, after all, is real? In the dream plane (because I studied lucid dreaming for some time, and got pretty good at it), I am definitely a co-creator of that reality. I can cause whole worlds to manifest and then play in them. In waking state...uh...not so much. :-) However, what I honestly believe is that the universe is co-created, and was not Created by some entity called God or the Laws Of Nature. The universe, whether real or a Maya-like hologram, is IMO co-created by the collective thoughts and actions of all the sentient beings that inhabit it. It is the *sum* of all of these sentient beings' thoughts and actions. IMO, no one has inherently more power or value in that co-creation process than another. Enlightened, schmit- ened...if they can't remake the world around them *on demand*, in such a way that other sentient beings perceive it as changed, then they ain't got no more creator status than I have. I think it's a group effort. That said, IMO *all* members of the group have total free will, and the ability to make their own decisions. If you think about it, the idea of karma *can't work* if there is no free will. Karma merely produces a set of influences, based on past thoughts and actions. But those influences are not binding. People *can* change, as the result of their own intent and will. If that will did not exist, there would be only predestination, and that is not how I perceive the world, or even how most people perceive it. As for enlightenment, and its possible value, I feel that while it may be a neat thing for an individual, subjectively, it has absolutely zero objective value, and I have seen no evidence that it has any value for anyone else other than the person experiencing it. In a very real sense, enlightenment is the most selfish act a sentient being could perform. It's all about what *they* feel and think and experience. Subjectively, I have experience this state from time to time. Big whoop. While it was fun at the time, 50 years on the path have convinced me that it was no more fun, and certainly no more valuable to others, than any other state of attention I have experienced. I no longer seek enlightenment, and wouldn't cross the street if it were being sold for a quarter at a hot dog stand. I am content with experiencing the fleeting states of attention that come and go for me on a daily basis, and seek no state of attention in particular. That said, there is still the element of focus or attention. Although I live in a co-created universe, and experience things that were Not Of My Doing, some of them...uh...less than positive, I don't have to focus on them to the exclusion of the more positive things. I have free will. I can *choose* what to focus my attention on. And so I choose to focus it on shinier, happier mind- states, and on actions that seem to have a more beneficial effect on the other sentient beings around me than they do a negative
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: More mono-dimensional stuff from B5: aliens so alien that they refuse to be seen without an environmental suit, and when they ARE forced to reveal themselves, they mentally control the perceptions of every creature in the vicinity so that no two species can agree on what they saw, all done in such a way that none of them realize it was one of their fellow ambassadors they were looking at. That same alien ambassador, named Kosh (later replaced by another ambassador also named Kosh--we are all named 'Kosh') whose automatic translation device struggles with translating 10 seconds of its alien speech that sounds like a heavenly choir and finally says yes... The background of the series, touched on in the first episode and slowly revealed over the first 3 years of the series, includes a mystery that isn't resolved until the time travel episode: why would an alien race, thousands of years in advance of us, whose most popular leader was killed by our people accidentally, chase us on a war of extermination to the very edge of Earth's atmosphere, and, as wave after wave of Earth ships was sent against the alien foe merely to gain a few more seconds (if that) of launch time for refugee ships fleeing the ultimate destruction of Earth, did said alien race suddenly SURRENDER to us and become our stanchest ally? The full depth of the mystery takes 3 years to reveal, and the answer isn't given until the full mystery is revealed. Alien races so advanced that their ships are living creatures build to have a symbiotic relationship with the race. A chess match between two such races that spans many millions of years of history, using entire species as pawns and yet the players turn out to be even more limited than the species they manipulate. Yeah. a one-dimenstiona, pretentious story, to be sure. Like I said, anyone who can't appreciate B-5 has the attention span of a flea. And I suggested, it's a series for techno geeks and guys who haven't left the house in years and only vaguely imagine what it's like to have a relationship with another human being. Firefly is for humans. This is fun. It's like the arguments at a Trekkie convention. :-) You are free to like Babylon 5. I am free to consider it beneath even you. So there you are...
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: More mono-dimensional stuff from B5: aliens so alien that they refuse to be seen without an environmental suit, and when they ARE forced to reveal themselves, they mentally control the perceptions of every creature in the vicinity so that no two species can agree on what they saw, all done in such a way that none of them realize it was one of their fellow ambassadors they were looking at. That same alien ambassador, named Kosh (later replaced by another ambassador also named Kosh--we are all named 'Kosh') whose automatic translation device struggles with translating 10 seconds of its alien speech that sounds like a heavenly choir and finally says yes... The background of the series, touched on in the first episode and slowly revealed over the first 3 years of the series, includes a mystery that isn't resolved until the time travel episode: why would an alien race, thousands of years in advance of us, whose most popular leader was killed by our people accidentally, chase us on a war of extermination to the very edge of Earth's atmosphere, and, as wave after wave of Earth ships was sent against the alien foe merely to gain a few more seconds (if that) of launch time for refugee ships fleeing the ultimate destruction of Earth, did said alien race suddenly SURRENDER to us and become our stanchest ally? The full depth of the mystery takes 3 years to reveal, and the answer isn't given until the full mystery is revealed. Alien races so advanced that their ships are living creatures build to have a symbiotic relationship with the race. A chess match between two such races that spans many millions of years of history, using entire species as pawns and yet the players turn out to be even more limited than the species they manipulate. Yeah. a one-dimenstiona, pretentious story, to be sure. Like I said, anyone who can't appreciate B-5 has the attention span of a flea. And I suggested, it's a series for techno geeks and guys who haven't left the house in years and only vaguely imagine what it's like to have a relationship with another human being. Firefly is for humans. IE, Firefly, for all its merits, is easy for someone who doesn't enjoy intellectual challenges and puzzles to follow, while B5 requires you to recall at least the gist of a repeated phrase from three seasons ago: There is a hole in your mind... The person that that this was said to doesn't get the answer to why some alien is saying that to him in the pilot episode until he disappears from the series and reappears 2 years later for a two-part episode to resolve his hole--the 24-hours that is missing from his memory. Coincidentally that same 24-hours during which the aliens decided not to blow up Earth. Just who is he? He's the closed circle. He's also the star of the first season and yet Strazinski is willing to let him go at the end of the first season in order to create a mystery that isn't solved for another 30 episodes. This is fun. It's like the arguments at a Trekkie convention. :-) You are free to like Babylon 5. I am free to consider it beneath even you. So there you are... Bet you think that all anime is beneath you as well... BTW, my 20-year-old son, who was just hired as a TV writer for a new Canadian TV show, choked when he heard what you said about B5. I trust his writing skills and intuition over yours any day.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: More mono-dimensional stuff from B5: aliens so alien that they refuse to be seen without an environmental suit, and when they ARE forced to reveal themselves, they mentally control the perceptions of every creature in the vicinity so that no two species can agree on what they saw, all done in such a way that none of them realize it was one of their fellow ambassadors they were looking at. That same alien ambassador, named Kosh (later replaced by another ambassador also named Kosh--we are all named 'Kosh') whose automatic translation device struggles with translating 10 seconds of its alien speech that sounds like a heavenly choir and finally says yes... The background of the series, touched on in the first episode and slowly revealed over the first 3 years of the series, includes a mystery that isn't resolved until the time travel episode: why would an alien race, thousands of years in advance of us, whose most popular leader was killed by our people accidentally, chase us on a war of extermination to the very edge of Earth's atmosphere, and, as wave after wave of Earth ships was sent against the alien foe merely to gain a few more seconds (if that) of launch time for refugee ships fleeing the ultimate destruction of Earth, did said alien race suddenly SURRENDER to us and become our stanchest ally? The full depth of the mystery takes 3 years to reveal, and the answer isn't given until the full mystery is revealed. Alien races so advanced that their ships are living creatures build to have a symbiotic relationship with the race. A chess match between two such races that spans many millions of years of history, using entire species as pawns and yet the players turn out to be even more limited than the species they manipulate. Yeah. a one-dimenstiona, pretentious story, to be sure. Like I said, anyone who can't appreciate B-5 has the attention span of a flea. And as I suggested, Babylon 5 a series for techno geeks and guys who been stuck inside their houses staring at a computer screen for so many years that, for them, third-rate actors in bad makeup posing as aliens are more real than nine warm-blooded, flawed and wonderful human beings who are just trying to figure out a way to live their lives on the fringes of a hostile universe, with some degree of class. Babylon 5 is for nerds; Firefly is for human beings. :-) This is fun. It's like the arguments at a Trekkie convention over which Admiral Kirk combover was more effective. You should consider yourself free to like Babylon 5, if you like it. The fact that I consider it beneath even you should not affect you in the least. So there you are...
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IE, Firefly, for all its merits, is easy for someone who doesn't enjoy intellectual challenges and puzzles to follow, while B5 requires you to recall at least the gist of a repeated phrase from three seasons ago: There is a hole in your mind... Exactly. Babylon 5 is for geeks, and Firefly is for human beings. :-) Or, said another way, Babylon 5 is for wannabee Hindus, who get off on memorizing all the various levels of gods and demigods and demons and asuras and devas and levels of knowing and whatever. Firefly is for Taoists, who don't give a shit about any of that stuff, and who just are concerned with having a good time along the Way, and acting in a loving fashion with as many people they meet along that Way as they can. The person that that this was said to doesn't get the answer to why some alien is saying that to him in the pilot episode until he disappears from the series and reappears 2 years later for a two-part episode to resolve his hole--the 24-hours that is missing from his memory. Coincidentally that same 24-hours during which the aliens decided not to blow up Earth. The person this was said to doesn't give a shit. On the other hand, the cosmic question of whether Mal and Inara will ever get it on -- somewhere, sometime, in some universe -- interests him a great deal. :-) Just who is he? He's the closed circle. He's also the star of the first season and yet Strazinski is willing to let him go at the end of the first season in order to create a mystery that isn't solved for another 30 episodes. Dude, all you're saying is that you like intellectual bullshit, and consider it valuable. Sometimes I do as well, just not when combined with bad acting and bad alien makeup and mediocre writing. This is fun. It's like the arguments at a Trekkie convention. :-) You are free to like Babylon 5. I am free to consider it beneath even you. So there you are... Bet you think that all anime is beneath you as well... Not at all. Of no interest to me, yes, but beneath me, no. I think that it is every grown man's right to spend his time watching cartoons if he wants to. :-) BTW, my 20-year-old son, who was just hired as a TV writer for a new Canadian TV show, choked when he heard what you said about B5. Hopefully someone nearby was skilled in the Heimlich manouver. I trust his writing skills and intuition over yours any day. Obviously. Then again, you believe that enlightenment can be quantified and measured in a laboratory. :-) Sparaig, the bottom line, and my only reason for getting into this (except to have fun) is that people have differ- ent things that appeal to them in life. One is not better than another. WHY this silly subject was of any interest to me whatsoever is that I'd just seen a dating website that uses tests like Which Firefly character are you and Which Lost character are you to determine some kind of basic compatibility. I find its approach valid. If I were searching for a long- term girlfriend or wife, there is simply no question as to whether I would be happier with someone who gets Firefly than I would with someone who gets Babylon 5. Apples and oranges...no, apples and hedgehogs...completely different entities, appealing to completely different types of people. It's like the musical taste as test of relation- ship compatibility thang I mentioned to Curtis some time back. It's *OK* that you like Babylon 5. It's equally *OK* that I prefer Firefly. But it does mean I would never want to date you. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sparaig, the bottom line, and my only reason for getting into this (except to have fun) is that people have differ- ent things that appeal to them in life. One is not better than another. WHY this silly subject was of any interest to me whatsoever is that I'd just seen a dating website that uses tests like Which Firefly character are you and Which Lost character are you to determine some kind of basic compatibility. I find its approach valid. If I were searching for a long- term girlfriend or wife, there is simply no question as to whether I would be happier with someone who gets Firefly than I would with someone who gets Babylon 5. Apples and oranges...no, apples and hedgehogs...completely different entities, appealing to completely different types of people. It's like the musical taste as test of relation- ship compatibility thang I mentioned to Curtis some time back. It's *OK* that you like Babylon 5. It's equally *OK* that I prefer Firefly. But it does mean I would never want to date you. I should point out that this exchange -- occasioned by me merely *mentioning* Firefly and my appreciation for it and TV.com's belief that it was the best TV science fiction series ever -- was *really* started by you at that point rushing in to say that IT JUST WASN'T TRUE and that Babylon 5 was the best. Duh. Does this sound familiar? It's EXACTLY the same thing you do when someone here expresses their belief that TM may not be the best technique out there. You are *threatened* by someone else believing some- thing different than you do. When you encounter this situation, you are compelled to rush in and protect your beliefs and argue for the truth of them. That doesn't make you smart, only compulsive. And it doesn't make the things that you prefer to believe any better than the things that other people prefer to believe. It just establishes the fact that you DON'T LIKE IT when someone believes something different than you do. I don't know about you, but I've been having FUN with this discussion. It's been like one of those silly nerd arguments at a science fiction convention -- completely meaningless and a total waste of time, but FUN as long as both participants realize that what they're dealing in is OPINION, not fact. It is my suspicion that you don't get that distinction.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Sparaig, the bottom line, and my only reason for getting into this (except to have fun) is that people have differ- ent things that appeal to them in life. One is not better than another. WHY this silly subject was of any interest to me whatsoever is that I'd just seen a dating website that uses tests like Which Firefly character are you and Which Lost character are you to determine some kind of basic compatibility. I find its approach valid. If I were searching for a long- term girlfriend or wife, there is simply no question as to whether I would be happier with someone who gets Firefly than I would with someone who gets Babylon 5. Apples and oranges...no, apples and hedgehogs...completely different entities, appealing to completely different types of people. It's like the musical taste as test of relation- ship compatibility thang I mentioned to Curtis some time back. It's *OK* that you like Babylon 5. It's equally *OK* that I prefer Firefly. But it does mean I would never want to date you. I should point out that this exchange -- occasioned by me merely *mentioning* Firefly and my appreciation for it and TV.com's belief that it was the best TV science fiction series ever -- was *really* started by you at that point rushing in to say that IT JUST WASN'T TRUE and that Babylon 5 was the best. Duh. Does this sound familiar? It's EXACTLY the same thing you do when someone here expresses their belief that TM may not be the best technique out there. You are *threatened* by someone else believing some- thing different than you do. When you encounter this situation, you are compelled to rush in and protect your beliefs and argue for the truth of them. That doesn't make you smart, only compulsive. And it doesn't make the things that you prefer to believe any better than the things that other people prefer to believe. It just establishes the fact that you DON'T LIKE IT when someone believes something different than you do. I don't know about you, but I've been having FUN with this discussion. It's been like one of those silly nerd arguments at a science fiction convention -- completely meaningless and a total waste of time, but FUN as long as both participants realize that what they're dealing in is OPINION, not fact. It is my suspicion that you don't get that distinction. And as a last comment, at least both of us have actually *seen* some or all of the series we're commenting on. That makes what we say a *valid* matter of opinion, one based on our own personal experience. Compare and contrast to someone who chooses to actively trash a film they've never seen, just because some- one *told* them it was bad. And who will almost certainly never see the film in question out of fear of finding out differently. That places you and your opinions on a much higher level than such a person's opinions. In *my* opinion, that is. Good bullshitting with you. But it *was* bullshit, all of it, on both sides. I hope you know that, and are not still of the opinion that your bullshit don't stink.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
I know you're just trolling, but in case lurkers haven't noticed, your trolls are becoming more and more off-the-wall... I was going to list all the regular aliens and their professional experience to prove that none of them are third rate, but why bother? Someone who can't find humor in the idea of an alien cheating at poker by using one of his 6 penises to steal cards obviously has a few problems. I mean, they even managed to get the scene past the censors. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] And as I suggested, Babylon 5 a series for techno geeks and guys who been stuck inside their houses staring at a computer screen for so many years that, for them, third-rate actors in bad makeup posing as aliens are more real than nine warm-blooded, flawed and wonderful human beings who are just trying to figure out a way to live their lives on the fringes of a hostile universe, with some degree of class.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip That makes what we say a *valid* matter of opinion, one based on our own personal experience. Compare and contrast to someone who chooses to actively trash a film they've never seen, just because some- one *told* them it was bad. And who will almost certainly never see the film in question out of fear of finding out differently. Again, Barry is afraid to use my name. I never said, of course, that Apocalypto was bad. Unlike Barry, who pronounced judgment on Lynch's film, calling it stupid, without having seen it, I don't critique the quality of films I haven't seen. And the only reason I wouldn't see Apocalypto is simply because I don't enjoy blood and gore--same reason I wouldn't see Gibson's Passion, same reason I found his Patriot so unpleasant. If there weren't so much violence, I almost certainly *would* see both Passion and Apocalypto.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
On Feb 21, 2007, at 5:47 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: I should point out that this exchange -- occasioned by me merely *mentioning* Firefly and my appreciation for it and TV.com's belief that it was the best TV science fiction series ever -- was *really* started by you at that point rushing in to say that IT JUST WASN'T TRUE and that Babylon 5 was the best. Duh. Does this sound familiar? Scientific studies show that Babalon 5 excites pleasure receptors more than any other Sci-fi series, including the original Star Trek, which actually can damage the cerebral cortex, according to studies done by the Babalon 5 Foundation. So go ahead and watch what you want, just realize you'll stop evolving.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip This is fun. It's like the arguments at a Trekkie convention over which Admiral Kirk combover was more effective. Shatner never had a comb-over as either Captain or Admiral Kirk, just for the record. He's always used rugs and wigs.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 21, 2007, at 5:47 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: I should point out that this exchange -- occasioned by me merely *mentioning* Firefly and my appreciation for it and TV.com's belief that it was the best TV science fiction series ever -- was *really* started by you at that point rushing in to say that IT JUST WASN'T TRUE and that Babylon 5 was the best. Duh. Does this sound familiar? Scientific studies show that Babalon 5 excites pleasure receptors more than any other Sci-fi series, including the original Star Trek, which actually can damage the cerebral cortex, according to studies done by the Babalon 5 Foundation. So go ahead and watch what you want, just realize you'll stop evolving. Oh ye of little understanding...
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] I find its approach valid. If I were searching for a long- term girlfriend or wife, there is simply no question as to whether I would be happier with someone who gets Firefly than I would with someone who gets Babylon 5. Apples and oranges...no, apples and hedgehogs...completely different entities, appealing to completely different types of people. It's like the musical taste as test of relation- ship compatibility thang I mentioned to Curtis some time back. It's *OK* that you like Babylon 5. It's equally *OK* that I prefer Firefly. But it does mean I would never want to date you. Thanks for that reassurance. But what makes you think that I don't get Firefly? I was watching it long before the movie came out and, as I said, it's quite cute. But it ain't B5. If you want a simple adventure story with action and human emotions, you watch Firefly. If you want grand, cosmic themes, 5-year story arcs composed before shooting began, and so on, but still with human (or alien) emotions, you watch B5. If you like both, you watch both. But to claim that B5 is pretentious, involves 1 dimensional characters, bad makeup, and uses 3rd-rate actors... well, its no longer just a matter of opinion. Them's fighting words: a further example of how you like to troll people for a response.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] But to claim that B5 is pretentious, involves 1 dimensional characters, bad makeup, and uses 3rd-rate actors... well, its no longer just a matter of opinion. Them's fighting words: a further example of how you like to troll people for a response. And to claim that its bad makeup ignores the emmy it won for best makeup, not to mention all the other nominations and awards it received for writing, acting, directing, design, etc: Incidentally, Straczynski won the Bradbury Award which has only been awarded three times in 25 years, always for writing excellence (he wrote about 100 of the 110 scripts of B5): http://dpsinfo.com/awardweb/nebulas/bradbury.html The Bradbury Award, named in honor of science fiction and screenwriter Ray Bradbury, is not given out every year; it acknowledges excellence as a screenwriter for a particular work. While it is not a Nebula, it is given out as part of the Nebula Award Ceremony. 1991 James Cameron, Terminator 2 1998 J. Michael Straczynski, Babylon 5 2000 Yuri Rasovsky and Harlan Ellison (awarded by Ray Bradbury) The nominations and awards for B5: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105946/awards Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy Horror Films, USA YearResult Award Category/Recipient(s) 2003Nominated Saturn Award Best DVD TV Programming Release For season 1. 1999Won Saturn Award Best Genre Cable/Syndicated Series Nominated Saturn Award Best Genre TV Actor Bruce Boxleitner Best Genre TV Actress Claudia Christian 1998Nominated Saturn Award Best Genre Cable/Syndicated Series 1997Nominated Saturn Award Best Genre Syndicated TV Series Best Genre TV Actress Claudia Christian American Cinema Foundation, USA YearResult Award Category/Recipient(s) 1997Won E Pluribus Unum AwardTelevision Series - Drama For episode Passing Through Gethsemane. Art Directors Guild YearResult Award Category/Recipient(s) 1998Nominated Excellence in Production Design AwardTelevision Series John Iacovelli (production designer) Mark-Louis Walters (art director) Julie Allardice-Rae (assistant art director) Cinema Audio Society, USA YearResult Award Category/Recipient(s) 1997Nominated C.A.S. Award Outstanding Achievement in Sound Mixing for a Television Series Terry O'Bright (re-recording mixer) Keith Rogers (re-recording mixer) Linda Coffey (production mixer) For episode Severed Dreams. Emmy Awards YearResult Award Category/Recipient(s) 1997Nominated Emmy Outstanding Makeup for a Series Cinzia Zanetti (key makeup artist) Ron Pipes (makeup artist) John Vulich (effects makeup creator) John Wheaton (effects makeup sculptor) Mike Measimer (effects makeup supervisor) Gabriel De Cunto (effects makeup artist) Rob Sherwood (effects makeup artist) Liz Dean (effects makeup artist) Fionagh Cush (effects makeup artist) For episode The Summoning. 1996Nominated Emmy Outstanding Individual Achievement in Cinematography for a Series John C. Flinn III For episode Comes The Inquisitor. 1995Nominated Emmy Outstanding Individual Achievement in Cinematography for a Series John C. Flinn III (director of photography) For episode The Geometry Of Shadows. Outstanding Individual Achievement in Hairstyling for a Series Tracy Smith (key hairstylist) For episode The Geometry Of Shadows. Outstanding Individual Achievement in Makeup for a Series John Vulich (supervising makeup artist) Everett Burrell (supervising makeup artist) Cinzia Zanetti (key makeup artist) Ron Pipes Greg Funk Fionagh Cush John Wheaton Nik E. Carey Will Huff Tania Wanstall Mike Measimer For episode Acts Of Sacrifice. 1994Won Emmy Outstanding Individual Achievement in Makeup for a Series Everett Burrell (makeup artist) Ron Pipes (makeup artist) John Vulich (makeup artist) Mary Kay Morse (makeup artist) Greg Funk (makeup artist) For episode The Parliament of Dreams. Hugo Awards YearResult Award Category/Recipient(s) 1999Nominated Hugo Best Dramatic Presentation For episode Sleeping in Light. 1997Won Hugo Best Dramatic Presentation J. Michael Straczynski (writer) David J. Eagle (director) John Copeland (producer) For episode Severed Dreams. The episodes War without End and Z'Ha'Dum received enough votes to be nominated too, but J. Michael Straczynski declined. 1996Won Hugo Best Dramatic Presentation J. Michael Straczynski (writer) For episode The Coming of Shadows. The episode The Fall of Night received enough votes to be nominated too, but was withdrawn by J. Michael Straczynski and the prodction team. Sci-Fi Universe Magazine, USA YearResult Award Category/Recipient(s) 1996Won Universe Reader's Choice Award Best Actor in a Genre
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip * Judy will go to her grave never having seen Mel Gibson's 'Apocalypto,' so that she can remain convinced that she was right about trashing it. This from the guy who got virtually everything he said about the film dead wrong, including that Gibson intended it as a love story and that it had no information about the era in which it took place, as well as believing the scholars' objections to its historical inaccuracies were *precisely reversed* from what they actually were. And he'll go to *his* grave absolutely convinced he got everything *right*. (Well, no, he did finally backpedal about its having no information about when it took place, but he never admitted he'd been wrong in his initial claim.) Judy, before I tune you out, I'm going to do you a favor and clue you in to something that someone should have told you long ago. Your mind is SLOW. It just CAN'T KEEP UP. What you're really saying when you scream Non-sequitur! is, Slow DOWN...I can't keep up with you...you've shifted gears and moved somewhere that I can't follow, and I don't like it. Cone back and talk about the things I *wanted* you to talk about, because I feel *comfortable* there. My self is completely *familiar* with that territory, and therefore it wants to stay *in* that territory, not stray into unknown lands where it might *not* be comfortable. There is a REASON you've avoided having an intimate, one- on-one relationship with a spiritual teacher all your life, Judy. It's because (as everyone here who has ever done it knows), such interactions are pretty much a constant roller- coaster ride of non-sequiturs. The whole *point* of working closely with such an individual is to have them fuck with you, dissolve your self over and over and over, and blast you out of your rigid cubbyholes and into areas in which that self is supremely *uncomfortable*. You like Maharishi because his talks are slow, plodding, and predictable. None of them will ever require you to change much. But that's not how higher spirituality works. The relationship with a real teacher is more like Zen, or trying to learn how to pilot a jet from Robin Williams. It's a constant joke-fest, with the butt of the jokes almost always being your self. And it's neat, one of the coolest experiences it's possible to have. I really hope you're able to have such an experience someday, even though I suspect when it happens you'll run screaming out of the room within a few short hours. But even that running away will be better than sitting there clinging to the same old mindstates, the same old angers and hatreds, the same old argu- ments, and...well...the same old same old. Good luck finding someone who is patient enough to deal with your spiritual heel- dragging; I certainly am not.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: Turq (aka Barry, Unc) has no desire to get everything *right*. He is Lost as he said ... You are obviously not following Lost, the television series. The latest episode, Flashes Before Your Eyes, is one of the best pieces of television I've ever seen. They've finally gotten us off that boring other island with its boring Kate, Jack and Sawyer soap opera nonsense and back into the world of Des and his strange odyssey, which now seems to have happened before, possibly an infinite number of times. See the things you guys miss by being all serious? :-) Who's missing anything? What is there to miss when you are Lost? There, you exist here...again, as the result of my slight interest in your comment.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I really hope you're able to have such an experience someday, even though I suspect when it happens you'll run screaming out of the room within a few short hours. But even that running away will be better than sitting there clinging to the same old mindstates, the same old angers and hatreds, the same old argu- ments, and...well...the same old same old. Good luck finding someone who is patient enough to deal with your spiritual heel- dragging; I certainly am not. Judy, here is an example where Barry (aka Turq, Unc) *gets* you, again. He feeds off your continued passion, what he refers to as attachment, for things like answering a question according to agreed upon parameters. You painstakingly researched the numerous times when he hasn't held himself accountable here and the result was that he laughed at you. He only exists from the reactions to his posts. He neither feels responsible for what he says, nor accountable for anything he may post. I'll say it again, its all a game to him. There is nothing to learn. Per his post above, he feels he is doing you and any who disagree with him a service by supposedly blasting us out of our old mind states, kind of like a one-trick pony. I read the posts from 2000 on the other web site. This has been Barry's schtick for years and years. The outrage he can cause by feeding off of yours and others concern for various spiritual topics, or facts, albeit somewhat ghoulishly, is not to be taken seriously. To feel what it is like to be Barry, it would be like one of us visiting a site devoted to chess for example, and stating things like, the pawn is more powerful than the Queen, just for reaction and effect. As long as people kept responding to our statements because of the falsehoods they perceived in them, we win; we continue to exist on the forum. We are then free to riff on others' confoundment and call it anything we wish, spawning further confoundment and by extension, our continued existence on the forum. For now this phenomenon fascinates me, because I am aware of its simple genesis-- the ability by Barry to challenge anything said here, with the result being he continues to exist. Unprincipled, unnacountable, and meaningless perhaps, but in the spotlight. Once you take it seriously, he wins. He is not playing by the same set of rules that you are. Its really a little bit childish, and quite easy to decode once you see what his game is. He appears to make it valid by the claim that anyone seeking accountability from him is just not getting it, is angry, or caught up in boundaries. This, as a few seconds of reflection will show is utter foolishness. And at first you may respond to the unfairness of it all. But that is where Barry wins. To take him seriously, you automatically lose, for it is only a fool's game he plays. So do you continue to play as his fool, or not to play at all? Your choice, of course.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip I really hope you're able to have such an experience someday, even though I suspect when it happens you'll run screaming out of the room within a few short hours. But even that running away will be better than sitting there clinging to the same old mindstates, the same old angers and hatreds, the same old argu- ments, and...well...the same old same old. Good luck finding someone who is patient enough to deal with your spiritual heel- dragging; I certainly am not. Judy, here is an example where Barry (aka Turq, Unc) *gets* you, again. He feeds off your continued passion, what he refers to as attachment, for things like answering a question according to agreed upon parameters. You painstakingly researched the numerous times when he hasn't held himself accountable here and the result was that he laughed at you. He only exists from the reactions to his posts. He neither feels responsible for what he says, nor accountable for anything he may post. I'll say it again, its all a game to him. There is nothing to learn. Per his post above, he feels he is doing you and any who disagree with him a service by supposedly blasting us out of our old mind states, kind of like a one-trick pony. I read the posts from 2000 on the other web site. This has been Barry's schtick for years and years. The outrage he can cause by feeding off of yours and others concern for various spiritual topics, or facts, albeit somewhat ghoulishly, is not to be taken seriously. To feel what it is like to be Barry, it would be like one of us visiting a site devoted to chess for example, and stating things like, the pawn is more powerful than the Queen, just for reaction and effect. As long as people kept responding to our statements because of the falsehoods they perceived in them, we win; we continue to exist on the forum. We are then free to riff on others' confoundment and call it anything we wish, spawning further confoundment and by extension, our continued existence on the forum. For now this phenomenon fascinates me, because I am aware of its simple genesis-- the ability by Barry to challenge anything said here, with the result being he continues to exist. Unprincipled, unnacountable, and meaningless perhaps, but in the spotlight. Once you take it seriously, he wins. He is not playing by the same set of rules that you are. Its really a little bit childish, and quite easy to decode once you see what his game is. He appears to make it valid by the claim that anyone seeking accountability from him is just not getting it, is angry, or caught up in boundaries. This, as a few seconds of reflection will show is utter foolishness. And at first you may respond to the unfairness of it all. But that is where Barry wins. To take him seriously, you automatically lose, for it is only a fool's game he plays. So do you continue to play as his fool, or not to play at all? Your choice, of course. You remind me of Charley on Lost. Whereas I remind me of a combination of Des and Hurley. See Jim...if you had broadened your horizons a bit and watched a little TV you'd actually get this. :-) Unc P.S. You forgot to say, Zzzz.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip I really hope you're able to have such an experience someday, even though I suspect when it happens you'll run screaming out of the room within a few short hours. But even that running away will be better than sitting there clinging to the same old mindstates, the same old angers and hatreds, the same old argu- ments, and...well...the same old same old. Good luck finding someone who is patient enough to deal with your spiritual heel- dragging; I certainly am not. Judy, here is an example where Barry (aka Turq, Unc) *gets* you, again. He feeds off your continued passion, what he refers to as attachment, for things like answering a question according to agreed upon parameters. You painstakingly researched the numerous times when he hasn't held himself accountable here and the result was that he laughed at you. He only exists from the reactions to his posts. He neither feels responsible for what he says, nor accountable for anything he may post. I'll say it again, its all a game to him. There is nothing to learn. Per his post above, he feels he is doing you and any who disagree with him a service by supposedly blasting us out of our old mind states, kind of like a one-trick pony. I read the posts from 2000 on the other web site. This has been Barry's schtick for years and years. The outrage he can cause by feeding off of yours and others concern for various spiritual topics, or facts, albeit somewhat ghoulishly, is not to be taken seriously. To feel what it is like to be Barry, it would be like one of us visiting a site devoted to chess for example, and stating things like, the pawn is more powerful than the Queen, just for reaction and effect. As long as people kept responding to our statements because of the falsehoods they perceived in them, we win; we continue to exist on the forum. We are then free to riff on others' confoundment and call it anything we wish, spawning further confoundment and by extension, our continued existence on the forum. For now this phenomenon fascinates me, because I am aware of its simple genesis-- the ability by Barry to challenge anything said here, with the result being he continues to exist. Unprincipled, unnacountable, and meaningless perhaps, but in the spotlight. Once you take it seriously, he wins. He is not playing by the same set of rules that you are. Its really a little bit childish, and quite easy to decode once you see what his game is. He appears to make it valid by the claim that anyone seeking accountability from him is just not getting it, is angry, or caught up in boundaries. This, as a few seconds of reflection will show is utter foolishness. And at first you may respond to the unfairness of it all. But that is where Barry wins. To take him seriously, you automatically lose, for it is only a fool's game he plays. So do you continue to play as his fool, or not to play at all? Your choice, of course. You remind me of Charley on Lost. Whereas I remind me of a combination of Des and Hurley. See Jim...if you had broadened your horizons a bit and watched a little TV you'd actually get this. :-) Unc P.S. You forgot to say, Zzzz. Oh, the answer is in TV? Or is the 'answer' only in your head? I just can't take you seriously any more, though I do enjoy your dancing, as one enjoys a jester. Dance away- we'll be fools together for the moment...
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: You remind me of Charley on Lost. Whereas I remind me of a combination of Des and Hurley. See Jim...if you had broadened your horizons a bit and watched a little TV you'd actually get this. :-) Unc P.S. You forgot to say, Zzzz. Oh, the answer is in TV? Of course it is. But what is the question? Or is the 'answer' only in your head? I just can't take you seriously any more... Uh...who ever ASKED you to? Wanting to be taken seriously is a true fool's game, something a Fool would never bother with. ...though I do enjoy your dancing, as one enjoys a jester. Now you're getting closer. Dance away - we'll be fools together for the moment... Not much of a chance until you learn to laugh. A serious dancer is almost as pathetic as a serious debator.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip * Judy will go to her grave never having seen Mel Gibson's 'Apocalypto,' so that she can remain convinced that she was right about trashing it. This from the guy who got virtually everything he said about the film dead wrong, including that Gibson intended it as a love story and that it had no information about the era in which it took place, as well as believing the scholars' objections to its historical inaccuracies were *precisely reversed* from what they actually were. And he'll go to *his* grave absolutely convinced he got everything *right*. (Well, no, he did finally backpedal about its having no information about when it took place, but he never admitted he'd been wrong in his initial claim.) Judy, before I tune you out Again?? How many times is this now that you've sworn to tune me out? , I'm going to do you a favor and clue you in to something that someone should have told you long ago. Again?? Gosh, you've done me so many favors like this, and it's never dissuaded me before from calling you out on your phoniness. Your mind is SLOW. It just CAN'T KEEP UP. What you're really saying when you scream Non-sequitur! is, Slow DOWN...I can't keep up with you...you've shifted gears and moved somewhere that I can't follow, and I don't like it. Cone back and talk about the things I *wanted* you to talk about, because I feel *comfortable* there. My self is completely *familiar* with that territory, and therefore it wants to stay *in* that territory, not stray into unknown lands where it might *not* be comfortable. There is a REASON you've avoided having an intimate, one- on-one relationship with a spiritual teacher all your life, Judy. It's because (as everyone here who has ever done it knows), such interactions are pretty much a constant roller- coaster ride of non-sequiturs. The whole *point* of working closely with such an individual is to have them fuck with you, dissolve your self over and over and over, and blast you out of your rigid cubbyholes and into areas in which that self is supremely *uncomfortable*. You like Maharishi because his talks are slow, plodding, and predictable. None of them will ever require you to change much. But that's not how higher spirituality works. The relationship with a real teacher is more like Zen, or trying to learn how to pilot a jet from Robin Williams. It's a constant joke-fest, with the butt of the jokes almost always being your self. And it's neat, one of the coolest experiences it's possible to have. I really hope you're able to have such an experience someday, even though I suspect when it happens you'll run screaming out of the room within a few short hours. But even that running away will be better than sitting there clinging to the same old mindstates, the same old angers and hatreds, the same old argu- ments, and...well...the same old same old. Good luck finding someone who is patient enough to deal with your spiritual heel- dragging; I certainly am not. Zzzz...
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Lsoma@ wrote: In a message dated 2/19/2007 6:02:52 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, jflanegi@ writes: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) , TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: * Curtis will hook up with a gorgeous babe named Bambi who will suck the chrome off his favorite mouth harp and leave him for an investment banker named Sheldon. * Rick's karma for starting this forum will finally catch up to him, and he will be committed to a psych ward, where everyone will call him Vaj. * MDixon will be reborn as a liberal, and will feel guilty about it for that entire lifetime. * Willytex will contract a social disease from one of his prairie dog friends, and it will eat away the bridge of his nose. No one will notice. * Bhairitu will develop an intense Tantric relationship with his HD-DVD player, and as a consequence will have to explain to the paramedics how his penis got caught in the DVD slot. * Sal will become the resident hottie of her rest home, and will be loved by all except the male nurses with bruises on their buttocks from all the pinching. * Vaj will realize his full, to-the-max, fully-certified enlightenment, and will be somewhat disappointed by it. * Cardemaister will arrive in Heaven to find that no one there speaks Sanskrit, and will have to work for eternity as a translator. * Tom T. will be jailed for making Byron Katie puns, but will find love with a cellmate named Bubba. * Bob B. will have an epiphany and realize that the world's progress towards Sat Yuga is not being retarded by Maharishi to protect it from too fast a change, but because the world itself is retarded and couldn't care less about Sat Yuga. * Nablusos, upon his death, will ascend to the 12th dimension, and will look down on everyone there. * Peter Klutz will be reborn in a world in which every- one really IS out to get him. * Lou will be visiting Israel when the UFOs arrive, and will board a spaceship that bears the name, To Serve Man. * Jim will find that everything he's ever believed, about anything, is false, but will react by saying, Z. * Sparaig will become a noted scientist and will prove conclusively that white rats cause cancer. * Peter will make history by being the first Floridian to successfully psychoanalyze an alligator and live. * Judy will go to her grave never having seen Mel Gibson's 'Apocalypto, Gibson's 'Apocalypto,WBR' so that she was right about trashing it. * I will go watch the latest episode of Lost and identify with all of the characters simultaneously. Yes! You nailed it. I love this. Very creative and a good laugh for a change. Lsoma. Thanks for getting it. Like almost all funny writing, it just flowed off the keyboard -- no pauses, no edits -- in less than three minutes. I've always found that interjecting humor into a situation that far too many people are taking far too seriously is a great measure of spiritual seekers' flexibility, and their ability to shift their state of attention in a moment and laugh -- at themselves, at the things they sometimes take too seriously, and at the world they find themselves in. Those who can are worthy of conversing with; those who can't, well... Some of us, Barry, have the ability to laugh *and also* take seriously those things that warrant it. The interesting serious thing about what flowed off your keyboard here is that your quips about people you don't have any beefs with were all light, purely humorous, whereas the ones about those you do have beefs with were putdowns disguised as humor.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip For now this phenomenon fascinates me, because I am aware of its simple genesis-- the ability by Barry to challenge anything said here, with the result being he continues to exist. Unprincipled, unnacountable, and meaningless perhaps, but in the spotlight. In other words, he's a troll, a phony. You and I aren't saying anything different about Barry, we're just going about it differently.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe
On Feb 19, 2007, at 8:59 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Hey Sal, When I get elected mayor of the 20th dimension you are on my short list for the inaugural kegger. Remember when they had the Mayor of Sidha Village, in DC, Curtis? That was a hoot. Probably the precursor to the rajas. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The interesting serious thing about what flowed off your keyboard here is that your quips about people you don't have any beefs with were all light, purely humorous, whereas the ones about those you do have beefs with were putdowns disguised as humor. I am sitting here, feeling *deeply* into quiplessness, the state of not having been mentionad at all in Barry's list.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: You remind me of Charley on Lost. Whereas I remind me of a combination of Des and Hurley. See Jim...if you had broadened your horizons a bit and watched a little TV you'd actually get this. :-) Unc P.S. You forgot to say, Zzzz. Oh, the answer is in TV? Of course it is. But what is the question? Or is the 'answer' only in your head? I just can't take you seriously any more... Uh...who ever ASKED you to? Wanting to be taken seriously is a true fool's game, something a Fool would never bother with. ...though I do enjoy your dancing, as one enjoys a jester. Now you're getting closer. Dance away - we'll be fools together for the moment... Not much of a chance until you learn to laugh. A serious dancer is almost as pathetic as a serious debator. Who says I'm not laughing? LOL!
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: snip For now this phenomenon fascinates me, because I am aware of its simple genesis-- the ability by Barry to challenge anything said here, with the result being he continues to exist. Unprincipled, unnacountable, and meaningless perhaps, but in the spotlight. In other words, he's a troll, a phony. You and I aren't saying anything different about Barry, we're just going about it differently. Or I would say that we are seeing exactly the same thing from different points of view. In any case the result is the same- he isn't someone I can take seriously, precisely because he doesn't want me too. Aikido always comes in handy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: The interesting serious thing about what flowed off your keyboard here is that your quips about people you don't have any beefs with were all light, purely humorous, whereas the ones about those you do have beefs with were putdowns disguised as humor. I am sitting here, feeling *deeply* into quiplessness, the state of not having been mentionad at all in Barry's list. My deepest apologies. I dashed it off in about three minutes, so I forgot a number of people.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some of us, Barry, have the ability to laugh *and also* take seriously those things that warrant it. The interesting serious thing about what flowed off your keyboard here is that your quips about people you don't have any beefs with were all light, purely humorous, whereas the ones about those you do have beefs with were putdowns disguised as humor. As transparent as glass. He plays the Fool and the Lost when it suits him. Its like people who are late for appointments only in their personal lives, but never to work. Because work is something directly affecting them, whereas being late for others only incoveniences the others. So Barry can always claim not being serious, and laugh and jibe at others- If you've noticed he has been very much into this 'not being serious' theme ever since Tom tore him a new one a few days ago. But I recall when Barry's stuff is gone after, when his ass is on the line, he's every bit as serious as the next person. The I'm as blithe and free as the Autumn leaves schtick is SO very self serving... Hey, this is kinda fun- The Barry Channel, starring Barry- tagline, its all about Barry! LOL! So, yeah Judy I recognize the hypocrisy of his game. I just am not out to convince him of anything any longer, or have any meaningful discussion with him. I *get* him now. Completely.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: snip For now this phenomenon fascinates me, because I am aware of its simple genesis-- the ability by Barry to challenge anything said here, with the result being he continues to exist. Unprincipled, unnacountable, and meaningless perhaps, but in the spotlight. In other words, he's a troll, a phony. You and I aren't saying anything different about Barry, we're just going about it differently. Or I would say that we are seeing exactly the same thing from different points of view. In any case the result is the same- he isn't someone I can take seriously, precisely because he doesn't want me too. Aikido always comes in handy. The sad thing is, Barry could be such a neat guy if he weren't so terrified of being real. How did he get poisoned with so much fear?
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Some of us, Barry, have the ability to laugh *and also* take seriously those things that warrant it. The interesting serious thing about what flowed off your keyboard here is that your quips about people you don't have any beefs with were all light, purely humorous, whereas the ones about those you do have beefs with were putdowns disguised as humor. As transparent as glass. He plays the Fool and the Lost when it suits him. Its like people who are late for appointments only in their personal lives, but never to work. Because work is something directly affecting them, whereas being late for others only incoveniences the others. So Barry can always claim not being serious, and laugh and jibe at others- If you've noticed he has been very much into this 'not being serious' theme ever since Tom tore him a new one a few days ago. But I recall when Barry's stuff is gone after, when his ass is on the line, he's every bit as serious as the next person. The I'm as blithe and free as the Autumn leaves schtick is SO very self serving... Bingo. And, as you say, so very transparent. Hey, this is kinda fun- The Barry Channel, starring Barry- tagline, its all about Barry! LOL! So, yeah Judy I recognize the hypocrisy of his game. I just am not out to convince him of anything any longer, or have any meaningful discussion with him. I *get* him now. Completely. Trouble is, he still gets positive feedback from those who *don't* see the hypocrisy, so he continues to believe it's a viable mode.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: snip For now this phenomenon fascinates me, because I am aware of its simple genesis-- the ability by Barry to challenge anything said here, with the result being he continues to exist. Unprincipled, unnacountable, and meaningless perhaps, but in the spotlight. In other words, he's a troll, a phony. You and I aren't saying anything different about Barry, we're just going about it differently. Or I would say that we are seeing exactly the same thing from different points of view. In any case the result is the same- he isn't someone I can take seriously, precisely because he doesn't want me too. Aikido always comes in handy. The sad thing is, Barry could be such a neat guy if he weren't so terrified of being real. How did he get poisoned with so much fear? How does it happen for any of us? Now is the time to work through it though, bit by bit. I find that fear begins with self and ends with Self. It is a slow but steady process of elimination through understanding and acceptance, first experiencing ourselves as apart from all people and eventually experiencing ourselves as a part of all people. As for Barry, what he has done here has worked so well for so long, it has served as a perfect mask for his own hypocrisy. Whether he chooses to face it, and when, is up to him, of course.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: The interesting serious thing about what flowed off your keyboard here is that your quips about people you don't have any beefs with were all light, purely humorous, whereas the ones about those you do have beefs with were putdowns disguised as humor. I am sitting here, feeling *deeply* into quiplessness, the state of not having been mentionad at all in Barry's list. My deepest apologies. I dashed it off in about three minutes, so I forgot a number of people. No need to apologize, Barry. Being quipless on FFL is just like being thoughtless in meditation in the presence of the guru. Quiplessness is a profound state of Being, and one that I'm deeply deeply attached to.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Some of us, Barry, have the ability to laugh *and also* take seriously those things that warrant it. The interesting serious thing about what flowed off your keyboard here is that your quips about people you don't have any beefs with were all light, purely humorous, whereas the ones about those you do have beefs with were putdowns disguised as humor. As transparent as glass. He plays the Fool and the Lost when it suits him. Its like people who are late for appointments only in their personal lives, but never to work. Because work is something directly affecting them, whereas being late for others only incoveniences the others. So Barry can always claim not being serious, and laugh and jibe at others- If you've noticed he has been very much into this 'not being serious' theme ever since Tom tore him a new one a few days ago. But I recall when Barry's stuff is gone after, when his ass is on the line, he's every bit as serious as the next person. The I'm as blithe and free as the Autumn leaves schtick is SO very self serving... Bingo. And, as you say, so very transparent. Hey, this is kinda fun- The Barry Channel, starring Barry- tagline, its all about Barry! LOL! So, yeah Judy I recognize the hypocrisy of his game. I just am not out to convince him of anything any longer, or have any meaningful discussion with him. I *get* him now. Completely. Trouble is, he still gets positive feedback from those who *don't* see the hypocrisy, so he continues to believe it's a viable mode. Yeah, I know. I used to be bothered by that, as I was with other stuff here, until I realized much of it wasn't my problem to solve. I just had to let go of it, and feel a lot better for having done so. The solution is sometimes other than going at it head-on. You have certainly tried this head-on approach for years and it hasn't helped at all, though possibly honed your skills for spotting such stuff. I realized at some point there is no saving people from themselves. Lessons are to be learned in their own particular way for a reason, and that reason is often times between the person learning and God, as is the resolution of the lesson. Sure has worked out that way for me. So you may just want to lay aside the investment you've made up until now, and just let it go.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
Judy: Trouble is, he still gets positive feedback from those who *don't* see the hypocrisy, so he continues to believe it's a viable mode. Some of us may just connect in a different way. We may be asking different questions or looking for something else from the exchange. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Some of us, Barry, have the ability to laugh *and also* take seriously those things that warrant it. The interesting serious thing about what flowed off your keyboard here is that your quips about people you don't have any beefs with were all light, purely humorous, whereas the ones about those you do have beefs with were putdowns disguised as humor. As transparent as glass. He plays the Fool and the Lost when it suits him. Its like people who are late for appointments only in their personal lives, but never to work. Because work is something directly affecting them, whereas being late for others only incoveniences the others. So Barry can always claim not being serious, and laugh and jibe at others- If you've noticed he has been very much into this 'not being serious' theme ever since Tom tore him a new one a few days ago. But I recall when Barry's stuff is gone after, when his ass is on the line, he's every bit as serious as the next person. The I'm as blithe and free as the Autumn leaves schtick is SO very self serving... Bingo. And, as you say, so very transparent. Hey, this is kinda fun- The Barry Channel, starring Barry- tagline, its all about Barry! LOL! So, yeah Judy I recognize the hypocrisy of his game. I just am not out to convince him of anything any longer, or have any meaningful discussion with him. I *get* him now. Completely. Trouble is, he still gets positive feedback from those who *don't* see the hypocrisy, so he continues to believe it's a viable mode.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe
On Feb 20, 2007, at 10:37 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I can't remember if he was Bob Lapinto who is a Raja or that southern fellow who was the mayor back then. Mayors, rajas, funny hats! I thought it was Jeffrey Abrahmson, although someone else could have been, um, elected, or whatever it took to get there. Could have been Bob for a while. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Turq (aka Barry, Unc) has no desire to get everything *right*. He is Lost as he said ... You are obviously not following Lost, the television series. The latest episode, Flashes Before Your Eyes, is one of the best pieces of television I've ever seen. They've finally gotten us off that boring other island with its boring Kate, Jack and Sawyer soap opera nonsense and back into the world of Des and his strange odyssey, which now seems to have happened before, possibly an infinite number of times. See the things you guys miss by being all serious? :-) Soon you'll have to Drive to follow Lost: http://fox.com/drive/ Stars the dude from Firefly and starts April 15th.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TurquoiseB wrote: You are obviously not following Lost, the television series. The latest episode, Flashes Before Your Eyes, is one of the best pieces of television I've ever seen. They've finally gotten us off that boring other island with its boring Kate, Jack and Sawyer soap opera nonsense and back into the world of Des and his strange odyssey, which now seems to have happened before, possibly an infinite number of times. See the things you guys miss by being all serious? :-) Soon you'll have to Drive to follow Lost: http://fox.com/drive/ Stars the dude from Firefly and starts April 15th. I'm very happy to see Nathan Fillion back on the tube, although I'm a little surprised he'd trust Fox again, after what they did to Firefly. On TV.com, Firefly is the highest-rated SciFi show ever, ranked at #1, and in the All Shows category, it's ranked #8. Nathan had a lot to do with that. Interestingly, in the All Shows category, Dexter is ranked #1. TV.com's readership has taste.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Trouble is, he still gets positive feedback from those who *don't* see the hypocrisy, so he continues to believe it's a viable mode. Yeah, I know. I used to be bothered by that, as I was with other stuff here, until I realized much of it wasn't my problem to solve. I just had to let go of it, and feel a lot better for having done so. The solution is sometimes other than going at it head-on. You have certainly tried this head-on approach for years and it hasn't helped at all, I don't know that, and I'm not sure you do either. It could be there's a sort of critical mass requirement, in which *we* won't see anything change until that point is reached. If your perception is that *you've* done all you could, then it's time for you to stop. But that may not be the case for me. though possibly honed your skills for spotting such stuff. I realized at some point there is no saving people from themselves. Lessons are to be learned in their own particular way for a reason, and that reason is often times between the person learning and God, as is the resolution of the lesson. But lessons are often taught by other people. What you're saying almost sounds like the old It's his karma to suffer, and I don't want to interfere with his karma. That can be a snare and a delusion and an evasion of responsibility. There's never just one person's karma involved. Sure has worked out that way for me. So you may just want to lay aside the investment you've made up until now, and just let it go. Or not.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy: Trouble is, he still gets positive feedback from those who *don't* see the hypocrisy, so he continues to believe it's a viable mode. Some of us may just connect in a different way. We may be asking different questions or looking for something else from the exchange. Sure. A hypocrite isn't necessarily utterly useless. Barry has a lot more to offer than he does now, if only he could get out of his straitjacket.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Trouble is, he still gets positive feedback from those who *don't* see the hypocrisy, so he continues to believe it's a viable mode. Yeah, I know. I used to be bothered by that, as I was with other stuff here, until I realized much of it wasn't my problem to solve. I just had to let go of it, and feel a lot better for having done so. The solution is sometimes other than going at it head-on. You have certainly tried this head-on approach for years and it hasn't helped at all, I don't know that, and I'm not sure you do either. It could be there's a sort of critical mass requirement, in which *we* won't see anything change until that point is reached. If your perception is that *you've* done all you could, then it's time for you to stop. But that may not be the case for me. though possibly honed your skills for spotting such stuff. I realized at some point there is no saving people from themselves. Lessons are to be learned in their own particular way for a reason, and that reason is often times between the person learning and God, as is the resolution of the lesson. But lessons are often taught by other people. What you're saying almost sounds like the old It's his karma to suffer, and I don't want to interfere with his karma. That can be a snare and a delusion and an evasion of responsibility. There's never just one person's karma involved. Not at all- when I said it gets worked out between us and God, I included the reality that everyone is Divine, and acts as an instrument thusly. My point though was that seeing a situation, or dynamic, clearly and that it needs fixing, doesn't necessarily follow that it is my job to fix it. Its a choice, partly dependent on whether I think my efforts will be successful. I was suggesting that your efforts thus far haven't been successful, and perhaps its time to try something else. Not that you have to, certainly. Sure has worked out that way for me. So you may just want to lay aside the investment you've made up until now, and just let it go. Or not.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: TurquoiseB wrote: You are obviously not following Lost, the television series. The latest episode, Flashes Before Your Eyes, is one of the best pieces of television I've ever seen. They've finally gotten us off that boring other island with its boring Kate, Jack and Sawyer soap opera nonsense and back into the world of Des and his strange odyssey, which now seems to have happened before, possibly an infinite number of times. See the things you guys miss by being all serious? :-) Soon you'll have to Drive to follow Lost: http://fox.com/drive/ Stars the dude from Firefly and starts April 15th. I'm very happy to see Nathan Fillion back on the tube, although I'm a little surprised he'd trust Fox again, after what they did to Firefly. On TV.com, Firefly is the highest-rated SciFi show ever, ranked at #1, and in the All Shows category, it's ranked #8. Nathan had a lot to do with that. Interestingly, in the All Shows category, Dexter is ranked #1. TV.com's readership has taste. Firefly is cute, but doesn't hold a candle to Babylon 5. Those ratings are packed by people who have an agenda or people who can't remember what a show was like that aired 10 years ago. Or people with the attention-span of fleas.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Firefly is cute, but doesn't hold a candle to Babylon 5. Matter of opinion. I agree with Orson Scott Card, who called Firefly the best science fiction TV series ever created...in many ways, the *first* good science fiction TV series ever created. Babylon 5 (having now seen some episodes) is almost unwatchable by comparison. It's boring, pretentious, and insufferably humorless, with one-dimensional characters who have not a spark of humanity in them. Oh...that's probably why you like it. Never mind. Different strokes for different folks. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: Firefly is cute, but doesn't hold a candle to Babylon 5. Matter of opinion. I agree with Orson Scott Card, who called Firefly the best science fiction TV series ever created...in many ways, the *first* good science fiction TV series ever created. Babylon 5 (having now seen some episodes) is almost unwatchable by comparison. It's boring, pretentious, and insufferably humorless, with one-dimensional characters who have not a spark of humanity in them. Oh...that's probably why you like it. Never mind. Different strokes for different folks. :-) More seriously, if I were to be asked whether I'd rather meet someone who loved Firefly or someone who loved Babylon 5, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment. I would know before I ever met them that the Firefly fan 1) has a sense of humor, 2) has an empathy for strong *human* relationships between people, and 3) has a sense of humor. All I would know about the Babylon 5 fan is that he or she takes life far too seriously. No hesitation at all...
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: Firefly is cute, but doesn't hold a candle to Babylon 5. Matter of opinion. I agree with Orson Scott Card, who called Firefly the best science fiction TV series ever created...in many ways, the *first* good science fiction TV series ever created. Babylon 5 (having now seen some episodes) is almost unwatchable by comparison. It's boring, pretentious, and insufferably humorless, with one-dimensional characters who have not a spark of humanity in them. Oh...that's probably why you like it. Never mind. Different strokes for different folks. :-) More seriously, if I were to be asked whether I'd rather meet someone who loved Firefly or someone who loved Babylon 5, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment. I would know before I ever met them that the Firefly fan 1) has a sense of humor, 2) has an empathy for strong *human* relationships between people, and 3) has a sense of humor. All I would know about the Babylon 5 fan is that he or she takes life far too seriously. No hesitation at all... Barry complains mightily about what he perceives to be a lack of compassion among TMers, about their purported inability to deal with disagreement, and their alleged tendency to shoot the messenger by delivering ad hominem rather than addressing the message itself. Yet here he is, so freaked out about a disagreement over a *TV series*, for pete's sake, that he launches a personal attack on Lawson designed to be as insulting and hurtful as he can make it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: Firefly is cute, but doesn't hold a candle to Babylon 5. Matter of opinion. I agree with Orson Scott Card, who called Firefly the best science fiction TV series ever created...in many ways, the *first* good science fiction TV series ever created. Heh. Babylon 5 (having now seen some episodes) is almost unwatchable by comparison. Babylon had enough of a following that Stravinski could keep it going for the full 5 years, despite the fans having to follow it from network to network. It's boring, pretentious, and insufferably humorless, Yep, the episode where the bug-eyed alien was brought to trial in a lawsuit involving a kidnapping that took place over a hundred years previous (his great-grandfather kidnapped OUR great-grandfather and we want retribution!) or the episode where the Centauri ambassador cheats at poker by using onr of his sex organs to swap cards out of the deck while no-one is looking, certainly don't reflect any attempt at humor. And let's not forget the interstellar, interspecies Elvis Convention... with one-dimensional characters who have not a spark of humanity in them. True. One-dimensional characters who mature throughout the life of the series, having to cope with things like alcoholic lapses that result in the deaths of 10's of thsouands, or, in the case of Londo Molari, having to accept that casual remarks made in his desire for political power resulted in the near-instinction of an alien race. A time travel story that takes 3 years of the series to complete and explains dozens of dangling plot threads in a single episode and creates a whole bundle of new ones finally resolved in books, TV shows and movies released over the next 10 years... An ultimate evil bad-guy (who became so popular that an entire sub-series in book form was based on him) played by Walter Koenig whose character was tailor-made to justify Koenig dead-pan expression that resulted from the actor's stroke years back... Yep, all one-dimensional. Oh...that's probably why you like it. Never mind. Different strokes for different folks. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe
Wasn't Bob the guy who built the sauna at M.I.U. back in ''76? He wasn't very nice about letting us use it, either. Or was that Fitz-Randolf? I know Tim would never let us check out the pool cues because - horror - we kept losing the chalk and breaking off the tips. Those two guys were no fun at all. curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't remember if he was Bob Lapinto who is a Raja or that southern fellow who was the mayor back then. Mayors, rajas, funny hats! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 19, 2007, at 8:59 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Hey Sal, When I get elected mayor of the 20th dimension you are on my short list for the inaugural kegger. Remember when they had the Mayor of Sidha Village, in DC, Curtis? That was a hoot. Probably the precursor to the rajas. Sal - Any questions? Get answers on any topic at Yahoo! Answers. Try it now.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: Firefly is cute, but doesn't hold a candle to Babylon 5. Matter of opinion. I agree with Orson Scott Card, who called Firefly the best science fiction TV series ever created...in many ways, the *first* good science fiction TV series ever created. Babylon 5 (having now seen some episodes) is almost unwatchable by comparison. It's boring, pretentious, and insufferably humorless, with one-dimensional characters who have not a spark of humanity in them. Oh...that's probably why you like it. Never mind. Different strokes for different folks. :-) More seriously, if I were to be asked whether I'd rather meet someone who loved Firefly or someone who loved Babylon 5, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment. I would know before I ever met them that the Firefly fan 1) has a sense of humor, 2) has an empathy for strong *human* relationships between people, and 3) has a sense of humor. All I would know about the Babylon 5 fan is that he or she takes life far too seriously. No hesitation at all... Barry complains mightily about what he perceives to be a lack of compassion among TMers, about their purported inability to deal with disagreement, and their alleged tendency to shoot the messenger by delivering ad hominem rather than addressing the message itself. Yet here he is, so freaked out about a disagreement over a *TV series*, for pete's sake, that he launches a personal attack on Lawson designed to be as insulting and hurtful as he can make it. Well, he DID ppickup on my veiled reference to him having the attention-span of a flea...
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] An ultimate evil bad-guy (who became so popular that an entire sub-series in book form was based on him) played by Walter Koenig whose character was tailor-made to justify Koenig dead-pan expression that resulted from the actor's stroke years back... Named Alfred Bester, I might add...
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
More mono-dimensional stuff from B5: aliens so alien that they refuse to be seen without an environmental suit, and when they ARE forced to reveal themselves, they mentally control the perceptions of every creature in the vicinity so that no two species can agree on what they saw, all done in such a way that none of them realize it was one of their fellow ambassadors they were looking at. That same alien ambassador, named Kosh (later replaced by another ambassador also named Kosh--we are all named 'Kosh') whose automatic translation device struggles with translating 10 seconds of its alien speech that sounds like a heavenly choir and finally says yes... The background of the series, touched on in the first episode and slowly revealed over the first 3 years of the series, includes a mystery that isn't resolved until the time travel episode: why would an alien race, thousands of years in advance of us, whose most popular leader was killed by our people accidentally, chase us on a war of extermination to the very edge of Earth's atmosphere, and, as wave after wave of Earth ships was sent against the alien foe merely to gain a few more seconds (if that) of launch time for refugee ships fleeing the ultimate destruction of Earth, did said alien race suddenly SURRENDER to us and become our stanchest ally? The full depth of the mystery takes 3 years to reveal, and the answer isn't given until the full mystery is revealed. Alien races so advanced that their ships are living creatures build to have a symbiotic relationship with the race. A chess match between two such races that spans many millions of years of history, using entire species as pawns and yet the players turn out to be even more limited than the species they manipulate. Yeah. a one-dimenstiona, pretentious story, to be sure. Like I said, anyone who can't appreciate B-5 has the attention span of a flea.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There have been a great number of statements here on FFL about what I -- Barry Wright, TurquoiseB, Unc, whatever -- believe about TM, Maharishi, the TMO, and TMers as a group. There have been even more assumptions about these things, presumed on the part of my detractors, and declared as fact *because* they assume these things. Of course, Barry *never* makes any such assumptions about others. Nosireebob, perish the thought: I think that what you're upset about is that Paul is asking the questions that YOU should have asked 'way back when, and never did I think you're angry at YOURSELF for never questioning the stories you bought about Maharishi's background, and the nature of his relationship with Guru Dev, and whether Guru Dev would ever have approved of what Maharishi has done in his name. Both responses were intended to demonize Paul for writing what he wrote, and for having an opinion that you don't like. Their own insecurities about their beliefs and their need to dominate and control those who challenge those beliefs is what set them off. It's a ballsy film, and I suspect history will treat it far better than the petty, judgmental assholes who trashed it -- often without seeing it -- just because they were being judgmental about its director's inability to handle alcohol. I think what you're afraid of is not that the 'recert' process didn't 'weed him out' because his thinking was Off The Program, but that it kept him around because it wasn't. The dogma of the TMO is presented as *fact*, and after decades of hearing its postulations presented as fact, many adherents come to believe that they *are* fact, and can no longer even *conceive* of any other way of looking at the situation. And the worse things get with the TMO, the angrier they'll get, and the more that anger will fester, until something snaps, and they finally *can* admit who they're really angry at -- *themselves*, for being so gullible and so insufferably stupid, and for so long. And the funny thing is, that moment brings release. Resisting it is what keeps them so angry. The 'dark night of the soul' is not about having doubts; it's about resisting the doubts and considering them bad, and about considering themselves bad for having the doubts. ...The tendency to think in terms of 'better' and 'best' (with regard to spiritual techniques and spiritual teachers and spirtual traditions) is *built into* the TMO system, so much so that its validity and appropriateness is never questioned. I'm suggesting that its validity and appropriateness *should* be questioned, and that many TMers are so brainwashed that they are incapable of doing so. How many of you spend 144 minutes a day or less outside your home? These people think that's how 'most' people live their lives. [Nobody thinks that, or said that.--JS] Probably because that's how they live theirs, stuck inside, afraid to leave...and now even afraid of the 'sanctuaries' they're hiding in. They project onto [Guru Dev] all of their fantasies of enlightenment, and what that word means or doesn't mean to them. And it was the same thing with Maharishi. He arrived on our shores as this exotic little dark- haired monk in white robes, and everyone swooned and just assumed that everything he said was the Truth, with a capital T. These are all from just this past week, and not all the examples by any means, only those that were relatively self-contained. snip There you have it. Next time someone makes a declaration about what I believe, run it past this post to see whether what they are saying really seems to be what I believe, Ok? There is a spiritual principle you have never gotten, Barry. It goes, Listen to what people say, but watch what they DO. snip There you have it. Next time someone makes a declaration about what I believe, run it past this post to see whether what they are saying really seems to be what I believe, Ok? However, bear this in mind as well: [My beliefs] are just what this particular self chooses to believe at a particular moment in time. They may change tomorrow, or sooner. They have done so so many times that I'm no longer particularly attached to the beliefs. They're just things that come and go, like leaves blowing by on the winds of autumn.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: There have been a great number of statements here on FFL about what I -- Barry Wright, TurquoiseB, Unc, whatever -- believe about TM, Maharishi, the TMO, and TMers as a group. There have been even more assumptions about these things, presumed on the part of my detractors, and declared as fact *because* they assume these things. Of course, Barry *never* makes any such assumptions about others. Nosireebob, perish the thought: I think that what you're upset about is that Paul is asking the questions that YOU should have asked 'way back when, and never did I think you're angry at YOURSELF for never questioning the stories you bought about Maharishi's background, and the nature of his relationship with Guru Dev, and whether Guru Dev would ever have approved of what Maharishi has done in his name. Both responses were intended to demonize Paul for writing what he wrote, and for having an opinion that you don't like. Their own insecurities about their beliefs and their need to dominate and control those who challenge those beliefs is what set them off. It's a ballsy film, and I suspect history will treat it far better than the petty, judgmental assholes who trashed it -- often without seeing it -- just because they were being judgmental about its director's inability to handle alcohol. I think what you're afraid of is not that the 'recert' process didn't 'weed him out' because his thinking was Off The Program, but that it kept him around because it wasn't. The dogma of the TMO is presented as *fact*, and after decades of hearing its postulations presented as fact, many adherents come to believe that they *are* fact, and can no longer even *conceive* of any other way of looking at the situation. And the worse things get with the TMO, the angrier they'll get, and the more that anger will fester, until something snaps, and they finally *can* admit who they're really angry at -- *themselves*, for being so gullible and so insufferably stupid, and for so long. And the funny thing is, that moment brings release. Resisting it is what keeps them so angry. The 'dark night of the soul' is not about having doubts; it's about resisting the doubts and considering them bad, and about considering themselves bad for having the doubts. ...The tendency to think in terms of 'better' and 'best' (with regard to spiritual techniques and spiritual teachers and spirtual traditions) is *built into* the TMO system, so much so that its validity and appropriateness is never questioned. I'm suggesting that its validity and appropriateness *should* be questioned, and that many TMers are so brainwashed that they are incapable of doing so. How many of you spend 144 minutes a day or less outside your home? These people think that's how 'most' people live their lives. [Nobody thinks that, or said that.--JS] Probably because that's how they live theirs, stuck inside, afraid to leave...and now even afraid of the 'sanctuaries' they're hiding in. They project onto [Guru Dev] all of their fantasies of enlightenment, and what that word means or doesn't mean to them. And it was the same thing with Maharishi. He arrived on our shores as this exotic little dark- haired monk in white robes, and everyone swooned and just assumed that everything he said was the Truth, with a capital T. These are all from just this past week, and not all the examples by any means, only those that were relatively self-contained. snip There you have it. Next time someone makes a declaration about what I believe, run it past this post to see whether what they are saying really seems to be what I believe, Ok? There is a spiritual principle you have never gotten, Barry. It goes, Listen to what people say, but watch what they DO. snip There you have it. Next time someone makes a declaration about what I believe, run it past this post to see whether what they are saying really seems to be what I believe, Ok? However, bear this in mind as well: [My beliefs] are just what this particular self chooses to believe at a particular moment in time. They may change tomorrow, or sooner. They have done so so many times that I'm no longer particularly attached to the beliefs. They're just things that come and go, like leaves blowing by on the winds of autumn. I was pretty sure I could make her waste a great deal of time fuming over what I said and researching ways to trash me. *Some* assumptions seem to be valid. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo wgm4u@ wrote: You have a gift Amigo, I can't stop laughing, where's Delia? All glory to Steve Martin, I am but an innocent loudspeaker. You lost me on the Delia reference. A great past AMT poster!!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe
On Feb 19, 2007, at 12:33 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I guess I should weigh in also with What I Believe: I believe in rainbows and puppy dogs and fairy tales. And in the background can be faintly heard... Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens; Bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens; Brown paper packages tied up with strings; These are a few of my favorite things. Cream-colored ponies and crisp apple strudels; Doorbells and sleigh bells and schnitzel with noodles; Wild geese that fly with the moon on their wings; These are a few of my favorite things. Girls in white dresses with blue satin sashes; Snowflakes that stay on my nose and eyelashes; Silver-white winters that melt into springs; These are a few of my favorite things. When the dog bites, When the bee stings, When I'm feeling sad, I simply remember my favorite things, And then I don't feel so bad. Oscar Hammerstein II and Richard Rodgers
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo wgm4u@ wrote: You have a gift Amigo, I can't stop laughing, where's Delia? All glory to Steve Martin, I am but an innocent loudspeaker. You lost me on the Delia reference. A great past AMT poster!! Yeah, the legendary DHM (dihydromonoxide) thread! :)
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo wgm4u@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo wgm4u@ wrote: You have a gift Amigo, I can't stop laughing, where's Delia? All glory to Steve Martin, I am but an innocent loudspeaker. You lost me on the Delia reference. A great past AMT poster!! Yeah, the legendary DHM (dihydromonoxide) thread! :) Hey..that's right, that was hers too? Poor witch, wonder what she's up to?
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo wgm4u@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo wgm4u@ wrote: You have a gift Amigo, I can't stop laughing, where's Delia? All glory to Steve Martin, I am but an innocent loudspeaker. You lost me on the Delia reference. A great past AMT poster!! Yeah, the legendary DHMO (dihydromonoxide) thread! :) Hey..that's right, that was hers too? Poor witch, wonder what she's up to? I'm not sure if she started it: http://preview.tinyurl.com/257op9 (Edit: DHM DHMO)
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: There have been a great number of statements here on FFL about what I -- Barry Wright, TurquoiseB, Unc, whatever -- believe about TM, Maharishi, the TMO, and TMers as a group. There have been even more assumptions about these things, presumed on the part of my detractors, and declared as fact *because* they assume these things. Of course, Barry *never* makes any such assumptions about others. Nosireebob, perish the thought: I think that what you're upset about is that Paul is asking the questions that YOU should have asked 'way back when, and never did I think you're angry at YOURSELF for never questioning the stories you bought about Maharishi's background, and the nature of his relationship with Guru Dev, and whether Guru Dev would ever have approved of what Maharishi has done in his name. Both responses were intended to demonize Paul for writing what he wrote, and for having an opinion that you don't like. Their own insecurities about their beliefs and their need to dominate and control those who challenge those beliefs is what set them off. It's a ballsy film, and I suspect history will treat it far better than the petty, judgmental assholes who trashed it -- often without seeing it -- just because they were being judgmental about its director's inability to handle alcohol. I think what you're afraid of is not that the 'recert' process didn't 'weed him out' because his thinking was Off The Program, but that it kept him around because it wasn't. The dogma of the TMO is presented as *fact*, and after decades of hearing its postulations presented as fact, many adherents come to believe that they *are* fact, and can no longer even *conceive* of any other way of looking at the situation. And the worse things get with the TMO, the angrier they'll get, and the more that anger will fester, until something snaps, and they finally *can* admit who they're really angry at -- *themselves*, for being so gullible and so insufferably stupid, and for so long. And the funny thing is, that moment brings release. Resisting it is what keeps them so angry. The 'dark night of the soul' is not about having doubts; it's about resisting the doubts and considering them bad, and about considering themselves bad for having the doubts. ...The tendency to think in terms of 'better' and 'best' (with regard to spiritual techniques and spiritual teachers and spirtual traditions) is *built into* the TMO system, so much so that its validity and appropriateness is never questioned. I'm suggesting that its validity and appropriateness *should* be questioned, and that many TMers are so brainwashed that they are incapable of doing so. How many of you spend 144 minutes a day or less outside your home? These people think that's how 'most' people live their lives. [Nobody thinks that, or said that.--JS] Probably because that's how they live theirs, stuck inside, afraid to leave...and now even afraid of the 'sanctuaries' they're hiding in. They project onto [Guru Dev] all of their fantasies of enlightenment, and what that word means or doesn't mean to them. And it was the same thing with Maharishi. He arrived on our shores as this exotic little dark- haired monk in white robes, and everyone swooned and just assumed that everything he said was the Truth, with a capital T. These are all from just this past week, and not all the examples by any means, only those that were relatively self-contained. snip There you have it. Next time someone makes a declaration about what I believe, run it past this post to see whether what they are saying really seems to be what I believe, Ok? There is a spiritual principle you have never gotten, Barry. It goes, Listen to what people say, but watch what they DO. snip There you have it. Next time someone makes a declaration about what I believe, run it past this post to see whether what they are saying really seems to be what I believe, Ok? However, bear this in mind as well: [My beliefs] are just what this particular self chooses to believe at a particular moment in time. They may change tomorrow, or sooner. They have done so so many times that I'm no longer particularly attached to the beliefs. They're just things that come and go, like leaves blowing by on the winds of autumn. I was pretty sure I could make her waste a great deal of time fuming over what I said and researching ways to trash me. *Some* assumptions seem to be valid. :-) Sorry, Barry, took me only a couple of minutes. You did almost all the work.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo wgm4u@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo wgm4u@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo wgm4u@ wrote: You have a gift Amigo, I can't stop laughing, where's Delia? All glory to Steve Martin, I am but an innocent loudspeaker. You lost me on the Delia reference. A great past AMT poster!! Yeah, the legendary DHMO (dihydromonoxide) thread! :) Hey..that's right, that was hers too? Poor witch, wonder what she's up to? I'm not sure if she started it: http://preview.tinyurl.com/257op9 (Edit: DHM DHMO) She did indeed start it on alt.m.t. And you really need to start from the beginning to get the full effect. The thread begins here: http://tinyurl.com/2engkt By far the most enjoyable thread ever on alt.m.t.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo wgm4u@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo wgm4u@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo wgm4u@ wrote: You have a gift Amigo, I can't stop laughing, where's Delia? All glory to Steve Martin, I am but an innocent loudspeaker. You lost me on the Delia reference. A great past AMT poster!! Yeah, the legendary DHMO (dihydromonoxide) thread! :) Hey..that's right, that was hers too? Poor witch, wonder what she's up to? I'm not sure if she started it: http://preview.tinyurl.com/257op9 (Edit: DHM DHMO) She did indeed start it on alt.m.t. And you really need to start from the beginning to get the full effect. The thread begins here: http://tinyurl.com/2engkt By far the most enjoyable thread ever on alt.m.t. What Judy means is that I got conned, big-time, with my own full cooperation, and she enjoyed watching it. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: snip I'm not sure if she started it: http://preview.tinyurl.com/257op9 (Edit: DHM DHMO) She did indeed start it on alt.m.t. And you really need to start from the beginning to get the full effect. The thread begins here: http://tinyurl.com/2engkt By far the most enjoyable thread ever on alt.m.t. What Judy means is that I got conned, big-time, with my own full cooperation, and she enjoyed watching it. :-) Yes, it was great fun to watch Delia humilitate you. You used every one of your ugly, arrogant, slimy, vicious, dishonest tactics against her, and she turned every one of them right back onto you. It was a work of art, an incredible performance. Anybody who wants confirmation of what I say about here Barry should read this thread. Talk about being exposed as a phony!
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip * Judy will go to her grave never having seen Mel Gibson's 'Apocalypto,' so that she can remain convinced that she was right about trashing it. This from the guy who got virtually everything he said about the film dead wrong, including that Gibson intended it as a love story and that it had no information about the era in which it took place, as well as believing the scholars' objections to its historical inaccuracies were *precisely reversed* from what they actually were. And he'll go to *his* grave absolutely convinced he got everything *right*. (Well, no, he did finally backpedal about its having no information about when it took place, but he never admitted he'd been wrong in his initial claim.)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
In a message dated 2/19/2007 6:02:52 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) , TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Curtis will hook up with a gorgeous babe named Bambi who will suck the chrome off his favorite mouth harp and leave him for an investment banker named Sheldon. * Rick's karma for starting this forum will finally catch up to him, and he will be committed to a psych ward, where everyone will call him Vaj. * MDixon will be reborn as a liberal, and will feel guilty about it for that entire lifetime. * Willytex will contract a social disease from one of his prairie dog friends, and it will eat away the bridge of his nose. No one will notice. * Bhairitu will develop an intense Tantric relationship with his HD-DVD player, and as a consequence will have to explain to the paramedics how his penis got caught in the DVD slot. * Sal will become the resident hottie of her rest home, and will be loved by all except the male nurses with bruises on their buttocks from all the pinching. * Vaj will realize his full, to-the-max, fully-certified enlightenment, and will be somewhat disappointed by it. * Cardemaister will arrive in Heaven to find that no one there speaks Sanskrit, and will have to work for eternity as a translator. * Tom T. will be jailed for making Byron Katie puns, but will find love with a cellmate named Bubba. * Bob B. will have an epiphany and realize that the world's progress towards Sat Yuga is not being retarded by Maharishi to protect it from too fast a change, but because the world itself is retarded and couldn't care less about Sat Yuga. * Nablusos, upon his death, will ascend to the 12th dimension, and will look down on everyone there. * Peter Klutz will be reborn in a world in which every- one really IS out to get him. * Lou will be visiting Israel when the UFOs arrive, and will board a spaceship that bears the name, To Serve Man. * Jim will find that everything he's ever believed, about anything, is false, but will react by saying, Z. * Sparaig will become a noted scientist and will prove conclusively that white rats cause cancer. * Peter will make history by being the first Floridian to successfully psychoanalyze an alligator and live. * Judy will go to her grave never having seen Mel Gibson's 'Apocalypto, Gibson's 'Apocalypto,WBR' so that she was right about trashing it. * I will go watch the latest episode of Lost and identify with all of the characters simultaneously. Yes! You nailed it. I love this. Very creative and a good laugh for a change. Lsoma.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip * Judy will go to her grave never having seen Mel Gibson's 'Apocalypto,' so that she can remain convinced that she was right about trashing it. This from the guy who got virtually everything he said about the film dead wrong, including that Gibson intended it as a love story and that it had no information about the era in which it took place, as well as believing the scholars' objections to its historical inaccuracies were *precisely reversed* from what they actually were. And he'll go to *his* grave absolutely convinced he got everything *right*. (Well, no, he did finally backpedal about its having no information about when it took place, but he never admitted he'd been wrong in his initial claim.) Turq (aka Barry, Unc) has no desire to get everything *right*. He is Lost as he said, and I don't mean that as a criticism. It is just as valid a way of Being as any other. No boundaries, no truth, no lies, no relationship of anything to anything else beyond the moment, which is gone as soon as it is comprehended. Everything has the same value as everything else, brought into being solely by intention, often in the form of opposition. It is a kind of surrealistic reality superimposed on the logical one that many of us seem to value here. Transcendental dialogue, as meaningful as the random thoughts sometimes seeding our meditations. Fun to watch but don't expect to *get* anything from it beyond the eternal game of it. That is the only reality here for Turq. Either play along or don't play along. The conclusions are all meaningless anyway; not bad, or good, or anything else. It is an ever shifting canvas, as ephemeral as the passing moments of life itself. This is not a game where points are made or proven. It is a form of spiritual Dadaism, which when investigated, leads only to nothingness.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe
Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 19, 2007, at 12:33 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I guess I should weigh in also with What I Believe: I believe in rainbows and puppy dogs and fairy tales. And in the background can be faintly heard... Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens; Bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens; Brown paper packages tied up with strings; These are a few of my favorite things. Cream-colored ponies and crisp apple strudels; Doorbells and sleigh bells and schnitzel with noodles; Wild geese that fly with the moon on their wings; These are a few of my favorite things. Girls in white dresses with blue satin sashes; Snowflakes that stay on my nose and eyelashes; Silver-white winters that melt into springs; These are a few of my favorite things. When the dog bites, When the bee stings, When I'm feeling sad, I simply remember my favorite things, And then I don't feel so bad. Oscar Hammerstein II and Richard Rodgers - It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe
TurquoiseB wrote: I was pretty sure I could make her waste a great deal of time fuming over what I said and researching ways to trash me. *Some* assumptions seem to be valid. :-) So, it's all about Judy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe
A great past AMT poster!! Yeah, the legendary DHM (dihydromonoxide) thread! :) That would be DHMO.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip * Judy will go to her grave never having seen Mel Gibson's 'Apocalypto,' so that she can remain convinced that she was right about trashing it. This from the guy who got virtually everything he said about the film dead wrong, including that Gibson intended it as a love story and that it had no information about the era in which it took place, as well as believing the scholars' objections to its historical inaccuracies were *precisely reversed* from what they actually were. And he'll go to *his* grave absolutely convinced he got everything *right*. (Well, no, he did finally backpedal about its having no information about when it took place, but he never admitted he'd been wrong in his initial claim.) Turq (aka Barry, Unc) has no desire to get everything *right*. He is Lost as he said, and I don't mean that as a criticism. It is just as valid a way of Being as any other. No boundaries, no truth, no lies, no relationship of anything to anything else beyond the moment, which is gone as soon as it is comprehended. Everything has the same value as everything else, brought into being solely by intention, often in the form of opposition. It is a kind of surrealistic reality superimposed on the logical one that many of us seem to value here. Transcendental dialogue, as meaningful as the random thoughts sometimes seeding our meditations. Fun to watch but don't expect to *get* anything from it beyond the eternal game of it. That is the only reality here for Turq. Either play along or don't play along. The conclusions are all meaningless anyway; not bad, or good, or anything else. It is an ever shifting canvas, as ephemeral as the passing moments of life itself. This is not a game where points are made or proven. It is a form of spiritual Dadaism, which when investigated, leads only to nothingness. Uh, Jim... Never mind.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe
Mr. Magoo wrote: Poor witch, wonder what she's up to? You were always attracted to Delia.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe
I have a huge advantage over anyone who has worked closely with MMY. Let me just propose the radical idea that you may not know more about MMY than people who have spent considerable time with him. You may know less. Your knowledge of MMY is so tied up with your fantasies about him, that you cannot say that you know MMY at all. You are making all this shit up and it is obvious. BTW I am speaking from the 20th dimension. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/19/2007 10:49:25 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: FairfieldLife@ FairfieldLi FairfieldLife@WBRyahoogr FairfieldLife@ FairOn Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 7:40 AM To: FairfieldLife@ FairfieldLi Fa Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] What I Believe Dear Barry, I love the way you expressed yourself and feelings about the TMO, TM and MMY. You are solid about what you have been through and have clear opinions based on your experiences. I can relate to your feelings regarding the TMO and what you are saying. You are correct that we will never know the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In the name of protecting the purity of the teaching TM has been compromised to a great extent. This is why the ME has not come to fruition over the years. The fundamentalist who run his organization have ruined MMY plan. MMY knows this and the latest viewings of him from Holland show a man who is ready to leave the show. He is not happy with his leaders and when he looks out the windows of his supreme castle the world is at war. All of the money spent on scientific resarch and all of the time he spent trying to organize his message has fallen into the hands of people who are hungry for power. They are in for a great disappointment come July or August of 2007. All of those peace palaces. Who will fill them up? Lsoma. Your mistake here, Lou is in not realizing or admitting that MMY made the movement what it is. He micromanaged it with an iron hand. He chose and trained the people around him, and sent away those he didnât want. He came up with most of the ideas and initiatives, made or was consulted on all of the important decisions.. Love it or hate it, the TM movement is an extension of MMYâs personality. He has said so himself. He wanted it that way. Youâre trying to preserve your feelings for MMY by blaming others for what you donât like. Get real. Be truthful. What you see is what he created. I have a huge advantage over anyone who has worked closely with MMY. I never did. I don't have experiences of looking at him from a more human point of view. I think Rick is reacting to me because he has been up front and center with MMY. In the end I have to go with my own experiences of my TM practice. The problem is expecting MMY to act like an enlightened person when he never said he was enlightened. Everyone put that on him. He's a man. A Capricorn. A volunteer from the fifth dimension. When he reaches the seventh dimension then he is a qualified master. Rick, your spiritual evolution has outgrown MMY a long time ago. You are a leader and creator of this forum. Can you forgive MMY for his choices that are not in alignment with yours? One of the problems with MMY is he didn't have a hot headed Italian like me to straighten him out from time to time. Charlie Lutes was too nice and played the conservative role and Deepak just gave up and went his own way. Many devotees were outgrowing MMY because he wanted to stay stuck in the Capricorn model of building an organization. He is not enlightened. An enlightened person could care less about building more structure. But, the man has given humanity something to think about. He has touched many lives. I have an advantage. I never got physically close enough to get into the karma that evolves around his organization. I decided a long time ago to let my inner soul do most of the talking rather than join in his organization. Thank God. I would have ended up disappointed like most of the teachers. Is the TMO really an extension of MMY? I don't think it is. The SRM was more in alignment with what he wanted. Then came the Sidhi's. MMY saw that people were getting bored with just the simple silence of TM. So he entertained people for awhile to keep them meditating. People find all kinds of excuses as to why they can't find time for their spiritual life. We are entering a time when all male structures will fall. Man is holding on for dear life. Many teachers have taken off where MMY left off but his knowledge that he has left to his organization and to us is important to re-educate the masses. I have never heard an Indian saint talk about the source of thought or the least excited state of awarness.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe
On Feb 19, 2007, at 8:06 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: BTW I am speaking from the 20th dimension. When the moon is in the Seventh House And Jupiter aligns with Mars ... Oh, sorry. Wrong dimension! Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe
Hey Sal, When I get elected mayor of the 20th dimension you are on my short list for the inaugural kegger. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 19, 2007, at 8:06 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: BTW I am speaking from the 20th dimension. When the moon is in the Seventh House And Jupiter aligns with Mars ... Oh, sorry. Wrong dimension! Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Turq (aka Barry, Unc) has no desire to get everything *right*. He is Lost as he said ... You are obviously not following Lost, the television series. The latest episode, Flashes Before Your Eyes, is one of the best pieces of television I've ever seen. They've finally gotten us off that boring other island with its boring Kate, Jack and Sawyer soap opera nonsense and back into the world of Des and his strange odyssey, which now seems to have happened before, possibly an infinite number of times. See the things you guys miss by being all serious? :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I Believe, Part II
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/19/2007 6:02:52 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) , TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Curtis will hook up with a gorgeous babe named Bambi who will suck the chrome off his favorite mouth harp and leave him for an investment banker named Sheldon. * Rick's karma for starting this forum will finally catch up to him, and he will be committed to a psych ward, where everyone will call him Vaj. * MDixon will be reborn as a liberal, and will feel guilty about it for that entire lifetime. * Willytex will contract a social disease from one of his prairie dog friends, and it will eat away the bridge of his nose. No one will notice. * Bhairitu will develop an intense Tantric relationship with his HD-DVD player, and as a consequence will have to explain to the paramedics how his penis got caught in the DVD slot. * Sal will become the resident hottie of her rest home, and will be loved by all except the male nurses with bruises on their buttocks from all the pinching. * Vaj will realize his full, to-the-max, fully-certified enlightenment, and will be somewhat disappointed by it. * Cardemaister will arrive in Heaven to find that no one there speaks Sanskrit, and will have to work for eternity as a translator. * Tom T. will be jailed for making Byron Katie puns, but will find love with a cellmate named Bubba. * Bob B. will have an epiphany and realize that the world's progress towards Sat Yuga is not being retarded by Maharishi to protect it from too fast a change, but because the world itself is retarded and couldn't care less about Sat Yuga. * Nablusos, upon his death, will ascend to the 12th dimension, and will look down on everyone there. * Peter Klutz will be reborn in a world in which every- one really IS out to get him. * Lou will be visiting Israel when the UFOs arrive, and will board a spaceship that bears the name, To Serve Man. * Jim will find that everything he's ever believed, about anything, is false, but will react by saying, Z. * Sparaig will become a noted scientist and will prove conclusively that white rats cause cancer. * Peter will make history by being the first Floridian to successfully psychoanalyze an alligator and live. * Judy will go to her grave never having seen Mel Gibson's 'Apocalypto, Gibson's 'Apocalypto,WBR' so that she was right about trashing it. * I will go watch the latest episode of Lost and identify with all of the characters simultaneously. Yes! You nailed it. I love this. Very creative and a good laugh for a change. Lsoma. Thanks for getting it. Like almost all funny writing, it just flowed off the keyboard -- no pauses, no edits -- in less than three minutes. I've always found that interjecting humor into a situation that far too many people are taking far too seriously is a great measure of spiritual seekers' flexibility, and their ability to shift their state of attention in a moment and laugh -- at themselves, at the things they sometimes take too seriously, and at the world they find themselves in. Those who can are worthy of conversing with; those who can't, well...
