Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
It's not that I don't want to dialog with Judy, but sometimes I don't even know what she is talking about. Sometimes she doesn't even make any sense. Lately her messages don't even have a quote under her message so we can tell exactly what it is she is referring to. Maybe it's time to review the internet protocol for formatting a proper reply for a message board reply: 1. Always include the quote you are replying to. 2. Snip the message you are quoting so that respondents know what it is you're not replying to. 3. Try to stay on topic. 4. Avoid hyperbole and flaming your debating opponent. 5. Be nice and not mean - this is a chat room. On 12/3/2013 10:25 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: Judy, leave Richard alone. He can't resist looking at his phone when he hears it ding even though he is at a roadhouse havin' a beer and maybe enjoying the company of his wife who has worked an all-day shift at Whole Foods. Can you not have the decency to resist using FFL and actually responding to Richard during certain hours of the day? Why don't we, based on Texas time, say you avoid any controversial subjects between the hours of 6pm and 10pm New Jersey time? If Ricky is one or two hours behind that should put him just about at Happy Hour in Texas.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
You need to get some smarts, Emily - this is a message board about MMY and TMers. Everyone on this list knows about MMY being the Beatles guru and so it is a subject that many of us discuss frequently. If you want to be part of the dialog, at least read the Wikipedia entry on the Beatles, and then get back to us. Thanks. Recommended reading: Beyond Gurus by Nancy Cooke de Herrera Blue Dolphin, 1992 On 12/3/2013 10:26 PM, emilymae...@yahoo.com wrote: I don't consider them the greatest artists of all time, honestly. I did miss the whole craze. I recognize their contribution to popular culture and music for sure and I got into certain songs when I was in college. I've never been the groupie type, except seemingly here, where I still proudly flaunt my outsider status.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Thanks for the advice, Emily, but responding to email queries is my avocation. I'm always available for students who might have questions about their course studies or about internet protocols. That includes my student Ms Stein. I don't discriminate against anyone who might need my help, no matter how antagonistic they might seem. She could be a nice girl for all I know, and she may need some spiritual help. That's what I do. But this incessant harassment could be cause for sending a warning that they could be dropped from the list if they persist in abusing their posting privilages. Keep up the good work! On 12/3/2013 10:32 PM, emilymae...@yahoo.com wrote: P.S. I hope you aren't having a beer with your wife and talking to me too? Ignore the ding Richard; turn off the phone. I tell my younger kid that; I might as well have told her to cut off her arm, but hopefully you aren't as addicted as the kids are.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
I have no intention of trying to dialog with Richard, but my posts are not the only ones that have in many cases lacked quotes from the posts they were responding to. It seems to be a brand-new Neo glitch. I never delete all of the quote, and I doubt anyone else does either. There's a very clunky workaround if you want to see what someone was responding to when the quote from the post has disappeared: Click Show all messages in this topic beneath the current post, then when it tells you how many messages there are, click the down arrow to the right. That will give you a list of the most recent posts in that thread. One of the posts near the end of the list, or at the end, will be the one the person is responding to. Usually it's not that hard to figure out which one it is from the context. When you're done and go back to the Conversations view, you'll be in the Topics list, so you'll need to click Messages to get the chronological list back. How to ensure that the quotes you've left in show up, I'm not sure. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. I think it helps if you delete Neo's attribution line for the post you're responding to and type in your own, like this: Richard wrote: It's not that I don't want to dialog with Judy, but sometimes I don't even know what she is talking about. Sometimes she doesn't even make any sense. Lately her messages don't even have a quote under her message so we can tell exactly what it is she is referring to. Maybe it's time to review the internet protocol for formatting a proper reply for a message board reply: 1. Always include the quote you are replying to. 2. Snip the message you are quoting so that respondents know what it is you're not replying to. 3. Try to stay on topic. 4. Avoid hyperbole and flaming your debating opponent. 5. Be nice and not mean - this is a chat room. On 12/3/2013 10:25 PM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote: Judy, leave Richard alone. He can't resist looking at his phone when he hears it ding even though he is at a roadhouse havin' a beer and maybe enjoying the company of his wife who has worked an all-day shift at Whole Foods. Can you not have the decency to resist using FFL and actually responding to Richard during certain hours of the day? Why don't we, based on Texas time, say you avoid any controversial subjects between the hours of 6pm and 10pm New Jersey time? If Ricky is one or two hours behind that should put him just about at Happy Hour in Texas.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: You need to get some smarts, Emily - this is a message board about MMY and TMers. Oh no Richard, it's about so much more like funny puns, pictures of where people have been driving by on any given day and, oh yea, the kinds of quinoa salad at WF and what people had to eat for dinner! We've moved w past TM and MMY. Things evolve in the world Richard, didn't you know? Everyone on this list knows about MMY being the Beatles guru and so it is a subject that many of us discuss frequently. If you want to be part of the dialog, at least read the Wikipedia entry on the Beatles, and then get back to us. Thanks. Recommended reading: Beyond Gurus by Nancy Cooke de Herrera Blue Dolphin, 1992 On 12/3/2013 10:26 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote: I don't consider them the greatest artists of all time, honestly. I did miss the whole craze. I recognize their contribution to popular culture and music for sure and I got into certain songs when I was in college. I've never been the groupie type, except seemingly here, where I still proudly flaunt my outsider status.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Well, I guess I missed your funny puns, your pictures of where people have been driving by on any given day, and what you ate for dinner. In fact, I must have missed most of what you had to say about TM and what TMers. LoL! Maybe you haven't posted anything about the Beatles or their guru because you have not read any of the suggested readings, or even read the messages on the forum. Go figure. Internet posting protocols for discussion groups: 1. Read the messages before you post your comments. 2. Don't butt in to a conversation if you don't have any knowledge about the subject. 3. Try to post something interesting instead of just ankle biting. On 12/4/2013 10:08 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: Oh no Richard, it's about so much more like funny puns, pictures of where people have been driving by on any given day and, oh yea, the kinds of quinoa salad at WF and what people had to eat for dinner! We've moved w past TM and MMY. Things evolve in the world Richard, didn't you know?
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
O.K. Richard. I will do that. Taking direction is one of my strengths, did you know? I think it is time to reply to the question of How did Emily get here and why is she still here? I'll get on the summary version of that post immediately.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Nor are they the names of personal gods. As I said to start with, the gods have perfectly good names of their own: Saraswati, Lakshmi, etc.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
This *is* funny. Poor Richard. Richard, I'm not as smart as Judy either; don't take it personally.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Almost everyone on the planet knew about MMY's mantras from listening to the Beatles records. Where have you been? MMY was on the cover of six major magazines in 1965. Almost everyone on the planet cares about Beatles songs. LoL! On 12/2/2013 11:13 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: Let me rephrase that: almost everyone on the planet except you knows that the TM mantras are the names of the Hindu gods. Wink. You're still making me laugh. Of COURSE most of the world doesn't know this nor do they care. It doesn't make a jot of difference either. Wink,wink. For our practice, we select only the suitable mantras of personal Gods. Such mantras fetch to us the grace of personal Gods and make us happier in every walk of life. - MMY, Beacon Light of the Himalayas 'Beacon Light of the Himalayas' by Maharishi Mahes Yogi SRM Publications, 1953 http://tinyurl.com/ydl84gy ...the TM mantras are *not* the names of the Hindu gods. The Hindu gods have perfectly good names of their own. - Judy Stein Subject: Re: do you ever repeat your mantra when you are asleep and dreaming? Author: Judy Stein Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: Sat, Dec 17 2005 9:56 am http://tinyurl.com/9gxse On 12/2/2013 6:21 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote: Richard, I am not qualified to answer your response and it means nothing to my experience of Judy, if you must know. I'm a TM outsider, remember? I *can assure you* that the statement Almost everyone on the planet knows the TM mantras are the names of the Hindu gods is not true. Smile.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
You need to stop the lying, Ms. Stein. It has already been established where the TMer mantras came from, contrary to your false testimony. Now can now explore the purpose of mantra and go beyond uninformed obfuscation. For our practice, we select only the suitable mantras of personal Gods. Such mantras fetch to us the grace of personal Gods and make us happier in every walk of life. - MMY 'Beacon Light of the Himalayas' by Maharishi Mahes Yogi SRM Publications, 1953 http://tinyurl.com/ydl84gy On 12/3/2013 9:04 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: *Nor are they the names of personal gods. As I said to start with, the gods have perfectly good names of their own: Saraswati, Lakshmi, etc.*
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Richard, I'm not as smart as Judy either... Duh. *None* of Judy's minions are as smart as she is. If they could think for themselves, would they be minions. :-) The imaginary world of our Bawwy: Minions, Mean Girls, Enemies, True Believers, Groupies, Attention Vampires. What do all of these fantasy labels have in common? They inhabit the cranium of this poor sod. Can anyone say paranoia?
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: Almost everyone on the planet knew about MMY's mantras from listening to the Beatles records. Where have you been? MMY was on the cover of six major magazines in 1965. Almost everyone on the planet cares about Beatles songs. LoL! Your mind is like a jack rabbit, Texas. From Hindu Gods to Beatle's songs in one quantum leap. It may not be linear but it is a jump. On 12/2/2013 11:13 PM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... mailto:punditster@... wrote: Let me rephrase that: almost everyone on the planet except you knows that the TM mantras are the names of the Hindu gods. Wink. You're still making me laugh. Of COURSE most of the world doesn't know this nor do they care. It doesn't make a jot of difference either. Wink,wink. For our practice, we select only the suitable mantras of personal Gods. Such mantras fetch to us the grace of personal Gods and make us happier in every walk of life. - MMY, Beacon Light of the Himalayas 'Beacon Light of the Himalayas' by Maharishi Mahes Yogi SRM Publications, 1953 http://tinyurl.com/ydl84gy http://tinyurl.com/ydl84gy ...the TM mantras are *not* the names of the Hindu gods. The Hindu gods have perfectly good names of their own. - Judy Stein Subject: Re: do you ever repeat your mantra when you are asleep and dreaming? Author: Judy Stein Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: Sat, Dec 17 2005 9:56 am http://tinyurl.com/9gxse http://tinyurl.com/9gxse On 12/2/2013 6:21 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote: Richard, I am not qualified to answer your response and it means nothing to my experience of Judy, if you must know. I'm a TM outsider, remember? I *can assure you* that the statement Almost everyone on the planet knows the TM mantras are the names of the Hindu gods is not true. Smile.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
What on earth are you talking about? Can't talk now - I'm having a beer at the Roadhouse and honestly feeling pretty happy about things. Get a life. On 12/3/2013 2:19 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: *This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know.*
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: What on earth are you talking about? Can't talk now - I'm having a beer at the Roadhouse and honestly feeling pretty happy about things. Get a life. What? I mean, you're having a beer at a roadhouse AND reading and responding to FFL? Who needs the life? (wink.) On 12/3/2013 2:19 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Richard, some of us missed the Beatles - horrors, I know. I was born in 1962 and was sheltered from popular culture growing up. Regardless of that, I never associated them with TM until I got here. I had no idea. Knowing their association has not changed my life in the least, although I find it interesting and amusing.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Testing using different reply button.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Missed out on the Beatles, the greatest artist of all time? Thanks for letting me know where you are coming from. Go figure. According to the RIAA, the Beatles are the best-selling band in the United States, with 177 million certified units. They have had more number-one albums on the British charts and sold more singles in the UK than any other act. In 2008, the group topped Billboard magazine's list of the all time most successful Hot 100 artists; as of 2013, they hold the record for most number-one hits on the Hot 100 chart with 20. They have received 7 Grammy Awards, an Academy Award for Best Original Score and 15 Ivor Novello Awards. Collectively included in Time magazine's compilation of the 20th century's 100 most influential people, they are the best-selling band in history, with EMI Records estimating sales of over one billion units. In 2004, Rolling Stone ranked the Beatles as the greatest artist of all time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles On 12/3/2013 9:37 PM, emilymae...@yahoo.com wrote: Richard, some of us missed the Beatles - horrors, I know. I was born in 1962 and was sheltered from popular culture growing up. Regardless of that, I never associated them with TM until I got here. I had no idea. Knowing their association has not changed my life in the least, although I find it interesting and amusing.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
My smartphone phone has a little ding that goes off every time I get an email. Tell Judy to get a life and leave me alone for just one hour so I can have a beer. Thanks. On 12/3/2013 8:48 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: What on earth are you talking about? Can't talk now - I'm having a beer at the Roadhouse and honestly feeling pretty happy about things. Get a life. What? I mean, you're having a beer at a roadhouse AND reading and responding to FFL? Who needs the life? (wink.) On 12/3/2013 2:19 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: *This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know.*
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: My smartphone phone has a little ding that goes off every time I get an email. Tell Judy to get a life and leave me alone for just one hour so I can have a beer. Thanks. Sure thing buddy. Judy, leave Richard alone. He can't resist looking at his phone when he hears it ding even though he is at a roadhouse havin' a beer and maybe enjoying the company of his wife who has worked an all-day shift at Whole Foods. Can you not have the decency to resist using FFL and actually responding to Richard during certain hours of the day? Why don't we, based on Texas time, say you avoid any controversial subjects between the hours of 6pm and 10pm New Jersey time? If Ricky is one or two hours behind that should put him just about at Happy Hour in Texas. On 12/3/2013 8:48 PM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... mailto:punditster@... wrote: What on earth are you talking about? Can't talk now - I'm having a beer at the Roadhouse and honestly feeling pretty happy about things. Get a life. What? I mean, you're having a beer at a roadhouse AND reading and responding to FFL? Who needs the life? (wink.) On 12/3/2013 2:19 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
I don't consider them the greatest artists of all time, honestly. I did miss the whole craze. I recognize their contribution to popular culture and music for sure and I got into certain songs when I was in college. I've never been the groupie type, except seemingly here, where I still proudly flaunt my outsider status.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
P.S. I hope you aren't having a beer with your wife and talking to me too? Ignore the ding Richard; turn off the phone. I tell my younger kid that; I might as well have told her to cut off her arm, but hopefully you aren't as addicted as the kids are.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Now this is funny. Why in the world would anyone want a job and have a family when they could be posting to Yahoo FFL all day and night? LoL! You don't want to use your real name because you have children and a job, so you need to maintain your privacy. And, the other gal apparently has no offspring, and uses her professional name in her sig and as her handle, so she can what, drum up more business? Go figure. On 12/1/2013 9:54 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote: Re People that post here anonymously are not real people.: Real enough. They pay taxes; have their hearts broken; suffer; rejoice; feel guilty; have children . . . As I've said before, who wants to post on-line using their real name when anyone (including their enemies) can then Google their name and see what they've been up to; what views they hold; what their interests are; what upsets them, etc. On-line anonymity means you remain free to disclose to others exactly how much or how little you want them to know about you. Of course, we're living in an age in which people are happy to go on TV and reveal to the world their most intimate personal and sexual secrets, but count me out thanks! ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: Good point, Ann. People that post here anonymously are not real people, in the sense that they have any real attributes - it could be and probably is, just all made up avatars or personas. In that they have an advantage over the informants who use their real names. Lot's of people have hidden agendas. Often it's just a result of frustration. Most people want to be heard, to have a voice, any kind of voice, so they can be remembered for at least saying something - being famous for at least one second. Anonymous respondents are usually, but not always, people that shouldn't even be posting on the internet in the first place. I suspect that many of the secret informants are posting on company time using company computers, or they are up to some other nefarious activities and don't want to be caught. Others who don't want to use their real name may be just trying to hide what they post from their significant other. Go figure. Hoaxers can also post and say just about anything without taking taking any personal responsibility for what they say. There's very little accountability in some chat rooms and there's not much moderation. That's why so many threads here go down the drain so quickly - human excrement always flows downstream to a lower level. That's what happened over on Usenet at alt.meditation.transcendental - the real honest respondents can't defend themselves very well when attacked by someone they don't even know from Adam. And, in the end, no one really cares what happens on a news group anyway - it's all transient. But, there are a few who take pride in anything they do and that's where it gets interesting for the serious writers; they learn from others no matter what the media. So, it's really just a game of sorts for people that like to write using plain text. Some people just feel better when they have someone to talk to. I mean, if the chat-room yakkers had anything better to do, they would be doing it, right? Personal attacks kind of go with the territory. It's fun to make fun of people sometimes - but often some respondents take things much too seriously and get really personal and hold grudges. People that want to post honestly always run the risk of getting slandered and slimmed to no end. But, if it's too hot for some people, then should just get out of the kitchen! In my case, I've been building up a data base of 10,000 notes that will form my book about spiritual paths (no it won't have anything in it about Judy and Barry). LoL! Read more: http://www.rwilliams.us/archives.htm On 12/1/2013 8:04 PM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote: If people don't even want to give their real names here how do you expect them to want to spill the beans on their own personal deity?!
[FairfieldLife] RE: Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: Let me rephrase that: almost everyone on the planet except you knows that the TM mantras are the names of the Hindu gods. Wink. You're still making me laugh. Of COURSE most of the world doesn't know this nor do they care. It doesn't make a jot of difference either. Wink,wink. For our practice, we select only the suitable mantras of personal Gods. Such mantras fetch to us the grace of personal Gods and make us happier in every walk of life. - MMY, Beacon Light of the Himalayas 'Beacon Light of the Himalayas' by Maharishi Mahes Yogi SRM Publications, 1953 http://tinyurl.com/ydl84gy http://tinyurl.com/ydl84gy ...the TM mantras are *not* the names of the Hindu gods. The Hindu gods have perfectly good names of their own. - Judy Stein Subject: Re: do you ever repeat your mantra when you are asleep and dreaming? Author: Judy Stein Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: Sat, Dec 17 2005 9:56 am http://tinyurl.com/9gxse http://tinyurl.com/9gxse On 12/2/2013 6:21 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote: Richard, I am not qualified to answer your response and it means nothing to my experience of Judy, if you must know. I'm a TM outsider, remember? I *can assure you* that the statement Almost everyone on the planet knows the TM mantras are the names of the Hindu gods is not true. Smile.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
When listening to a political discussion programme on radio or TV have you ever heard a contributor say to an opponent: That's a good point. I shall now revise my opinion. Thank you for helping me see more clearly into the nature of the problem? ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Nice, turq, and I'd add: we often listen with the intention to reply and by replying, *improve* our fellow humans any way we can, whether they want to be *improved* or not! Of course this doesn't apply much to the Funny Farm Lounge (-: On Sunday, December 1, 2013 3:22 AM, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote:
[FairfieldLife] RE: Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: That's a great idea, Ann! Why don't we all write as if we are someone else -- then we can show how much wiser and better we are in every respect than the individual we are impersonating! Oh man, and here I thought you had a brain in your head or, at least, a dab of objectivity. (By the way, I think I must have known you from when I went to MIU. From your description of your participation there I think I should have had interaction with you all those years ago. Of course, not knowing your real name I guess I'll never know. I still don't 'get' the anonymity thing with you guys.) Just so you get it I'll explain what I was doing. I was not writing as if I was Share, I was writing as if I was me, which I am. I was trying a little experiment that entailed the following scenario: 1) I had said what Share had initially said about having forgotten the interaction. 2) Judy responded the way she did to that Share statement. 3) Upon reflecting on the evidence of what had really happened and who said what I responded in the way I would have responded if it had really been me, and not Share, in this particular situation. This has nothing to do with what I think Share would have or could have said to Judy I was merely putting myself in her situation of having to address the overwhelming proof, in writing, of what really happened. Simple, see? So don't give me your misplaced, inappropriate enabling, holier-than-thou scolding about this. You completely missed the point. Think of this as having been an exercise for me in understanding something that, frankly, I can barely comprehend due to how different Share and I are as human beings. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Judy, we remember it differently. That's all there is to it imo. I read this and, just as an experiment, I thought about what I would write if I were you (but really me) in this situation. Here is what, to the best of my ability putting myself in this situation, I would have written, as Ann: Judy, I obviously remembered this differently which is an interesting fact in and of itself since I would have to question myself why that would/could be. However, putting that aside for the moment and based on your clear documentation of exactly how our conversation went down back in September I would have to say that I was wrong in accusing you of what I did. Now, when reading that post that you dissected above I was able to see that, in fact, you did account for the fact that you were postulating and wondering, not, in fact, passing a big judgment on me. You were seeming to explore the situation and wondering about it. I mean, it is written right there in front of me so I would have to ask myself why I did not remember it that way. Figuring that out could take more time. I'm sorry if (and it appears I did) misrepresent the interaction we had back then. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 9:47 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Barry, of course, is actually encouraging a pissing contest by advising Share to refrain from acknowledging reality. (Although goodness knows, she doesn't need any help doing that.) And good grief, I've let lie far more than I've ever taken up on this forum, as Barry well knows. I'm not going to let this one lie, though. Share can either acknowledge her (Barry-inspired, gratuitous, thoroughly mean) untruthfulness now, or continue to be confronted with it over and over until she does. Note to Barry: This is about the misrepresentation of facts. Nothing to do with opinions per se, sorry. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Ah. Demonstrating once again that she can't let *anything* lie, and feels compelled to start it back up again and try to turn it into one of her endless tarbaby arguments, Judy challenges Share to a pissing contest. Might I remind Share before she falls for it how pissing contests tend to end? http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Hb2h_XAIKp8/TTEOb-lcvLI/B4A/FMEPJJcCFbI/s400/oneup.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Hb2h_XAIKp8/TTEOb-lcvLI/B4A/FMEPJJcCFbI/s400/oneup.jpg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: OK, Share, let's see if you can both listen and reply to this post, which is about some unfinished business from yesterday that we need to deal with. In a post to Barry, you wrote: Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. As I've already noted, this is not true. We had clashed well before September 9. But this is what I want to discuss with you today, since you didn't respond to what I told you yesterday. You wrote: She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or even I think. In fact,
[FairfieldLife] RE: Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Re People that post here anonymously are not real people.: Real enough. They pay taxes; have their hearts broken; suffer; rejoice; feel guilty; have children . . . As I've said before, who wants to post on-line using their real name when anyone (including their enemies) can then Google their name and see what they've been up to; what views they hold; what their interests are; what upsets them, etc. On-line anonymity means you remain free to disclose to others exactly how much or how little you want them to know about you. Of course, we're living in an age in which people are happy to go on TV and reveal to the world their most intimate personal and sexual secrets, but count me out thanks! ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: Good point, Ann. People that post here anonymously are not real people, in the sense that they have any real attributes - it could be and probably is, just all made up avatars or personas. In that they have an advantage over the informants who use their real names. Lot's of people have hidden agendas. Often it's just a result of frustration. Most people want to be heard, to have a voice, any kind of voice, so they can be remembered for at least saying something - being famous for at least one second. Anonymous respondents are usually, but not always, people that shouldn't even be posting on the internet in the first place. I suspect that many of the secret informants are posting on company time using company computers, or they are up to some other nefarious activities and don't want to be caught. Others who don't want to use their real name may be just trying to hide what they post from their significant other. Go figure. Hoaxers can also post and say just about anything without taking taking any personal responsibility for what they say. There's very little accountability in some chat rooms and there's not much moderation. That's why so many threads here go down the drain so quickly - human excrement always flows downstream to a lower level. That's what happened over on Usenet at alt.meditation.transcendental - the real honest respondents can't defend themselves very well when attacked by someone they don't even know from Adam. And, in the end, no one really cares what happens on a news group anyway - it's all transient. But, there are a few who take pride in anything they do and that's where it gets interesting for the serious writers; they learn from others no matter what the media. So, it's really just a game of sorts for people that like to write using plain text. Some people just feel better when they have someone to talk to. I mean, if the chat-room yakkers had anything better to do, they would be doing it, right? Personal attacks kind of go with the territory. It's fun to make fun of people sometimes - but often some respondents take things much too seriously and get really personal and hold grudges. People that want to post honestly always run the risk of getting slandered and slimmed to no end. But, if it's too hot for some people, then should just get out of the kitchen! In my case, I've been building up a data base of 10,000 notes that will form my book about spiritual paths (no it won't have anything in it about Judy and Barry). LoL! Read more: http://www.rwilliams.us/archives.htm http://www.rwilliams.us/archives.htm On 12/1/2013 8:04 PM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote: If people don't even want to give their real names here how do you expect them to want to spill the beans on their own personal deity?!
