[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, Bhairitu

[jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

W. Leed, 

 Do you recommend wearing a jyotish ring for Saturn?
 

 Also, I am taking an ayurvedic herbal pill (Maharishi Ayurved brand) for my 
health issue.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 This is caused by a build up of amma in the body. Also a jewel worn on Ur 
finger or as I have about my neck assist in planetary issues 4 us & all. Col 
Leed @ 716-688-7686 4more detailed info.
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] 
 To: FairfieldLife 
 Sent: Mon, Apr 10, 2017 12:37 pm
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Hey, Bhairitu
 
 
 
 Do you know of a good ayurvedic doctor in SF Bay Area?  My current allopathic 
doctor said said that I don't have arthritis, but he doesn't seem  to know what 
it is.  But from jyotish perspective, it is clearly due to Saturn in my third 
house, although I did not mention that to the doctor.  In the meantime, I've 
taken amrit kalash to fix my health issue this morning.  We'll see if this will 
help.  Also, a puja or yagya for Saturn might help.  I might have to call the 
Hindu Temple in Mountain View, CA to help me out.
 
 
 A few years ago, I attended the puja they performed for a friend of mine.  It 
was a long ceremony that was attended by many of her friends.


 



 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Rick, Thanks for All the Good Times

[ultrarishi]

Rick, thanks for the forum.  It is one of the gifts of the internet that made 
the internet personally useful in ways I never imagined possible.  It's nice to 
connect with folks about TM and a million other subjects without having to 
necessarily be politically correct at local center.  We have been able to 
express our concerns without that passive agressive behavior so many governors 
and teachers engage in.  I firmly believe that being critical in a constructive 
manner is not going negative.

All the best.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Rick, Thanks for All the Good Times

[jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Yes, I would like to thank Rick too for starting this forum and allowing me to 
be part of it after these years.  Good luck in your future endeavors and we'll 
be watching your BATGAP presentations.  Come back and visit us anytime.
 

 JR

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote :

 Not sure what all the fuss is about.
 

 Things change. People change.
 

 It's not like we don't have choices.
 

 Oh, if you need a character witness for Edg's threatened lawsuit, (jeez, if I 
had a nickel for each time I've heard that, I'd have at least a $1.50 by now), 
let me know.
 

 I imagine you'd have no shortage in the department.
 

 Anyway, keep up the good work!!

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Rick, Thanks for All the Good Times

[Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]]

And then there is TAILS which is a TOR based Linux.  Put it on a USB 
stick and boot up or even run it off a DVD.  Fun stuff.


On 07/19/2015 01:53 PM, j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:


Messages can always be deleted from the Yahoo archives. And, with 
Yahoo's anonymity system, user info appears to be in the header in 
encrypted form, so if something legally actionable were to be posted, 
I'm pretty sure the identity could be revealed with legal proceedings. 
By contrast, my group has a bring your own anonymity policy, and our 
one anonymous troll is using TOR, which is basically untraceable. Of 
course, there's nothing stopping a person from using TOR on FFL, so... 
ya posts online, ya takes yer chances.



---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote :




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote :
I am glad to hear it was offered to you and that it was your choice. I 
don't blame you for not wanting it. I also appreciate your information 
about the security issues. That pretty much destroys any chance of 
being protected if someone goes after you online on one of these 
groups. Good to know.




Ownership of FFL was offered to me several years ago, and I turned it 
down. Had he asked me again, I'd have turned him down again. Yahoo's 
anonymity system has the gaping security hole that lets Ravi post, 
with little that I can do to stop it; I don't mind that Ravi does it, 
because he's not a dick about it. But, it's a potential source of 
tremendous abuse, and it's not possible to turn off the anonymity 
feature. Also, I wouldn't want to take on management of the off-site 
archive, where posts can only be deleted by the site's administrator. 
I like my new group just fine, and if I do say so myself, it's a 
shining example of Maharishi's idea of the perfect government: an 
enlightened dictator.


-JaiGuruMe!

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote :

Yes, I would like to thank Rick too for starting this forum and 
allowing me to be part of it after these years.  Good luck in your 
future endeavors and we'll be watching your BATGAP presentations.  
Come back and visit us anytime.



JR



Me: Well said. I sent my feelings to Rick but they mirror yours. I 
loved FFL and appreciate how it was run all these years. The idea of 
this site was brilliant and it has done a lot of good for a lot of 
people.



I am sorry about his choice for the new owner but I don't know all his 
reasons or how many options he had once he wanted to bail. Personally 
I wish he had handed it over to Alex but Alex has his own site now and 
that seems to be run like the old FFL. Rick can be proud of what he 
created here. I am not gunna throw shade over all the good years 
because of this last action. Especially when a good option exists for 
people who don't trust the current moderator.




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote :

Not sure what all the fuss is about.

Things change. People change.


It's not like we don't have choices.


Oh, if you need a character witness for Edg's threatened lawsuit, 
(jeez, if I had a nickel for each time I've heard that, I'd have at 
least a $1.50 by now), let me know.



I imagine you'd have no shortage in the department.


Anyway, keep up the good work!!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Rick, Thanks for All the Good Times

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote :

 Yes, I would like to thank Rick too for starting this forum and allowing me to 
be part of it after these years.  Good luck in your future endeavors and we'll 
be watching your BATGAP presentations.  Come back and visit us anytime.
 

 JR
 

 

 Me: Well said. I sent my feelings to Rick but they mirror yours. I loved FFL 
and appreciate how it was run all these years. The idea of this site was 
brilliant and it has done a lot of good for a lot of people. 

 

 I am sorry about his choice for the new owner but I don't know all his reasons 
or how many options he had once he wanted to bail. Personally I wish he had 
handed it over to Alex but Alex has his own site now and that seems to be run 
like the old FFL. Rick can be proud of what he created here. I am not gunna 
throw shade over all the good years because of this last action. Especially 
when a good option exists for people who don't trust the current moderator. 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote :

 Not sure what all the fuss is about.
 

 Things change. People change.
 

 It's not like we don't have choices.
 

 Oh, if you need a character witness for Edg's threatened lawsuit, (jeez, if I 
had a nickel for each time I've heard that, I'd have at least a $1.50 by now), 
let me know.
 

 I imagine you'd have no shortage in the department.
 

 Anyway, keep up the good work!!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Rick, Thanks for All the Good Times

[jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 


 Curtis, 
 

 That's well said.  But all things must change.  This forum has its own karma, 
and I'm willing to be a witness as to how this forum will evolve in the near 
future.  For myself, I can't believe I've been here this long.  Life goes on...
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :


 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote :

 Yes, I would like to thank Rick too for starting this forum and allowing me to 
be part of it after these years.  Good luck in your future endeavors and we'll 
be watching your BATGAP presentations.  Come back and visit us anytime.
 

 JR
 

 

 Me: Well said. I sent my feelings to Rick but they mirror yours. I loved FFL 
and appreciate how it was run all these years. The idea of this site was 
brilliant and it has done a lot of good for a lot of people. 

 

 I am sorry about his choice for the new owner but I don't know all his reasons 
or how many options he had once he wanted to bail. Personally I wish he had 
handed it over to Alex but Alex has his own site now and that seems to be run 
like the old FFL. Rick can be proud of what he created here. I am not gunna 
throw shade over all the good years because of this last action. Especially 
when a good option exists for people who don't trust the current moderator. 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote :

 Not sure what all the fuss is about.
 

 Things change. People change.
 

 It's not like we don't have choices.
 

 Oh, if you need a character witness for Edg's threatened lawsuit, (jeez, if I 
had a nickel for each time I've heard that, I'd have at least a $1.50 by now), 
let me know.
 

 I imagine you'd have no shortage in the department.
 

 Anyway, keep up the good work!!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Rick, Thanks for All the Good Times

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote :
I am glad to hear it was offered to you and that it was your choice. I don't 
blame you for not wanting it. I also appreciate your information about the 
security issues.  That pretty much destroys any chance of being protected if 
someone goes after you online on one of these groups. Good to know.



 Ownership of FFL was offered to me several years ago, and I turned it down. 
Had he asked me again, I'd have turned him down again. Yahoo's anonymity system 
has the gaping security hole that lets Ravi post, with little that I can do to 
stop it; I don't mind that Ravi does it, because he's not a dick about it. But, 
it's a potential source of tremendous abuse, and it's not possible to turn off 
the anonymity feature. Also, I wouldn't want to take on management of the 
off-site archive, where posts can only be deleted by the site's administrator. 
I like my new group just fine, and if I do say so myself, it's a shining 
example of Maharishi's idea of the perfect government: an enlightened dictator. 
-JaiGuruMe!

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote :

 Yes, I would like to thank Rick too for starting this forum and allowing me to 
be part of it after these years.  Good luck in your future endeavors and we'll 
be watching your BATGAP presentations.  Come back and visit us anytime.
 

 JR
 

 

 Me: Well said. I sent my feelings to Rick but they mirror yours. I loved FFL 
and appreciate how it was run all these years. The idea of this site was 
brilliant and it has done a lot of good for a lot of people. 

 

 I am sorry about his choice for the new owner but I don't know all his reasons 
or how many options he had once he wanted to bail. Personally I wish he had 
handed it over to Alex but Alex has his own site now and that seems to be run 
like the old FFL. Rick can be proud of what he created here. I am not gunna 
throw shade over all the good years because of this last action. Especially 
when a good option exists for people who don't trust the current moderator. 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote :

 Not sure what all the fuss is about.
 

 Things change. People change.
 

 It's not like we don't have choices.
 

 Oh, if you need a character witness for Edg's threatened lawsuit, (jeez, if I 
had a nickel for each time I've heard that, I'd have at least a $1.50 by now), 
let me know.
 

 I imagine you'd have no shortage in the department.
 

 Anyway, keep up the good work!!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Rick, Thanks for All the Good Times

[j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Ownership of FFL was offered to me several years ago, and I turned it down. Had 
he asked me again, I'd have turned him down again. Yahoo's anonymity system has 
the gaping security hole that lets Ravi post, with little that I can do to stop 
it; I don't mind that Ravi does it, because he's not a dick about it. But, it's 
a potential source of tremendous abuse, and it's not possible to turn off the 
anonymity feature. Also, I wouldn't want to take on management of the off-site 
archive, where posts can only be deleted by the site's administrator. I like my 
new group just fine, and if I do say so myself, it's a shining example of 
Maharishi's idea of the perfect government: an enlightened dictator. 
-JaiGuruMe!

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote :

 Yes, I would like to thank Rick too for starting this forum and allowing me to 
be part of it after these years.  Good luck in your future endeavors and we'll 
be watching your BATGAP presentations.  Come back and visit us anytime.
 

 JR
 

 

 Me: Well said. I sent my feelings to Rick but they mirror yours. I loved FFL 
and appreciate how it was run all these years. The idea of this site was 
brilliant and it has done a lot of good for a lot of people. 

 

 I am sorry about his choice for the new owner but I don't know all his reasons 
or how many options he had once he wanted to bail. Personally I wish he had 
handed it over to Alex but Alex has his own site now and that seems to be run 
like the old FFL. Rick can be proud of what he created here. I am not gunna 
throw shade over all the good years because of this last action. Especially 
when a good option exists for people who don't trust the current moderator. 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote :

 Not sure what all the fuss is about.
 

 Things change. People change.
 

 It's not like we don't have choices.
 

 Oh, if you need a character witness for Edg's threatened lawsuit, (jeez, if I 
had a nickel for each time I've heard that, I'd have at least a $1.50 by now), 
let me know.
 

 I imagine you'd have no shortage in the department.
 

 Anyway, keep up the good work!!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Rick, Thanks for All the Good Times

[j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Messages can always be deleted from the Yahoo archives. And, with Yahoo's 
anonymity system, user info appears to be in the header in encrypted form, so 
if something legally actionable were to be posted, I'm pretty sure the identity 
could be revealed with legal proceedings. By contrast, my group has a bring 
your own anonymity policy, and our one anonymous troll is using TOR, which is 
basically untraceable. Of course, there's nothing stopping a person from using 
TOR on FFL, so... ya posts online, ya takes yer chances.


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote :

 


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote :
I am glad to hear it was offered to you and that it was your choice. I don't 
blame you for not wanting it. I also appreciate your information about the 
security issues.  That pretty much destroys any chance of being protected if 
someone goes after you online on one of these groups. Good to know.



 Ownership of FFL was offered to me several years ago, and I turned it down. 
Had he asked me again, I'd have turned him down again. Yahoo's anonymity system 
has the gaping security hole that lets Ravi post, with little that I can do to 
stop it; I don't mind that Ravi does it, because he's not a dick about it. But, 
it's a potential source of tremendous abuse, and it's not possible to turn off 
the anonymity feature. Also, I wouldn't want to take on management of the 
off-site archive, where posts can only be deleted by the site's administrator. 
I like my new group just fine, and if I do say so myself, it's a shining 
example of Maharishi's idea of the perfect government: an enlightened dictator. 
-JaiGuruMe!

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote :

 Yes, I would like to thank Rick too for starting this forum and allowing me to 
be part of it after these years.  Good luck in your future endeavors and we'll 
be watching your BATGAP presentations.  Come back and visit us anytime.
 

 JR
 

 

 Me: Well said. I sent my feelings to Rick but they mirror yours. I loved FFL 
and appreciate how it was run all these years. The idea of this site was 
brilliant and it has done a lot of good for a lot of people. 

 

 I am sorry about his choice for the new owner but I don't know all his reasons 
or how many options he had once he wanted to bail. Personally I wish he had 
handed it over to Alex but Alex has his own site now and that seems to be run 
like the old FFL. Rick can be proud of what he created here. I am not gunna 
throw shade over all the good years because of this last action. Especially 
when a good option exists for people who don't trust the current moderator. 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote :

 Not sure what all the fuss is about.
 

 Things change. People change.
 

 It's not like we don't have choices.
 

 Oh, if you need a character witness for Edg's threatened lawsuit, (jeez, if I 
had a nickel for each time I've heard that, I'd have at least a $1.50 by now), 
let me know.
 

 I imagine you'd have no shortage in the department.
 

 Anyway, keep up the good work!!

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Sal!

[Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Sounds like he might now be enticing them to get off the True Path of TM and 
TMSP in the Dome.

  From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 3:06 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Sal!
   
    


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote :

you know this guy?
Nope. Sounds like he's had quite a trip though. Seems he got disillusioned with 
dome life about the same time I did but I don't spend much time around Skem , 
usually just a week a year just to visit old friends, but I shall ask about him 
next time I'm there.

290. Phil Escott
Posted on May 4, 2015  by  Rick ArcherPhilEscott considers himself a spiritual 
idiot. He says he has made everymistake and taken every wrong turn possible… 
but then again there is nosuch thing as a wrong turn.
Born in 1962 in the south of England, he had many glimpses of theabsolute even 
as a young child. The fascination with all thingsmysterious continued through 
his teens, and he became fascinated withIndian culture and spirituality, 
devouring books such as Yogananda’sAutobiography of a Yogi and Muktanada’s Play 
of Consciousness. In 1979he started experimenting heavily with hallucinogenics, 
pretending to beCarlos Castaneda. 

Shortly after this he experienced a spectacularawakening, but with no guidance 
or knowledge of what might have happenedhe resisted it, plunging into a couple 
of years of tremendous fear andsuffering.
In 1983 he learned TM, which calmed the unpleasant experiences, andthen went on 
to do the TM Sidhi course in 1986, moving to Skelmersdale,the UK’s largest TM 
community, where he faithfully followed theprogramme for a decade or more, 
searching far too hard for the “prize”. 

By 2000 he had become somewhat disillusioned, and by 2006 his 
meditationpractice was sporadic at best. One day, upon deciding to just let 
gototally of TM, in that moment he experienced the same awakening that hithim 
back in 1979. This time though, there was surrender, and it stuck.
However, there was, as is so often the case, far more work to do. By2010, to 
his astonishment, he found himself crippled with arthritis andother ailments, 
and a long, dark night of the soul followed as he wasforced to throw out many 
accumulated dogmas, facing a total reassessmentof lifestyle, diet and emotional 
issues, refusing conventionalmedicine. Upon gradually regaining his physical 
health, he experienced afurther awakening in 2013 when using Byron Katie’s 
approach to unlockcertain emotional blocks, and the heart opened. Since then he 
has been“back in the marketplace” while the experience deepens day by day.
He still lives in Skelmersdale where he helps people to find theirway out of 
autoimmune issues through his website at pureactivity.net,has a novel published 
(An Illusion of Maya), plays drums in severalbands and enjoys his wonderful 
family. He is working on a book about howhe healed himself, which will be 
called “Arthritis, The Best Thing ThatEver Happened To Me” focusing on the 
blessing of illness and how it canbe a clear pointer to evolving, and perhaps 
even awakening.
The huge mystery to him now is that he didn’t notice the unity ofeverything and 
spent his life striving for what was there all along. Hisdream is to help 
people to notice this elusive but simple and naturalmiracle for themselves.
  #yiv7502095436 #yiv7502095436 -- #yiv7502095436ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid 
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv7502095436 
#yiv7502095436ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv7502095436 
#yiv7502095436ygrp-mkp #yiv7502095436hd 
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 
0;}#yiv7502095436 #yiv7502095436ygrp-mkp #yiv7502095436ads 
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv7502095436 #yiv7502095436ygrp-mkp .yiv7502095436ad 
{padding:0 0;}#yiv7502095436 #yiv7502095436ygrp-mkp .yiv7502095436ad p 
{margin:0;}#yiv7502095436 #yiv7502095436ygrp-mkp .yiv7502095436ad a 
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv7502095436 #yiv7502095436ygrp-sponsor 
#yiv7502095436ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv7502095436 
#yiv7502095436ygrp-sponsor #yiv7502095436ygrp-lc #yiv7502095436hd {margin:10px 
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv7502095436 
#yiv7502095436ygrp-sponsor #yiv7502095436ygrp-lc .yiv7502095436ad 
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv7502095436 #yiv7502095436actions 
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv7502095436 
#yiv7502095436activity 
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv7502095436
 #yiv7502095436activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv7502095436 
#yiv7502095436activity span:first-child 
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv7502095436 #yiv7502095436activity span a 
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv7502095436 #yiv7502095436activity span 
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv7502095436 #yiv7502095436activity span 
.yiv7502095436underline {text-decoration:underline

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Sal!

[salyavin808]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote :

 you know this guy?
 

 Nope. Sounds like he's had quite a trip though. Seems he got disillusioned 
with dome life about the same time I did but I don't spend much time around 
Skem , usually just a week a year just to visit old friends, but I shall ask 
about him next time I'm there.
 

 290. Phil Escott https://batgap.com/phil-escott/ Posted on May 4, 2015 
https://batgap.com/phil-escott/ by Rick Archer 
https://batgap.com/author/rickarcher/
 https://batgap.com/phil-escott/#respond
 https://batgap.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Phil-Escott.jpgPhil Escott 
considers himself a spiritual idiot. He says he has made every mistake and 
taken every wrong turn possible… but then again there is no such thing as a 
wrong turn.
 

 Born in 1962 in the south of England, he had many glimpses of the absolute 
even as a young child. The fascination with all things mysterious continued 
through his teens, and he became fascinated with Indian culture and 
spirituality, devouring books such as Yogananda’s Autobiography of a Yogi and 
Muktanada’s Play of Consciousness. In 1979 he started experimenting heavily 
with hallucinogenics, pretending to be Carlos Castaneda. 

 

 Shortly after this he experienced a spectacular awakening, but with no 
guidance or knowledge of what might have happened he resisted it, plunging into 
a couple of years of tremendous fear and suffering.
 

 In 1983 he learned TM, which calmed the unpleasant experiences, and then went 
on to do the TM Sidhi course in 1986, moving to Skelmersdale, the UK’s largest 
TM community, where he faithfully followed the programme for a decade or more, 
searching far too hard for the “prize”. 

 

 By 2000 he had become somewhat disillusioned, and by 2006 his meditation 
practice was sporadic at best. One day, upon deciding to just let go totally of 
TM, in that moment he experienced the same awakening that hit him back in 1979. 
This time though, there was surrender, and it stuck.
 

 However, there was, as is so often the case, far more work to do. By 2010, to 
his astonishment, he found himself crippled with arthritis and other ailments, 
and a long, dark night of the soul followed as he was forced to throw out many 
accumulated dogmas, facing a total reassessment of lifestyle, diet and 
emotional issues, refusing conventional medicine. Upon gradually regaining his 
physical health, he experienced a further awakening in 2013 when using Byron 
Katie’s approach to unlock certain emotional blocks, and the heart opened. 
Since then he has been “back in the marketplace” while the experience deepens 
day by day.
 

 He still lives in Skelmersdale where he helps people to find their way out of 
autoimmune issues through his website at pureactivity.net 
http://pureactivity.net/, has a novel published (An Illusion of Maya), plays 
drums in several bands and enjoys his wonderful family. He is working on a book 
about how he healed himself, which will be called “Arthritis, The Best Thing 
That Ever Happened To Me” focusing on the blessing of illness and how it can be 
a clear pointer to evolving, and perhaps even awakening.
 

 The huge mystery to him now is that he didn’t notice the unity of everything 
and spent his life striving for what was there all along. His dream is to help 
people to notice this elusive but simple and natural miracle for themselves.

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Sal!

[salyavin808]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote :

 Sounds like he might now be enticing them to get off the True Path of TM and 
TMSP in the Dome.

 

 If that is the case it explains why I haven't heard his name up there before. 
He'll be one of those who cannot be spoken of, shame as he looks quite jolly. 
I'd have a pint with him.
 

 From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 3:06 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Sal!
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote :

 you know this guy?
 

 Nope. Sounds like he's had quite a trip though. Seems he got disillusioned 
with dome life about the same time I did but I don't spend much time around 
Skem , usually just a week a year just to visit old friends, but I shall ask 
about him next time I'm there.
 

 290. Phil Escott https://batgap.com/phil-escott/ Posted on May 4, 2015 
https://batgap.com/phil-escott/ by Rick Archer 
https://batgap.com/author/rickarcher/
 https://batgap.com/phil-escott/#respond
 https://batgap.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Phil-Escott.jpgPhil Escott 
considers himself a spiritual idiot. He says he has made every mistake and 
taken every wrong turn possible… but then again there is no such thing as a 
wrong turn.
 

 Born in 1962 in the south of England, he had many glimpses of the absolute 
even as a young child. The fascination with all things mysterious continued 
through his teens, and he became fascinated with Indian culture and 
spirituality, devouring books such as Yogananda’s Autobiography of a Yogi and 
Muktanada’s Play of Consciousness. In 1979 he started experimenting heavily 
with hallucinogenics, pretending to be Carlos Castaneda. 

 

 Shortly after this he experienced a spectacular awakening, but with no 
guidance or knowledge of what might have happened he resisted it, plunging into 
a couple of years of tremendous fear and suffering.
 

 In 1983 he learned TM, which calmed the unpleasant experiences, and then went 
on to do the TM Sidhi course in 1986, moving to Skelmersdale, the UK’s largest 
TM community, where he faithfully followed the programme for a decade or more, 
searching far too hard for the “prize”. 

 

 By 2000 he had become somewhat disillusioned, and by 2006 his meditation 
practice was sporadic at best. One day, upon deciding to just let go totally of 
TM, in that moment he experienced the same awakening that hit him back in 1979. 
This time though, there was surrender, and it stuck.
 

 However, there was, as is so often the case, far more work to do. By 2010, to 
his astonishment, he found himself crippled with arthritis and other ailments, 
and a long, dark night of the soul followed as he was forced to throw out many 
accumulated dogmas, facing a total reassessment of lifestyle, diet and 
emotional issues, refusing conventional medicine. Upon gradually regaining his 
physical health, he experienced a further awakening in 2013 when using Byron 
Katie’s approach to unlock certain emotional blocks, and the heart opened. 
Since then he has been “back in the marketplace” while the experience deepens 
day by day.
 

 He still lives in Skelmersdale where he helps people to find their way out of 
autoimmune issues through his website at pureactivity.net 
http://pureactivity.net/, has a novel published (An Illusion of Maya), plays 
drums in several bands and enjoys his wonderful family. He is working on a book 
about how he healed himself, which will be called “Arthritis, The Best Thing 
That Ever Happened To Me” focusing on the blessing of illness and how it can be 
a clear pointer to evolving, and perhaps even awakening.
 

 The huge mystery to him now is that he didn’t notice the unity of everything 
and spent his life striving for what was there all along. His dream is to help 
people to notice this elusive but simple and natural miracle for themselves.

 





 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Techies! Let's Play NSA!

[Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]]

It's too bad it isn't Single Payer like other countries have.  Instead 
it's a windfall for the health insurance bandits. America can't do 
anything right anymore.  Just watch the Republicans fuck up the Internet 
too.


On 02/15/2015 08:44 PM, emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:


Good to know.  Yes, the alternatives to Obama were abysmal.  Still, I 
think he had a lot, a lot of potential and  as far as I'm concerned, 
the absolute refusal of the GOP to work with him, the vicious 
undermining and attacks are responsible for keeping us stymied in key 
areas.  The phrase lip service and Obama has been used too many 
times - we are a brainwashed nation.  He got some things done, despite 
all odds.  All I can say isthank God they rammed Obamacare through 
the first year.  I'm really enjoying having insurance of any kind at all.




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :

We saw Citizenfour the first week of release.  Absolutely spellbinding.

Unfettered spying kills free speech which in turns kills democracy.

NOT that McCain or Romney would have been any better and most likely a 
LOT worse, I am very sadden that Obama sold us out and gave only lip 
service to reigning in the NSA.  I'm glad he got stood up by Google,et 
al, at Stanford last week.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Techies! Let's Play NSA!

[rich...@rwilliams.us [FairfieldLife]]

 Now I'm on Medicare and group medical insurance and Rita is on Obamacare, so 
we both have insurance and that's a good thing. But, I am still upset that 
Obama lied to us and told us that if we liked our previous plan we could keep 
it. 

Why should we have to have insurance anyway - shouldn't medical care be free in 
the U.S?

Also, I am upset about being lied to by Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, 
Susan Rice and John Kerry. Hillary did NOT get fired on getting out of a 
helicopter; we are NOT winning the war against al Qaeda; ISIS is NOT on the 
run; and the Benghazi killings were NOT the result of a dumb video. And, John 
Kerry was NOT in Cambodia during Christmas of 1968 - he was in South Vietnam 
eating turkey and dressing with his band of brothers.

Hillary voted to use force and send in U.S. troops to invade Iraq. I am really 
upset that Obama pulled out all the U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and 
now he wants Congress to authorize him to send our boys back in there again to 
be killed - after ten years of fighting and spending billions of taxpayer money 
- after we had won the war over there.

So, they they won't be getting my vote in the next general election.


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emily.mae50@... wrote :

 Good to know.  Yes, the alternatives to Obama were abysmal.  Still, I think he 
had a lot, a lot of potential and  as far as I'm concerned, the absolute 
refusal of the GOP to work with him, the vicious undermining and attacks are 
responsible for keeping us stymied in key areas.  The phrase lip service and 
Obama has been used too many times - we are a brainwashed nation.  He got some 
things done, despite all odds.  All I can say isthank God they rammed 
Obamacare through the first year.  I'm really enjoying having insurance of any 
kind at all.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :

 We saw Citizenfour the first week of release.  Absolutely spellbinding.

Unfettered spying kills free speech which in turns kills democracy.

NOT that McCain or Romney would have been any better and most likely a LOT 
worse, I am very sadden that Obama sold us out and gave only lip service to 
reigning in the NSA.  I'm glad he got stood up by Google,et al, at Stanford 
last week.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Techies! Let's Play NSA!

[rich...@rwilliams.us [FairfieldLife]]

There won't be any medical insurance, single payer or not, for anyone if you 
don't vote for someone who can win the war against al Qaeda and ISIS. The 
terrorists are already at the gates and you're worried about your Netflix 
connection? Go figure.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote :

 It's too bad it isn't Single Payer like other countries have.  Instead it's a 
windfall for the health insurance bandits. America can't do anything right 
anymore.  Just watch the Republicans fuck up the Internet too.
 
 On 02/15/2015 08:44 PM, emily.mae50@... mailto:emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:

   Good to know.  Yes, the alternatives to Obama were abysmal.  Still, I think 
he had a lot, a lot of potential and  as far as I'm concerned, the absolute 
refusal of the GOP to work with him, the vicious undermining and attacks are 
responsible for keeping us stymied in key areas.  The phrase lip service and 
Obama has been used too many times - we are a brainwashed nation.  He got some 
things done, despite all odds.  All I can say isthank God they rammed 
Obamacare through the first year.  I'm really enjoying having insurance of any 
kind at all.

 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
no_re...@yahoogroups.com mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
 
 We saw Citizenfour the first week of release.  Absolutely spellbinding.
 
 Unfettered spying kills free speech which in turns kills democracy.
 
 NOT that McCain or Romney would have been any better and most likely a LOT 
worse, I am very sadden that Obama sold us out and gave only lip service to 
reigning in the NSA.  I'm glad he got stood up by Google,et al, at Stanford 
last week.


 
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Techies! Let's Play NSA!

[ultrarishi]

We saw Citizenfour the first week of release.  Absolutely spellbinding.

Unfettered spying kills free speech which in turns kills democracy.

NOT that McCain or Romney would have been any better and most likely a LOT 
worse, I am very sadden that Obama sold us out and gave only lip service to 
reigning in the NSA.  I'm glad he got stood up by Google,et al, at Stanford 
last week.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Techies! Let's Play NSA!

[emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Good to know.  Yes, the alternatives to Obama were abysmal.  Still, I think he 
had a lot, a lot of potential and  as far as I'm concerned, the absolute 
refusal of the GOP to work with him, the vicious undermining and attacks are 
responsible for keeping us stymied in key areas.  The phrase lip service and 
Obama has been used too many times - we are a brainwashed nation.  He got some 
things done, despite all odds.  All I can say isthank God they rammed 
Obamacare through the first year.  I'm really enjoying having insurance of any 
kind at all.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :

 We saw Citizenfour the first week of release.  Absolutely spellbinding.

Unfettered spying kills free speech which in turns kills democracy.

NOT that McCain or Romney would have been any better and most likely a LOT 
worse, I am very sadden that Obama sold us out and gave only lip service to 
reigning in the NSA.  I'm glad he got stood up by Google,et al, at Stanford 
last week.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, Did Anyone Wish the Lurking Reporter, Happy Thanksgiving?

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

I also included her buddy, the tooth fairy! 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote :

 Happy Thanksgiving LR!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Sal

[salyavin808]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote :

 Can you send me the link to Hagelin's latest video? The one you forwarded to 
some real scientists? I can't find it. Thanks.

 

 Enjoy! May all your problems be solved. All major credit cards accepted.
 

 Videos | Maharishi Yagyas for the Nation: Prevention, Prosperity, Peace 
http://www.nationalyagya.org/videos.html#video=63410702 
 
 http://www.nationalyagya.org/videos.html#video=63410702 
 
 Videos | Maharishi Yagyas for the Nation: Prevention, Pr... 
http://www.nationalyagya.org/videos.html#video=63410702 Videos Dr. John Hagelin 
explains the scientific basis of Jyotish and Yagya, the uniqueness of Maharishi 
Yagya, and the benefits of National Yagyas. Dr. John ...
 
 
 
 View on www.nationalyagya.org 
http://www.nationalyagya.org/videos.html#video=63410702 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 
 
  


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Hey, Feste...here#39;s number four

[Richard J. Williams]

On 12/19/2013 10:56 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote:

On 12/19/2013 3:26 PM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote:


Richard is one self-indulgent SOB who has no ability to self-limit

Sorry, Ann - I thought this thread was about Feste and Judy; now
you've made it all about me.

Is it alright with you, Ann, if I post a few messages here, for
just about five minutes? Just five, and then I'll turn the posting
over to you. Is that alright with you? 


No Tex, it is not alright.


You must have no unacceptable thoughts or criticisms, comrade!

[FairfieldLife] RE: Hey, Feste...here#39;s number four

[feste37]

You are making an ass of yourself again, auth, as anyone who cares to read the 
relevant thread can see for themselves. 
 

 

---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, authfriend@... wrote:

 (Also for Barry and Richard.) 

 ...Again, these are fake quotes. Palin. Did. Not. Say. Any. Of. These. 
Things.

 

 
http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2013/12/18/sarah_palin_christmas_warrior.html
 
http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2013/12/18/sarah_palin_christmas_warrior.html

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Hey, Feste...here#39;s number four

[Richard J. Williams]

This is just trolling by Judy - more fibs by the ankel-biter.

On 12/19/2013 2:29 PM, feste37 wrote:


You are making an ass of yourself again, auth, as anyone who cares to 
read the relevant thread can see for themselves.



---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, authfriend@... wrote:

(Also for Barry and Richard.)

...Again, these are fake quotes. Palin. Did. Not. Say. Any. Of. 
These. Things.


http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2013/12/18/sarah_palin_christmas_warrior.html

[FairfieldLife] RE: Hey, Feste...here#39;s number four

[authfriend]

Hee hee. In the relevant thread, Feste didn't believe me when I explained to 
him that the period-after-every-word convention was now a standard way to 
indicate emphasis on the Web:
 

 I don't think you have even remotely established this as 'standard practice.; 
On the contrary, it's an unusual deviation from the norm. I wasn't impressed by 
the link you provided. It was a lot of people asking about the use of periods 
after every word, but not a single example that I could see. Nor have I seen a 
single example of its use by a good writer. Where are these blogs in which it 
is 'standard practice'?

 

 And I responded:
 

 No, I didn't suggest that the Google links were to examples. I was responding 
to Richard's claim that it didn't exist, essentially, because he'd never seen 
it. Obviously many people have seen it, but you wouldn't expect to see links to 
examples, for pete's sake. As I said, the next time I come across an example, 
I'll give you a link. But you're still overinterpreting 'standard practice,' as 
I explained and you ignored [i.e., it isn't standard in that it's used any 
time someone wants to indicate emphasis, but rather that it's used often enough 
that most readers have seen it before and don't think it's weird; they 
understand what it's meant to convey].

 

 As I said I would, I've now provided links to four different examples. (Let me 
know if anyone wants to see links to the posts I just quoted.) And now Feste's 
pissed off because he looks like an ass for having been so unpleasantly 
skeptical (along with Richard and Barry).
 

 Feste huffed:

 
 You are making an ass of yourself again, auth, as anyone who cares to read the 
relevant thread can see for themselves. 
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, authfriend@... wrote:

 (Also for Barry and Richard.) 

 ...Again, these are fake quotes. Palin. Did. Not. Say. Any. Of. These. 
Things.

 

 
http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2013/12/18/sarah_palin_christmas_warrior.html
 
http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2013/12/18/sarah_palin_christmas_warrior.html

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Hey, Feste...here#39;s number four

[emilymaenot]

Richard, this is so tedious I can barely stand to scroll by it.  Can't you just 
STFU and leave Judy be, at least through the new year.  Doesn't meditation give 
you any ability to exercise self-discipline?  

[FairfieldLife] RE: Hey, Feste...here#39;s number four

[awoelflebater]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote:

 Richard, this is so tedious I can barely stand to scroll by it.  Can't you 
just STFU and leave Judy be, at least through the new year.  Doesn't meditation 
give you any ability to exercise self-discipline?  

 

 Em, Richard is one self-indulgent SOB who has no ability to self-limit, 
self-censure or self-control. He is very much like his favourite 
groupie/fan/panderer here (who shall not be named). Can you just imagine Texas 
Dick if he hadn't started to meditate?


 

[FairfieldLife] RE: Hey, Feste...here#39;s number four

[feste37]

You are so silly, auth. You have not proved a thing. You said it was standard 
practice, which it isn't. OK, so you've found a few examples of it. Very 
clever, but my point remains valid. And. That's. All. I. Have. To. Say.
 

 

---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, authfriend@... wrote:

 Hee hee. In the relevant thread, Feste didn't believe me when I explained to 
him that the period-after-every-word convention was now a standard way to 
indicate emphasis on the Web:
 

 I don't think you have even remotely established this as 'standard practice.; 
On the contrary, it's an unusual deviation from the norm. I wasn't impressed by 
the link you provided. It was a lot of people asking about the use of periods 
after every word, but not a single example that I could see. Nor have I seen a 
single example of its use by a good writer. Where are these blogs in which it 
is 'standard practice'?

 

 And I responded:
 

 No, I didn't suggest that the Google links were to examples. I was responding 
to Richard's claim that it didn't exist, essentially, because he'd never seen 
it. Obviously many people have seen it, but you wouldn't expect to see links to 
examples, for pete's sake. As I said, the next time I come across an example, 
I'll give you a link. But you're still overinterpreting 'standard practice,' as 
I explained and you ignored [i.e., it isn't standard in that it's used any 
time someone wants to indicate emphasis, but rather that it's used often enough 
that most readers have seen it before and don't think it's weird; they 
understand what it's meant to convey].

 

 As I said I would, I've now provided links to four different examples. (Let me 
know if anyone wants to see links to the posts I just quoted.) And now Feste's 
pissed off because he looks like an ass for having been so unpleasantly 
skeptical (along with Richard and Barry).
 

 Feste huffed:

 
 You are making an ass of yourself again, auth, as anyone who cares to read the 
relevant thread can see for themselves. 
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, authfriend@... wrote:

 (Also for Barry and Richard.) 

 ...Again, these are fake quotes. Palin. Did. Not. Say. Any. Of. These. 
Things.

 

 
http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2013/12/18/sarah_palin_christmas_warrior.html
 
http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2013/12/18/sarah_palin_christmas_warrior.html

[FairfieldLife] RE: Hey, Feste...here#39;s number four

[authfriend]

I explained what i meant by standard practice. Did you miss that part of my 
post?
 
Feste backed and filled:

  You are so silly, auth. You have not proved a thing. You said it was 
standard practice, which it isn't. OK, so you've found a few examples of it. 
Very clever, but my point remains valid. And. That's. All. I. Have. To. Say. 
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, authfriend@... wrote:

 Hee hee. In the relevant thread, Feste didn't believe me when I explained to 
him that the period-after-every-word convention was now a standard way to 
indicate emphasis on the Web:
 

 I don't think you have even remotely established this as 'standard practice.; 
On the contrary, it's an unusual deviation from the norm. I wasn't impressed by 
the link you provided. It was a lot of people asking about the use of periods 
after every word, but not a single example that I could see. Nor have I seen a 
single example of its use by a good writer. Where are these blogs in which it 
is 'standard practice'?

 

 And I responded:
 

 No, I didn't suggest that the Google links were to examples. I was responding 
to Richard's claim that it didn't exist, essentially, because he'd never seen 
it. Obviously many people have seen it, but you wouldn't expect to see links to 
examples, for pete's sake. As I said, the next time I come across an example, 
I'll give you a link. But you're still overinterpreting 'standard practice,' as 
I explained and you ignored [i.e., it isn't standard in that it's used any 
time someone wants to indicate emphasis, but rather that it's used often enough 
that most readers have seen it before and don't think it's weird; they 
understand what it's meant to convey].

 

 As I said I would, I've now provided links to four different examples. (Let me 
know if anyone wants to see links to the posts I just quoted.) And now Feste's 
pissed off because he looks like an ass for having been so unpleasantly 
skeptical (along with Richard and Barry).
 

 Feste huffed:

 
 You are making an ass of yourself again, auth, as anyone who cares to read the 
relevant thread can see for themselves. 
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, authfriend@... wrote:

 (Also for Barry and Richard.) 

 ...Again, these are fake quotes. Palin. Did. Not. Say. Any. Of. These. 
Things.

 

 
http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2013/12/18/sarah_palin_christmas_warrior.html
 
http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2013/12/18/sarah_palin_christmas_warrior.html

[FairfieldLife] RE: Hey, Feste...here#39;s number four

[feste37]

You're in a real hole, auth, as anyone can see. You said it was standard 
practice, which it isn't, as I pointed out. Then you backtracked and redefined 
standard practice, wanting to make that phrase mean what you needed it to 
mean to get yourself out of the hole you had dug for yourself. But standard 
is just not the right word in this context, even though you are still using it 
in your post today. 
 

 

---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, authfriend@... wrote:

 I explained what i meant by standard practice. Did you miss that part of my 
post?
 
Feste backed and filled:

  You are so silly, auth. You have not proved a thing. You said it was 
standard practice, which it isn't. OK, so you've found a few examples of it. 
Very clever, but my point remains valid. And. That's. All. I. Have. To. Say. 
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, authfriend@... wrote:

 Hee hee. In the relevant thread, Feste didn't believe me when I explained to 
him that the period-after-every-word convention was now a standard way to 
indicate emphasis on the Web:
 

 I don't think you have even remotely established this as 'standard practice.; 
On the contrary, it's an unusual deviation from the norm. I wasn't impressed by 
the link you provided. It was a lot of people asking about the use of periods 
after every word, but not a single example that I could see. Nor have I seen a 
single example of its use by a good writer. Where are these blogs in which it 
is 'standard practice'?

 

 And I responded:
 

 No, I didn't suggest that the Google links were to examples. I was responding 
to Richard's claim that it didn't exist, essentially, because he'd never seen 
it. Obviously many people have seen it, but you wouldn't expect to see links to 
examples, for pete's sake. As I said, the next time I come across an example, 
I'll give you a link. But you're still overinterpreting 'standard practice,' as 
I explained and you ignored [i.e., it isn't standard in that it's used any 
time someone wants to indicate emphasis, but rather that it's used often enough 
that most readers have seen it before and don't think it's weird; they 
understand what it's meant to convey].

 

 As I said I would, I've now provided links to four different examples. (Let me 
know if anyone wants to see links to the posts I just quoted.) And now Feste's 
pissed off because he looks like an ass for having been so unpleasantly 
skeptical (along with Richard and Barry).
 

 Feste huffed:

 
 You are making an ass of yourself again, auth, as anyone who cares to read the 
relevant thread can see for themselves. 
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, authfriend@... wrote:

 (Also for Barry and Richard.) 

 ...Again, these are fake quotes. Palin. Did. Not. Say. Any. Of. These. 
Things.

 

 
http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2013/12/18/sarah_palin_christmas_warrior.html
 
http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2013/12/18/sarah_palin_christmas_warrior.html

[FairfieldLife] RE: Hey, Feste...here#39;s number four

[authfriend]

No, dummy, that's what I meant initially by standard practice. You decided to 
reinterpret it to suit your desperate need to get me. I corrected you as soon 
as I saw what you were trying to do. The hole is all yours, and you're still in 
it, digging, digging, digging.
 

 Just to make your digging a little tougher, the guy who wrote the article in 
which this example appeared (on a religion site, no less), Jeremy Lott, is a 
prolific writer and editor:
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Lott 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Lott

 

 One of the examples I gave earlier was from Kevin Drum, generally considered 
one of the better writers among political bloggers.
 

 Feste dug:
 
  You're in a real hole, auth, as anyone can see. You said it was standard 
practice, which it isn't, as I pointed out. Then you backtracked and redefined 
standard practice, wanting to make that phrase mean what you needed it to 
mean to get yourself out of the hole you had dug for yourself. But standard 
is just not the right word in this context, even though you are still using it 
in your post today. 
 

 Merriam-Webster's definition #2:
 

 regularly and widely used, seen, or accepted : not unusual or special

 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, authfriend@... wrote:

 I explained what i meant by standard practice. Did you miss that part of my 
post?
 
Feste backed and filled:

  You are so silly, auth. You have not proved a thing. You said it was 
standard practice, which it isn't. OK, so you've found a few examples of it. 
Very clever, but my point remains valid. And. That's. All. I. Have. To. Say. 
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, authfriend@... wrote:

 Hee hee. In the relevant thread, Feste didn't believe me when I explained to 
him that the period-after-every-word convention was now a standard way to 
indicate emphasis on the Web:
 

 I don't think you have even remotely established this as 'standard practice.; 
On the contrary, it's an unusual deviation from the norm. I wasn't impressed by 
the link you provided. It was a lot of people asking about the use of periods 
after every word, but not a single example that I could see. Nor have I seen a 
single example of its use by a good writer. Where are these blogs in which it 
is 'standard practice'?

 

 And I responded:
 

 No, I didn't suggest that the Google links were to examples. I was responding 
to Richard's claim that it didn't exist, essentially, because he'd never seen 
it. Obviously many people have seen it, but you wouldn't expect to see links to 
examples, for pete's sake. As I said, the next time I come across an example, 
I'll give you a link. But you're still overinterpreting 'standard practice,' as 
I explained and you ignored [i.e., it isn't standard in that it's used any 
time someone wants to indicate emphasis, but rather that it's used often enough 
that most readers have seen it before and don't think it's weird; they 
understand what it's meant to convey].

 

 As I said I would, I've now provided links to four different examples. (Let me 
know if anyone wants to see links to the posts I just quoted.) And now Feste's 
pissed off because he looks like an ass for having been so unpleasantly 
skeptical (along with Richard and Barry).
 

 Feste huffed:

 
 You are making an ass of yourself again, auth, as anyone who cares to read the 
relevant thread can see for themselves. 
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, authfriend@... wrote:

 (Also for Barry and Richard.) 

 ...Again, these are fake quotes. Palin. Did. Not. Say. Any. Of. These. 
Things.

 

 
http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2013/12/18/sarah_palin_christmas_warrior.html
 
http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2013/12/18/sarah_palin_christmas_warrior.html

[FairfieldLife] RE: Hey, Feste...here#39;s number four

[feste37]

We are going to have to agree to disagree, if you are capable of that, auth. I 
am on the Internet all day reading all kinds of stuff and I have still never 
encountered this practice, other than in the examples you cite. So I do not 
think it standard, even in the definition you have provided from 
Merriam-Webster.

 

 

---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, authfriend@... wrote:

 No, dummy, that's what I meant initially by standard practice. You decided 
to reinterpret it to suit your desperate need to get me. I corrected you as 
soon as I saw what you were trying to do. The hole is all yours, and you're 
still in it, digging, digging, digging.
 

 Just to make your digging a little tougher, the guy who wrote the article in 
which this example appeared (on a religion site, no less), Jeremy Lott, is a 
prolific writer and editor:
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Lott 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Lott

 

 One of the examples I gave earlier was from Kevin Drum, generally considered 
one of the better writers among political bloggers.
 

 Feste dug:
 
  You're in a real hole, auth, as anyone can see. You said it was standard 
practice, which it isn't, as I pointed out. Then you backtracked and redefined 
standard practice, wanting to make that phrase mean what you needed it to 
mean to get yourself out of the hole you had dug for yourself. But standard 
is just not the right word in this context, even though you are still using it 
in your post today. 
 

 Merriam-Webster's definition #2:
 

 regularly and widely used, seen, or accepted : not unusual or special

 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, authfriend@... wrote:

 I explained what i meant by standard practice. Did you miss that part of my 
post?
 
Feste backed and filled:

  You are so silly, auth. You have not proved a thing. You said it was 
standard practice, which it isn't. OK, so you've found a few examples of it. 
Very clever, but my point remains valid. And. That's. All. I. Have. To. Say. 
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, authfriend@... wrote:

 Hee hee. In the relevant thread, Feste didn't believe me when I explained to 
him that the period-after-every-word convention was now a standard way to 
indicate emphasis on the Web:
 

 I don't think you have even remotely established this as 'standard practice.; 
On the contrary, it's an unusual deviation from the norm. I wasn't impressed by 
the link you provided. It was a lot of people asking about the use of periods 
after every word, but not a single example that I could see. Nor have I seen a 
single example of its use by a good writer. Where are these blogs in which it 
is 'standard practice'?

 

 And I responded:
 

 No, I didn't suggest that the Google links were to examples. I was responding 
to Richard's claim that it didn't exist, essentially, because he'd never seen 
it. Obviously many people have seen it, but you wouldn't expect to see links to 
examples, for pete's sake. As I said, the next time I come across an example, 
I'll give you a link. But you're still overinterpreting 'standard practice,' as 
I explained and you ignored [i.e., it isn't standard in that it's used any 
time someone wants to indicate emphasis, but rather that it's used often enough 
that most readers have seen it before and don't think it's weird; they 
understand what it's meant to convey].

 

 As I said I would, I've now provided links to four different examples. (Let me 
know if anyone wants to see links to the posts I just quoted.) And now Feste's 
pissed off because he looks like an ass for having been so unpleasantly 
skeptical (along with Richard and Barry).
 

 Feste huffed:

 
 You are making an ass of yourself again, auth, as anyone who cares to read the 
relevant thread can see for themselves. 
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, authfriend@... wrote:

 (Also for Barry and Richard.) 

 ...Again, these are fake quotes. Palin. Did. Not. Say. Any. Of. These. 
Things.

 

 
http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2013/12/18/sarah_palin_christmas_warrior.html
 
http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2013/12/18/sarah_palin_christmas_warrior.html

[FairfieldLife] RE: Hey, Feste...here#39;s number four

[authfriend]

Think maybe I read a lot of stuff that you don't?
 

 I have no problem accepting that you don't see it in what you read. Can you 
accept that I've seen it often enough in what I read to call it standard 
practice in that material (mostly blogs and comments) and to have picked it up 
and used it myself? (And if you could force Barry to be truthful--big IF--I'm 
willing to bet he'd confess to having used it in at least one of his posts. Not 
positive, but pretty sure. It's the sort of quasi-hip informality he likes to 
emulate.)
 

 Feste backed off a bit:
 

  We are going to have to agree to disagree, if you are capable of that, 
auth. I am on the Internet all day reading all kinds of stuff and I have still 
never encountered this practice, other than in the examples you cite. So I do 
not think it standard, even in the definition you have provided from 
Merriam-Webster. 

 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, authfriend@... wrote:

 No, dummy, that's what I meant initially by standard practice. You decided 
to reinterpret it to suit your desperate need to get me. I corrected you as 
soon as I saw what you were trying to do. The hole is all yours, and you're 
still in it, digging, digging, digging.
 

 Just to make your digging a little tougher, the guy who wrote the article in 
which this example appeared (on a religion site, no less), Jeremy Lott, is a 
prolific writer and editor:
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Lott 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Lott

 

 One of the examples I gave earlier was from Kevin Drum, generally considered 
one of the better writers among political bloggers.
 

 Feste dug:
 
  You're in a real hole, auth, as anyone can see. You said it was standard 
practice, which it isn't, as I pointed out. Then you backtracked and redefined 
standard practice, wanting to make that phrase mean what you needed it to 
mean to get yourself out of the hole you had dug for yourself. But standard 
is just not the right word in this context, even though you are still using it 
in your post today. 
 

 Merriam-Webster's definition #2:
 

 regularly and widely used, seen, or accepted : not unusual or special

 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, authfriend@... wrote:

 I explained what i meant by standard practice. Did you miss that part of my 
post?
 
Feste backed and filled:

  You are so silly, auth. You have not proved a thing. You said it was 
standard practice, which it isn't. OK, so you've found a few examples of it. 
Very clever, but my point remains valid. And. That's. All. I. Have. To. Say. 
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, authfriend@... wrote:

 Hee hee. In the relevant thread, Feste didn't believe me when I explained to 
him that the period-after-every-word convention was now a standard way to 
indicate emphasis on the Web:
 

 I don't think you have even remotely established this as 'standard practice.; 
On the contrary, it's an unusual deviation from the norm. I wasn't impressed by 
the link you provided. It was a lot of people asking about the use of periods 
after every word, but not a single example that I could see. Nor have I seen a 
single example of its use by a good writer. Where are these blogs in which it 
is 'standard practice'?

 

 And I responded:
 

 No, I didn't suggest that the Google links were to examples. I was responding 
to Richard's claim that it didn't exist, essentially, because he'd never seen 
it. Obviously many people have seen it, but you wouldn't expect to see links to 
examples, for pete's sake. As I said, the next time I come across an example, 
I'll give you a link. But you're still overinterpreting 'standard practice,' as 
I explained and you ignored [i.e., it isn't standard in that it's used any 
time someone wants to indicate emphasis, but rather that it's used often enough 
that most readers have seen it before and don't think it's weird; they 
understand what it's meant to convey].

 

 As I said I would, I've now provided links to four different examples. (Let me 
know if anyone wants to see links to the posts I just quoted.) And now Feste's 
pissed off because he looks like an ass for having been so unpleasantly 
skeptical (along with Richard and Barry).
 

 Feste huffed:

 
 You are making an ass of yourself again, auth, as anyone who cares to read the 
relevant thread can see for themselves. 
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, authfriend@... wrote:

 (Also for Barry and Richard.) 

 ...Again, these are fake quotes. Palin. Did. Not. Say. Any. Of. These. 
Things.

 

 
http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2013/12/18/sarah_palin_christmas_warrior.html
 
http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2013/12/18/sarah_palin_christmas_warrior.html

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Hey, Feste...here#39;s number four

[Richard J. Williams]

Not exactly clear what you are getting at, Emily. What is so tedious 
about reading an occasional post from Judy? This is the fourth 
installment posted by Judy to Feste. However, in answer to your 
question: some people just feel better when they have someone to talk 
to. Go figure.


On 12/19/2013 3:21 PM, emilymae...@yahoo.com wrote:


Richard, this is so tedious I can barely stand to scroll by it.  Can't 
you just STFU and leave Judy be, at least through the new year. 
 Doesn't meditation give you any ability to exercise self-discipline?

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Hey, Feste...here#39;s number four

[Richard J. Williams]

It's not standard practice on Twitter, the most popular instant 
messenger program on the internet - anyone would be an idiot to waste a 
character by putting dots in between words when you're limited to 140 
characters. It would be stupid, really stupid. If anyone did that on 
Twitter, they'd probably be mocked and ridiculed to no end.


 On 12/19/2013 5:06 PM, feste37 wrote:


You're in a real hole, auth, as anyone can see. You said it was 
standard practice, which it isn't, as I pointed out. Then you 
backtracked and redefined standard practice, wanting to make that 
phrase mean what you needed it to mean to get yourself out of the hole 
you had dug for yourself. But standard is just not the right word in 
this context, even though you are still using it in your post today.





---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, authfriend@... wrote:

*I explained what i meant by standard practice. Did you miss that 
part of my post?*


*
Feste backed and filled:
*
 You are so silly, auth. You have not proved a thing. You said it 
was standard practice, which it isn't. OK, so you've found a few 
examples of it. Very clever, but my point remains valid. And. That's. 
All. I. Have. To. Say. 





---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, authfriend@... wrote:

*Hee hee. In the relevant thread, Feste didn't believe me
when I explained to him that the period-after-every-word
convention was now a standard way to indicate emphasis on the
Web:*

*
*

*I don't think you have even remotely established this as
'standard practice.; On the contrary, it's an unusual
deviation from the norm. I wasn't impressed by the link you
provided. It was a lot of people asking about the use of
periods after every word, but not a single example that I
could see. Nor have I seen a single example of its use by a
good writer. Where are these blogs in which it is 'standard
practice'?
*

*
*

*And I responded:*


*No, I didn't suggest that the Google links were to examples.
I was responding to Richard's claim that it didn't exist,
essentially, because he'd never seen it. Obviously many people
/have/ seen it, but you wouldn't expect to see links to
examples, for pete's sake. As I said, the next time I come
across an example, I'll give you a link. But you're still
overinterpreting 'standard practice,' as I explained and you
ignored [i.e., it isn't standard in that it's used any time
someone wants to indicate emphasis, but rather that it's
**used often enough that most readers have seen it before and
don't think it's weird; they understand what it's meant to
convey].*

*
*

*As I said I would, I've now provided links to four different
examples. (Let me know if anyone wants to see links to the
posts I just quoted.) And now Feste's pissed off because he
looks like an ass for having been so unpleasantly skeptical
(along with Richard and Barry).*

*
*

*Feste huffed:*


You are making an ass of yourself again, auth, as anyone who
cares to read the relevant thread can see for themselves.




---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, authfriend@...
wrote:

(Also for Barry and Richard.)

...Again, these are fake quotes. Palin. Did. Not.
Say. Any. Of. These. Things.


http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2013/12/18/sarah_palin_christmas_warrior.html

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Hey, Feste...here#39;s number four

[Richard J. Williams]

On 12/19/2013 3:26 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote:

Richard is one self-indulgent SOB who has no ability to self-limit
Sorry, Ann - I thought this thread was about Feste and Judy; now you've 
made it all about me.


Is it alright with you, Ann, if I post a few messages here, for just 
about five minutes? Just five, and then I'll turn the posting over to 
you. Is that alright with you?


Some people just feel better when they have someone to talk to - even if 
that person doesn't like them very much. Go figure.

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Hey, Feste...here#39;s number four

[Michael Jackson]

He would be a normal human being, p'raps.

On Thu, 12/19/13, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote:

 Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Hey, Feste...here#39;s number four
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Thursday, December 19, 2013, 9:26 PM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
   
   
   
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@...
 wrote:
 
 Richard, this
 is so tedious I can barely stand to scroll by it.
  Can't you just STFU and leave Judy be, at least
 through the new year.  Doesn't meditation give you
 any ability to exercise self-discipline?  
 
 Em, Richard is one
 self-indulgent SOB who has no ability to self-limit,
 self-censure or self-control. He is very much like his
 favourite groupie/fan/panderer here (who shall not be
 named). Can you just imagine Texas Dick if he hadn't started to
 meditate?
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Hey, Feste...here#39;s number four

[emilymaenot]

I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.

[FairfieldLife] RE: Hey, Feste...here#39;s number four

[awoelflebater]

 

---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:

 You are so silly, auth. You have not proved a thing. You said it was standard 
practice, which it isn't. OK, so you've found a few examples of it. Very 
clever, but my point remains valid. And. That's. All. I. Have. To. Say.
 

 Geezuz Feste, you. have. crossed. over. to. the. dark. side.

 ---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, authfriend@... wrote:

 Hee hee. In the relevant thread, Feste didn't believe me when I explained to 
him that the period-after-every-word convention was now a standard way to 
indicate emphasis on the Web:
 

 I don't think you have even remotely established this as 'standard practice.; 
On the contrary, it's an unusual deviation from the norm. I wasn't impressed by 
the link you provided. It was a lot of people asking about the use of periods 
after every word, but not a single example that I could see. Nor have I seen a 
single example of its use by a good writer. Where are these blogs in which it 
is 'standard practice'?

 

 And I responded:
 

 No, I didn't suggest that the Google links were to examples. I was responding 
to Richard's claim that it didn't exist, essentially, because he'd never seen 
it. Obviously many people have seen it, but you wouldn't expect to see links to 
examples, for pete's sake. As I said, the next time I come across an example, 
I'll give you a link. But you're still overinterpreting 'standard practice,' as 
I explained and you ignored [i.e., it isn't standard in that it's used any 
time someone wants to indicate emphasis, but rather that it's used often enough 
that most readers have seen it before and don't think it's weird; they 
understand what it's meant to convey].

 

 As I said I would, I've now provided links to four different examples. (Let me 
know if anyone wants to see links to the posts I just quoted.) And now Feste's 
pissed off because he looks like an ass for having been so unpleasantly 
skeptical (along with Richard and Barry).
 

 Feste huffed:

 
 You are making an ass of yourself again, auth, as anyone who cares to read the 
relevant thread can see for themselves. 
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, authfriend@... wrote:

 (Also for Barry and Richard.) 

 ...Again, these are fake quotes. Palin. Did. Not. Say. Any. Of. These. 
Things.

 

 
http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2013/12/18/sarah_palin_christmas_warrior.html
 
http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2013/12/18/sarah_palin_christmas_warrior.html

[FairfieldLife] RE: Hey, Feste...here#39;s number four

[awoelflebater]

 

---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:

 You're in a real hole, auth, as anyone can see. You said it was standard 
practice, which it isn't, as I pointed out. Then you backtracked and redefined 
standard practice, wanting to make that phrase mean what you needed it to 
mean to get yourself out of the hole you had dug for yourself. But standard 
is just not the right word in this context, even though you are still using it 
in your post today. 
 

 Feste, you really have nothing to work with here but you are trying, 
valiantly. Just give it up, go back to whatever you were doing before you got 
caught up in this cesspool called FFL. I know you have better things to do; get 
out that old gingerbread recipe from your grandmother, water the Christmas 
tree, write your last-minute holiday cards, take an extra spin around the town 
square but please do something more important than whatever this is you're 
doing here.

 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, authfriend@... wrote:

 I explained what i meant by standard practice. Did you miss that part of my 
post?
 
Feste backed and filled:

  You are so silly, auth. You have not proved a thing. You said it was 
standard practice, which it isn't. OK, so you've found a few examples of it. 
Very clever, but my point remains valid. And. That's. All. I. Have. To. Say. 
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, authfriend@... wrote:

 Hee hee. In the relevant thread, Feste didn't believe me when I explained to 
him that the period-after-every-word convention was now a standard way to 
indicate emphasis on the Web:
 

 I don't think you have even remotely established this as 'standard practice.; 
On the contrary, it's an unusual deviation from the norm. I wasn't impressed by 
the link you provided. It was a lot of people asking about the use of periods 
after every word, but not a single example that I could see. Nor have I seen a 
single example of its use by a good writer. Where are these blogs in which it 
is 'standard practice'?

 

 And I responded:
 

 No, I didn't suggest that the Google links were to examples. I was responding 
to Richard's claim that it didn't exist, essentially, because he'd never seen 
it. Obviously many people have seen it, but you wouldn't expect to see links to 
examples, for pete's sake. As I said, the next time I come across an example, 
I'll give you a link. But you're still overinterpreting 'standard practice,' as 
I explained and you ignored [i.e., it isn't standard in that it's used any 
time someone wants to indicate emphasis, but rather that it's used often enough 
that most readers have seen it before and don't think it's weird; they 
understand what it's meant to convey].

 

 As I said I would, I've now provided links to four different examples. (Let me 
know if anyone wants to see links to the posts I just quoted.) And now Feste's 
pissed off because he looks like an ass for having been so unpleasantly 
skeptical (along with Richard and Barry).
 

 Feste huffed:

 
 You are making an ass of yourself again, auth, as anyone who cares to read the 
relevant thread can see for themselves. 
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, authfriend@... wrote:

 (Also for Barry and Richard.) 

 ...Again, these are fake quotes. Palin. Did. Not. Say. Any. Of. These. 
Things.

 

 
http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2013/12/18/sarah_palin_christmas_warrior.html
 
http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2013/12/18/sarah_palin_christmas_warrior.html

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Hey, Feste...here#39;s number four

[awoelflebater]

 

---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, punditster@... wrote:

 On 12/19/2013 3:26 PM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote:
 
 Richard is one self-indulgent SOB who has no ability to self-limit Sorry, Ann 
- I thought this thread was about Feste and Judy; now you've made it all about 
me.
 
 Is it alright with you, Ann, if I post a few messages here, for just about 
five minutes? Just five, and then I'll turn the posting over to you. Is that 
alright with you?  No Tex, it is not alright. Try and curtail your obsessive 
nature and put the computer to bed now. You are being indulgent and flooding 
this place with your problems. In fact, if you don't knock it off, you'll be 
talking to yourself exclusively. 
 Some people just feel better when they have someone to talk to - even if that 
person doesn't like them very much. Go figure.
 
 You said it, baby. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Hey, Feste...here#39;s number four

[Richard J. Williams]

Keep up the good work, Feste. There are NO standard practices on the 
internet or the web. And, that includes capitalizing the word web. It 
used to be that the standard practice was to capitalize the word 
internet, but that has all changed. These days NOBODY capitalized 
Web or Internet. That's because there in no web or internet - 
it's all just tubes and cables and routers.


 And, only newbies put dots in between words on Twitter. That's a fact 
that is undisputed.


On 12/19/2013 10:43 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote:


---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:

You're in a real hole, auth, as anyone can see. You said it was 
standard practice, which it isn't, as I pointed out. Then you 
backtracked and redefined standard practice, wanting to make that 
phrase mean what you needed it to mean to get yourself out of the hole 
you had dug for yourself. But standard is just not the right word in 
this context, even though you are still using it in your post today.


Feste, you really have nothing to work with here but you are trying, 
valiantly. Just give it up, go back to whatever you were doing before 
you got caught up in this cesspool called FFL. I know you have better 
things to do; get out that old gingerbread recipe from your 
grandmother, water the Christmas tree, write your last-minute holiday 
cards, take an extra spin around the town square but please do 
something more important than whatever this is you're doing here.




---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, authfriend@... wrote:

*I explained what i meant by standard practice. Did you miss
that part of my post?*

*
Feste backed and filled:
*
 You are so silly, auth. You have not proved a thing. You said
it was standard practice, which it isn't. OK, so you've found a
few examples of it. Very clever, but my point remains valid. And.
That's. All. I. Have. To. Say. 




---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, authfriend@... wrote:

*Hee hee. In the relevant thread, Feste didn't believe
me when I explained to him that the
period-after-every-word convention was now a standard way
to indicate emphasis on the Web:*

*
*

*I don't think you have even remotely established this as
'standard practice.; On the contrary, it's an unusual
deviation from the norm. I wasn't impressed by the link
you provided. It was a lot of people asking about the use
of periods after every word, but not a single example that
I could see. Nor have I seen a single example of its use
by a good writer. Where are these blogs in which it is
'standard practice'?
*

*
*

*And I responded:*


*No, I didn't suggest that the Google links were to
examples. I was responding to Richard's claim that it
didn't exist, essentially, because he'd never seen it.
Obviously many people /have/ seen it, but you wouldn't
expect to see links to examples, for pete's sake. As I
said, the next time I come across an example, I'll give
you a link. But you're still overinterpreting 'standard
practice,' as I explained and you ignored [i.e., it isn't
standard in that it's used any time someone wants to
indicate emphasis, but rather that it's **used often
enough that most readers have seen it before and don't
think it's weird; they understand what it's meant to convey].*

*
*

*As I said I would, I've now provided links to four
different examples. (Let me know if anyone wants to see
links to the posts I just quoted.) And now Feste's pissed
off because he looks like an ass for having been so
unpleasantly skeptical (along with Richard and Barry).*

*
*

*Feste huffed:*


You are making an ass of yourself again, auth, as anyone
who cares to read the relevant thread can see for themselves.




---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}},
authfriend@... wrote:

(Also for Barry and Richard.)

...Again, these are fake quotes. Palin. Did. Not.
Say. Any. Of. These. Things.


http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2013/12/18/sarah_palin_christmas_warrior.html

[FairfieldLife] RE: Hey, North-Carolina people u were weally lucky!

[cardemaister]

[FairfieldLife] RE: Hey, North-Carolina people u were weally lucky!

[s3raphita]

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Turq, how'z 'bout a favor?

[turquoiseb]

Edg, I'm going to be completely honest here and admit that
1) I have neither seen nor heard of the film in question, 2)
I find myself interested in the film in question, because of
your question, 3) I will try my best to download it insert
pirate-eyepatch-wearing wink here and comment later,
and 4) I completely get your question.

I have the same ongoing issue with my brother, to whom I
send esoteric and interesting Euroflicks all the time, via
our Secret Internet Pirate Pathways, but to which he
sometimes reacts because the subs just aren't f-ing Up To
His Standards. I get this. I *really* get this. But sometimes,
I have fun with these fan-subbed films anyway, because
I am familiar enough with many Euro languages (not to
mention having to transliterate language written by
software developers whose first language may be French,
Chinese, Yiddish, or something else as part of my Day Job)
to be able to do so.

Possibly *because* of that exposure to Bad Translation /
Bad Transliteration, I can *laugh* at Bad Translations in
movie or TV subs, and not allow them to get in the way
of my enjoyment of the story.

But I completely understand how, for some people, that
might be a major obstacle, and I empathize. The first
subs I found for the great Danish series Bron-Broen
(The Bridge) were laughable. Fortunately, I laughed,
which allowed me to perceive the value that they some-
times obscured. Since then, I have seen four more versions
of this series, each with its own English-language subs.
None of them increased my pleasure at having discovered
a treasure more than the original, fan-created (and down-
right silly in parts) fan subs.

But I have added your flick to my Films To Look For List
(and there very much IS such a list), and so I promise you
that if I find a copy,  I will download it, watch it, and
comment not only on the film and its quality or lack
thereof, but also your question.

I don't see how I could be any more fair than this, right?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:

 Just saw this sci-fi film, Chrysalis. 
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/chrysalis/

 And it was wonderful, but yet it got a low rating at
RottenTomatoes.com, and I'm wondering about how that could have
happened.

 To me, sub-titles can be quite bad translations and yet still not
really harm the entertainment values of a film, because the actors are
so loudly communicating with body language and voice tones.  I have this
smug pride that I can easily tell if the actors are good at acting even
though I'm don't speak French.

 So, here's the favor:  watch the film and tell me if you think the
translations of the sub-titles are in fact so bad that the film is
skewed (in some significant sense) for a non-French-speaking viewer.

 I think the acting was very good for most of the actors.  But, was I
fooled because I don't know French?

 You tell me!

 Great sci-fi effects, chillingly deep new kind of future-evil due to
misuse of technology, tons of production value, etc. Can't imagine you
not loving it.

 Edg

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Bhairitu, Alex, I am in a pig muck pit

[Alex Stanley]

I love Windows 7, and I plan on using it for as long as I possibly can. I'm 
also quite fond of my Macbook, but I still prefer Windows for my main desktop.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@... wrote:

 
 
    Hey Bhairitu, alex, I have fallen into a real shithole.
 
 Windows 7 is butt ugly and it's interface is like shit. XP 
 had a much better user interface. It took me two whole weeks 
 to figure out how this fucking OS works.
 
 The 'view thumbnail' feature is gone.  It has only global 
 settings and no local settings for each folder.  This has to 
 be one of the worst OS Redmond has released as it requires 
 more patchwork than a motheaten carpet.
 
 I wonder if I should shift to Mac OS or Ubuntu. Any comp 
 expert here who could give me some ideas?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Bhairitu, Alex, I am in a pig muck pit

[Bhairitu]

I hate Libraries on Windows 7.  You don't know where your files are.  
I guess they thought it was a user friendly thing to do but it screwed 
with more tech oriented people.  You often have to search for your 
files.  It's a bad OS and basically ALL Windows versions are kludges 
just to try to keep their market share.  NT was a better OS but then 
Microsoft marketing demanded it be backward compatible and ruined it.

Jason, I don't recommend the current version of Ubuntu because you'll 
probably hate the Unity interface.  But you can download different 
versions of Ubuntu.  I have Ubuntu Studio 12.04 LTS installed but it is 
running X windows and not for everyone.  It comes with a lot of media 
support that I use.  There is also Kubuntu which people like also as an 
alternate.  I also like Linux Mint.  You can always download the 
different LiveCD and either try that off a CD or DVD or even on a USB 
memory stick which you can make persistent to keep your settings.  You 
can't do that with Windows nor iOS.

On 07/19/2013 08:46 AM, Alex Stanley wrote:

 I love Windows 7, and I plan on using it for as long as I possibly can. I'm 
 also quite fond of my Macbook, but I still prefer Windows for my main desktop.

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@... wrote:


 Hey Bhairitu, alex, I have fallen into a real shithole.

 Windows 7 is butt ugly and it's interface is like shit. XP
 had a much better user interface. It took me two whole weeks
 to figure out how this fucking OS works.

 The 'view thumbnail' feature is gone.  It has only global
 settings and no local settings for each folder.  This has to
 be one of the worst OS Redmond has released as it requires
 more patchwork than a motheaten carpet.

 I wonder if I should shift to Mac OS or Ubuntu. Any comp
 expert here who could give me some ideas?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Bhairitu, Alex, I am in a pig muck pit

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... 
wrote:
 
 I love Windows 7, and I plan on using it for as long as I possibly can. I'm 
 also quite fond of my Macbook, but I still prefer Windows for my main desktop.

Me too. I like Windows 7. Some of the things that annoy me though are virtual 
directories, and I have not had time to figure out the security settings that 
block access to real directories. I prefer a file system where I know exactly 
where everything is located within the interface without pointers.

I got a look at the preview of Windows 8.1 a couple of weeks ago. Still a 
confusing interface, but Microsoft is trying some really interesting things, 
even if it fails. How well it works for the usual desktop user will be the 
test. Changing interfaces too quickly can cause major problems with users. But 
innovation requires some experimentation.

Think of the steering wheel on an automobile or lorry (truck), or tractor. Some 
early gas-powered tractors did not use a steering wheel, but used reins just 
like on a horse-pulled wagon, because that was what workers were used to. But 
the wheel proved a superior solution.

Here is something else that shows where technology is going:

http://tinyurl.com/m6bskvq

[ 
http://www.infoworld.com/t/consumer-electronics/hands-leap-motions-hands-3d-mouse-211679
  ]

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Bhairitu, Alex, I am in a pig muck pit

[Jason]

I had to make upteen number of registry hacks to get rid of 
libraries and other things.

Yours is a good idea, open source OS on cd's can keep your 
settings permanent and also prevent malware creeping in. I 
think I should try it out.


---  Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote:

 I hate Libraries on Windows 7.  You don't know where your files are.  
 I guess they thought it was a user friendly thing to do but it screwed 
 with more tech oriented people.  You often have to search for your 
 files.  It's a bad OS and basically ALL Windows versions are kludges 
 just to try to keep their market share.  NT was a better OS but then 
 Microsoft marketing demanded it be backward compatible and ruined it.
 
 Jason, I don't recommend the current version of Ubuntu because you'll 
 probably hate the Unity interface.  But you can download different 
 versions of Ubuntu.  I have Ubuntu Studio 12.04 LTS installed but it is 
 running X windows and not for everyone.  It comes with a lot of media 
 support that I use.  There is also Kubuntu which people like also as an 
 alternate.  I also like Linux Mint.  You can always download the 
 different LiveCD and either try that off a CD or DVD or even on a USB 
 memory stick which you can make persistent to keep your settings.  You 
 can't do that with Windows nor iOS.
 
 On 07/19/2013 08:46 AM, Alex Stanley wrote:
 
  I love Windows 7, and I plan on using it for as long as I possibly can. I'm 
  also quite fond of my Macbook, but I still prefer Windows for my main 
  desktop.
 
  ---  Jason jedi_spock@ wrote:
 
 
  Hey Bhairitu, alex, I have fallen into a real shithole.
 
  Windows 7 is butt ugly and it's interface is like shit. XP
  had a much better user interface. It took me two whole weeks
  to figure out how this fucking OS works.
 
  The 'view thumbnail' feature is gone.  It has only global
  settings and no local settings for each folder.  This has to
  be one of the worst OS Redmond has released as it requires
  more patchwork than a motheaten carpet.
 
  I wonder if I should shift to Mac OS or Ubuntu. Any comp
  expert here who could give me some ideas?
 
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Bhairitu, Alex, I am in a pig muck pit

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
anartaxius@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ 
 wrote:
  
  I love Windows 7, and I plan on using it for as long as I possibly can. I'm 
  also quite fond of my Macbook, but I still prefer Windows for my main 
  desktop.
 
 Me too. I like Windows 7. Some of the things that annoy me though are virtual 
 directories, and I have not had time to figure out the security settings that 
 block access to real directories. I prefer a file system where I know exactly 
 where everything is located within the interface without pointers.
 
 I got a look at the preview of Windows 8.1 a couple of weeks ago. Still a 
 confusing interface, but Microsoft is trying some really interesting things, 

That's right. They go in the forefront of capitalism by trying to turn an 
ordinary PC onto a shoppingmall for APP's. Really disgusting. And they've made 
the whole thing so messy ordinary users have no idea even where the my 
computer is located. I guess they don't care as long as they can push more of 
their idiotic APP's.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Bhairitu, Alex, I am in a pig muck pit

[Bhairitu]

On 07/19/2013 01:07 PM, nablusoss1008 wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
 anartaxius@... wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ 
 wrote:
   
 I love Windows 7, and I plan on using it for as long as I possibly can. I'm 
 also quite fond of my Macbook, but I still prefer Windows for my main 
 desktop.
 Me too. I like Windows 7. Some of the things that annoy me though are 
 virtual directories, and I have not had time to figure out the security 
 settings that block access to real directories. I prefer a file system where 
 I know exactly where everything is located within the interface without 
 pointers.

 I got a look at the preview of Windows 8.1 a couple of weeks ago. Still a 
 confusing interface, but Microsoft is trying some really interesting things,
 That's right. They go in the forefront of capitalism by trying to turn an 
 ordinary PC onto a shoppingmall for APP's. Really disgusting. And they've 
 made the whole thing so messy ordinary users have no idea even where the my 
 computer is located. I guess they don't care as long as they can push more 
 of their idiotic APP's.

Not a good day for Microsoft stock:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57594612-75/funky-friday-more-than-$32-billion-in-microsoft-stock-value-wiped-out/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Bhairitu, Alex, I am in a pig muck pit

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote:

 I hate Libraries on Windows 7.  You don't know where your
 files are.  I guess they thought it was a user friendly
 thing to do but it screwed with more tech oriented people.
 You often have to search for your files.

Yes, Libraries sucks. I finally figured out a workaround:
I list the folders I most often use under Favorites,
which makes them and their files as easily accessible as
they were in Windows Explorer in XP (and Win98). Libraries
is really the Win7 equivalent of Windows Explorer, just
with a different file structure.

You probably have a much more complex filing setup than I
do, but the Favorites solution works just fine for me. I
don't have to deal with the peculiarities of the stupid
Libraries structure at all and never have to search for a
file unless I've put it in the wrong place by accident.

Otherwise, I *love* Win7. I liked XP a lot, but I much
prefer Win7.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, PaliGap--

[salyavin808]

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

 This is all one non sequitur after another, salyavin.
 Argument by assertion doesn't really do the trick,
 you know, just makes you look intellectually dishonest
 like the rest of the New Atheists. Why do you even
 start if you aren't going to follow through?

LOL. Again.
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ 
   wrote:

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 
 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote:
 (snip)

His arguments. But I've been reading both Feser and Aquinas today
and there isn't much there really.
   
   Oh, man, you have to read more than that!
  
  Why? These dudes should learn to sum up or at least give a conclusion
  and then let you decide if you want to tackle the justification.
  
And I still don't know what your revolutionary theory about
astrology is as you declined to post it. Me and the world's 
jyotishees are keen to know where we went wrong. I can't 
refute it if I don't know what it is.
   
   PaliGap posted it, as I pointed out more than once.
   And as I also pointed out more than once, it's not
   revolutionary, it's ancient.
  
  It also failed dismally.
   
Feel free to do a bit of research. His name is Rowan Williams.
BTW You won't need any ovaltine tonight.
   
   I took a look, couldn't quickly find anything he'd
   written. But this quote from Wikipedia is suggestive:
   
   John Shelby Spong once accused Williams of being a 'neo-medievalist', 
   preaching orthodoxy to the people in the pew but knowing in private that 
   it is not true. In an interview with Third Way Magazine Williams 
   responded: 'I am genuinely a lot more conservative than he would like me 
   to be. Take the Resurrection. I think he has said that of course I know 
   what all the reputable scholars think on the subject and therefore when I 
   talk about the risen body I must mean something other than the empty 
   tomb. But I don't. I don't know how to persuade him, but I really don't.'
   
   And this is from a long interview in the Grauniad:
   
   I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if 
   the Bible were a theory like other theories. Whatever the biblical 
   account of creation is, it's not a theory alongside theories. It's not as 
   if the writer of Genesis or whatever sat down and said well, how am I 
   going to explain all this I know, 'In the beginning God created the 
   heavens and the earth.' And for most of the history of Christianity, and 
   I think this is fair enough, most of the history of the Christianity 
   there's been an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the 
   creative act of God, is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or 
   latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time. You find 
   someone like St. Augustine, absolutely clear God created everything, he 
   takes Genesis fairly literally. But he then says well, what is it that 
   provides the potentiality of change in the world? Well, hence, we have to 
   think, he says, of - as when developing structures in the world, the 
   seeds of potential in the world that drive processes of change. And some 
   Christians responding to Darwin in the 19th Century said well, that 
   sounds a bit like what St. Augustine said of the seeds of processes. So 
   if creationism is presented as a stark alternative theory alongside other 
   theories, I think there's - there's just been a jar of categories, it's 
   not what it's about.
   
   I strongly suspect this is the kind of thing he said
   to Dawkins that Dawkins thought was muddle-headed.
   But it's not; it's just too complicated and subtle
   for Dawkins to grasp.
  
  LOL. So evolution is down to god's intervention! Yes I
  can see how Dawkins would describe that as a load of
  crap. But it takes a quantum leap of strangeness to 
  conclude that He's too stooopid to understand it rather
  than him just having disproved it totally in his first
  book The Selfish Gene.
  
  Or is god controlling the random mutations of DNA? Get
  on it guys, couple of blogs worth of speculation there
  I should think. Probably already is.
   
 That God was behind the big bang?? Why is that so
 objectionable?

Because you couldn't be behind it, or to one side, or
on top looking down. It happened everywhere at once and
you could only be in it and part of it. So god could
not have existed during and (assuming he survived)
would be totally different than how he was before.
   
   Translation of the metaphor behind: The big bang was
   God's idea (another metaphor, but at least not so
   concrete as to be quite so 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, PaliGap--

[salyavin808]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote:
  
 (snip
   I was meaning to come back to you about the Krauss-ism
   Judy posted. But am otherwise engaged. But surely, *surely*,
   you're not impressed with that?
  
  Don't know what you are talking about.
 
 Interesting how you managed to block it right out:

Or maybe I just didn't think it was worth commenting on?

Admit it, you just like arguing and you don't really care what it's
about as long as you can get all arch and superior about something
and accuse people of dishonesty even when they come up with simple
explanations of where you've gone wrong. Liar! Non sequitur! idiot!

What strange pleasure do you derive from all this?

 
 Even if you accept this argument that nothing is not nothing,
 you have to acknowledge that nothing is being used in a
 philosophical sense. But I don't really give a damn about what
 'nothing' means to philosophers; I care about the 'nothing' of
 reality. And if the 'nothing' of reality is full of stuff,
 then I'll go with that.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, PaliGap--

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote:
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ 
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote:
   
  (snip
I was meaning to come back to you about the Krauss-ism
Judy posted. But am otherwise engaged. But surely, *surely*,
you're not impressed with that?
   
   Don't know what you are talking about.
  
  Interesting how you managed to block it right out:

 Or maybe I just didn't think it was worth commenting on?

You do have a tendency to ignore or even forget (as here)
anything you find embarrassing.

You were chiding Feser for supposedly not understanding
the meaning of nothing, remember? 

Even *I* know the difference between space and time,
matter and energy and the ability of the quantum vacuum
potential to create *absolutely* from nothing everything
we see today.

I think that if you are going to criticise something you
should make sure you understand it first ;-)

But oopsie, Krauss, one of the scientists you were
attempting to protect from Feser's criticisms, turns
out to be perfectly willing to say exactly what Feser
was criticizing these scientists for saying:

  Even if you accept this argument that nothing is not nothing,
  you have to acknowledge that nothing is being used in a
  philosophical sense. But I don't really give a damn about what
  'nothing' means to philosophers; I care about the 'nothing' of
  reality. And if the 'nothing' of reality is full of stuff,
  then I'll go with that.

Full of stuff is not your *absolutely* nothing, sad
to say. No wonder you blocked it out.

 Admit it, you just like arguing

Very funny. *You* started this argument, not me. And you
started it with an ignorant mistake, thinking I had
invented the term New Atheists and wouldn't be able to
document what I had said about them. Then you went on to
make all kinds of *other* mistakes, showing that you knew
no more about theism than your atheist heroes.

 and you don't really care what it's about
 as long as you can get all arch and superior about something
 and accuse people of dishonesty even when they come up with simple
 explanations of where you've gone wrong. Liar! Non sequitur!
 idiot!

So come up with just one such explanation of where I've
gone wrong in this discussion, please.

Would you like me to point out all the non sequiturs and
evasions in the post I was responding to?

And the only time(s?) I've called you a liar was when
you, you know, lied, as here:

I've been called arrogant, a liar, dishonest and stupid
all because I don't believe in god or astrology.

I don't give a shit whether you believe in either God or
astrology. I'm not too sure about them myself.

What I *do* give a shit about is your arrogant, ignorant
misrepresentations of theism and astrology.

I also give a shit about intellectual dishonesty. I 
don't understand why folks can't just argue
straightforwardly, including acknowledging when they've
been wrong about something and moving on. You not only
avoid acknowledging errors, you deliberately *snip*--
without even so indicating--the evidence of your errors
from your follow-up posts.

And your non sequiturs are legion, man. The best one was
where I explained that Aquinas didn't base his arguments
on the idea that the universe had a beginning (which I
had already quoted Feser as pointing out), and you
responded:

Poor old Thomas, he would have loved being alive now.
All his questions answered, especially as we know how old
the universe is.

It's as if you think if you ignore a correction, you
didn't make the error in the first place.

 What strange pleasure do you derive from all this?

If you don't like arguments, why do you start so many
of them?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, PaliGap--

[salyavin808]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote:
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ 
   wrote:
   (snip)
  
  His arguments. But I've been reading both Feser and Aquinas today
  and there isn't much there really.
 
 Oh, man, you have to read more than that!

Why? These dudes should learn to sum up or at least give a conclusion
and then let you decide if you want to tackle the justification.

  
  And I still don't know what your revolutionary theory about
  astrology is as you declined to post it. Me and the world's 
  jyotishees are keen to know where we went wrong. I can't 
  refute it if I don't know what it is.
 
 PaliGap posted it, as I pointed out more than once.
 And as I also pointed out more than once, it's not
 revolutionary, it's ancient.

It also failed dismally.
 
  
  Feel free to do a bit of research. His name is Rowan Williams.
  BTW You won't need any ovaltine tonight.
 
 I took a look, couldn't quickly find anything he'd
 written. But this quote from Wikipedia is suggestive:
 
 John Shelby Spong once accused Williams of being a 'neo-medievalist', 
 preaching orthodoxy to the people in the pew but knowing in private that it 
 is not true. In an interview with Third Way Magazine Williams responded: 'I 
 am genuinely a lot more conservative than he would like me to be. Take the 
 Resurrection. I think he has said that of course I know what all the 
 reputable scholars think on the subject and therefore when I talk about the 
 risen body I must mean something other than the empty tomb. But I don't. I 
 don't know how to persuade him, but I really don't.'
 
 And this is from a long interview in the Grauniad:
 
 I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the 
 Bible were a theory like other theories. Whatever the biblical account of 
 creation is, it's not a theory alongside theories. It's not as if the writer 
 of Genesis or whatever sat down and said well, how am I going to explain all 
 this I know, 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.' 
 And for most of the history of Christianity, and I think this is fair enough, 
 most of the history of the Christianity there's been an awareness that a 
 belief that everything depends on the creative act of God, is quite 
 compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that 
 unfolds in creative time. You find someone like St. Augustine, absolutely 
 clear God created everything, he takes Genesis fairly literally. But he then 
 says well, what is it that provides the potentiality of change in the world? 
 Well, hence, we have to think, he says, of - as when developing structures in 
 the world, the seeds of potential in the world that drive processes of 
 change. And some Christians responding to Darwin in the 19th Century said 
 well, that sounds a bit like what St. Augustine said of the seeds of 
 processes. So if creationism is presented as a stark alternative theory 
 alongside other theories, I think there's - there's just been a jar of 
 categories, it's not what it's about.
 
 I strongly suspect this is the kind of thing he said
 to Dawkins that Dawkins thought was muddle-headed.
 But it's not; it's just too complicated and subtle
 for Dawkins to grasp.

LOL. So evolution is down to god's intervention! Yes I
can see how Dawkins would describe that as a load of
crap. But it takes a quantum leap of strangeness to 
conclude that He's too stooopid to understand it rather
than him just having disproved it totally in his first
book The Selfish Gene.

Or is god controlling the random mutations of DNA? Get
on it guys, couple of blogs worth of speculation there
I should think. Probably already is.
 
   That God was behind the big bang?? Why is that so
   objectionable?
  
  Because you couldn't be behind it, or to one side, or
  on top looking down. It happened everywhere at once and
  you could only be in it and part of it. So god could
  not have existed during and (assuming he survived)
  would be totally different than how he was before.
 
 Translation of the metaphor behind: The big bang was
 God's idea (another metaphor, but at least not so
 concrete as to be quite so baffling to the literalist).
 And remember what I said about the God of classical
 theism existing outside time and space. (Outside is
 another metaphor, BTW.)

Yawn, I know what you meant by behind but it's the same thing.
There isn't anything outside time and space. You New Believers
just want wiggle room for a favoured but unfashionable idea.
Good luck with it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, PaliGap--

[authfriend]

This is all one non sequitur after another, salyavin.
Argument by assertion doesn't really do the trick,
you know, just makes you look intellectually dishonest
like the rest of the New Atheists. Why do you even
start if you aren't going to follow through?



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ 
  wrote:
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ 
wrote:
(snip)
   
   His arguments. But I've been reading both Feser and Aquinas today
   and there isn't much there really.
  
  Oh, man, you have to read more than that!
 
 Why? These dudes should learn to sum up or at least give a conclusion
 and then let you decide if you want to tackle the justification.
 
   And I still don't know what your revolutionary theory about
   astrology is as you declined to post it. Me and the world's 
   jyotishees are keen to know where we went wrong. I can't 
   refute it if I don't know what it is.
  
  PaliGap posted it, as I pointed out more than once.
  And as I also pointed out more than once, it's not
  revolutionary, it's ancient.
 
 It also failed dismally.
  
   Feel free to do a bit of research. His name is Rowan Williams.
   BTW You won't need any ovaltine tonight.
  
  I took a look, couldn't quickly find anything he'd
  written. But this quote from Wikipedia is suggestive:
  
  John Shelby Spong once accused Williams of being a 'neo-medievalist', 
  preaching orthodoxy to the people in the pew but knowing in private that it 
  is not true. In an interview with Third Way Magazine Williams responded: 'I 
  am genuinely a lot more conservative than he would like me to be. Take the 
  Resurrection. I think he has said that of course I know what all the 
  reputable scholars think on the subject and therefore when I talk about the 
  risen body I must mean something other than the empty tomb. But I don't. I 
  don't know how to persuade him, but I really don't.'
  
  And this is from a long interview in the Grauniad:
  
  I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the 
  Bible were a theory like other theories. Whatever the biblical account of 
  creation is, it's not a theory alongside theories. It's not as if the 
  writer of Genesis or whatever sat down and said well, how am I going to 
  explain all this I know, 'In the beginning God created the heavens and 
  the earth.' And for most of the history of Christianity, and I think this 
  is fair enough, most of the history of the Christianity there's been an 
  awareness that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God, 
  is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how 
  precisely that unfolds in creative time. You find someone like St. 
  Augustine, absolutely clear God created everything, he takes Genesis fairly 
  literally. But he then says well, what is it that provides the potentiality 
  of change in the world? Well, hence, we have to think, he says, of - as 
  when developing structures in the world, the seeds of potential in the 
  world that drive processes of change. And some Christians responding to 
  Darwin in the 19th Century said well, that sounds a bit like what St. 
  Augustine said of the seeds of processes. So if creationism is presented as 
  a stark alternative theory alongside other theories, I think there's - 
  there's just been a jar of categories, it's not what it's about.
  
  I strongly suspect this is the kind of thing he said
  to Dawkins that Dawkins thought was muddle-headed.
  But it's not; it's just too complicated and subtle
  for Dawkins to grasp.
 
 LOL. So evolution is down to god's intervention! Yes I
 can see how Dawkins would describe that as a load of
 crap. But it takes a quantum leap of strangeness to 
 conclude that He's too stooopid to understand it rather
 than him just having disproved it totally in his first
 book The Selfish Gene.
 
 Or is god controlling the random mutations of DNA? Get
 on it guys, couple of blogs worth of speculation there
 I should think. Probably already is.
  
That God was behind the big bang?? Why is that so
objectionable?
   
   Because you couldn't be behind it, or to one side, or
   on top looking down. It happened everywhere at once and
   you could only be in it and part of it. So god could
   not have existed during and (assuming he survived)
   would be totally different than how he was before.
  
  Translation of the metaphor behind: The big bang was
  God's idea (another metaphor, but at least not so
  concrete as to be quite so baffling to the literalist).
  And remember what I said about the God of classical
  theism existing outside time and space. (Outside is
  another metaphor, BTW.)
 
 Yawn, I know what you 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, PaliGap--

[turquoiseb]

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

 This is all one non sequitur after another, salyavin.
 Argument by assertion doesn't really do the trick,
 you know, just makes you look intellectually dishonest
 like the rest of the New Atheists. Why do you even
 start if you aren't going to follow through?

Why do you call everyone you disagree with
intellectually dishonest? Sooner or later
you always do.

Show of hands...how many here have been at 
one time or another been accused by Judy of
being intellectually dishonest?  

See? Almost everyone.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, PaliGap--

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:
 
  This is all one non sequitur after another, salyavin.
  Argument by assertion doesn't really do the trick,
  you know, just makes you look intellectually dishonest
  like the rest of the New Atheists. Why do you even
  start if you aren't going to follow through?
 
 Why do you call everyone you disagree with
 intellectually dishonest? Sooner or later
 you always do.

The form of your question is both factually *and*
intellectually dishonest.

It is factually dishonest to claim that I call
everyone I disagree with intellectually dishonest.
In fact, I call intellectually dishonest only
those who seem to me to be, you know, intellectually
dishonest.

An intellectually honest way to put your question
would be to cite examples of people I have called
intellectually dishonest and ask me to show why I
made that charge. (Although in most cases you will
find that I've already done so before making the
accusation. But since you don't read my posts, you
wouldn't know that, would you?)




 
 Show of hands...how many here have been at 
 one time or another been accused by Judy of
 being intellectually dishonest?  
 
 See? Almost everyone.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, PaliGap--

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:
 
  This is all one non sequitur after another, salyavin.
  Argument by assertion doesn't really do the trick,
  you know, just makes you look intellectually dishonest
  like the rest of the New Atheists. Why do you even
  start if you aren't going to follow through?
 
 Why do you call everyone you disagree with
 intellectually dishonest? Sooner or later
 you always do.
 
 Show of hands...how many here have been at 
 one time or another been accused by Judy of
 being intellectually dishonest?  
 
 See? Almost everyone.  :-)

It's a badge of honour. 

Or a new game called Judy Bingo, if you get one intellectually dishonest or 
just plain liar every day for a week there is
a special prize.

I've been called arrogant, a liar, dishonest and stupid all 
because I don't believe in god or astrology. I don't think
anyone else has trouble following my arguments. Go figure, 
as they say.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, PaliGap--

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:
  
   This is all one non sequitur after another, salyavin.
   Argument by assertion doesn't really do the trick,
   you know, just makes you look intellectually dishonest
   like the rest of the New Atheists. Why do you even
   start if you aren't going to follow through?
  
  Why do you call everyone you disagree with
  intellectually dishonest? Sooner or later
  you always do.
  
  Show of hands...how many here have been at 
  one time or another been accused by Judy of
  being intellectually dishonest?  
  
  See? Almost everyone.  :-)
 
 It's a badge of honour. 
 
 Or a new game called Judy Bingo, if you get one intellectually dishonest or 
 just plain liar every day for a week there is
 a special prize.
 
 I've been called arrogant, a liar, dishonest and stupid all 
 because I don't believe in god or astrology. I don't think
 anyone else has trouble following my arguments. 

Er...(little voice at the back): I do!

I was meaning to come back to you about the Krauss-ism
Judy posted. But am otherwise engaged. But surely, *surely*,
you're not impressed with that?

 Go figure, as they say.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, PaliGap--

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote:
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:
  
   This is all one non sequitur after another, salyavin.
   Argument by assertion doesn't really do the trick,
   you know, just makes you look intellectually dishonest
   like the rest of the New Atheists. Why do you even
   start if you aren't going to follow through?
  
  Why do you call everyone you disagree with
  intellectually dishonest? Sooner or later
  you always do.

As noted, I call intellectually dishonest only
those who seem to me to be intellectually dishonest.
That is by no means everyone.

  Show of hands...how many here have been at 
  one time or another been accused by Judy of
  being intellectually dishonest?  
  
  See? Almost everyone.  :-)
 
 It's a badge of honour. 
 
 Or a new game called Judy Bingo, if you get one
 intellectually dishonest or just plain liar every day
 for a week there is a special prize.

FWIW, Barry is the only chronic liar on FFL at this
point.

 I've been called arrogant, a liar, dishonest and stupid all 
 because I don't believe in god or astrology.

Well, that's a lie right there. Your lack of belief is
*not* why I made any of those accusations. (And I don't
recall having called you a liar until now. Perhaps you
could refresh my memory?)

 I don't think
 anyone else has trouble following my arguments.

And that's intellectual dishonesty. I have no trouble
following your arguments, such as they are (i.e.,
feeble and ignorant). The intellectual dishonesty
shows itself when you're trying to *defend* one of
those arguments after it's been shown to be feeble
and ignorant.

 Go figure, as they say.

Hope that helped.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, PaliGap--

[sparaig]

FWIW, I am of the opinion that *everyone* is intellectually dishonest at one 
point or another.

That is why God created the double-blind research design...


L


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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote:
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:
   
This is all one non sequitur after another, salyavin.
Argument by assertion doesn't really do the trick,
you know, just makes you look intellectually dishonest
like the rest of the New Atheists. Why do you even
start if you aren't going to follow through?
   
   Why do you call everyone you disagree with
   intellectually dishonest? Sooner or later
   you always do.
 
 As noted, I call intellectually dishonest only
 those who seem to me to be intellectually dishonest.
 That is by no means everyone.
 
   Show of hands...how many here have been at 
   one time or another been accused by Judy of
   being intellectually dishonest?  
   
   See? Almost everyone.  :-)
  
  It's a badge of honour. 
  
  Or a new game called Judy Bingo, if you get one
  intellectually dishonest or just plain liar every day
  for a week there is a special prize.
 
 FWIW, Barry is the only chronic liar on FFL at this
 point.
 
  I've been called arrogant, a liar, dishonest and stupid all 
  because I don't believe in god or astrology.
 
 Well, that's a lie right there. Your lack of belief is
 *not* why I made any of those accusations. (And I don't
 recall having called you a liar until now. Perhaps you
 could refresh my memory?)
 
  I don't think
  anyone else has trouble following my arguments.
 
 And that's intellectual dishonesty. I have no trouble
 following your arguments, such as they are (i.e.,
 feeble and ignorant). The intellectual dishonesty
 shows itself when you're trying to *defend* one of
 those arguments after it's been shown to be feeble
 and ignorant.
 
  Go figure, as they say.
 
 Hope that helped.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, PaliGap--

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote:
 
 FWIW, I am of the opinion that *everyone* is intellectually dishonest at one 
 point or another.
 
 That is why God created the double-blind research design...
 
 L

Here is a simple criterion I found on the 'Net:

'Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation 
that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others 
more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest. If one deflects 
criticism of a friend or ally simply because they are a friend or ally, that is 
intellectually dishonest. etc.'

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ 
  wrote:
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:

 This is all one non sequitur after another, salyavin.
 Argument by assertion doesn't really do the trick,
 you know, just makes you look intellectually dishonest
 like the rest of the New Atheists. Why do you even
 start if you aren't going to follow through?

Why do you call everyone you disagree with
intellectually dishonest? Sooner or later
you always do.
  
  As noted, I call intellectually dishonest only
  those who seem to me to be intellectually dishonest.
  That is by no means everyone.
  
Show of hands...how many here have been at 
one time or another been accused by Judy of
being intellectually dishonest?  

See? Almost everyone.  :-)
   
   It's a badge of honour. 
   
   Or a new game called Judy Bingo, if you get one
   intellectually dishonest or just plain liar every day
   for a week there is a special prize.
  
  FWIW, Barry is the only chronic liar on FFL at this
  point.
  
   I've been called arrogant, a liar, dishonest and stupid all 
   because I don't believe in god or astrology.
  
  Well, that's a lie right there. Your lack of belief is
  *not* why I made any of those accusations. (And I don't
  recall having called you a liar until now. Perhaps you
  could refresh my memory?)
  
   I don't think
   anyone else has trouble following my arguments.
  
  And that's intellectual dishonesty. I have no trouble
  following your arguments, such as they are (i.e.,
  feeble and ignorant). The intellectual dishonesty
  shows itself when you're trying to *defend* one of
  those arguments after it's been shown to be feeble
  and ignorant.
  
   Go figure, as they say.
  
  Hope that helped.
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, PaliGap--

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:
   
This is all one non sequitur after another, salyavin.
Argument by assertion doesn't really do the trick,
you know, just makes you look intellectually dishonest
like the rest of the New Atheists. Why do you even
start if you aren't going to follow through?
   
   Why do you call everyone you disagree with
   intellectually dishonest? Sooner or later
   you always do.
   
   Show of hands...how many here have been at 
   one time or another been accused by Judy of
   being intellectually dishonest?  
   
   See? Almost everyone.  :-)
  
  It's a badge of honour. 
  
  Or a new game called Judy Bingo, if you get one intellectually dishonest 
  or just plain liar every day for a week there is
  a special prize.
  
  I've been called arrogant, a liar, dishonest and stupid all 
  because I don't believe in god or astrology. I don't think
  anyone else has trouble following my arguments. 
 
 Er...(little voice at the back): I do!

You needn't have wasted a post pointing that out. We have
an entirely different way of looking at things, I've no
doubt you think I should read more of the things you do
and it's vice-versa. The truth is out there.

 I was meaning to come back to you about the Krauss-ism
 Judy posted. But am otherwise engaged. But surely, *surely*,
 you're not impressed with that?

Don't know what you are talking about.

  Go figure, as they say.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, PaliGap--

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote:
 
(snip
  I was meaning to come back to you about the Krauss-ism
  Judy posted. But am otherwise engaged. But surely, *surely*,
  you're not impressed with that?
 
 Don't know what you are talking about.

Interesting how you managed to block it right out:

Even if you accept this argument that nothing is not nothing,
you have to acknowledge that nothing is being used in a
philosophical sense. But I don't really give a damn about what
'nothing' means to philosophers; I care about the 'nothing' of
reality. And if the 'nothing' of reality is full of stuff,
then I'll go with that.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, PaliGap--

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ 
  wrote:
(snip)
   Has classical theism survived the modern empirical view
   of nature?
  
  Depends on what you're calling the modern empirical
  view of nature, I think. That's pretty broad. Classical
  theism isn't biblically literalist, if that's what you're
  assuming. As you saw with Feser's account of Aquinas,
  Aquinas didn't even stipulate that the universe had a
  beginning, let alone that it began 4,000 years ago and
  took only seven days. 
 
 Poor old Thomas, he would have loved being alive now.
 All his questions answered, especially as we know how old 
 the universe is.

Huh? What questions? What makes you think he was eager
to know how old the universe is? Did you read what I
wrote?

  At this point I don't know enough about the
  arguments to say how much, if at all, they depend on a
  view of the world that would legitimately be considered
  unscientific. My guess is very little. My impression is
  that they are *way* more sophisticated than you imagine.
  I'm sure they're way more sophisticated than *I*
  imagined, based on what I've read of Feser so far.
 
 Sophisticated means nothing if the arguments are unsound.

Um, right, I don't believe I suggested otherwise.

(snip)
  I'm sure many theists are believers on the basis of
  little more than wishful thinking. But people like Feser
  may be a different kettle of fish, given that he was
  firm and happy in his atheism for a decade, changing his
  mind only after studying the classical arguments for
  theism.
 
 I can't wait.

For what??

(snip)
   Remember that the god delusion was written to provoke what RD
   sees as a long overdue debate about how mankind thinks about
   itself. RD thought that maybe man would like to dispose of
   iron age or medieval beliefs if they serve no purpose other
   than to hold us in a past we should have grown out of.
  
  Big if on all counts. You (and apparently Dawkins)
  *define* iron age or medieval beliefs as ones we should
  have grown out of, but that's premature as long as the
  arguments that support (or even generate) them haven't
  been definitively refuted.
 
 RDs argument is that 9/11, institional oppression of
 women, creationism, trusting a moral code because god
 says so, religious wars etc are all good enough reasons
 for an evaluation of where we are. Why limp on with all
 the pointless, irrational and dangerous baggage of ages
 past? Surely we can do better at organising ourselves
 than trusting in wisdom allegedly received millenia ago?

OK, well, surely he could have done better than to
base his own evaluation on a flock of straw men. He
obviously never *studied* the work of Aquinas et al.,
or he wouldn't have tossed it in the pointless,
irrational, and dangerous baggage of ages past bin.

Not that he wouldn't *disagree* with it, if he knew
what it said.

 I can't think of much that hasn't been refuted to be
 honest.

That's not surprising given how little you know
about what would need to be refuted.

 But RDs opinion is that superior beliefs will
 replace inferior ones. He is obviously in error with
 that but the more people that question what they were 
 taught the better?

He needs to question his own beliefs before he
starts prescribing for anybody else.

  Given the strength of the arguments, it would be hard to
  make a case that the beliefs they support are not
  thoroughly intellectually respectable. Whether they're
  ultimately right or not is another question.
  
He doesn't spare the American equivalent of the soft-
headed numpties either. Poor vicarish chaps are getting
it from both sides.
   
   Quite right too. Dawkins interviewed the archbishop of Canterbury
   about his beliefs and was astonished that this king of wooly
   thinking didn't really believe most of the bible - except as
   moral teaching - leading Dawkins to ask why he didn't preach
   science from the pulpit if he agrees with it so much. He didn't 
   have an answer really, part of the weird disconnect that the 
   devout must have these days if they are honest.
  
  Frankly, I wouldn't trust Dawkins's account of the
  archbishop's views. He could be right, but I'd have
  to see a transcript of the interview. Or is it on
  video somewhere?
 
 RD isn't stupid.

He's ignorant of Christian theology. And he's stupid
enough to think he doesn't *need* to know Christian
theology to be able to address it properly.

 And the old ABofC was the most waffling of them all.

As I said, I wouldn't take Dawkins's word for it
(nor yours).

 He must be aware that if you modify something
 that is supposed to be god's word - which you have to do if
 you want to remain credible - then you aren't being true
 to your teaching.

Modify meaning what? Give me an example.

 Remember the pope accepting 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, PaliGap--

[PaliGap]

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

 Dilettante's Delight...

The cat is a dilettante in fur Théophile Gautier
http://goo.gl/n2Ljn

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, PaliGap--

[PaliGap]

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

 Dilettante's Delight...

Feser: To be sure, I had read the usual selections from Plato,
Aristotle, Aquinas and Anselm that pretty much every philosophy
student reads -- several of Plato's dialogues, the Five Ways,
chapter 2 of the Proslogium, and so forth.  Indeed, I read a lot
more than that.  I'd read the entire Proslogium of Anselm, as
well as the Monologium, the Cur Deus Homo, and the exchange
with Gaunilo, early in my undergraduate years.  I'd read
Aquinas's De Ente et Essentia and De Principiis Naturae, big
chunks of Plotinus's Enneads, Athanasius's On the Incarnation,
Augustine's Concerning the Teacher, and Bonaventure's The
Mind's Road to God.  I'd read Russell's History of Western
Philosophy -- hardly an unbiased source, to be sure -- but
also a bit of Gilson.  All while becoming an atheist during
my undergrad years.  And I still didn't understand the
classical tradition.

Oh, man!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, PaliGap--

[salyavin808]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ 
   wrote:
 (snip)
Has classical theism survived the modern empirical view
of nature?
   
   Depends on what you're calling the modern empirical
   view of nature, I think. That's pretty broad. Classical
   theism isn't biblically literalist, if that's what you're
   assuming. As you saw with Feser's account of Aquinas,
   Aquinas didn't even stipulate that the universe had a
   beginning, let alone that it began 4,000 years ago and
   took only seven days. 
  
  Poor old Thomas, he would have loved being alive now.
  All his questions answered, especially as we know how old 
  the universe is.
 
 Huh? What questions? What makes you think he was eager
 to know how old the universe is? Did you read what I
 wrote?

Sigh, no I often don't read what people write. Sometimes
I blindfold myself when I type to make it even more fun.

But if TA knew how old the universe was he'd know rather more
about his prime mover (way one) than he could have done in
the 14th century.
 

 
 (snip)
   I'm sure many theists are believers on the basis of
   little more than wishful thinking. But people like Feser
   may be a different kettle of fish, given that he was
   firm and happy in his atheism for a decade, changing his
   mind only after studying the classical arguments for
   theism.
  
  I can't wait.
 
 For what??

His arguments. But I've been reading both Feser and Aquinas today
and there isn't much there really. Feser is funny though, he has
a right good rant at Dawkins and co about strawmen and weak arguments
and then does *exactly* the same thing when talking about Hawking
and quantum physics. He sounds like a proper old time tubthumper 
in that essay.

Aquinas had some interesting ideas but if he were alive today
he would be all over quantum physics and genetics of that we can 
be sure.

TAs god bears very little resemblance to the old testament dude 
we all know and despise, or any other come to think of it. He 
seems to approach the matter as one who wants to know what cannot
be explained and then place his god in the gaps. Impressive gaps
though.

This god isn't at all involved with evolution or in giving us 
morals like all the christian stuff I had to endure at school.
This is a good thing I think and did a great job isolating
some good points to ponder, though I think they have been mostly
answered. Feser assures us that, to appreciate their power, they
have to be considered in the context of Arestotelian metaphysics, which is 
where I logged off and took the dog for a walk.

I still see nothing that *proves* god is necessary, let alone 
likely.



snip)
Remember that the god delusion was written to provoke what RD
sees as a long overdue debate about how mankind thinks about
itself. RD thought that maybe man would like to dispose of
iron age or medieval beliefs if they serve no purpose other
than to hold us in a past we should have grown out of.
   
   Big if on all counts. You (and apparently Dawkins)
   *define* iron age or medieval beliefs as ones we should
   have grown out of, but that's premature as long as the
   arguments that support (or even generate) them haven't
   been definitively refuted.
  
  RDs argument is that 9/11, institional oppression of
  women, creationism, trusting a moral code because god
  says so, religious wars etc are all good enough reasons
  for an evaluation of where we are. Why limp on with all
  the pointless, irrational and dangerous baggage of ages
  past? Surely we can do better at organising ourselves
  than trusting in wisdom allegedly received millenia ago?
 
 OK, well, surely he could have done better than to
 base his own evaluation on a flock of straw men. He
 obviously never *studied* the work of Aquinas et al.,
 or he wouldn't have tossed it in the pointless,
 irrational, and dangerous baggage of ages past bin.

No, probably in the interesting but outdated bin.

How hard do you think you need to study TA before concluding
that the modern age has dome a better job? It wouldn't surprise
me if the god delusion was written in a weekend with the aid
of google and asking a few friends from various disciplines
round for an update on the latest thinking in whatever fields
are relevant.

You may take it as a grievous insult but it has done the job
it was supposed to. It just hasn't done it in what I would
consider the best possible way. But someone had to do it.

 
 Not that he wouldn't *disagree* with it, if he knew
 what it said.
 
  I can't think of much that hasn't been refuted to be
  honest.
 
 That's not surprising given how little you know
 about what would need to be refuted.

LOL. One day at Fesers blog and you sneer at all comers
I like your 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, PaliGap--

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote:
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ 
  wrote:
  (snip)
 Has classical theism survived the modern empirical view
 of nature?

Depends on what you're calling the modern empirical
view of nature, I think. That's pretty broad. Classical
theism isn't biblically literalist, if that's what you're
assuming. As you saw with Feser's account of Aquinas,
Aquinas didn't even stipulate that the universe had a
beginning, let alone that it began 4,000 years ago and
took only seven days. 
   
   Poor old Thomas, he would have loved being alive now.
   All his questions answered, especially as we know how old 
   the universe is.
  
  Huh? What questions? What makes you think he was eager
  to know how old the universe is? Did you read what I
  wrote?
 
 Sigh, no I often don't read what people write. Sometimes
 I blindfold myself when I type to make it even more fun.

It really does seem that way. How do you get from my
point that Aquinas didn't even argue that the universe
*had* a beginning to the idea that he had a compelling
interest in knowing when the universe began? That
strikes me as a whopping non sequitur, as if you had
not read what I wrote, or misread it so badly as to
conclude I was saying Aquinas was a Creationist.

 But if TA knew how old the universe was he'd know rather more
 about his prime mover (way one) than he could have done in
 the 14th century.

Er, no. The Prime Mover exists outside of time and space.

I'm sure many theists are believers on the basis of
little more than wishful thinking. But people like Feser
may be a different kettle of fish, given that he was
firm and happy in his atheism for a decade, changing his
mind only after studying the classical arguments for
theism.
   
   I can't wait.
  
  For what??
 
 His arguments. But I've been reading both Feser and Aquinas today
 and there isn't much there really.

Oh, man, you have to read more than that!

(snip)
 Aquinas had some interesting ideas but if he were alive today
 he would be all over quantum physics and genetics of that we can 
 be sure.

Could be. Or maybe not.

 TAs god bears very little resemblance to the old testament dude 
 we all know and despise, or any other come to think of it.

Yup, that's classical theism. Not biblical literalism.

 He 
 seems to approach the matter as one who wants to know what cannot
 be explained and then place his god in the gaps. Impressive gaps
 though.

You've got a long way to go yet.

 This god isn't at all involved with evolution or in giving us 
 morals like all the christian stuff I had to endure at school.
 This is a good thing I think and did a great job isolating
 some good points to ponder, though I think they have been mostly
 answered. Feser assures us that, to appreciate their power, they
 have to be considered in the context of Arestotelian metaphysics,
 which is where I logged off and took the dog for a walk.

Yes, it's quite a slog if you really want to understand
the arguments. I'm not sure I'm up to it myself, but I'm
going to give it a shot.

 I still see nothing that *proves* god is necessary, let alone 
 likely.

It took Feser 10 years to see it.

(snip)
 How hard do you think you need to study TA before concluding
 that the modern age has dome a better job?

Um, when did you stop beating your wife?

 It wouldn't surprise
 me if the god delusion was written in a weekend with the aid
 of google and asking a few friends from various disciplines
 round for an update on the latest thinking in whatever fields
 are relevant.
 
 You may take it as a grievous insult but it has done the job
 it was supposed to. It just hasn't done it in what I would
 consider the best possible way. But someone had to do it.

Well, frankly, I'm not that interested in what any of
the New Atheists has to say, based on what I've read
of them so far. It's not a matter of insult, just
their ignorance. They haven't done their homework. Of
course they can just breeze through.

   I can't think of much that hasn't been refuted to be
   honest.
  
  That's not surprising given how little you know
  about what would need to be refuted.
 
 LOL. One day at Fesers blog and you sneer at all comers

Not all comers, just you, toots (so far at least).

It's a measure of how little you know that I can see
how much you're missing after only a couple days at
Feser's blog. Basic stuff. I mean, if I know more
than you do, you *really* don't know much.

 I like your style!
 
 And I still don't know what your revolutionary theory about
 astrology is as you declined to post it. Me and the world's 
 jyotishees are keen to know where we went wrong. I can't 
 refute it if I don't know what it is.

PaliGap posted it, as I pointed out more than once.
And as I also pointed out more than once, 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, PaliGap--

[salyavin808]

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

 I wanted to let you know how grateful I am to you for
 calling my attention to Feser's blog a couple months
 ago, after he'd fallen off my radar screen. I'm in the
 process now of beefing up my rudimentary philosophy-
 of-religion background with his assistance (i.e., via
 his many posts on the topic).
 
 Currently I'm working my way through a long post
 on the Cosmological Argument related to his series of
 10 posts annihilating Rosenberg's Atheists' Guide to
 Reality. He's a really good explainer of this stuff.
 I have to keep looking up terms, but so far I've been
 able to follow him without too much trouble, and I'm
 having a wonderful time.
 
 It'll probably take me a month or so to go through
 everything he's posted along these lines (plus read
 all the articles and posts of others he links to)--
 I've really just gotten started as of yesterday--and
 I may have to get a book or two of his as well. But
 it's such a delight to see him take apart the
 incompetent arguments of (many of?) the New Atheists.

What is a new atheist, are there new ways of not 
believing in things?

And does he therefore have proof there is a god? Do post 
a link so we the curious can have a read.

 
 You didn't know you were doing me a huge favor by
 referring me to that post of his on Descartes, but
 thank you anyway!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, PaliGap--

[PaliGap]

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

 I wanted to let you know how grateful I am to you for
 calling my attention to Feser's blog a couple months
 ago, after he'd fallen off my radar screen. 

That's so nice to hear! Actually I first came across him only 
recently via our friend MavPhil. 
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/. Feser seems to in the 
forefront of a bit of an Aristotelian renaissance that we are 
seeing at the moment. I'm sure Robin's a fan. But as a 
Catholic conservative, I rather think you will dislike some of 
his political/social ideas.

 I'm in the process now of beefing up my rudimentary
 philosophy-of-religion background with his assistance
 (i.e., via his many posts on the topic).
 
 Currently I'm working my way through a long post
 on the Cosmological Argument related to his series of
 10 posts annihilating Rosenberg's Atheists' Guide to
 Reality. He's a really good explainer of this stuff.

Yes, I find that too. Though my interest is not so much in his 
theistic stuff as with the consciousness issue. He seems to 
follow the 'part of tens' idea (with which I am quite 
familiar, having had an extensive education from the Blah 
Blah For Dummies books). So to match his 10 posts there, he 
also has 10 posts on Nagel and his critics. 
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/nagel-and-his-
critics-part-i.html

 I have to keep looking up terms, but so far I've been
 able to follow him without too much trouble, and I'm
 having a wonderful time.
 
 It'll probably take me a month or so to go through
 everything he's posted along these lines (plus read
 all the articles and posts of others he links to)--
 I've really just gotten started as of yesterday--and
 I may have to get a book or two of his as well. But
 it's such a delight to see him take apart the
 incompetent arguments of (many of?) the New Atheists.
 
 You didn't know you were doing me a huge favor by
 referring me to that post of his on Descartes, but
 thank you anyway!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, PaliGap--

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:
 
  I wanted to let you know how grateful I am to you for
  calling my attention to Feser's blog a couple months
  ago, after he'd fallen off my radar screen. I'm in the
  process now of beefing up my rudimentary philosophy-
  of-religion background with his assistance (i.e., via
  his many posts on the topic).
  
  Currently I'm working my way through a long post
  on the Cosmological Argument related to his series of
  10 posts annihilating Rosenberg's Atheists' Guide to
  Reality. He's a really good explainer of this stuff.
  I have to keep looking up terms, but so far I've been
  able to follow him without too much trouble, and I'm
  having a wonderful time.
  
  It'll probably take me a month or so to go through
  everything he's posted along these lines (plus read
  all the articles and posts of others he links to)--
  I've really just gotten started as of yesterday--and
  I may have to get a book or two of his as well. But
  it's such a delight to see him take apart the
  incompetent arguments of (many of?) the New Atheists.
 
 What is a new atheist, are there new ways of not 
 believing in things?

Hmm, interesting that you aren't familiar with the
term. At first I thought perhaps that was because 
it was only well known in the U.S., but it turns out
it was *coined* in the U.K.:

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/12/richard-dawkins-issue-hitchens

http://tinyurl.com/8pelmyq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_atheism

 And does he therefore have proof there is a god?

Same old arguments. The problem with the New Atheists
appears to be that they've never studied the arguments
of classical theism and have rebutted only various
comic-book versions.

 Do post a link so we the curious can have a read.

Here's a roundup with lotsa links:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/07/classical-theism-roundup.html#more

http://tinyurl.com/l6r799h

Here's one detailing Feser's progression from cradle
Catholic to atheist and back to Catholicism:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/07/road-from-atheism.html

And another roundup, including the series of 10 posts
on Rosenberg's Atheist's Guide to Reality that I'm
in the middle of now:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/05/rosenberg-roundup.html

And many others.

Enjoy!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, PaliGap--

[salyavin808]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:
  
   I wanted to let you know how grateful I am to you for
   calling my attention to Feser's blog a couple months
   ago, after he'd fallen off my radar screen. I'm in the
   process now of beefing up my rudimentary philosophy-
   of-religion background with his assistance (i.e., via
   his many posts on the topic).
   
   Currently I'm working my way through a long post
   on the Cosmological Argument related to his series of
   10 posts annihilating Rosenberg's Atheists' Guide to
   Reality. He's a really good explainer of this stuff.
   I have to keep looking up terms, but so far I've been
   able to follow him without too much trouble, and I'm
   having a wonderful time.
   
   It'll probably take me a month or so to go through
   everything he's posted along these lines (plus read
   all the articles and posts of others he links to)--
   I've really just gotten started as of yesterday--and
   I may have to get a book or two of his as well. But
   it's such a delight to see him take apart the
   incompetent arguments of (many of?) the New Atheists.
  
  What is a new atheist, are there new ways of not 
  believing in things?
 
 Hmm, interesting that you aren't familiar with the
 term. At first I thought perhaps that was because 
 it was only well known in the U.S., but it turns out
 it was *coined* in the U.K.:
 
 http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/12/richard-dawkins-issue-hitchens
 
 http://tinyurl.com/8pelmyq
 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_atheism
 
  And does he therefore have proof there is a god?
 
 Same old arguments. The problem with the New Atheists
 appears to be that they've never studied the arguments
 of classical theism and have rebutted only various
 comic-book versions.

Ah, I never read the god delusion, I don't think his
attempts at provocation are his best work. He seems to
think religion is a thing of the head rather than a thing
of the heart. I agree with him but I know both sides of
the story and know what a strong impulse it is.

But to be fair to Dawkins his reasons for picking a fight
often get forgotten. He started after the WTC attacks in
2001, he reasons that religion is a meme and so it should
be treated with no more reverence than, say, political 
ideas. I think he makes a lot of good points and has made
some good TV shows questioning why we cling on to outdated
views of the world, especially when they cause so much
trouble. 

This is probably where the new athiest monicker comes 
from as it's quite a departure from the rather English attitude
of being nice to vicars even though you think they are soft 
headed numpties.

Fair play to him I say, nothing wrong with kicking the
hornets nest, it might do us some good but only if the new
ideas are better than the old ones. This is the athiests
trouble you can be as empirical as you like but not many
will give up their comforting allusions of eternal life
and replace it with the promise of a miserable death and
non-existence you get with the selfish gene.

And then there's the cultural side and traditions that
people like about religion, Dawkins doesn't really get that
I think. He held the chair for public understanding of science
at Oxford for many years never quite managed a scientific
understanding of the public.

I think he's right about god though. And his books on nature
and evolution are among the very finest. I shall read the links
at my leisure.




 
  Do post a link so we the curious can have a read.
 
 Here's a roundup with lotsa links:
 
 http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/07/classical-theism-roundup.html#more
 
 http://tinyurl.com/l6r799h
 
 Here's one detailing Feser's progression from cradle
 Catholic to atheist and back to Catholicism:
 
 http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/07/road-from-atheism.html
 
 And another roundup, including the series of 10 posts
 on Rosenberg's Atheist's Guide to Reality that I'm
 in the middle of now:
 
 http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/05/rosenberg-roundup.html
 
 And many others.
 
 Enjoy!

I'm sure I will.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, PaliGap--

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote:
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend 
 authfriend@ wrote:
 
  I wanted to let you know how grateful I am to you for
  calling my attention to Feser's blog a couple months
  ago, after he'd fallen off my radar screen. 
 
 That's so nice to hear! Actually I first came across him only 
 recently via our friend MavPhil.

Oh, yeah, he's next!
 
 http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/. Feser seems to in the 
 forefront of a bit of an Aristotelian renaissance that we are 
 seeing at the moment. I'm sure Robin's a fan. But as a 
 Catholic conservative, I rather think you will dislike some of 
 his political/social ideas.

Indeed. According to Robin, Catholicism is hors de combat
these days, so I'm using that as my excuse for avoiding
those aspects of Feser's thinking. ;-)

  I'm in the process now of beefing up my rudimentary
  philosophy-of-religion background with his assistance
  (i.e., via his many posts on the topic).
  
  Currently I'm working my way through a long post
  on the Cosmological Argument related to his series of
  10 posts annihilating Rosenberg's Atheists' Guide to
  Reality. He's a really good explainer of this stuff.
 
 Yes, I find that too. Though my interest is not so much in his 
 theistic stuff as with the consciousness issue.

That's where I started with him in my latest foray,
actually, but in one of his posts on consciousness he
linked to the post I just mentioned to salyavin that
traces his development from Catholicism as a kid, to
atheism as an adult, and then back to Catholicism,
which fascinated me and sent me off into his posts on
classical theism--with side trips into neo-Darwinism,
which relate to the hard problem. It's really
ultimately all of a piece anyway, so I'm sure I'll
be led back into his consciousness stuff as well.

 He seems to 
 follow the 'part of tens' idea (with which I am quite 
 familiar, having had an extensive education from the Blah 
 Blah For Dummies books). So to match his 10 posts there, he 
 also has 10 posts on Nagel and his critics. 
 http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/nagel-and-his-
 critics-part-i.html

Yes, it was your post at the end of March on the eighth one
of those 10 that turned me on to him again. I need to go back
and read all of the Nagel series too. It was the first of
those, I believe, that I had read right after Nagel's book
came out, the one detailing his own criticisms of the book. I
didn't stick with him then for the rest, in which he takes
Nagel's other critics apart.

Dilettante's Delight...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, PaliGap--

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote:
(snip)
 Fair play to [Dawkins] I say, nothing wrong with kicking the
 hornets nest, it might do us some good but only if the new
 ideas are better than the old ones. This is the athiests
 trouble you can be as empirical as you like but not many
 will give up their comforting allusions of eternal life
 and replace it with the promise of a miserable death and
 non-existence you get with the selfish gene.

It would be hard to accuse Aristotle and Aquinas and
the like of doing no more than entertaining comforting
illusions when they were formulating what became known
as classical theism. The question is whether the
atheists' empiricism is up to the task of rebutting
what they *did* do.

 And then there's the cultural side and traditions that
 people like about religion, Dawkins doesn't really get that
 I think. He held the chair for public understanding of science
 at Oxford for many years never quite managed a scientific
 understanding of the public.
 
 I think he's right about god though. And his books on nature
 and evolution are among the very finest. I shall read the links
 at my leisure.

Add this by Feser:

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/march/the-new-philistinism

Excerpt:

Richard Dawkins is equally adept [as Dennett] at refuting
straw men. In his bestselling The God Delusion, he takes
Aquinas to task for resting his case for God's existence on
the assumption that 'There must have been a time when no
physical things existed'—even though Aquinas rather famously
avoids making that assumption in arguing for God. (Aquinas's
view was instead that God must be keeping the world in
existence *here and now* and at any moment at which the world
exists, and that this would remain true even if it turned out
that the world had no beginning.)

Dawkins assures us that Aquinas gives 'absolutely no reason'
to think that a First Cause of the universe would have to be
all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing, etc.; in reality,
Aquinas devoted *hundreds of pages*, across many works, to
showing just this.

Dawkins says that the fifth of Aquinas's famous Five Ways is
essentially the same as the 'divine watchmaker' argument made
famous by William Paley. In fact the arguments couldn't be
more different, and followers of Aquinas typically—and again,
rather famously (at least for people who actually know
something about these things)—reject Paley's argument with as
much scorn as evolutionists like Dawkins do.

And those are only (some of) the errors on pages 77–79.

He doesn't spare the American equivalent of the soft-
headed numpties either. Poor vicarish chaps are getting
it from both sides.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, PaliGap--

[salyavin808]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote:
 (snip)
  Fair play to [Dawkins] I say, nothing wrong with kicking the
  hornets nest, it might do us some good but only if the new
  ideas are better than the old ones. This is the athiests
  trouble you can be as empirical as you like but not many
  will give up their comforting allusions of eternal life
  and replace it with the promise of a miserable death and
  non-existence you get with the selfish gene.
 
 It would be hard to accuse Aristotle and Aquinas and
 the like of doing no more than entertaining comforting
 illusions when they were formulating what became known
 as classical theism. The question is whether the
 atheists' empiricism is up to the task of rebutting
 what they *did* do.


That is indeed the question. And one that I settled in my
mind years ago. I still look for alternatives that mean I
get to live forever in paradise but no matter how clever, 
logical, well structured and intellectually satisfying a 
theory is it stands and falls on whether it gives us an 
accurate description of the world around us. 

Has classical theism survived the modern empirical view
of nature? Isn't all theism motivated by wishful thinking
even if you don't like to admit it?
 
  And then there's the cultural side and traditions that
  people like about religion, Dawkins doesn't really get that
  I think. He held the chair for public understanding of science
  at Oxford for many years never quite managed a scientific
  understanding of the public.
  
  I think he's right about god though. And his books on nature
  and evolution are among the very finest. I shall read the links
  at my leisure.
 
 Add this by Feser:
 
 http://www.american.com/archive/2010/march/the-new-philistinism
 
 Excerpt:
 
 Richard Dawkins is equally adept [as Dennett] at refuting
 straw men. In his bestselling The God Delusion, he takes
 Aquinas to task for resting his case for God's existence on
 the assumption that 'There must have been a time when no
 physical things existed'—even though Aquinas rather famously
 avoids making that assumption in arguing for God. (Aquinas's
 view was instead that God must be keeping the world in
 existence *here and now* and at any moment at which the world
 exists, and that this would remain true even if it turned out
 that the world had no beginning.)
 
 Dawkins assures us that Aquinas gives 'absolutely no reason'
 to think that a First Cause of the universe would have to be
 all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing, etc.; in reality,
 Aquinas devoted *hundreds of pages*, across many works, to
 showing just this.
 
 Dawkins says that the fifth of Aquinas's famous Five Ways is
 essentially the same as the 'divine watchmaker' argument made
 famous by William Paley. In fact the arguments couldn't be
 more different, and followers of Aquinas typically—and again,
 rather famously (at least for people who actually know
 something about these things)—reject Paley's argument with as
 much scorn as evolutionists like Dawkins do.
 
 And those are only (some of) the errors on pages 77–79.


Maybe just lazy.

None of these disprove the Darwinist position on the world,
just perhaps the lack of proper research on Dawkin's part - 
I haven't read either book. But his Blind Watchmaker book
is excellent even if *all* religionists reject Paley's
argument because it's about looking at the *actual* facts
of life rather than what we want them to be.

Remember that the god delusion was written to provoke what RD
sees as a long overdue debate about how mankind thinks about
itself. RD thought that maybe man would like to dispose of
iron age or medieval beliefs if they serve no purpose other
than to hold us in a past we should have grown out of.


 He doesn't spare the American equivalent of the soft-
 headed numpties either. Poor vicarish chaps are getting
 it from both sides.

Quite right too. Dawkins interviewed the archbishop of Canterbury
about his beliefs and was astonished that this king of wooly
thinking didn't really believe most of the bible - except as
moral teaching - leading Dawkins to ask why he didn't preach
science from the pulpit if he agrees with it so much. He didn't 
have an answer really, part of the weird disconnect that the 
devout must have these days if they are honest.

And then there's the dangerous side like religious schools
where kids are taught things that are blatantly, demonstrably
untrue. Isn't lying to children illegal?

RD met a science teacher at a high school in the UK who believes
the earth is 4000 years old. How can you hold both knowledge and
belief with exploding in cognitive dissonance. This teacher didn't
mind and perfectly understood both positions. Poor RD was stunned
into silence.

So there is a debate to had I think. I shall read the links with
interest. Cheers.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, PaliGap--

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote:
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ 
  wrote:
  (snip)
   Fair play to [Dawkins] I say, nothing wrong with kicking the
   hornets nest, it might do us some good but only if the new
   ideas are better than the old ones. This is the athiests
   trouble you can be as empirical as you like but not many
   will give up their comforting allusions of eternal life
   and replace it with the promise of a miserable death and
   non-existence you get with the selfish gene.
  
  It would be hard to accuse Aristotle and Aquinas and
  the like of doing no more than entertaining comforting
  illusions when they were formulating what became known
  as classical theism. The question is whether the
  atheists' empiricism is up to the task of rebutting
  what they *did* do.
 
 That is indeed the question. And one that I settled in my
 mind years ago. I still look for alternatives that mean I
 get to live forever in paradise but no matter how clever, 
 logical, well structured and intellectually satisfying a 
 theory is it stands and falls on whether it gives us an 
 accurate description of the world around us. 
 
 Has classical theism survived the modern empirical view
 of nature?

Depends on what you're calling the modern empirical
view of nature, I think. That's pretty broad. Classical
theism isn't biblically literalist, if that's what you're
assuming. As you saw with Feser's account of Aquinas,
Aquinas didn't even stipulate that the universe had a
beginning, let alone that it began 4,000 years ago and
took only seven days. 

At this point I don't know enough about the
arguments to say how much, if at all, they depend on a
view of the world that would legitimately be considered
unscientific. My guess is very little. My impression is
that they are *way* more sophisticated than you imagine.
I'm sure they're way more sophisticated than *I*
imagined, based on what I've read of Feser so far.

 Isn't all theism motivated by wishful thinking
 even if you don't like to admit it?

Well, the motivation doesn't matter if the arguments
are sound, does it?

I'm sure many theists are believers on the basis of
little more than wishful thinking. But people like Feser
may be a different kettle of fish, given that he was
firm and happy in his atheism for a decade, changing his
mind only after studying the classical arguments for
theism.

(BTW, I'm using the term argument in the formal
philosophical sense, i.e., a coherent series of
statements leading from a premise to a conclusion,
presumably one that is free of factual and logical
flaws and fallacies.)

   And then there's the cultural side and traditions that
   people like about religion, Dawkins doesn't really get that
   I think. He held the chair for public understanding of science
   at Oxford for many years never quite managed a scientific
   understanding of the public.
   
   I think he's right about god though. And his books on nature
   and evolution are among the very finest. I shall read the links
   at my leisure.
  
  Add this by Feser:
  
  http://www.american.com/archive/2010/march/the-new-philistinism
  
  Excerpt:
  
  Richard Dawkins is equally adept [as Dennett] at refuting
  straw men. In his bestselling The God Delusion, he takes
  Aquinas to task for resting his case for God's existence on
  the assumption that 'There must have been a time when no
  physical things existed'—even though Aquinas rather famously
  avoids making that assumption in arguing for God. (Aquinas's
  view was instead that God must be keeping the world in
  existence *here and now* and at any moment at which the world
  exists, and that this would remain true even if it turned out
  that the world had no beginning.)
  
  Dawkins assures us that Aquinas gives 'absolutely no reason'
  to think that a First Cause of the universe would have to be
  all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing, etc.; in reality,
  Aquinas devoted *hundreds of pages*, across many works, to
  showing just this.
  
  Dawkins says that the fifth of Aquinas's famous Five Ways is
  essentially the same as the 'divine watchmaker' argument made
  famous by William Paley. In fact the arguments couldn't be
  more different, and followers of Aquinas typically—and again,
  rather famously (at least for people who actually know
  something about these things)—reject Paley's argument with as
  much scorn as evolutionists like Dawkins do.
  
  And those are only (some of) the errors on pages 77–79.
 
 Maybe just lazy.

Inexcusably so, I'd say. He defeats his own purpose to
make his case using what are so easily identifiable as
straw-man arguments. Do read the rest of that piece as
well, though.

 None of these disprove the Darwinist position on the world,
 just perhaps the lack of proper research on Dawkin's part - 
 I haven't read either book. But his Blind 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, PaliGap--

[salyavin808]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote:
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ 
   wrote:
   (snip)
Fair play to [Dawkins] I say, nothing wrong with kicking the
hornets nest, it might do us some good but only if the new
ideas are better than the old ones. This is the athiests
trouble you can be as empirical as you like but not many
will give up their comforting allusions of eternal life
and replace it with the promise of a miserable death and
non-existence you get with the selfish gene.
   
   It would be hard to accuse Aristotle and Aquinas and
   the like of doing no more than entertaining comforting
   illusions when they were formulating what became known
   as classical theism. The question is whether the
   atheists' empiricism is up to the task of rebutting
   what they *did* do.
  
  That is indeed the question. And one that I settled in my
  mind years ago. I still look for alternatives that mean I
  get to live forever in paradise but no matter how clever, 
  logical, well structured and intellectually satisfying a 
  theory is it stands and falls on whether it gives us an 
  accurate description of the world around us. 
  
  Has classical theism survived the modern empirical view
  of nature?
 
 Depends on what you're calling the modern empirical
 view of nature, I think. That's pretty broad. Classical
 theism isn't biblically literalist, if that's what you're
 assuming. As you saw with Feser's account of Aquinas,
 Aquinas didn't even stipulate that the universe had a
 beginning, let alone that it began 4,000 years ago and
 took only seven days. 

Poor old Thomas, he would have loved being alive now.
All his questions answered, especially as we know how old 
the universe is.
 
 At this point I don't know enough about the
 arguments to say how much, if at all, they depend on a
 view of the world that would legitimately be considered
 unscientific. My guess is very little. My impression is
 that they are *way* more sophisticated than you imagine.
 I'm sure they're way more sophisticated than *I*
 imagined, based on what I've read of Feser so far.

Sophisticated means nothing if the arguments are unsound.

 
  Isn't all theism motivated by wishful thinking
  even if you don't like to admit it?
 
 Well, the motivation doesn't matter if the arguments
 are sound, does it?

Nope.

 
 I'm sure many theists are believers on the basis of
 little more than wishful thinking. But people like Feser
 may be a different kettle of fish, given that he was
 firm and happy in his atheism for a decade, changing his
 mind only after studying the classical arguments for
 theism.

I can't wait.
 
   And those are only (some of) the errors on pages 77–79.
  
  Maybe just lazy.
 
 Inexcusably so, I'd say. He defeats his own purpose to
 make his case using what are so easily identifiable as
 straw-man arguments. Do read the rest of that piece as
 well, though.
 
  None of these disprove the Darwinist position on the world,
  just perhaps the lack of proper research on Dawkin's part - 
  I haven't read either book. But his Blind Watchmaker book
  is excellent even if *all* religionists reject Paley's
  argument because it's about looking at the *actual* facts
  of life rather than what we want them to be.
  
  Remember that the god delusion was written to provoke what RD
  sees as a long overdue debate about how mankind thinks about
  itself. RD thought that maybe man would like to dispose of
  iron age or medieval beliefs if they serve no purpose other
  than to hold us in a past we should have grown out of.
 
 Big if on all counts. You (and apparently Dawkins)
 *define* iron age or medieval beliefs as ones we should
 have grown out of, but that's premature as long as the
 arguments that support (or even generate) them haven't
 been definitively refuted.

RDs argument is that 9/11, institional oppression of
women, creationism, trusting a moral code because god
says so, religious wars etc are all good enough reasons
for an evaluation of where we are. Why limp on with all
the pointless, irrational and dangerous baggage of ages
past? Surely we can do better at organising ourselves
than trusting in wisdom allegedly received millenia ago?

I can't think of much that hasn't been refuted to be
honest. But RDs opinion is that superior beliefs will
replace inferior ones. He is obviously in error with
that but the more people that question what they were 
taught the better?
 
 Given the strength of the arguments, it would be hard to
 make a case that the beliefs they support are not
 thoroughly intellectually respectable. Whether they're
 ultimately right or not is another question.
 
   He doesn't spare the American equivalent of the soft-
   headed numpties either. Poor vicarish chaps are 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Nabby...

[Michael Jackson]

Junior Brown puts them all to shame

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bQfZCrhYU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_wLVCLPx0M










 From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 8:10 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Nabby...
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote:

 Some of them there hillbilly music for y'all..
 
 http://youtu.be/b0eknUtEMWw
 

In the world of strange guitar playing Enver Izmailov - tapping guitar virtuozo 
from Ukraine takes the price 
Enver who is a jazz-guitarist, seems to have become more commercial with the 
years, but have a listen to this, from about 1:0:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCzETvRJMoM
don't miss this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-D0cLnZZk4


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Nabby...

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote:

 Some of them there hillbilly music for y'all..
 
 http://youtu.be/b0eknUtEMWw
 

In the world of strange guitar playing Enver Izmailov - tapping guitar virtuozo 
from Ukraine takes the price 
Enver who is a jazz-guitarist, seems to have become more commercial with the 
years, but have a listen to this, from about 1:0:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCzETvRJMoM
don't miss this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-D0cLnZZk4

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Nabby...

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote:
 
  Some of them there hillbilly music for y'all..
  
  http://youtu.be/b0eknUtEMWw
  
 
 In the world of strange guitar playing Enver Izmailov - tapping guitar 
 virtuozo from Ukraine takes the price 
 Enver who is a jazz-guitarist, seems to have become more commercial with the 
 years, but have a listen to this, from about 1:0:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCzETvRJMoM
 don't miss this one:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-D0cLnZZk4

Marvelous stuff. A virtuoso. I prefer the second one - the
first seemed a bit Eurovision Song Contest-ish.

I don't know about you, but these guys fool my brain into
a bit of an optical illusion. As I watch, it seems as though
the player is a ventroliquist's dummy, and there'e another 
player behind who is reaching around with one arm to play
one of the guitars. Perhaps 'cos my silly old grey stuff simply
can't believe one person can be doing all that?

So, hillbillies versus Euro-trash. What's it to be? Well I'm
still rather taken by that 'Dueling Banjos' I have to say. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Nabby...

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote:
  
   Some of them there hillbilly music for y'all..
   
   http://youtu.be/b0eknUtEMWw
   
  
  In the world of strange guitar playing Enver Izmailov - tapping guitar 
  virtuozo from Ukraine takes the price 
  Enver who is a jazz-guitarist, seems to have become more commercial with 
  the years, but have a listen to this, from about 1:0:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCzETvRJMoM
  don't miss this one:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-D0cLnZZk4
 
 Marvelous stuff. A virtuoso. I prefer the second one - the
 first seemed a bit Eurovision Song Contest-ish.


I don't know why he went down that road, probably need the money.
He released a CD called The Eastern Legend in 1993 for RDM which is a pearl. 
If available at Amazon it's highly recommendable !


 
 I don't know about you, but these guys fool my brain into
 a bit of an optical illusion.


On the CD I mentioned he plays mostly alone but it sounds like it's a whole 
band with several guitars, drum and bazz, amazing.


 As I watch, it seems as though
 the player is a ventroliquist's dummy, and there'e another 
 player behind who is reaching around with one arm to play
 one of the guitars. Perhaps 'cos my silly old grey stuff simply
 can't believe one person can be doing all that?
 
 So, hillbillies versus Euro-trash. What's it to be? Well I'm
 still rather taken by that 'Dueling Banjos' I have to say.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Doc....Regarding psychedelic/hallucinogen drug experiences -

[doctordumbass]

Hi, my comment was specifically about a person's consciousness, while under the 
influence of hallucinogens, influencing their entry into the astral worlds. 
Also limited myself to personal experience. I've never done Jimson Weed - 
sounds worse than awful. As for my negative comments on mescaline, LSD and 
peyote, I had pretty OK experiences with all of them, yet aside from the wow 
factor, they are no way to explore, or develop, a more refined awareness.

 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Carol jchwelch@... wrote:

 Hey Doc,
 
 Sometime in this past week I read one of your responses on a thread. I forget 
 the thread now. But I recall the essence of your response. (I couldn't 
 respond at the time because I had carpal tunnel surgery this past Monday, 
 2/18, and wasn't able to really type and now can't remember where you 
 commented. Sorry bout that.)
 
 Anyhoo...you stated something to the effect that a person's experience when 
 under the influence of a psychedelic drug mirrored that person's internal 
 state. (Again, going by memory ... so if I mis-understood, please correct me.)
 
 In my experience that isn't always true. An example would be the drug/herb 
 jimson weed. Every experience I've ever read/heard has always been horrid 
 hallucinations. (I danced with jimson weed when I was 15 years old and can 
 atest to its horrors.)
 
 As far as other psychedelics, they each had their own nuance in my 
 experiences. For example: Mescaline often made me laugh a lot. MDA made me 
 horny. LSD afforded psychedelic sensory distortions.
 
 I'm of the opinion that different chemicals evoke various hormones (or 
 whatevers) to respond...and thus a certain drugs/herbs can cause bad effects 
 (bad trips) or good effects (good trips). 
 
 I do think whatever one experiences within the good trip or the bad trip 
 comes from somewhere in the person's psyche...but the drug used helps 
 determine if what is pulled from the psyche is pleasurable or not 
 pleasurable. (Hope that makes sense.) 
 
 Eventually all my trips tuck a turn toward the dark side, which was probably 
 a blessing because I gave up tripping. Hmmmthat is when I turned to TM by 
 the way. Ha.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Doc....Regarding psychedelic/hallucinogen drug experiences -

[Seraphita]

Totally agree with you about mescaline: never enjoyed myself so much as
on the stuff. I used to find everything absurdly hilarious. For example,
a fish-and-chip shop owner was the Platonic archetype of all other
fish-and-chip shop owners. Every other fish-and-chip shop owner you ever
saw was just a pale imitation of this guy. I laughed hysterically
virtually non-stop - except when police cars cruised past!
Pity it became so hard to find - much better than MDMA or other
alternatives.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Carol jchwelch@... wrote:

 Hey Doc,

 Sometime in this past week I read one of your responses on a thread. I
forget the thread now. But I recall the essence of your response. (I
couldn't respond at the time because I had carpal tunnel surgery this
past Monday, 2/18, and wasn't able to really type and now can't remember
where you commented. Sorry bout that.)

 Anyhoo...you stated something to the effect that a person's experience
when under the influence of a psychedelic drug mirrored that person's
internal state. (Again, going by memory ... so if I mis-understood,
please correct me.)

 In my experience that isn't always true. An example would be the
drug/herb jimson weed. Every experience I've ever read/heard has always
been horrid hallucinations. (I danced with jimson weed when I was 15
years old and can atest to its horrors.)

 As far as other psychedelics, they each had their own nuance in my
experiences. For example: Mescaline often made me laugh a lot. MDA made
me horny. LSD afforded psychedelic sensory distortions.

 I'm of the opinion that different chemicals evoke various hormones (or
whatevers) to respond...and thus a certain drugs/herbs can cause bad
effects (bad trips) or good effects (good trips).

 I do think whatever one experiences within the good trip or the bad
trip comes from somewhere in the person's psyche...but the drug used
helps determine if what is pulled from the psyche is pleasurable or not
pleasurable. (Hope that makes sense.)

 Eventually all my trips tuck a turn toward the dark side, which was
probably a blessing because I gave up tripping. Hmmmthat is when I
turned to TM by the way. Ha.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Doc....Regarding psychedelic/hallucinogen drug experiences -

[Seraphita]

I also agree with you about trips eventually taking a turn toward the
dark side.
I'm convinced that taking a top-end psychedelic can  give one a genuine
experience of the divine - a gnosis of the divine Mind. The trouble is,
when you take the drugs you're also trying to escape your everyday self
and its everyday boring routine. You want to squeeze the maximum
pleasure from the experience and twist it to serve your own desires and
fantasies. The divine is indifferent to our ego games and one's
repressed fears can't be held back for long and so come to the surface
nightmarishly magnified by the effect of the psychedelic.
Me too: when I'd had a bellyful of taking acid then trying TM seemed
like the next natural step. And so it proved . . .


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Carol jchwelch@... wrote:

 Hey Doc,

 Sometime in this past week I read one of your responses on a thread. I
forget the thread now. But I recall the essence of your response. (I
couldn't respond at the time because I had carpal tunnel surgery this
past Monday, 2/18, and wasn't able to really type and now can't remember
where you commented. Sorry bout that.)

 Anyhoo...you stated something to the effect that a person's experience
when under the influence of a psychedelic drug mirrored that person's
internal state. (Again, going by memory ... so if I mis-understood,
please correct me.)

 In my experience that isn't always true. An example would be the
drug/herb jimson weed. Every experience I've ever read/heard has always
been horrid hallucinations. (I danced with jimson weed when I was 15
years old and can atest to its horrors.)

 As far as other psychedelics, they each had their own nuance in my
experiences. For example: Mescaline often made me laugh a lot. MDA made
me horny. LSD afforded psychedelic sensory distortions.

 I'm of the opinion that different chemicals evoke various hormones (or
whatevers) to respond...and thus a certain drugs/herbs can cause bad
effects (bad trips) or good effects (good trips).

 I do think whatever one experiences within the good trip or the bad
trip comes from somewhere in the person's psyche...but the drug used
helps determine if what is pulled from the psyche is pleasurable or not
pleasurable. (Hope that makes sense.)

 Eventually all my trips tuck a turn toward the dark side, which was
probably a blessing because I gave up tripping. Hmmmthat is when I
turned to TM by the way. Ha.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Doc....Regarding psychedelic/hallucinogen drug experiences -

[Carol]

If I'm not mistaken, MDMA is an offspring of MDA. I reckon I'll go google it 
and find out. ;) 

MDA was the drug of choice typically...among the circle of folks with whom I 
'expanded'.

Microdot...was another one. And Window Pane. Oh my...I wish I could recall the 
nuances of each of those tiny little pieces of paper that could cause the 
entire universe to be at one and where it seemed our little tripping circle 
could communicate telepathically. 

I was reading again today on jimson weed. Someone asked about the long term 
effects and wondered if it would cause Alzheimers onset. It's been almost 38 
years since my jimson weed experience. I don't think I have early Alzheimers. I 
hope I never develop it.

I've written a few memoir pieces about some of my drug daze. Jimson weed is 
still the most vivid memory, I think. It was decades before I overcame my 
deathly fear of cock roaches.
http://parchmentanthology.blogspot.com/2008/12/datura-stramonium-to-dance-with-devil.html
 



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Seraphita s3raphita@... wrote:

 
 Totally agree with you about mescaline: never enjoyed myself so much as
 on the stuff. I used to find everything absurdly hilarious. For example,
 a fish-and-chip shop owner was the Platonic archetype of all other
 fish-and-chip shop owners. Every other fish-and-chip shop owner you ever
 saw was just a pale imitation of this guy. I laughed hysterically
 virtually non-stop - except when police cars cruised past!
 Pity it became so hard to find - much better than MDMA or other
 alternatives.
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Carol jchwelch@ wrote:
 
  Hey Doc,
 
  Sometime in this past week I read one of your responses on a thread. I
 forget the thread now. But I recall the essence of your response. (I
 couldn't respond at the time because I had carpal tunnel surgery this
 past Monday, 2/18, and wasn't able to really type and now can't remember
 where you commented. Sorry bout that.)
 
  Anyhoo...you stated something to the effect that a person's experience
 when under the influence of a psychedelic drug mirrored that person's
 internal state. (Again, going by memory ... so if I mis-understood,
 please correct me.)
 
  In my experience that isn't always true. An example would be the
 drug/herb jimson weed. Every experience I've ever read/heard has always
 been horrid hallucinations. (I danced with jimson weed when I was 15
 years old and can atest to its horrors.)
 
  As far as other psychedelics, they each had their own nuance in my
 experiences. For example: Mescaline often made me laugh a lot. MDA made
 me horny. LSD afforded psychedelic sensory distortions.
 
  I'm of the opinion that different chemicals evoke various hormones (or
 whatevers) to respond...and thus a certain drugs/herbs can cause bad
 effects (bad trips) or good effects (good trips).
 
  I do think whatever one experiences within the good trip or the bad
 trip comes from somewhere in the person's psyche...but the drug used
 helps determine if what is pulled from the psyche is pleasurable or not
 pleasurable. (Hope that makes sense.)
 
  Eventually all my trips tuck a turn toward the dark side, which was
 probably a blessing because I gave up tripping. Hmmmthat is when I
 turned to TM by the way. Ha.
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Doc....Regarding psychedelic/hallucinogen drug experiences -

[Carol]

Well stated. :)

The paranoia was horrid in those last days. I thought I was going crazy...and I 
probably was. My saving thought as I sat alone rocking back and forth on my bed 
at 16 years old...my saving thought was, If I was crazy, I wouldn't know it. 
I cling to that thought of logic.

I found my way down the stairs at my parents home and pulled out the local 
newspaper in search for help. There was an add for TM. I made the phone call 
and was soon receiving my mantra. 

I'm not sure if TM was what helped me specifically or if simply taking some 
sort of action and replacing the drugs helped. Regardless, that action did help 
save my mind and my sanity. (Though some may disagree. haha)

:)
***

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Seraphita s3raphita@... wrote:

 
 I also agree with you about trips eventually taking a turn toward the
 dark side.
 I'm convinced that taking a top-end psychedelic can  give one a genuine
 experience of the divine - a gnosis of the divine Mind. The trouble is,
 when you take the drugs you're also trying to escape your everyday self
 and its everyday boring routine. You want to squeeze the maximum
 pleasure from the experience and twist it to serve your own desires and
 fantasies. The divine is indifferent to our ego games and one's
 repressed fears can't be held back for long and so come to the surface
 nightmarishly magnified by the effect of the psychedelic.
 Me too: when I'd had a bellyful of taking acid then trying TM seemed
 like the next natural step. And so it proved . . .
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Carol jchwelch@ wrote:
 
  Hey Doc,
 
  Sometime in this past week I read one of your responses on a thread. I
 forget the thread now. But I recall the essence of your response. (I
 couldn't respond at the time because I had carpal tunnel surgery this
 past Monday, 2/18, and wasn't able to really type and now can't remember
 where you commented. Sorry bout that.)
 
  Anyhoo...you stated something to the effect that a person's experience
 when under the influence of a psychedelic drug mirrored that person's
 internal state. (Again, going by memory ... so if I mis-understood,
 please correct me.)
 
  In my experience that isn't always true. An example would be the
 drug/herb jimson weed. Every experience I've ever read/heard has always
 been horrid hallucinations. (I danced with jimson weed when I was 15
 years old and can atest to its horrors.)
 
  As far as other psychedelics, they each had their own nuance in my
 experiences. For example: Mescaline often made me laugh a lot. MDA made
 me horny. LSD afforded psychedelic sensory distortions.
 
  I'm of the opinion that different chemicals evoke various hormones (or
 whatevers) to respond...and thus a certain drugs/herbs can cause bad
 effects (bad trips) or good effects (good trips).
 
  I do think whatever one experiences within the good trip or the bad
 trip comes from somewhere in the person's psyche...but the drug used
 helps determine if what is pulled from the psyche is pleasurable or not
 pleasurable. (Hope that makes sense.)
 
  Eventually all my trips tuck a turn toward the dark side, which was
 probably a blessing because I gave up tripping. Hmmmthat is when I
 turned to TM by the way. Ha.
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Doc....Regarding psychedelic/hallucinogen drug experiences -

[Carol]

Someone introduced me to the Erowid Vault a couple years ago. It's an 
interesting site regarding psychedelics.
http://www.erowid.org/

I just googled the difference between MDA  MDMA. Here's one of the links:
http://www.differencebetween.net/science/health/drugs-health/difference-between-mda-and-mdma/

*

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Carol jchwelch@... wrote:

 If I'm not mistaken, MDMA is an offspring of MDA. I reckon I'll go google it 
 and find out. ;) 
 
 MDA was the drug of choice typically...among the circle of folks with whom I 
 'expanded'.
 
 Microdot...was another one. And Window Pane. Oh my...I wish I could recall 
 the nuances of each of those tiny little pieces of paper that could cause the 
 entire universe to be at one and where it seemed our little tripping circle 
 could communicate telepathically. 
 
 I was reading again today on jimson weed. Someone asked about the long term 
 effects and wondered if it would cause Alzheimers onset. It's been almost 38 
 years since my jimson weed experience. I don't think I have early Alzheimers. 
 I hope I never develop it.
 
 I've written a few memoir pieces about some of my drug daze. Jimson weed is 
 still the most vivid memory, I think. It was decades before I overcame my 
 deathly fear of cock roaches.
 http://parchmentanthology.blogspot.com/2008/12/datura-stramonium-to-dance-with-devil.html
  
 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Seraphita s3raphita@ wrote:
 
  
  Totally agree with you about mescaline: never enjoyed myself so much as
  on the stuff. I used to find everything absurdly hilarious. For example,
  a fish-and-chip shop owner was the Platonic archetype of all other
  fish-and-chip shop owners. Every other fish-and-chip shop owner you ever
  saw was just a pale imitation of this guy. I laughed hysterically
  virtually non-stop - except when police cars cruised past!
  Pity it became so hard to find - much better than MDMA or other
  alternatives.
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Carol jchwelch@ wrote:
  
   Hey Doc,
  
   Sometime in this past week I read one of your responses on a thread. I
  forget the thread now. But I recall the essence of your response. (I
  couldn't respond at the time because I had carpal tunnel surgery this
  past Monday, 2/18, and wasn't able to really type and now can't remember
  where you commented. Sorry bout that.)
  
   Anyhoo...you stated something to the effect that a person's experience
  when under the influence of a psychedelic drug mirrored that person's
  internal state. (Again, going by memory ... so if I mis-understood,
  please correct me.)
  
   In my experience that isn't always true. An example would be the
  drug/herb jimson weed. Every experience I've ever read/heard has always
  been horrid hallucinations. (I danced with jimson weed when I was 15
  years old and can atest to its horrors.)
  
   As far as other psychedelics, they each had their own nuance in my
  experiences. For example: Mescaline often made me laugh a lot. MDA made
  me horny. LSD afforded psychedelic sensory distortions.
  
   I'm of the opinion that different chemicals evoke various hormones (or
  whatevers) to respond...and thus a certain drugs/herbs can cause bad
  effects (bad trips) or good effects (good trips).
  
   I do think whatever one experiences within the good trip or the bad
  trip comes from somewhere in the person's psyche...but the drug used
  helps determine if what is pulled from the psyche is pleasurable or not
  pleasurable. (Hope that makes sense.)
  
   Eventually all my trips tuck a turn toward the dark side, which was
  probably a blessing because I gave up tripping. Hmmmthat is when I
  turned to TM by the way. Ha.
  
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Doc....Regarding psychedelic/hallucinogen drug experiences -

[Carol]

i clung not cling... though it might be a freudian slip, or skirt.

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Carol jchwelch@... wrote:

 Well stated. :)
 
 The paranoia was horrid in those last days. I thought I was going crazy...and 
 I probably was. My saving thought as I sat alone rocking back and forth on my 
 bed at 16 years old...my saving thought was, If I was crazy, I wouldn't know 
 it. I cling to that thought of logic.
 
 I found my way down the stairs at my parents home and pulled out the local 
 newspaper in search for help. There was an add for TM. I made the phone call 
 and was soon receiving my mantra. 
 
 I'm not sure if TM was what helped me specifically or if simply taking some 
 sort of action and replacing the drugs helped. Regardless, that action did 
 help save my mind and my sanity. (Though some may disagree. haha)
 
 :)
 ***
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Seraphita s3raphita@ wrote:
 
  
  I also agree with you about trips eventually taking a turn toward the
  dark side.
  I'm convinced that taking a top-end psychedelic can  give one a genuine
  experience of the divine - a gnosis of the divine Mind. The trouble is,
  when you take the drugs you're also trying to escape your everyday self
  and its everyday boring routine. You want to squeeze the maximum
  pleasure from the experience and twist it to serve your own desires and
  fantasies. The divine is indifferent to our ego games and one's
  repressed fears can't be held back for long and so come to the surface
  nightmarishly magnified by the effect of the psychedelic.
  Me too: when I'd had a bellyful of taking acid then trying TM seemed
  like the next natural step. And so it proved . . .
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Carol jchwelch@ wrote:
  
   Hey Doc,
  
   Sometime in this past week I read one of your responses on a thread. I
  forget the thread now. But I recall the essence of your response. (I
  couldn't respond at the time because I had carpal tunnel surgery this
  past Monday, 2/18, and wasn't able to really type and now can't remember
  where you commented. Sorry bout that.)
  
   Anyhoo...you stated something to the effect that a person's experience
  when under the influence of a psychedelic drug mirrored that person's
  internal state. (Again, going by memory ... so if I mis-understood,
  please correct me.)
  
   In my experience that isn't always true. An example would be the
  drug/herb jimson weed. Every experience I've ever read/heard has always
  been horrid hallucinations. (I danced with jimson weed when I was 15
  years old and can atest to its horrors.)
  
   As far as other psychedelics, they each had their own nuance in my
  experiences. For example: Mescaline often made me laugh a lot. MDA made
  me horny. LSD afforded psychedelic sensory distortions.
  
   I'm of the opinion that different chemicals evoke various hormones (or
  whatevers) to respond...and thus a certain drugs/herbs can cause bad
  effects (bad trips) or good effects (good trips).
  
   I do think whatever one experiences within the good trip or the bad
  trip comes from somewhere in the person's psyche...but the drug used
  helps determine if what is pulled from the psyche is pleasurable or not
  pleasurable. (Hope that makes sense.)
  
   Eventually all my trips tuck a turn toward the dark side, which was
  probably a blessing because I gave up tripping. Hmmmthat is when I
  turned to TM by the way. Ha.
  
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, Curtis...

[doctordumbass]

Sure. OK. Prove it to me Barry. Keep having fun. Keep writing about the fun you 
are having. Even if the only way you can have fun is to justify it as getting 
back at your perceived hater tots. I don't care about the reason. I just want 
to keep reading about you having fun! So, please go have some fun, and then 
write me about it. On your mark, get set, GO!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:

 ...not that I'm picking on you or anything, it's just that I thought
 you'd be a good person to aim this generic rap at, because I think
 you'll get it, whereas many here will not.  :-)
 
 Have you ever noticed that the Hater Tots on Fairfield Life tend to
 react the most strongly, the most vehemently, and the most
 out-of-control angrily when we post something creative, something that
 reflects the FUN we're having in the moment of having written it?
 
 It's like something in them feels the need to warp reality into their
 shadow view of it:
 
   [http://i.huffpost.com/gen/867522/thumbs/s-ILLUSION-large300.jpg?4]
 In this case (the illusion), the chair is bent but as the result of
 careful spotlight placement the shadow seems normal. The Hater Tots tend
 to do the opposite -- they see an interesting reality, and transform it
 in their minds (and in their posted words) into something misshapen,
 something hateful. Go figure.
 
 I sometimes wonder about this phenomenon. It's not -- obviously -- as if
 I lose any sleep over this pondering, or actually spend any time
 actually pondering it, but I sometimes wonder what it IS in some people
 that makes them believe that because they post something on an Internet
 forum, someone OWES them for their efforts.
 
 They see something that someone else has written and they react to it.
 Sometimes rather strongly. Rather than deal with the essence of what the
 other person said that pushed their buttons and that put them into
 reactive mode, they focus all of their button-pushéd wrath on the
 person who said it.
 
 It's like on some level they're screaming, How DARE they be having FUN
 with their lives when we've spent so much time and energy trying to
 prevent that? How DARE they get positive feedback from other posters
 here *for* having FUN with their lives when we've done all that we could
 possibly do over the years to poison the well and try to insure that
 no one EVER views them positively? Go figure.
 
 I've always identified with the title of a great little book about
 American expats in Paris during the Golden Age of Expats. It was all
 about the era that Woody Allen romanticized so well in his film
 Midnight In Paris, the era of Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald and
 Cole Porter and Alice B. Toklas and Gertrude Stein and Picasso and Dali
 and Bunuel and Man Ray and Josephine Baker together in Paris, the last
 era in which the City Of Lights really blazed with creative light. I
 always loved the title of the book. It seemed to get the point,
 especially when it came to these free-thinkers, hounded and chased out
 of their native lands, only to end up in a Better Place, having a Better
 Time than those who had chased them away.
 
 The name of the book was Living Well Is The Best Revenge.
 
 Here's my thinking...if the people who seem to have dedicated their
 lives to hounding US, and to trying to make us feel as bummed out and
 dead-ended as they must feel seem to be so powerfully affected by
 indications that we're having a good time with our lives, we should just
 strive to have even MORE of a good time with our lives, and to post
 about these good times on FFL.
 
 Is that mean of me? Does that make me look like a sadist, or as some
 would suggest, a psychopath?
 
 I think it just makes me look like someone who cares more about having a
 good time than about the opinions of those who have never -- in some
 cases given over 22, 550 posts to FFL -- demonstrated their ability to
 have one. They can live in the past and base their lives and their
 behavior on past impressions if they want to. I, for one, feel no need
 to do so. Today is today, and damn!...it's kinda groovy. Given any luck,
 it could turn into a groovy future. :-)
 
  
 [https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/12155_5162658650\
 73531_151404639_n.jpg]
 
 
   http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0064569/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, Curtis...

[Robin Carlsen]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:

 ...not that I'm picking on you or anything, it's just that I thought
 you'd be a good person to aim this generic rap at, because I think
 you'll get it, whereas many here will not.  :-)
 
 Have you ever noticed that the Hater Tots on Fairfield Life tend to
 react the most strongly, the most vehemently, and the most
 out-of-control angrily when we post something creative, something that
 reflects the FUN we're having in the moment of having written it?

A clear lie. I enjoy your posts when you are not vicious and stupid, Barry. 
These recent ones (except for the part I singled out) were quite wonderful--as 
are many of Curtis's posts.

I can assure you, when you write passionately in some way which is not the 
occasion to say silly and tendentious (and untrue) things, I enjoy your 
writing--and even hold out some notion of you being a really good guy.

But examples like this, destroy whatever credibility you might have. You think 
I look for confirmation of my judgment of you, Barry? You are wrong. I look for 
redemption posts. 

One thing that is always the case with you, Barry: when someone goes after you, 
your reaction always expresses itself in the form of exactly what the person's 
description is of you. You are always proving the charges against you. Whereas 
all you would have to do is to deny what someone says about you FROM THE PLACE 
WHERE YOU KNOW IT IS NOT TRUE.

As it is, you attack from inside the very character of yourself which has been 
the subject of satire or devastating judgment. 

I have no hatred for you--and I liked your photographs and your essay.

But what you say here--pleading with your friend Curtis who is now 
heart-to-heart with Ravi (and appreciative of Authfriend's humour)--is what 
gives you bad press around here--did act upon laughinggull's exhortation to 
read my post to Curtis?

Nobody hates on this forum except you, Barry.

Does this post manifest the frustration and meanness you accuse me and others 
of harbouring in our souls because you (and Curtis) are HAVING SUCH A GOOD TIME 
OUT THERE?

You'll figure it out some day, Barry; I am pretty sure of this. But you might 
have to give up everything before this happens. But that it will happen, I am 
convinced of this.

The people who give you the hard time you deserve, they are the most loving 
among us, I reckon.

You there, Barry? Send me some Christmas love, I am lonely.



 It's like something in them feels the need to warp reality into their
 shadow view of it:
 
   [http://i.huffpost.com/gen/867522/thumbs/s-ILLUSION-large300.jpg?4]
 In this case (the illusion), the chair is bent but as the result of
 careful spotlight placement the shadow seems normal. The Hater Tots tend
 to do the opposite -- they see an interesting reality, and transform it
 in their minds (and in their posted words) into something misshapen,
 something hateful. Go figure.
 
 I sometimes wonder about this phenomenon. It's not -- obviously -- as if
 I lose any sleep over this pondering, or actually spend any time
 actually pondering it, but I sometimes wonder what it IS in some people
 that makes them believe that because they post something on an Internet
 forum, someone OWES them for their efforts.
 
 They see something that someone else has written and they react to it.
 Sometimes rather strongly. Rather than deal with the essence of what the
 other person said that pushed their buttons and that put them into
 reactive mode, they focus all of their button-pushéd wrath on the
 person who said it.
 
 It's like on some level they're screaming, How DARE they be having FUN
 with their lives when we've spent so much time and energy trying to
 prevent that? How DARE they get positive feedback from other posters
 here *for* having FUN with their lives when we've done all that we could
 possibly do over the years to poison the well and try to insure that
 no one EVER views them positively? Go figure.
 
 I've always identified with the title of a great little book about
 American expats in Paris during the Golden Age of Expats. It was all
 about the era that Woody Allen romanticized so well in his film
 Midnight In Paris, the era of Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald and
 Cole Porter and Alice B. Toklas and Gertrude Stein and Picasso and Dali
 and Bunuel and Man Ray and Josephine Baker together in Paris, the last
 era in which the City Of Lights really blazed with creative light. I
 always loved the title of the book. It seemed to get the point,
 especially when it came to these free-thinkers, hounded and chased out
 of their native lands, only to end up in a Better Place, having a Better
 Time than those who had chased them away.
 
 The name of the book was Living Well Is The Best Revenge.
 
 Here's my thinking...if the people who seem to have dedicated their
 lives to hounding US, and to trying to make us feel as bummed out and
 dead-ended as they must feel seem to be so 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, Curtis...

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:
snip
 In this case (the illusion), the chair is bent but as the
 result of careful spotlight placement the shadow seems normal.
 The Hater Tots tend to do the opposite -- they see an
 interesting reality, and transform it in their minds (and in
 their posted words) into something misshapen, something
 hateful. Go figure.

Notice the very deliberate and malicious twisting here
(because Curtis surely will not point it out):

Nobody was criticizing Barry's Light on Water post--to
the contrary. The issue was that although he's perfectly
capable of posting something pleasant, like that post, he
almost always chooses to post something unpleasant, like
the post I'm responding to.

snip
 Here's my thinking...if the people who seem to have dedicated
 their lives to hounding US, and to trying to make us feel as
 bummed out and dead-ended as they must feel seem to be so 
 powerfully affected by indications that we're having a good
 time with our lives, we should just strive to have even MORE
 of a good time with our lives, and to post about these good
 times on FFL.

Here's a challenge: For two weeks, post *only* about the
good times in your life. Don't allow any zingers to creep
in, no putdowns, no criticisms. Just be 100 percent positive.

See if you find anybody hounding you.

(You might want to fix your bungled syntax in the first part
of the sentence above. In my observation, you tend to do that
a lot when you're upset.)

 Is that mean of me? Does that make me look like a sadist, or
 as some would suggest, a psychopath?

Here's what makes you look like a psychopath:

 I think it just makes me look like someone who cares more
 about having a good time than about the opinions of those
 who have never -- in some cases given over 22,550 posts to
 FFL -- demonstrated their ability to have one.

You give yourself away once again: For you, considering
that about 95 percent of your posts involve bashing the
folks you don't like, that's what you consider having a
good time.

Come to think of it, makes you look like a sadist too.

And BTW, there is nobody on FFL such as you describe
above. (Chronic lying is one of the primary characteristics
of the psychopath.)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Judy! We Hope You're Doing OK After the Storm

[Richard J. Williams]

  Xeno, I think you were just worrying...
 
authfriend:
 I don't think he was worrying, I think he was relishing the
 thought. Everyone else who has expressed concern, publicly
 or privately, has said they hoped I hadn't sustained any
 damage. Except Xeno, who said it seemed likely that my
 home had been destroyed. And then he finished his post with
 this charming paragraph:
 
 So at this point Judy may not have a place to live. Perhaps
 she finally met an adversary she could not argue down. Her
 situation might be more similar to those that experienced
 the tsunami that devastated Japan last year, where whole
 cities were wiped off the map or severely ruined.
 
Rethinking disaster preparedness:

We ran the inverter off the car periodically each day, an 
hour in the morning and the evening. We ran the fridge, the 
furnace, the modem, charged the phones, and caught up with 
the Instapundit. We were conservative (of course), and at 
the end of 5 days, we had well over half a tank left in our 
Ford Escape, were warm, and knew what was happening. The 
car ran quietly, cleanly, and safely, unlike the many loud, 
smelly generators in the neighborhood.
 
We never needed to wait hours in line with several red 
plastic containers. The candles and transistor radio made 
the evenings enjoyable.
 
I thank you for your blog, and especially for helping us 
rethink disaster preparedness. - Kathleen Wallace

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/157312/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Judy! We Hope You're Doing OK After the Storm

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:

 Xeno, I think you were just worrying...

I don't think he was worrying, I think he was relishing the
thought. Everyone else who has expressed concern, publicly
or privately, has said they hoped I hadn't sustained any
damage. Except Xeno, who said it seemed likely that my
home had been destroyed. And then he finished his post with
this charming paragraph:

So at this point Judy may not have a place to live. Perhaps
she finally met an adversary she could not argue down. Her
situation might be more similar to those that experienced
the tsunami that devastated Japan last year, where whole
cities were wiped off the map or severely ruined.



 after all, you were there.  It looked pretty frightening from here, I will 
 admit.  But, of course, all we had to go one was what was presented in the 
 news - they could make a twig falling a frightening thing.  They didn't talk 
 much about what was spared.  
 
 
 
  From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 3:04 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Judy!  We Hope You're Doing OK After the 
 Storm
  
 Judy
 
 Glad you are safe. It seemed possible, living so close to the water, that 
 your residence could have been wiped. So many were in this storm. I would not 
 wish anyone losing their home.
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
  
   Keep warm and take care.  Our thoughts and awareness are with you.
  
  Thanks, John, and everyone else who has expressed concern for my
  welfare. I'm just fine, back home now that the power is on, after
  having spent a week in a local shelter for evacuees. I'm fortunate
  to have lost nothing but a refrigerator full of food (sorry, Xeno,
  I know you were hoping). Sandy did very little damage in my
  immediate area.
  
  The shelter experience was interesting; I may write a post about
  it a little later. I hate to think what it would have been like
  without the assistance of the Red Cross and Americorps, among
  other organizations. They know what they're doing and deserve
  everyone's support. The suffering a disaster like this causes is
  unimaginable, but it would be vastly worse if these groups
  weren't dedicated to helping relieve it.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Judy! We Hope You're Doing OK After the Storm

[Ravi Chivukula]

On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 4:00 PM, authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:

 **


 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@...
 wrote:
 
  Xeno, I think you were just worrying...

 I don't think he was worrying, I think he was relishing the
 thought. Everyone else who has expressed concern, publicly
 or privately, has said they hoped I hadn't sustained any
 damage. Except Xeno, who said it seemed likely that my
 home had been destroyed. And then he finished his post with
 this charming paragraph:

 So at this point Judy may not have a place to live. Perhaps
 she finally met an adversary she could not argue down. Her
 situation might be more similar to those that experienced
 the tsunami that devastated Japan last year, where whole
 cities were wiped off the map or severely ruined.


Well we all know Xeno's an idiot and I assumed he didn't mean anything here
and that he was being who he is - an idiot totally stuck in his head, in
his beliefs that he is very slow to receive reality, to relate
empathetically - especially to strong, mature women.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Judy! We Hope You're Doing OK After the Storm

[Emily Reyn]

Yes, I read that.  I was giving him the benefit of the doubt - storm trauma and 
all that :).  I didn't even receive this!  I think Yahoo is having trouble - 
perhaps why they are going to do some maintenance work in November.  




 From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, November 7, 2012 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Judy! We Hope You're Doing OK After the 
Storm
 

  



On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 4:00 PM, authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:

 
  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:

 Xeno, I think you were just worrying...

I don't think he was worrying, I think he was relishing the
thought. Everyone else who has expressed concern, publicly
or privately, has said they hoped I hadn't sustained any
damage. Except Xeno, who said it seemed likely that my
home had been destroyed. And then he finished his post with
this charming paragraph:

So at this point Judy may not have a place to live. Perhaps
she finally met an adversary she could not argue down. Her
situation might be more similar to those that experienced
the tsunami that devastated Japan last year, where whole
cities were wiped off the map or severely ruined.


Well we all know Xeno's an idiot and I assumed he didn't mean anything here and 
that he was being who he is - an idiot totally stuck in his head, in his 
beliefs that he is very slow to receive reality, to relate empathetically - 
especially to strong, mature women.

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Judy! We Hope You're Doing OK After the Storm

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote:
 
  Xeno, I think you were just worrying...
 
 I don't think he was worrying, I think he was relishing the
 thought. Everyone else who has expressed concern, publicly
 or privately, has said they hoped I hadn't sustained any
 damage. Except Xeno, who said it seemed likely that my
 home had been destroyed. And then he finished his post with
 this charming paragraph:
 
 So at this point Judy may not have a place to live. Perhaps
 she finally met an adversary she could not argue down. Her
 situation might be more similar to those that experienced
 the tsunami that devastated Japan last year, where whole
 cities were wiped off the map or severely ruined.

I was neither worrying or relishing. I had my own difficulties to deal with in 
the storm. Not knowing exactly where you lived on the NJ coast except for the 
distance to the beach, that based on your own posts, it seemed a very definite 
possibility that in the absence of any actual information of your specific 
locality, severe damage could have been incurred. In the absence of data, it 
was all hypothetical. Welcome back!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Judy! We Hope You're Doing OK After the Storm

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote:

 Keep warm and take care.  Our thoughts and awareness are with you.

Thanks, John, and everyone else who has expressed concern for my
welfare. I'm just fine, back home now that the power is on, after
having spent a week in a local shelter for evacuees. I'm fortunate
to have lost nothing but a refrigerator full of food (sorry, Xeno,
I know you were hoping). Sandy did very little damage in my
immediate area.

The shelter experience was interesting; I may write a post about
it a little later. I hate to think what it would have been like
without the assistance of the Red Cross and Americorps, among
other organizations. They know what they're doing and deserve
everyone's support. The suffering a disaster like this causes is
unimaginable, but it would be vastly worse if these groups
weren't dedicated to helping relieve it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Judy! We Hope You're Doing OK After the Storm

[raunchydog]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
 
  Keep warm and take care.  Our thoughts and awareness are with you.
 
 Thanks, John, and everyone else who has expressed concern for my
 welfare. I'm just fine, back home now that the power is on, after
 having spent a week in a local shelter for evacuees. I'm fortunate
 to have lost nothing but a refrigerator full of food (sorry, Xeno,
 I know you were hoping). Sandy did very little damage in my
 immediate area.
 
 The shelter experience was interesting; I may write a post about
 it a little later. I hate to think what it would have been like
 without the assistance of the Red Cross and Americorps, among
 other organizations. They know what they're doing and deserve
 everyone's support. The suffering a disaster like this causes is
 unimaginable, but it would be vastly worse if these groups
 weren't dedicated to helping relieve it.


Yea, Judy! You're back! We missed you. Even Barry missed you. He kept writing 
love letters, pining for your brilliant wit and razor sharp intellect. Lord 
knows he needs help dealing with reality. In your absence he transformed into a 
stinky flower. He needs some freshening up. 
http://www.menaar.com/Community_Calendar/narcissus-flower-03.jpg

Can't wait to hear about your adventures at the shelter.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Judy! We Hope You're Doing OK After the Storm

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

Judy

Glad you are safe. It seemed possible, living so close to the water, that your 
residence could have been wiped. So many were in this storm. I would not wish 
anyone losing their home.

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
 
  Keep warm and take care.  Our thoughts and awareness are with you.
 
 Thanks, John, and everyone else who has expressed concern for my
 welfare. I'm just fine, back home now that the power is on, after
 having spent a week in a local shelter for evacuees. I'm fortunate
 to have lost nothing but a refrigerator full of food (sorry, Xeno,
 I know you were hoping). Sandy did very little damage in my
 immediate area.
 
 The shelter experience was interesting; I may write a post about
 it a little later. I hate to think what it would have been like
 without the assistance of the Red Cross and Americorps, among
 other organizations. They know what they're doing and deserve
 everyone's support. The suffering a disaster like this causes is
 unimaginable, but it would be vastly worse if these groups
 weren't dedicated to helping relieve it.