RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: So who is Jay Lathom? Is that a pseudonym?
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of seventhray1 Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 10:08 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: So who is Jay Lathom? Is that a pseudonym? Jay Latham was a colorful character in the TMO who died about 10 years ago. Wrote a cool book about his adventures in India. Jay is not a pseudonym for MZ. MZ is a pseudonym for RC. I would be a lot more involved in FFL if time allowed, but I've got so much going on that I can only pop in here occasionally and somewhat randomly. If anything ever happens that really demands my attention, please email me on the side and draw my attention to it. Dan, just FYI, today is Tuesday, June 28th, 2011. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, danfriedman2002 danfriedman2002@... wrote: Ricks sense of balance is questionable, but he defends it unquestioningly. Maybe questioning is a good thing. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@ wrote: Judy gave a URL to an old message ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/71883 ), quoting an excerpt of a book by this Jay Lathom fellow. This Jay's new to me. I stopped reading about spiritual/enlightenment matters after reading *Autobiography of a Yogi* and *Be Here Now*. IME, reading about enlightenment and spiritual matters is about as satisfying compared to experiencing as watching porn is compared to engaging in the real thing. I /think/ the implication was that JL was describing RC's encounter with Maharishi and Maharishi's validation of RC's ?enlightenment?. Am I correct in the assumption? Is Jay Lathom another pseudonym for FFL's latest noodnick, Masked Zebra? With respect to Masked Zebra/RC. I notice that though RC posted out, he's still posting. Shows to go you how Rick never just set this group in motion, hands off, and never, ever provides his slant on things. Rick receives I'm sure, dozens of emails a day yet only certain ones he posts to the group and then only in the spirit of fairness and balance. Yeah. Nabby, there are some things I have to agree with you about.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: So who is Jay Lathom? Is that a pseudonym?
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rick Archer Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 12:34 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: So who is Jay Lathom? Is that a pseudonym? From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of seventhray1 Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 10:08 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: So who is Jay Lathom? Is that a pseudonym? Jay Latham was a colorful character in the TMO who died about 10 years ago. Wrote a cool book about his adventures in India. Jay is not a pseudonym for MZ. MZ is a pseudonym for RC. I would be a lot more involved in FFL if time allowed, but I've got so much going on that I can only pop in here occasionally and somewhat randomly. If anything ever happens that really demands my attention, please email me on the side and draw my attention to it. I should add that Alex does a great job as co-moderator. He's really on top of things and does a lot more than I do to keep this place running smoothly.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: So who is Jay Lathom? Is that a pseudonym?
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 3:10 AM, Ravi Yogi raviy...@att.net wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Not only is RC new here, but he has been besieged from many sides by people riled up by his provocative posts. With so many people posting AT you, it is really hard to keep to the limit set for the rest of us who have had time to settle in. RC is learning who to respond to but I support Rick's giving the guy a pass this week. MZ, Provocative? You gotta be kidding me, it's more looking like what my dog used to do - puke and then trying to eat it right back. MZ is worse, he puked many years back, he's preserved it and is trying to eat it back - gross !!! I never thought I'd see the day. One of the ramble-ons saying something succinctly. And IMO, such a right on characterization.I'm all but burned out on reruns of Star Trek but still can't get enough of reruns of the old Twilight Zone TV series, so I guess reruns of RC must be fascinating to some here as well. Especially Rick, who likes to see someone make / remake a mockery of Maharishi for the sake of fairness and a well balanced forum. I believe your bias charge is bogus. Imagine if a movement bigwig signed on and over posted while stimulating discussions. Everyone would feel the same way. Stimulating discussions here is good. I don't care which side is doing the stimulating. Bigwig as in TM's Prodigal Pimp? If I use the term stimulating one more time I am totally gunna pitch a tent...too late. Sorry gotta run to www.badbadgirlswhoweartoomuchmakeupbutnottoomanyclothesandareslutty.com Hey I can't get to this website - what am I doing wrong? Please help - urgent.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: So who is Jay Lathom? Is that a pseudonym?
I believe Sunstar is a vanity press so they have no vested interest in the publication. You'd have to talk to the next of kin. On 06/26/2011 04:51 PM, authfriend wrote: Thanks. That part's all about Vietnam, though. Why the heck don't they put the whole thing up for download and charge something for it? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7whynotnow7@... wrote: Here's a link to the first 50 pages. http://www.book-cover-design.com/interiors/Galaxy-of-Fire-Book-web.pdf --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriendjstein@ wrote: Somebody ought to talk to his publisher, Sunstar Publishing in Fairfield, about reissuing/reprinting Galaxy of Fire. (I assume it's out of print; Amazon has only three used copies for $80-some each!) If Sunstar still has the electronic files for the book, they might think about selling it as a PDF for download. It would cost them very little. I'd buy a copy.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: So who is Jay Lathom? Is that a pseudonym?
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 1:03 PM, authfriend jst...@panix.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@... wrote: snip I /think/ the implication was that JL was describing RC's encounter with Maharishi and Maharishi's validation of RC's ? enlightenment?. Am I correct in the assumption? Whose implication? Not mine. Is Jay Lathom another pseudonym for FFL's latest noodnick, Masked Zebra? I doubt it. With respect to Masked Zebra/RC. I notice that though RC posted out, he's still posting. You missed Alex's post giving him a reprieve this time because he's new. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/280573 No, Judy, you missed it. Alex said the first time, and hist post hasn't changed, that he'd be inclined to let RC slide this week as he's a newbie, but that Rick is the owner. Rick has software running such that any mention of the word Rick get's his attention and he zooms in on the post. He did not rule against RC. I didn't expect him to. If it slams Maharishi, Rick's tacitly all for it. I agree with Nabby here. Rick's tacit aggressive when it comes to Maharishi.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: So who is Jay Lathom? Is that a pseudonym?
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 7:47 PM, authfriend jst...@panix.com wrote: No, Judy, you missed it. No, Tom, I saw it. Alex said the first time, and hist post hasn't changed, that he'd be inclined to let RC slide this week as he's a newbie, but that Rick is the owner. He always says that when he proposes some ruling before he's checked with Rick. Rick has software running such that any mention of the word Rick get's his attention and he zooms in on the post. He did not rule against RC. I didn't expect him to. Neither did I. Why should he have? It's a reasonable exemption for a newbie. If it slams Maharishi, Rick's tacitly all for it. I agree with Nabby here. Rick's tacit aggressive when it comes to Maharishi. That's nonsense. (I think you mean passive aggressive, no?) And why should you care anyway? No, I meant tacit aggressive. If you look at the letters to the owner he chooses to post, you'll notice that if they're a slam on Maharishi or a slam on the TMO, no matter how far out it might be, Rick will decide to post it, anonymous to the author, but claim he's being fair and, well, it's not his writing. Like, for example, that ?psychologist? who launched an incoherent tirade against Maharishi and the TMO some months ago. People asked why it is Rick chose to post /that/ but Rick just said something like he posted it because it was available for posting or some such inane excuse. Why does it bother me? Because I've seen Rick play this very subtle but after a while very obvious and IMO pretty damn inconsiderate and nasty game of saying he's not getting involved, that he's at most acting as facilitator to get all sides of an argument out. But his bias and agenda become obvious. That rankles me because 1) It's very dishonest and 2) His hidden agenda becomes first obvious then insulting. Rick does this not only on FFL but in real life as well. I like to hear both sides. I'd prefer, of course, two sides to post an approximately equal number of words. If you are enlightened or were and decided you're better than that now, it appears it's part of your enlightenment to throw in at least a thousand extra big, florid words which don't move your story along because, well, rambling and confusing people with your meaning appears to be part and parcel of enlightenment.Maharishi spoke for hours at a tim, but crystallized his main points into pithy epigrams. Rory, Ravi and now RC, OTOH, figure the more words they throw at you the more you'll lap it up.
