[FairfieldLife] Magical Egypt--The Temple of Man
The Egyptians knew of the seven chakras and the higher levels of consciousness. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCswN4oUqcwfeature=g-vrec
[FairfieldLife] Re: lecture on research on adverse effects of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: Feel free to recommend it to the DOD and Office of Veterans Affairs. Feel free to read it again. L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: The question arises: which ruts does TM practice create? What I'm talking about is behaviour patterns, could be anything from driving a car to having panic attacks. All of them are things that we learn and become habituated to doing at certain times. Don't know if TM itself would create a rut other than than the habit of doing it. but then we don't really know how it works, maybe the increase of what you call coherence is due to a rut being followed and the after effect carrying on into daily routine. They always become easier as the path becomes better worn. Ruts aren't bad it's only our opinion of them that colours them so. When you have a nervous problem (OCD for instance) your brain is just following it's learned procedure same as when you sit behind the wheel of a car to drive it. All this is unconscious and the brain thinks it is helping you whatever it does, it's all stimulus/response. There is no good or bad [to the unconscious] but thinking makes it so. NLP techniques teach you to identify the trigger and lead yourself away from the rutted path you dislike. TM, it claims, does something similar in diluting the rut and removing the line on stone. That's the idea anyway, which is why I say if you learn TM for a specific reason you may be disappointed as that is likely to be something that has pissed you off for many years. TM = not such a good therapy there. But for general anxiety or PTSD it may be better as that is a constant state of adrenal arousal that may benefit from the rut of the relaxation response as there isn't a specific target to re-rut. So maybe comparative meditation studies should include NLP in working out which is most effective for various complaints? L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Yes, what I've read is that the neural pathways are like ruts in a dirt road. Every time one goes down a particular rut, the pathway is as if deepened. Thus one is more likely to go down that pathway the next time. I think I first encountered this idea in Tara Bennett Goleman's Emotional Alchemy. I know just a very little bit about NLP, mainly from an expat friend who has lived in China for quite some time. Glad you found something both so beneficial and enjoyable.  Thank you for positive feedback Share From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2012 11:51 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: lecture on research on adverse effects of meditation  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Here's an article I received recently that talks about, among other related topics, attention in the sense of what Rick Hanson calls self regulated neuroplasticity.àhttp://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_to_trick_your_brain_for_happiness Good share Share, sounds similar to some of the Neuro Linguistic Programming courses I've done and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy I've read about. Train the mind to go in a particular direction at a particular time and it will be more likely to go that way next time the stimulus arises. It can be used to train the mind to alieviate stress or play musical instruments better or even to perform better at job interviews - you are only limited by your imagination, the brochure says. I found it useful, I quit the siddhis so I'd have more time to practise NLP and found that I really prefered life without all that sitting around and hoping for the best. Much better to feel that you are directly tackling life's problems rather than hoping some stress will be released, some day PSàMaharishi used to also say take it as it comes.àAnd if it doesn't come, then go out and create it. From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2012 10:34 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: lecture on research on adverse effects of meditation à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: If you'd asked me when I was a TB I'd have dutifully given all the correct responses about how it affected me and everyone I'd known who'd done it long term,
[FairfieldLife] What do Boy Scout leaders have in common with Catholic priests?
It's looking as if they have a similar Law: A Scout Leader is: Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, Reverent, Perverted, a Child Abuser, and Willing To Help Other Child Abusers Get Away With It. Speaking as an ex-Eagle Scout (I had more merit badges than Warren Beatty had lovers), no Scout leader ever tried to molest or take unwarranted liberties with me. But they could have, and nothing would have ever been done about it. If it had happened and I reported it, no one would have believed me, because the institution itself (just like the Catholic Church) was considered above reproach. IMO, the problem lies not with either organization per se, but with placing them on a pedestal of authority and worthiness so high that no one can imagine that their leaders would do something so...uh...human as to be human, and thus prey to the sometimes depraved things that humans are prey to. The *same* type of child abuse happened within the Sai Baba organization, and rampant child neglect has been reported to have happened at MIU/MUM, with parents or caregivers essentially leaving kids in their care on their own while they did more important things, like...uh...meditating. And I think we all know that if the latter had been widely reported, almost everyone in the TM organization would have swung behind trying to cover it up. The problem happens when protecting the organization becomes a higher priority than protecting those the organization was invented to serve. When that happens to *any* organization, it is on a slippery slope to scandal. Boy Scouts Face Release Of Damaging Child Sex Abuse FilesBy Chris Francescani Sept 16 (Reuters) - The Boy Scouts of America could face a wave of bad publicity as decades of records of confirmed or alleged child molesters within the U.S. organization are expected to be released in coming weeks. On Sunday, the Los Angeles Times reported the organization failed to report allegations of sex abuse of scouts by adult leaders and volunteers to police in hundreds of cases from 1970 to 1991. In some cases, the Boy Scouts helped the accused cover their tracks, the paper said. The story was based on a review of 1,600 internal Boy Scouts case files the newspaper said it obtained that detailed accusations against confirmed or alleged child molesters within the youth organization. About 1,200 ineligible volunteer files dating from 1965 to 1985 are set to be publicly released under a June order by the Oregon Supreme Court, including some already reviewed by the newspaper. Those files played a key role in a 2010 civil trial in which an Oregon jury found the Boy Scouts liable in a 1980s pedophile case and ordered the organization to pay nearly $20 million in damages. The files will be released within three to four weeks, said Paul Mones, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiff in the Oregon case. In the wake of revelations about systemic child sex abuse within the Catholic Church and the recent Penn State sex abuse scandal, the files threaten to damage the reputation of one of America's most trusted institutions. Mones said the allegations revealed in the Oregon case are not necessarily comparable to the Catholic Church's sex abuse scandal. In the Catholic Church there were overt cover-ups, and I don't think you see a lot of that here with the Boy Scouts, Mones told Reuters on Sunday. The Boy Scouts of America said in a statement on Sunday that while it regrets past incidents where scouts were sexually abused, its current policies require even suspicions of abuse to be reported directly to law enforcement. The BSA (has) continuously enhanced its multi-tiered policies and procedures, which now include background checks, comprehensive training programs and safety policies, the statement said. The organization said it has maintained an internal ineligible volunteer file since at least 1919 to prevent suspected or confirmed child sex abusers from joining or re-entering its ranks. Boy Scouts of America officials and attorneys have said the files represent only a fraction of the adults who participate as scout leaders each year. The Boy Scouts have annually counted between 3.5 and 5 million scouts and more than 1 million adult leaders and volunteers among its members since the 1960s, a spokesman for the organization said. The organization is facing more than 50 pending child sexual abuse cases in 18 states, according to Kelly Clark, another plaintiff attorney in the Oregon case. Mones said he did not expect many new lawsuits to result from the upcoming release of the Scouts' files, predicting that statutes of limitation on sex abuse charges in most U.S. states would prevent victims from successful civil or criminal prosecution of alleged molesters.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bill Clinton: Practicing Vegan Meditator
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: He's doing Buddhist meditation, Nabs. I see, always thought there was something fishy about this character anyway :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: Bill Clinton: Practicing Vegan Meditator [bill_clinton] Former President Bill Clinton, who just celebrated his 66th birthday, is now reportedly embracing meditation for stress relief while on the road, according to a Radaronline http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/08/bill-clinton-buddhist-med\ itation report. He has a hectic life. He travels a lot on business as an ambassador for the U.S. and needs something to keep him sane, according to a source quoted in the report. Meditation offers him that. He has a mantra that he likes to chant and after every session he feels transformed and full of positive energy. It's definitely doing him the world of good he feels fitter and stronger than ever. Also, Clinton stated in the past his favorite book is Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, a collection of personal writings by the former Roman Emperor, which offers a theme of analyzing one's judgment of themselves and others in order to develop a cosmic perspective, the report stated. The former President also switched to a vegan diet in 2010, which he announced during a 2010 CNN interview, following heart problems, including a quadruple bypass surgery in 2004.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
Maybe like a combo of enigma and origami From: awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2012 10:26 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. Imagine backwards almost spells enigma but not quite.
[FairfieldLife] Fw: Daily Bluetruth - Monday 17th of September 2012 Rumi
Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there...Rumi Click here to visit Bluetruth To unsubscribe from Daily Bluetruth, click here
Re: [FairfieldLife] Magical Egypt--The Temple of Man
Hey John, do you have software to do a chart of FFL? I inadvertantly gave my friend the wrong date of Sept 1. Going to post 1, it should be Sept 5 2001 2:24 pm Fairfield. Which probably means a little better for the women folk here (-: anyway, thanks, share From: John jr_...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 1:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Magical Egypt--The Temple of Man The Egyptians knew of the seven chakras and the higher levels of consciousness. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCswN4oUqcwfeature=g-vrec
[FairfieldLife] Which will you buy?
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/09/iphone5-spec-showdown/ Whoa! Guess I'll keep my Nokia shares at least for a while, after all...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which will you buy?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, card cardemaister@... wrote: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/09/iphone5-spec-showdown/ Whoa! Guess I'll keep my Nokia shares at least for a while, after all... Out of those, I'd buy the Galaxy S3. I bought a Galaxy S2 a few months ago, and I'm delighted with it. But, I'm not so thrilled that Samsung keeps making their phones bigger and bigger; the S3 is bigger than the S2, and the S4 is supposedly going to be even bigger still. I want a phone that fits in my pocket, even when it's in a protective case.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Magical Egypt--The Temple of Man
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Hey John, do you have software to do a chart of FFL? I inadvertantly gave my friend the wrong date of Sept 1. Going to post 1, it should be Sept 5 2001 2:24 pm Fairfield. Which probably means a little better for the women folk here (-: anyway, thanks, share From: John jr_esq@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 1:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Magical Egypt--The Temple of Man  The Egyptians knew of the seven chakras and the higher levels of consciousness. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCswN4oUqcwfeature=g-vrec THe book, Initiation by Elizabeth Haitch, is interesting about Eygypt's ancient culture and chakras, symbols, etc.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Magical Egypt--The Temple of Man
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Hey John, do you have software to do a chart of FFL? I inadvertantly gave my friend the wrong date of Sept 1. Going to post 1, it should be Sept 5 2001 2:24 pm Fairfield. Which probably means a little better for the women folk here (-: anyway, thanks, share Hey, I want my chart done! From: John jr_esq@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 1:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Magical Egypt--The Temple of Man  The Egyptians knew of the seven chakras and the higher levels of consciousness. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCswN4oUqcwfeature=g-vrec
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. After calling her motives into question so brutally, do you really think she trusts you? Just curious... There's a number of things Curtis can't change. 1. He can't change the ugly email Sal wrote Emily accusing her of being mean to him. 2. He can't change the fact that he then defended Sal on FFL. 3. He can't change the fact that he tried to make Sal's email sound like no big deal. 4. He can't change the fact that he accused Emily of sending me Sal's email to foment a public fight, after Emily had explicitly explained otherwise. Why *would* Emily want to be cool with Curtis in light of those facts? Nor can Curtis change the fact that I've also read Sal's email. Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). If he had not defended Sal, if he had acknowledged the ugliness of Sal's email, if he hadn't attributed ulterior motives to Emily for sending me the email, he wouldn't be out of favor with Emily, and folks on FFL wouldn't be wondering about his integrity. If one of my supporters had written a nasty email to someone viciously castigating them for purportedly putting me down, and I found out about it, I'd call the emailer out on FFL by name. Curtis *definitely* doesn't have the integrity to do that. When Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she was teasing you or did it piss you off? Was your poor treatment of her pay back for a bruised ego or did it have nothing to do with this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319723 Good question. But if he deigns to respond to it, will we have any reason to trust what he tells us? Will Emily?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. After calling her motives into question so brutally, do you really think she trusts you? Just curious... There's a number of things Curtis can't change. 1. He can't change the ugly email Sal wrote Emily accusing her of being mean to him. 2. He can't change the fact that he then defended Sal on FFL. 3. He can't change the fact that he tried to make Sal's email sound like no big deal. 4. He can't change the fact that he accused Emily of sending me Sal's email to foment a public fight, after Emily had explicitly explained otherwise. Why *would* Emily want to be cool with Curtis in light of those facts? Nor can Curtis change the fact that I've also read Sal's email. Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). If he had not defended Sal, if he had acknowledged the ugliness of Sal's email, if he hadn't attributed ulterior motives to Emily for sending me the email, he wouldn't be out of favor with Emily, and folks on FFL wouldn't be wondering about his integrity. If one of my supporters had written a nasty email to someone viciously castigating them for purportedly putting me down, and I found out about it, I'd call the emailer out on FFL by name. Curtis *definitely* doesn't have the integrity to do that. When Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she was teasing you or did it piss you off? Was your poor treatment of her pay back for a bruised ego or did it have nothing to do with this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319723 Good question. But if he deigns to respond to it, will we have any reason to trust what he tells us? Will Emily? Here is the thing, the email, according to Curtis, was supportive and ego-stroking to Curtis. When that happens and yet the other side of the email was allegedly an unwarranted and vicious attack on Emily, Curtis appears to not be able to get beyond the fact that he liked the email because Sal was complimentary to him. If he really has no problem with Emily (and frankly, why should he?) then he should have understood and admitted that Sal's email to Emily was harsh, ugly, unjustified. Instead of liking the email because it was good for his ego he should have (if he had any respect or reasonable feeling for Emily's position) gotten beyond his subjective support of this otherwise mean-spirited and traumatizing correspondence and called it for what it was. That has not happened and therefore I question Curtis' intentions and values not to mention his motives for treating Emily badly by not supporting her and understanding where she was coming from in her pain. But maybe that is asking too much.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: R: You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. M: Does the thought of that excite you? Are you acting as a peacekeeper here Raunchy? Trying to help Emily and I smooth out a misunderstanding maybe? R: After calling her motives into question so brutally, M: Oh, that was disappointing , did you have to tip your hand so fast? You were doing so well with the restrained tone and now this ham handed word choice. From now on the mean girl agenda is going to be so obvious and boring. Trying to invoke the feeling of violence between Emily and me huh? Something that we already worked out just fine without your help. Does the word brutally make you think of blood, how it smells? The warmth on your tongue, before it clots with its delicious mineral taste, somewhere between liver and raw steak. Are you inviting me to share a dream with you? I'll pass. R: do you really think she trusts you? M: Let's see, if you really wanted to know, you would be asking her, so what are you getting at here? Oh I get it, you want me to worry about whether or not she trusts me. The problem I have is that so little trust is really required between us to post here. Let me answer your insincerity with some sincerity. I suspect that Emily will display an appropriate level of trust and mistrust for our interactions here, just as I do. R: Just curious... M: This is really just a style point but that ah shucks lets set here a spell and shoot the breeze has been overused by your mean mentor, so we all kinda know what is coming. Kinda like the brutally, but with the added unpleasantness of copying her style too closely. R: when Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she was teasing you or did it piss you off? M: I thought Emily was sincerely expressing how she saw it, that was her actual POV on that. Different people here often have different POVs on the same thing. Does that tend to piss you off? R: Was your poor treatment M: See I would have held back on the brutally at first and gone with this weaker accusation poor treatment and then built to brutality. This is kind of anti-climatic now. I hardly want to correct it as a misstatement after dealing with the brutally already. Is the brutality and poor treatment because I didn't view the email as egregious as Judy does? Or that I didn't believe that Emily's stated reasons for sending it to Judy was comprehensive? And does her lack of seeing Robin's send up the same as I do constitute her being brutal with me for disagreeing? Or is that only applied to me? R: of her pay back for a bruised ego or did it have nothing to do with this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319723 ME: She sent me an email and I called it like I saw it. You are welcome to interpret that any way you want. I guess it makes you happy to imagine me having a bruised ego over her thinking differently than I did about something. Perhaps you are running these posts a bit closer to your own ego sense than I do. But just curious...are you looking forward to a pat on the head from Judy, or were you pursuing your own desire to cause trouble between posters here who seem to be getting along fine without your junior high bullshit? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. After calling her motives into question so brutally, do you really think she trusts you? Just curious...when Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she was teasing you or did it piss you off? Was your poor treatment of her pay back for a bruised ego or did it have nothing to do with this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319723
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: ME: Jesus, did someone call a meeting? A: Here is the thing, the email, according to Curtis, was supportive and ego-stroking to Curtis. M: Sorry to intrude in the fantasy, but there was no ego stroking. She was defending me for something she believed to be unfair. A: When that happens and yet the other side of the email was allegedly an unwarranted and vicious attack on Emily, Curtis appears to not be able to get beyond the fact that he liked the email because Sal was complimentary to him. M: Sorry spin sister, no go. Even Judy didn't try this routine and she read it. A: If he really has no problem with Emily (and frankly, why should he?) then he should have understood and admitted that Sal's email to Emily was harsh, ugly, unjustified. M: Unless that isn't how I viewed it. A: Instead of liking the email because it was good for his ego he should have (if he had any respect or reasonable feeling for Emily's position) M: Now you are really running with that ball you created aren't you? A: gotten beyond his subjective support of this otherwise mean-spirited and traumatizing correspondence and called it for what it was. M: And that would be because someone else's subjective opinion about the letter is the right one? I don't agree with Judy or Emily about how horrible the letter was. You tipped your hand a bit far with the word traumatizing. I think you and Raunchy are being a bit too eager to please Judy. I don't see any reason to think Emily was traumatized by the email. Nor should she have been. I read it. A: That has not happened and therefore I question Curtis' intentions and values not to mention his motives for treating Emily badly by not supporting her and understanding where she was coming from in her pain. But maybe that is asking too much. M: Feeling a little mean today? Emily and I are fine, sorry to disappoint. At least I am fine with her and our last exchange was very friendly and full of understanding and tolerance for each others differences. The very qualities your post lacks. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. After calling her motives into question so brutally, do you really think she trusts you? Just curious... There's a number of things Curtis can't change. 1. He can't change the ugly email Sal wrote Emily accusing her of being mean to him. 2. He can't change the fact that he then defended Sal on FFL. 3. He can't change the fact that he tried to make Sal's email sound like no big deal. 4. He can't change the fact that he accused Emily of sending me Sal's email to foment a public fight, after Emily had explicitly explained otherwise. Why *would* Emily want to be cool with Curtis in light of those facts? Nor can Curtis change the fact that I've also read Sal's email. Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). If he had not defended Sal, if he had acknowledged the ugliness of Sal's email, if he hadn't attributed ulterior motives to Emily for sending me the email, he wouldn't be out of favor with Emily, and folks on FFL wouldn't be wondering about his integrity. If one of my supporters had written a nasty email to someone viciously castigating them for purportedly putting me down, and I found out about it, I'd call the emailer out on FFL by name. Curtis *definitely* doesn't have the integrity to do that. When Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she was teasing you or did it piss you off? Was your poor treatment of her pay back for a bruised ego or did it have nothing to do with this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319723 Good question. But if he deigns to respond to it, will we have any reason to trust what he tells us? Will Emily? Here is the thing, the email, according to Curtis, was supportive and ego-stroking to Curtis. When that happens and yet the other side of the email was allegedly an unwarranted and vicious attack on Emily, Curtis appears to not be able
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. After calling her motives into question so brutally, do you really think she trusts you? Just curious... There's a number of things Curtis can't change. 1. He can't change the ugly email Sal wrote Emily accusing her of being mean to him. 2. He can't change the fact that he then defended Sal on FFL. 3. He can't change the fact that he tried to make Sal's email sound like no big deal. 4. He can't change the fact that he accused Emily of sending me Sal's email to foment a public fight, after Emily had explicitly explained otherwise. Why *would* Emily want to be cool with Curtis in light of those facts? Nor can Curtis change the fact that I've also read Sal's email. Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). If he had not defended Sal, if he had acknowledged the ugliness of Sal's email, if he hadn't attributed ulterior motives to Emily for sending me the email, he wouldn't be out of favor with Emily, and folks on FFL wouldn't be wondering about his integrity. If one of my supporters had written a nasty email to someone viciously castigating them for purportedly putting me down, and I found out about it, I'd call the emailer out on FFL by name. Curtis *definitely* doesn't have the integrity to do that. When Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she was teasing you or did it piss you off? Was your poor treatment of her pay back for a bruised ego or did it have nothing to do with this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319723 Good question. But if he deigns to respond to it, will we have any reason to trust what he tells us? Will Emily?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which will you buy?
Whoa! Guess I'll keep my Nokia shares at least for a while, after all... Alex Stanley: Out of those, I'd buy the Galaxy S3... It all depends on what you need a phone for. Since I'm at a computer desk all day I don't need much else to communicate. Almost any phone will send and recieve phone calls if I step out to the parking lot for a break. And, almost any smartphones can browse the internet for mail and snap a photo. It all boils down to security - how much are employees allowed to use on the company network for their personal communications. Actually, I find cell phones to be a distraction and I don't like talking on phones, unless it's an emergencey. That said, if I get another phone it will probably be the Nokia Lumia 920 for the camera and video capabilities. 'Why Android has a reason to be paranoid' http://tinyurl.com/99bl3hv A Windows tablet that works seamlessly with Microsoft's Exchange email system and Office applications would be a godsend for corporate technology managers, who have been bending over backward to put their CEO's iPads -- 'executive jewelry,' as one analyst puts it -- onto their company's email and security systems. 'Microsoft unveils Windows 8 for public test' http://tinyurl.com/82pqg7e With the rise of texting, instant chat and transcription apps, more people are ditching the venerable tool that once revolutionized the telephone business, displaced armies of secretaries and allowed us to eat dinner more or less in peace. The behavioral shift is occurring in tandem with the irreversible fading of voice calls in general, prompting more wireless carriers to offer unlimited voice minutes. 'The Death of Voicemail?' http://tinyurl.com/8rc3dz8
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. What a sad, ugly, vindictive cunt. All of this because she can't get everyone on the forum to hate someone she hates, in this case you. I've been trying to stay out of this silliness, if for no other reason than I've got better things to do than to relive Junior High School, but I'll weigh in with my take on what Emily did, and why. I once lived in a dorm that contained a rather disturbed prankster. One of his favorite tricks was to take a tall trash can, fill it with water, and then lean it against the inward-opening door of one of his victims. One of them. Because then what he'd do is knock on the door, and at the same time knock on the door of the other victim on the opposite side of the hall, and run. Victim 1 would open the door and watch helplessly at water cascaded all over his feet, his rugs, and his room. Victim 2, opening his door to the knock, would invariably laugh at Victim 1. At that point, Victim 1 would attack Victim 2. Mean- while the sick prankster was laughing down the hall, having caused a fight between two people. My impression is that this is exactly what Emily did, and intended to do. A mature person, sent an email that she didn't take kindly to, would have replied to the sender *in email*, telling her to buzz off, and never said a word about it to anyone else. But Emily, pussywhipped by Judy and wishing to get on her good side, sent copies of the email to you and to Judy. My take is that in so doing she was trying to get you to criticize one of Judy's announced enemies, start a fight between you and Sal, and thus get strokes from Judy for having done it. She succeeded only in the latter, having made an ass of herself in trying to start the fight. This behavior is so juvenile and pathetic that I don't understand how anyone could be fascinated enough by it to continue obsessing about it. Including you, Curtis. This is just another attempt by Judy to get people to pile on to one of her enemies. You've seen it all before, as has everyone else here. [Cop voice] Move along folks...nothing to see here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. After calling her motives into question so brutally, do you really think she trusts you? Just curious... There's a number of things Curtis can't change. 1. He can't change the ugly email Sal wrote Emily accusing her of being mean to him. 2. He can't change the fact that he then defended Sal on FFL. 3. He can't change the fact that he tried to make Sal's email sound like no big deal. 4. He can't change the fact that he accused Emily of sending me Sal's email to foment a public fight, after Emily had explicitly explained otherwise. Why *would* Emily want to be cool with Curtis in light of those facts? Nor can Curtis change the fact that I've also read Sal's email. Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). If he had not defended Sal, if he had acknowledged the ugliness of Sal's email, if he hadn't attributed ulterior motives to Emily for sending me the email, he wouldn't be out of favor with Emily, and folks on FFL wouldn't be wondering about his integrity. If one of my supporters had written a nasty email to someone viciously castigating them for purportedly putting me down, and I found out about it, I'd call the emailer out on FFL by name. Curtis *definitely* doesn't have the integrity to do that. When Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she was teasing you or did it piss you off? Was your poor treatment of her pay back for a bruised ego or did it have nothing to do with this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319723 Good question. But if he deigns to respond to it, will we have any reason to trust what he tells us? Will Emily?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Roger Ebert on the film that caused four murders
Apparently Obama is running scared, afraid of the radicals over there - maybe Obama wants to arrest the film-maker. Go figure. Hillary opposed the jailing of Pussy Riot over in Russia - why not support American film-makers? Bhairitu: You sound really intelligent, Willy. Why don't you run for office? :-D Maybe so. If I was in charge I wouldn't be sending out apologies in a riot - I'd send out warnings to all the other embassies to take cover. And, I wouldn't blame some poor film-maker for the lapse in security. And, I wouldn't send out the U.N. Ambassador to go on TV and lie like that about the pre-planned attack on the embassy in Libya. U.S. intelligence agencies and the State Department did not issue warnings to diplomats after an anti-Islamic video, made in the United States, was broadcast on an Arab talk show, which may have been the flashpoint for the unrest in Egypt, Libya and elsewhere. http://tinyurl.com/9u22gr3 Federal investigators questioned but later released one of the filmmakers behind the incendiary anti-Islam video that sparked violent clashes across the Middle East... Read more: New York Daily News, Monday, September 17, 2012 http://tinyurl.com/8r6ajzd
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. awoelflebater: Imagine backwards almost spells enigma but not quite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati
[FairfieldLife] MAHARISHI VEDIC ORGANIC AGRICULTURE
MAHARISHI VEDIC ORGANIC AGRICULTURE AND GARDENING Key to Global Sustainability (16-Lesson Course with Drs Peter and Susie Swan) 20 October – 3 November 2012 This is a course for those who love Maharishi’s knowledge—it extends the knowledge of the Self deep into the field of agriculture and the environment, showing that every aspect of the environment is actually the same in structure and function as the Self of everyone. http://www.tm-savez.hr/wpa2012.html ~~~ E N j O Y ~
[FairfieldLife] Re: Roger Ebert on the film that caused four murders
authfriend: We all know this statement was made *before* the attacks on the embassy, right? It wasn't a *response* to the attacks. Apparently the statement was sent out in response to the film trailer, not the later attack. The Islamists are going to have to get used to the fact that we have freedom of speech over here and it's not going to change anytime soon. What's needed are more films like this - films that get you to think about what you believe and to question religious dogmas. It's difficult to tell what's going on when the U.S. Embassy in Cairo is deleting tweets and the U.S. State Department is sending out liars on TV. But, apparently the tweet from the Cairo Embassy was sent out at 5:53 a.m., 9/11/12, before the riot began. From what I've read, there was no riot or protest in Benghazi, Libya before the attack that killed the U.S. Ambassador. 'Here's a Timeline of the Confusing Statements on Libya and Egypt' http://tinyurl.com/9ob29x2 The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Seraphita: Rather than pandering to intolerant thugs shouldn't we be making it clear that western societies value their traditions of free speech, which not only have they no intention of relinquishing but would hope one day to see all citizens in Muslim countries enjoy? Apparently Obama is running scared, afraid of the radicals over there - maybe Obama wants to arrest the film-maker. Go figure. Hillary opposed the jailing of Pussy Riot over in Russia - why not support American film-makers? Is anyone in charge anymore? The tweet came from a VERIFIED account. The Cairo Embassy did tweet it. They basically slammed freedom of speech and caved. Our Soldiers have died protecting our freedoms. Stating no one approved the msg is admitting no one is in control, no one is leading, and we have a vacuum to fill. - Julie Anne Dostal 'Obama administration disavows Cairo 'apology' http://tinyurl.com/9spumjk
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: ME: Jesus, did someone call a meeting? A: Here is the thing, the email, according to Curtis, was supportive and ego-stroking to Curtis. M: Sorry to intrude in the fantasy, but there was no ego stroking. She was defending me for something she believed to be unfair. A: When that happens and yet the other side of the email was allegedly an unwarranted and vicious attack on Emily, Curtis appears to not be able to get beyond the fact that he liked the email because Sal was complimentary to him. M: Sorry spin sister, no go. Even Judy didn't try this routine and she read it. A: If he really has no problem with Emily (and frankly, why should he?) then he should have understood and admitted that Sal's email to Emily was harsh, ugly, unjustified. M: Unless that isn't how I viewed it. A: Instead of liking the email because it was good for his ego he should have (if he had any respect or reasonable feeling for Emily's position) M: Now you are really running with that ball you created aren't you? A: gotten beyond his subjective support of this otherwise mean-spirited and traumatizing correspondence and called it for what it was. M: And that would be because someone else's subjective opinion about the letter is the right one? I don't agree with Judy or Emily about how horrible the letter was. You tipped your hand a bit far with the word traumatizing. I think you and Raunchy are being a bit too eager to please Judy. I don't see any reason to think Emily was traumatized by the email. Nor should she have been. I read it. A: That has not happened and therefore I question Curtis' intentions and values not to mention his motives for treating Emily badly by not supporting her and understanding where she was coming from in her pain. But maybe that is asking too much. M: Feeling a little mean today? Emily and I are fine, sorry to disappoint. At least I am fine with her and our last exchange was very friendly and full of understanding and tolerance for each others differences. The very qualities your post lacks. Curtis, you may be correct in all that you say. I am getting impressions from people who read the email that Sal sent that it was not a pleasant email to receive for Emily. Emily has said so and Judy has said so, both of whom read the letter. So I am going to back out now that I have put in my two cents regarding the conclusion I drew from all of the to-ing and fro-ing on this subject. I am going to back out because I did not read the email and thus can not comment further on it. However, I can and did want to say what I said regarding the general play of personalities and human nature as I saw it based on discussions of this issue. At this point, if Sal is all she is cracked up to be by those who love and support her, it would be about that time when she could step out from behind that curtain and say her lines. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. After calling her motives into question so brutally, do you really think she trusts you? Just curious... There's a number of things Curtis can't change. 1. He can't change the ugly email Sal wrote Emily accusing her of being mean to him. 2. He can't change the fact that he then defended Sal on FFL. 3. He can't change the fact that he tried to make Sal's email sound like no big deal. 4. He can't change the fact that he accused Emily of sending me Sal's email to foment a public fight, after Emily had explicitly explained otherwise. Why *would* Emily want to be cool with Curtis in light of those facts? Nor can Curtis change the fact that I've also read Sal's email. Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). If he had not defended Sal, if he had acknowledged the ugliness of Sal's email, if he hadn't attributed ulterior motives to Emily for
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. What a sad, ugly, vindictive cunt. I hate to think that who you are is contained in this one sentence, but I fear it may be so. You tend to default to this every time you hit bottom, and that bottom appears to be, in some real sense, your essence. All of this because she can't get everyone on the forum to hate someone she hates, in this case you. I've been trying to stay out of this silliness, if for no other reason than I've got better things to do than to relive Junior High School, but I'll weigh in with my take on what Emily did, and why. I once lived in a dorm that contained a rather disturbed prankster. One of his favorite tricks was to take a tall trash can, fill it with water, and then lean it against the inward-opening door of one of his victims. One of them. Because then what he'd do is knock on the door, and at the same time knock on the door of the other victim on the opposite side of the hall, and run. Victim 1 would open the door and watch helplessly at water cascaded all over his feet, his rugs, and his room. Victim 2, opening his door to the knock, would invariably laugh at Victim 1. At that point, Victim 1 would attack Victim 2. Mean- while the sick prankster was laughing down the hall, having caused a fight between two people. My impression is that this is exactly what Emily did, and intended to do. A mature person, sent an email that she didn't take kindly to, would have replied to the sender *in email*, telling her to buzz off, and never said a word about it to anyone else. But Emily, pussywhipped by Judy and wishing to get on her good side, sent copies of the email to you and to Judy. My take is that in so doing she was trying to get you to criticize one of Judy's announced enemies, start a fight between you and Sal, and thus get strokes from Judy for having done it. She succeeded only in the latter, having made an ass of herself in trying to start the fight. This behavior is so juvenile and pathetic that I don't understand how anyone could be fascinated enough by it to continue obsessing about it. Including you, Curtis. This is just another attempt by Judy to get people to pile on to one of her enemies. You've seen it all before, as has everyone else here. [Cop voice] Move along folks...nothing to see here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. After calling her motives into question so brutally, do you really think she trusts you? Just curious... There's a number of things Curtis can't change. 1. He can't change the ugly email Sal wrote Emily accusing her of being mean to him. 2. He can't change the fact that he then defended Sal on FFL. 3. He can't change the fact that he tried to make Sal's email sound like no big deal. 4. He can't change the fact that he accused Emily of sending me Sal's email to foment a public fight, after Emily had explicitly explained otherwise. Why *would* Emily want to be cool with Curtis in light of those facts? Nor can Curtis change the fact that I've also read Sal's email. Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). If he had not defended Sal, if he had acknowledged the ugliness of Sal's email, if he hadn't attributed ulterior motives to Emily for sending me the email, he wouldn't be out of favor with Emily, and folks on FFL wouldn't be wondering about his integrity. If one of my supporters had written a nasty email to someone viciously castigating them for purportedly putting me down, and I found out about it, I'd call the emailer out on FFL by name. Curtis *definitely* doesn't have the integrity to do that. When Emily played off
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. turquoiseb: What a sad, ugly, vindictive cunt. So, you didn't get the email from Sal. Go figure. Now you're going down the rabbit hole talking about Sal's private email that you didn't even get. Some expats just feel better when they have someone to talk to, I guess. LoL! All of this because she can't get everyone on the forum to hate someone she hates, in this case you. I've been trying to stay out of this silliness, if for no other reason than I've got better things to do than to relive Junior High School, but I'll weigh in with my take on what Emily did, and why. I once lived in a dorm that contained a rather disturbed prankster. One of his favorite tricks was to take a tall trash can, fill it with water, and then lean it against the inward-opening door of one of his victims. One of them. Because then what he'd do is knock on the door, and at the same time knock on the door of the other victim on the opposite side of the hall, and run. Victim 1 would open the door and watch helplessly at water cascaded all over his feet, his rugs, and his room. Victim 2, opening his door to the knock, would invariably laugh at Victim 1. At that point, Victim 1 would attack Victim 2. Mean- while the sick prankster was laughing down the hall, having caused a fight between two people. My impression is that this is exactly what Emily did, and intended to do. A mature person, sent an email that she didn't take kindly to, would have replied to the sender *in email*, telling her to buzz off, and never said a word about it to anyone else. But Emily, pussywhipped by Judy and wishing to get on her good side, sent copies of the email to you and to Judy. My take is that in so doing she was trying to get you to criticize one of Judy's announced enemies, start a fight between you and Sal, and thus get strokes from Judy for having done it. She succeeded only in the latter, having made an ass of herself in trying to start the fight. This behavior is so juvenile and pathetic that I don't understand how anyone could be fascinated enough by it to continue obsessing about it. Including you, Curtis. This is just another attempt by Judy to get people to pile on to one of her enemies. You've seen it all before, as has everyone else here. [Cop voice] Move along folks...nothing to see here. So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. After calling her motives into question so brutally, do you really think she trusts you? Just curious... There's a number of things Curtis can't change. 1. He can't change the ugly email Sal wrote Emily accusing her of being mean to him. 2. He can't change the fact that he then defended Sal on FFL. 3. He can't change the fact that he tried to make Sal's email sound like no big deal. 4. He can't change the fact that he accused Emily of sending me Sal's email to foment a public fight, after Emily had explicitly explained otherwise. Why *would* Emily want to be cool with Curtis in light of those facts? Nor can Curtis change the fact that I've also read Sal's email. Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). If he had not defended Sal, if he had acknowledged the ugliness of Sal's email, if he hadn't attributed ulterior motives to Emily for sending me the email, he wouldn't be out of favor with Emily, and folks on FFL wouldn't be wondering about his integrity. If one of my supporters had written a nasty email to someone viciously castigating them for purportedly putting me down, and I found out about it, I'd call the emailer out on FFL by name. Curtis *definitely* doesn't have the integrity to do that. When Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she was teasing you or did it piss you off? Was your poor treatment of her pay back for a bruised ego or did it have nothing to do with this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319723 Good question. But if he deigns to respond to it, will we have any reason to trust what he tells us? Will Emily?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: R: You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. M: Does the thought of that excite you? Are you acting as a peacekeeper here Raunchy? Trying to help Emily and I smooth out a misunderstanding maybe? Whose misunderstanding? Seems to me Emily understands you far better than you understand her. R: After calling her motives into question so brutally, M: Oh, that was disappointing , did you have to tip your hand so fast? You were doing so well with the restrained tone and now this ham handed word choice. From now on the mean girl agenda is going to be so obvious and boring. Trying to invoke the feeling of violence between Emily and me huh? Something that we already worked out just fine without your help. Does the word brutally make you think of blood, how it smells? The warmth on your tongue, before it clots with its delicious mineral taste, somewhere between liver and raw steak. Are you inviting me to share a dream with you? I'll pass. Calm down, Curtis. Feeling a little crabby this morning? O.K. maybe *brutally* was a little strong. How about impugning Emily's character as plotting and devious by misrepresenting her motivations? Or, while Sal had her pinned to the mat, sadistically kicking her when she was already down? R: do you really think she trusts you? M: Let's see, if you really wanted to know, you would be asking her, so what are you getting at here? Oh I get it, you want me to worry about whether or not she trusts me. The problem I have is that so little trust is really required between us to post here. Let me answer your insincerity with some sincerity. I suspect that Emily will display an appropriate level of trust and mistrust for our interactions here, just as I do. R: Just curious... M: This is really just a style point but that ah shucks lets set here a spell and shoot the breeze has been overused by your mean mentor, so we all kinda know what is coming. Kinda like the brutally, but with the added unpleasantness of copying her style too closely. R: when Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she was teasing you or did it piss you off? M: I thought Emily was sincerely expressing how she saw it, that was her actual POV on that. Different people here often have different POVs on the same thing. Does that tend to piss you off? IOW not teasing. Thanks, now I know your POV from my POV. R: Was your poor treatment M: See I would have held back on the brutally at first and gone with this weaker accusation poor treatment and then built to brutality. This is kind of anti-climatic now. I hardly want to correct it as a misstatement after dealing with the brutally already. Is the brutality and poor treatment because I didn't view the email as egregious as Judy does? Or that I didn't believe that Emily's stated reasons for sending it to Judy was comprehensive? And does her lack of seeing Robin's send up the same as I do constitute her being brutal with me for disagreeing? Or is that only applied to me? R: of her pay back for a bruised ego or did it have nothing to do with this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319723 ME: She sent me an email and I called it like I saw it. You are welcome to interpret that any way you want. I guess it makes you happy to imagine me having a bruised ego over her thinking differently than I did about something. Perhaps you are running these posts a bit closer to your own ego sense than I do. But just curious...are you looking forward to a pat on the head from Judy, or were you pursuing your own desire to cause trouble between posters here who seem to be getting along fine without your junior high bullshit? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. After calling her motives into question so brutally, do you really think she trusts you? Just curious...when Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she was teasing you or did it piss you off? Was your poor treatment of her pay back for a bruised ego or did it have
[FairfieldLife] Re: lecture on research on adverse effects of meditation
I just did reread what you wrote. If you think that NLP offers something, then the DoD and Office of Veterans' Affairs should be made aware of things. L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Feel free to recommend it to the DOD and Office of Veterans Affairs. Feel free to read it again. L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: The question arises: which ruts does TM practice create? What I'm talking about is behaviour patterns, could be anything from driving a car to having panic attacks. All of them are things that we learn and become habituated to doing at certain times. Don't know if TM itself would create a rut other than than the habit of doing it. but then we don't really know how it works, maybe the increase of what you call coherence is due to a rut being followed and the after effect carrying on into daily routine. They always become easier as the path becomes better worn. Ruts aren't bad it's only our opinion of them that colours them so. When you have a nervous problem (OCD for instance) your brain is just following it's learned procedure same as when you sit behind the wheel of a car to drive it. All this is unconscious and the brain thinks it is helping you whatever it does, it's all stimulus/response. There is no good or bad [to the unconscious] but thinking makes it so. NLP techniques teach you to identify the trigger and lead yourself away from the rutted path you dislike. TM, it claims, does something similar in diluting the rut and removing the line on stone. That's the idea anyway, which is why I say if you learn TM for a specific reason you may be disappointed as that is likely to be something that has pissed you off for many years. TM = not such a good therapy there. But for general anxiety or PTSD it may be better as that is a constant state of adrenal arousal that may benefit from the rut of the relaxation response as there isn't a specific target to re-rut. So maybe comparative meditation studies should include NLP in working out which is most effective for various complaints? L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Yes, what I've read is that the neural pathways are like ruts in a dirt road. Every time one goes down a particular rut, the pathway is as if deepened. Thus one is more likely to go down that pathway the next time. I think I first encountered this idea in Tara Bennett Goleman's Emotional Alchemy. I know just a very little bit about NLP, mainly from an expat friend who has lived in China for quite some time. Glad you found something both so beneficial and enjoyable.  Thank you for positive feedback Share From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2012 11:51 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: lecture on research on adverse effects of meditation  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Here's an article I received recently that talks about, among other related topics, attention in the sense of what Rick Hanson calls self regulated neuroplasticity.àhttp://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_to_trick_your_brain_for_happiness Good share Share, sounds similar to some of the Neuro Linguistic Programming courses I've done and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy I've read about. Train the mind to go in a particular direction at a particular time and it will be more likely to go that way next time the stimulus arises. It can be used to train the mind to alieviate stress or play musical instruments better or even to perform better at job interviews - you are only limited by your imagination, the brochure says. I found it useful, I quit the siddhis so I'd have more time to practise NLP and found that I really prefered life without all that sitting around and hoping for the best. Much better to feel that you are directly tackling life's problems rather than hoping some stress will be released, some day PSàMaharishi used to also say take it as it comes.àAnd if it doesn't come, then go out and create it. From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2012 10:34 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife]
[FairfieldLife] Re: lecture on research on adverse effects of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: I just did reread what you wrote. If you think that NLP offers something, then the DoD and Office of Veterans' Affairs should be made aware of things. Not everyone is a compulsive proselytute, Lawson.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Yea, it's a pretty low inference to make. But it is from the same playbook that states that if someone writes something and then attributes it to someone else, by signing another persons name to it, then that person, to whom it was attributed is within their rights to ask that this not be done again, but not to claim that they are being misrepresented. Keep in mind that the misappropriation may remain forever on the internet unless it is deleted. You would think that, apart from stating something is an obvious parody, that the party who made the misrepresentation would apologize and make a retraction of some sort. Instead the misrepresented party is asked to prove that they were misrepresented, and then be judged as to whether or not they were misrepresented by others who have shown themselves to be hostile to this person in the past. You wonder what the #1 point stated above could possibly morph into. That others found the situation so funny indicates to me a lack of empathy should they find themselves in that same situation. Judy at her finest. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. After calling her motives into question so brutally, do you really think she trusts you? Just curious... There's a number of things Curtis can't change. 1. He can't change the ugly email Sal wrote Emily accusing her of being mean to him. 2. He can't change the fact that he then defended Sal on FFL. 3. He can't change the fact that he tried to make Sal's email sound like no big deal. 4. He can't change the fact that he accused Emily of sending me Sal's email to foment a public fight, after Emily had explicitly explained otherwise. Why *would* Emily want to be cool with Curtis in light of those facts? Nor can Curtis change the fact that I've also read Sal's email. Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). If he had not defended Sal, if he had acknowledged the ugliness of Sal's email, if he hadn't attributed ulterior motives to Emily for sending me the email, he wouldn't be out of favor with Emily, and folks on FFL wouldn't be wondering about his integrity. If one of my supporters had written a nasty email to someone viciously castigating them for purportedly putting me down, and I found out about it, I'd call the emailer out on FFL by name. Curtis *definitely* doesn't have the integrity to do that. When Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she was teasing you or did it piss you off? Was your poor treatment of her pay back for a bruised ego or did it have nothing to do with this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319723 Good question. But if he deigns to respond to it, will we have any reason to trust what he tells us? Will Emily?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: Curtis, you may be correct in all that you say. I am getting impressions from people who read the email that Sal sent that it was not a pleasant email to receive for Emily. Emily has said so and Judy has said so, both of whom read the letter. M: I am not denying that, I was objecting to the histrionic characterization Judy was trying to use to create a fuss that you bought into. A:So I am going to back out now that I have put in my two cents regarding the conclusion I drew from all of the to-ing and fro-ing on this subject. I am going to back out because I did not read the email and thus can not comment further on it. However, I can and did want to say what I said regarding the general play of personalities and human nature as I saw it based on discussions of this issue. M: It clarified a bias I was unaware of. A: At this point, if Sal is all she is cracked up to be by those who love and support her, it would be about that time when she could step out from behind that curtain and say her lines. M: Slow news day huh? I think all the actual participants are all fine at this point. Thanks for your concern. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: ME: Jesus, did someone call a meeting? A: Here is the thing, the email, according to Curtis, was supportive and ego-stroking to Curtis. M: Sorry to intrude in the fantasy, but there was no ego stroking. She was defending me for something she believed to be unfair. A: When that happens and yet the other side of the email was allegedly an unwarranted and vicious attack on Emily, Curtis appears to not be able to get beyond the fact that he liked the email because Sal was complimentary to him. M: Sorry spin sister, no go. Even Judy didn't try this routine and she read it. A: If he really has no problem with Emily (and frankly, why should he?) then he should have understood and admitted that Sal's email to Emily was harsh, ugly, unjustified. M: Unless that isn't how I viewed it. A: Instead of liking the email because it was good for his ego he should have (if he had any respect or reasonable feeling for Emily's position) M: Now you are really running with that ball you created aren't you? A: gotten beyond his subjective support of this otherwise mean-spirited and traumatizing correspondence and called it for what it was. M: And that would be because someone else's subjective opinion about the letter is the right one? I don't agree with Judy or Emily about how horrible the letter was. You tipped your hand a bit far with the word traumatizing. I think you and Raunchy are being a bit too eager to please Judy. I don't see any reason to think Emily was traumatized by the email. Nor should she have been. I read it. A: That has not happened and therefore I question Curtis' intentions and values not to mention his motives for treating Emily badly by not supporting her and understanding where she was coming from in her pain. But maybe that is asking too much. M: Feeling a little mean today? Emily and I are fine, sorry to disappoint. At least I am fine with her and our last exchange was very friendly and full of understanding and tolerance for each others differences. The very qualities your post lacks. Curtis, you may be correct in all that you say. I am getting impressions from people who read the email that Sal sent that it was not a pleasant email to receive for Emily. Emily has said so and Judy has said so, both of whom read the letter. So I am going to back out now that I have put in my two cents regarding the conclusion I drew from all of the to-ing and fro-ing on this subject. I am going to back out because I did not read the email and thus can not comment further on it. However, I can and did want to say what I said regarding the general play of personalities and human nature as I saw it based on discussions of this issue. At this point, if Sal is all she is cracked up to be by those who love and support her, it would be about that time when she could step out from behind that curtain and say her lines. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Which will you buy?
On 09/17/2012 06:08 AM, Alex Stanley wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, card cardemaister@... wrote: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/09/iphone5-spec-showdown/ Whoa! Guess I'll keep my Nokia shares at least for a while, after all... Out of those, I'd buy the Galaxy S3. I bought a Galaxy S2 a few months ago, and I'm delighted with it. But, I'm not so thrilled that Samsung keeps making their phones bigger and bigger; the S3 is bigger than the S2, and the S4 is supposedly going to be even bigger still. I want a phone that fits in my pocket, even when it's in a protective case. The Galaxy Nexus has a 4.6 screen and with an Otterbox case still fits in my pockets but that's not the way I carry them as I use the holster instead. Maybe look at a different case because the holster overlaps the phone jack. :-( I like the larger screen but there are plenty of smaller ones but I suppose stuck in the boonies you can't exactly window shop like I can at places like Fry's or Best Buy. The nice thing about the larger screen (and higher resolution) is that I watched a Netflix movie on it last night which might not have been as enjoyable on a smaller screen.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Which will you buy?
On 09/17/2012 07:39 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote: Whoa! Guess I'll keep my Nokia shares at least for a while, after all... Alex Stanley: Out of those, I'd buy the Galaxy S3... It all depends on what you need a phone for. Since I'm at a computer desk all day I don't need much else to communicate. Almost any phone will send and recieve phone calls if I step out to the parking lot for a break. And, almost any smartphones can browse the internet for mail and snap a photo. It all boils down to security - how much are employees allowed to use on the company network for their personal communications. Actually, I find cell phones to be a distraction and I don't like talking on phones, unless it's an emergencey. That said, if I get another phone it will probably be the Nokia Lumia 920 for the camera and video capabilities. 'Why Android has a reason to be paranoid' http://tinyurl.com/99bl3hv A Windows tablet that works seamlessly with Microsoft's Exchange email system and Office applications would be a godsend for corporate technology managers, who have been bending over backward to put their CEO's iPads -- 'executive jewelry,' as one analyst puts it -- onto their company's email and security systems. 'Microsoft unveils Windows 8 for public test' http://tinyurl.com/82pqg7e With the rise of texting, instant chat and transcription apps, more people are ditching the venerable tool that once revolutionized the telephone business, displaced armies of secretaries and allowed us to eat dinner more or less in peace. The behavioral shift is occurring in tandem with the irreversible fading of voice calls in general, prompting more wireless carriers to offer unlimited voice minutes. 'The Death of Voicemail?' http://tinyurl.com/8rc3dz8 Bingo! That's why the newer low cost plans with less phone minutes and higher data bandwidth. I had 450 anytime minutes with Verizon but used only 30-40 minutes a month and rarely every around 60. I was paying $40 for those minutes and another $30 for the data. The new plan only has 100 minutes of talk, unlimited texting and 5GB of data. My data use was often only around 1/2 GB a month but depending on what I'm doing I might use more. Netflix is watched on the phone via wifi anyway and in fact their new app has setting to just use wifi. The new phone also won't use carrier data if I'm connected to wifi. BTW, the data plan is no contract, just month to month. So I can drop it anytime or change the plan. Not everyone needs a smartphone but they're getting cheaper and plans cheaper so more people are getting them. Android is way outselling everything else. That's why Apple and Microsoft are pissed. But they're old world business plans with closed source software. Unless they change they're doomed.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: ME: Jesus, did someone call a meeting? No, Curtis, sorry, nobody called a meeting. Ann and raunchy are reacting independently to what's been going on here. They are not mindless robots controlled by me; they have their own opinions, just as Barry and Sal do. A: Here is the thing, the email, according to Curtis, was supportive and ego-stroking to Curtis. M: Sorry to intrude in the fantasy, but there was no ego stroking. She was defending me for something she believed to be unfair. The email portrayed Curtis in a positive light, but there wasn't any of what I would call ego-stroking. Curtis neglects to mention, however, that Sal's defense of him was based on a belief of hers that did not reflect the facts. I asked earlier if Curtis, having read Sal's email, had then explained to her that she had gotten it wrong and suggested she should apologize to Emily. He did not respond. A: When that happens and yet the other side of the email was allegedly an unwarranted and vicious attack on Emily, Curtis appears to not be able to get beyond the fact that he liked the email because Sal was complimentary to him. M: Sorry spin sister, no go. Even Judy didn't try this routine and she read it. Ann is not spinning or trying a routine. She's drawn an inaccurate conclusion based on what Curtis said about the email. A: If he really has no problem with Emily (and frankly, why should he?) then he should have understood and admitted that Sal's email to Emily was harsh, ugly, unjustified. M: Unless that isn't how I viewed it. If that email were to be posted here, everyone who read it would wonder what the hell was wrong with Curtis that he did not view it as harsh, ugly, and unjustified. (Oh, except Barry, of course.) A: Instead of liking the email because it was good for his ego he should have (if he had any respect or reasonable feeling for Emily's position) M: Now you are really running with that ball you created aren't you? To say it was ego stroking goes too far, but saying it was good for his ego is not out of line. He wrote, She was sticking up for me and I appreciate that. A: gotten beyond his subjective support of this otherwise mean-spirited and traumatizing correspondence and called it for what it was. M: And that would be because someone else's subjective opinion about the letter is the right one? It looks like Ann and raunchy both feel Emily's and my opinion of the email is more trustworthy than Curtis's. I don't agree with Judy or Emily about how horrible the letter was. You tipped your hand a bit far with the word traumatizing. Emily said in her FFL post that it freaked her out. Freaked out and traumatized are synonymous. Ann didn't have a hand to tip; she was referring to what Emily told us. So here again Curtis is being dishonest in casting unjustified aspersions on Ann. I think you and Raunchy are being a bit too eager to please Judy. Neither Ann nor raunchy write their posts to please Judy. Do Sal or Barry write their posts/emails to please Curtis? I don't see any reason to think Emily was traumatized by the email. Again, Curtis flatly accuses Emily of lying, this time about the effect the email had on her. Nor should she have been. I read it. And Curtis now dictates to Emily how she *should* have reacted to the email. Me, I wouldn't have been traumatized by it, but that's because I'm familiar with Sal's exceedingly nasty personality, as well as her difficulties making sense of what she reads on FFL. Emily wasn't. (I would have been *surprised* by the email because it was so much worse than anything Sal has posted in public.) A: That has not happened and therefore I question Curtis' intentions and values not to mention his motives for treating Emily badly by not supporting her and understanding where she was coming from in her pain. But maybe that is asking too much. M: Feeling a little mean today? That's how Ann perceives you to have behaved, Curtis. She is not alone in this on FFL. You might want to ask yourself how you have managed to create this impression if it isn't correct. Emily and I are fine, sorry to disappoint. At least I am fine with her and our last exchange was very friendly and full of understanding and tolerance for each others differences. Says Curtis, confidently assuming nobody could have any reason for distrusting what he tells us. The very qualities your post lacks. Says Curtis, having just got done showing us how much understanding and tolerance *he* has for people's differences. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: At great risk of being accused of saying this because you have stroked my ego by being supportive, thanks Steve. The need to fabricate comes from a lack of anything newsworthy. Just like characterizing my POV on the email as lying because it didn't match Judy's. It all would have played out a little less silly if Emily had played ball and played her role as the brutally aggrieved party. But instead we exchanged posts and made our points clear without attacking each other personally. Imagine that options on FFL? Not much to work with there right? That is what has made the machinations of the ill-will machine so intriguing. Raunchy's buy-in was no surprise, but I have to admit that Ann's was. Your noticing the WTF? quality to these accusations makes me feel a bit of sanity in an otherwise weird morning. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Yea, it's a pretty low inference to make. But it is from the same playbook that states that if someone writes something and then attributes it to someone else, by signing another persons name to it, then that person, to whom it was attributed is within their rights to ask that this not be done again, but not to claim that they are being misrepresented. Keep in mind that the misappropriation may remain forever on the internet unless it is deleted. You would think that, apart from stating something is an obvious parody, that the party who made the misrepresentation would apologize and make a retraction of some sort. Instead the misrepresented party is asked to prove that they were misrepresented, and then be judged as to whether or not they were misrepresented by others who have shown themselves to be hostile to this person in the past. You wonder what the #1 point stated above could possibly morph into. That others found the situation so funny indicates to me a lack of empathy should they find themselves in that same situation. Judy at her finest. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. After calling her motives into question so brutally, do you really think she trusts you? Just curious... There's a number of things Curtis can't change. 1. He can't change the ugly email Sal wrote Emily accusing her of being mean to him. 2. He can't change the fact that he then defended Sal on FFL. 3. He can't change the fact that he tried to make Sal's email sound like no big deal. 4. He can't change the fact that he accused Emily of sending me Sal's email to foment a public fight, after Emily had explicitly explained otherwise. Why *would* Emily want to be cool with Curtis in light of those facts? Nor can Curtis change the fact that I've also read Sal's email. Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). If he had not defended Sal, if he had acknowledged the ugliness of Sal's email, if he hadn't attributed ulterior motives to Emily for sending me the email, he wouldn't be out of favor with Emily, and folks on FFL wouldn't be wondering about his integrity. If one of my supporters had written a nasty email to someone viciously castigating them for purportedly putting me down, and I found out about it, I'd call the emailer out on FFL by name. Curtis *definitely* doesn't have the integrity to do that. When Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she was teasing you or did it piss you off? Was your poor treatment of her pay back for a bruised ego or did it have nothing to do with this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319723 Good question. But if he deigns to respond to it, will we have any reason to trust what he tells us? Will Emily?
[FairfieldLife] And like that...[puff!], Weeds is gone -- part 1
One can make a convincing argument that great TV series such as Dexter and Breaking Bad would never have existed without Showtime's groundbreaking series Weeds. It raised the bar for antiheroes, those lawbreakers and outlaws we know we should dislike, but just can't bring ourselves *to* dislike. In other words, Weeds was one of the first American TV series to attempt the high dharma of making compassion popular. The episode I'm watching tonight is the series' last, but I don't know this yet. I do notice that it's a two-parter that starts up (for those of us who saw the previous episode, and the rest of this year's shows) as shockingly as the first episode of the final season of Breaking Bad. That previous episode of Weeds ended with A Return To Agrestic, and a set of New Starts and New Directions for almost all characters. Cool, said I, watching it last week. I can't wait to see where they all are next week. I did not know at the time that I was watching one of the last episodes of Weeds ever. Still not knowing this, I fired up the latest episode. The credit sequence fades and the show starts and Bam!, we're not in Kansas any more, Toto. We're not in next week but some years in the future. No mention of this is made, however; we in the audience are supposed to figure out the timeline from hints dropped in conversation, all during the first five minutes. Successful (and now legal, because marijuana is now legal) businesses have been founded, and prospered. Marriages have come and gone. New babies have been born. The most recent new baby we remember from the previous episode is being Bar Mitzvahed. Computers and iPhones are now as thin as playing cards. And all of this in the first five minutes, without a word of boring-assed exposition. I am SO hooked already. I pause the show, partly because I am curious about the two-parter thing but also because I'll have to go to dinner before finishing the episode and this mini-review, and I do some Googling. I immediately notice headlines that announce reviews of the Last Episodes Ever Of Weeds. I stop Googling immediately, and read none of them, because I want no spoilers to this experience. I'm off to dinner now. More later... :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which will you buy?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: I like the larger screen but there are plenty of smaller ones but I suppose stuck in the boonies you can't exactly window shop like I can at places like Fry's or Best Buy. Out here, ATT is all about fewer bars in rural places. Verizon's coverage is good, but US Cellular has absolute blanket coverage out here, and their customer service is great; we've been with US Cellular for about 16 years, and we're not about to change. They were a little slow to hop on the Android bandwagon, but they're up to speed now. If I'd waited a few months, I'd could have gotten an S3 instead of an S2, but the HTC Desire's running out of app space was driving me crazy.
[FairfieldLife] Great writers' writng quotes
http://ebookfriendly.com/2012/09/15/writing-tips-by-famous-authors-that-you-can-share-as-images/?utm_source=twitterfeedutm_medium=twitterutm_campaign=Feed%3A+scottmcleoddelicious+%28Scott+McLeod%27s+Delicious+Bookmarks%29#jp-carousel-70259 http://tinyurl.com/9axw4lp
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: R: You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. M: Does the thought of that excite you? Are you acting as a peacekeeper here Raunchy? Trying to help Emily and I smooth out a misunderstanding maybe? According to Curtis, it's already *been* smoothed out. R: After calling her motives into question so brutally, M: Oh, that was disappointing , did you have to tip your hand so fast? You were doing so well with the restrained tone and now this ham handed word choice. From now on the mean girl agenda is going to be so obvious and boring. Trying to invoke the feeling of violence between Emily and me huh? I refer everyone to Emily's FFL post in which she described Sal's email-- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319943 --then to her FFL post to Curtis: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320148 Emily clearly felt violated both by Sal and by Curtis. raunchy is just reflecting this. Something that we already worked out just fine without your help. Does the word brutally make you think of blood, how it smells? The warmth on your tongue, before it clots with its delicious mineral taste, somewhere between liver and raw steak. Are you inviting me to share a dream with you? I'll pass. You can always tell when Curtis is really beginning to lose it. R: do you really think she trusts you? M: Let's see, if you really wanted to know, you would be asking her, so what are you getting at here? Oh I get it, you want me to worry about whether or not she trusts me. raunchy wants you to tell us what you believe. You are unwilling to do that because you couldn't answer in the affirmative without looking ridiculous. The problem I have is that so little trust is really required between us to post here. Let me answer your insincerity with some sincerity. I suspect that Emily will display an appropriate level of trust and mistrust for our interactions here, just as I do. Both of them already have. Emily does not trust Curtis because he displayed an inappropriate level of mistrust in her. Except he doesn't really believe she was lying; he's trying to take the heat off himself by turning it on Emily. Collateral damage. Tough beans, Emily. R: Just curious... M: This is really just a style point but that ah shucks lets set here a spell and shoot the breeze has been overused by your mean mentor, Interesting, I don't believe I've ever said anything that could be characterized this way. so we all kinda know what is coming. Kinda like the brutally, but with the added unpleasantness of copying her style too closely. This is insane. R: when Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she was teasing you or did it piss you off? M: I thought Emily was sincerely expressing how she saw it, that was her actual POV on that. Different people here often have different POVs on the same thing. Does that tend to piss you off? Says Curtis, doing his absolute damndest to avoid answering raunchy's question. R: Was your poor treatment M: See I would have held back on the brutally at first and gone with this weaker accusation poor treatment and then built to brutality. This is kind of anti-climatic now. I hardly want to correct it as a misstatement after dealing with the brutally already. Well, you certainly can't deny poor treatment. Is the brutality and poor treatment because I didn't view the email as egregious as Judy does? Or as Emily does, Curtis forgets to add. Emily responds to Curtis's view of Sal's email: - Curtis: Duh,she was being criticized and I was being defended. Imagine that, we have different perspectives on the same email, what an amazing thing. Emily: Criticized? Oh, let's play it down shall we. I'm good at accepting criticism Curtis - constructive criticism that is. Sal's email was mean and and totally off-base. I find it hilarious that you would actually want such a supporter on your 'team' - she is on your 'team,' right? Me, I'll go with logic over loony every time. - Or that I didn't believe that Emily's stated reasons for sending it to Judy was comprehensive? Emily's view of Curtis's stated disbelief, also from her post to Curtis: You have every right to speculate on the reasons I sent that gem from Sal to you. Why believe what I told you was the reason - the same reason I posted here as a matter of fact. I am honored by how devious you think I am Considering that I mentioned I had almost no idea who Sal was - you bet, why take anything I said at face value Curtis. Let's attribute motive. smackdown - God, I should so get a life, huh? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320148 Again, raunchy was reflecting Emily's view of how she was treated by Curtis. Curtis knows
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. Too funny, after Curtis tried to insinuate that I had called a meeting to get Ann and raunchy to criticize Curtis. His hypocrisy comes so naturally to him that he doesn't even try to hide it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
And I haven't stepped into the fray until now for the same reason: I haven't seen the email that Sal sent Emily. Is that not possible? I know first hand from last week how complicated this kind of conflict can become. And then all the piling on complicates matters even more. Plus Emily is on vacation and Sal is still lurking! Maybe these things do take on a life of their own so that the main participants don't even have to be present! From: awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 10:43 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: ME: Jesus, did someone call a meeting? A: Here is the thing, the email, according to Curtis, was supportive and ego-stroking to Curtis. M: Sorry to intrude in the fantasy, but there was no ego stroking. She was defending me for something she believed to be unfair. A: When that happens and yet the other side of the email was allegedly an unwarranted and vicious attack on Emily, Curtis appears to not be able to get beyond the fact that he liked the email because Sal was complimentary to him. M: Sorry spin sister, no go. Even Judy didn't try this routine and she read it. A: If he really has no problem with Emily (and frankly, why should he?) then he should have understood and admitted that Sal's email to Emily was harsh, ugly, unjustified. M: Unless that isn't how I viewed it. A: Instead of liking the email because it was good for his ego he should have (if he had any respect or reasonable feeling for Emily's position) M: Now you are really running with that ball you created aren't you? A: gotten beyond his subjective support of this otherwise mean-spirited and traumatizing correspondence and called it for what it was. M: And that would be because someone else's subjective opinion about the letter is the right one? I don't agree with Judy or Emily about how horrible the letter was. You tipped your hand a bit far with the word traumatizing. I think you and Raunchy are being a bit too eager to please Judy. I don't see any reason to think Emily was traumatized by the email. Nor should she have been. I read it. A: That has not happened and therefore I question Curtis' intentions and values not to mention his motives for treating Emily badly by not supporting her and understanding where she was coming from in her pain. But maybe that is asking too much. M: Feeling a little mean today? Emily and I are fine, sorry to disappoint. At least I am fine with her and our last exchange was very friendly and full of understanding and tolerance for each others differences. The very qualities your post lacks. Curtis, you may be correct in all that you say. I am getting impressions from people who read the email that Sal sent that it was not a pleasant email to receive for Emily. Emily has said so and Judy has said so, both of whom read the letter. So I am going to back out now that I have put in my two cents regarding the conclusion I drew from all of the to-ing and fro-ing on this subject. I am going to back out because I did not read the email and thus can not comment further on it. However, I can and did want to say what I said regarding the general play of personalities and human nature as I saw it based on discussions of this issue. At this point, if Sal is all she is cracked up to be by those who love and support her, it would be about that time when she could step out from behind that curtain and say her lines. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. After calling her motives into question so brutally, do you really think she trusts you? Just curious... There's a number of things Curtis can't change. 1. He can't change the ugly email Sal wrote Emily accusing her of being mean to him. 2. He can't change the fact that he then defended Sal on FFL. 3. He can't
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. Too funny, after Curtis tried to insinuate that I had called a meeting to get Ann and raunchy to criticize Curtis. His hypocrisy comes so naturally to him that he doesn't even try to hide it. So desperate for manufactured material that you are even willing to make yourself look this thick? So you got that I was suggesting that you guys literally called a meeting? And you thought that other readers might be confused if you pretended it was as literal as your insinuation? That's why I call you the troll queen.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Plus Emily is on vacation and Sal is still lurking! Maybe these things do take on a life of their own so that the main participants don't even have to be present! Perfectly nailed Share. And I haven't stepped into the fray until now for the same reason: I haven't seen the email that Sal sent Emily. Is that not possible? I know first hand from last week how complicated this kind of conflict can become. And then all the piling on complicates matters even more. Plus Emily is on vacation and Sal is still lurking! Maybe these things do take on a life of their own so that the main participants don't even have to be present! From: awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 10:43 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: ME: Jesus, did someone call a meeting? A: Here is the thing, the email, according to Curtis, was supportive and ego-stroking to Curtis. M: Sorry to intrude in the fantasy, but there was no ego stroking. She was defending me for something she believed to be unfair. A: When that happens and yet the other side of the email was allegedly an unwarranted and vicious attack on Emily, Curtis appears to not be able to get beyond the fact that he liked the email because Sal was complimentary to him. M: Sorry spin sister, no go. Even Judy didn't try this routine and she read it. A: If he really has no problem with Emily (and frankly, why should he?) then he should have understood and admitted that Sal's email to Emily was harsh, ugly, unjustified. M: Unless that isn't how I viewed it. A: Instead of liking the email because it was good for his ego he should have (if he had any respect or reasonable feeling for Emily's position) M: Now you are really running with that ball you created aren't you? A: gotten beyond his subjective support of this otherwise mean-spirited and traumatizing correspondence and called it for what it was. M: And that would be because someone else's subjective opinion about the letter is the right one? I don't agree with Judy or Emily about how horrible the letter was. You tipped your hand a bit far with the word traumatizing. I think you and Raunchy are being a bit too eager to please Judy. I don't see any reason to think Emily was traumatized by the email. Nor should she have been. I read it. A: That has not happened and therefore I question Curtis' intentions and values not to mention his motives for treating Emily badly by not supporting her and understanding where she was coming from in her pain. But maybe that is asking too much. M: Feeling a little mean today? Emily and I are fine, sorry to disappoint. At least I am fine with her and our last exchange was very friendly and full of understanding and tolerance for each others differences. The very qualities your post lacks. Curtis, you may be correct in all that you say. I am getting impressions from people who read the email that Sal sent that it was not a pleasant email to receive for Emily. Emily has said so and Judy has said so, both of whom read the letter. So I am going to back out now that I have put in my two cents regarding the conclusion I drew from all of the to-ing and fro-ing on this subject. I am going to back out because I did not read the email and thus can not comment further on it. However, I can and did want to say what I said regarding the general play of personalities and human nature as I saw it based on discussions of this issue. At this point, if Sal is all she is cracked up to be by those who love and support her, it would be about that time when she could step out from behind that curtain and say her lines. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. You
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: snip A mature person, sent an email that she didn't take kindly to, would have replied to the sender *in email*, telling her to buzz off, Emily did exactly that, in fact. She didn't quote it here, but I've seen it. and never said a word about it to anyone else. It wasn't just an email that she didn't take kindly to. It was a *frighteningly* ugly email, insanely off-base. Now, class, do we all remember the trick Barry pulled awhile back with Dan Friedman? Not only did Barry write a post about an email Dan had written to Barry that Barry didn't take kindly to, he sent Dan's wife an ugly email of his own. How many here think it's just a wee tad bit hypocritical for Barry to criticize Emily for posting about Sal's email? But Emily, pussywhipped by Judy and wishing to get on her good side, sent copies of the email to you and to Judy. My take is that in so doing she was trying to get you to criticize one of Judy's announced enemies, start a fight between you and Sal, and thus get strokes from Judy for having done it. Barry's take is factually wrong in every single detail. She succeeded only in the latter, having made an ass of herself in trying to start the fight. Says Barry, having just made a gigantic ass of himself. Now, notice how Barry turns his *conjecture* about Emily's motivations into established fact: This behavior is so juvenile and pathetic that I don't understand how anyone could be fascinated enough by it to continue obsessing about it. Including you, Curtis. This is just another attempt by Judy to get people to pile on to one of her enemies. You've seen it all before, as has everyone else here. Emily isn't the issue, of course. Nor is Judy. Curtis's pervasive, continuing dishonesty is the issue.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
I noticed that Judy did not recognize the humor in my exchange with Richard. Perhaps something similar is going on here. However Curtis, it was clear to me that you were making a joke with the called a meeting comment. The insinuation that you and Sal conspired about the email to Emily is unfair fighting and makes matters worse. Why do that? From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. Too funny, after Curtis tried to insinuate that I had called a meeting to get Ann and raunchy to criticize Curtis. His hypocrisy comes so naturally to him that he doesn't even try to hide it. So desperate for manufactured material that you are even willing to make yourself look this thick? So you got that I was suggesting that you guys literally called a meeting? And you thought that other readers might be confused if you pretended it was as literal as your insinuation? That's why I call you the troll queen.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Great writers' writng quotes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: http://tinyurl.com/9axw4lp Wonderful. And lost completely on those who have never dared to write creatively. My faves were the quotes by E. L. Doctorow and Saul Bellow.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Yea, it's a pretty low inference to make. It was a question, Steve (three questions, actually). But it is from the same playbook that states that if someone writes something and then attributes it to someone else, by signing another persons name to it, then that person, to whom it was attributed is within their rights to ask that this not be done again, but not to claim that they are being misrepresented. You forgot to add without supporting the claim. Of course they have a right to make the claim. But either they support the claim, or they refrain from complaining when its credibility is challenged. Curtis, incidentally, repeatedly and quite deliberately misrepresented the objections to his behavior in this matter. Keep in mind that the misappropriation may remain forever on the internet unless it is deleted. Not sure what misappropriation is supposed to mean here, but all the objections to and controversy about it *also* remain forever on the Internet unless they are deleted. You would think that, apart from stating something is an obvious parody, that the party who made the misrepresentation would apologize and make a retraction of some sort. Even if that party doesn't believe they misrepresented anything? Instead the misrepresented party is asked to prove that they were misrepresented, Of course they are. and then be judged as to whether or not they were misrepresented by others who have shown themselves to be hostile to this person in the past. I don't believe that only hostile persons were asked to judge. These were all public posts, and anybody could make whatever judgment they wished. You wonder what the #1 point stated above could possibly morph into. You don't even know what that point was, Steve. HINT: It isn't stated in what you quote above. BTW, Curtis hasn't provided an answer to any of the three questions I asked.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Great writers' writng quotes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: http://tinyurl.com/9axw4lp Wonderful. And lost completely on those who have never dared to write creatively. My faves were the quotes by E. L. Doctorow and Saul Bellow. I liked Orwell and Vonnegut and the line about exclamation marks. I have terrible trouble writing, I'm trying to write my autobiography - not that I've had an epic life, but I've been round the block a few times and got lost along the way here and there. I have no delusions that anyone would publish it even if I sent it somewhere but it seems like a good exercise to try and arrange my funny old life in a way that others might find interesting. Trouble is everything I write reads back like a Douglas Adams novel and it aint the effect I'm after. I want a sort of emotional rags-to-riches fable. Ah well keep trying
[FairfieldLife] Re: lecture on research on adverse effects of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: I just did reread what you wrote. If you think that NLP offers something, then the DoD and Office of Veterans' Affairs should be made aware of things. Not everyone is a compulsive proselytute, Lawson. Classic Barry. Lawson is responding to a post from salyavin in which salyavin asked: So maybe comparative meditation studies should include NLP in working out which is most effective for various complaints?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: Curtis, you may be correct in all that you say. I am getting impressions from people who read the email that Sal sent that it was not a pleasant email to receive for Emily. Emily has said so and Judy has said so, both of whom read the letter. M: I am not denying that, I was objecting to the histrionic characterization Judy was trying to use to create a fuss that you bought into. Which histrionic characterization of mine was Ann buying into, Curtis? Not only did I not use the characterization Ann did, I noted explicitly that it was inaccurate. But Curtis has just gone too far now; he can't stop himself from lying even if there's no question he'll be exposed. A:So I am going to back out now that I have put in my two cents regarding the conclusion I drew from all of the to-ing and fro-ing on this subject. I am going to back out because I did not read the email and thus can not comment further on it. However, I can and did want to say what I said regarding the general play of personalities and human nature as I saw it based on discussions of this issue. M: It clarified a bias I was unaware of. Translation: Curtis does not agree with Ann's opinions, therefore they constitute a bias. A: At this point, if Sal is all she is cracked up to be by those who love and support her, it would be about that time when she could step out from behind that curtain and say her lines. M: Slow news day huh? I think all the actual participants are all fine at this point. Thanks for your concern. Emily isn't fine. Curtis is lying up a storm, so clearly he isn't so fine either. Sal has *never* been fine. At least not since she joined FFL.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: Emily isn't fine. Curtis is lying up a storm, so clearly he isn't so fine either. Tee hee --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: Curtis, you may be correct in all that you say. I am getting impressions from people who read the email that Sal sent that it was not a pleasant email to receive for Emily. Emily has said so and Judy has said so, both of whom read the letter. M: I am not denying that, I was objecting to the histrionic characterization Judy was trying to use to create a fuss that you bought into. Which histrionic characterization of mine was Ann buying into, Curtis? Not only did I not use the characterization Ann did, I noted explicitly that it was inaccurate. But Curtis has just gone too far now; he can't stop himself from lying even if there's no question he'll be exposed. A:So I am going to back out now that I have put in my two cents regarding the conclusion I drew from all of the to-ing and fro-ing on this subject. I am going to back out because I did not read the email and thus can not comment further on it. However, I can and did want to say what I said regarding the general play of personalities and human nature as I saw it based on discussions of this issue. M: It clarified a bias I was unaware of. Translation: Curtis does not agree with Ann's opinions, therefore they constitute a bias. A: At this point, if Sal is all she is cracked up to be by those who love and support her, it would be about that time when she could step out from behind that curtain and say her lines. M: Slow news day huh? I think all the actual participants are all fine at this point. Thanks for your concern. Emily isn't fine. Curtis is lying up a storm, so clearly he isn't so fine either. Sal has *never* been fine. At least not since she joined FFL.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: At great risk of being accused of saying this because you have stroked my ego by being supportive, thanks Steve. Just for the record, until Ann used the phrase this morning (incorrectly, as I've noted), the notion of people taking a particular perspective in a post because they wanted their egos stroked was the exclusive property of the Curtis-Barry axis. The need to fabricate comes from a lack of anything newsworthy. Just like characterizing my POV on the email as lying because it didn't match Judy's. As Curtis knows, I did not characterize what he said about Sal's email as lying. I said it was *dishonest*, because it attempted to portray the email as no big deal when he knew it was scarily vicious. It all would have played out a little less silly if Emily had played ball Played ball with whom, Curtis? and played her role as the brutally aggrieved party. But instead we exchanged posts and made our points clear without attacking each other personally. Imagine that options on FFL? Wait. Is this exchange of posts what Curtis was referring to as him and Emily being cool? If so, does he think nobody *read* Emily's post?? Here it is: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320148 Not much to work with there right? That is what has made the machinations of the ill-will machine so intriguing. Raunchy's buy-in was no surprise, but I have to admit that Ann's was. Your noticing the WTF? quality to these accusations makes me feel a bit of sanity in an otherwise weird morning. Translation: At least there's one person left on FFL who still hasn't seen through me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: And I haven't stepped into the fray until now for the same reason: I haven't seen the email that Sal sent Emily. Is that not possible? For you to see the email? Emily's been pretty clear that she doesn't want it posted. You could always email her and ask if she'd send it to you privately, but I seriously doubt she would. I know first hand from last week how complicated this kind of conflict can become. And then all the piling on complicates matters even more. Very, VERY different kind of conflict. In this case, the complication is that Curtis has been, shall we say, less than straightforward about the situation.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Which will you buy?
On 09/17/2012 09:54 AM, Alex Stanley wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: I like the larger screen but there are plenty of smaller ones but I suppose stuck in the boonies you can't exactly window shop like I can at places like Fry's or Best Buy. Out here, ATT is all about fewer bars in rural places. Verizon's coverage is good, but US Cellular has absolute blanket coverage out here, and their customer service is great; we've been with US Cellular for about 16 years, and we're not about to change. They were a little slow to hop on the Android bandwagon, but they're up to speed now. If I'd waited a few months, I'd could have gotten an S3 instead of an S2, but the HTC Desire's running out of app space was driving me crazy. US Cellular appears to be a mid-west only service. I can't even access their web page which is a bit odd. I got my first cellphone in 1993 and then there were few carriers and I was on Cellular One, an early west coast company. They got bought by ATT Wireless who got bought by Cingular and then ATT bought Cingular. These companies are all run by the get rich quick types or what we used to call the gold rush mentality. They're often salesmen who gambled on an emerging technology even if they don't really understand it. Many of those types are CEOs. Good reason why the Hindus made them the third rung on the caste system. :-D 3G and 4G are built on the back of WiMax which is a wide area broadband that was designed to bring broadband to rural areas, farms, etc where laying fiber or even phone lines wouldn't work. It is part of why analog TVs went dark because those lower channels are being used by companies and emergency networks now. Those lower frequencies propagate better over wide areas than the higher UHF frequencies. That's why one could often get VHF channels 2-6 with just rabbit ears. At the house I mainly get E on the phone which means Edge and on some phones will say 3G. 4G shows up as H for HSPA and I do sometimes see that. If I had the tower right behind as there should be by now it would be H all the time. The acid test was going on my walk in the neighborhood and even with 3G there was no dropouts on the streams when I occasionally would get them on a walk using Verizon. The neighbors were worried about kids playing near the towers while they are probably irradiating them more with their wifi routers in their homes. :-D If you want to talk about large phones, my nephew's company got a cell phone in 1984 when they were the new thing. I recall attending his brothers wedding here and my nephew had this box with phone handset, antenna and a handle on it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. Too funny, after Curtis tried to insinuate that I had called a meeting to get Ann and raunchy to criticize Curtis. His hypocrisy comes so naturally to him that he doesn't even try to hide it. So desperate for manufactured material that you are even willing to make yourself look this thick? So you got that I was suggesting that you guys literally called a meeting? No, I got that you were suggesting we were acting in concert. Not the first time you've made such a suggestion, is it? And you thought that other readers might be confused if you pretended it was as literal as your insinuation? That's why I call you the troll queen. Not only no cigar, but not even a good try. You are so running out of steam, Curtis.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count issue
On 09/15/2012 01:32 PM, Alex Stanley wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: On 09/15/2012 04:22 AM, Alex Stanley wrote: I just sent several replies to posts, all sent from the web interface, and one of them showed up with my Yahoo ID instead of my name next to my email address. That means my posts will appear under two different handles in the Post Count. Usually, that happens when people post using both email and the website, but it appears that this is one of those *very* rare instances where Yahoo is having a glitch, and it's a problem for people who only post with one method. People with post counts that run near the limit will need to keep an eye out for all their posts on the Post Counts. I might be able if I get time to modify the script so it can give you a second listing by email address omitting the noreply@... one. But then you'll get the *pleasure* of setting it up. :-D Shouldn't be a problem to simply insert a block of code into the existing script. Ya just gotta make sure the code is compatible with the older version of PHP/Pear/whatever that the current script runs on. To refresh your memory, when I migrated from the old Win2000 box to the Win7 laptop, I installed the newest version of XAMPP, only to discover that it wouldn't run the script. I then replaced the PHP directory with the one from the Win2000 backup, and the script worked just fine. Appears that maketime was deprecated or part of it. That's because PHP is a wrapper around the C libraries that are on all systems and C has started using something different too. That is probably easy to fix and the same problem is probably why the Python version didn't want to work either with that section. I am thinking that we shouldn't include the email addresses in the Post Count because it leaves people open to spam but I really don't get much spam on my account. Ideally it should list every handle attached to an address after the message count instead of the email. That might take a bit more work.
[FairfieldLife] Emperor's new phone
I bet almost everybody even up in Minnesota has already seen this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdIWKytq_q4
[FairfieldLife] Devas and Architecture
Years ago I attended a WPA/Advanced Technique week in Washington, DC. Neal Patterson was the Advanced Technique initiator. During the knowledge part of one afternoon, we all watched a video tape of Maharishi talking about cultural differences and natural law. In this lecture he stated the reason people are different all over the world was the energy of the devas. Now I mean he actually used the words deva and devas, and during the talk used also the term the personifications of the laws of nature interchangeably for devas. He said the reason people had developed different cultures, different modes of dress, different languages, different cultural habits and food preferences, in short all the aspects of a particular culture was due to the energy of the devas underlying that particular part of the geographical landscape. The devic energy or energy of the personifications of the laws of nature formed the energy that people would pick up on and using that energy create all the aspects of their culture. This accounted for cultural differences all over the world. It was the devas. I wonder then how that fits in with the idea of sthapatya veda where all the buildings must be designed and constructed the same way. Does this mean that all the devas responsible for the cultural creation of architecture all over the world have now become Maharishi Sthapatya Veda devas? Or have they just been taking lessons from the old sthapatya veda devas? Or is sthapatya veda unnecessary outside of India? Thoughts, anyone?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count issue
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: On 09/15/2012 01:32 PM, Alex Stanley wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: On 09/15/2012 04:22 AM, Alex Stanley wrote: I just sent several replies to posts, all sent from the web interface, and one of them showed up with my Yahoo ID instead of my name next to my email address. That means my posts will appear under two different handles in the Post Count. Usually, that happens when people post using both email and the website, but it appears that this is one of those *very* rare instances where Yahoo is having a glitch, and it's a problem for people who only post with one method. People with post counts that run near the limit will need to keep an eye out for all their posts on the Post Counts. I might be able if I get time to modify the script so it can give you a second listing by email address omitting the noreply@ one. But then you'll get the *pleasure* of setting it up. :-D Shouldn't be a problem to simply insert a block of code into the existing script. Ya just gotta make sure the code is compatible with the older version of PHP/Pear/whatever that the current script runs on. To refresh your memory, when I migrated from the old Win2000 box to the Win7 laptop, I installed the newest version of XAMPP, only to discover that it wouldn't run the script. I then replaced the PHP directory with the one from the Win2000 backup, and the script worked just fine. Appears that maketime was deprecated or part of it. That's because PHP is a wrapper around the C libraries that are on all systems and C has started using something different too. That is probably easy to fix and the same problem is probably why the Python version didn't want to work either with that section. I am thinking that we shouldn't include the email addresses in the Post Count because it leaves people open to spam but I really don't get much spam on my account. Ideally it should list every handle attached to an address after the message count instead of the email. That might take a bit more work. This has now officially reached the point where I'm delighted with the Post Count script system exactly as it is.
[FairfieldLife] New Video: Zebra Finch Update
The desire of Mother Nature to propagate the species will not be thwarted. Zebra finches are particularly adept at defeating every intervention a meddling human could possibly devise to prevent them from making babies. http://youtu.be/LS48YDiNBsI
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
Share, forgive me, but you are very much out of the loop here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: I noticed that Judy did not recognize the humor in my exchange with Richard. Perhaps something similar is going on here. However Curtis, it was clear to me that you were making a joke with the called a meeting comment. The insinuation that you and Sal conspired about the email to Emily is unfair fighting and makes matters worse. Why do that? From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. Too funny, after Curtis tried to insinuate that I had called a meeting to get Ann and raunchy to criticize Curtis. His hypocrisy comes so naturally to him that he doesn't even try to hide it. So desperate for manufactured material that you are even willing to make yourself look this thick? So you got that I was suggesting that you guys literally called a meeting? And you thought that other readers might be confused if you pretended it was as literal as your insinuation? That's why I call you the troll queen.
Re: [FairfieldLife] New Video: Zebra Finch Update
They are not good for hawk bait either! I tried catching Merlins with them and they freeze at the sight of a hawk or falcon. Almost caught a Sharpshinned hawk once, using a Zebra Finch. The hawk came into the trap and landed next to it and looked at the funny looking creature, jumped around a few times, then took off. I took the Finches back to the pet store. From: raunchydog raunchy...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:25 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] New Video: Zebra Finch Update The desire of Mother Nature to propagate the species will not be thwarted. Zebra finches are particularly adept at defeating every intervention a meddling human could possibly devise to prevent them from making babies. http://youtu.be/LS48YDiNBsI
[FairfieldLife] Re: Great writers' writng quotes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: http://tinyurl.com/9axw4lp Wonderful. And lost completely on those who have never dared to write creatively. Actually, anyone who writes anything, and even many who just love to read good writing, will appreciate them. It's not quite such a closed little circle as you imagine, Barry. My faves were the quotes by E. L. Doctorow and Saul Bellow. Mine was Chesterton's: I owe my success to having listened respectfully to the very best advice, and then going away and doing the exact opposite.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Great writers' writng quotes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: http://tinyurl.com/9axw4lp Wonderful. And lost completely on those who have never dared to write creatively. Actually, anyone who writes anything, and even many who just love to read good writing, will appreciate them. It's not quite such a closed little circle as you imagine, Barry. My faves were the quotes by E. L. Doctorow and Saul Bellow. Mine was Chesterton's: I owe my success to having listened respectfully to the very best advice, and then going away and doing the exact opposite.
[FairfieldLife] Fw: PRAY, PRAY, PRAY!!
Just got this. I'm wondering if the Jyotishi's see any truth here? FW: PRAY, PRAY, PRAY!! As received by me.Actually I'm surprised that it has not yet happened.. Received from a credible friend... I just received this from my sister-in-law in San Antonio. She called me and read it to me before I even got the e-mail. We feel that something big is about to happen and Christians need know. Be alert…we may be on the verge war…pray, pray, pray! June I PRAY EVERYONE IS PRAYING AND HAS BEEN PRAYING!.IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN PRAYING PLEASE JOIN US IN PRAYER FOR THE PEACE OF JERUSALEM, HE (GOD) WILL BLESS THEM THAT LOVE THEE (JERUSALEM)..THIS AFFECTS US AS MUCH AS IT DOES JERUSALEM!!!..PLEASE SEND THIS OUT TO AS MANY BELIEVERS AS POSSIBLE!!...PRAY WITHOUT CEASING 1 Thessalonians 5:17. Pray without ceasing. ___ Pray! Pray! PRAY! This just came to me from a sincere friend. PRAY! I just received this from a very reliable source source. Sounds like Benjamin Net. May not wait until after the election. My brother and his family live in Jerusalem - he is a minister - and a former Navy SEAL - his office is close to one of Israel 's largest underground military bases. He called me last night which is very unusual - usually it is email. He called to tell me that he is sending his family back to the US immediately due to what he is seeing happen within the last week and what he is being told by his military contacts in both the Israel and US military. He said he is seeing with his own eyes military movements the likes of which he has never seen in his 20+ years in Israel . What he called a massive redeployment and protective tactics of forces is underway. Over the last two days he has seen anti-aircraft missile deployments throughout the Jerusalem area including 3 mobile units that he can see from his office windows. In addition, he has seen very large Israeli armored columns moving fast toward the Sinai where Egypt has now moved in Armor. There are reports of the top military leaders meeting with Israel's Sr. Rabi which is something that has happened preceding every prior military campaign. His admonition is to watch carefully and pray for Israel and its people. He is convinced that barring something extraordinary Israel will attack Iran - with or without the US - and very soon. It is the belief in Israel that Obama does not stand with Israel but with the Arab countries. He has told me before that Israel will saber rattle from time to time but that this time it is very very different from what he is seeing and hearing. He was at the Wailing Wall 2 days ago and there were hundreds of IDF soldiers there. As he was leaving he passed at least 20 military buses full of soldiers in route to the wall. He has never seen this before either. Just thought I would pass this along. My brother is not an alarmist by any means. When he talks like this it gets my attention for sure and usually I find he knows more than he shares. There are reports that Israel is asking Obama to come to Israel immediately but they are being answered with silence. My opinion is that I see the making of the perfect storm -- -- End of Forwarded Message
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
Share, With all due respect. I think some of us can be guilty of this notion of bringing a knife to gun fight. Or rather, we didn't originally come to fight at all, but realize we are up against someone who has come to fight, and fight to win and will deploy whatever arsenal is necessary to effect this outcome. And yes, I think Judy misses much of the humor and subtlety that takes place here. She remains primarily focused on promoting the rightness of her POV. The bigger casualty is that the overall dialogue. It is hard to discuss something without quickly coming up against what she feels are vital distinctions. And then before you know it, you are stuck in a never ending, meaningless discussion about some obscure point that has no bearing on the overall picture. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: I noticed that Judy did not recognize the humor in my exchange with Richard. Perhaps something similar is going on here. However Curtis, it was clear to me that you were making a joke with the called a meeting comment. The insinuation that you and Sal conspired about the email to Emily is unfair fighting and makes matters worse. Why do that? From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. Too funny, after Curtis tried to insinuate that I had called a meeting to get Ann and raunchy to criticize Curtis. His hypocrisy comes so naturally to him that he doesn't even try to hide it. So desperate for manufactured material that you are even willing to make yourself look this thick? So you got that I was suggesting that you guys literally called a meeting? And you thought that other readers might be confused if you pretended it was as literal as your insinuation? That's why I call you the troll queen.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
Steve, I was asking why fight unfairly which only makes matter worse. I don't at all equate that with what you're talking about, getting into the conflict tho not having intended to. Share From: seventhray1 lurkernomore20002...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:06 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn! Share, With all due respect. I think some of us can be guilty of this notion of bringing a knife to gun fight. Or rather, we didn't originally come to fight at all, but realize we are up against someone who has come to fight, and fight to win and will deploy whatever arsenal is necessary to effect this outcome. And yes, I think Judy misses much of the humor and subtlety that takes place here. She remains primarily focused on promoting the rightness of her POV. The bigger casualty is that the overall dialogue. It is hard to discuss something without quickly coming up against what she feels are vital distinctions. And then before you know it, you are stuck in a never ending, meaningless discussion about some obscure point that has no bearing on the overall picture. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: I noticed that Judy did not recognize the humor in my exchange with Richard. Perhaps something similar is going on here. However Curtis, it was clear to me that you were making a joke with the called a meeting comment. The insinuation that you and Sal conspired about the email to Emily is unfair fighting and makes matters worse. Why do that? From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. Too funny, after Curtis tried to insinuate that I had called a meeting to get Ann and raunchy to criticize Curtis. His hypocrisy comes so naturally to him that he doesn't even try to hide it. So desperate for manufactured material that you are even willing to make yourself look this thick? So you got that I was suggesting that you guys literally called a meeting? And you thought that other readers might be confused if you pretended it was as literal as your insinuation? That's why I call you the troll queen.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
Okay. No biggie. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Steve, I was asking why fight unfairly which only makes matter worse. I don't at all equate that with what you're talking about, getting into the conflict tho not having intended to. Share From: seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:06 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!  Share, With all due respect.  I think some of us can be guilty of this notion of bringing a knife to gun fight. Or rather, we didn't originally come to fight at all, but realize we are up against someone who has come to fight, and fight to win and will deploy whatever arsenal is necessary to effect this outcome. And yes, I think Judy misses much of the humor and subtlety that takes place here.  She remains primarily focused on promoting the rightness of her POV. The bigger casualty is that the overall dialogue.  It is hard to discuss something without quickly coming up against what she feels are vital distinctions. And then before you know it, you are stuck in a never ending, meaningless discussion about some obscure point that has no bearing on the overall picture.   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: I noticed that Judy did not recognize the humor in my exchange with Richard.àPerhaps something similar is going on here.àHowever Curtis, it was clear to me that you were making a joke with the called a meeting comment. The insinuation that you and Sal conspired about the email to Emily is unfair fighting and makes matters worse.àWhy do that? From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn! à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. Too funny, after Curtis tried to insinuate that I had called a meeting to get Ann and raunchy to criticize Curtis. His hypocrisy comes so naturally to him that he doesn't even try to hide it. So desperate for manufactured material that you are even willing to make yourself look this thick? So you got that I was suggesting that you guys literally called a meeting? And you thought that other readers might be confused if you pretended it was as literal as your insinuation? That's why I call you the troll queen.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
Steve, none of this is accurate. It's just fallout from the fact that you get called on stupidities of one sort or another and feel the need to strike back. But you never manage to be *relevant* when you do this. You just flail around a lot. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: Share, With all due respect. I think some of us can be guilty of this notion of bringing a knife to gun fight. Or rather, we didn't originally come to fight at all, but realize we are up against someone who has come to fight, and fight to win and will deploy whatever arsenal is necessary to effect this outcome. And yes, I think Judy misses much of the humor and subtlety that takes place here. She remains primarily focused on promoting the rightness of her POV. The bigger casualty is that the overall dialogue. It is hard to discuss something without quickly coming up against what she feels are vital distinctions. And then before you know it, you are stuck in a never ending, meaningless discussion about some obscure point that has no bearing on the overall picture. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: I noticed that Judy did not recognize the humor in my exchange with Richard. Perhaps something similar is going on here. However Curtis, it was clear to me that you were making a joke with the called a meeting comment. The insinuation that you and Sal conspired about the email to Emily is unfair fighting and makes matters worse. Why do that? From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. Too funny, after Curtis tried to insinuate that I had called a meeting to get Ann and raunchy to criticize Curtis. His hypocrisy comes so naturally to him that he doesn't even try to hide it. So desperate for manufactured material that you are even willing to make yourself look this thick? So you got that I was suggesting that you guys literally called a meeting? And you thought that other readers might be confused if you pretended it was as literal as your insinuation? That's why I call you the troll queen.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: Okay. No biggie. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Steve, I was asking why fight unfairly which only makes matter worse. I don't at all equate that with what you're talking about, getting into the conflict tho not having intended to. Share From: seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:06 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!  Share, With all due respect.  I think some of us can be guilty of this notion of bringing a knife to gun fight. Or rather, we didn't originally come to fight at all, but realize we are up against someone who has come to fight, and fight to win and will deploy whatever arsenal is necessary to effect this outcome. Okay all you gunslingers and knife wielders out there, I think you have confused me here Share. I understand the concept of unfair fighting and what that might entail but I am unsure what your analogy of bringing a knife to a gunfight means here. Does the knife wielder hold an unfair advantage or is he/she at a disadvantage or are you saying the knife holder doesn't want to fight or, oh dear, I am really puzzled now. In my estimation someone who is fighting unfairly would be someone telling lies or untruths. Someone twisting facts to purposefully mislead others. And in addition, they would have to know that there was no way to prove these untruths to be otherwise. So to be unfair in a fight would be to intentionally lie in order to create conflict, a conflict that might never be able to be resolved because evidence is known, or at least believed, to be non-forthcoming at any point. That is the best definition I can come up with at this point for what I could describe as fighting unfairly. Now how that relates, if at all, to what you are speaking about then by chance I got it right. But feel free to correct me. And yes, I think Judy misses much of the humor and subtlety that takes place here.  She remains primarily focused on promoting the rightness of her POV. The bigger casualty is that the overall dialogue.  It is hard to discuss something without quickly coming up against what she feels are vital distinctions. And then before you know it, you are stuck in a never ending, meaningless discussion about some obscure point that has no bearing on the overall picture.   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: I noticed that Judy did not recognize the humor in my exchange with Richard.àPerhaps something similar is going on here.àHowever Curtis, it was clear to me that you were making a joke with the called a meeting comment. The insinuation that you and Sal conspired about the email to Emily is unfair fighting and makes matters worse.àWhy do that? From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn! à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. Too funny, after Curtis tried to insinuate that I had called a meeting to get Ann and raunchy to criticize Curtis. His hypocrisy comes so naturally to him that he doesn't even try to hide it. So desperate for manufactured material that you are even willing to make yourself look this thick? So you got that I was suggesting that you guys literally called a meeting? And you thought that other readers might be confused if you pretended it was as literal as your insinuation? That's why I call you the troll queen.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Steve, I was asking why fight unfairly which only makes matter worse. Seems like you haven't noticed the *extreme* unfairness with which Curtis fights. You can't judge fairness without reference to reality, Share. You can't judge it if you're blinded by your biases. You can't judge it if you spend your time wandering around in a self-created fairyland. If there's a dispute, you can't judge the fairness quotient fairly unless you can evaluate the fairness on both sides without bias. You can't make assumptions that the person in the dispute you like is never unfair simply because you like him. You have to be willing to look closely enough to make sure you've got the full picture. Otherwise *you* aren't being fair.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
See, that's how confused I got, it wasn't Share who mentioned bringing a knife to a gunfight but Steve! So maybe he can answer that one. But I think I attributed the unfair fighting reference to Share which is accurate, as far as I can tell. Phew. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: Okay. No biggie. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Steve, I was asking why fight unfairly which only makes matter worse. I don't at all equate that with what you're talking about, getting into the conflict tho not having intended to. Share From: seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:06 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!  Share, With all due respect.  I think some of us can be guilty of this notion of bringing a knife to gun fight. Or rather, we didn't originally come to fight at all, but realize we are up against someone who has come to fight, and fight to win and will deploy whatever arsenal is necessary to effect this outcome. And yes, I think Judy misses much of the humor and subtlety that takes place here.  She remains primarily focused on promoting the rightness of her POV. The bigger casualty is that the overall dialogue.  It is hard to discuss something without quickly coming up against what she feels are vital distinctions. And then before you know it, you are stuck in a never ending, meaningless discussion about some obscure point that has no bearing on the overall picture.   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: I noticed that Judy did not recognize the humor in my exchange with Richard.àPerhaps something similar is going on here.àHowever Curtis, it was clear to me that you were making a joke with the called a meeting comment. The insinuation that you and Sal conspired about the email to Emily is unfair fighting and makes matters worse.àWhy do that? From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn! à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. Too funny, after Curtis tried to insinuate that I had called a meeting to get Ann and raunchy to criticize Curtis. His hypocrisy comes so naturally to him that he doesn't even try to hide it. So desperate for manufactured material that you are even willing to make yourself look this thick? So you got that I was suggesting that you guys literally called a meeting? And you thought that other readers might be confused if you pretended it was as literal as your insinuation? That's why I call you the troll queen.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: R: You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. M: Does the thought of that excite you? Are you acting as a peacekeeper here Raunchy? Trying to help Emily and I smooth out a misunderstanding maybe? DNFTT R: After calling her motives into question so brutally, M: Oh, that was disappointing , did you have to tip your hand so fast? You were doing so well with the restrained tone and now this ham handed word choice. From now on the mean girl agenda is going to be so obvious and boring. Trying to invoke the feeling of violence between Emily and me huh? Something that we already worked out just fine without your help. Does the word brutally make you think of blood, how it smells? The warmth on your tongue, before it clots with its delicious mineral taste, somewhere between liver and raw steak. Are you inviting me to share a dream with you? I'll pass. DNFTT R: do you really think she trusts you? M: Let's see, if you really wanted to know, you would be asking her, so what are you getting at here? Oh I get it, you want me to worry about whether or not she trusts me. The problem I have is that so little trust is really required between us to post here. Let me answer your insincerity with some sincerity. I suspect that Emily will display an appropriate level of trust and mistrust for our interactions here, just as I do. R: Just curious... M: This is really just a style point but that ah shucks lets set here a spell and shoot the breeze has been overused by your mean mentor, so we all kinda know what is coming. Kinda like the brutally, but with the added unpleasantness of copying her style too closely. DNFTT R: when Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she was teasing you or did it piss you off? M: I thought Emily was sincerely expressing how she saw it, that was her actual POV on that. Different people here often have different POVs on the same thing. Does that tend to piss you off? DNFTT R: Was your poor treatment M: See I would have held back on the brutally at first and gone with this weaker accusation poor treatment and then built to brutality. This is kind of anti-climatic now. I hardly want to correct it as a misstatement after dealing with the brutally already. Is the brutality and poor treatment because I didn't view the email as egregious as Judy does? Or that I didn't believe that Emily's stated reasons for sending it to Judy was comprehensive? And does her lack of seeing Robin's send up the same as I do constitute her being brutal with me for disagreeing? Or is that only applied to me? R: of her pay back for a bruised ego or did it have nothing to do with this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319723 ME: She sent me an email and I called it like I saw it. You are welcome to interpret that any way you want. I guess it makes you happy to imagine me having a bruised ego over her thinking differently than I did about something. Perhaps you are running these posts a bit closer to your own ego sense than I do. But just curious...are you looking forward to a pat on the head from Judy, or were you pursuing your own desire to cause trouble between posters here who seem to be getting along fine without your junior high bullshit? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. After calling her motives into question so brutally, do you really think she trusts you? Just curious...when Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she was teasing you or did it piss you off? Was your poor treatment of her pay back for a bruised ego or did it have nothing to do with this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319723
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. DNFTT --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. After calling her motives into question so brutally, do you really think she trusts you? Just curious... There's a number of things Curtis can't change. 1. He can't change the ugly email Sal wrote Emily accusing her of being mean to him. 2. He can't change the fact that he then defended Sal on FFL. 3. He can't change the fact that he tried to make Sal's email sound like no big deal. 4. He can't change the fact that he accused Emily of sending me Sal's email to foment a public fight, after Emily had explicitly explained otherwise. Why *would* Emily want to be cool with Curtis in light of those facts? Nor can Curtis change the fact that I've also read Sal's email. Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). If he had not defended Sal, if he had acknowledged the ugliness of Sal's email, if he hadn't attributed ulterior motives to Emily for sending me the email, he wouldn't be out of favor with Emily, and folks on FFL wouldn't be wondering about his integrity. If one of my supporters had written a nasty email to someone viciously castigating them for purportedly putting me down, and I found out about it, I'd call the emailer out on FFL by name. Curtis *definitely* doesn't have the integrity to do that. When Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she was teasing you or did it piss you off? Was your poor treatment of her pay back for a bruised ego or did it have nothing to do with this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319723 Good question. But if he deigns to respond to it, will we have any reason to trust what he tells us? Will Emily?
[FairfieldLife] Re: And like that...[puff!], Weeds is gone -- part 1
Nice. Sweet. Loving. Not profound, not brilliant, not any of that intellectual stuff, just sweet. And that's enough. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: One can make a convincing argument that great TV series such as Dexter and Breaking Bad would never have existed without Showtime's groundbreaking series Weeds. It raised the bar for antiheroes, those lawbreakers and outlaws we know we should dislike, but just can't bring ourselves *to* dislike. In other words, Weeds was one of the first American TV series to attempt the high dharma of making compassion popular. The episode I'm watching tonight is the series' last, but I don't know this yet. I do notice that it's a two-parter that starts up (for those of us who saw the previous episode, and the rest of this year's shows) as shockingly as the first episode of the final season of Breaking Bad. That previous episode of Weeds ended with A Return To Agrestic, and a set of New Starts and New Directions for almost all characters. Cool, said I, watching it last week. I can't wait to see where they all are next week. I did not know at the time that I was watching one of the last episodes of Weeds ever. Still not knowing this, I fired up the latest episode. The credit sequence fades and the show starts and Bam!, we're not in Kansas any more, Toto. We're not in next week but some years in the future. No mention of this is made, however; we in the audience are supposed to figure out the timeline from hints dropped in conversation, all during the first five minutes. Successful (and now legal, because marijuana is now legal) businesses have been founded, and prospered. Marriages have come and gone. New babies have been born. The most recent new baby we remember from the previous episode is being Bar Mitzvahed. Computers and iPhones are now as thin as playing cards. And all of this in the first five minutes, without a word of boring-assed exposition. I am SO hooked already. I pause the show, partly because I am curious about the two-parter thing but also because I'll have to go to dinner before finishing the episode and this mini-review, and I do some Googling. I immediately notice headlines that announce reviews of the Last Episodes Ever Of Weeds. I stop Googling immediately, and read none of them, because I want no spoilers to this experience. I'm off to dinner now. More later... :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: Steve, none of this is accurate. It's just fallout from the fact that you get called on stupidities of one sort or another and feel the need to strike back. But you never manage to be *relevant* when you do this. You just flail around a lot. I'd have to say that you don't generally motivate me to strike back. Mostly I am in awe, if that's what you want to call it, in you ability to defend a position that has been shown to be untenable. The thing that I have noticed, even last week in fact, is that those days when your participation is less, than some of the fun that used to characterize FFL starts to return. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: Share, With all due respect. I think some of us can be guilty of this notion of bringing a knife to gun fight. Or rather, we didn't originally come to fight at all, but realize we are up against someone who has come to fight, and fight to win and will deploy whatever arsenal is necessary to effect this outcome. And yes, I think Judy misses much of the humor and subtlety that takes place here. She remains primarily focused on promoting the rightness of her POV. The bigger casualty is that the overall dialogue. It is hard to discuss something without quickly coming up against what she feels are vital distinctions. And then before you know it, you are stuck in a never ending, meaningless discussion about some obscure point that has no bearing on the overall picture. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: I noticed that Judy did not recognize the humor in my exchange with Richard. Perhaps something similar is going on here. However Curtis, it was clear to me that you were making a joke with the called a meeting comment. The insinuation that you and Sal conspired about the email to Emily is unfair fighting and makes matters worse. Why do that? From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. Too funny, after Curtis tried to insinuate that I had called a meeting to get Ann and raunchy to criticize Curtis. His hypocrisy comes so naturally to him that he doesn't even try to hide it. So desperate for manufactured material that you are even willing to make yourself look this thick? So you got that I was suggesting that you guys literally called a meeting? And you thought that other readers might be confused if you pretended it was as literal as your insinuation? That's why I call you the troll queen.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: Curtis, you may be correct in all that you say. I am getting impressions from people who read the email that Sal sent that it was not a pleasant email to receive for Emily. Emily has said so and Judy has said so, both of whom read the letter. M: I am not denying that, I was objecting to the histrionic characterization Judy was trying to use to create a fuss that you bought into. LG: DNFTT A:So I am going to back out now that I have put in my two cents regarding the conclusion I drew from all of the to-ing and fro-ing on this subject. I am going to back out because I did not read the email and thus can not comment further on it. However, I can and did want to say what I said regarding the general play of personalities and human nature as I saw it based on discussions of this issue. M: It clarified a bias I was unaware of. LG: DNFTT A: At this point, if Sal is all she is cracked up to be by those who love and support her, it would be about that time when she could step out from behind that curtain and say her lines. M: Slow news day huh? I think all the actual participants are all fine at this point. Thanks for your concern. LG: DNFTT --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: ME: Jesus, did someone call a meeting? A: Here is the thing, the email, according to Curtis, was supportive and ego-stroking to Curtis. M: Sorry to intrude in the fantasy, but there was no ego stroking. She was defending me for something she believed to be unfair. A: When that happens and yet the other side of the email was allegedly an unwarranted and vicious attack on Emily, Curtis appears to not be able to get beyond the fact that he liked the email because Sal was complimentary to him. M: Sorry spin sister, no go. Even Judy didn't try this routine and she read it. A: If he really has no problem with Emily (and frankly, why should he?) then he should have understood and admitted that Sal's email to Emily was harsh, ugly, unjustified. M: Unless that isn't how I viewed it. A: Instead of liking the email because it was good for his ego he should have (if he had any respect or reasonable feeling for Emily's position) M: Now you are really running with that ball you created aren't you? A: gotten beyond his subjective support of this otherwise mean-spirited and traumatizing correspondence and called it for what it was. M: And that would be because someone else's subjective opinion about the letter is the right one? I don't agree with Judy or Emily about how horrible the letter was. You tipped your hand a bit far with the word traumatizing. I think you and Raunchy are being a bit too eager to please Judy. I don't see any reason to think Emily was traumatized by the email. Nor should she have been. I read it. A: That has not happened and therefore I question Curtis' intentions and values not to mention his motives for treating Emily badly by not supporting her and understanding where she was coming from in her pain. But maybe that is asking too much. M: Feeling a little mean today? Emily and I are fine, sorry to disappoint. At least I am fine with her and our last exchange was very friendly and full of understanding and tolerance for each others differences. The very qualities your post lacks. Curtis, you may be correct in all that you say. I am getting impressions from people who read the email that Sal sent that it was not a pleasant email to receive for Emily. Emily has said so and Judy has said so, both of whom read the letter. So I am going to back out now that I have put in my two cents regarding the conclusion I drew from all of the to-ing and fro-ing on this subject. I am going to back out because I did not read the email and thus can not comment further on it. However, I can and did want to say what I said regarding the general play of personalities and human nature as I saw it based on discussions of this issue. At this point, if Sal is all she is cracked up to be by those who love and support her, it would be about that time when she could step out from behind that curtain and say her lines. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. Too funny, after Curtis tried to insinuate that I had called a meeting to get Ann and raunchy to criticize Curtis. His hypocrisy comes so naturally to him that he doesn't even try to hide it. So desperate for manufactured material that you are even willing to make yourself look this thick? So you got that I was suggesting that you guys literally called a meeting? And you thought that other readers might be confused if you pretended it was as literal as your insinuation? That's why I call you the troll queen. DNFTTQ
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
Dear Ann, When you walk in the rain it would be best if your mouth was kept closed. I'm afraid that otherwise you would drown. xoxoxo, Azgrey --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: See, that's how confused I got, it wasn't Share who mentioned bringing a knife to a gunfight but Steve! So maybe he can answer that one. But I think I attributed the unfair fighting reference to Share which is accurate, as far as I can tell. Phew. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: Okay. No biggie. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Steve, I was asking why fight unfairly which only makes matter worse. I don't at all equate that with what you're talking about, getting into the conflict tho not having intended to. Share From: seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:06 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!  Share, With all due respect.  I think some of us can be guilty of this notion of bringing a knife to gun fight. Or rather, we didn't originally come to fight at all, but realize we are up against someone who has come to fight, and fight to win and will deploy whatever arsenal is necessary to effect this outcome. And yes, I think Judy misses much of the humor and subtlety that takes place here.  She remains primarily focused on promoting the rightness of her POV. The bigger casualty is that the overall dialogue.  It is hard to discuss something without quickly coming up against what she feels are vital distinctions. And then before you know it, you are stuck in a never ending, meaningless discussion about some obscure point that has no bearing on the overall picture.   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: I noticed that Judy did not recognize the humor in my exchange with Richard.àPerhaps something similar is going on here.àHowever Curtis, it was clear to me that you were making a joke with the called a meeting comment. The insinuation that you and Sal conspired about the email to Emily is unfair fighting and makes matters worse.àWhy do that? From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn! à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. Too funny, after Curtis tried to insinuate that I had called a meeting to get Ann and raunchy to criticize Curtis. His hypocrisy comes so naturally to him that he doesn't even try to hide it. So desperate for manufactured material that you are even willing to make yourself look this thick? So you got that I was suggesting that you guys literally called a meeting? And you thought that other readers might be confused if you pretended it was as literal as your insinuation? That's why I call you the troll queen.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
Or it may pertain to the notion that ideas can be discussed without one party resorting to needless parsing, or an unending need to find fault flaws in someone elses views, no matter how small or insignificant those flaws may be, or maybe they aren't even flaws, but mere differences in opinions. That may be more what I am trying to say. Perhaps the knife fight, gun fight was not a good analogy. If you look at the site where Judy and Barry and some others came from before, it became so toxic that it became uninhabitable. And I believe it would become the same way here, but there are many that seem committed to maintaining a more civil discourse. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: Okay. No biggie. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Steve, I was asking why fight unfairly which only makes matter worse. I don't at all equate that with what you're talking about, getting into the conflict tho not having intended to. Share From: seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:06 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!  Share, With all due respect.  I think some of us can be guilty of this notion of bringing a knife to gun fight. Or rather, we didn't originally come to fight at all, but realize we are up against someone who has come to fight, and fight to win and will deploy whatever arsenal is necessary to effect this outcome. Okay all you gunslingers and knife wielders out there, I think you have confused me here Share. I understand the concept of unfair fighting and what that might entail but I am unsure what your analogy of bringing a knife to a gunfight means here. Does the knife wielder hold an unfair advantage or is he/she at a disadvantage or are you saying the knife holder doesn't want to fight or, oh dear, I am really puzzled now. In my estimation someone who is fighting unfairly would be someone telling lies or untruths. Someone twisting facts to purposefully mislead others. And in addition, they would have to know that there was no way to prove these untruths to be otherwise. So to be unfair in a fight would be to intentionally lie in order to create conflict, a conflict that might never be able to be resolved because evidence is known, or at least believed, to be non-forthcoming at any point. That is the best definition I can come up with at this point for what I could describe as fighting unfairly. Now how that relates, if at all, to what you are speaking about then by chance I got it right. But feel free to correct me. And yes, I think Judy misses much of the humor and subtlety that takes place here.  She remains primarily focused on promoting the rightness of her POV. The bigger casualty is that the overall dialogue.  It is hard to discuss something without quickly coming up against what she feels are vital distinctions. And then before you know it, you are stuck in a never ending, meaningless discussion about some obscure point that has no bearing on the overall picture.   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: I noticed that Judy did not recognize the humor in my exchange with Richard.àPerhaps something similar is going on here.àHowever Curtis, it was clear to me that you were making a joke with the called a meeting comment. The insinuation that you and Sal conspired about the email to Emily is unfair fighting and makes matters worse.àWhy do that? From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn! à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. Too funny, after Curtis tried to insinuate that I had called a meeting to get Ann and raunchy to criticize Curtis. His hypocrisy comes so naturally to him that he doesn't even try to hide it. So desperate for manufactured material that you are even willing to make yourself look this thick? So you got that I was suggesting that you guys literally called a meeting? And you
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: R: You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. M: Does the thought of that excite you? Are you acting as a peacekeeper here Raunchy? Trying to help Emily and I smooth out a misunderstanding maybe? DNFTT Right, it's much more effective to keep smacking Curtis in the mouth when he gets like this, because his appetite for deception and cruelty is insatiable once he lets down the Mr. Wonderful facade.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey no_reply@... wrote: Dear Ann, When you walk in the rain it would be best if your mouth was kept closed. I'm afraid that otherwise you would drown. xoxoxo, Azgrey Dear AZ, you have to at least give me credit for admitting when I am wrong or confused or made a mistake. That should be worth something around here. Or maybe not. And by the way, the only way I could drown would be to walk around looking up with my mouth open which I am not inclined to do. However, I will consider your advice given in the most generous of spirits. Thanks for the hugs and kisses again. A --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: See, that's how confused I got, it wasn't Share who mentioned bringing a knife to a gunfight but Steve! So maybe he can answer that one. But I think I attributed the unfair fighting reference to Share which is accurate, as far as I can tell. Phew. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: Okay. No biggie. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Steve, I was asking why fight unfairly which only makes matter worse. I don't at all equate that with what you're talking about, getting into the conflict tho not having intended to. Share From: seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:06 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!  Share, With all due respect.  I think some of us can be guilty of this notion of bringing a knife to gun fight. Or rather, we didn't originally come to fight at all, but realize we are up against someone who has come to fight, and fight to win and will deploy whatever arsenal is necessary to effect this outcome. And yes, I think Judy misses much of the humor and subtlety that takes place here.  She remains primarily focused on promoting the rightness of her POV. The bigger casualty is that the overall dialogue.  It is hard to discuss something without quickly coming up against what she feels are vital distinctions. And then before you know it, you are stuck in a never ending, meaningless discussion about some obscure point that has no bearing on the overall picture.   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: I noticed that Judy did not recognize the humor in my exchange with Richard.àPerhaps something similar is going on here.àHowever Curtis, it was clear to me that you were making a joke with the called a meeting comment. The insinuation that you and Sal conspired about the email to Emily is unfair fighting and makes matters worse.àWhy do that? From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn! à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. Too funny, after Curtis tried to insinuate that I had called a meeting to get Ann and raunchy to criticize Curtis. His hypocrisy comes so naturally to him that he doesn't even try to hide it. So desperate for manufactured material that you are even willing to make yourself look this thick? So you got that I was suggesting that you guys literally called a meeting? And you thought that other readers might be confused if you pretended it was as literal as your insinuation? That's why I call you the troll queen.
[FairfieldLife] Fwd: The Truth About the Left
---BeginMessage--- Dear Informed Citizen, Recently, the Daily Caller published a story in which a liberal Super PAC made the case that, in order to be successful, the left should not discuss policy but instead attack the character of Republicans. Matthew Arnold, a leader of the liberal CREDO Super PAC said When we said that Steve King hellip; is pro-life and believes in cutting Social Security and voted for the Ryan budget, no one cared. When we said Steve King's a racist, Steve King believes that immigrants ought to be put in electric fences, people moved. And with that, the truth was finally out. This disgusting approach to politics is what separates us from the left: they believe in smears, while we believe in ideas. They attack for the sake of partisanship, while we actually want to solve the country's problems. But Arnold makes one good point: attacks are effective. Fighting for ideas, by contrast, is a lot harder. Which is why it's so important that every conservative becomes a warrior the battle of ideas. By sharing stories, and making the case for conservative values on social media and blogs, we can overcome the ugliness of liberal politics and strike a blow for decency, sound policy, and American Greatness. The fight goes on, Dustin Stockton Now Live At DustinStockton.com: Enough Printing Money, Let's Build A Real Economy Obama and Bernanke seem to think that printing money is a substitute for real economic growth. No wonder the recovery is stuck in neutral. The Difference Between Obama And Netanyahu On Iranian Nukes Wouldn't it be nice if we had a real leader? You know, the kind that actually stands up to our enemies... Obama: Blame Video For Embassy Attacks, Not Us With American embassies under attack across the Middle East, Obama's leadership is missing in action. But hey, at least he has an excuse for everything. Got A Couch? Obama Campaign Asks Supporters To House Volunteers Pretty soon Obama's campaign is going to just ask supporters to sign their houses over to the Glorious Leader's cause. What Dustin Is Reading Around the Web: President Downgrade (Hot Air) Bernanke's Fed Makes A Mockery Of Thrift (Wall Street Journal) Why QE3 Won't Help Mortgages (Reason) Poll: QE3 Seen As Negative (Zerohedge) Ryan: QE3 Is Obama's Bailout (Hot Air) The Magnitude Of The Mess We're In (Wall Street Journal) Romney To Outline $500b in Annual Spending Cuts (Daily Caller) Young People Desperate For Jobs (USA Today) Poll: Majority Says Government Does Too Much (Hot Air) Scaremongering Over Sequestration (Reason) Consequences Of Obama's Fuel Economy Standard (Washington Times) The Battle For Wisconsin Rages On (Fox News) The Rise And Fall Of Occupy Wall Street (Townhall) Obama's Foreign Policy Statements Boomerang (The Hill) Anti-American Actions Across The Globe (Zerohedge) Beirut Embassy Staff Preparing For Attack (Fox News) Iran: Israel One Step Away From The Cemetery (Free Beacon) Protester Dies Of Smoke Inhalation From Burnt American Flag (Townhall) Dustin Stockton is Co-Founder of Western Representation PAC and Chief Strategist for TheTeaParty.net
[FairfieldLife] Re: Magical Egypt--The Temple of Man
test --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Hey John, do you have software to do a chart of FFL? I inadvertantly gave my friend the wrong date of Sept 1. Going to post 1, it should be Sept 5 2001 2:24 pm Fairfield. Which probably means a little better for the women folk here (-: anyway, thanks, share From: John jr_esq@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 1:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Magical Egypt--The Temple of Man  The Egyptians knew of the seven chakras and the higher levels of consciousness. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCswN4oUqcwfeature=g-vrec
[FairfieldLife] Re: Magical Egypt--The Temple of Man
Share, Given the birth data provided, the FFL chart has the ascendant of Scorpio and the Moon was in the nakshatra of Revati. The Sun was in Leo, its own sign, and was in the 10th house of career. Thus, the forum is successful in meeting its objectives as stated in the front page. Using Jaimini jyotish analysis, the Moon is placed in the ascendant of the navamsha chart. This means that the forum is good for learning and giving knowledge related to Sankhya, Yoga philosophies, and music. Saturn is placed in the 7th house for both the rashi and navamsha charts. This means that the members of the forums come from various nationalities in various parts of the world. The members are also experienced in the subjects being discussed. There are many other information indicated in the chart. But this would take too long to discuss in this post. If you have any other questions, please let me know. JR --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Hey John, do you have software to do a chart of FFL? I inadvertantly gave my friend the wrong date of Sept 1. Going to post 1, it should be Sept 5 2001 2:24 pm Fairfield. Which probably means a little better for the women folk here (-: anyway, thanks, share Hey, I want my chart done! From: John jr_esq@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 1:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Magical Egypt--The Temple of Man  The Egyptians knew of the seven chakras and the higher levels of consciousness. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCswN4oUqcwfeature=g-vrec
[FairfieldLife] Re: Magical Egypt--The Temple of Man
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Hey John, do you have software to do a chart of FFL? I inadvertantly gave my friend the wrong date of Sept 1. Going to post 1, it should be Sept 5 2001 2:24 pm Fairfield. Which probably means a little better for the women folk here (-: anyway, thanks, share From: John jr_esq@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 1:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Magical Egypt--The Temple of Man  The Egyptians knew of the seven chakras and the higher levels of consciousness. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCswN4oUqcwfeature=g-vrec THe book, Initiation by Elizabeth Haitch, is interesting about Eygypt's ancient culture and chakras, symbols, etc. Susan, Thanks for the information. Also, I'm beginning to believe what Srila Prabhupada said about the Egyptian pharaohs. He said they originally came from India and emigrated to Egypt to escape the wrath of Parasuraman, an angry incarnation of Vishnu, who killed all of the corrupt rulers of India eons ago. JR
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Steve, I was asking why fight unfairly which only makes matter worse. Seems like you haven't noticed the *extreme* unfairness with which Curtis fights. Judy, you are one of the very few people here on FFL who think that Curtis fights unfairly. I mean look around I am sure you are convinced of this, but others are not. You can't judge fairness without reference to reality, Share. You can't judge it if you're blinded by your biases. You can't judge it if you spend your time wandering around in a self-created fairyland. If there's a dispute, you can't judge the fairness quotient fairly unless you can evaluate the fairness on both sides without bias. You can't make assumptions that the person in the dispute you like is never unfair simply because you like him. You have to be willing to look closely enough to make sure you've got the full picture. Otherwise *you* aren't being fair. I know you pride yourself on your being unbiased. But I also think that your focus on detail means that you sometimes miss the gist or bigger picture. And that results in your feeling outraged that others don't see things your way. They see the big picture that you can overlook, you see the errors in details that they overlook. I think it helps to remember that there is not much in life that is black and white, right and wrong, good and evil. There is lots of gray. Maybe your role is to see things in black and white and to be sure details are correct, but it is a tough road to run along.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Magical Egypt--The Temple of Man
Thanks JOhn and Share. John I was wondering about the environment on FFL. It was more civil and open and friendly for the first 5 years. Then things shifted and while there are many good interactions and information, there is also a toughness to the atmosphere. Can you see that? Does it shift anytime soon? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: Share, Given the birth data provided, the FFL chart has the ascendant of Scorpio and the Moon was in the nakshatra of Revati. The Sun was in Leo, its own sign, and was in the 10th house of career. Thus, the forum is successful in meeting its objectives as stated in the front page. Using Jaimini jyotish analysis, the Moon is placed in the ascendant of the navamsha chart. This means that the forum is good for learning and giving knowledge related to Sankhya, Yoga philosophies, and music. Saturn is placed in the 7th house for both the rashi and navamsha charts. This means that the members of the forums come from various nationalities in various parts of the world. The members are also experienced in the subjects being discussed. There are many other information indicated in the chart. But this would take too long to discuss in this post. If you have any other questions, please let me know. JR --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Hey John, do you have software to do a chart of FFL? I inadvertantly gave my friend the wrong date of Sept 1. Going to post 1, it should be Sept 5 2001 2:24 pm Fairfield. Which probably means a little better for the women folk here (-: anyway, thanks, share Hey, I want my chart done! From: John jr_esq@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 1:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Magical Egypt--The Temple of Man  The Egyptians knew of the seven chakras and the higher levels of consciousness. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCswN4oUqcwfeature=g-vrec
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: R: You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. M: Does the thought of that excite you? Are you acting as a peacekeeper here Raunchy? Trying to help Emily and I smooth out a misunderstanding maybe? DNFTT Right, it's much more effective to keep smacking Curtis in the mouth when he gets like this, because his appetite for deception and cruelty is insatiable once he lets down the Mr. Wonderful facade. Are you kidding? What is up, Judy?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Magical Egypt--The Temple of Man
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Hey John, do you have software to do a chart of FFL? I inadvertantly gave my friend the wrong date of Sept 1. Going to post 1, it should be Sept 5 2001 2:24 pm Fairfield. Which probably means a little better for the women folk here (-: anyway, thanks, share From: John jr_esq@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 1:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Magical Egypt--The Temple of Man  The Egyptians knew of the seven chakras and the higher levels of consciousness. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCswN4oUqcwfeature=g-vrec THe book, Initiation by Elizabeth Haitch, is interesting about Eygypt's ancient culture and chakras, symbols, etc. Susan, Thanks for the information. Also, I'm beginning to believe what Srila Prabhupada said about the Egyptian pharaohs. He said they originally came from India and emigrated to Egypt to escape the wrath of Parasuraman, an angry incarnation of Vishnu, who killed all of the corrupt rulers of India eons ago. JR Interesting. In the book, Initiation, the author recalls a previous life in Egypt and it is fascinating. Haitch was a spiritual and yoga teacher in Germany for many years with students. They asked that she write the story of her life, and the main section of the book is about her life in Egypt, where she was initiated. Amazing story. during her current life in gErmany, she had many insights into the future, too. And the meanings of universal and religious symbols. A good read if you like that sort of thing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: New Video: Zebra Finch Update
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... wrote: They are not good for hawk bait either! I tried catching Merlins with them and they freeze at the sight of a hawk or falcon. Almost caught a Sharpshinned hawk once, using a Zebra Finch. The hawk came into the trap and landed next to it and looked at the funny looking creature, jumped around a few times, then took off. I took the Finches back to the pet store. So Mike, what do you use for bait now? The finches aren't much good for anything IMO. They are way too messy, seeds everywhere, can't walk barefoot in the dining area, they're not the least bit cuddly and are harder than heck to catch. Quick little buggers. My general attitude toward pet birds is that they belong outdoors, wild and untamed. Our two green cheek conures are a lot more interactive and interesting as pets than the finches. Sometimes I let them perch on the shower door as I take a shower. I imagine they are enjoying a warm rain forest mist as I flick drops of water at them. I whistle and they whistle back. It's a call and response Indian Kirtan style, a devotional hymn to the Great Garuda, king of the birds and devourer of jungle serpents. Green cheek conures don't squawk much and it's not eardrum piercing when they do. Once we boarded two sun-conures for a week. They squawked loudly and constantly, big poops too. Very annoying. One of them bit our green cheek, Chi Chi, and cracked the side of his beak. If you look closely, you can still see a small battle wound. From: raunchydog raunchydog@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:25 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] New Video: Zebra Finch Update  The desire of Mother Nature to propagate the species will not be thwarted. Zebra finches are particularly adept at defeating every intervention a meddling human could possibly devise to prevent them from making babies. http://youtu.be/LS48YDiNBsI
[FairfieldLife] Re: Magical Egypt--The Temple of Man
I have been here since the fall of 2001, and I don't recognize the shift you talk about. This has always been a tough neighborhood, although the residents have changed over the years. It's an interesting neighborhood, too, although you do have to remember not to leave home without your semiautomatic assault weapon tucked into your waistband, just in case you might need it. After all, an armed Internet forum is a polite Internet forum. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@... wrote: Thanks JOhn and Share. John I was wondering about the environment on FFL. It was more civil and open and friendly for the first 5 years. Then things shifted and while there are many good interactions and information, there is also a toughness to the atmosphere. Can you see that? Does it shift anytime soon? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: Share, Given the birth data provided, the FFL chart has the ascendant of Scorpio and the Moon was in the nakshatra of Revati. The Sun was in Leo, its own sign, and was in the 10th house of career. Thus, the forum is successful in meeting its objectives as stated in the front page. Using Jaimini jyotish analysis, the Moon is placed in the ascendant of the navamsha chart. This means that the forum is good for learning and giving knowledge related to Sankhya, Yoga philosophies, and music. Saturn is placed in the 7th house for both the rashi and navamsha charts. This means that the members of the forums come from various nationalities in various parts of the world. The members are also experienced in the subjects being discussed. There are many other information indicated in the chart. But this would take too long to discuss in this post. If you have any other questions, please let me know. JR --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Hey John, do you have software to do a chart of FFL? I inadvertantly gave my friend the wrong date of Sept 1. Going to post 1, it should be Sept 5 2001 2:24 pm Fairfield. Which probably means a little better for the women folk here (-: anyway, thanks, share Hey, I want my chart done! From: John jr_esq@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 1:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Magical Egypt--The Temple of Man  The Egyptians knew of the seven chakras and the higher levels of consciousness. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCswN4oUqcwfeature=g-vrec
[FairfieldLife] Re: Magical Egypt--The Temple of Man
Well, I would like to hear from others who have been here since the early 2000's. Maybe I am remembering those good ole days with rose tinted glasses, but I don't think so. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote: I have been here since the fall of 2001, and I don't recognize the shift you talk about. This has always been a tough neighborhood, although the residents have changed over the years. It's an interesting neighborhood, too, although you do have to remember not to leave home without your semiautomatic assault weapon tucked into your waistband, just in case you might need it. After all, an armed Internet forum is a polite Internet forum. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@ wrote: Thanks JOhn and Share. John I was wondering about the environment on FFL. It was more civil and open and friendly for the first 5 years. Then things shifted and while there are many good interactions and information, there is also a toughness to the atmosphere. Can you see that? Does it shift anytime soon? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: Share, Given the birth data provided, the FFL chart has the ascendant of Scorpio and the Moon was in the nakshatra of Revati. The Sun was in Leo, its own sign, and was in the 10th house of career. Thus, the forum is successful in meeting its objectives as stated in the front page. Using Jaimini jyotish analysis, the Moon is placed in the ascendant of the navamsha chart. This means that the forum is good for learning and giving knowledge related to Sankhya, Yoga philosophies, and music. Saturn is placed in the 7th house for both the rashi and navamsha charts. This means that the members of the forums come from various nationalities in various parts of the world. The members are also experienced in the subjects being discussed. There are many other information indicated in the chart. But this would take too long to discuss in this post. If you have any other questions, please let me know. JR --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Hey John, do you have software to do a chart of FFL? I inadvertantly gave my friend the wrong date of Sept 1. Going to post 1, it should be Sept 5 2001 2:24 pm Fairfield. Which probably means a little better for the women folk here (-: anyway, thanks, share Hey, I want my chart done! From: John jr_esq@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 1:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Magical Egypt--The Temple of Man  The Egyptians knew of the seven chakras and the higher levels of consciousness. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCswN4oUqcwfeature=g-vrec
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Magical Egypt--The Temple of Man
Thank you so much for this John. And Susan I'm so glad you remembered about the change 5 or 6 years ago. That was the comment that got me thinking about the FFL chart. John what is Revata nakshatra about? What about the Moon in the 8th house? What about the ruler of the chart being Mars and in the 2nd? What is Sankhya about? I guess I'd love to hear anything that brings understanding to the recurring dynamics on FFL. Oh yes, what about placements of Rahu and Ketu? What do they indicate? From: Susan waybac...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 6:37 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Magical Egypt--The Temple of Man Thanks JOhn and Share. John I was wondering about the environment on FFL. It was more civil and open and friendly for the first 5 years. Then things shifted and while there are many good interactions and information, there is also a toughness to the atmosphere. Can you see that? Does it shift anytime soon? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: Share, Given the birth data provided, the FFL chart has the ascendant of Scorpio and the Moon was in the nakshatra of Revati. The Sun was in Leo, its own sign, and was in the 10th house of career. Thus, the forum is successful in meeting its objectives as stated in the front page. Using Jaimini jyotish analysis, the Moon is placed in the ascendant of the navamsha chart. This means that the forum is good for learning and giving knowledge related to Sankhya, Yoga philosophies, and music. Saturn is placed in the 7th house for both the rashi and navamsha charts. This means that the members of the forums come from various nationalities in various parts of the world. The members are also experienced in the subjects being discussed. There are many other information indicated in the chart. But this would take too long to discuss in this post. If you have any other questions, please let me know. JR --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Hey John, do you have software to do a chart of FFL? I inadvertantly gave my friend the wrong date of Sept 1. Going to post 1, it should be Sept 5 2001 2:24 pm Fairfield. Which probably means a little better for the women folk here (-: anyway, thanks, share Hey, I want my chart done! From: John jr_esq@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 1:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Magical Egypt--The Temple of Man  The Egyptians knew of the seven chakras and the higher levels of consciousness. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCswN4oUqcwfeature=g-vrec
[FairfieldLife] Post Count
Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): Sat Sep 15 00:00:00 2012 End Date (UTC): Sat Sep 22 00:00:00 2012 284 messages as of (UTC) Tue Sep 18 00:14:04 2012 40 authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com 22 Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net 20 turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com 19 Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com 18 awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.com 17 curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com 17 Susan waybac...@yahoo.com 12 sparaig lengli...@cox.net 12 Richard J. Williams rich...@rwilliams.us 11 card cardemais...@yahoo.com 9 salyavin808 fintlewoodle...@mail.com 7 wgm4u no_re...@yahoogroups.com 7 seventhray1 lurkernomore20002...@yahoo.com 7 raunchydog raunchy...@yahoo.com 7 merudanda no_re...@yahoogroups.com 7 Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com 6 mjackson74 mjackso...@yahoo.com 5 Emily Reyn emilymae.r...@yahoo.com 4 nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 4 laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 4 John jr_...@yahoo.com 3 wleed3 wle...@aol.com 3 merlin vedamer...@yahoo.de 3 emptybill emptyb...@yahoo.com 3 Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com 2 wayback71 waybac...@yahoo.com 2 richardatrwilliamsdotus rich...@rwilliams.us 2 feste37 fest...@yahoo.com 2 Yifu yifux...@yahoo.com 2 Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com 1 mainstream20016 mainstream20...@yahoo.com 1 j_alexander_stanley j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com 1 doctordumb...@rocketmail.com, UNEXPECTED_DATA_AFTER_ADDRESS@.SYNTAX-ERROR. 1 cardemaister cardemais...@yahoo.com 1 azgrey no_re...@yahoogroups.com 1 Seraphita s3raph...@yahoo.com 1 Dick Mays dickm...@lisco.com Posters: 37 Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times = Daylight Saving Time (Summer): US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM Standard Time (Winter): US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Devas and Architecture
There is british Maharishi Vaastu and japanese style Maharishi Vastu buildings. There is infinite creativity possible within precise rules. Vastu buildings are also personalised to individuals nakshatra. Correct Vastu also does not negative national differences. IF you were truly interested in the subject and did some study these things would already be apparent. talking about cultural differences and natural law. In this lecture he stated the reason people are different all over the world was the energy of the devas. Now I mean he actually used the words deva and devas, and during the talk used also the term the personifications of the laws of nature interchangeably for devas. He said the reason people had developed different cultures, different modes of dress, different languages, different cultural habits and food preferences, in short all the aspects of a particular culture was due to the energy of the devas underlying that particular part of the geographical landscape. The devic energy or energy of the personifications of the laws of nature formed the energy that people would pick up on and using that energy create all the aspects of their culture. This accounted for cultural differences all over the world. It was the devas. I wonder then how that fits in with the idea of sthapatya veda where all the buildings must be designed and constructed the same way. Does this mean that all the devas responsible for the cultural creation of architecture all over the world have now become Maharishi Sthapatya Veda devas? Or have they just been taking lessons from the old sthapatya veda devas? Or is sthapatya veda unnecessary outside of India? Thoughts, anyone?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: R: You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. M: Does the thought of that excite you? Are you acting as a peacekeeper here Raunchy? Trying to help Emily and I smooth out a misunderstanding maybe? DNFTT Right, it's much more effective to keep smacking Curtis in the mouth when he gets like this, because his appetite for deception and cruelty is insatiable once he lets down the Mr. Wonderful facade. Are you kidding? What is up, Judy? Wish I were kidding. Read the traffic, Susan.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Magical Egypt--The Temple of Man
Feste, The chart reveals that Mars and Ketu are in the second house of speech. Thus, the forum has a tendency to be irreverent and profane, with its unabashed use of indelicate words, to put it in mild terms. In the navamsha chart, Mars is in the 5th house which indicates that the forum is aggressive and can give expertise in metallurgy, arms, warfare and matters related to fire. Jaimini states that the person with this configuration will be wielding a spear. JR --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote: I have been here since the fall of 2001, and I don't recognize the shift you talk about. This has always been a tough neighborhood, although the residents have changed over the years. It's an interesting neighborhood, too, although you do have to remember not to leave home without your semiautomatic assault weapon tucked into your waistband, just in case you might need it. After all, an armed Internet forum is a polite Internet forum. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@ wrote: Thanks JOhn and Share. John I was wondering about the environment on FFL. It was more civil and open and friendly for the first 5 years. Then things shifted and while there are many good interactions and information, there is also a toughness to the atmosphere. Can you see that? Does it shift anytime soon? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: Share, Given the birth data provided, the FFL chart has the ascendant of Scorpio and the Moon was in the nakshatra of Revati. The Sun was in Leo, its own sign, and was in the 10th house of career. Thus, the forum is successful in meeting its objectives as stated in the front page. Using Jaimini jyotish analysis, the Moon is placed in the ascendant of the navamsha chart. This means that the forum is good for learning and giving knowledge related to Sankhya, Yoga philosophies, and music. Saturn is placed in the 7th house for both the rashi and navamsha charts. This means that the members of the forums come from various nationalities in various parts of the world. The members are also experienced in the subjects being discussed. There are many other information indicated in the chart. But this would take too long to discuss in this post. If you have any other questions, please let me know. JR --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Hey John, do you have software to do a chart of FFL? I inadvertantly gave my friend the wrong date of Sept 1. Going to post 1, it should be Sept 5 2001 2:24 pm Fairfield. Which probably means a little better for the women folk here (-: anyway, thanks, share Hey, I want my chart done! From: John jr_esq@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 1:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Magical Egypt--The Temple of Man  The Egyptians knew of the seven chakras and the higher levels of consciousness. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCswN4oUqcwfeature=g-vrec
[FairfieldLife] Re: Devas and Architecture
Infinite creativity!?! Surely you jest. Come on people someone please help me out here. Infinite creativity in a system that claims harm comes to people if they don't enter a building through an east facing entrance? That if we don't live in a properly aligned home it creates all sorts of problems? The whole point to meditating is that over time it makes you stronger, healthier etc, not more weak. But if you take the Movement's word, you are on the brink of death unless you are hopping, while gobbling amrit in a sthapatya veda flying hall. If TM is enough, then we don't need all the bells and whistles. If it ain't enough then where were all the fancy frills from 1955 till? I wonder if archaeological excavations will show all the old building in India were built according to sthapatya ved? Bet they don't. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, srijau@... no_reply@... wrote: There is british Maharishi Vaastu and japanese style Maharishi Vastu buildings. There is infinite creativity possible within precise rules. Vastu buildings are also personalised to individuals nakshatra. Correct Vastu also does not negative national differences. IF you were truly interested in the subject and did some study these things would already be apparent. talking about cultural differences and natural law. In this lecture he stated the reason people are different all over the world was the energy of the devas. Now I mean he actually used the words deva and devas, and during the talk used also the term the personifications of the laws of nature interchangeably for devas. He said the reason people had developed different cultures, different modes of dress, different languages, different cultural habits and food preferences, in short all the aspects of a particular culture was due to the energy of the devas underlying that particular part of the geographical landscape. The devic energy or energy of the personifications of the laws of nature formed the energy that people would pick up on and using that energy create all the aspects of their culture. This accounted for cultural differences all over the world. It was the devas. I wonder then how that fits in with the idea of sthapatya veda where all the buildings must be designed and constructed the same way. Does this mean that all the devas responsible for the cultural creation of architecture all over the world have now become Maharishi Sthapatya Veda devas? Or have they just been taking lessons from the old sthapatya veda devas? Or is sthapatya veda unnecessary outside of India? Thoughts, anyone?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Steve, I was asking why fight unfairly which only makes matter worse. Seems like you haven't noticed the *extreme* unfairness with which Curtis fights. Judy, you are one of the very few people here on FFL who think that Curtis fights unfairly. I mean look around I am sure you are convinced of this, but others are not. There's at least six people, regulars, strong contributors, on the record to this effect, Susan, plus three who haven't said this specifically but clearly don't trust him, plus another very strong contributor who hasn't been around for a while. Entirely possible there are others who don't dare speak up. Yes, he has his fans, no question about that. Some of them don't exactly have a reputation for fairness themselves. The rest, IMHO, aren't terribly perceptive. You can't judge fairness without reference to reality, Share. You can't judge it if you're blinded by your biases. You can't judge it if you spend your time wandering around in a self-created fairyland. If there's a dispute, you can't judge the fairness quotient fairly unless you can evaluate the fairness on both sides without bias. You can't make assumptions that the person in the dispute you like is never unfair simply because you like him. You have to be willing to look closely enough to make sure you've got the full picture. Otherwise *you* aren't being fair. I know you pride yourself on your being unbiased. But I also think that your focus on detail means that you sometimes miss the gist or bigger picture. You know, Susan, there are details that aren't significant, and then there are details *on which the big picture is based*. When those are wrong, it can seriously distort the big picture. I may be missing the big picture *you* see because I'm aware that it's based on faulty details. I may even be seeing a different big picture that's based on accurate details. Yes, sometimes it's a judgment call. Let me know whenever you think I'm focusing on an insignificant detail and missing the big picture, and we can talk about it. And that results in your feeling outraged that others don't see things your way. They see the big picture that you can overlook, you see the errors in details that they overlook. I think it helps to remember that there is not much in life that is black and white, right and wrong, good and evil. There is lots of gray. Maybe your role is to see things in black and white and to be sure details are correct, but it is a tough road to run along. That's pretty funny, Susan. In fact, I see more shades of gray than most people here *because I look at the details* as well as the big picture. And the shades-of-gray road is much tougher to run along than the black-and-white road--lots of bumps and dips and twists and turns. You're just mouthing lazy platitudes because you don't follow what goes on here that closely, but you're eager to defend Curtis, and they're handy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Magical Egypt--The Temple of Man
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote: I have been here since the fall of 2001, and I don't recognize the shift you talk about. This has always been a tough neighborhood, although the residents have changed over the years. It's an interesting neighborhood, too, although you do have to remember not to leave home without your semiautomatic assault weapon tucked into your waistband, just in case you might need it. After all, an armed Internet forum is a polite Internet forum. It can be illuminating to look in the archives of those early years. My impression has been that it was just as rough then as it is now. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@ wrote: Thanks JOhn and Share. John I was wondering about the environment on FFL. It was more civil and open and friendly for the first 5 years. Then things shifted and while there are many good interactions and information, there is also a toughness to the atmosphere. Can you see that? Does it shift anytime soon? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: Share, Given the birth data provided, the FFL chart has the ascendant of Scorpio and the Moon was in the nakshatra of Revati. The Sun was in Leo, its own sign, and was in the 10th house of career. Thus, the forum is successful in meeting its objectives as stated in the front page. Using Jaimini jyotish analysis, the Moon is placed in the ascendant of the navamsha chart. This means that the forum is good for learning and giving knowledge related to Sankhya, Yoga philosophies, and music. Saturn is placed in the 7th house for both the rashi and navamsha charts. This means that the members of the forums come from various nationalities in various parts of the world. The members are also experienced in the subjects being discussed. There are many other information indicated in the chart. But this would take too long to discuss in this post. If you have any other questions, please let me know. JR --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Hey John, do you have software to do a chart of FFL? I inadvertantly gave my friend the wrong date of Sept 1. Going to post 1, it should be Sept 5 2001 2:24 pm Fairfield. Which probably means a little better for the women folk here (-: anyway, thanks, share Hey, I want my chart done! From: John jr_esq@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 1:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Magical Egypt--The Temple of Man  The Egyptians knew of the seven chakras and the higher levels of consciousness. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCswN4oUqcwfeature=g-vrec
