[FairfieldLife] Re: Poor Judy Stein
Ha. Funny scenario discovered on the Internet. You've heard of the movie Snakes On A Plane? Well, this is FFL It's All About Me Behavior On A Plane. :-) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/29/annoying-airplane-passenger_n_\ 4360667.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/29/annoying-airplane-passenger_n_\ 4360667.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/29/annoying-airplane-passenger_n_4\ 360667.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/29/annoying-airplane-passenger_n_\ 4360667.html Doesn't Diane remind you of anyone, how she wants the world to revolve around her and work the way *she* wants it to work? :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: Here she is having a total meltdown becuz no one believes her crap about being a crusader against dishonesty and even Feste is calling her on her meanness and nails her in a lie about punctuation on blogs and y'know what the worst part is? She can't get anyone to come to her defense the way they used to. The only person who is willing to stand up for Judy any more is the woman who never learned to meditate, has nothing to contribute to the ongoing discussions here, and who only posts to this forum because it gives *her* an opportunity to be mean to people. Birds of a feather, eh? Personally I find it all pretty heartening. A few months ago if Judy had thrown a hissy fit like this and tried to pose as some kind of noble crusader against untruth (because, of course, only SHE knows the truth), she could have gotten a few people to pile on and defend her. But even *they* distance themselves from her these days. Not that that'll stop her, of course. Judy will do what she's always done, and possibly even louder. But at least now she'll be standing in the street screaming like an insane bag lady *all by herself*, and hopefully no one but other crazies will be taken in by the screaming...
[FairfieldLife] Journal withdraws controversial French Monsanto GM study
The publisher of a controversial and much-criticized study suggesting genetically modified corn caused tumors in rats has withdrawn the paper after a year-long investigation found it did not meet scientific standards. http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/337676/scitech/science/journal-withdraws-controversial-french-monsanto-gm-study http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/337676/scitech/science/journal-withdraws-controversial-french-monsanto-gm-study
[FairfieldLife] Patanjali,Vyasa Shankara on Dhâranâ Dhyâna
Here is proof that MMY adhered to Patanjali’s definition of sanyama. YS 3.1 deša-bandhaš-cittasya-dhâranâ : deša = locus, place, spot : bandha = bind, fasten, cohere : chitta = individual consciousness : dhâranâ = holding, focusing Dhâranâ is binding the mind to a place (or “Holding” is the placement of consciousness) Vyasa sez: Dharana is binding the mind to a place. It is binding the mind, AS A PURELY MENTAL PROCESS, to the navel circle, the heart lotus, the light in the head, the tip of the nose, the tip of the tongue, and other such locations; and to external objects. Shankara sez: Dhâranâ is binding the mind to one place. Binding to one place means binding it there and it is the mind that is to be bound. The commentator (Vyasa) gives details, binding to the navel circle all the vital currents meet there in the form of a circle, so it is called the circle of the navel. On the form of the heart lotus, the light in the head. The door of the nadi nerve-channel of the head is radiant, and so it is called a light. To the tip of the nose, the tip of the tongue, and to other such locations, and to external objects, such as the moon. To these the mind is bound. The mental process (vritti) of the mind, held in those places without being dispersed, is called dhâranâ, as a purely mental process. It functions simply as the IDEA of that place without any disturbance or viksepa. YS 3.2 tatra pratyaya-ekatânatâ dhyânam tatra = therein or “in regard to” pratyaya = idea, notion eka = one tânatâ = extension, stretching (here one-directionality) dhyâna = meditative absorption Continuity of the mind there is meditation.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Patanjali,Vyasa Shank ara on Dhâranâ Dhyâna
Maharishi doesn't teach concentration (dharana), Kriya Yoga does! In Kriya, it's the concentration that LEADS to a state called meditation (dhyana). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: Here is proof that MMY adhered to Patanjali’s definition of sanyama. YS 3.1 deša-bandhaš-cittasya-dhâranâ : deša = locus, place, spot : bandha = bind, fasten, cohere : chitta = individual consciousness : dhâranâ = holding, focusing Dhâranâ is binding the mind to a place (or “Holding” is the placement of consciousness) Vyasa sez: Dharana is binding the mind to a place. It is binding the mind, AS A PURELY MENTAL PROCESS, to the navel circle, the heart lotus, the light in the head, the tip of the nose, the tip of the tongue, and other such locations; and to external objects. Shankara sez: Dhâranâ is binding the mind to one place. Binding to one place means binding it there and it is the mind that is to be bound. The commentator (Vyasa) gives details, binding to the navel circle all the vital currents meet there in the form of a circle, so it is called the circle of the navel. On the form of the heart lotus, the light in the head. The door of the nadi nerve-channel of the head is radiant, and so it is called a light. To the tip of the nose, the tip of the tongue, and to other such locations, and to external objects, such as the moon. To these the mind is bound. The mental process (vritti) of the mind, held in those places without being dispersed, is called dhâranâ, as a purely mental process. It functions simply as the IDEA of that place without any disturbance or viksepa. YS 3.2 tatra pratyaya-ekatânatâ dhyânam tatra = therein or “in regard to” pratyaya = idea, notion eka = one tânatâ = extension, stretching (here one-directionality) dhyâna = meditative absorption Continuity of the mind there is meditation.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Patanjali,Vyasa Shank ara on Dhâranâ Dhyâna
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u wrote: Maharishi doesn't teach concentration (dharana), Kriya Yoga does! In Kriya, it's the concentration that LEADS to a state called meditation (dhyana). I would say instead that concentration is ONE method that leads to the meditative state. There are many. TMers are taught to regard concentration as almost a dirty word, and a dirtier concept. Their loss, which one tends to see the effects of in their spaced-out-ed-ness. IMO both concentration and letting-go (effortlessness) have a role in the practice of meditation. Interestingly, I have found the best results through the alternation of them, often in the same session. Focus, then letting go. Rinse and repeat. Strong, deep, clear meditations as the result, with FAR less just sitting there lost in thoughts and thinking one is meditating. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@ wrote: Here is proof that MMY adhered to Patanjaliâs definition of sanyama. YS 3.1 deÅ¡a-bandhaÅ¡-cittasya-dhâranâ : deÅ¡a = locus, place, spot : bandha = bind, fasten, cohere : chitta = individual consciousness : dhâranâ = holding, focusing Dhâranâ is binding the mind to a place (or âHoldingâ is the placement of consciousness) Vyasa sez: Dharana is binding the mind to a place. It is binding the mind, AS A PURELY MENTAL PROCESS, to the navel circle, the heart lotus, the light in the head, the tip of the nose, the tip of the tongue, and other such locations; and to external objects. Shankara sez: Dhâranâ is binding the mind to one place. Binding to one place means binding it there and it is the mind that is to be bound. The commentator (Vyasa) gives details, binding to the navel circle all the vital currents meet there in the form of a circle, so it is called the circle of the navel. On the form of the heart lotus, the light in the head. The door of the nadi nerve-channel of the head is radiant, and so it is called a light. To the tip of the nose, the tip of the tongue, and to other such locations, and to external objects, such as the moon. To these the mind is bound. The mental process (vritti) of the mind, held in those places without being dispersed, is called dhâranâ, as a purely mental process. It functions simply as the IDEA of that place without any disturbance or viksepa. YS 3.2 tatra pratyaya-ekatânatâ dhyânam tatra = therein or âin regard toâ pratyaya = idea, notion eka = one tânatâ = extension, stretching (here one-directionality) dhyâna = meditative absorption Continuity of the mind there is meditation.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Poor Judy Stein
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: Ha. Funny scenario discovered on the Internet. You've heard of the movie Snakes On A Plane? Well, this is FFL It's All About Me Behavior On A Plane. :-) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/29/annoying-airplane-passenger_n_4\ 360667.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/29/annoying-airplane-passenger_n_\ 4360667.html Doesn't Diane remind you of anyone, how she wants the world to revolve around her and work the way *she* wants it to work? :-) This minor Twitter-war has now gone viral, and it's interesting to see different people's reactions to it. By far the majority (close to 80% on the sites I've seen it on) side with Elon. That said, many of them feel that he went over the top in his interactions with beyond-cluelessly-out-of-it Diane. I tend to agree on both fronts -- that he was justified in trying to wake her up to how ridiculously and discourteously she was acting, and that he chose a possibly inappropriate way to do so. And yet, speaking as one who has resorted to such tactics myself, sometimes they seem necessary. The self-centered solipsist is SO lost in his or her head, and SO overshadowed by his or her own petty concerns that there is no ROOM in their awareness for other people, and how their actions may be affecting these others. Once one has tried more subtle methods, and failed, sometimes the ONLY thing that can get to such people is to reveal to them *exactly* how laughable and petty and inconsiderate they're acting by getting as many people as possible to laugh at them. The one thing most solipsists cannot abide is being laughed at, and it's often the one thing -- and only thing -- that can get them to STFU. Clearly this didn't work on Diane, and chances are it never will. From her point of view, lost in her own self-importance, she'll view the fact that now tens of thousands of people are laughing at her as a HUGE affront, as UNFAIR, and above all, as UNDESERVED. All of these people laughing at her are WRONG, damnit, and only *she* is RIGHT, damnit! My bet is that Diane didn't learn a damned thing from the incident itself, won't learn a damned thing from how she is regarded (as a selfish loon) by tens of thousands of people, and will probably act the SAME way on the plane home. This would not surprise me in the least, because of course I've seen the same thing on FFL. What does surprise me a little, however, are the few who seem to view *Diane* as their hero in this scenario. They see nothing whatsoever wrong with her histrionics and her out-of-control anger over a situation *that she could not possibly affect in any way* by bitching and melting down in public and becoming angry and making everyone around her miserable. Her supporters seem to side with her because that's the way they live THEIR lives. The world revolves around them, just as Diane feels that the world centers around her. Someday I hope that this 20% and Diane find themselves on the same plane together, and can make *each other* miserable with their histrionics. They won't learn from THAT, either, but at least they'll have a taste of what their behavior *feels like* to those forced to experience it. Similarly, wouldn't it be interesting to be a fly on the wall (over video, so we didn't have to be subjected to the low-vibeness of it all) when several Diane's from FFL were strapped into a plane together, with *none* of their regular enemies anywhere around. My bet is that it would take less than 15 minutes before they were at each others' throats, and blaming *each other* for the things they usually blame on people not in their clique. With any luck, someone could overhear the resulting cat fight, capture it all verbatim, and broadcast it to the world via Twitter. Maybe then they'd realize how ridiculous they are. Maybe.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: 00000000, right
When caught in a fib, deny everything, blame others, and be bitter. Then, take a break from working with clients in your home office and do a little editing on a chat room. In fact, one of the most faddish hobbies these days is Twitter, but you'll never see an extra dot between tweets when they are limited to forty characters! LoL! On 11/29/2013 7:03 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: I don't follow it because it's a fad. I don't follow it at all, actually; I very rarely use it. But it really isn't stupid--if you think about how it would sound if you said it aloud, you may hear an echo of, say, your mother: You. Get. In. Here. Right. Now. It can be an effective way of emphasizing something. Me, I don't think standards of good writing on a Web forum (i.e., highly informal, conversational) necessarily exclude what would be nonstandard in more formal writing if it adds something--flavor, humor, irony, surprise. It can be creative and entertaining if well used. Given your reaction, I'll most likely use the period-after-every-word effect more often. It's fun to see your stuffy freakout. I believe Barry has used it a few times, but that didn't seem to have upset you. Double standards, perhaps? Feste huffed: Goodness me, just because it's a fad on the Web doesn't mean you have to follow it. It. Makes. No. Sense. At. All. It's. Stupid. I thought you were the sort of person who liked to uphold standards of good, effective writing, but alas, it appears that I am mistaken. I. Am. Sad. About. That. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: *Feste tries again:* Standard practice? You have got to be kidding. *Uh, no.* I have never seen it before. I. Think. It. Is. Very. Bad. Writing. *LOL. Better learn to appreciate Web-speak for the sake of your blood pressure. It's not going anywhere.* It's quite fun watching you being a punching bag for everyone else and lamely trying to claim victory. *Actually I don't claim victory. The folks throwing the punches and missing (or smacking themselves in the face) are losers without any assistance from me. But I'm glad you're enjoying the spectacle.* As for the testosterone pills, I don't need them. Just ask my girlfriend. *Mmmm-hmmm.*
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: 00000000, right
Maybe I should rephrase what I posted: I've never seen anyone add extra dots to a sentence on a Twitter post, on a blog, or on a discussion group, UNTIL NOW. And I've NEVER seen a professional editor post such a silly and mean non-sentence to a client. Not to mention Judy's silly prefixed attributions fixation. Thanks for the tip, Judy - I guess I should get out and read more. LoL! *Judy /threatened/ to post another echo:* Next time I see it used, I'll save the link for you. ** On 11/29/2013 7:11 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Richard bluffs: Feste is correct - it's not standard web practice - I'm no newbie and I've never seen anything like this. On a blog, a discussion group, or on Twitter or Facebook. It's almost bizarre and even more bizarre for Judy to then try and make you feel like it's all your fault. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=period+after+every+word (guffaw) Next time I see it used, I'll save the link for you.
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: 00000000, right
This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know. (But HINT: Read the exchange on alt.m.t at the URL. Oh, and Pedro was not Vaj; he was a crazy fundamentalist Christian who infested alt.m.t for a while. Nor have I ever denied I'm a partisan liberal Democrat.) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: There is one thing you will never see from Judy - she will absolutely never admit that she was in error or that she is a partisan politico. She's been doing this for fifteen years on internet discussion groups. In one hilarious exchange, years ago on Usenet, I posted a link to a Gallup Poll showing the Bush job approval rating. After Judy disputed my statement, I went back three times to check the results of the poll. In desperation, Judy's last statement was something to the effect that I was was a molusk for posting a link to a poll that proved the opposite of what I was saying. Go figure. At that point, I realized that this lady was so invested in winning a debate that she would stoop to outright slander in order win a debate. Never mind the facts of the poll, I'm just pointing out the typical style of argument Judy uses to demean her debating opponent. What's interesting about this exchange is that Pedro (Vaj) saw right through Judy's posing as a political pundit and even posted a note that proved Judy's overt partisanship. LoL! That's about the time Judy stopped commenting on any of my posts, except for calling me a troll and a liar, and became an ECHO, trying to get everyone else to shun me - because I had dared to dispute her political view. Go figure. Look, I'm not stupid and I can read the newspaper and I'll always admit when I'm dead wrong about the political facts. The actual graphic is no longer online, but you can get the jist of the conversation below. Judy's last resort when she is losing a debate is to post an echo and ad hominem. In this case, I became a molusk and slime in a political debate. Now that's classy! From the Usenet archives: From: Judy Stein Subject: Re: OT: Bush Approval 49% Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: 2004-06-16 12:46:42 PST http://tinyurl.com/oruvtdq http://tinyurl.com/oruvtdq I take it back, a mollusk is smarter than he is. What's the next step down the evolutionary ladder from a mollusk? No, make it three or four steps down. Not quite to slime mold, but close. From: Judy Stein Subject: Re: OT: Bush Approval 49% Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: 2004-06-16 20:28:53 PST http://tinyurl.com/oruvtdq http://tinyurl.com/oruvtdq I'm wrong again, he *has* made it to slime mold.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: 00000000, right
If it was standard practice, you'd probably have seen it posted here on FFL after ten years and thousands of postings. And, anyone would be able to cite such practice, even without a doing a good search. It sure sounds like a Judy fib to me, and even she never once in ten years used extra dots in her posts, so if true, Judy does not follow standard posting practice. Go figure. On 11/29/2013 7:33 PM, feste37 wrote: Are you still insisting that it's pretty much standard practice these days for bloggers and commenters when they want to say something emphatically? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: I don't follow it because it's a fad. I don't follow it at all, actually; I very rarely use it. But it really isn't stupid--if you think about how it would sound if you said it aloud, you may hear an echo of, say, your mother: You. Get. In. Here. Right. Now. It can be an effective way of emphasizing something. Me, I don't think standards of good writing on a Web forum (i.e., highly informal, conversational) necessarily exclude what would be nonstandard in more formal writing if it adds something--flavor, humor, irony, surprise. It can be creative and entertaining if well used. Given your reaction, I'll most likely use the period-after-every-word effect more often. It's fun to see your stuffy freakout. I believe Barry has used it a few times, but that didn't seem to have upset you. Double standards, perhaps? Feste huffed: Goodness me, just because it's a fad on the Web doesn't mean you have to follow it. It. Makes. No. Sense. At. All. It's. Stupid. I thought you were the sort of person who liked to uphold standards of good, effective writing, but alas, it appears that I am mistaken. I. Am. Sad. About. That. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: *Feste tries again:* Standard practice? You have got to be kidding. *Uh, no.* I have never seen it before. I. Think. It. Is. Very. Bad. Writing. *LOL. Better learn to appreciate Web-speak for the sake of your blood pressure. It's not going anywhere.* It's quite fun watching you being a punching bag for everyone else and lamely trying to claim victory. *Actually I don't claim victory. The folks throwing the punches and missing (or smacking themselves in the face) are losers without any assistance from me. But I'm glad you're enjoying the spectacle.* As for the testosterone pills, I don't need them. Just ask my girlfriend. *Mmmm-hmmm.*
[FairfieldLife] Judy Stein's Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
Because, despite my nearly two decades of trying to educate people -- first on alt.meditation.transcendental and now on Fairfield Life -- as to what a LIE is, I find many of them still confused. Because it is my God-given duty and dharma to be the Keeper Of The Truth, I felt I should write a short manifesto explaining to these retards what exactly a LIE is, so they can recognize when they're doing it, and thus LYING. * Disagreeing with me on *any* subject about which I am posing as an expert -- even if they have experienced the phenomenon or SoC or events being discussed and I have only read about them or heard about them -- is a lie. I am RIGHT, and they are WRONG, and to be WRONG is to LIE. * Holding a different opinion of me, my behavior, and the motives for my behavior than I hold is a LIE. I *know* The Truth about myself, my behavior, and my motives, and if they hold a different view, and express it despite my corrections, they're LYING. * Saying something negative about someone I regard as a friend (even though I've never met them and never will) or as an ally (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) is a LIE. I will defend these allies to the death, and make excuses for *their* LIES with the same vehemence with which I put down the LIES of those who persecute them. * Saying something positive about someone I view negatively is by definition a LIE. The very fact that they don't see this person the way I see them reveals how REEAALLLY REEAALLLY STOOOPID they are, and how smart and superior I am. If they persist in viewing these hooligans positively in the face of my corrections, they're LYING, pure and simple. * Suggesting that *I* have LIED is even more by definition a LIE, because as we all know, I DON'T LIE. I have declared this, so it is TRUE, and never to be contradicted. I am the ONLY person on this forum who cares about The Truth, as well as the ONLY person who *knows* The Truth. Challenge this at your own peril, you LIARS! * Claiming that I persecute or harass people by posting literally hundreds of posts ragging on them per year -- year after year -- is a LIE. I am merely pursuing my dharma, which is to be the Keeper Of The Truth. They *deserve* my invective and my continued attention; I am trying to *help* them by revealing to them what big, fat LIARS they are, and trying to help them see The Truth. Which is that they should always agree with me, of course. * Whenever I criticize or make negative comments about someone, these things should be viewed as The Truth that they are. Challenging them or disagreeing with them is by definition a LIE. Furthermore, when I say these things about someone else, that person *owes me* a point-by-point response to all the things I *know* about them because these things are The Truth. When someone says something negative about me, I owe them nothing but to call them what they are -- a LIAR. See my responses to Richard for the template. * Laughing at me and my behavior is a particularly insidious form of LIE. I *know* The Truth, About Almost Everything, and so my words must be treated with the level of respect and awe I expect. Anything less is a kind of implicit LIE, a suggestion that I don't really *know* the things I claim to know, and that I'm just spouting opinion, like everyone else here. I am NOT like everyone else here; I'm better, smarter, and always RIGHT. Dispute this in any way, and you're LYING. * Finally, writing something and attributing it to me as if I had written it -- no matter how accurate it is -- is by definition a LIE. Ignore the fact that I have failed to condemn several of my allies (for example, Robin, Ravi, Jimbo, and others) when they have done this to other people. They were *justified* in doing this to these other LIARS, because *I DON'T LIKE THEM*. But when someone does this to me, it's a LIE of the basest sort. :-) [ For the record, the above was *not* written by Judy Stein. It was written in a Dutch pub just for fun by someone channeling her, and saying what she would say if she were actually capable of telling The Truth she claims to care so much about. ]
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: 00000000, right
There IS an echo in here - I thought so. But, did anyone notice how Judy skirted the issue of the name-calling in order to win the political debate? Now that's some real obsfucation! P.S. I stand corrected on the Vaj attribution, but the actual poster, Pedro, was my own debating opponent on alt.a.m.t, so that makes it all the more interesting. LoL! On 11/30/2013 8:02 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: *This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know. (But HINT: Read the exchange on alt.m.t at the URL. **Oh, and Pedro was not Vaj; he was a crazy fundamentalist Christian who infested alt.m.t for a while. Nor have I ever denied I'm a partisan liberal Democrat.)* ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: There is one thing you will never see from Judy - she will absolutely never admit that she was in error or that she is a partisan politico. She's been doing this for fifteen years on internet discussion groups. In one hilarious exchange, years ago on Usenet, I posted a link to a Gallup Poll showing the Bush job approval rating. After Judy disputed my statement, I went back three times to check the results of the poll. In desperation, Judy's last statement was something to the effect that I was was a molusk for posting a link to a poll that proved the opposite of what I was saying. Go figure. At that point, I realized that this lady was so invested in winning a debate that she would stoop to outright slander in order win a debate. Never mind the facts of the poll, I'm just pointing out the typical style of argument Judy uses to demean her debating opponent. What's interesting about this exchange is that Pedro (Vaj) saw right through Judy's posing as a political pundit and even posted a note that proved Judy's overt partisanship. LoL! That's about the time Judy stopped commenting on any of my posts, except for calling me a troll and a liar, and became an ECHO, trying to get everyone else to shun me - because I had dared to dispute her political view. Go figure. Look, I'm not stupid and I can read the newspaper and I'll always admit when I'm dead wrong about the political facts. The actual graphic is no longer online, but you can get the jist of the conversation below. Judy's last resort when she is losing a debate is to post an echo and ad hominem. In this case, I became a molusk and slime in a political debate. Now that's classy! From the Usenet archives: From: Judy Stein Subject: Re: OT: Bush Approval 49% Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: 2004-06-16 12:46:42 PST http://tinyurl.com/oruvtdq I take it back, a mollusk is smarter than he is. What's the next step down the evolutionary ladder from a mollusk? No, make it three or four steps down. Not quite to slime mold, but close. From: Judy Stein Subject: Re: OT: Bush Approval 49% Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: 2004-06-16 20:28:53 PST http://tinyurl.com/oruvtdq I'm wrong again, he *has* made it to slime mold.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Poor Judy Stein
Are you insane? That I've been on a crusade against dishonesty here for years, and that you are a sadistic liar, is not even in dispute. I don't need anybody to come to my defense concerning facts known to all. Nor does it make any sense for the shlub who addressed two--count 'em, two--SHUT THE FUCK UP posts to poor dear Share to complain about anybody else's unkindness. But it was extraordinarily stupid of you to attack Emily, of all people, probably the sanest and most reasonable person on FFL. Also distinctly foolhardy to claim I've been lying about the periods-between-every-word thing when you know it's true and that I can (and will) prove it. Trivial, but so representative. Go wy back and SIDDOWN. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAJfqldrZ3g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAJfqldrZ3g ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Here she is having a total meltdown becuz no one believes her crap about being a crusader against dishonesty and even Feste is calling her on her meanness and nails her in a lie about punctuation on blogs and y'know what the worst part is? She can't get anyone to come to her defense the way they used to. The only person who is willing to stand up for Judy any more is the woman who never learned to meditate, has nothing to contribute to the ongoing discussions here, and who only posts to this forum because it gives *her* an opportunity to be mean to people. Birds of a feather, eh? Personally I find it all pretty heartening. A few months ago if Judy had thrown a hissy fit like this and tried to pose as some kind of noble crusader against untruth (because, of course, only SHE knows the truth), she could have gotten a few people to pile on and defend her. But even *they* distance themselves from her these days. Not that that'll stop her, of course. Judy will do what she's always done, and possibly even louder. But at least now she'll be standing in the street screaming like an insane bag lady *all by herself*, and hopefully no one but other crazies will be taken in by the screaming...
[FairfieldLife] RE: Missing posts!
Oh, lord, I've done that too. Just one more feature of this infuriatingly incompetently designed and executed interface. Salyavin wrote: Looks like loads of my posts disappeared this week. Also looks like it was my fault for pressing the reply button twice instead of the send button when I'm done. LOL, Well, they are both big and purple-someone should do something about that Sorry to deprive you of my fascinating (ahem) insights...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Judy Stein's Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or even I think. Of course she didn't ask me if I was doing such and such. She just declared that I did such and such as if she could see inside my head and know, without error, what I had been thinking and feeling. I had never experienced someone communicating like that. It was like a foreign language and as such, I didn't even know how to respond. I've come to think that no matter what anyone says, Judy will not change. In fact, I've come to think that she likes it when she has to fight with everyone. On Saturday, November 30, 2013 8:19 AM, TurquoiseB turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote: Because, despite my nearly two decades of trying to educate people -- first on alt.meditation.transcendental and now on Fairfield Life -- as to what a LIE is, I find many of them still confused. Because it is my God-given duty and dharma to be the Keeper Of The Truth, I felt I should write a short manifesto explaining to these retards what exactly a LIE is, so they can recognize when they're doing it, and thus LYING. * Disagreeing with me on *any* subject about which I am posing as an expert -- even if they have experienced the phenomenon or SoC or events being discussed and I have only read about them or heard about them -- is a lie. I am RIGHT, and they are WRONG, and to be WRONG is to LIE. * Holding a different opinion of me, my behavior, and the motives for my behavior than I hold is a LIE. I *know* The Truth about myself, my behavior, and my motives, and if they hold a different view, and express it despite my corrections, they're LYING. * Saying something negative about someone I regard as a friend (even though I've never met them and never will) or as an ally (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) is a LIE. I will defend these allies to the death, and make excuses for *their* LIES with the same vehemence with which I put down the LIES of those who persecute them. * Saying something positive about someone I view negatively is by definition a LIE. The very fact that they don't see this person the way I see them reveals how REEAALLLY REEAALLLY STOOOPID they are, and how smart and superior I am. If they persist in viewing these hooligans positively in the face of my corrections, they're LYING, pure and simple. * Suggesting that *I* have LIED is even more by definition a LIE, because as we all know, I DON'T LIE. I have declared this, so it is TRUE, and never to be contradicted. I am the ONLY person on this forum who cares about The Truth, as well as the ONLY person who *knows* The Truth. Challenge this at your own peril, you LIARS! * Claiming that I persecute or harass people by posting literally hundreds of posts ragging on them per year -- year after year -- is a LIE. I am merely pursuing my dharma, which is to be the Keeper Of The Truth. They *deserve* my invective and my continued attention; I am trying to *help* them by revealing to them what big, fat LIARS they are, and trying to help them see The Truth. Which is that they should always agree with me, of course. * Whenever I criticize or make negative comments about someone, these things should be viewed as The Truth that they are. Challenging them or disagreeing with them is by definition a LIE. Furthermore, when I say these things about someone else, that person *owes me* a point-by-point response to all the things I *know* about them because these things are The Truth. When someone says something negative about me, I owe them nothing but to call them what they are -- a LIAR. See my responses to Richard for the template. * Laughing at me and my behavior is a particularly insidious form of LIE. I *know* The Truth, About Almost Everything, and so my words must be treated with the level of respect and awe I expect. Anything less is a kind of implicit LIE, a suggestion that I don't really *know* the things I claim to know, and that I'm just spouting opinion, like everyone else here. I am NOT like everyone else here; I'm better, smarter, and always RIGHT. Dispute this in any way, and you're LYING. * Finally, writing something and attributing it to me as if I had written it -- no matter how accurate it is -- is by definition a LIE. Ignore the fact that I have failed to condemn several of my allies (for example, Robin, Ravi, Jimbo, and others) when they have done this to other people. They were *justified* in doing this to these other LIARS, because *I DON'T LIKE THEM*. But when someone does this to me, it's a LIE of the basest sort. :-) [ For the record, the above was *not* written by Judy Stein. It was written in a Dutch pub just for fun by someone channeling her, and saying what she would say if she were actually capable of telling The Truth she claims to care so much about. ]
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: Amish Girl Refuses Chemotheraphy
Salyavin wrote: But children aren't free to make decisions like that and have to rely on us to do the hard thinking for them, perhaps they might prefer going to school or maybe even not having their lives ruled by superstitious weirdo's? Again, in this particular case, the parents initially consented to the chemotherapy for their daughter, but it made her miserably sick, and she begged them to let her quit. It must have been an agonizing decision, and it doesn't seem to have had anything to do with being superstitious. I would just hope they made the likely consequences clear to her.
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: Amish Girl Refuses Chemotheraphy
Yeah, I was just talking generally. None of this stuff's easy, can't imagine being in this situation to be honest. Again, in this particular case, the parents initially consented to the chemotherapy for their daughter, but it made her miserably sick, and she begged them to let her quit. It must have been an agonizing decision, and it doesn't seem to have had anything to do with being superstitious. I would just hope they made the likely consequences clear to her. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Salyavin wrote: But children aren't free to make decisions like that and have to rely on us to do the hard thinking for them, perhaps they might prefer going to school or maybe even not having their lives ruled by superstitious weirdo's? Again, in this particular case, the parents initially consented to the chemotherapy for their daughter, but it made her miserably sick, and she begged them to let her quit. It must have been an agonizing decision, and it doesn't seem to have had anything to do with being superstitious. I would just hope they made the likely consequences clear to her.
[FairfieldLife] Verb tenses in Hebrew!
Wikipedia: I Am that I Am From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am#mw-navigation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am#p-search For other uses, see I Am What I Am (disambiguation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_What_I_Am_(disambiguation) and I Am (disambiguation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_(disambiguation). Hayah redirects here. For the village in Iran, see Hayyeh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayyeh. I Am that I Am (אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה, ʾehyeh ʾašer ʾehyeh [ʔehˈje ʔaˈʃer ʔehˈje] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_Hebrew) is a common English translation (JPS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Publication_Society_of_America_Version among others) of the response God http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God used in the Hebrew Bible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible when Moses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses asked for his name (Exodus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Exodus 3:14). It is one of the most famous verses in the Torah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah. Hayah means existed or was in Hebrew; ehyeh is the first person singular imperfect form and is usually translated in English Bibles as I will be (or I shall be), for example, at Exodus 3:12.Ehyeh asher ehyeh literally translates as I Will Be What I Will Be, with attendant theological and mystical implications in Jewish tradition. However, in most English Bibles, this phrase is rendered as I am that I am. Verb tenses in Hebrew Hebrew denote action, not time: the perfect tense denotes completed action, and the imperfect denotes incomplete action. Thus, the imperfect tense can be translated as present or future and this can cause problems in translation. The difficulty is that for the Hebrew mind, even something completed can be in the future: For example I can say 'my father taught me about life' which is written in the past tense. While my father taught me many years ago, we see this as past tense and in the Hebrew mind it is a completed action. But, in the Hebrew mind this completed action exists in the past, present and future. I still learn from my father today by remembering all that he taught me and I will continue to learn from him even after he is dead.[incorrect template use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ce]
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.
Good morning, Em, My perception of the situation is that Share may respond to attacks but does not, for the most part, initiate them. She is more sinned against than sinning. I don't blame someone if they choose sometimes to hit back. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Dear Feste, this is an example of a letter, you as a good friend, should have addressed to Share, IMHO. Switch out the name Share for Judy or Ann, and you've got a letter to deliver to your friend Share. Stated gently with loving kindness and concern for her well-being as a human being, of course. All you said about her vile post to Ann was something like (and I paraphrase)I didn't particularly care for it, but she's a friend of mine and I am loyal to my friends. Really? I gave Ravi a bigger ration of shit than that and he gave me one as well. And, I've only met him once. Personally, I depend on my friends that I know in the flesh to tell me the truth and I do the same with them, and we respect and love and trust each other enough to do it and work on owning our own shit. Blind loyalty is a waste of time. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: You are as responsible as anyone else for creating an atmosphere of mutual disrespect. Do you behave like this in your real, day-to-day life? Is that how you talk to people? I don't think so. The real dishonesty, the real lie, comes from you. I think you are dishonest with yourself. I suspect that the truth, as I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, is that you enjoy being mean. You enjoy hitting out at other people. My guess is that doing so assuages some of the anger that you feel and gives you some kind of safety valve that you find satisfying. You concoct this fake issue of dishonesty and pretend to yourself that you are the virtuous one, standing up for what is right. Unfortunately, the reality is that you are a person in the grip of some very deep-rooted obsessions that make you very difficult and unpleasant to deal with. Your behavior toward Share is a disgrace. It amounts to harassment, and I don't think this forum should put up with it. You wouldn't be able to do it on Facebook, yet you think you can do it here. You should either change your behavior or unsubscribe. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: So you think lying is fine too? As I've said before, most folks here are honest. But there are still several Bad Apples (fortunately some of the worst ones have left) who have no inhibitions about lying--in particular, about other FFL members they don't like--and I think that is terribly destructive. It's the essence of unkindness. And it's hardly a matter of old grudges when it continues to this day. I have never been on a Web forum where lying was so complacently tolerated. But it breeds mutual disrespect and lowers standards of civility generally. I would be willing to bet that if there were less tolerance for lying, there would be a lot less unkindness overall. As I've said many times before, life is tough enough when everyone is doing their absolute damndest to be as honest as they possibly can. There's no excuse for making it tougher. IMHO, of course. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: I think people are pretty honest here. The only person who obsesses about lying is you. Your question to Buck is of course just a way of sidestepping the issue of perpetual unkindness. I can see why you would want to do that, since you are the principal purveyor of it. You need to let go of all these old grudges and obsessions. They are negative attachments that do not serve you well. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: How about the lying? You never mention the lying, Buck. Does that mean you think it's OK to lie? Buck huffed: You can't even hardly invite any civilized person to visit here to FFL with what perpetual unkindness has taken over here on this yahoo-group. It is simply appalling that this culture of low meanness and unkindness has got going here. It is no good to have in our house, But I fear most now for the very life of this entire list if this culture of unkindness is not checked. -Buck
[FairfieldLife] RE: Judy Stein#39;s Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
Share, take a moment and have a care. You are moving into some dangerous territory for yourself as an individual and as a human being. Be careful that you do not use the mistaken and erroneous notions of your faux friend Barry and your well-intentioned but not-really-helping-you associate Feste to launch into this head space of yours. I don't think it is a healthy one or somewhere that is characterized by what is real or what is true. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or even I think. Of course she didn't ask me if I was doing such and such. She just declared that I did such and such as if she could see inside my head and know, without error, what I had been thinking and feeling. I had never experienced someone communicating like that. It was like a foreign language and as such, I didn't even know how to respond. I've come to think that no matter what anyone says, Judy will not change. In fact, I've come to think that she likes it when she has to fight with everyone. On Saturday, November 30, 2013 8:19 AM, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: Because, despite my nearly two decades of trying to educate people -- first on alt.meditation.transcendental and now on Fairfield Life -- as to what a LIE is, I find many of them still confused. Because it is my God-given duty and dharma to be the Keeper Of The Truth, I felt I should write a short manifesto explaining to these retards what exactly a LIE is, so they can recognize when they're doing it, and thus LYING. * Disagreeing with me on *any* subject about which I am posing as an expert -- even if they have experienced the phenomenon or SoC or events being discussed and I have only read about them or heard about them -- is a lie. I am RIGHT, and they are WRONG, and to be WRONG is to LIE. * Holding a different opinion of me, my behavior, and the motives for my behavior than I hold is a LIE. I *know* The Truth about myself, my behavior, and my motives, and if they hold a different view, and express it despite my corrections, they're LYING. * Saying something negative about someone I regard as a friend (even though I've never met them and never will) or as an ally (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) is a LIE. I will defend these allies to the death, and make excuses for *their* LIES with the same vehemence with which I put down the LIES of those who persecute them. * Saying something positive about someone I view negatively is by definition a LIE. The very fact that they don't see this person the way I see them reveals how REEAALLLY REEAALLLY STOOOPID they are, and how smart and superior I am. If they persist in viewing these hooligans positively in the face of my corrections, they're LYING, pure and simple. * Suggesting that *I* have LIED is even more by definition a LIE, because as we all know, I DON'T LIE. I have declared this, so it is TRUE, and never to be contradicted. I am the ONLY person on this forum who cares about The Truth, as well as the ONLY person who *knows* The Truth. Challenge this at your own peril, you LIARS! * Claiming that I persecute or harass people by posting literally hundreds of posts ragging on them per year -- year after year -- is a LIE. I am merely pursuing my dharma, which is to be the Keeper Of The Truth. They *deserve* my invective and my continued attention; I am trying to *help* them by revealing to them what big, fat LIARS they are, and trying to help them see The Truth. Which is that they should always agree with me, of course. * Whenever I criticize or make negative comments about someone, these things should be viewed as The Truth that they are. Challenging them or disagreeing with them is by definition a LIE. Furthermore, when I say these things about someone else, that person *owes me* a point-by-point response to all the things I *know* about them because these things are The Truth. When someone says something negative about me, I owe them nothing but to call them what they are -- a LIAR. See my responses to Richard for the template. * Laughing at me and my behavior is a particularly insidious form of LIE. I *know* The Truth, About Almost Everything, and so my words must be treated with the level of respect and awe I expect. Anything less is a kind of implicit LIE, a suggestion that I don't really *know* the things I claim to know, and that I'm just spouting opinion, like everyone else here. I am NOT like everyone else here; I'm better, smarter, and always RIGHT. Dispute this in any way, and you're LYING. * Finally, writing something and attributing it to me as if I had written it -- no matter how accurate it is -- is by definition a LIE. Ignore the fact that I have failed to condemn several of my allies (for example, Robin, Ravi, Jimbo, and
Re: [FairfieldLife] Patanjali,Vyasa Shankara on Dhâranâ Dhyâna
The legendary Vyasa is often confused by Vaishnavas with Badarayana, the compiler of the Vedanta Sutras. But, no one seriously believes that Vyasa (Krishna Dvaipayana) split up all the Vedas into four; scribed the eighteen Puranas; and authored the Mahabharata AND wrote a commentary on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, way back in 3000 BC. Obviously there were more than one Vyasa! And, almost everyone knows that there's no mind or place to bind anything to in the first place. All this has to do with simple semantics and interpretation - not with actual practice. Anyone who has attempted a concentration on their navel and then tried TM, will tell you that MMY's technique of effortless transcending is far superior to base concentration on the tip of your nose. Patanjali is just a re-statement of Buddhist yoga principles, and everyone knows that Vaysa was not a yogi, or even a real historical person. That Vyasa wrote a commentary on the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali is impossible. So, who did write the commentary on Yoga Sutras and did Shankara compose a commentary on Vyasa? The Yoga Sutras by Patanjali are generally attributed by scholars to be written either 200 BC or even later. Scholars such as S.N. Dasgupta, claim this is the same Patanjali who authored the Mahabhasya, a treatise on Sanskrit grammar. Go figure. 'Yoga-As Philosophy and Religion' By Surendranath Dasgupta Kennikat Press, 1924 On 11/30/2013 6:27 AM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: Here is proof that MMY adhered to Patanjali’s definition of sanyama. *YS 3.1**/deša-bandhaš-cittasya-dhâranâ/* : /deša /= locus, place, spot : /bandha/ = bind, fasten, cohere : /chitta/ = individual consciousness : /dhâranâ/ = holding, focusing */Dhâranâ is binding the mind to a place/***(or “/Holding” is the placement of consciousness/) *Vyasa sez: * Dharana is binding the mind to a place. It is binding the mind, */AS A PURELY MENTAL PROCESS/,* to the navel circle, the heart lotus, the light in the head, the tip of the nose, the tip of the tongue, and other such locations; and to external objects. *Shankara sez:* Dhâranâ is binding the mind to /one/ place. Binding to one place means binding it there and it is the mind that is to be bound. The commentator (Vyasa) gives details, /binding to the navel circle/ all the vital currents meet there in the form of a circle, so it is called the circle of the navel. On the form of the /heart lotus, the light in the head/. The door of the nadi nerve-channel of the head is radiant, and so it is called a light. To /the tip of the nose, the tip of the tongue, and to other such locations, and to external objects,/ such as the moon. To these the mind is bound. *The mental process (vritti) of the mind*, held in those places without being dispersed, is called dhâranâ, */as a purely mental process/*. It functions simply as the *IDEA* of that place without any disturbance or viksepa. *YS 3.2 /tatra pratyaya-ekatânatâ dhyânam/* tatra = therein or “in regard to” pratyaya = idea, notion eka = one tânatâ = extension, stretching (here one-directionality) dhyâna = meditative absorption */Continuity of the mind there is meditation./*
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Poor Judy Stein
Now this really funny - FFL as 'Snakes on a Plane. One thing is NOT in dispute: that Judy is mean and sometimes downright nasty and often resorts to using an echo in a debate as a way of avoiding the issue at hand. LoL! On 11/30/2013 3:55 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Ha. Funny scenario discovered on the Internet. You've heard of the movie Snakes On A Plane? Well, this is FFL It's All About Me Behavior On A Plane. :-) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/29/annoying-airplane-passenger_n_4360667.html Doesn't Diane remind you of anyone, how she wants the world to revolve around her and work the way *she* wants it to work? :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: Here she is having a total meltdown becuz no one believes her crap about being a crusader against dishonesty and even Feste is calling her on her meanness and nails her in a lie about punctuation on blogs and y'know what the worst part is? She can't get anyone to come to her defense the way they used to. The only person who is willing to stand up for Judy any more is the woman who never learned to meditate, has nothing to contribute to the ongoing discussions here, and who only posts to this forum because it gives *her* an opportunity to be mean to people. Birds of a feather, eh? Personally I find it all pretty heartening. A few months ago if Judy had thrown a hissy fit like this and tried to pose as some kind of noble crusader against untruth (because, of course, only SHE knows the truth), she could have gotten a few people to pile on and defend her. But even *they* distance themselves from her these days. Not that that'll stop her, of course. Judy will do what she's always done, and possibly even louder. But at least now she'll be standing in the street screaming like an insane bag lady *all by herself*, and hopefully no one but other crazies will be taken in by the screaming...
[FairfieldLife] RE: Missing posts!
---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Oh, lord, I've done that too. Just one more feature of this infuriatingly incompetently designed and executed interface. Salyavin wrote: Looks like loads of my posts disappeared this week. Also looks like it was my fault for pressing the reply button twice instead of the send button when I'm done. LOL, Well, they are both big and purple-someone should do something about that Sorry to deprive you of my fascinating (ahem) insights... Actually, I love your insights. I am sorry we have been deprived of those missing ones...
[FairfieldLife] RE: 00000000, right
---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: There IS an echo in here - I thought so. But, did anyone notice how Judy skirted the issue of the name-calling in order to win the political debate? Now that's some real obsfucation! P.S. I stand corrected on the Vaj attribution, but the actual poster, Pedro, was my own debating opponent on alt.a.m.t, so that makes it all the more interesting. LoL! On 11/30/2013 8:02 AM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know. (But HINT: Read the exchange on alt.m.t at the URL. Oh, and Pedro was not Vaj; he was a crazy fundamentalist Christian who infested alt.m.t for a while. Nor have I ever denied I'm a partisan liberal Democrat.) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... mailto:punditster@... wrote: There is one thing you will never see from Judy - she will absolutely never admit that she was in error or that she is a partisan politico. She's been doing this for fifteen years on internet discussion groups. In one hilarious exchange, years ago on Usenet, I posted a link to a Gallup Poll showing the Bush job approval rating. After Judy disputed my statement, I went back three times to check the results of the poll. In desperation, Judy's last statement was something to the effect that I was was a molusk for posting a link to a poll that proved the opposite of what I was saying. Go figure. At that point, I realized that this lady was so invested in winning a debate that she would stoop to outright slander in order win a debate. I am not sure you were trying to be humorous here but this statement has proven to be a wonderful moment of morning comic relief - the mere idea that having been called a molusk (sic) could be categorized as slander. Thank you for that. Never mind the facts of the poll, I'm just pointing out the typical style of argument Judy uses to demean her debating opponent. What's interesting about this exchange is that Pedro (Vaj) saw right through Judy's posing as a political pundit and even posted a note that proved Judy's overt partisanship. LoL! That's about the time Judy stopped commenting on any of my posts, except for calling me a troll and a liar, and became an ECHO, trying to get everyone else to shun me - because I had dared to dispute her political view. Go figure. Look, I'm not stupid and I can read the newspaper and I'll always admit when I'm dead wrong about the political facts. The actual graphic is no longer online, but you can get the jist of the conversation below. Judy's last resort when she is losing a debate is to post an echo and ad hominem. In this case, I became a molusk and slime in a political debate. Now that's classy! From the Usenet archives: From: Judy Stein Subject: Re: OT: Bush Approval 49% Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: 2004-06-16 12:46:42 PST http://tinyurl.com/oruvtdq http://tinyurl.com/oruvtdq I take it back, a mollusk is smarter than he is. What's the next step down the evolutionary ladder from a mollusk? No, make it three or four steps down. Not quite to slime mold, but close. From: Judy Stein Subject: Re: OT: Bush Approval 49% Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: 2004-06-16 20:28:53 PST http://tinyurl.com/oruvtdq http://tinyurl.com/oruvtdq I'm wrong again, he *has* made it to slime mold.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Judy Stein's Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
Yeah, but even the Cathars were not pure dualists, believing in The Lie - most Gnostics, in the final analysis, believe there is more Truth than Lies in the universe. But, it sure looks like Judy believes there are more Lies than Truths. LoL! Who said Judy didn't mix up her professional life with her personal life, what with all these incessant corrections posted to FFL? But, can you imagine Judy emailing a client that they were lying and that the were a scumbucket? I can, but it would be a stretch. Her remarks have all the earmarks of a person working and viewing two windows open at the same time, on a large computer monitor with a 'ding' set to go off when a new message is posted to FFL. And, nobody could probably get away with posting so many nasties on a company computer on company time unless they were self-employed. LoL! Speaking of lies, Judy even disputes that she's posting from a home office. Go figure. On 11/30/2013 8:18 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Because, despite my nearly two decades of trying to educate people -- first on alt.meditation.transcendental and now on Fairfield Life -- as to what a LIE is, I find many of them still confused. Because it is my God-given duty and dharma to be the Keeper Of The Truth, I felt I should write a short manifesto explaining to these retards what exactly a LIE is, so they can recognize when they're doing it, and thus LYING. * Disagreeing with me on *any* subject about which I am posing as an expert -- even if they have experienced the phenomenon or SoC or events being discussed and I have only read about them or heard about them -- is a lie. I am RIGHT, and they are WRONG, and to be WRONG is to LIE. * Holding a different opinion of me, my behavior, and the motives for my behavior than I hold is a LIE. I *know* The Truth about myself, my behavior, and my motives, and if they hold a different view, and express it despite my corrections, they're LYING. * Saying something negative about someone I regard as a friend (even though I've never met them and never will) or as an ally (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) is a LIE. I will defend these allies to the death, and make excuses for *their* LIES with the same vehemence with which I put down the LIES of those who persecute them. * Saying something positive about someone I view negatively is by definition a LIE. The very fact that they don't see this person the way I see them reveals how REEAALLLY REEAALLLY STOOOPID they are, and how smart and superior I am. If they persist in viewing these hooligans positively in the face of my corrections, they're LYING, pure and simple. * Suggesting that *I* have LIED is even more by definition a LIE, because as we all know, I DON'T LIE. I have declared this, so it is TRUE, and never to be contradicted. I am the ONLY person on this forum who cares about The Truth, as well as the ONLY person who *knows* The Truth. Challenge this at your own peril, you LIARS! * Claiming that I persecute or harass people by posting literally hundreds of posts ragging on them per year -- year after year -- is a LIE. I am merely pursuing my dharma, which is to be the Keeper Of The Truth. They *deserve* my invective and my continued attention; I am trying to *help* them by revealing to them what big, fat LIARS they are, and trying to help them see The Truth. Which is that they should always agree with me, of course. * Whenever I criticize or make negative comments about someone, these things should be viewed as The Truth that they are. Challenging them or disagreeing with them is by definition a LIE. Furthermore, when I say these things about someone else, that person *owes me* a point-by-point response to all the things I *know* about them because these things are The Truth. When someone says something negative about me, I owe them nothing but to call them what they are -- a LIAR. See my responses to Richard for the template. * Laughing at me and my behavior is a particularly insidious form of LIE. I *know* The Truth, About Almost Everything, and so my words must be treated with the level of respect and awe I expect. Anything less is a kind of implicit LIE, a suggestion that I don't really *know* the things I claim to know, and that I'm just spouting opinion, like everyone else here. I am NOT like everyone else here; I'm better, smarter, and always RIGHT. Dispute this in any way, and you're LYING. * Finally, writing something and attributing it to me as if I had written it -- no matter how accurate it is -- is by definition a LIE. Ignore the fact that I have failed to condemn several of my allies (for example, Robin, Ravi, Jimbo, and others) when they have done this to other people. They were *justified* in doing this to these other LIARS, because *I DON'T LIKE THEM*. But when someone does this to me, it's a LIE of the basest sort. :-) [ For the record, the above was *not* written by Judy Stein. It was written in a Dutch pub just for fun by someone channeling her, and
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] Judy Stein#39;s Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
See, this is what happens when a group tolerates dishonesty. When there are no sanctions against it, not even disapproval, even the weaker members start using dishonesty to justify themselves, as Share does here. The more people who feel safe being dishonest, the more a mythical, false story about the group and its members and interactions takes shape and displaces the real one. History, as they say, is written by the winners, so those who care about having an accurate history need to ensure the liars don't win. Here's the post in question; decide for yourselves whether Share's description of it below is truthful (note the many qualifying phrases that Share flatly denies it contained--including, ironically, it sounds like, which she specifically mentions below): http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 Plus which, as I've pointed out before, Share had gotten on my bad side well before this. Share lied: Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or even I think. Of course she didn't ask me if I was doing such and such. She just declared that I did such and such as if she could see inside my head and know, without error, what I had been thinking and feeling. I had never experienced someone communicating like that. It was like a foreign language and as such, I didn't even know how to respond. I've come to think that no matter what anyone says, Judy will not change. In fact, I've come to think that she likes it when she has to fight with everyone.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Poor Judy Stein
Deny everything; blame others; and be bitter. On 11/30/2013 8:25 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: *Are you /insane/? That I've been on a crusade against dishonesty here for years, and that you are a sadistic liar, is not even in dispute. I don't need anybody to come to my defense concerning facts known to all. Nor does it make any sense for the shlub who addressed two--count 'em, two--SHUT THE FUCK UP posts to poor dear Share to complain about anybody else's unkindness.* * * *But it was extraordinarily stupid of you to attack Emily, of all people, probably the sanest and most reasonable person on FFL. Also distinctly foolhardy to claim I've been lying about the periods-between-every-word thing when you know it's true and that I can (and will) prove it. Trivial, but so representative.* * * *Go /wy/ back and SIDDOWN.* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAJfqldrZ3g ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Here she is having a total meltdown becuz no one believes her crap about being a crusader against dishonesty and even Feste is calling her on her meanness and nails her in a lie about punctuation on blogs and y'know what the worst part is? She can't get anyone to come to her defense the way they used to. The only person who is willing to stand up for Judy any more is the woman who never learned to meditate, has nothing to contribute to the ongoing discussions here, and who only posts to this forum because it gives *her* an opportunity to be mean to people. Birds of a feather, eh? Personally I find it all pretty heartening. A few months ago if Judy had thrown a hissy fit like this and tried to pose as some kind of noble crusader against untruth (because, of course, only SHE knows the truth), she could have gotten a few people to pile on and defend her. But even *they* distance themselves from her these days. Not that that'll stop her, of course. Judy will do what she's always done, and possibly even louder. But at least now she'll be standing in the street screaming like an insane bag lady *all by herself*, and hopefully no one but other crazies will be taken in by the screaming...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Missing posts!
It looks like from the Post Count that you've posted ten messages so far this week. You might try switching over to the Google Chrome and Google Mail - that way, you can see all the message you sent, or not - forget using the Yahoo site, it's almost worthless. On 11/30/2013 1:35 AM, salyavin808 wrote: Looks like loads of my posts disappeared this week. Also looks like it was my fault for pressing the reply button twice instead of the send button when I'm done. LOL, Well, they are both big and purple-someone should do something about that Sorry to deprive you of my fascinating (ahem) insights...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Judy Stein's Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
They don't call her Judge Judy for no reason, Share. LoL! On 11/30/2013 8:32 AM, Share Long wrote: Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or even I think. Of course she didn't ask me if I was doing such and such. She just declared that I did such and such as if she could see inside my head and know, without error, what I had been thinking and feeling. I had never experienced someone communicating like that. It was like a foreign language and as such, I didn't even know how to respond. I've come to think that no matter what anyone says, Judy will not change. In fact, I've come to think that she likes it when she has to fight with everyone. On Saturday, November 30, 2013 8:19 AM, TurquoiseB turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote: Because, despite my nearly two decades of trying to educate people -- first on alt.meditation.transcendental and now on Fairfield Life -- as to what a LIE is, I find many of them still confused. Because it is my God-given duty and dharma to be the Keeper Of The Truth, I felt I should write a short manifesto explaining to these retards what exactly a LIE is, so they can recognize when they're doing it, and thus LYING. * Disagreeing with me on *any* subject about which I am posing as an expert -- even if they have experienced the phenomenon or SoC or events being discussed and I have only read about them or heard about them -- is a lie. I am RIGHT, and they are WRONG, and to be WRONG is to LIE. * Holding a different opinion of me, my behavior, and the motives for my behavior than I hold is a LIE. I *know* The Truth about myself, my behavior, and my motives, and if they hold a different view, and express it despite my corrections, they're LYING. * Saying something negative about someone I regard as a friend (even though I've never met them and never will) or as an ally (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) is a LIE. I will defend these allies to the death, and make excuses for *their* LIES with the same vehemence with which I put down the LIES of those who persecute them. * Saying something positive about someone I view negatively is by definition a LIE. The very fact that they don't see this person the way I see them reveals how REEAALLLY REEAALLLY STOOOPID they are, and how smart and superior I am. If they persist in viewing these hooligans positively in the face of my corrections, they're LYING, pure and simple. * Suggesting that *I* have LIED is even more by definition a LIE, because as we all know, I DON'T LIE. I have declared this, so it is TRUE, and never to be contradicted. I am the ONLY person on this forum who cares about The Truth, as well as the ONLY person who *knows* The Truth. Challenge this at your own peril, you LIARS! * Claiming that I persecute or harass people by posting literally hundreds of posts ragging on them per year -- year after year -- is a LIE. I am merely pursuing my dharma, which is to be the Keeper Of The Truth. They *deserve* my invective and my continued attention; I am trying to *help* them by revealing to them what big, fat LIARS they are, and trying to help them see The Truth. Which is that they should always agree with me, of course. * Whenever I criticize or make negative comments about someone, these things should be viewed as The Truth that they are. Challenging them or disagreeing with them is by definition a LIE. Furthermore, when I say these things about someone else, that person *owes me* a point-by-point response to all the things I *know* about them because these things are The Truth. When someone says something negative about me, I owe them nothing but to call them what they are -- a LIAR. See my responses to Richard for the template. * Laughing at me and my behavior is a particularly insidious form of LIE. I *know* The Truth, About Almost Everything, and so my words must be treated with the level of respect and awe I expect. Anything less is a kind of implicit LIE, a suggestion that I don't really *know* the things I claim to know, and that I'm just spouting opinion, like everyone else here. I am NOT like everyone else here; I'm better, smarter, and always RIGHT. Dispute this in any way, and you're LYING. * Finally, writing something and attributing it to me as if I had written it -- no matter how accurate it is -- is by definition a LIE. Ignore the fact that I have failed to condemn several of my allies (for example, Robin, Ravi, Jimbo, and others) when they have done this to other people. They were *justified* in doing this to these other LIARS, because *I DON'T LIKE THEM*. But when someone does this to me, it's a LIE of the basest sort. :-) [ For the record, the above was *not* written by Judy Stein. It was written in a Dutch pub just for fun by someone channeling her, and saying what she would say if she were actually capable of telling The Truth she claims to care so much about. ]
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Amish Girl Refuses Chemotheraphy
Me neither. It's been haunting me. Salyavin wrote: Yeah, I was just talking generally. None of this stuff's easy, can't imagine being in this situation to be honest. Again, in this particular case, the parents initially consented to the chemotherapy for their daughter, but it made her miserably sick, and she begged them to let her quit. It must have been an agonizing decision, and it doesn't seem to have had anything to do with being superstitious. I would just hope they made the likely consequences clear to her. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Salyavin wrote: But children aren't free to make decisions like that and have to rely on us to do the hard thinking for them, perhaps they might prefer going to school or maybe even not having their lives ruled by superstitious weirdo's? Again, in this particular case, the parents initially consented to the chemotherapy for their daughter, but it made her miserably sick, and she begged them to let her quit. It must have been an agonizing decision, and it doesn't seem to have had anything to do with being superstitious. I would just hope they made the likely consequences clear to her.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Judy Stein#39;s Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
Gee, seems like in all that time I never managed to get Barry to understand that lying is about deliberately misrepresenting facts, because here he is still pretending it's all about opinion. (Thing is, there have been times when it would have been giving Barry the benefit of the doubt to say he was lying, since his claims were so outlandishly off base that one would have to conclude he was psychotic if he actually believed them.) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Because, despite my nearly two decades of trying to educate people -- first on alt.meditation.transcendental and now on Fairfield Life -- as to what a LIE is, I find many of them still confused. Because it is my God-given duty and dharma to be the Keeper Of The Truth, I felt I should write a short manifesto explaining to these retards what exactly a LIE is, so they can recognize when they're doing it, and thus LYING. * Disagreeing with me on *any* subject about which I am posing as an expert -- even if they have experienced the phenomenon or SoC or events being discussed and I have only read about them or heard about them -- is a lie. I am RIGHT, and they are WRONG, and to be WRONG is to LIE. * Holding a different opinion of me, my behavior, and the motives for my behavior than I hold is a LIE. I *know* The Truth about myself, my behavior, and my motives, and if they hold a different view, and express it despite my corrections, they're LYING. * Saying something negative about someone I regard as a friend (even though I've never met them and never will) or as an ally (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) is a LIE. I will defend these allies to the death, and make excuses for *their* LIES with the same vehemence with which I put down the LIES of those who persecute them. * Saying something positive about someone I view negatively is by definition a LIE. The very fact that they don't see this person the way I see them reveals how REEAALLLY REEAALLLY STOOOPID they are, and how smart and superior I am. If they persist in viewing these hooligans positively in the face of my corrections, they're LYING, pure and simple. * Suggesting that *I* have LIED is even more by definition a LIE, because as we all know, I DON'T LIE. I have declared this, so it is TRUE, and never to be contradicted. I am the ONLY person on this forum who cares about The Truth, as well as the ONLY person who *knows* The Truth. Challenge this at your own peril, you LIARS! * Claiming that I persecute or harass people by posting literally hundreds of posts ragging on them per year -- year after year -- is a LIE. I am merely pursuing my dharma, which is to be the Keeper Of The Truth. They *deserve* my invective and my continued attention; I am trying to *help* them by revealing to them what big, fat LIARS they are, and trying to help them see The Truth. Which is that they should always agree with me, of course. * Whenever I criticize or make negative comments about someone, these things should be viewed as The Truth that they are. Challenging them or disagreeing with them is by definition a LIE. Furthermore, when I say these things about someone else, that person *owes me* a point-by-point response to all the things I *know* about them because these things are The Truth. When someone says something negative about me, I owe them nothing but to call them what they are -- a LIAR. See my responses to Richard for the template. * Laughing at me and my behavior is a particularly insidious form of LIE. I *know* The Truth, About Almost Everything, and so my words must be treated with the level of respect and awe I expect. Anything less is a kind of implicit LIE, a suggestion that I don't really *know* the things I claim to know, and that I'm just spouting opinion, like everyone else here. I am NOT like everyone else here; I'm better, smarter, and always RIGHT. Dispute this in any way, and you're LYING. * Finally, writing something and attributing it to me as if I had written it -- no matter how accurate it is -- is by definition a LIE. Ignore the fact that I have failed to condemn several of my allies (for example, Robin, Ravi, Jimbo, and others) when they have done this to other people. They were *justified* in doing this to these other LIARS, because *I DON'T LIKE THEM*. But when someone does this to me, it's a LIE of the basest sort. :-) [ For the record, the above was *not* written by Judy Stein. It was written in a Dutch pub just for fun by someone channeling her, and saying what she would say if she were actually capable of telling The Truth she claims to care so much about. ]
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Judy Stein#39;s Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
It's already way past caring, Ann. The lines have been drawn on this forum years ago. And, while Barry is no admirer of mine, Barry at least wants to make the group interesting to read. There's probably no one on this list that has done more, over a longer period of time, to make this an interesting place to want to be. And, it's not all about Judy - credit where credit is due. On the other hand, Judy wants people to get into shunning, and that's just not going to happen. There's no excuse for promoting shunning on a public forum, but there are lots of fibs that are really funny - almost everyone does it. I mean, if you can't post funny fibs about your debating opponents and their guru, then where is the fun? This is not a truth serum site - as long as you don't cuss, just about anything goes, including posting fibs. On 11/30/2013 8:59 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: Share, take a moment and have a care. You are moving into some dangerous territory for yourself as an individual and as a human being. Be careful that you do not use the mistaken and erroneous notions of your faux friend Barry and your well-intentioned but not-really-helping-you associate Feste to launch into this head space of yours. I don't think it is a healthy one or somewhere that is characterized by what is real or what is true. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or even I think. Of course she didn't ask me if I was doing such and such. She just declared that I did such and such as if she could see inside my head and know, without error, what I had been thinking and feeling. I had never experienced someone communicating like that. It was like a foreign language and as such, I didn't even know how to respond. I've come to think that no matter what anyone says, Judy will not change. In fact, I've come to think that she likes it when she has to fight with everyone. On Saturday, November 30, 2013 8:19 AM, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: Because, despite my nearly two decades of trying to educate people -- first on alt.meditation.transcendental and now on Fairfield Life -- as to what a LIE is, I find many of them still confused. Because it is my God-given duty and dharma to be the Keeper Of The Truth, I felt I should write a short manifesto explaining to these retards what exactly a LIE is, so they can recognize when they're doing it, and thus LYING. * Disagreeing with me on *any* subject about which I am posing as an expert -- even if they have experienced the phenomenon or SoC or events being discussed and I have only read about them or heard about them -- is a lie. I am RIGHT, and they are WRONG, and to be WRONG is to LIE. * Holding a different opinion of me, my behavior, and the motives for my behavior than I hold is a LIE. I *know* The Truth about myself, my behavior, and my motives, and if they hold a different view, and express it despite my corrections, they're LYING. * Saying something negative about someone I regard as a friend (even though I've never met them and never will) or as an ally (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) is a LIE. I will defend these allies to the death, and make excuses for *their* LIES with the same vehemence with which I put down the LIES of those who persecute them. * Saying something positive about someone I view negatively is by definition a LIE. The very fact that they don't see this person the way I see them reveals how REEAALLLY REEAALLLY STOOOPID they are, and how smart and superior I am. If they persist in viewing these hooligans positively in the face of my corrections, they're LYING, pure and simple. * Suggesting that *I* have LIED is even more by definition a LIE, because as we all know, I DON'T LIE. I have declared this, so it is TRUE, and never to be contradicted. I am the ONLY person on this forum who cares about The Truth, as well as the ONLY person who *knows* The Truth. Challenge this at your own peril, you LIARS! * Claiming that I persecute or harass people by posting literally hundreds of posts ragging on them per year -- year after year -- is a LIE. I am merely pursuing my dharma, which is to be the Keeper Of The Truth. They *deserve* my invective and my continued attention; I am trying to *help* them by revealing to them what big, fat LIARS they are, and trying to help them see The Truth. Which is that they should always agree with me, of course. * Whenever I criticize or make negative comments about someone, these things should be viewed as The Truth that they are. Challenging them or disagreeing with them is by definition a LIE. Furthermore, when I say these things about someone else, that person *owes me* a point-by-point response to all the things I *know* about them because these things are The Truth. When someone says something negative about
[FairfieldLife] quot;Everyone hates GoldieBloxquot;
First Everyone Loved GoldieBlox. Now Everyone Hates GoldieBlox. What Gives? http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/11/26/goldieblox_disrupting_the_pink_aisle_or_just_selling_toys.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/11/26/goldieblox_disrupting_the_pink_aisle_or_just_selling_toys.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Missing posts!
The best thing to do is get out of posting from the Yahoo site and get out of posting using Yahoo Mail. You might try Mozilla Thunderbird - it males an excellent news reader. I'm now a big fan of Google Chrome and the Chrome browser and Google Mail. It works for me. Yahoo Groups sucks, big time these days and I'm not even sure I like Yahoo at all anymore. Google Groups makes Yahoo Groups look like an idiot designed it. Go figure. On 11/30/2013 9:19 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: *Oh, lord, I've done that too. Just one more feature of this infuriatingly incompetently designed and executed interface.* * Salyavin wrote: * Looks like loads of my posts disappeared this week. Also looks like it was my fault for pressing the reply button twice instead of the send button when I'm done. LOL, Well, they are both big and purple-someone should do something about that Sorry to deprive you of my fascinating (ahem) insights... Actually, I love your insights. Iam sorry we have been deprived of those missing ones...
[FairfieldLife] RE: Re: Patanjali,Vyasa Shank ar a on Dhâranâ Dhyâna
More then likely Patanjali taught a form of concentration (Dharana) leading to meditation (Dhyana) and culminating in Samadhi, this is true Samyama. MMY, and more than likely Guru Dev taught a form of 'japa meditation' which also has a noble tradition. With japa one falls asleep and can experience 'conscious sleep' and can glimpse pure consciousness. With dharana or concentration one *does not* fall asleep but maintains conscious *control* all the way up to Samadhi and the body 'does not fall' but remains taut or erect in the meditation posture. Though more difficult, IMO, it is the superior technique because it is controlled by your own will and can be done at will over time. Both techniques are laudable and bring one to Samadhi over time. Swami Yogananda teaches Kriya concentration using the life force (prana) to interiorize the awareness and awaken the serpent fire which lifts the consciousness to the Sahasrara (thousand petaled lotus) in the brain MMY never taught the full 8 limbs of Yoga as recommended by Patanjali. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u wrote: Maharishi doesn't teach concentration (dharana), Kriya Yoga does! In Kriya, it's the concentration that LEADS to a state called meditation (dhyana). I would say instead that concentration is ONE method that leads to the meditative state. There are many. TMers are taught to regard concentration as almost a dirty word, and a dirtier concept. Their loss, which one tends to see the effects of in their spaced-out-ed-ness. IMO both concentration and letting-go (effortlessness) have a role in the practice of meditation. Interestingly, I have found the best results through the alternation of them, often in the same session. Focus, then letting go. Rinse and repeat. Strong, deep, clear meditations as the result, with FAR less just sitting there lost in thoughts and thinking one is meditating. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@ wrote: Here is proof that MMY adhered to Patanjaliâs definition of sanyama. YS 3.1 deÅ¡a-bandhaÅ¡-cittasya-dhâranâ : deÅ¡a = locus, place, spot : bandha = bind, fasten, cohere : chitta = individual consciousness : dhâranâ = holding, focusing Dhâranâ is binding the mind to a place (or âHoldingâ is the placement of consciousness) Vyasa sez: Dharana is binding the mind to a place. It is binding the mind, AS A PURELY MENTAL PROCESS, to the navel circle, the heart lotus, the light in the head, the tip of the nose, the tip of the tongue, and other such locations; and to external objects. Shankara sez: Dhâranâ is binding the mind to one place. Binding to one place means binding it there and it is the mind that is to be bound. The commentator (Vyasa) gives details, binding to the navel circle all the vital currents meet there in the form of a circle, so it is called the circle of the navel. On the form of the heart lotus, the light in the head. The door of the nadi nerve-channel of the head is radiant, and so it is called a light. To the tip of the nose, the tip of the tongue, and to other such locations, and to external objects, such as the moon. To these the mind is bound. The mental process (vritti) of the mind, held in those places without being dispersed, is called dhâranâ, as a purely mental process. It functions simply as the IDEA of that place without any disturbance or viksepa. YS 3.2 tatra pratyaya-ekatânatâ dhyânam tatra = therein or âin regard toâ pratyaya = idea, notion eka = one tânatâ = extension, stretching (here one-directionality) dhyâna = meditative absorption Continuity of the mind there is meditation.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: 00000000, right
Thanks for the funny reply, Ann - but you did a pretty good job of dodging the issue yourself. LoL! But, if you have read the exchange, you will now have realized that I didn't make anything up. So, it looks like Judy told a fib about me making all this stuff up. The echo messenger got hoisted on her on petard. Go figure. On 11/30/2013 9:20 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: There IS an echo in here - I thought so. But, did anyone notice how Judy skirted the issue of the name-calling in order to win the political debate? Now that's some real obsfucation! P.S. I stand corrected on the Vaj attribution, but the actual poster, Pedro, was my own debating opponent on alt.a.m.t, so that makes it all the more interesting. LoL! On 11/30/2013 8:02 AM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: *This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know. (But HINT: Read the exchange on alt.m.t at the URL. **Oh, and Pedro was not Vaj; he was a crazy fundamentalist Christian who infested alt.m.t for a while. Nor have I ever denied I'm a partisan liberal Democrat.)* ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... mailto:punditster@... wrote: There is one thing you will never see from Judy - she will absolutely never admit that she was in error or that she is a partisan politico. She's been doing this for fifteen years on internet discussion groups. In one hilarious exchange, years ago on Usenet, I posted a link to a Gallup Poll showing the Bush job approval rating. After Judy disputed my statement, I went back three times to check the results of the poll. In desperation, Judy's last statement was something to the effect that I was was a molusk for posting a link to a poll that proved the opposite of what I was saying. Go figure. At that point, I realized that this lady was so invested in winning a debate that she would stoop to outright slander in order win a debate. I am not sure you were trying to be humorous here but this statement has proven to be a wonderful moment of morning comic relief - the mere idea that having been called a molusk (sic) could be categorized as slander. Thank you for that. Never mind the facts of the poll, I'm just pointing out the typical style of argument Judy uses to demean her debating opponent. What's interesting about this exchange is that Pedro (Vaj) saw right through Judy's posing as a political pundit and even posted a note that proved Judy's overt partisanship. LoL! That's about the time Judy stopped commenting on any of my posts, except for calling me a troll and a liar, and became an ECHO, trying to get everyone else to shun me - because I had dared to dispute her political view. Go figure. Look, I'm not stupid and I can read the newspaper and I'll always admit when I'm dead wrong about the political facts. The actual graphic is no longer online, but you can get the jist of the conversation below. Judy's last resort when she is losing a debate is to post an echo and ad hominem. In this case, I became a molusk and slime in a political debate. Now that's classy! From the Usenet archives: From: Judy Stein Subject: Re: OT: Bush Approval 49% Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: 2004-06-16 12:46:42 PST http://tinyurl.com/oruvtdq I take it back, a mollusk is smarter than he is. What's the next step down the evolutionary ladder from a mollusk? No, make it three or four steps down. Not quite to slime mold, but close. From: Judy Stein Subject: Re: OT: Bush Approval 49% Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: 2004-06-16 20:28:53 PST http://tinyurl.com/oruvtdq I'm wrong again, he *has* made it to slime mold.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Re: Patanjali,Vyasa Shank ar a on Dhâranâ Dhyâna
But wgm, many times Maharishi explained how transcending during TM satisfied all 8 limbs of yoga! I've heard through the grapevine that in a recent Batgap interview Igor was explaining how important it is to get prana from food. On Saturday, November 30, 2013 10:02 AM, wgm4u no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: More then likely Patanjali taught a form of concentration (Dharana) leading to meditation (Dhyana) and culminating in Samadhi, this is true Samyama. MMY, and more than likely Guru Dev taught a form of 'japa meditation' which also has a noble tradition. With japa one falls asleep and can experience 'conscious sleep' and can glimpse pure consciousness. With dharana or concentration one *does not* fall asleep but maintains conscious *control* all the way up to Samadhi and the body 'does not fall' but remains taut or erect in the meditation posture. Though more difficult, IMO, it is the superior technique because it is controlled by your own will and can be done at will over time. Both techniques are laudable and bring one to Samadhi over time. Swami Yogananda teaches Kriya concentration using the life force (prana) to interiorize the awareness and awaken the serpent fire which lifts the consciousness to the Sahasrara (thousand petaled lotus) in the brain MMY never taught the full 8 limbs of Yoga as recommended by Patanjali. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u wrote: Maharishi doesn't teach concentration (dharana), Kriya Yoga does! In Kriya, it's the concentration that LEADS to a state called meditation (dhyana). I would say instead that concentration is ONE method that leads to the meditative state. There are many. TMers are taught to regard concentration as almost a dirty word, and a dirtier concept. Their loss, which one tends to see the effects of in their spaced-out-ed-ness. IMO both concentration and letting-go (effortlessness) have a role in the practice of meditation. Interestingly, I have found the best results through the alternation of them, often in the same session. Focus, then letting go. Rinse and repeat. Strong, deep, clear meditations as the result, with FAR less just sitting there lost in thoughts and thinking one is meditating. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@ wrote: Here is proof that MMY adhered to Patanjaliâs definition of sanyama. YS 3.1 deÅ¡a-bandhaÅ¡-cittasya-dhâranâ : deÅ¡a = locus, place, spot : bandha = bind, fasten, cohere : chitta = individual consciousness : dhâranâ = holding, focusing Dhâranâ is binding the mind to a place (or âHoldingâ is the placement of consciousness) Vyasa sez: Dharana is binding the mind to a place. It is binding the mind, AS A PURELY MENTAL PROCESS, to the navel circle, the heart lotus, the light in the head, the tip of the nose, the tip of the tongue, and other such locations; and to external objects. Shankara sez: Dhâranâ is binding the mind to one place. Binding to one place means binding it there and it is the mind that is to be bound. The commentator (Vyasa) gives details, binding to the navel circle all the vital currents meet there in the form of a circle, so it is called the circle of the navel. On the form of the heart lotus, the light in the head. The door of the nadi nerve-channel of the head is radiant, and so it is called a light. To the tip of the nose, the tip of the tongue, and to other such locations, and to external objects, such as the moon. To these the mind is bound. The mental process (vritti) of the mind, held in those places without being dispersed, is called dhâranâ, as a purely mental process. It functions simply as the IDEA of that place without any disturbance or viksepa. YS 3.2 tatra pratyaya-ekatânatâ dhyânam tatra = therein or âin regard toâ pratyaya = idea, notion eka = one tânatâ = extension, stretching (here one-directionality) dhyâna = meditative absorption Continuity of the mind there is meditation.
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Judy Stein#39;s Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
Hopefully Rick as father of the list will be back soon to really clean this FFL community place up throwing a few more people off FFL. A bunch of FF meditators are out of town right now for Thanksgiving elsewhere. This morning I just got a call from an old meditator from Fairfield leaving a recording on my message machine who is over in Detroit visiting Ammachi there. Obviously the phone was being held up to hear the singing at the end of the bhava. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCJB4gRp_jU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCJB4gRp_jU If Rick is not off gathering interviews of more illumined folks for Batgap.com then he'll proly be home in a day or so too after Thanksgiving elsewhere too. He certainly has work cut out for him to piece together here as he gets back. -Buck always at home in the Dome ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: It's already way past caring, Ann. The lines have been drawn on this forum years ago. And, while Barry is no admirer of mine, Barry at least wants to make the group interesting to read. There's probably no one on this list that has done more, over a longer period of time, to make this an interesting place to want to be. And, it's not all about Judy - credit where credit is due. On the other hand, Judy wants people to get into shunning, and that's just not going to happen. There's no excuse for promoting shunning on a public forum, but there are lots of fibs that are really funny - almost everyone does it. I mean, if you can't post funny fibs about your debating opponents and their guru, then where is the fun? This is not a truth serum site - as long as you don't cuss, just about anything goes, including posting fibs. On 11/30/2013 8:59 AM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote: Share, take a moment and have a care. You are moving into some dangerous territory for yourself as an individual and as a human being. Be careful that you do not use the mistaken and erroneous notions of your faux friend Barry and your well-intentioned but not-really-helping-you associate Feste to launch into this head space of yours. I don't think it is a healthy one or somewhere that is characterized by what is real or what is true. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... mailto:sharelong60@... wrote: Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or even I think. Of course she didn't ask me if I was doing such and such. She just declared that I did such and such as if she could see inside my head and know, without error, what I had been thinking and feeling. I had never experienced someone communicating like that. It was like a foreign language and as such, I didn't even know how to respond. I've come to think that no matter what anyone says, Judy will not change. In fact, I've come to think that she likes it when she has to fight with everyone. On Saturday, November 30, 2013 8:19 AM, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... wrote: Because, despite my nearly two decades of trying to educate people -- first on alt.meditation.transcendental and now on Fairfield Life -- as to what a LIE is, I find many of them still confused. Because it is my God-given duty and dharma to be the Keeper Of The Truth, I felt I should write a short manifesto explaining to these retards what exactly a LIE is, so they can recognize when they're doing it, and thus LYING. * Disagreeing with me on *any* subject about which I am posing as an expert -- even if they have experienced the phenomenon or SoC or events being discussed and I have only read about them or heard about them -- is a lie. I am RIGHT, and they are WRONG, and to be WRONG is to LIE. * Holding a different opinion of me, my behavior, and the motives for my behavior than I hold is a LIE. I *know* The Truth about myself, my behavior, and my motives, and if they hold a different view, and express it despite my corrections, they're LYING. * Saying something negative about someone I regard as a friend (even though I've never met them and never will) or as an ally (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) is a LIE. I will defend these allies to the death, and make excuses for *their* LIES with the same vehemence with which I put down the LIES of those who persecute them. * Saying something positive about someone I view negatively is by definition a LIE. The very fact that they don't see this person the way I see them reveals how REEAALLLY REEAALLLY STOOOPID they are, and how smart and superior I am. If they persist in viewing these hooligans positively in the face of my corrections, they're LYING, pure and simple. * Suggesting that *I* have LIED is even more by definition a LIE, because as we all know, I DON'T LIE. I have declared this,
RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] Judy Stein#39;s Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
Judy, what's the action step? What is it that you'd like to see happen? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: See, this is what happens when a group tolerates dishonesty. When there are no sanctions against it, not even disapproval, even the weaker members start using dishonesty to justify themselves, as Share does here. The more people who feel safe being dishonest, the more a mythical, false story about the group and its members and interactions takes shape and displaces the real one. History, as they say, is written by the winners, so those who care about having an accurate history need to ensure the liars don't win. Here's the post in question; decide for yourselves whether Share's description of it below is truthful (note the many qualifying phrases that Share flatly denies it contained--including, ironically, it sounds like, which she specifically mentions below): http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 Plus which, as I've pointed out before, Share had gotten on my bad side well before this. Share lied: Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or even I think. Of course she didn't ask me if I was doing such and such. She just declared that I did such and such as if she could see inside my head and know, without error, what I had been thinking and feeling. I had never experienced someone communicating like that. It was like a foreign language and as such, I didn't even know how to respond. I've come to think that no matter what anyone says, Judy will not change. In fact, I've come to think that she likes it when she has to fight with everyone.
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Judy Stein#39;s Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
Thanks, Ann, I trust most of the posters here and or enjoy their posts. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: Share, take a moment and have a care. You are moving into some dangerous territory for yourself as an individual and as a human being. Be careful that you do not use the mistaken and erroneous notions of your faux friend Barry and your well-intentioned but not-really-helping-you associate Feste to launch into this head space of yours. I don't think it is a healthy one or somewhere that is characterized by what is real or what is true. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or even I think. Of course she didn't ask me if I was doing such and such. She just declared that I did such and such as if she could see inside my head and know, without error, what I had been thinking and feeling. I had never experienced someone communicating like that. It was like a foreign language and as such, I didn't even know how to respond. I've come to think that no matter what anyone says, Judy will not change. In fact, I've come to think that she likes it when she has to fight with everyone. On Saturday, November 30, 2013 8:19 AM, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: Because, despite my nearly two decades of trying to educate people -- first on alt.meditation.transcendental and now on Fairfield Life -- as to what a LIE is, I find many of them still confused. Because it is my God-given duty and dharma to be the Keeper Of The Truth, I felt I should write a short manifesto explaining to these retards what exactly a LIE is, so they can recognize when they're doing it, and thus LYING. * Disagreeing with me on *any* subject about which I am posing as an expert -- even if they have experienced the phenomenon or SoC or events being discussed and I have only read about them or heard about them -- is a lie. I am RIGHT, and they are WRONG, and to be WRONG is to LIE. * Holding a different opinion of me, my behavior, and the motives for my behavior than I hold is a LIE. I *know* The Truth about myself, my behavior, and my motives, and if they hold a different view, and express it despite my corrections, they're LYING. * Saying something negative about someone I regard as a friend (even though I've never met them and never will) or as an ally (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) is a LIE. I will defend these allies to the death, and make excuses for *their* LIES with the same vehemence with which I put down the LIES of those who persecute them. * Saying something positive about someone I view negatively is by definition a LIE. The very fact that they don't see this person the way I see them reveals how REEAALLLY REEAALLLY STOOOPID they are, and how smart and superior I am. If they persist in viewing these hooligans positively in the face of my corrections, they're LYING, pure and simple. * Suggesting that *I* have LIED is even more by definition a LIE, because as we all know, I DON'T LIE. I have declared this, so it is TRUE, and never to be contradicted. I am the ONLY person on this forum who cares about The Truth, as well as the ONLY person who *knows* The Truth. Challenge this at your own peril, you LIARS! * Claiming that I persecute or harass people by posting literally hundreds of posts ragging on them per year -- year after year -- is a LIE. I am merely pursuing my dharma, which is to be the Keeper Of The Truth. They *deserve* my invective and my continued attention; I am trying to *help* them by revealing to them what big, fat LIARS they are, and trying to help them see The Truth. Which is that they should always agree with me, of course. * Whenever I criticize or make negative comments about someone, these things should be viewed as The Truth that they are. Challenging them or disagreeing with them is by definition a LIE. Furthermore, when I say these things about someone else, that person *owes me* a point-by-point response to all the things I *know* about them because these things are The Truth. When someone says something negative about me, I owe them nothing but to call them what they are -- a LIAR. See my responses to Richard for the template. * Laughing at me and my behavior is a particularly insidious form of LIE. I *know* The Truth, About Almost Everything, and so my words must be treated with the level of respect and awe I expect. Anything less is a kind of implicit LIE, a suggestion that I don't really *know* the things I claim to know, and that I'm just spouting opinion, like everyone else here. I am NOT like everyone else here; I'm better, smarter, and always RIGHT. Dispute this in any way, and you're LYING. * Finally, writing something and attributing it to me as if I had written it -- no matter how
Re: [FairfieldLife] Judy Stein's Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Judy, what's the action step? What is it that you'd like to see happen? How do you feel -- personally, emotionally, and morally -- about waterboarding? :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@ wrote: See, this is what happens when a group tolerates dishonesty. When there are no sanctions against it, not even disapproval, even the weaker members start using dishonesty to justify themselves, as Share does here. The more people who feel safe being dishonest, the more a mythical, false story about the group and its members and interactions takes shape and displaces the real one. History, as they say, is written by the winners, so those who care about having an accurate history need to ensure the liars don't win. Here's the post in question; decide for yourselves whether Share's description of it below is truthful (note the many qualifying phrases that Share flatly denies it contained--including, ironically, it sounds like, which she specifically mentions below): http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/\ 319521 Plus which, as I've pointed out before, Share had gotten on my bad side well before this. Share lied: Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or even I think. Of course she didn't ask me if I was doing such and such. She just declared that I did such and such as if she could see inside my head and know, without error, what I had been thinking and feeling. I had never experienced someone communicating like that. It was like a foreign language and as such, I didn't even know how to respond. I've come to think that no matter what anyone says, Judy will not change. In fact, I've come to think that she likes it when she has to fight with everyone.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Judy Stein's Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
turq, I'm agin it on all levels. And I don't think Ms. Stein really knows what she hopes to accomplish by all this harassing and name calling. On Saturday, November 30, 2013 10:31 AM, TurquoiseB turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Judy, what's the action step? What is it that you'd like to see happen? How do you feel -- personally, emotionally, and morally -- about waterboarding? :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@ wrote: See, this is what happens when a group tolerates dishonesty. When there are no sanctions against it, not even disapproval, even the weaker members start using dishonesty to justify themselves, as Share does here. The more people who feel safe being dishonest, the more a mythical, false story about the group and its members and interactions takes shape and displaces the real one. History, as they say, is written by the winners, so those who care about having an accurate history need to ensure the liars don't win. Here's the post in question; decide for yourselves whether Share's description of it below is truthful (note the many qualifying phrases that Share flatly denies it contained--including, ironically, it sounds like, which she specifically mentions below): http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/\ 319521 Plus which, as I've pointed out before, Share had gotten on my bad side well before this. Share lied: Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or even I think. Of course she didn't ask me if I was doing such and such. She just declared that I did such and such as if she could see inside my head and know, without error, what I had been thinking and feeling. I had never experienced someone communicating like that. It was like a foreign language and as such, I didn't even know how to respond. I've come to think that no matter what anyone says, Judy will not change. In fact, I've come to think that she likes it when she has to fight with everyone.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Judy Stein#39;s Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: It's already way past caring, Ann. The lines have been drawn on this forum years ago. I am not sure of which caring you are speaking about Richard but I think there is a lot of caring going on here every day. I am not necessarily talking about the caring that is characterized by gentleness and softness but everyone here cares about something when posting here at FFL whether it is getting their viewpoint across, correcting erroneous assumptions or having the desire to back someone else up. I think to care is to somehow value or to be attached to. And, while Barry is no admirer of mine, Barry at least wants to make the group interesting to read. There's probably no one on this list that has done more, over a longer period of time, to make this an interesting place to want to be. I agree that Barry can interject some varied subjects and some of these are worth reading and exploring as they often include links to other sites and feeds. Often he uses these to turn things back onto those participating here at FFL and more often he uses these things as a springboard to toot his own horn all of which is fine. However, his negativity and delight in perpetuating dissension and nurturing old grudges can be really tiresome so that pretty much tips the scales for me. However, Barry is not the focus for me in my daily life and so I can easily leave him on the computer screen. And, it's not all about Judy - credit where credit is due. On the other hand, Judy wants people to get into shunning, and that's just not going to happen. This is not a statement that resonates with me Richard and I think you need to look beyond your own frustration with your history with her to realize this is not true. I find that Judy has her own opinions and reactions to what she reads here and I think she has an adverse reaction to the twisting of facts and the manipulation of things. Others have a greater tolerance of these things so they find it annoying when she points them out or addresses them. That is my perception anyway. Because I am similar to her in my dislike for these same actions or characteristics I rather see her presence here as courageous and refreshing. There's no excuse for promoting shunning on a public forum, but there are lots of fibs that are really funny - almost everyone does it. I mean, if you can't post funny fibs about your debating opponents and their guru, then where is the fun? No one is promoting shunning. However we can all figure out that no one can really convince another of anything. We all seem to have our ideas and our ways of living our lives that you or me or Judy or anyone else can't budge or alter and you know this and I know this. This is not a truth serum site - as long as you don't cuss, just about anything goes, including posting fibs. On 11/30/2013 8:59 AM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote: Share, take a moment and have a care. You are moving into some dangerous territory for yourself as an individual and as a human being. Be careful that you do not use the mistaken and erroneous notions of your faux friend Barry and your well-intentioned but not-really-helping-you associate Feste to launch into this head space of yours. I don't think it is a healthy one or somewhere that is characterized by what is real or what is true. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... mailto:sharelong60@... wrote: Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or even I think. Of course she didn't ask me if I was doing such and such. She just declared that I did such and such as if she could see inside my head and know, without error, what I had been thinking and feeling. I had never experienced someone communicating like that. It was like a foreign language and as such, I didn't even know how to respond. I've come to think that no matter what anyone says, Judy will not change. In fact, I've come to think that she likes it when she has to fight with everyone. On Saturday, November 30, 2013 8:19 AM, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... wrote: Because, despite my nearly two decades of trying to educate people -- first on alt.meditation.transcendental and now on Fairfield Life -- as to what a LIE is, I find many of them still confused. Because it is my God-given duty and dharma to be the Keeper Of The Truth, I felt I should write a short manifesto explaining to these retards what exactly a LIE is, so they can recognize when they're doing it, and thus LYING. * Disagreeing with me on *any* subject about which I am posing as an expert -- even if they have experienced the phenomenon or SoC or events being discussed and I have only read about them or
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy Stein's Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: turq, I'm agin it on all levels. And I don't think Ms. Stein really knows what she hopes to accomplish by all this harassing and name calling. The payoff for her is attention. She's never had the intelligence, creativity, or humanity to gain it from any means other than getting people to argue with her, so she continues to use the methods that have worked for her in the past. If she had interesting things going on in her mundane life, she'd write about them. If she had interesting things going on in her spiritual life, she'd write about them. If she had anything to *contribute*, she'd be contributing. Instead, she picks enemies and stalks them. Go figure. I sure hope the attention she feels she gets from this is worth it. Seems to me it would have been SO much easier just to be interesting. On Saturday, November 30, 2013 10:31 AM, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Judy, what's the action step? What is it that you'd like to see happen? How do you feel -- personally, emotionally, and morally -- about waterboarding? :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@ wrote: See, this is what happens when a group tolerates dishonesty. When there are no sanctions against it, not even disapproval, even the weaker members start using dishonesty to justify themselves, as Share does here. The more people who feel safe being dishonest, the more a mythical, false story about the group and its members and interactions takes shape and displaces the real one. History, as they say, is written by the winners, so those who care about having an accurate history need to ensure the liars don't win. Here's the post in question; decide for yourselves whether Share's description of it below is truthful (note the many qualifying phrases that Share flatly denies it contained--including, ironically, it sounds like, which she specifically mentions below): http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/\ \ 319521 Plus which, as I've pointed out before, Share had gotten on my bad side well before this. Share lied: Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or even I think. Of course she didn't ask me if I was doing such and such. She just declared that I did such and such as if she could see inside my head and know, without error, what I had been thinking and feeling. I had never experienced someone communicating like that. It was like a foreign language and as such, I didn't even know how to respond. I've come to think that no matter what anyone says, Judy will not change. In fact, I've come to think that she likes it when she has to fight with everyone.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Missing posts!
I replied twice to Lawson's post on TM research. Neither showed up (the second was just a repost a day later of the same). I might suspect that because Lawson had a lot of links in the post it might have gotten trapped somewhere in the Yahooverse. I read of posts on various sites including Groups support about delayed posts. Fingers were all pointing different directions. I suspect Groups has a lot of kid programming in it and very difficult to repair. ATT's mail support forum had post but they're so stupid about their forum that you have to be logged in to just read posts. Someone at that company doesn't know you SAVE money by making forums open for reading. I had no intention of posting on it but wanted to read the thread. On 11/29/2013 11:35 PM, salyavin808 wrote: Looks like loads of my posts disappeared this week. Also looks like it was my fault for pressing the reply button twice instead of the send button when I'm done. LOL, Well, they are both big and purple-someone should do something about that Sorry to deprive you of my fascinating (ahem) insights...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Poor Judy Stein
On 11/29/2013 10:41 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: Here she is having a total meltdown becuz no one believes her crap about being a crusader against dishonesty and even Feste is calling her on her meanness and nails her in a lie about punctuation on blogs and y'know what the worst part is? She can't get anyone to come to her defense the way they used to. The only person who is willing to stand up for Judy any more is the woman who never learned to meditate, has nothing to contribute to the ongoing discussions here, and who only posts to this forum because it gives *her* an opportunity to be mean to people. Birds of a feather, eh? Personally I find it all pretty heartening. A few months ago if Judy had thrown a hissy fit like this and tried to pose as some kind of noble crusader against untruth (because, of course, only SHE knows the truth), she could have gotten a few people to pile on and defend her. But even *they* distance themselves from her these days. Not that that'll stop her, of course. Judy will do what she's always done, and possibly even louder. But at least now she'll be standing in the street screaming like an insane bag lady *all by herself*, and hopefully no one but other crazies will be taken in by the screaming... You mean like this :-D http://youtu.be/TBZuJKQMh_I
RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] Judy Stein#39;s Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
On other forums I've been on, dishonest posts were criticized and the dishonest posters taken severely to task by the rest of the group. (On moderated forums, repeat offenders were warned once or twice, then thrown off the forum if the bad behavior continued. I don't recommend that for FFL; I think strong community disapproval would greatly reduce the dishonesty quotient. I mention banning only to point out that many folks consider dishonesty to be utterly unacceptable.) Is that clear enough for you? This is a supposedly spiritually oriented forum. It seems to me that if spirituality is about anything, it's about being truthful. If honesty isn't held as a value, what can it possibly mean to be spiritual? I note that you have not commented on the exposure of the dishonesty in your recent post quoted below. Should I assume this means you think it was perfectly OK to describe it knowingly inaccurately? Share wondered: Judy, what's the action step? What is it that you'd like to see happen? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: See, this is what happens when a group tolerates dishonesty. When there are no sanctions against it, not even disapproval, even the weaker members start using dishonesty to justify themselves, as Share does here. The more people who feel safe being dishonest, the more a mythical, false story about the group and its members and interactions takes shape and displaces the real one. History, as they say, is written by the winners, so those who care about having an accurate history need to ensure the liars don't win. Here's the post in question; decide for yourselves whether Share's description of it below is truthful (note the many qualifying phrases that Share flatly denies it contained--including, ironically, it sounds like, which she specifically mentions below): http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 Plus which, as I've pointed out before, Share had gotten on my bad side well before this. Share lied: Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or even I think. Of course she didn't ask me if I was doing such and such. She just declared that I did such and such as if she could see inside my head and know, without error, what I had been thinking and feeling. I had never experienced someone communicating like that. It was like a foreign language and as such, I didn't even know how to respond. I've come to think that no matter what anyone says, Judy will not change. In fact, I've come to think that she likes it when she has to fight with everyone.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Journal withdraws controversial French Monsanto GM study
Wouldn't put it past Monsanto to pay to have it discredited. Apparently glyphosate which is used in RoundUp is also used to sprayed on fruits and vegetables to shorten ripening time. This chemical has been linked to leaky gut syndrome and also has the effect of shutting off feeling full when one has eaten. Time to roundup the Monsanto execs and try them for mass murder. On 11/30/2013 03:09 AM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: The publisher of a controversial and much-criticized study suggesting genetically modified corn caused tumors in rats has withdrawn the paper after a year-long investigation found it did not meet scientific standards. http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/337676/scitech/science/journal-withdraws-controversial-french-monsanto-gm-study
Re: [FairfieldLife] Judy Stein's Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
Some people on FFL forget it's just a chat group. People express opinions and not dissertations. I suspect in some families of academics heads were patted if the children did exhaustive research before discussing anything. Patting on the head too much might have resulted in some brain damage. That's the well actually syndrome that you and I observe with some obnoxious techies. On 11/30/2013 06:18 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Because, despite my nearly two decades of trying to educate people -- first on alt.meditation.transcendental and now on Fairfield Life -- as to what a LIE is, I find many of them still confused. Because it is my God-given duty and dharma to be the Keeper Of The Truth, I felt I should write a short manifesto explaining to these retards what exactly a LIE is, so they can recognize when they're doing it, and thus LYING. * Disagreeing with me on *any* subject about which I am posing as an expert -- even if they have experienced the phenomenon or SoC or events being discussed and I have only read about them or heard about them -- is a lie. I am RIGHT, and they are WRONG, and to be WRONG is to LIE. * Holding a different opinion of me, my behavior, and the motives for my behavior than I hold is a LIE. I *know* The Truth about myself, my behavior, and my motives, and if they hold a different view, and express it despite my corrections, they're LYING. * Saying something negative about someone I regard as a friend (even though I've never met them and never will) or as an ally (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) is a LIE. I will defend these allies to the death, and make excuses for *their* LIES with the same vehemence with which I put down the LIES of those who persecute them. * Saying something positive about someone I view negatively is by definition a LIE. The very fact that they don't see this person the way I see them reveals how REEAALLLY REEAALLLY STOOOPID they are, and how smart and superior I am. If they persist in viewing these hooligans positively in the face of my corrections, they're LYING, pure and simple. * Suggesting that *I* have LIED is even more by definition a LIE, because as we all know, I DON'T LIE. I have declared this, so it is TRUE, and never to be contradicted. I am the ONLY person on this forum who cares about The Truth, as well as the ONLY person who *knows* The Truth. Challenge this at your own peril, you LIARS! * Claiming that I persecute or harass people by posting literally hundreds of posts ragging on them per year -- year after year -- is a LIE. I am merely pursuing my dharma, which is to be the Keeper Of The Truth. They *deserve* my invective and my continued attention; I am trying to *help* them by revealing to them what big, fat LIARS they are, and trying to help them see The Truth. Which is that they should always agree with me, of course. * Whenever I criticize or make negative comments about someone, these things should be viewed as The Truth that they are. Challenging them or disagreeing with them is by definition a LIE. Furthermore, when I say these things about someone else, that person *owes me* a point-by-point response to all the things I *know* about them because these things are The Truth. When someone says something negative about me, I owe them nothing but to call them what they are -- a LIAR. See my responses to Richard for the template. * Laughing at me and my behavior is a particularly insidious form of LIE. I *know* The Truth, About Almost Everything, and so my words must be treated with the level of respect and awe I expect. Anything less is a kind of implicit LIE, a suggestion that I don't really *know* the things I claim to know, and that I'm just spouting opinion, like everyone else here. I am NOT like everyone else here; I'm better, smarter, and always RIGHT. Dispute this in any way, and you're LYING. * Finally, writing something and attributing it to me as if I had written it -- no matter how accurate it is -- is by definition a LIE. Ignore the fact that I have failed to condemn several of my allies (for example, Robin, Ravi, Jimbo, and others) when they have done this to other people. They were *justified* in doing this to these other LIARS, because *I DON'T LIKE THEM*. But when someone does this to me, it's a LIE of the basest sort. :-) [ For the record, the above was *not* written by Judy Stein. It was written in a Dutch pub just for fun by someone channeling her, and saying what she would say if she were actually capable of telling The Truth she claims to care so much about. ]
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] Journal withdraws controversial French Monsanto GM study
Bhairitu speculated: Wouldn't put it past Monsanto to pay to have it discredited. Don't think even Monsanto could arrange all this: At the time of its original publication, hundreds of scientists across the world questioned Seralini's research, which said rats fed Monsanto's GM corn had suffered tumors and multiple organ failure. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) issued a statement in November 2012 saying the study by Seralini, who was based at France's University of Caen, had serious defects in design and methodology and did not meet acceptable scientific standards. Within weeks of its appearance in the peer-reviewed journal, more than 700 scientists had signed an online petition calling on Seralini to release all the data from his research. Apparently glyphosate which is used in RoundUp is also used to sprayed on fruits and vegetables to shorten ripening time. This chemical has been linked to leaky gut syndrome and also has the effect of shutting off feeling full when one has eaten. Time to roundup the Monsanto execs and try them for mass murder. I'm for that. (Many years ago I worked for an advertising agency on the Roundup account. At the time nobody knew anything--or at least were saying anything I ever heard--about the evils of Monsanto and its products. But I've always felt guilty about my part, however small, in promoting it.) On 11/30/2013 03:09 AM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote: The publisher of a controversial and much-criticized study suggesting genetically modified corn caused tumors in rats has withdrawn the paper after a year-long investigation found it did not meet scientific standards. http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/337676/scitech/science/journal-withdraws-controversial-french-monsanto-gm-study http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/337676/scitech/science/journal-withdraws-controversial-french-monsanto-gm-study
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] Judy Stein#39;s Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
Bhairitu wrote: Some people on FFL forget it's just a chat group. People express opinions and not dissertations. Some people also lie about all kinds of things, including other participants. I suspect in some families of academics heads were patted if the children did exhaustive research before discussing anything. Funny, not in my family. Patting on the head too much might have resulted in some brain damage. That's the well actually syndrome that you and I observe with some obnoxious techies.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Re: Judy Stein#39;s Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
Yet another thoroughly and deliberately dishonest post from Barry, as anyone who has followed my posts over the years knows. I have plenty of interesting things going on in my mundane and spiritual lives. They are not, however, things that I would want to write about on this forum, for various reasons, including some that should be obvious. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: turq, I'm agin it on all levels. And I don't think Ms. Stein really knows what she hopes to accomplish by all this harassing and name calling. The payoff for her is attention. She's never had the intelligence, creativity, or humanity to gain it from any means other than getting people to argue with her, so she continues to use the methods that have worked for her in the past. If she had interesting things going on in her mundane life, she'd write about them. If she had interesting things going on in her spiritual life, she'd write about them. If she had anything to *contribute*, she'd be contributing. Instead, she picks enemies and stalks them. Go figure. I sure hope the attention she feels she gets from this is worth it. Seems to me it would have been SO much easier just to be interesting. On Saturday, November 30, 2013 10:31 AM, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Judy, what's the action step? What is it that you'd like to see happen? How do you feel -- personally, emotionally, and morally -- about waterboarding? :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@ wrote: See, this is what happens when a group tolerates dishonesty. When there are no sanctions against it, not even disapproval, even the weaker members start using dishonesty to justify themselves, as Share does here. The more people who feel safe being dishonest, the more a mythical, false story about the group and its members and interactions takes shape and displaces the real one. History, as they say, is written by the winners, so those who care about having an accurate history need to ensure the liars don't win. Here's the post in question; decide for yourselves whether Share's description of it below is truthful (note the many qualifying phrases that Share flatly denies it contained--including, ironically, it sounds like, which she specifically mentions below): http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/\ http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/\ \ 319521 Plus which, as I've pointed out before, Share had gotten on my bad side well before this. Share lied: Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or even I think. Of course she didn't ask me if I was doing such and such. She just declared that I did such and such as if she could see inside my head and know, without error, what I had been thinking and feeling. I had never experienced someone communicating like that. It was like a foreign language and as such, I didn't even know how to respond. I've come to think that no matter what anyone says, Judy will not change. In fact, I've come to think that she likes it when she has to fight with everyone.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy Stein's Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: Some people on FFL forget it's just a chat group. That should be the mantra of Fairfield Life: IT'S JUST A CHAT GROUP The TM advanced technique version would be: GET OVER IT, NAMAH, NAMAH http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H-Y7MAASkg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H-Y7MAASkg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H-Y7MAASkg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H-Y7MAASkg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H-Y7MAASkg :-)
[FairfieldLife] RE: Judy Stein#39;s Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
Barry, You have probably spent more time analyzing, responding to, and just plain day-dreaming, about Judy, than I have about my wife, and we live under the same roof. Scary shit, though I will definitely leave it to you, as I'd rather spend my time in Reality - no offense. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Because, despite my nearly two decades of trying to educate people -- first on alt.meditation.transcendental and now on Fairfield Life -- as to what a LIE is, I find many of them still confused. Because it is my God-given duty and dharma to be the Keeper Of The Truth, I felt I should write a short manifesto explaining to these retards what exactly a LIE is, so they can recognize when they're doing it, and thus LYING. * Disagreeing with me on *any* subject about which I am posing as an expert -- even if they have experienced the phenomenon or SoC or events being discussed and I have only read about them or heard about them -- is a lie. I am RIGHT, and they are WRONG, and to be WRONG is to LIE. * Holding a different opinion of me, my behavior, and the motives for my behavior than I hold is a LIE. I *know* The Truth about myself, my behavior, and my motives, and if they hold a different view, and express it despite my corrections, they're LYING. * Saying something negative about someone I regard as a friend (even though I've never met them and never will) or as an ally (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) is a LIE. I will defend these allies to the death, and make excuses for *their* LIES with the same vehemence with which I put down the LIES of those who persecute them. * Saying something positive about someone I view negatively is by definition a LIE. The very fact that they don't see this person the way I see them reveals how REEAALLLY REEAALLLY STOOOPID they are, and how smart and superior I am. If they persist in viewing these hooligans positively in the face of my corrections, they're LYING, pure and simple. * Suggesting that *I* have LIED is even more by definition a LIE, because as we all know, I DON'T LIE. I have declared this, so it is TRUE, and never to be contradicted. I am the ONLY person on this forum who cares about The Truth, as well as the ONLY person who *knows* The Truth. Challenge this at your own peril, you LIARS! * Claiming that I persecute or harass people by posting literally hundreds of posts ragging on them per year -- year after year -- is a LIE. I am merely pursuing my dharma, which is to be the Keeper Of The Truth. They *deserve* my invective and my continued attention; I am trying to *help* them by revealing to them what big, fat LIARS they are, and trying to help them see The Truth. Which is that they should always agree with me, of course. * Whenever I criticize or make negative comments about someone, these things should be viewed as The Truth that they are. Challenging them or disagreeing with them is by definition a LIE. Furthermore, when I say these things about someone else, that person *owes me* a point-by-point response to all the things I *know* about them because these things are The Truth. When someone says something negative about me, I owe them nothing but to call them what they are -- a LIAR. See my responses to Richard for the template. * Laughing at me and my behavior is a particularly insidious form of LIE. I *know* The Truth, About Almost Everything, and so my words must be treated with the level of respect and awe I expect. Anything less is a kind of implicit LIE, a suggestion that I don't really *know* the things I claim to know, and that I'm just spouting opinion, like everyone else here. I am NOT like everyone else here; I'm better, smarter, and always RIGHT. Dispute this in any way, and you're LYING. * Finally, writing something and attributing it to me as if I had written it -- no matter how accurate it is -- is by definition a LIE. Ignore the fact that I have failed to condemn several of my allies (for example, Robin, Ravi, Jimbo, and others) when they have done this to other people. They were *justified* in doing this to these other LIARS, because *I DON'T LIKE THEM*. But when someone does this to me, it's a LIE of the basest sort. :-) [ For the record, the above was *not* written by Judy Stein. It was written in a Dutch pub just for fun by someone channeling her, and saying what she would say if she were actually capable of telling The Truth she claims to care so much about. ]
[FairfieldLife] Personal Gender Pronouns
This new practice is catching on in a SF Bay Area college for women--and a few others in the country. Will the English language be changed? http://news.yahoo.com/preferred-pronouns-gain-traction-us-colleges-064437446.html http://news.yahoo.com/preferred-pronouns-gain-traction-us-colleges-064437446.html
[FairfieldLife] RE: Poor Judy Stein
Barry, you stooge. How do you know I never learned to meditate? You would be wrong on that count. I never learned TM, is what I've said. I am contributing to your discussion here by posting this link by Ellen Degeneres on meditation. While deep in meditation designing a pair of sunglasses for her third eye (or something like that) she monologues...the teacher hits the gong and then I jump and I almost yell Oh My God,, but because I'm smart I yell Ohhhm. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G91AUG7N3rU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G91AUG7N3rU That was kind of a weak and limp shot below the belt, you stating that the only reason I'm here is for the opportunity to be mean to others. You can do better than that. Try again? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Here she is having a total meltdown becuz no one believes her crap about being a crusader against dishonesty and even Feste is calling her on her meanness and nails her in a lie about punctuation on blogs and y'know what the worst part is? She can't get anyone to come to her defense the way they used to. The only person who is willing to stand up for Judy any more is the woman who never learned to meditate, has nothing to contribute to the ongoing discussions here, and who only posts to this forum because it gives *her* an opportunity to be mean to people. Birds of a feather, eh? Personally I find it all pretty heartening. A few months ago if Judy had thrown a hissy fit like this and tried to pose as some kind of noble crusader against untruth (because, of course, only SHE knows the truth), she could have gotten a few people to pile on and defend her. But even *they* distance themselves from her these days. Not that that'll stop her, of course. Judy will do what she's always done, and possibly even louder. But at least now she'll be standing in the street screaming like an insane bag lady *all by herself*, and hopefully no one but other crazies will be taken in by the screaming...
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.
Dear Feste, good morning to you too. Did your girlfriend stay over? Wait, that's kind of personal, I don't really want to know...just joshin' you. I totally understand how you would come to the conclusion you have about Sharester - she is what I call an uber passive aggressive type. Her initiates plenty towards Judy; hence my begging her to leave Judy alone and come after me when she's feeling like expressing some of her anger inappropriately. It *is* my turn, after all. She's too scared though. She knows I'll ask her how she's feeling and that will upset her thought process. Smile. She's not the kind of woman to act on her own and she's not clear when it comes to me who her backup is. No matter, the offer stands. I don't blame someone either for choosing to hit back...but gratuitous sucker punches and back stabs are a cowardly way to do it, imho. Have a good day. Post some opera maybe? Sincerely, Em ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Good morning, Em, My perception of the situation is that Share may respond to attacks but does not, for the most part, initiate them. She is more sinned against than sinning. I don't blame someone if they choose sometimes to hit back. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Dear Feste, this is an example of a letter, you as a good friend, should have addressed to Share, IMHO. Switch out the name Share for Judy or Ann, and you've got a letter to deliver to your friend Share. Stated gently with loving kindness and concern for her well-being as a human being, of course. All you said about her vile post to Ann was something like (and I paraphrase)I didn't particularly care for it, but she's a friend of mine and I am loyal to my friends. Really? I gave Ravi a bigger ration of shit than that and he gave me one as well. And, I've only met him once. Personally, I depend on my friends that I know in the flesh to tell me the truth and I do the same with them, and we respect and love and trust each other enough to do it and work on owning our own shit. Blind loyalty is a waste of time. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: You are as responsible as anyone else for creating an atmosphere of mutual disrespect. Do you behave like this in your real, day-to-day life? Is that how you talk to people? I don't think so. The real dishonesty, the real lie, comes from you. I think you are dishonest with yourself. I suspect that the truth, as I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, is that you enjoy being mean. You enjoy hitting out at other people. My guess is that doing so assuages some of the anger that you feel and gives you some kind of safety valve that you find satisfying. You concoct this fake issue of dishonesty and pretend to yourself that you are the virtuous one, standing up for what is right. Unfortunately, the reality is that you are a person in the grip of some very deep-rooted obsessions that make you very difficult and unpleasant to deal with. Your behavior toward Share is a disgrace. It amounts to harassment, and I don't think this forum should put up with it. You wouldn't be able to do it on Facebook, yet you think you can do it here. You should either change your behavior or unsubscribe. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: So you think lying is fine too? As I've said before, most folks here are honest. But there are still several Bad Apples (fortunately some of the worst ones have left) who have no inhibitions about lying--in particular, about other FFL members they don't like--and I think that is terribly destructive. It's the essence of unkindness. And it's hardly a matter of old grudges when it continues to this day. I have never been on a Web forum where lying was so complacently tolerated. But it breeds mutual disrespect and lowers standards of civility generally. I would be willing to bet that if there were less tolerance for lying, there would be a lot less unkindness overall. As I've said many times before, life is tough enough when everyone is doing their absolute damndest to be as honest as they possibly can. There's no excuse for making it tougher. IMHO, of course. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: I think people are pretty honest here. The only person who obsesses about lying is you. Your question to Buck is of course just a way of sidestepping the issue of perpetual unkindness. I can see why you would want to do that, since you are the principal purveyor of it. You need to let go of all these old grudges and obsessions. They are negative attachments that do not serve you well. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: How about the lying? You never mention the lying, Buck. Does that mean you think it's OK to lie? Buck huffed: You can't even hardly
[FairfieldLife] RE: Re: Judy Stein#39;s Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
Now that was pretty funny. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: Some people on FFL forget it's just a chat group. That should be the mantra of Fairfield Life: IT'S JUST A CHAT GROUP The TM advanced technique version would be: GET OVER IT, NAMAH, NAMAH http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H-Y7MAASkg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H-Y7MAASkg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H-Y7MAASkghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H-Y7MAASkg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H-Y7MAASkg :-)
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.
That would be *she* initiates plentyalthough I kinda like Her. Initiates. Plenty. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Dear Feste, good morning to you too. Did your girlfriend stay over? Wait, that's kind of personal, I don't really want to know...just joshin' you. I totally understand how you would come to the conclusion you have about Sharester - she is what I call an uber passive aggressive type. Her initiates plenty towards Judy; hence my begging her to leave Judy alone and come after me when she's feeling like expressing some of her anger inappropriately. It *is* my turn, after all. She's too scared though. She knows I'll ask her how she's feeling and that will upset her thought process. Smile. She's not the kind of woman to act on her own and she's not clear when it comes to me who her backup is. No matter, the offer stands. I don't blame someone either for choosing to hit back...but gratuitous sucker punches and back stabs are a cowardly way to do it, imho. Have a good day. Post some opera maybe? Sincerely, Em ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Good morning, Em, My perception of the situation is that Share may respond to attacks but does not, for the most part, initiate them. She is more sinned against than sinning. I don't blame someone if they choose sometimes to hit back. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Dear Feste, this is an example of a letter, you as a good friend, should have addressed to Share, IMHO. Switch out the name Share for Judy or Ann, and you've got a letter to deliver to your friend Share. Stated gently with loving kindness and concern for her well-being as a human being, of course. All you said about her vile post to Ann was something like (and I paraphrase)I didn't particularly care for it, but she's a friend of mine and I am loyal to my friends. Really? I gave Ravi a bigger ration of shit than that and he gave me one as well. And, I've only met him once. Personally, I depend on my friends that I know in the flesh to tell me the truth and I do the same with them, and we respect and love and trust each other enough to do it and work on owning our own shit. Blind loyalty is a waste of time. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: You are as responsible as anyone else for creating an atmosphere of mutual disrespect. Do you behave like this in your real, day-to-day life? Is that how you talk to people? I don't think so. The real dishonesty, the real lie, comes from you. I think you are dishonest with yourself. I suspect that the truth, as I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, is that you enjoy being mean. You enjoy hitting out at other people. My guess is that doing so assuages some of the anger that you feel and gives you some kind of safety valve that you find satisfying. You concoct this fake issue of dishonesty and pretend to yourself that you are the virtuous one, standing up for what is right. Unfortunately, the reality is that you are a person in the grip of some very deep-rooted obsessions that make you very difficult and unpleasant to deal with. Your behavior toward Share is a disgrace. It amounts to harassment, and I don't think this forum should put up with it. You wouldn't be able to do it on Facebook, yet you think you can do it here. You should either change your behavior or unsubscribe. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: So you think lying is fine too? As I've said before, most folks here are honest. But there are still several Bad Apples (fortunately some of the worst ones have left) who have no inhibitions about lying--in particular, about other FFL members they don't like--and I think that is terribly destructive. It's the essence of unkindness. And it's hardly a matter of old grudges when it continues to this day. I have never been on a Web forum where lying was so complacently tolerated. But it breeds mutual disrespect and lowers standards of civility generally. I would be willing to bet that if there were less tolerance for lying, there would be a lot less unkindness overall. As I've said many times before, life is tough enough when everyone is doing their absolute damndest to be as honest as they possibly can. There's no excuse for making it tougher. IMHO, of course. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: I think people are pretty honest here. The only person who obsesses about lying is you. Your question to Buck is of course just a way of sidestepping the issue of perpetual unkindness. I can see why you would want to do that, since you are the principal purveyor of it. You need to let go of all these old grudges and obsessions. They are negative attachments that do not serve you well. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Judy Stein#39;s Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
It's interesting, I put up that Barry's Fantasy Image of Judy photo years ago to make a little fun of him, but he apparently took it quite seriously and almost immediately became obsessed with the image, reposting it over and over and even fantasizing it as a crop circle. By this time, it seems to have taken over his brain. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Barry, You have probably spent more time analyzing, responding to, and just plain day-dreaming, about Judy, than I have about my wife, and we live under the same roof. Scary shit, though I will definitely leave it to you, as I'd rather spend my time in Reality - no offense. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Because, despite my nearly two decades of trying to educate people -- first on alt.meditation.transcendental and now on Fairfield Life -- as to what a LIE is, I find many of them still confused. Because it is my God-given duty and dharma to be the Keeper Of The Truth, I felt I should write a short manifesto explaining to these retards what exactly a LIE is, so they can recognize when they're doing it, and thus LYING. * Disagreeing with me on *any* subject about which I am posing as an expert -- even if they have experienced the phenomenon or SoC or events being discussed and I have only read about them or heard about them -- is a lie. I am RIGHT, and they are WRONG, and to be WRONG is to LIE. * Holding a different opinion of me, my behavior, and the motives for my behavior than I hold is a LIE. I *know* The Truth about myself, my behavior, and my motives, and if they hold a different view, and express it despite my corrections, they're LYING. * Saying something negative about someone I regard as a friend (even though I've never met them and never will) or as an ally (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) is a LIE. I will defend these allies to the death, and make excuses for *their* LIES with the same vehemence with which I put down the LIES of those who persecute them. * Saying something positive about someone I view negatively is by definition a LIE. The very fact that they don't see this person the way I see them reveals how REEAALLLY REEAALLLY STOOOPID they are, and how smart and superior I am. If they persist in viewing these hooligans positively in the face of my corrections, they're LYING, pure and simple. * Suggesting that *I* have LIED is even more by definition a LIE, because as we all know, I DON'T LIE. I have declared this, so it is TRUE, and never to be contradicted. I am the ONLY person on this forum who cares about The Truth, as well as the ONLY person who *knows* The Truth. Challenge this at your own peril, you LIARS! * Claiming that I persecute or harass people by posting literally hundreds of posts ragging on them per year -- year after year -- is a LIE. I am merely pursuing my dharma, which is to be the Keeper Of The Truth. They *deserve* my invective and my continued attention; I am trying to *help* them by revealing to them what big, fat LIARS they are, and trying to help them see The Truth. Which is that they should always agree with me, of course. * Whenever I criticize or make negative comments about someone, these things should be viewed as The Truth that they are. Challenging them or disagreeing with them is by definition a LIE. Furthermore, when I say these things about someone else, that person *owes me* a point-by-point response to all the things I *know* about them because these things are The Truth. When someone says something negative about me, I owe them nothing but to call them what they are -- a LIAR. See my responses to Richard for the template. * Laughing at me and my behavior is a particularly insidious form of LIE. I *know* The Truth, About Almost Everything, and so my words must be treated with the level of respect and awe I expect. Anything less is a kind of implicit LIE, a suggestion that I don't really *know* the things I claim to know, and that I'm just spouting opinion, like everyone else here. I am NOT like everyone else here; I'm better, smarter, and always RIGHT. Dispute this in any way, and you're LYING. * Finally, writing something and attributing it to me as if I had written it -- no matter how accurate it is -- is by definition a LIE. Ignore the fact that I have failed to condemn several of my allies (for example, Robin, Ravi, Jimbo, and others) when they have done this to other people. They were *justified* in doing this to these other LIARS, because *I DON'T LIKE THEM*. But when someone does this to me, it's a LIE of the basest sort. :-) [ For the record, the above was *not* written by Judy Stein. It was written in a Dutch pub just for fun by someone channeling her, and saying what she would say if she were actually capable of telling The Truth she claims to care so much about. ]
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Re: Judy Stein#39;s Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
There are certain people here who understand that deception goes to the heart of existence. In Indian traditions, we have a couple of examples. The main one being: The world is illusion, only Brahman is real, the world is Brahman. That is, everything is a lie through and through, and at the same time, truth. And from the Mahabharata: After King Drupada and King Virata were slain by Drona, Bhima, and Dhristadyumna fought him on the fifteenth day. Because Drona was very powerful and inconquerable having the irresistible brahmadanda, Krishna hinted to Yudhisthira that Drona would give up his arms if his son Ashwathama was dead. Bhima proceeded to kill an elephant named Ashwathama, and loudly proclaimed that Ashwathama was dead. Drona approached Yudhisthira to seek the truth of his son's death. Yudhisthira proclaimed 'Ashwathama Hatahath, naro va Kunjaro va', implying Ashwathama had died but he was nor sure whether it was a Drona's son or an elephant, The latter part of his proclamation (Naro va Kunjaro va) were drowned out by sound of the conch blown by Krishna intentionally (a different version of the story is that Yudhisthira pronounced the last words so feebly that Drona could not hear the word elephant). Prior to this incident, the chariot of Yudhisthira, proclaimed as Dharma raja (King of righteousness), hovered a few inches off the ground. After the event, the chariot landed on the ground as he lied. Goody goody spiritual types or crusaders try to ignore this and claim that this deception somehow does not spring from the eternal, which creates a logically unbalanced and delusionary version of existence by denying parity among the pairs of opposites such as good and evil; truth and falsehood. The peace that passes understanding is not a matter of good and evil or truth and lies, it is experiencing how these divergent characteristics are related within the entire range of experience.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Personal Gender Pronouns
Just address them by their true pronoun descriptor ... it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: This new practice is catching on in a SF Bay Area college for women--and a few others in the country. Will the English language be changed? http://news.yahoo.com/preferred-pronouns-gain-traction-us-colleges-064437446.html http://news.yahoo.com/preferred-pronouns-gain-traction-us-colleges-064437446.html
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Poor Judy Stein
If Ellen Degenerate is your authoritative source for what constitutes meditation, then you'd off be better consulting Catholic Answers for another way to be thoughtless. After all, a blank mind is the demon's playground and, of course, the Great Demon has a bulls-eye on your third-eye. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Barry, you stooge. How do you know I never learned to meditate? You would be wrong on that count. I never learned TM, is what I've said. I am contributing to your discussion here by posting this link by Ellen Degeneres on meditation. While deep in meditation designing a pair of sunglasses for her third eye (or something like that) she monologues...the teacher hits the gong and then I jump and I almost yell Oh My God,, but because I'm smart I yell Ohhhm. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G91AUG7N3rU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G91AUG7N3rU That was kind of a weak and limp shot below the belt, you stating that the only reason I'm here is for the opportunity to be mean to others. You can do better than that. Try again? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Here she is having a total meltdown becuz no one believes her crap about being a crusader against dishonesty and even Feste is calling her on her meanness and nails her in a lie about punctuation on blogs and y'know what the worst part is? She can't get anyone to come to her defense the way they used to. The only person who is willing to stand up for Judy any more is the woman who never learned to meditate, has nothing to contribute to the ongoing discussions here, and who only posts to this forum because it gives *her* an opportunity to be mean to people. Birds of a feather, eh? Personally I find it all pretty heartening. A few months ago if Judy had thrown a hissy fit like this and tried to pose as some kind of noble crusader against untruth (because, of course, only SHE knows the truth), she could have gotten a few people to pile on and defend her. But even *they* distance themselves from her these days. Not that that'll stop her, of course. Judy will do what she's always done, and possibly even louder. But at least now she'll be standing in the street screaming like an insane bag lady *all by herself*, and hopefully no one but other crazies will be taken in by the screaming...
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: Poor Judy Stein
Look what I found on the Catholic Answers website! The answer to the age-old question, Is there a Santa Claus? You have probably seen this, but I am submitting it for review anyhow and letting you know I am putting my faith in Santa to protect me from the Great Demon, as of today. http://www.newseum.org/yesvirginia/ http://www.newseum.org/yesvirginia/ ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: If Ellen Degenerate is your authoritative source for what constitutes meditation, then you'd off be better consulting Catholic Answers for another way to be thoughtless. After all, a blank mind is the demon's playground and, of course, the Great Demon has a bulls-eye on your third-eye. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Barry, you stooge. How do you know I never learned to meditate? You would be wrong on that count. I never learned TM, is what I've said. I am contributing to your discussion here by posting this link by Ellen Degeneres on meditation. While deep in meditation designing a pair of sunglasses for her third eye (or something like that) she monologues...the teacher hits the gong and then I jump and I almost yell Oh My God,, but because I'm smart I yell Ohhhm. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G91AUG7N3rU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G91AUG7N3rU That was kind of a weak and limp shot below the belt, you stating that the only reason I'm here is for the opportunity to be mean to others. You can do better than that. Try again? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Here she is having a total meltdown becuz no one believes her crap about being a crusader against dishonesty and even Feste is calling her on her meanness and nails her in a lie about punctuation on blogs and y'know what the worst part is? She can't get anyone to come to her defense the way they used to. The only person who is willing to stand up for Judy any more is the woman who never learned to meditate, has nothing to contribute to the ongoing discussions here, and who only posts to this forum because it gives *her* an opportunity to be mean to people. Birds of a feather, eh? Personally I find it all pretty heartening. A few months ago if Judy had thrown a hissy fit like this and tried to pose as some kind of noble crusader against untruth (because, of course, only SHE knows the truth), she could have gotten a few people to pile on and defend her. But even *they* distance themselves from her these days. Not that that'll stop her, of course. Judy will do what she's always done, and possibly even louder. But at least now she'll be standing in the street screaming like an insane bag lady *all by herself*, and hopefully no one but other crazies will be taken in by the screaming...
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: Poor Judy Stein
I just adore that piece. Everyone should read it at least once a year. Thanks for providing this year's read, Emily. I would so like to have had Mr. Church's babies. (And look at his picture! That is a miraculous mustache.) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Look what I found on the Catholic Answers website! The answer to the age-old question, Is there a Santa Claus? You have probably seen this, but I am submitting it for review anyhow and letting you know I am putting my faith in Santa to protect me from the Great Demon, as of today. http://www.newseum.org/yesvirginia/ http://www.newseum.org/yesvirginia/ ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: If Ellen Degenerate is your authoritative source for what constitutes meditation, then you'd off be better consulting Catholic Answers for another way to be thoughtless. After all, a blank mind is the demon's playground and, of course, the Great Demon has a bulls-eye on your third-eye. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Barry, you stooge. How do you know I never learned to meditate? You would be wrong on that count. I never learned TM, is what I've said. I am contributing to your discussion here by posting this link by Ellen Degeneres on meditation. While deep in meditation designing a pair of sunglasses for her third eye (or something like that) she monologues...the teacher hits the gong and then I jump and I almost yell Oh My God,, but because I'm smart I yell Ohhhm. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G91AUG7N3rU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G91AUG7N3rU That was kind of a weak and limp shot below the belt, you stating that the only reason I'm here is for the opportunity to be mean to others. You can do better than that. Try again? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Here she is having a total meltdown becuz no one believes her crap about being a crusader against dishonesty and even Feste is calling her on her meanness and nails her in a lie about punctuation on blogs and y'know what the worst part is? She can't get anyone to come to her defense the way they used to. The only person who is willing to stand up for Judy any more is the woman who never learned to meditate, has nothing to contribute to the ongoing discussions here, and who only posts to this forum because it gives *her* an opportunity to be mean to people. Birds of a feather, eh? Personally I find it all pretty heartening. A few months ago if Judy had thrown a hissy fit like this and tried to pose as some kind of noble crusader against untruth (because, of course, only SHE knows the truth), she could have gotten a few people to pile on and defend her. But even *they* distance themselves from her these days. Not that that'll stop her, of course. Judy will do what she's always done, and possibly even louder. But at least now she'll be standing in the street screaming like an insane bag lady *all by herself*, and hopefully no one but other crazies will be taken in by the screaming...
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Personal Gender Pronouns
Some people would probably take that as an offense since it applies to an inanimate being or something impersonal. But I do have a problem with addressing one person as they. Some people may find this as rude and a violation of good etiquette. Nonetheless, there are some languages in the world where the pronouns are genderless as part of their accepted grammatical rules. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: Just address them by their true pronoun descriptor ... it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: This new practice is catching on in a SF Bay Area college for women--and a few others in the country. Will the English language be changed? http://news.yahoo.com/preferred-pronouns-gain-traction-us-colleges-064437446.html http://news.yahoo.com/preferred-pronouns-gain-traction-us-colleges-064437446.html
[FairfieldLife] RE: Patanjali,Vyasa Shank ara on Dhâranâ Dhyâna
Turq, The key here seems to be recognition. Recognizing that I have been lost in thoughts, (note the post tense) occurs after the spontaneous returning of attention to the present moment of cognizance. This recognition is not, in itself, an act of choice but is in essence a remembrance impelled by the previous decision to retain a particular thought (whether mantra or sutra). “Remembrance” in this particular context, means the consequent recollection of a previous thought as the result of a prior intention. Patanjali address “remembering” directly in sutra 11 of the first chapter: YS 1.11 remembering is the non-stealing away of the experienced object. The stealer can be just another thought. Someone might claim that different meditation techniques target fundamentally different types of human cognizance. However, such a proposal is an unsupportable claim. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u wrote: Maharishi doesn't teach concentration (dharana), Kriya Yoga does! In Kriya, it's the concentration that LEADS to a state called meditation (dhyana). I would say instead that concentration is ONE method that leads to the meditative state. There are many. TMers are taught to regard concentration as almost a dirty word, and a dirtier concept. Their loss, which one tends to see the effects of in their spaced-out-ed-ness. IMO both concentration and letting-go (effortlessness) have a role in the practice of meditation. Interestingly, I have found the best results through the alternation of them, often in the same session. Focus, then letting go. Rinse and repeat. Strong, deep, clear meditations as the result, with FAR less just sitting there lost in thoughts and thinking one is meditating. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@ wrote: Here is proof that MMY adhered to Patanjaliâs definition of sanyama. YS 3.1 deÅ¡a-bandhaÅ¡-cittasya-dhâranâ : deÅ¡a = locus, place, spot : bandha = bind, fasten, cohere : chitta = individual consciousness : dhâranâ = holding, focusing Dhâranâ is binding the mind to a place (or âHoldingâ is the placement of consciousness) Vyasa sez: Dharana is binding the mind to a place. It is binding the mind, AS A PURELY MENTAL PROCESS, to the navel circle, the heart lotus, the light in the head, the tip of the nose, the tip of the tongue, and other such locations; and to external objects. Shankara sez: Dhâranâ is binding the mind to one place. Binding to one place means binding it there and it is the mind that is to be bound. The commentator (Vyasa) gives details, binding to the navel circle all the vital currents meet there in the form of a circle, so it is called the circle of the navel. On the form of the heart lotus, the light in the head. The door of the nadi nerve-channel of the head is radiant, and so it is called a light. To the tip of the nose, the tip of the tongue, and to other such locations, and to external objects, such as the moon. To these the mind is bound. The mental process (vritti) of the mind, held in those places without being dispersed, is called dhâranâ, as a purely mental process. It functions simply as the IDEA of that place without any disturbance or viksepa. YS 3.2 tatra pratyaya-ekatânatâ dhyânam tatra = therein or âin regard toâ pratyaya = idea, notion eka = one tânatâ = extension, stretching (here one-directionality) dhyâna = meditative absorption Continuity of the mind there is meditation.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Personal Gender Pronouns
It's standard practice on the Web. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: This new practice is catching on in a SF Bay Area college for women--and a few others in the country. Will the English language be changed? http://news.yahoo.com/preferred-pronouns-gain-traction-us-colleges-064437446.html http://news.yahoo.com/preferred-pronouns-gain-traction-us-colleges-064437446.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: 00000000, right
*Judy /fibbed/:* * This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up... *The key word in your message is ALL - so this message you sent is a lie. I did not make ALL of this up, most of it is in the archives. Judy posted a fib - now she owns it. Apologize or you will be warned about posting fibs to this discussion group. On 11/30/2013 8:02 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: *This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know. (But HINT: Read the exchange on alt.m.t at the URL. **Oh, and Pedro was not Vaj; he was a crazy fundamentalist Christian who infested alt.m.t for a while. Nor have I ever denied I'm a partisan liberal Democrat.)* ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: There is one thing you will never see from Judy - she will absolutely never admit that she was in error or that she is a partisan politico. She's been doing this for fifteen years on internet discussion groups. In one hilarious exchange, years ago on Usenet, I posted a link to a Gallup Poll showing the Bush job approval rating. After Judy disputed my statement, I went back three times to check the results of the poll. In desperation, Judy's last statement was something to the effect that I was was a molusk for posting a link to a poll that proved the opposite of what I was saying. Go figure. At that point, I realized that this lady was so invested in winning a debate that she would stoop to outright slander in order win a debate. Never mind the facts of the poll, I'm just pointing out the typical style of argument Judy uses to demean her debating opponent. What's interesting about this exchange is that Pedro (Vaj) saw right through Judy's posing as a political pundit and even posted a note that proved Judy's overt partisanship. LoL! That's about the time Judy stopped commenting on any of my posts, except for calling me a troll and a liar, and became an ECHO, trying to get everyone else to shun me - because I had dared to dispute her political view. Go figure. Look, I'm not stupid and I can read the newspaper and I'll always admit when I'm dead wrong about the political facts. The actual graphic is no longer online, but you can get the jist of the conversation below. Judy's last resort when she is losing a debate is to post an echo and ad hominem. In this case, I became a molusk and slime in a political debate. Now that's classy! From the Usenet archives: From: Judy Stein Subject: Re: OT: Bush Approval 49% Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: 2004-06-16 12:46:42 PST http://tinyurl.com/oruvtdq I take it back, a mollusk is smarter than he is. What's the next step down the evolutionary ladder from a mollusk? No, make it three or four steps down. Not quite to slime mold, but close. From: Judy Stein Subject: Re: OT: Bush Approval 49% Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: 2004-06-16 20:28:53 PST http://tinyurl.com/oruvtdq I'm wrong again, he *has* made it to slime mold.
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: Poor Judy Stein
Just keep praying Santa, Santa come swiftly to my aid. No doubt if you also pray Holy Mother of Santa pray for me both now and in my hour of need you'll also see a miracle. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Look what I found on the Catholic Answers website! The answer to the age-old question, Is there a Santa Claus? You have probably seen this, but I am submitting it for review anyhow and letting you know I am putting my faith in Santa to protect me from the Great Demon, as of today. http://www.newseum.org/yesvirginia/ http://www.newseum.org/yesvirginia/ ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: If Ellen Degenerate is your authoritative source for what constitutes meditation, then you'd off be better consulting Catholic Answers for another way to be thoughtless. After all, a blank mind is the demon's playground and, of course, the Great Demon has a bulls-eye on your third-eye. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Barry, you stooge. How do you know I never learned to meditate? You would be wrong on that count. I never learned TM, is what I've said. I am contributing to your discussion here by posting this link by Ellen Degeneres on meditation. While deep in meditation designing a pair of sunglasses for her third eye (or something like that) she monologues...the teacher hits the gong and then I jump and I almost yell Oh My God,, but because I'm smart I yell Ohhhm. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G91AUG7N3rU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G91AUG7N3rU That was kind of a weak and limp shot below the belt, you stating that the only reason I'm here is for the opportunity to be mean to others. You can do better than that. Try again? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Here she is having a total meltdown becuz no one believes her crap about being a crusader against dishonesty and even Feste is calling her on her meanness and nails her in a lie about punctuation on blogs and y'know what the worst part is? She can't get anyone to come to her defense the way they used to. The only person who is willing to stand up for Judy any more is the woman who never learned to meditate, has nothing to contribute to the ongoing discussions here, and who only posts to this forum because it gives *her* an opportunity to be mean to people. Birds of a feather, eh? Personally I find it all pretty heartening. A few months ago if Judy had thrown a hissy fit like this and tried to pose as some kind of noble crusader against untruth (because, of course, only SHE knows the truth), she could have gotten a few people to pile on and defend her. But even *they* distance themselves from her these days. Not that that'll stop her, of course. Judy will do what she's always done, and possibly even louder. But at least now she'll be standing in the street screaming like an insane bag lady *all by herself*, and hopefully no one but other crazies will be taken in by the screaming...
[FairfieldLife] Master Masons
How many Master Masons does it take to set a flagpole upright? [image: Inline image 1]
Re: [FairfieldLife] What I Did Today
Today we went to this place: [image: Inline image 1] On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.comwrote: Today I went to this place: [image: Inline image 1] On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.comwrote: Yesterday we also went to Whole Foods and had a nice salad. They have got to have the very best salad bar in the whole town! [image: Inline image 1] On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.comwrote: Richard, yesterday I went to Coldwater Creek in Annapolis Town Center. I got my Mom a tunic length blouse for her birthday. It's a beautiful paisley print in black on white. But it's a little too small so we'll take it back today after lunch. I'm taking her and my sister to Brio's for lunch, also in Annapolis Town Center. People are calling my Mom this morning to wish her Happy Birthday. She's 83 and still zips around pretty well. Actually her foot can be a little heavy on the pedal but I just close my eyes LOL! On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 6:47 PM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.com wrote: Today we went back to this place: [image: Inline image 1] On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.comwrote: My Whole Foods has lots of dried fruit and nuts: [image: Inline image 1] On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.comwrote: Soon, Richard, I'll be going to the Whole Foods in Annapolis. They have TWO kinds of quinoa concoctions at the salad bar. How many different kinds of quinoa salad does your Whole Foods have? PS I LOVE these photos of the different places you visit or drive by! On Tuesday, November 19, 2013 9:25 PM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.com wrote: Tonight we went to this place: [image: Inline image 1] On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.comwrote: Today I drove by this place: [image: Inline image 1] On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.com wrote: This morning I went to this place: [image: Inline image 1] On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.comwrote: On the way home from the store I visited this place: [image: Inline image 1] On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.comwrote: There;s a rock and roll running marathon here today and there having a Formula Grand Prix race up in Austin. But, I went to this place today: [image: Inline image 1] On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.comwrote: Today I went by this place. What are those people all lined up for, waiting for days? [image: Inline image 1] On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.comwrote: Later today I drove past this place: [image: Inline image 1] On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.netwrote: There's an app for this: https://twitter.com/ I'm sure everyone on FFL will sign up for your tweets. On 11/15/2013 12:07 PM, Richard Williams wrote: Alright, I'm back on the discussion board; sorry for the delay but I had to go here:: [image: Inline image 1]
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Poor Judy Stein
Amen. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: Just keep praying Santa, Santa come swiftly to my aid. No doubt if you also pray Holy Mother of Santa pray for me both now and in my hour of need you'll also see a miracle. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Look what I found on the Catholic Answers website! The answer to the age-old question, Is there a Santa Claus? You have probably seen this, but I am submitting it for review anyhow and letting you know I am putting my faith in Santa to protect me from the Great Demon, as of today. http://www.newseum.org/yesvirginia/ http://www.newseum.org/yesvirginia/ ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: If Ellen Degenerate is your authoritative source for what constitutes meditation, then you'd off be better consulting Catholic Answers for another way to be thoughtless. After all, a blank mind is the demon's playground and, of course, the Great Demon has a bulls-eye on your third-eye. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Barry, you stooge. How do you know I never learned to meditate? You would be wrong on that count. I never learned TM, is what I've said. I am contributing to your discussion here by posting this link by Ellen Degeneres on meditation. While deep in meditation designing a pair of sunglasses for her third eye (or something like that) she monologues...the teacher hits the gong and then I jump and I almost yell Oh My God,, but because I'm smart I yell Ohhhm. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G91AUG7N3rU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G91AUG7N3rU That was kind of a weak and limp shot below the belt, you stating that the only reason I'm here is for the opportunity to be mean to others. You can do better than that. Try again? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Here she is having a total meltdown becuz no one believes her crap about being a crusader against dishonesty and even Feste is calling her on her meanness and nails her in a lie about punctuation on blogs and y'know what the worst part is? She can't get anyone to come to her defense the way they used to. The only person who is willing to stand up for Judy any more is the woman who never learned to meditate, has nothing to contribute to the ongoing discussions here, and who only posts to this forum because it gives *her* an opportunity to be mean to people. Birds of a feather, eh? Personally I find it all pretty heartening. A few months ago if Judy had thrown a hissy fit like this and tried to pose as some kind of noble crusader against untruth (because, of course, only SHE knows the truth), she could have gotten a few people to pile on and defend her. But even *they* distance themselves from her these days. Not that that'll stop her, of course. Judy will do what she's always done, and possibly even louder. But at least now she'll be standing in the street screaming like an insane bag lady *all by herself*, and hopefully no one but other crazies will be taken in by the screaming...
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: TM Nazis, Again??
I fear for the way the Settle grant now opens us up to ridicule in paying people to 'hop'. The Grant is too much about ridicule now in the community. For the larger reason of positively sustaining the dome meditation numbers it is just time now to phase transition the grant out. It was an honorable thing the Settles did in supporting the American Assembly but it has gotten twisted now. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: But it is proly time to just stop with the Howard Settle grant program. In effect it is being counter-productive to the Dome numbers for all the bad feeling it creates now in the larger meditating community, except of course to the benefit of a few tru-believers being paid to 'hop' for the longer rounds.. In context it actually could probably be better for the Dome numbers if they'd just phase transition the Settle grant program out. Could be a really good gift in public relations if they should take whatever Howard Settle grant money amount is in for one final month and go back to paying all the old Settle grant people attending a gift pro-rated based on their Dome meditation attendance for that month. Would be a acknowledgment and nice thank you for the years of dedication that quite a few performed on the Assembly. And then do away with paying people to 'hop'. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck. wrote: Yes, old bones, that is a communal rub that really hurts some morale (feelings) of some old dedicated meditators that had come here to be in a big group meditation. That before were people having number one great experiences who were being subsidized to be in the Domes with the original Settle grant program are dropped from the grant program for other people who can perform 'hopping' and keep that performance up. The Settle granting as it is now is not necessarily all good in effect on the Dome numbers. From interviewing folks around it could be argued that paying for 'hopping' is actually counter-productive to the overall numbers. Could proly be better to just skip the grant program and go back to having people meditating the program out according to their experience. -Buck ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote: I'm too old to bounce very high and if after program James Beddinger or some other jack ass gave me some crap about my hopping I would go to jail for kicking his ass. wrote: I look forward to the group meditating. It's a fabulous place to meditate for the field effect that is there. You should come back some time and within join the group meditating. -Buck ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote: It doesn't bother you that people are being taken to task for not hopping high enough??? THe entire TM and TM Sidhi program was SUPPOSED to be practiced naturally with NO STRAIN? What happened to that? If indeed this is taking place inside and out of the Domes, the TMO is going against the fundamental basics of proper practice of the TM and TM Sidhi programes, and to paraphrase the Old Goat himself, if you aren't doing TM the way its taught, you aren't doing TM. If these monitor Nazis are introducing fear into people's awareness between programs ABOUT program itself then they are defeating the very Marsy Effect you are so fond of praising and worshiping. I have to agree with past statements made by Barry - the Movement is dead and it is continually being re-buried by practices like this. On Sun, 11/24/13, Buck wrote: Overseers. Well yes, and what is the problem(?). It's about pay for performance. If you are being paid to meditate and 'hop' then all the more certainly your employers should get some disciplined work (meditation) from you. It is called performance contract. This criteria calls for overseers for meditating is for the few folks who are still funded to be regularly attending the dome meditating and doing the long TM-sidhis yogic flying prescribed for on the Howard Settle grant program. Of the total number of people in the larger group meditation only a few remain now on the money grant. They got standards to keep up if they are getting money for it. Other meditators who were dropped from the grant program when it collapsed before for lack of money may well think these others are selling their souls to have to 'hop' just for money. Other people who before were there for having great and powerful meditation in the Domes may see it has become otherwise for some, a form of performance art for money, as another corruption of money. People see it differently. I think it is wonderful that people are generally a little more disciplined sitting up in meditation now and attending to
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Poor Judy Stein
And to keep you in the right frame of mind, one can never hear this too often during the holiday season. Can you believe he wrote this in 24 days! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuGSOkYWfDQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuGSOkYWfDQ ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Amen. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: Just keep praying Santa, Santa come swiftly to my aid. No doubt if you also pray Holy Mother of Santa pray for me both now and in my hour of need you'll also see a miracle. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Look what I found on the Catholic Answers website! The answer to the age-old question, Is there a Santa Claus? You have probably seen this, but I am submitting it for review anyhow and letting you know I am putting my faith in Santa to protect me from the Great Demon, as of today. http://www.newseum.org/yesvirginia/ http://www.newseum.org/yesvirginia/ ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: If Ellen Degenerate is your authoritative source for what constitutes meditation, then you'd off be better consulting Catholic Answers for another way to be thoughtless. After all, a blank mind is the demon's playground and, of course, the Great Demon has a bulls-eye on your third-eye. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Barry, you stooge. How do you know I never learned to meditate? You would be wrong on that count. I never learned TM, is what I've said. I am contributing to your discussion here by posting this link by Ellen Degeneres on meditation. While deep in meditation designing a pair of sunglasses for her third eye (or something like that) she monologues...the teacher hits the gong and then I jump and I almost yell Oh My God,, but because I'm smart I yell Ohhhm. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G91AUG7N3rU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G91AUG7N3rU That was kind of a weak and limp shot below the belt, you stating that the only reason I'm here is for the opportunity to be mean to others. You can do better than that. Try again? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Here she is having a total meltdown becuz no one believes her crap about being a crusader against dishonesty and even Feste is calling her on her meanness and nails her in a lie about punctuation on blogs and y'know what the worst part is? She can't get anyone to come to her defense the way they used to. The only person who is willing to stand up for Judy any more is the woman who never learned to meditate, has nothing to contribute to the ongoing discussions here, and who only posts to this forum because it gives *her* an opportunity to be mean to people. Birds of a feather, eh? Personally I find it all pretty heartening. A few months ago if Judy had thrown a hissy fit like this and tried to pose as some kind of noble crusader against untruth (because, of course, only SHE knows the truth), she could have gotten a few people to pile on and defend her. But even *they* distance themselves from her these days. Not that that'll stop her, of course. Judy will do what she's always done, and possibly even louder. But at least now she'll be standing in the street screaming like an insane bag lady *all by herself*, and hopefully no one but other crazies will be taken in by the screaming...
[FairfieldLife] RE: Personal Gender Pronouns
Rather than an insightful insult, consider it an epiphanym. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: Some people would probably take that as an offense since it applies to an inanimate being or something impersonal. But I do have a problem with addressing one person as they. Some people may find this as rude and a violation of good etiquette. Nonetheless, there are some languages in the world where the pronouns are genderless as part of their accepted grammatical rules. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: Just address them by their true pronoun descriptor ... it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: This new practice is catching on in a SF Bay Area college for women--and a few others in the country. Will the English language be changed? http://news.yahoo.com/preferred-pronouns-gain-traction-us-colleges-064437446.html http://news.yahoo.com/preferred-pronouns-gain-traction-us-colleges-064437446.html
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: Poor Judy Stein
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Look what I found on the Catholic Answers website! The answer to the age-old question, Is there a Santa Claus? You have probably seen this, but I am submitting it for review anyhow and letting you know I am putting my faith in Santa to protect me from the Great Demon, as of today. http://www.newseum.org/yesvirginia/ http://www.newseum.org/yesvirginia/ Bless you Em, for positing this. I loved it and have never seen it before. It certainly speaks to much of what I am thinking about these days and what much of this forum could be about. http://www.newseum.org/yesvirginia/ ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: If Ellen Degenerate is your authoritative source for what constitutes meditation, then you'd off be better consulting Catholic Answers for another way to be thoughtless. After all, a blank mind is the demon's playground and, of course, the Great Demon has a bulls-eye on your third-eye. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Barry, you stooge. How do you know I never learned to meditate? You would be wrong on that count. I never learned TM, is what I've said. I am contributing to your discussion here by posting this link by Ellen Degeneres on meditation. While deep in meditation designing a pair of sunglasses for her third eye (or something like that) she monologues...the teacher hits the gong and then I jump and I almost yell Oh My God,, but because I'm smart I yell Ohhhm. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G91AUG7N3rU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G91AUG7N3rU That was kind of a weak and limp shot below the belt, you stating that the only reason I'm here is for the opportunity to be mean to others. You can do better than that. Try again? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Here she is having a total meltdown becuz no one believes her crap about being a crusader against dishonesty and even Feste is calling her on her meanness and nails her in a lie about punctuation on blogs and y'know what the worst part is? She can't get anyone to come to her defense the way they used to. The only person who is willing to stand up for Judy any more is the woman who never learned to meditate, has nothing to contribute to the ongoing discussions here, and who only posts to this forum because it gives *her* an opportunity to be mean to people. Birds of a feather, eh? Personally I find it all pretty heartening. A few months ago if Judy had thrown a hissy fit like this and tried to pose as some kind of noble crusader against untruth (because, of course, only SHE knows the truth), she could have gotten a few people to pile on and defend her. But even *they* distance themselves from her these days. Not that that'll stop her, of course. Judy will do what she's always done, and possibly even louder. But at least now she'll be standing in the street screaming like an insane bag lady *all by herself*, and hopefully no one but other crazies will be taken in by the screaming...
[FairfieldLife] RE: Poor Judy Stein
Perhaps you'd be happier discussing your prayer practice here ... http://forums.catholic.com/ http://forums.catholic.com/ ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Amen. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: Just keep praying Santa, Santa come swiftly to my aid. No doubt if you also pray Holy Mother of Santa pray for me both now and in my hour of need you'll also see a miracle. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Look what I found on the Catholic Answers website! The answer to the age-old question, Is there a Santa Claus? You have probably seen this, but I am submitting it for review anyhow and letting you know I am putting my faith in Santa to protect me from the Great Demon, as of today. http://www.newseum.org/yesvirginia/ http://www.newseum.org/yesvirginia/ ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: If Ellen Degenerate is your authoritative source for what constitutes meditation, then you'd off be better consulting Catholic Answers for another way to be thoughtless. After all, a blank mind is the demon's playground and, of course, the Great Demon has a bulls-eye on your third-eye. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Barry, you stooge. How do you know I never learned to meditate? You would be wrong on that count. I never learned TM, is what I've said. I am contributing to your discussion here by posting this link by Ellen Degeneres on meditation. While deep in meditation designing a pair of sunglasses for her third eye (or something like that) she monologues...the teacher hits the gong and then I jump and I almost yell Oh My God,, but because I'm smart I yell Ohhhm. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G91AUG7N3rU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G91AUG7N3rU That was kind of a weak and limp shot below the belt, you stating that the only reason I'm here is for the opportunity to be mean to others. You can do better than that. Try again? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Here she is having a total meltdown becuz no one believes her crap about being a crusader against dishonesty and even Feste is calling her on her meanness and nails her in a lie about punctuation on blogs and y'know what the worst part is? She can't get anyone to come to her defense the way they used to. The only person who is willing to stand up for Judy any more is the woman who never learned to meditate, has nothing to contribute to the ongoing discussions here, and who only posts to this forum because it gives *her* an opportunity to be mean to people. Birds of a feather, eh? Personally I find it all pretty heartening. A few months ago if Judy had thrown a hissy fit like this and tried to pose as some kind of noble crusader against untruth (because, of course, only SHE knows the truth), she could have gotten a few people to pile on and defend her. But even *they* distance themselves from her these days. Not that that'll stop her, of course. Judy will do what she's always done, and possibly even louder. But at least now she'll be standing in the street screaming like an insane bag lady *all by herself*, and hopefully no one but other crazies will be taken in by the screaming...
[FairfieldLife] RE: Poor Judy Stein
Better yet, go here to learn why you should never do Transcendental Meditation. You'll see why how lucky you were to be saved from this danger. http://www.catholic.com/search/content/transcendental%20meditation http://www.catholic.com/search/content/transcendental%20meditation ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: Perhaps you'd be happier discussing your prayer practice here ... http://forums.catholic.com/ http://forums.catholic.com/ ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Amen. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: Just keep praying Santa, Santa come swiftly to my aid. No doubt if you also pray Holy Mother of Santa pray for me both now and in my hour of need you'll also see a miracle. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Look what I found on the Catholic Answers website! The answer to the age-old question, Is there a Santa Claus? You have probably seen this, but I am submitting it for review anyhow and letting you know I am putting my faith in Santa to protect me from the Great Demon, as of today. http://www.newseum.org/yesvirginia/ http://www.newseum.org/yesvirginia/ ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: If Ellen Degenerate is your authoritative source for what constitutes meditation, then you'd off be better consulting Catholic Answers for another way to be thoughtless. After all, a blank mind is the demon's playground and, of course, the Great Demon has a bulls-eye on your third-eye. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Barry, you stooge. How do you know I never learned to meditate? You would be wrong on that count. I never learned TM, is what I've said. I am contributing to your discussion here by posting this link by Ellen Degeneres on meditation. While deep in meditation designing a pair of sunglasses for her third eye (or something like that) she monologues...the teacher hits the gong and then I jump and I almost yell Oh My God,, but because I'm smart I yell Ohhhm. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G91AUG7N3rU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G91AUG7N3rU That was kind of a weak and limp shot below the belt, you stating that the only reason I'm here is for the opportunity to be mean to others. You can do better than that. Try again? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Here she is having a total meltdown becuz no one believes her crap about being a crusader against dishonesty and even Feste is calling her on her meanness and nails her in a lie about punctuation on blogs and y'know what the worst part is? She can't get anyone to come to her defense the way they used to. The only person who is willing to stand up for Judy any more is the woman who never learned to meditate, has nothing to contribute to the ongoing discussions here, and who only posts to this forum because it gives *her* an opportunity to be mean to people. Birds of a feather, eh? Personally I find it all pretty heartening. A few months ago if Judy had thrown a hissy fit like this and tried to pose as some kind of noble crusader against untruth (because, of course, only SHE knows the truth), she could have gotten a few people to pile on and defend her. But even *they* distance themselves from her these days. Not that that'll stop her, of course. Judy will do what she's always done, and possibly even louder. But at least now she'll be standing in the street screaming like an insane bag lady *all by herself*, and hopefully no one but other crazies will be taken in by the screaming...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Judy Stein's Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
Keep up the good work, Share. If you're lucky, Judy will start ignoring you like she ignores me. It may take a few years, but it worked for me. Now all I get is an echo. LoL! On 11/30/2013 10:34 AM, Share Long wrote: turq, I'm agin it on all levels. And I don't think Ms. Stein really knows what she hopes to accomplish by all this harassing and name calling. On Saturday, November 30, 2013 10:31 AM, TurquoiseB turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Judy, what's the action step? What is it that you'd like to see happen? How do you feel -- personally, emotionally, and morally -- about waterboarding? :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@ wrote: See, this is what happens when a group tolerates dishonesty. When there are no sanctions against it, not even disapproval, even the weaker members start using dishonesty to justify themselves, as Share does here. The more people who feel safe being dishonest, the more a mythical, false story about the group and its members and interactions takes shape and displaces the real one. History, as they say, is written by the winners, so those who care about having an accurate history need to ensure the liars don't win. Here's the post in question; decide for yourselves whether Share's description of it below is truthful (note the many qualifying phrases that Share flatly denies it contained--including, ironically, it sounds like, which she specifically mentions below): http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/\ 319521 Plus which, as I've pointed out before, Share had gotten on my bad side well before this. Share lied: Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or even I think. Of course she didn't ask me if I was doing such and such. She just declared that I did such and such as if she could see inside my head and know, without error, what I had been thinking and feeling. I had never experienced someone communicating like that. It was like a foreign language and as such, I didn't even know how to respond. I've come to think that no matter what anyone says, Judy will not change. In fact, I've come to think that she likes it when she has to fight with everyone.
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Poor Judy Stein
Listen and attend with the ear of your heart. Saint Benedict ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: Perhaps you'd be happier discussing your prayer practice here ... http://forums.catholic.com/ http://forums.catholic.com/ ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Amen. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: Just keep praying Santa, Santa come swiftly to my aid. No doubt if you also pray Holy Mother of Santa pray for me both now and in my hour of need you'll also see a miracle. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Look what I found on the Catholic Answers website! The answer to the age-old question, Is there a Santa Claus? You have probably seen this, but I am submitting it for review anyhow and letting you know I am putting my faith in Santa to protect me from the Great Demon, as of today. http://www.newseum.org/yesvirginia/ http://www.newseum.org/yesvirginia/ ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: If Ellen Degenerate is your authoritative source for what constitutes meditation, then you'd off be better consulting Catholic Answers for another way to be thoughtless. After all, a blank mind is the demon's playground and, of course, the Great Demon has a bulls-eye on your third-eye. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Barry, you stooge. How do you know I never learned to meditate? You would be wrong on that count. I never learned TM, is what I've said. I am contributing to your discussion here by posting this link by Ellen Degeneres on meditation. While deep in meditation designing a pair of sunglasses for her third eye (or something like that) she monologues...the teacher hits the gong and then I jump and I almost yell Oh My God,, but because I'm smart I yell Ohhhm. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G91AUG7N3rU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G91AUG7N3rU That was kind of a weak and limp shot below the belt, you stating that the only reason I'm here is for the opportunity to be mean to others. You can do better than that. Try again? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Here she is having a total meltdown becuz no one believes her crap about being a crusader against dishonesty and even Feste is calling her on her meanness and nails her in a lie about punctuation on blogs and y'know what the worst part is? She can't get anyone to come to her defense the way they used to. The only person who is willing to stand up for Judy any more is the woman who never learned to meditate, has nothing to contribute to the ongoing discussions here, and who only posts to this forum because it gives *her* an opportunity to be mean to people. Birds of a feather, eh? Personally I find it all pretty heartening. A few months ago if Judy had thrown a hissy fit like this and tried to pose as some kind of noble crusader against untruth (because, of course, only SHE knows the truth), she could have gotten a few people to pile on and defend her. But even *they* distance themselves from her these days. Not that that'll stop her, of course. Judy will do what she's always done, and possibly even louder. But at least now she'll be standing in the street screaming like an insane bag lady *all by herself*, and hopefully no one but other crazies will be taken in by the screaming...
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: TM Nazis, Again??
There's usually about 300 attenders in the men's Dome and about that or less than that in the women's Dome, some people hold up out in Vedic City, and about 650 pundits meditating out where they are. Hence synched together in places separately it's over a thousand and more on good days. Evidently there are only about 50 people on the Howard Settle grant program between the two Domes. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: I fear for the way the Settle grant now opens us up to ridicule in paying people to 'hop'. The Grant is too much about ridicule now in the community. For the larger reason of positively sustaining the dome meditation numbers it is just time now to phase transition the grant out. It was an honorable thing the Settles did in supporting the American Assembly but it has gotten twisted now. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: But it is proly time to just stop with the Howard Settle grant program. In effect it is being counter-productive to the Dome numbers for all the bad feeling it creates now in the larger meditating community, except of course to the benefit of a few tru-believers being paid to 'hop' for the longer rounds.. In context it actually could probably be better for the Dome numbers if they'd just phase transition the Settle grant program out. Could be a really good gift in public relations if they should take whatever Howard Settle grant money amount is in for one final month and go back to paying all the old Settle grant people attending a gift pro-rated based on their Dome meditation attendance for that month. Would be a acknowledgment and nice thank you for the years of dedication that quite a few performed on the Assembly. And then do away with paying people to 'hop'. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck. wrote: Yes, old bones, that is a communal rub that really hurts some morale (feelings) of some old dedicated meditators that had come here to be in a big group meditation. That before were people having number one great experiences who were being subsidized to be in the Domes with the original Settle grant program are dropped from the grant program for other people who can perform 'hopping' and keep that performance up. The Settle granting as it is now is not necessarily all good in effect on the Dome numbers. From interviewing folks around it could be argued that paying for 'hopping' is actually counter-productive to the overall numbers. Could proly be better to just skip the grant program and go back to having people meditating the program out according to their experience. -Buck ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote: I'm too old to bounce very high and if after program James Beddinger or some other jack ass gave me some crap about my hopping I would go to jail for kicking his ass. wrote: I look forward to the group meditating. It's a fabulous place to meditate for the field effect that is there. You should come back some time and within join the group meditating. -Buck ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote: It doesn't bother you that people are being taken to task for not hopping high enough??? THe entire TM and TM Sidhi program was SUPPOSED to be practiced naturally with NO STRAIN? What happened to that? If indeed this is taking place inside and out of the Domes, the TMO is going against the fundamental basics of proper practice of the TM and TM Sidhi programes, and to paraphrase the Old Goat himself, if you aren't doing TM the way its taught, you aren't doing TM. If these monitor Nazis are introducing fear into people's awareness between programs ABOUT program itself then they are defeating the very Marsy Effect you are so fond of praising and worshiping. I have to agree with past statements made by Barry - the Movement is dead and it is continually being re-buried by practices like this. On Sun, 11/24/13, Buck wrote: Overseers. Well yes, and what is the problem(?). It's about pay for performance. If you are being paid to meditate and 'hop' then all the more certainly your employers should get some disciplined work (meditation) from you. It is called performance contract. This criteria calls for overseers for meditating is for the few folks who are still funded to be regularly attending the dome meditating and doing the long TM-sidhis yogic flying prescribed for on the Howard Settle grant program. Of the total number of people in the larger group meditation only a few remain now on the money grant. They got standards to keep up if they are getting money for it. Other meditators who were dropped from the grant program when it collapsed before for lack of money may well think these
[FairfieldLife] RE: Poor Judy Stein
A heart with only a single ear can only hear half of what it listening to - whether in this world or the next. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Listen and attend with the ear of your heart. Saint Benedict ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: Perhaps you'd be happier discussing your prayer practice here ... http://forums.catholic.com/ http://forums.catholic.com/ ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Amen. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: Just keep praying Santa, Santa come swiftly to my aid. No doubt if you also pray Holy Mother of Santa pray for me both now and in my hour of need you'll also see a miracle. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Look what I found on the Catholic Answers website! The answer to the age-old question, Is there a Santa Claus? You have probably seen this, but I am submitting it for review anyhow and letting you know I am putting my faith in Santa to protect me from the Great Demon, as of today. http://www.newseum.org/yesvirginia/ http://www.newseum.org/yesvirginia/ ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: If Ellen Degenerate is your authoritative source for what constitutes meditation, then you'd off be better consulting Catholic Answers for another way to be thoughtless. After all, a blank mind is the demon's playground and, of course, the Great Demon has a bulls-eye on your third-eye. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Barry, you stooge. How do you know I never learned to meditate? You would be wrong on that count. I never learned TM, is what I've said. I am contributing to your discussion here by posting this link by Ellen Degeneres on meditation. While deep in meditation designing a pair of sunglasses for her third eye (or something like that) she monologues...the teacher hits the gong and then I jump and I almost yell Oh My God,, but because I'm smart I yell Ohhhm. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G91AUG7N3rU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G91AUG7N3rU That was kind of a weak and limp shot below the belt, you stating that the only reason I'm here is for the opportunity to be mean to others. You can do better than that. Try again? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Here she is having a total meltdown becuz no one believes her crap about being a crusader against dishonesty and even Feste is calling her on her meanness and nails her in a lie about punctuation on blogs and y'know what the worst part is? She can't get anyone to come to her defense the way they used to. The only person who is willing to stand up for Judy any more is the woman who never learned to meditate, has nothing to contribute to the ongoing discussions here, and who only posts to this forum because it gives *her* an opportunity to be mean to people. Birds of a feather, eh? Personally I find it all pretty heartening. A few months ago if Judy had thrown a hissy fit like this and tried to pose as some kind of noble crusader against untruth (because, of course, only SHE knows the truth), she could have gotten a few people to pile on and defend her. But even *they* distance themselves from her these days. Not that that'll stop her, of course. Judy will do what she's always done, and possibly even louder. But at least now she'll be standing in the street screaming like an insane bag lady *all by herself*, and hopefully no one but other crazies will be taken in by the screaming...
[FairfieldLife] Groups in Meditation Evidently is a Solution.
Frankly, I can't see why people would live here in Fairfield, Iowa and not go to the Domes to meditate. That, not making the time in life to meditate in the Dome with the group, is just an incredibly lost opportunity in a lifetime. -Buck
[FairfieldLife] RE: Groups in Meditation Evidently is a Solution.
Like, just look at the science on meditation now. Folks here should sober up really quick. Farmers are practical scientists and as an Iowa farmer I must make decisions all the time everyday based on the science of nature. By science it seems it is certainly time for a Compulsory National Service Campaign towards creating a compulsory peace between us and nature, by everyone taking the quiet time for meditating. Every day twice a day. I feel people who would reject this are anti-social in the least. -Buck ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Frankly, I can't see why people would live here in Fairfield, Iowa and not go to the Domes to meditate. That, not making the time in life to meditate in the Dome with the group, is just an incredibly lost opportunity in a lifetime. -Buck
[FairfieldLife] Jesuit Trained Pope Trashes Capitalism in Call for Worldwide Socialism
Who could imagine ... Bhari2 and EmilyMaybeNot should now be satisfied. Trouble is Bhari2 is a Tantrika. So the Holy Father and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will require him to repent his Hindoo errors. Repent now and profess the truth! ... You didn't make that!. Convert now to the true faith. Admit that you are not God but are the God-damned. http://www.infowars.com/jesuit-trained-pope-trashes-capitalism-in-call-for-worldwide-socialism/ http://www.infowars.com/jesuit-trained-pope-trashes-capitalism-in-call-for-worldwide-socialism/
[FairfieldLife] RE: Groups in Meditation Evidently is a Solution.
The reason you cannot see this Buck is your vision is too narrow to see why the world does not go the way you would like it to go. To put it in distorted anthropomorphic terms, the unified field 'runs' the universe in the way it 'wants' at every moment and at every place, and to observe this all one has to do is observe what is happening. Meditation, eventually, if grace arrives, will show the mechanics of this. As for science, farmers are practical but few are scientists. Being a scientist requires skills that go against the grain of belief and acceptance, and not everyone is adept at doing this as it works against long standing human psychology. Now look at how you are contradicting what you advocate. Meditation of the TM sort does not involve compulsion. If you force meditation in any way, it will tend to fail to achieve its stated result. How can you force someone to do what cannot be forced? Those who reject your call are not necessarily antisocial, they are against tyranny, they want freedom. You may be a great farmer, but you are not yet a scientist, and I think you might make an outstanding prison guard, were you to change profession. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: Frankly, I can't see why people would live here in Fairfield, Iowa and not go to the Domes to meditate. That, not making the time in life to meditate in the Dome with the group, is just an incredibly lost opportunity in a lifetime. Like, just look at the science on meditation now. Folks here should sober up really quick. Farmers are practical scientists and as an Iowa farmer I must make decisions all the time everyday based on the science of nature. By science it seems it is certainly time for a Compulsory National Service Campaign towards creating a compulsory peace between us and nature, by everyone taking the quiet time for meditating. Every day twice a day. I feel people who would reject this are anti-social in the least.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Groups in Meditation Evidently is a Solution.
Folks move on, Buck. Maybe they wanted something more than TM offered. The community is hip and far less expensive than living in a hip one on the east or west coast so that is why many probably have continued to live there plus they probably also have friends and businesses here. On 11/30/2013 01:57 PM, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: *Frankly, I can't see why people would live here in Fairfield, Iowa and not go to the Domes to meditate. That, not making the time in life to meditate in the Dome with the group, is just an incredibly lost opportunity in a lifetime.* *-Buck *
[FairfieldLife] Post Count Sun 01-Dec-13 00:15:04 UTC
Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): 11/30/13 00:00:00 End Date (UTC): 12/07/13 00:00:00 117 messages as of (UTC) 11/30/13 23:04:33 22 Richard J. Williams 21 authfriend 11 emptybill 8 feste37 8 emilymaenot 8 TurquoiseB 7 dhamiltony2k5 5 awoelflebater 5 Bhairitu 3 salyavin808 3 Share Long 2 wgm4u 2 steve.sundur 2 sharelong60 2 jr_esq 2 doctordumbass 2 anartaxius 2 Richard Williams 1 s3raphita 1 cardemaister Posters: 20 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Jesuit Trained Pope Trashes Capitalism in Call for Worldwide Socialism
Huh? Why would I do that? I would just say this pope gets it. Capitalism is too chaotic and unfair in a world of 7 billion people. Things need to change. On 11/30/2013 02:50 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: Who could imagine ... Bhari2 and EmilyMaybeNot should now be satisfied. Trouble is Bhari2 is a Tantrika. So the Holy Father and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will require him to repent his Hindoo errors. Repent now and profess the truth! ... You didn't make that!. Convert now to the true faith. Admit that you are not God but are the God-damned. http://www.infowars.com/jesuit-trained-pope-trashes-capitalism-in-call-for-worldwide-socialism/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Jesuit Trained Pope Trashes Capitalism in Call for Worldwide Socialism
Sounds like the Pope needs to study Luke 19-, The story of ten servants. On Saturday, November 30, 2013 4:31 PM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Huh? Why would I do that? I would just say this pope gets it. Capitalism is too chaotic and unfair in a world of 7 billion people. Things need to change. On 11/30/2013 02:50 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: Who could imagine ... Bhari2 and EmilyMaybeNot should now be satisfied. Trouble is Bhari2 is a Tantrika. So the Holy Father and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will require him to repent his Hindoo errors. Repent now and profess the truth! ... You didn't make that!. Convert now to the true faith. Admit that you are not God but are the God-damned. http://www.infowars.com/jesuit-trained-pope-trashes-capitalism-in-call-for-worldwide-socialism/
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Groups in Meditation Evidently is a Solution.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote: The reason you cannot see this Buck is your vision is too narrow to see why the world does not go the way you would like it to go. To put it in distorted anthropomorphic terms, the unified field 'runs' the universe in the way it 'wants' at every moment and at every place, and to observe this all one has to do is observe what is happening. Meditation, eventually, if grace arrives, will show the mechanics of this. As for science, farmers are practical but few are scientists. Being a scientist requires skills that go against the grain of belief and acceptance, and not everyone is adept at doing this as it works against long standing human psychology. Now look at how you are contradicting what you advocate. Meditation of the TM sort does not involve compulsion. If you force meditation in any way, it will tend to fail to achieve its stated result. How can you force someone to do what cannot be forced? Those who reject your call are not necessarily antisocial, they are against tyranny, they want freedom. You may be a great farmer, but you are not yet a scientist, and I think you might make an outstanding prison guard, were you to change profession. This post was interesting Xeno, I enjoyed reading it, especially that last sentence. I'd have to agree that I wouldn't want Buck in any great position of authority or power. In his misguided zeal it could prove terrifying. I just don't know how an Iowa farmer got so fanatical. Maybe it's the endless fields of soybeans and corn. That used to drive me a bit bonkers as I rode along the dirt and gravel roads out there with nary a tree in sight. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: Frankly, I can't see why people would live here in Fairfield, Iowa and not go to the Domes to meditate. That, not making the time in life to meditate in the Dome with the group, is just an incredibly lost opportunity in a lifetime. Like, just look at the science on meditation now. Folks here should sober up really quick. Farmers are practical scientists and as an Iowa farmer I must make decisions all the time everyday based on the science of nature. By science it seems it is certainly time for a Compulsory National Service Campaign towards creating a compulsory peace between us and nature, by everyone taking the quiet time for meditating. Every day twice a day. I feel people who would reject this are anti-social in the least.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Jesuit Trained Pope Trashes Capitalism in Call for Worldwide Socialism
Good reason to discard religion as useless and elitist. On 11/30/2013 05:10 PM, Mike Dixon wrote: Sounds like the Pope needs to study Luke 19-, The story of ten servants. On Saturday, November 30, 2013 4:31 PM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Huh? Why would I do that? I would just say this pope gets it. Capitalism is too chaotic and unfair in a world of 7 billion people. Things need to change. On 11/30/2013 02:50 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com mailto:emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: Who could imagine ... Bhari2 and EmilyMaybeNot should now be satisfied. Trouble is Bhari2 is a Tantrika. So the Holy Father and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will require him to repent his Hindoo errors. Repent now and profess the truth! ... You didn't make that!. Convert now to the true faith. Admit that you are not God but are the God-damned. http://www.infowars.com/jesuit-trained-pope-trashes-capitalism-in-call-for-worldwide-socialism/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Jesuit Trained Pope Trashes Capitalism in Call for Worldwide Socialism
BTW, those folks over on Infowars have a tendency to contradict themselves. They were talking about the riots at stores Thanksgiving Evening and saying that individualism would prevent that. WRONG. In fact much of the dialectic on Infowars is for the we people. They like to point to the BBC documentary Century of the Self which is about how the me society was created and how destructive it has been. And you can't have much of a revolution with a bunch of me people. They also thought that if the crowd would be this bad over cheap goods how much worse would they be fighting over food? Hurricane Sandy rather disproved that. That crowd is often a group out of sync with themselves. On 11/30/2013 02:50 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: Who could imagine ... Bhari2 and EmilyMaybeNot should now be satisfied. Trouble is Bhari2 is a Tantrika. So the Holy Father and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will require him to repent his Hindoo errors. Repent now and profess the truth! ... You didn't make that!. Convert now to the true faith. Admit that you are not God but are the God-damned. http://www.infowars.com/jesuit-trained-pope-trashes-capitalism-in-call-for-worldwide-socialism/
[FairfieldLife] RE: Jesuit Trained Pope Trashes Capitalism in Call for Worldwide Socialism
Email HIM. Offer to evangelize the Tantrika-s. Maybe he'll offer to make you a socialist proselyte and then, if you are successful, a bishop. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote: BTW, those folks over on Infowars have a tendency to contradict themselves. They were talking about the riots at stores Thanksgiving Evening and saying that individualism would prevent that. WRONG. In fact much of the dialectic on Infowars is for the we people. They like to point to the BBC documentary Century of the Self which is about how the me society was created and how destructive it has been. And you can't have much of a revolution with a bunch of me people. They also thought that if the crowd would be this bad over cheap goods how much worse would they be fighting over food? Hurricane Sandy rather disproved that. That crowd is often a group out of sync with themselves. On 11/30/2013 02:50 PM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote: Who could imagine ... Bhari2 and EmilyMaybeNot should now be satisfied. Trouble is Bhari2 is a Tantrika. So the Holy Father and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will require him to repent his Hindoo errors. Repent now and profess the truth! ... You didn't make that!. Convert now to the true faith. Admit that you are not God but are the God-damned. http://www.infowars.com/jesuit-trained-pope-trashes-capitalism-in-call-for-worldwide-socialism/ http://www.infowars.com/jesuit-trained-pope-trashes-capitalism-in-call-for-worldwide-socialism/
[FairfieldLife] RE: Jesuit Trained Pope Trashes Capitalism in Call for Worldwide Socialism
The Pope said “some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power. So is the Pope now an expert on economics (the dismal science)? Trickle-down theories could be wrong - but they could be right. It is surely possible to be a pious Christian and either support or oppose socialism. When popes claim that one or the other side is right they get dangerously close to claiming that supporters of the side they oppose are not true Christians - and so not saved. Jesus would be turning in His grave - if He hadn't risen. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: Email HIM. Offer to evangelize the Tantrika-s. Maybe he'll offer to make you a socialist proselyte and then, if you are successful, a bishop. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote: BTW, those folks over on Infowars have a tendency to contradict themselves. They were talking about the riots at stores Thanksgiving Evening and saying that individualism would prevent that. WRONG. In fact much of the dialectic on Infowars is for the we people. They like to point to the BBC documentary Century of the Self which is about how the me society was created and how destructive it has been. And you can't have much of a revolution with a bunch of me people. They also thought that if the crowd would be this bad over cheap goods how much worse would they be fighting over food? Hurricane Sandy rather disproved that. That crowd is often a group out of sync with themselves. On 11/30/2013 02:50 PM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote: Who could imagine ... Bhari2 and EmilyMaybeNot should now be satisfied. Trouble is Bhari2 is a Tantrika. So the Holy Father and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will require him to repent his Hindoo errors. Repent now and profess the truth! ... You didn't make that!. Convert now to the true faith. Admit that you are not God but are the God-damned. http://www.infowars.com/jesuit-trained-pope-trashes-capitalism-in-call-for-worldwide-socialism/ http://www.infowars.com/jesuit-trained-pope-trashes-capitalism-in-call-for-worldwide-socialism/
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Jesuit Trained Pope Trashes Capitalism in Call for Worldwide Socialism
We've all seen the wonders of trickle down economics. It's why the rich call us peons. On 11/30/2013 06:00 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote: The Pope said “some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power. So is the Pope now an expert on economics (the dismal science)? Trickle-down theories could be wrong - but they could be right. It is surely possible to be a pious Christian and either support or oppose socialism. When popes claim that one or the other side is right they get dangerously close to claiming that supporters of the side they oppose are not true Christians - and so not saved. Jesus would be turning in His grave - if He hadn't risen. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: Email HIM. Offer to evangelize the Tantrika-s. Maybe he'll offer to make you a socialist proselyte and then, if you are successful, a bishop. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote: BTW, those folks over on Infowars have a tendency to contradict themselves. They were talking about the riots at stores Thanksgiving Evening and saying that individualism would prevent that. WRONG. In fact much of the dialectic on Infowars is for the we people. They like to point to the BBC documentary Century of the Self which is about how the me society was created and how destructive it has been. And you can't have much of a revolution with a bunch of me people. They also thought that if the crowd would be this bad over cheap goods how much worse would they be fighting over food? Hurricane Sandy rather disproved that. That crowd is often a group out of sync with themselves. On 11/30/2013 02:50 PM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote: Who could imagine ... Bhari2 and EmilyMaybeNot should now be satisfied. Trouble is Bhari2 is a Tantrika. So the Holy Father and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will require him to repent his Hindoo errors. Repent now and profess the truth! ... You didn't make that!. Convert now to the true faith. Admit that you are not God but are the God-damned. http://www.infowars.com/jesuit-trained-pope-trashes-capitalism-in-call-for-worldwide-socialism/
[FairfieldLife] RE: Jesuit Trained Pope Trashes Capitalism in Call for Worldwide Socialism
We already know about trickle-down socialism and trickle-down salvation - how about trickle-down transcendence? ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote: We've all seen the wonders of trickle down economics. It's why the rich call us peons. On 11/30/2013 06:00 PM, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote: The Pope said “some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power. So is the Pope now an expert on economics (the dismal science)? Trickle-down theories could be wrong - but they could be right. It is surely possible to be a pious Christian and either support or oppose socialism. When popes claim that one or the other side is right they get dangerously close to claiming that supporters of the side they oppose are not true Christians - and so not saved. Jesus would be turning in His grave - if He hadn't risen. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote: Email HIM. Offer to evangelize the Tantrika-s. Maybe he'll offer to make you a socialist proselyte and then, if you are successful, a bishop. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... wrote: BTW, those folks over on Infowars have a tendency to contradict themselves. They were talking about the riots at stores Thanksgiving Evening and saying that individualism would prevent that. WRONG. In fact much of the dialectic on Infowars is for the we people. They like to point to the BBC documentary Century of the Self which is about how the me society was created and how destructive it has been. And you can't have much of a revolution with a bunch of me people. They also thought that if the crowd would be this bad over cheap goods how much worse would they be fighting over food? Hurricane Sandy rather disproved that. That crowd is often a group out of sync with themselves. On 11/30/2013 02:50 PM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote: Who could imagine ... Bhari2 and EmilyMaybeNot should now be satisfied. Trouble is Bhari2 is a Tantrika. So the Holy Father and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will require him to repent his Hindoo errors. Repent now and profess the truth! ... You didn't make that!. Convert now to the true faith. Admit that you are not God but are the God-damned. http://www.infowars.com/jesuit-trained-pope-trashes-capitalism-in-call-for-worldwide-socialism/ http://www.infowars.com/jesuit-trained-pope-trashes-capitalism-in-call-for-worldwide-socialism/
[FairfieldLife] RE: Jesuit Trained Pope Trashes Capitalism in Call for Worldwide Socialism
We've all seen the wonders of trickle down economics. It's why the rich call us peons. Yes, I'm an eat-the-rich type myself. But what's that got to do with Religion? Salvation? Enlightenment? Religion is more important than economics. It transcends economics. You'd have thought a pope would understand the importance of hierarchies. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote: We've all seen the wonders of trickle down economics. It's why the rich call us peons. On 11/30/2013 06:00 PM, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote: The Pope said “some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power. So is the Pope now an expert on economics (the dismal science)? Trickle-down theories could be wrong - but they could be right. It is surely possible to be a pious Christian and either support or oppose socialism. When popes claim that one or the other side is right they get dangerously close to claiming that supporters of the side they oppose are not true Christians - and so not saved. Jesus would be turning in His grave - if He hadn't risen. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote: Email HIM. Offer to evangelize the Tantrika-s. Maybe he'll offer to make you a socialist proselyte and then, if you are successful, a bishop. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... wrote: BTW, those folks over on Infowars have a tendency to contradict themselves. They were talking about the riots at stores Thanksgiving Evening and saying that individualism would prevent that. WRONG. In fact much of the dialectic on Infowars is for the we people. They like to point to the BBC documentary Century of the Self which is about how the me society was created and how destructive it has been. And you can't have much of a revolution with a bunch of me people. They also thought that if the crowd would be this bad over cheap goods how much worse would they be fighting over food? Hurricane Sandy rather disproved that. That crowd is often a group out of sync with themselves. On 11/30/2013 02:50 PM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote: Who could imagine ... Bhari2 and EmilyMaybeNot should now be satisfied. Trouble is Bhari2 is a Tantrika. So the Holy Father and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will require him to repent his Hindoo errors. Repent now and profess the truth! ... You didn't make that!. Convert now to the true faith. Admit that you are not God but are the God-damned. http://www.infowars.com/jesuit-trained-pope-trashes-capitalism-in-call-for-worldwide-socialism/ http://www.infowars.com/jesuit-trained-pope-trashes-capitalism-in-call-for-worldwide-socialism/
[FairfieldLife] RE: Personal Gender Pronouns
It's not a *personal* gender pronoun but they has distinguished precedent as a singular pronoun. It grates a little bit but if even Shakespeare and Jane Austen used it I can feel relaxed about following suit. And they is definitely preferable to he or she and him and her both of which kill natural rhythm in English. And that ghastly 1970s attempt to foist s/he on us has mercifully fallen by the wayside. Rather than a *personal* gender pronoun why not just use someone's name? As a bonus here's how to end a sentence with five prepositions: Mother, what did you bring that book that I don't like to be read to out of up for? ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: Rather than an insightful insult, consider it an epiphanym. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: Some people would probably take that as an offense since it applies to an inanimate being or something impersonal. But I do have a problem with addressing one person as they. Some people may find this as rude and a violation of good etiquette. Nonetheless, there are some languages in the world where the pronouns are genderless as part of their accepted grammatical rules. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: Just address them by their true pronoun descriptor ... it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: This new practice is catching on in a SF Bay Area college for women--and a few others in the country. Will the English language be changed? http://news.yahoo.com/preferred-pronouns-gain-traction-us-colleges-064437446.html http://news.yahoo.com/preferred-pronouns-gain-traction-us-colleges-064437446.html
