[FairfieldLife] And you always wondered why they call it Black Friday...
[https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/q71/1461107_66391608697299\ 4_1797573319_n.jpg] https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/q71/1461107_663916086972994\ _1797573319_n.jpg https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/q71/1461107_66391608697299\ 4_1797573319_n.jpg
[FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn't more interesting, in one graphic
[https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/q71/1465342_68714836130734\ 5_119584660_n.jpg]
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Groups in Meditation Evidently is a Solution.
It should be quite fairly said in summation that one of the historically more pivotal and important books published in the 20th Century was, Scientific Research on the Transcendental Meditation Program Collected Papers Volume I (1976). The “Collected Papers” though not as well known as the Auto-biography of a Yogi (1946) or Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung (1966) though none the less, the Collected Papers (1976) was similarly transforming in scope. -Buck ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: “Given the strength of these results, their consistency with the positive results of previous research, the grave human and financial costs of violent crime, and the lack of other effective and scientific methods to reduce crime, policy makers are urged to apply this approach on a large scale for the benefit of society.” Effects of Group Practice of the Transcendental Meditation Program on Preventing Violent Crime in Washington, DC: Results of the National Demonstration Project, June-July 1993 http://www.istpp.org/crime_prevention/index.html http://www.istpp.org/crime_prevention/index.html Published in Scientific Research on the Transcendental Meditation Program Collected Papers Volume I (1976) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Well you see, according to the science, having numbers of people meditating together does evidently matter. Numbers and proximity. That makes a lot of sense in my experience too. 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn't more interesting, in one graphic
Nice, turq, and I'd add: we often listen with the intention to reply and by replying, *improve* our fellow humans any way we can, whether they want to be *improved* or not! Of course this doesn't apply much to the Funny Farm Lounge (-: On Sunday, December 1, 2013 3:22 AM, TurquoiseB turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote:
Re: [FairfieldLife] Groups in Meditation Evidently is a Solution.
noozguru, a lot of folks stayed here so their kids could attend Maharishi school. Now that kids are grown, you're right, they've stayed because of the low cost of living. I think also because of having a meditating community, whether or not they are in the Dome. And there's always the wonderful weather ha ha! On Saturday, November 30, 2013 5:04 PM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net wrote: 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
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Al Gore debates Global Warming
“There is a broad scientific consensus that to keep global warming in check, we need to phase out 80 percent of all oil, coal and natural gas by mid-century. President Obama has set a nonbinding target to do precisely that.” http://www.npr.org/2013/11/30/247519058/tech-leaders-economists-split-over-clean-energys-prospects http://www.npr.org/2013/11/30/247519058/tech-leaders-economists-split-over-clean-energys-prospects ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Fighting materialism through transcending meditation is the sustainable happiness residing between the wont of too little and too much. Sat, Chit, Ananda. Rishi, Devata, Chandas. A consciousness-based life, it is, my friends, the only sustainable happiness we can pursue. Versus the excesses on earth of our heedlessness and material-isms. Make use of our time on planet earth, have a wonder-filled Thanksgiving in meditation today, -Buck ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Purposeful Simplicity. Living Lightly on the Earth, a rhetorical call to meditation: Professor David Shi, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DE9qBNMaFY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DE9qBNMaFY ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Whose adorning, let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing gold, or of putting on of [frivolous and ostentatious] apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God [the Unified Field] of great price. Pet. 3:3-4. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Yes, all of this will have to change in a brave new world of climate change coming. We will all need to sacrifice. Look, we need not just some incremental change in some efficiency but it is time for revolutionary lifestyle change based on large thinking and science. I feel we should immediately and institute quiet-time meditations in all schools everywhere. Start with the children as students. Then also in all public workplaces. -Buck ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: I have a better idea: start by becoming a vegetarian if what Richard says is to be believed (and I believe it). If one is going to meditate perhaps we should do so in a house that does not require heat or air conditioning. That would mean moving to a more temperate climate. Do you eat meat Buck? Do you drive a car or tractor? Do you heat your home? Do you consume anything not made within 5 miles of where you live? Do you ever travel to faraway places to see saints? I'd like to be able to say your simplistic and elegant solution of meditating for two hours a day was going to solve all this but, alas, I fear you may have missed the proverbial mark. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Well, as a substantial resolution we should all be investing in energy efficient sustainable group meditation meeting homes for quiet-time meditations where people live, go to school, or work. Pay people to do a full two hour meditation program twice a day during the workday. We could achieve upwards of 50 percent reduction in emission of climate change greenhouse gases. Somehow we have to get back to much simpler standards of living for the benefit of all living beings. We need to attack rampant materialism somewhere. It should start with instituting quiet-time meditation for everyone. -Buck ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: Maybe you forgot to mention all the animal flatulence out back in your barn? Livestock also produces more than 100 other polluting gases, including more than two-thirds of the world's emissions of ammonia, one of the main causes of acid rain. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/ http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-co2-from-cars-427843.html On 11/21/2013 8:51 AM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote: Is that giant dome you attend every day heated or does it have air conditioning or fans? Is your giant tractor fuelled by pig piss? Just askin'... ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, Buck. mailto:dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: Yep, no question it is hotter and drier in Fairfield. Folks will certainly repent the glutton of their fossil-fueled air-conditioned days whence we get drought years back to back and a real drought sets in for 60 or 90 days across the mid-crop growing stage from seedling to pollination. You'll all repent then you sinners and become believers in the obvious that carbon dioxide is the element that regulates our atmospheric climate. About the only thing you'll be able to do with famine then is meditate your last skinny breath on earth. Git real. It is all about lifestyle, materialism and the lack of
[FairfieldLife] Chinese give birth in the United States to secure benefits: ‘Birth-tourism’ is born
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/29/chinese-give-birth-america-secure-benefits/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/29/chinese-give-birth-america-secure-benefits/
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: Jesuit Trained Pope Trashes Capitalism in Call for Worldwide Socialism
Yet *trickle down* capitalism has been the story of America since it's inception. American capitalism has created more wealth than any other economic system and with that wealth has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system and come to the aid of those in dire straights to lift them up as well. Would the middle -east, China or India be in the economic situation they are in today had it not been for Americans spending their wealth, investing in and buying their goods and services ? Capitalism creates wealth, socialism just divides it up. You can't be charitable if you have nothing to give. The Pope may be compassionate, but he's down right ignorant. On Saturday, November 30, 2013 9:09 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote: And Singapore is a city-state. Some people are now arguing that the future could belong to similar city-states rather than (old-fashioned) nation states. Like Athens and Sparta . . . plus ça change. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dmevans365@... wrote: Here's an article on why Singapore would be a good model for the US. There would be some major hurdles to overcome here before more of a State capitalist approach would work. http://blogs.hbr.org/2009/08/singapore-a-model-of-judgment/ ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: ReThe Pope doesn't need a Ph.D. in economics to make use of that information.: Unfortunately he does! Look, this from Wiki: Singapore has a market-based economy - one of the freest and most business-friendly. According to the Corruption Perceptions Index, Singapore is consistently ranked as one of the least-corrupt countries in the world, along with New Zealand and the Scandinavian countries. Singapore has the lowest infant mortality rate in the world for the past two decades. Life expectancy in Singapore is 80 for males and 85 for females, placing the country 4th in the world for life expectancy. Almost the whole population has access to improved water and sanitation facilities. There are fewer than 10 annual deaths from HIV per 100,000 people. Adult obesity is below 10%. Surely to God it's at least *possible* that a let-it-rip capitalist model could bring greater benefits to the populace than a top-down state-controlled economy? If it's possible then it's not unreasonable for people to push for a such a system without them necessarily being greedy rich pigs. And so without them necessarily being on the side of the Antichrist. Keep religion free from dogmatic economic positions seems a sensible approach to me. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Well, but the principles don't change. A poor person is a poor person is a poor person no matter what century they live in or under what kind of economic system. Nobody's suggesting Jesus was preaching socialism qua socialism or against capitalism qua capitalism. That's a red herring. He was preaching in favor of generosity and against selfish greed. The point is to relieve poverty no matter what the cause. These days, the cause tends to be the greed of the masters of the capitalist system. Sounds like the pope has been reading (Nobel Prize-winning economist) Paul Krugman in the NYTimes. He makes the same point about there being no evidence for trickle-down economics. If it worked, there should be; it's been tried long enough. The pope doesn't need a Ph.D. in economics to make use of that information. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: ReAnd I could cite a busload of Jesus' expressions of concern for the poor and oppressed. Plus one in particular about how hard it is for the rich person to get into Heaven.: I'm with him on the rich! Some things never change. But Jesus was a first-century rabbi so could have no idea of the later development of industrialisation, capitalism, welfare states and globalisation. It is as ridiculous to wonder what a first-century person would decide pro or anti socialism as it is to wonder what a first-century person would decide on which car to buy, or if a first-century person would prefer Copernican or pre-Copernican astronomy. For Christ's sake - he didn't even know he was living in the first century! ;-) ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Sounds to me as if he's an expert in human nature. And I could cite a busload of Jesus' expressions of concern for the poor and oppressed. Plus one in particular about how hard it is for the rich person to get into Heaven. I don't think you've got a winner of an argument here, Seraphita. Seraphita 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
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Groups in Meditation Evidently is a Solution.
I think historically is the wrong word to use. History has completely forgotten early TM research, mostly because it wasn't very good. A similar question mark is frequently raised about new TM research. But it does do something, and it does get published. Whether that something is the best thing ever remains to seen. Big time. The collected papers also contains stuff about how groups of people hopping up and down causes outbreaks of peaceful behaviour in human societies, and at a distance! Certainly important, if it was true. You may want to remove the word scientific from those papers. Other than that It's a good game though, my vote for the most pivotal books of the last century would be, The selfish gene By Richard Dawkins, Lila by Robert Persig, QED, the strange theory by Richard Feynman and erm...The fabric of reality by David Deutsch. You can learn lot from those, genuinely original and groundbreaking stuff. Will probably think of a much better list in a minute though. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: It should be quite fairly said in summation that one of the historically more pivotal and important books published in the 20th Century was, Scientific Research on the Transcendental Meditation Program Collected Papers Volume I (1976). The “Collected Papers” though not as well known as the Auto-biography of a Yogi (1946) or Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung (1966) though none the less, the Collected Papers (1976) was similarly transforming in scope. -Buck ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: “Given the strength of these results, their consistency with the positive results of previous research, the grave human and financial costs of violent crime, and the lack of other effective and scientific methods to reduce crime, policy makers are urged to apply this approach on a large scale for the benefit of society.” Effects of Group Practice of the Transcendental Meditation Program on Preventing Violent Crime in Washington, DC: Results of the National Demonstration Project, June-July 1993 http://www.istpp.org/crime_prevention/index.html http://www.istpp.org/crime_prevention/index.html Published in Scientific Research on the Transcendental Meditation Program Collected Papers Volume I (1976) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Well you see, according to the science, having numbers of people meditating together does evidently matter. Numbers and proximity. That makes a lot of sense in my experience too. 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] RE: Personal Gender Pronouns
Just for fun, Hebrew personal pronouns: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Hebrew/Personal_Pronouns http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Hebrew/Personal_Pronouns ---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: Personal Gender Pronouns
Hebrew excercise: mi: hu: (me who?) = Who (mi:) [is] he (hu:)? LoL! ? It may take some time go grasp that, eh?? ---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: Jesuit Trained Pope Trashes Capitalism in Call for Worldwide Socialism
If you read the document that Pope Francis wrote, there is none of the exclusionary language that you refer to, in it. He specifically warns against that, and many other ways to become falsely pious. He refers to capitalism, the monetization of anything and everything, as dehumanizing. I agree - As a great example of the failure of pissing down economics, as I call it, there is an unbelievable amount of wealth where I live, in the SF Bay Area - real estate prices are completely crazy, as one result. If the theory of largesse worked, I would not encounter people begging at every freeway off-ramp - there wouldn't be the same guy at the supermarket asking me for money for the past five years, and there sure wouldn't be the ARMY of homeless people in San Francisco, where a 700 square foot apartment rents for $4000/mo. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: If you read the document that Pope Francis wrote, there is none of the exclusionary language that you refer to, in it. He specifically warns against that, and many other ways to become falsely pious. He refers to capitalism, the monetization of anything and everything, as dehumanizing. I agree - As a great example of the failure of pissing down economics, as I call it, there is an unbelievable amount of wealth where I live, in the SF Bay Area - real estate prices are completely crazy, as one result. If the theory of largesse worked, I would not encounter people begging at every freeway off-ramp - there wouldn't be the same guy at the supermarket asking me for money for the past five years, and there sure wouldn't be the ARMY of homeless people in San Francisco, where a 700 square foot apartment rents for $4000/mo. Yellow rain golden shower pesticide firepower Summon feudal demons of sweatshop subjugation - Bruce Cockburn, Trickle Down, March 2001 Couldn't find a video, but the audio played for me here: http://val.fm/trickle-down-bruce-cockburn-mp3/ http://val.fm/trickle-down-bruce-cockburn-mp3/ Lyrics here: Picture on magazine boardroom pop star Pinstripe prophet of peckerhead greed You say 'Trust me with the money -- the keys to the universe' Trickle down will give us everything we need Brand new century private penitentiary bank vault utopia padded for the few And it's tumours for the masses coughing for the masses Earphones for the masses and they all serve you Trickle down give /em the business Trickle down supposed to give us the goods Cups held out to catch a bit of the bounty Trickle down everywhere trickle down blood What used to pass for education now looks more like ignoration Take the people's money and slip it to the corporation Yellow rain golden shower pesticide firepower Summon feudal demons of sweatshop subjugation Workfare foul air homeless beggars everywhere Picturephone aristocrats lounge around the pool Captains of industry smiling beneficently Leaking hole supertanker ship of fools Trickle down give me the business Trickle down supposed to give us the goods Cups held out to catch a bit of the bounty Trickle down everywhere trickle down blood Take over takedown big bucks shakedown Schoolyard pusher offer anything-for-profit First got to privatize then you get to piratize Hooked on avarice - how do we get off it? Trickle down give me the business Trickle down supposed to give us the goods Cups held out to catch a bit of the bounty Trickle down everywhere trickle down blood Trickle down give me the business Trickle down supposed to give us the goods Cups held out to catch a bit of the bounty Trickle down everywhere trickle down blood Trickle down
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
OK, Share, let's see if you can both listen and reply to this post, which is about some unfinished business from yesterday that we need to deal with. In a post to Barry, you wrote: Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. As I've already noted, this is not true. We had clashed well before September 9. But this is what I want to discuss with you today, since you didn't respond to what I told you yesterday. You wrote: She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or even I think. In fact, I said: After all the lovely conversations you'd had with him, covering a wide range of themes, that you had decided you were going to suspend communications altogether because of a single remark sure sounded like you had felt seriously insulted. AND: Because this post sure doesn't sound to me as though you want to do anything but beat up on Robin, even after he's taken the blame on himself for *your* misunderstanding and apologized at length. Then you wrote: 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. In fact, I said: And now you seem to feel even more seriously insulted that he's left you a public apology. AND: I couldn't figure out either what your problem was with what he had said. AND: For the life of me, I can't see why you're being so snarky. Now, let's see if you can bring yourself to acknowledge that what you claimed yesterday about my September 9 post was not true. (Let's just look at what you said about it yesterday, and not try to avoid that issue by shifting attention to the merits of the arguments back then, OK?) For your convenience, here's the link to my September 9 post so you can check to make sure I haven't misquoted either you or myself: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 It was crammed with qualifiers and expressions of uncertainty, entirely contrary to your characterization of it yesterday. And it wasn't even a nasty post! I'm betting you can't do it, Share. I don't think you have the intestinal fortitude to confess to your untruthfulness, even with the evidence right in front of your eyes, even knowing it's in front of everyone else's eyes here as well. Goodness knows this wasn't the first or the only time you've misrepresented what someone else has said in an attempt to make them look bad and yourself appear to be a blameless victim. It's just such a clear-cut case, and you brought it on yourself. Your post yesterday was an entirely gratuitous slam, piling on to a long list of dishonest statements of Barry's about me. I ran my number on you? No, babe, you ran your number on me. As Ann pointed out to you: 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. Share wrote, oblivious to the irony: Nice, turq, and I'd add: we often listen with the intention to reply and by replying, *improve* our fellow humans any way we can, whether they want to be *improved* or not! Of course this doesn't apply much to the Funny Farm Lounge (-:
Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn't more interesting, in one graphic
Ah. Demonstrating once again that she can't let *anything* lie, and feels compelled to start it back up again and try to turn it into one of her endless tarbaby arguments, Judy challenges Share to a pissing contest. Might I remind Share before she falls for it how pissing contests tend to end? [http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Hb2h_XAIKp8/TTEOb-lcvLI/B4A/FMEPJJcCF\ bI/s400/oneup.jpg] http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Hb2h_XAIKp8/TTEOb-lcvLI/B4A/FMEPJJcCFb\ I/s400/oneup.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Hb2h_XAIKp8/TTEOb-lcvLI/B4A/FMEPJJcCF\ bI/s400/oneup.jpg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: OK, Share, let's see if you can both listen and reply to this post, which is about some unfinished business from yesterday that we need to deal with. In a post to Barry, you wrote: Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. As I've already noted, this is not true. We had clashed well before September 9. But this is what I want to discuss with you today, since you didn't respond to what I told you yesterday. You wrote: She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or even I think. In fact, I said: After all the lovely conversations you'd had with him, covering a wide range of themes, that you had decided you were going to suspend communications altogether because of a single remark sure sounded like you had felt seriously insulted. AND: Because this post sure doesn't sound to me as though you want to do anything but beat up on Robin, even after he's taken the blame on himself for *your* misunderstanding and apologized at length. Then you wrote: 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. In fact, I said: And now you seem to feel even more seriously insulted that he's left you a public apology. AND: I couldn't figure out either what your problem was with what he had said. AND: For the life of me, I can't see why you're being so snarky. Now, let's see if you can bring yourself to acknowledge that what you claimed yesterday about my September 9 post was not true. (Let's just look at what you said about it yesterday, and not try to avoid that issue by shifting attention to the merits of the arguments back then, OK?) For your convenience, here's the link to my September 9 post so you can check to make sure I haven't misquoted either you or myself: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/\ 319521 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/\ 319521 It was crammed with qualifiers and expressions of uncertainty, entirely contrary to your characterization of it yesterday. And it wasn't even a nasty post! I'm betting you can't do it, Share. I don't think you have the intestinal fortitude to confess to your untruthfulness, even with the evidence right in front of your eyes, even knowing it's in front of everyone else's eyes here as well. Goodness knows this wasn't the first or the only time you've misrepresented what someone else has said in an attempt to make them look bad and yourself appear to be a blameless victim. It's just such a clear-cut case, and you brought it on yourself. Your post yesterday was an entirely gratuitous slam, piling on to a long list of dishonest statements of Barry's about me. I ran my number on you? No, babe, you ran your number on me. As Ann pointed out to you: 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. Share wrote, oblivious to the irony: Nice, turq, and I'd add: we often listen with the intention to reply and by replying, *improve* our fellow humans any way we can, whether they want to be *improved* or not! Of course this doesn't apply much to the Funny Farm Lounge (-:
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Personal Gender Pronouns
Probably not, at least right now, but it's becoming increasingly accepted in less-formal contexts, as I say. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: Judy, I don't believe they as a single pronoun would pass muster in a formal report to Congress. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: John, as Seraphita points out, they as a singular pronoun has been in popular use for a long time, including by some top-notch writers. It was declared a solecism in the 18th century by overly persnickety grammarians, but that didn't succeed in stamping it out; and it's currently undergoing a revival. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: I would agree that the use of the person's given name sounds better and would be grammatically correct. It would take a long time for they to be accepted as a singular pronoun. As it is, American English is probably evolving quite differently from British English. For example, foreign words have become acceptable over here, such as tacos, chow mein, sushi, shish-kabob, and tandoori chicken. Or, sometimes existential verbs are inferred in a sentence, such as He the man, which could refer to the past, present and future. The use of this sentence could also show that you're hep to the street language in big cities. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: 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?
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Personal Gender Pronouns
John and Judy, I have been shocked by the grammar and spelling mistakes I have seen in so called formal documents, such as business memos. So nothing would surprise me in that regard. Like how many people get it's and its wrong; don't use possessive before a gerund; get there, their and they're wrong. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 9:32 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Probably not, at least right now, but it's becoming increasingly accepted in less-formal contexts, as I say. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: Judy, I don't believe they as a single pronoun would pass muster in a formal report to Congress. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: John, as Seraphita points out, they as a singular pronoun has been in popular use for a long time, including by some top-notch writers. It was declared a solecism in the 18th century by overly persnickety grammarians, but that didn't succeed in stamping it out; and it's currently undergoing a revival. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: I would agree that the use of the person's given name sounds better and would be grammatically correct. It would take a long time for they to be accepted as a singular pronoun. As it is, American English is probably evolving quite differently from British English. For example, foreign words have become acceptable over here, such as tacos, chow mein, sushi, shish-kabob, and tandoori chicken. Or, sometimes existential verbs are inferred in a sentence, such as He the man, which could refer to the past, present and future. The use of this sentence could also show that you're hep to the street language in big cities. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: 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?
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Personal Gender Pronouns
It's a grammar jungle out there imho (-: On Sunday, December 1, 2013 9:35 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com wrote: John and Judy, I have been shocked by the grammar and spelling mistakes I have seen in so called formal documents, such as business memos. So nothing would surprise me in that regard. Like how many people get it's and its wrong; don't use possessive before a gerund; get there, their and they're wrong. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 9:32 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Probably not, at least right now, but it's becoming increasingly accepted in less-formal contexts, as I say. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: Judy, I don't believe they as a single pronoun would pass muster in a formal report to Congress. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: John, as Seraphita points out, they as a singular pronoun has been in popular use for a long time, including by some top-notch writers. It was declared a solecism in the 18th century by overly persnickety grammarians, but that didn't succeed in stamping it out; and it's currently undergoing a revival. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: I would agree that the use of the person's given name sounds better and would be grammatically correct. It would take a long time for they to be accepted as a singular pronoun. As it is, American English is probably evolving quite differently from British English. For example, foreign words have become acceptable over here, such as tacos, chow mein, sushi, shish-kabob, and tandoori chicken. Or, sometimes existential verbs are inferred in a sentence, such as He the man, which could refer to the past, present and future. The use of this sentence could also show that you're hep to the street language in big cities. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: 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?
[FairfieldLife] Re: RE: Personal Gender Pronouns
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: It's a grammar jungle out there imho (-: http://www.buzzfeed.com/aj8/19-jokes-only-grammar-nerds-will-understand-\ cfe3 http://www.buzzfeed.com/aj8/19-jokes-only-grammar-nerds-will-understand\ -cfe3
Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] OMG: madhusuudana's definition of dhaaraNaa??
According to MMY, the TM is based on selecting a suitable support for meditation, called in India a mantra, specifically a bija mantra. The term bija in Sanskrit means seed and mantra is from the Sanskrit root man, to think, and tra a tool - so a mantra is a tool for thinking. The word transcendental means to go beyond the gross material world of name and form. Mantras are used in meditation in order to more easily transcend the world of relativity marked by constant change, to another dimension that is unchanging, or the Absolute - Universal Consciousness. Bija mantras are given out in an initiation by a guru. But, in fact a mantra can be anything your guru says it is. It's just like the proverbial string tied around your finger in order to remember something. According to SBS, a bija mantra signifies a particular istadevata - a sort of nick-name for one of the several deified heroes of Hindu and Buddhist mythology. For example, Saraswati's bija is sring according to Alain Danielou, the author of Yoga: The Method of Reintegration. Danielou was a long-time student of Swami Karpatri, who was a disciple of Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, both of whom were adherents of the Sri Vidya sect whose main scripture is the Sound Arya Lahari which enumerates several TMer bija mantras. Note: My actual bija is similar but slightly different from sring mentioned in tantric textbooks. This notion that Universal Consciousness is the ultimate reality is called monistic idealism - the belief that reality is mentally constructed. That there is a immaterial construction to existence that is beyond mere sensory perception or thinking - that the relative world is supported by pure consciousness - which is the basis for the material life. This tradition comes from the Kashmere Trika tradition, meaning that there are different levels of human existence - namely the waking state, deep sleep, and the dream state, (sometimes referred to as the three cities) to which Kashmere Trika adds a fourth state, pure consciousness, termed turiya, which means in Sanskrit the fourth. This fourth state is beyond the ordinary states of sense perception; it is totally separate from the relative field of the senses - it is pure consciousness or absolute non-changing Being. The idea here is that not only is the bija mantra a mnemonic device but it is also an aid on the spiritual path because of it's vibrational qualities. In Yoga Sutras we read about the Ishvara the Transcendental Person, which is sort of like the God of Yogins. Ishvara can help aspirants on the spiritual path to enlightenment through developing an affinity with the Istadevata - termed spanda in Sanskrit - which means vibration - the essence of this vibration is the ecstatic self-referent Pure Consciousness personified as the Istdevata. According to MMY everything is spanda - vibration - both in the relative field and in the absolute field. In Kashmere tantrism there are two phases of existence, transcendental rest and relative activity. The phase of transcendental rest is called pralaya in Sanskrit, which has no first beginning, therefore no primal cause. The world of matter is only another form of consciousness. The Vedanta doctrine contends that there is only one ultimate reality which never changes; therefore the manifest world is an 'appearance' only, Maya. However, in Kashmere tantrism there is only one reality, but it has *two aspects* - the manifestation, Maya, is real - this notion is based on the argument that the effect cannot be different from its cause. In Beacon Light of the Himalayas, MMY says that we take the name of the Istadevata in order to become attuned to the vibrations that animate the universe: For our practice, we select only the suitable mantras of personal Gods. Such mantras fetch to us the grace of personal Gods and make us happier in every walk of life. But, strictly speaking, the bija mantras are not the actual names of the Gods - they are just the familiar nick-names. Apparently only very highly evolved individuals get to be on a first name basis with God Almighty! Go figure. In fact, all the TM bija mantras are common tantric householder mantras. All the Devatas such as Saraswati, Ram, and Shyam are attuned to their own vibrations. All of the Devatas are highly evolved humans that have become realized Siddhas. The Devatas attained this elevated level by yogic means. That's why MMY selected only suitable mantras that the ancient yogis used, because they are time-tested - their effects are known. According to the Shankaracharya tradition, such mantras indeed give us the grace of the Hindu Gods. In India it is believed that it is gross to address the Gods with their proper names, hence the bijas are just nick-names used as a subtle way to get the attention of the Devatas in order to help us on our spiritual path. I mean, who doesn't like to hear the sound of their own nick-name? In many satsangs SBS explained this for our understanding: When
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Barry, of course, is actually encouraging a pissing contest by advising Share to refrain from acknowledging reality. (Although goodness knows, she doesn't need any help doing that.) And good grief, I've let lie far more than I've ever taken up on this forum, as Barry well knows. I'm not going to let this one lie, though. Share can either acknowledge her (Barry-inspired, gratuitous, thoroughly mean) untruthfulness now, or continue to be confronted with it over and over until she does. Note to Barry: This is about the misrepresentation of facts. Nothing to do with opinions per se, sorry. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Ah. Demonstrating once again that she can't let *anything* lie, and feels compelled to start it back up again and try to turn it into one of her endless tarbaby arguments, Judy challenges Share to a pissing contest. Might I remind Share before she falls for it how pissing contests tend to end? http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Hb2h_XAIKp8/TTEOb-lcvLI/B4A/FMEPJJcCFbI/s400/oneup.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Hb2h_XAIKp8/TTEOb-lcvLI/B4A/FMEPJJcCFbI/s400/oneup.jpg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: OK, Share, let's see if you can both listen and reply to this post, which is about some unfinished business from yesterday that we need to deal with. In a post to Barry, you wrote: Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. As I've already noted, this is not true. We had clashed well before September 9. But this is what I want to discuss with you today, since you didn't respond to what I told you yesterday. You wrote: She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or even I think. In fact, I said: After all the lovely conversations you'd had with him, covering a wide range of themes, that you had decided you were going to suspend communications altogether because of a single remark sure sounded like you had felt seriously insulted. AND: Because this post sure doesn't sound to me as though you want to do anything but beat up on Robin, even after he's taken the blame on himself for *your* misunderstanding and apologized at length. Then you wrote: 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. In fact, I said: And now you seem to feel even more seriously insulted that he's left you a public apology. AND: I couldn't figure out either what your problem was with what he had said. AND: For the life of me, I can't see why you're being so snarky. Now, let's see if you can bring yourself to acknowledge that what you claimed yesterday about my September 9 post was not true. (Let's just look at what you said about it yesterday, and not try to avoid that issue by shifting attention to the merits of the arguments back then, OK?) For your convenience, here's the link to my September 9 post so you can check to make sure I haven't misquoted either you or myself: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 It was crammed with qualifiers and expressions of uncertainty, entirely contrary to your characterization of it yesterday. And it wasn't even a nasty post! I'm betting you can't do it, Share. I don't think you have the intestinal fortitude to confess to your untruthfulness, even with the evidence right in front of your eyes, even knowing it's in front of everyone else's eyes here as well. Goodness knows this wasn't the first or the only time you've misrepresented what someone else has said in an attempt to make them look bad and yourself appear to be a blameless victim. It's just such a clear-cut case, and you brought it on yourself. Your post yesterday was an entirely gratuitous slam, piling on to a long list of dishonest statements of Barry's about me. I ran my number on you? No, babe, you ran your number on me. As Ann pointed out to you: 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. Share wrote, oblivious to the irony: Nice, turq, and I'd add: we often listen with the intention to reply and by replying, *improve* our fellow humans any way we can, whether they want
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: RE: Personal Gender Pronouns
I'm a grammar nerd and nazi and I never knew til today. See, this is why I love FFL (-: On Sunday, December 1, 2013 9:47 AM, TurquoiseB turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: It's a grammar jungle out there imho (-: http://www.buzzfeed.com/aj8/19-jokes-only-grammar-nerds-will-understand-cfe3
Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn't more interesting, in one graphic
Judy, we remember it differently. That's all there is to it imo. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 9:47 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Barry, of course, is actually encouraging a pissing contest by advising Share to refrain from acknowledging reality. (Although goodness knows, she doesn't need any help doing that.) And good grief, I've let lie far more than I've ever taken up on this forum, as Barry well knows. I'm not going to let this one lie, though. Share can either acknowledge her (Barry-inspired, gratuitous, thoroughly mean) untruthfulness now, or continue to be confronted with it over and over until she does. Note to Barry: This is about the misrepresentation of facts. Nothing to do with opinions per se, sorry. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Ah. Demonstrating once again that she can't let *anything* lie, and feels compelled to start it back up again and try to turn it into one of her endless tarbaby arguments, Judy challenges Share to a pissing contest. Might I remind Share before she falls for it how pissing contests tend to end? http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Hb2h_XAIKp8/TTEOb-lcvLI/B4A/FMEPJJcCFbI/s400/oneup.jpg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: OK, Share, let's see if you can both listen and reply to this post, which is about some unfinished business from yesterday that we need to deal with. In a post to Barry, you wrote: Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. As I've already noted, this is not true. We had clashed well before September 9. But this is what I want to discuss with you today, since you didn't respond to what I told you yesterday. You wrote: She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or even I think. In fact, I said: After all the lovely conversations you'd had with him, covering a wide range of themes, that you had decided you were going to suspend communications altogether because of a single remark sure sounded like you had felt seriously insulted. AND: Because this post sure doesn't sound to me as though you want to do anything but beat up on Robin, even after he's taken the blame on himself for *your* misunderstanding and apologized at length. Then you wrote: 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. In fact, I said: And now you seem to feel even more seriously insulted that he's left you a public apology. AND: I couldn't figure out either what your problem was with what he had said. AND: For the life of me, I can't see why you're being so snarky. Now, let's see if you can bring yourself to acknowledge that what you claimed yesterday about my September 9 post was not true. (Let's just look at what you said about it yesterday, and not try to avoid that issue by shifting attention to the merits of the arguments back then, OK?) For your convenience, here's the link to my September 9 post so you can check to make sure I haven't misquoted either you or myself: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 It was crammed with qualifiers and expressions of uncertainty, entirely contrary to your characterization of it yesterday. And it wasn't even a nasty post! I'm betting you can't do it, Share. I don't think you have the intestinal fortitude to confess to your untruthfulness, even with the evidence right in front of your eyes, even knowing it's in front of everyone else's eyes here as well. Goodness knows this wasn't the first or the only time you've misrepresented what someone else has said in an attempt to make them look bad and yourself appear to be a blameless victim. It's just such a clear-cut case, and you brought it on yourself. Your post yesterday was an entirely gratuitous slam, piling on to a long list of dishonest statements of Barry's about me. I ran my number on you? No, babe, you ran your number on me. As Ann pointed out to you: 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. Share wrote, oblivious to the irony: Nice, turq, and I'd add: we often listen with
RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
You may remember it differently, Share, but as you know I just now corrected your false memory by actually quoting the posts you were misremembering. And just think, everyone can read what you said and what I said, so nobody is going to fall for your remember it differently excuse. Instead, it's just further proof of your untruthfulness and refusal to take responsibility for your very own words. You started this dispute, Share, with your gratuitous and untruthful post to Barry yesterday. You can either clean it up now or, as I said, be confronted with your untruthfulness over and over until you do. Share lied (again): Judy, we remember it differently. That's all there is to it imo. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 9:47 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Barry, of course, is actually encouraging a pissing contest by advising Share to refrain from acknowledging reality. (Although goodness knows, she doesn't need any help doing that.) And good grief, I've let lie far more than I've ever taken up on this forum, as Barry well knows. I'm not going to let this one lie, though. Share can either acknowledge her (Barry-inspired, gratuitous, thoroughly mean) untruthfulness now, or continue to be confronted with it over and over until she does. Note to Barry: This is about the misrepresentation of facts. Nothing to do with opinions per se, sorry. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Ah. Demonstrating once again that she can't let *anything* lie, and feels compelled to start it back up again and try to turn it into one of her endless tarbaby arguments, Judy challenges Share to a pissing contest. Might I remind Share before she falls for it how pissing contests tend to end? http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Hb2h_XAIKp8/TTEOb-lcvLI/B4A/FMEPJJcCFbI/s400/oneup.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Hb2h_XAIKp8/TTEOb-lcvLI/B4A/FMEPJJcCFbI/s400/oneup.jpg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: OK, Share, let's see if you can both listen and reply to this post, which is about some unfinished business from yesterday that we need to deal with. In a post to Barry, you wrote: Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. As I've already noted, this is not true. We had clashed well before September 9. But this is what I want to discuss with you today, since you didn't respond to what I told you yesterday. You wrote: She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or even I think. In fact, I said: After all the lovely conversations you'd had with him, covering a wide range of themes, that you had decided you were going to suspend communications altogether because of a single remark sure sounded like you had felt seriously insulted. AND: Because this post sure doesn't sound to me as though you want to do anything but beat up on Robin, even after he's taken the blame on himself for *your* misunderstanding and apologized at length. Then you wrote: 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. In fact, I said: And now you seem to feel even more seriously insulted that he's left you a public apology. AND: I couldn't figure out either what your problem was with what he had said. AND: For the life of me, I can't see why you're being so snarky. Now, let's see if you can bring yourself to acknowledge that what you claimed yesterday about my September 9 post was not true. (Let's just look at what you said about it yesterday, and not try to avoid that issue by shifting attention to the merits of the arguments back then, OK?) For your convenience, here's the link to my September 9 post so you can check to make sure I haven't misquoted either you or myself: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 It was crammed with qualifiers and expressions of uncertainty, entirely contrary to your characterization of it yesterday. And it wasn't even a nasty post! I'm betting you can't do it, Share. I don't think you have the intestinal fortitude to confess to your untruthfulness, even with the evidence right in front of your eyes, even knowing it's in front of everyone else's eyes here as well. Goodness knows this wasn't the first or the only time you've misrepresented what someone else has said in an attempt to make them look bad and yourself appear to be a blameless victim. It's just such a clear-cut case, and you brought it on yourself. Your post yesterday was an entirely gratuitous slam, piling on to a long list of
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Ah. Demonstrating once again that she can't let *anything* lie, and feels compelled to start it back up again and try to turn it into one of her endless tarbaby arguments, Judy challenges Share to a pissing contest. Might I remind Share before she falls for it how pissing contests tend to end? I was counting the seconds before you were going to post this totally predictable Barry-spew. I could have written it, to the word, myself on your behalf. You have now perfectly demonstrated that you are a troublemaker and a warmonger Barry. Judy laid out perfectly, like a carefully laid table, an opportunity for Share to acknowledge something and you are demonstrating exactly who and what you are by trying to prevent this. Barry, you appear spiritually, emotionally and humanly bereft. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Hb2h_XAIKp8/TTEOb-lcvLI/B4A/FMEPJJcCFbI/s400/oneup.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Hb2h_XAIKp8/TTEOb-lcvLI/B4A/FMEPJJcCFbI/s400/oneup.jpg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: OK, Share, let's see if you can both listen and reply to this post, which is about some unfinished business from yesterday that we need to deal with. In a post to Barry, you wrote: Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. As I've already noted, this is not true. We had clashed well before September 9. But this is what I want to discuss with you today, since you didn't respond to what I told you yesterday. You wrote: She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or even I think. In fact, I said: After all the lovely conversations you'd had with him, covering a wide range of themes, that you had decided you were going to suspend communications altogether because of a single remark sure sounded like you had felt seriously insulted. AND: Because this post sure doesn't sound to me as though you want to do anything but beat up on Robin, even after he's taken the blame on himself for *your* misunderstanding and apologized at length. Then you wrote: 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. In fact, I said: And now you seem to feel even more seriously insulted that he's left you a public apology. AND: I couldn't figure out either what your problem was with what he had said. AND: For the life of me, I can't see why you're being so snarky. Now, let's see if you can bring yourself to acknowledge that what you claimed yesterday about my September 9 post was not true. (Let's just look at what you said about it yesterday, and not try to avoid that issue by shifting attention to the merits of the arguments back then, OK?) For your convenience, here's the link to my September 9 post so you can check to make sure I haven't misquoted either you or myself: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 It was crammed with qualifiers and expressions of uncertainty, entirely contrary to your characterization of it yesterday. And it wasn't even a nasty post! I'm betting you can't do it, Share. I don't think you have the intestinal fortitude to confess to your untruthfulness, even with the evidence right in front of your eyes, even knowing it's in front of everyone else's eyes here as well. Goodness knows this wasn't the first or the only time you've misrepresented what someone else has said in an attempt to make them look bad and yourself appear to be a blameless victim. It's just such a clear-cut case, and you brought it on yourself. Your post yesterday was an entirely gratuitous slam, piling on to a long list of dishonest statements of Barry's about me. I ran my number on you? No, babe, you ran your number on me. As Ann pointed out to you: 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. Share wrote, oblivious to the irony: Nice, turq, and I'd add: we often listen with the intention to reply and by replying, *improve* our fellow humans any way we can, whether they want to be *improved* or not! Of course this doesn't apply much to the Funny Farm Lounge (-:
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Poor Judy Stein
Emily - According to MMY, meditation is based on thinking - Anyone who can think can meditate. Meditation simply means to think things over. Based on that definition, everyone on the entire planet meditates. Everyone pauses once or twice a day to take stock of their own mental contents. And, we're all transcending all the time, even without a special technique! There are a few things about TM that Barry and Judy didn't tell you about TM - it costs thousands of dollars to learn TM, and that alone wouldn't entitle you to get inside the golden dome at MUM for a group meditation. For that, you'd probably have to pay thousands of more dollars to learn the TM-Sidhi program. Barry posted that he paid over $5,000 in order to learn how to bun-hop. However, there are lots of places you can learn how to meditate for free. Go figure. And, even if you did learn TM you'd probably be meditating on your own anyway. It's not likely you'd ever get to Fairfield, IA to just be able to join a group meditation inside the MUM women's dome, and there's only three other golden domes that I know of. One is down here at Radiance, TX, at the TM Ideal Village - the Maharishi Golden Dome of Pure Knowledge - home of the Super Radiance Program; and there's a golden dome at Skelmer's Dale - Sidha Land - over in Lancashire, UK; and there's a golden dome called Siddha Dorp over in Lelystad, NE. Not likely you'd be over there anytime soon either, just to be able to meditate inside a golden dome. So, I can speak from some experience having been initiated into TM back in 1964 - according to Beaulah Smith, I was TMer #214 in the U.S. I meditated with MMY himself on several occasions at the SRM and I have learned two advanced techniques from SIMS under Jerry Jarvis in 1965 and Brahmacharya Satyanand in 1968. Before I started TM I was a meditation student at the SRF under Swami Paramahamsa Yogananda in Los Angeles, CA, and I can say without the least hesitation that TM is very similar to the Kriya Yoga that I learned there. Later, I moved to San Francisco, CA and sat under Shunryu Suzuki at the SFZC for two years and then I sat for another year at the Shambhala Meditation Center in Boulder, CO under the direction of Lama Chogyam Trungpa. I've been meditating every day for over forty-nine years and I will attest that meditation is very similar in many different traditions. If you have any question about meditation I could probably teach you how to meditate in just a few minutes. It's not complicated. Self Realization Fellowship: http://www.yogananda-srf.org/ San Francisco Zen Center: http://www.sfzc.org/ Shambhala Meditation Center: http://www.boulder.shambhala.org/ meditation – noun 1. to think calm thoughts in order to relax or as a religious activity: Sophie meditates for 20 minutes every day. 2. to think seriously about something for a long time: He meditated on the consequences of his decision. Works cited: 'Maharishi - A Promise for the Family of Man' Historic Lecture at Jones Hall, Houston, TX http://youtu.be/k3swI5n_mW0 Cambridge University Dictionary: http://tinyurl.com/dz5ut2 On 11/30/2013 11:44 AM, emilymae...@yahoo.com 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.
RE: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Authfriend's modus operandi: A falsis principiis proficisci. (Marcus Tullius Cicero)
RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Judy, we remember it differently. That's all there is to it imo. I read this and, just as an experiment, I thought about what I would write if I were you (but really me) in this situation. Here is what, to the best of my ability putting myself in this situation, I would have written, as Ann: Judy, I obviously remembered this differently which is an interesting fact in and of itself since I would have to question myself why that would/could be. However, putting that aside for the moment and based on your clear documentation of exactly how our conversation went down back in September I would have to say that I was wrong in accusing you of what I did. Now, when reading that post that you dissected above I was able to see that, in fact, you did account for the fact that you were postulating and wondering, not, in fact, passing a big judgment on me. You were seeming to explore the situation and wondering about it. I mean, it is written right there in front of me so I would have to ask myself why I did not remember it that way. Figuring that out could take more time. I'm sorry if (and it appears I did) misrepresent the interaction we had back then. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 9:47 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Barry, of course, is actually encouraging a pissing contest by advising Share to refrain from acknowledging reality. (Although goodness knows, she doesn't need any help doing that.) And good grief, I've let lie far more than I've ever taken up on this forum, as Barry well knows. I'm not going to let this one lie, though. Share can either acknowledge her (Barry-inspired, gratuitous, thoroughly mean) untruthfulness now, or continue to be confronted with it over and over until she does. Note to Barry: This is about the misrepresentation of facts. Nothing to do with opinions per se, sorry. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Ah. Demonstrating once again that she can't let *anything* lie, and feels compelled to start it back up again and try to turn it into one of her endless tarbaby arguments, Judy challenges Share to a pissing contest. Might I remind Share before she falls for it how pissing contests tend to end? http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Hb2h_XAIKp8/TTEOb-lcvLI/B4A/FMEPJJcCFbI/s400/oneup.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Hb2h_XAIKp8/TTEOb-lcvLI/B4A/FMEPJJcCFbI/s400/oneup.jpg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: OK, Share, let's see if you can both listen and reply to this post, which is about some unfinished business from yesterday that we need to deal with. In a post to Barry, you wrote: Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. As I've already noted, this is not true. We had clashed well before September 9. But this is what I want to discuss with you today, since you didn't respond to what I told you yesterday. You wrote: She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or even I think. In fact, I said: After all the lovely conversations you'd had with him, covering a wide range of themes, that you had decided you were going to suspend communications altogether because of a single remark sure sounded like you had felt seriously insulted. AND: Because this post sure doesn't sound to me as though you want to do anything but beat up on Robin, even after he's taken the blame on himself for *your* misunderstanding and apologized at length. Then you wrote: 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. In fact, I said: And now you seem to feel even more seriously insulted that he's left you a public apology. AND: I couldn't figure out either what your problem was with what he had said. AND: For the life of me, I can't see why you're being so snarky. Now, let's see if you can bring yourself to acknowledge that what you claimed yesterday about my September 9 post was not true. (Let's just look at what you said about it yesterday, and not try to avoid that issue by shifting attention to the merits of the arguments back then, OK?) For your convenience, here's the link to my September 9 post so you can check to make sure I haven't misquoted either you or myself: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 It was crammed with qualifiers and expressions of uncertainty, entirely contrary to your characterization of it yesterday. And it wasn't even a nasty post! I'm betting you can't do it, Share. I don't
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Poor Judy Stein
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: Emily - According to MMY, meditation is based on thinking - Anyone who can think can meditate. Meditation simply means to think things over. Based on that definition, everyone on the entire planet meditates. Everyone pauses once or twice a day to take stock of their own mental contents. And, we're all transcending all the time, even without a special technique! There are a few things about TM that Barry and Judy didn't tell you about TM - it costs thousands of dollars to learn TM, and that alone wouldn't entitle you to get inside the golden dome at MUM for a group meditation. For that, you'd probably have to pay thousands of more dollars to learn the TM-Sidhi program. Barry posted that he paid over $5,000 in order to learn how to bun-hop. However, there are lots of places you can learn how to meditate for free. Go figure. And, even if you did learn TM you'd probably be meditating on your own anyway. It's not likely you'd ever get to Fairfield, IA to just be able to join a group meditation inside the MUM women's dome, and there's only three other golden domes that I know of. One is down here at Radiance, TX, at the TM Ideal Village - the Maharishi Golden Dome of Pure Knowledge - home of the Super Radiance Program; and there's a golden dome at Skelmer's Dale - Sidha Land - over in Lancashire, UK; and there's a golden dome called Siddha Dorp over in Lelystad, NE. Not likely you'd be over there anytime soon either, just to be able to meditate inside a golden dome. So, I can speak from some experience having been initiated into TM back in 1964 - according to Beaulah Smith, I was TMer #214 in the U.S. I meditated with MMY himself on several occasions at the SRM and I have learned two advanced techniques from SIMS under Jerry Jarvis in 1965 and Brahmacharya Satyanand in 1968. Before I started TM I was a meditation student at the SRF under Swami Paramahamsa Yogananda in Los Angeles, CA, and I can say without the least hesitation that TM is very similar to the Kriya Yoga that I learned there. Later, I moved to San Francisco, CA and sat under Shunryu Suzuki at the SFZC for two years and then I sat for another year at the Shambhala Meditation Center in Boulder, CO under the direction of Lama Chogyam Trungpa. I've been meditating every day for over forty-nine years and I will attest that meditation is very similar in many different traditions. If you have any question about meditation I could probably teach you how to meditate in just a few minutes. It's not complicated. Great post Richard. Self Realization Fellowship: http://www.yogananda-srf.org/ http://www.yogananda-srf.org/ San Francisco Zen Center: http://www.sfzc.org/ http://www.sfzc.org/ Shambhala Meditation Center: http://www.boulder.shambhala.org/ http://www.boulder.shambhala.org/ meditation – noun 1. to think calm thoughts in order to relax or as a religious activity: Sophie meditates for 20 minutes every day. 2. to think seriously about something for a long time: He meditated on the consequences of his decision. Works cited: 'Maharishi - A Promise for the Family of Man' Historic Lecture at Jones Hall, Houston, TX http://youtu.be/k3swI5n_mW0 Cambridge University Dictionary: http://tinyurl.com/dz5ut2 http://tinyurl.com/dz5ut2 On 11/30/2013 11:44 AM, emilymaenot@... mailto: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.
RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote: Authfriend's modus operandi: A falsis principiis proficisci. (Marcus Tullius Cicero) And you're the guy in Unity?
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Al Gore debates Global Warming
Maybe you forgot to mention the bovine flatulence in Iowa and farming in general which produces more CO2 that auto emissions. And, don't forget sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. Face it, Buck, you're screwed on the farm. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-co2-from-cars-427843.html On 12/1/2013 6:35 AM, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: “There is a broad scientific consensus that to keep global warming in check, we need to phase out 80 percent of all oil, coal and natural gas by mid-century. President Obama has set a nonbinding target to do precisely that.” http://www.npr.org/2013/11/30/247519058/tech-leaders-economists-split-over-clean-energys-prospects
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Al Gore debates Global Warming
If we didn't eat 'em they wouldn't raise 'em. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: Maybe you forgot to mention the bovine flatulence in Iowa and farming in general which produces more CO2 that auto emissions. And, don't forget sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. Face it, Buck, you're screwed on the farm. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-co2-from-cars-427843.html On 12/1/2013 6:35 AM, dhamiltony2k5@... mailto:dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: “There is a broad scientific consensus that to keep global warming in check, we need to phase out 80 percent of all oil, coal and natural gas by mid-century. President Obama has set a nonbinding target to do precisely that.” http://www.npr.org/2013/11/30/247519058/tech-leaders-economists-split-over-clean-energys-prospects http://www.npr.org/2013/11/30/247519058/tech-leaders-economists-split-over-clean-energys-prospects
Re: [FairfieldLife] Chinese give birth in the United States to secure benefits: ‘Birth-tourism’ is born
It would also be interesting to see what percentage of home buyers in the US are from China. The house I sold back in September was bought by a couple from China. After all they've got the money. American's don't. So it goes. On 12/01/2013 04:47 AM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/29/chinese-give-birth-america-secure-benefits/
RE: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
That's a great idea, Ann! Why don't we all write as if we are someone else -- then we can show how much wiser and better we are in every respect than the individual we are impersonating! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Judy, we remember it differently. That's all there is to it imo. I read this and, just as an experiment, I thought about what I would write if I were you (but really me) in this situation. Here is what, to the best of my ability putting myself in this situation, I would have written, as Ann: Judy, I obviously remembered this differently which is an interesting fact in and of itself since I would have to question myself why that would/could be. However, putting that aside for the moment and based on your clear documentation of exactly how our conversation went down back in September I would have to say that I was wrong in accusing you of what I did. Now, when reading that post that you dissected above I was able to see that, in fact, you did account for the fact that you were postulating and wondering, not, in fact, passing a big judgment on me. You were seeming to explore the situation and wondering about it. I mean, it is written right there in front of me so I would have to ask myself why I did not remember it that way. Figuring that out could take more time. I'm sorry if (and it appears I did) misrepresent the interaction we had back then. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 9:47 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Barry, of course, is actually encouraging a pissing contest by advising Share to refrain from acknowledging reality. (Although goodness knows, she doesn't need any help doing that.) And good grief, I've let lie far more than I've ever taken up on this forum, as Barry well knows. I'm not going to let this one lie, though. Share can either acknowledge her (Barry-inspired, gratuitous, thoroughly mean) untruthfulness now, or continue to be confronted with it over and over until she does. Note to Barry: This is about the misrepresentation of facts. Nothing to do with opinions per se, sorry. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Ah. Demonstrating once again that she can't let *anything* lie, and feels compelled to start it back up again and try to turn it into one of her endless tarbaby arguments, Judy challenges Share to a pissing contest. Might I remind Share before she falls for it how pissing contests tend to end? http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Hb2h_XAIKp8/TTEOb-lcvLI/B4A/FMEPJJcCFbI/s400/oneup.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Hb2h_XAIKp8/TTEOb-lcvLI/B4A/FMEPJJcCFbI/s400/oneup.jpg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: OK, Share, let's see if you can both listen and reply to this post, which is about some unfinished business from yesterday that we need to deal with. In a post to Barry, you wrote: Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. As I've already noted, this is not true. We had clashed well before September 9. But this is what I want to discuss with you today, since you didn't respond to what I told you yesterday. You wrote: She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or even I think. In fact, I said: After all the lovely conversations you'd had with him, covering a wide range of themes, that you had decided you were going to suspend communications altogether because of a single remark sure sounded like you had felt seriously insulted. AND: Because this post sure doesn't sound to me as though you want to do anything but beat up on Robin, even after he's taken the blame on himself for *your* misunderstanding and apologized at length. Then you wrote: 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. In fact, I said: And now you seem to feel even more seriously insulted that he's left you a public apology. AND: I couldn't figure out either what your problem was with what he had said. AND: For the life of me, I can't see why you're being so snarky. Now, let's see if you can bring yourself to acknowledge that what you claimed yesterday about my September 9 post was not true. (Let's just look at what you said about it yesterday, and not try to avoid that issue by shifting attention to the merits of the arguments back then, OK?) For your convenience, here's the link to my September 9 post so you can check to make sure I haven't misquoted either you or myself: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521
RE: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Thank you, Ann. I would accept an I misremembered admission from Share if she made it crystal clear she was acknowledging that her memory had been wrong, and then apologized for those mistakes having put me in a bad light. But We remember it differently doesn't fly. No matter how hard she tries, she isn't going to be able (nor are her defenders) to piss away what she actually said yesterday and what I actually said in my post from September 2012. It is interesting to consider what could have been going on in her mind and heart that caused her to remember it differently than it really was. But that's for Share to figure out. Ann wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Judy, we remember it differently. That's all there is to it imo. I read this and, just as an experiment, I thought about what I would write if I were you (but really me) in this situation. Here is what, to the best of my ability putting myself in this situation, I would have written, as Ann: Judy, I obviously remembered this differently which is an interesting fact in and of itself since I would have to question myself why that would/could be. However, putting that aside for the moment and based on your clear documentation of exactly how our conversation went down back in September I would have to say that I was wrong in accusing you of what I did. Now, when reading that post that you dissected above I was able to see that, in fact, you did account for the fact that you were postulating and wondering, not, in fact, passing a big judgment on me. You were seeming to explore the situation and wondering about it. I mean, it is written right there in front of me so I would have to ask myself why I did not remember it that way. Figuring that out could take more time. I'm sorry if (and it appears I did) misrepresent the interaction we had back then. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 9:47 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Barry, of course, is actually encouraging a pissing contest by advising Share to refrain from acknowledging reality. (Although goodness knows, she doesn't need any help doing that.) And good grief, I've let lie far more than I've ever taken up on this forum, as Barry well knows. I'm not going to let this one lie, though. Share can either acknowledge her (Barry-inspired, gratuitous, thoroughly mean) untruthfulness now, or continue to be confronted with it over and over until she does. Note to Barry: This is about the misrepresentation of facts. Nothing to do with opinions per se, sorry. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Ah. Demonstrating once again that she can't let *anything* lie, and feels compelled to start it back up again and try to turn it into one of her endless tarbaby arguments, Judy challenges Share to a pissing contest. Might I remind Share before she falls for it how pissing contests tend to end? http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Hb2h_XAIKp8/TTEOb-lcvLI/B4A/FMEPJJcCFbI/s400/oneup.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Hb2h_XAIKp8/TTEOb-lcvLI/B4A/FMEPJJcCFbI/s400/oneup.jpg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: OK, Share, let's see if you can both listen and reply to this post, which is about some unfinished business from yesterday that we need to deal with. In a post to Barry, you wrote: Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. As I've already noted, this is not true. We had clashed well before September 9. But this is what I want to discuss with you today, since you didn't respond to what I told you yesterday. You wrote: She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or even I think. In fact, I said: After all the lovely conversations you'd had with him, covering a wide range of themes, that you had decided you were going to suspend communications altogether because of a single remark sure sounded like you had felt seriously insulted. AND: Because this post sure doesn't sound to me as though you want to do anything but beat up on Robin, even after he's taken the blame on himself for *your* misunderstanding and apologized at length. Then you wrote: 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. In fact, I said: And now you seem to feel even more seriously insulted that he's left you a public apology. AND: I couldn't figure out either what your problem was with what he had said. AND: For the life of me, I can't see why you're being so snarky. Now, let's see if you can bring yourself to acknowledge that what you claimed yesterday about my September 9 post was not true. (Let's just look at what you
[FairfieldLife] RE: Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
When listening to a political discussion programme on radio or TV have you ever heard a contributor say to an opponent: That's a good point. I shall now revise my opinion. Thank you for helping me see more clearly into the nature of the problem? ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Nice, turq, and I'd add: we often listen with the intention to reply and by replying, *improve* our fellow humans any way we can, whether they want to be *improved* or not! Of course this doesn't apply much to the Funny Farm Lounge (-: On Sunday, December 1, 2013 3:22 AM, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote:
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Poor Judy Stein
Richard, as far as I'm concerned, if one can breathe, one can meditate. The mind is an endless playground. What it thinks it knows is simply feeding its high opinion of itself. I want to live my life based on core principles and a connection to life that stems from the heart and soul and informs my mind so that it *can* be aware. I do want to improve my character and I want my behavior to reflect my intentions as aligned with the *reality of life and human beingness*. Stilling the mind is helpful to get it out of the way and allow for this possibility to occur. Teaching and training my mind what to pay attention to and how to interpret experience is important also, imho. At this moment, this is my approach. TM isn't a necessary part of this approach. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: Emily - According to MMY, meditation is based on thinking - Anyone who can think can meditate. Meditation simply means to think things over. Based on that definition, everyone on the entire planet meditates. Everyone pauses once or twice a day to take stock of their own mental contents. And, we're all transcending all the time, even without a special technique! There are a few things about TM that Barry and Judy didn't tell you about TM - it costs thousands of dollars to learn TM, and that alone wouldn't entitle you to get inside the golden dome at MUM for a group meditation. For that, you'd probably have to pay thousands of more dollars to learn the TM-Sidhi program. Barry posted that he paid over $5,000 in order to learn how to bun-hop. However, there are lots of places you can learn how to meditate for free. Go figure. And, even if you did learn TM you'd probably be meditating on your own anyway. It's not likely you'd ever get to Fairfield, IA to just be able to join a group meditation inside the MUM women's dome, and there's only three other golden domes that I know of. One is down here at Radiance, TX, at the TM Ideal Village - the Maharishi Golden Dome of Pure Knowledge - home of the Super Radiance Program; and there's a golden dome at Skelmer's Dale - Sidha Land - over in Lancashire, UK; and there's a golden dome called Siddha Dorp over in Lelystad, NE. Not likely you'd be over there anytime soon either, just to be able to meditate inside a golden dome. So, I can speak from some experience having been initiated into TM back in 1964 - according to Beaulah Smith, I was TMer #214 in the U.S. I meditated with MMY himself on several occasions at the SRM and I have learned two advanced techniques from SIMS under Jerry Jarvis in 1965 and Brahmacharya Satyanand in 1968. Before I started TM I was a meditation student at the SRF under Swami Paramahamsa Yogananda in Los Angeles, CA, and I can say without the least hesitation that TM is very similar to the Kriya Yoga that I learned there. Later, I moved to San Francisco, CA and sat under Shunryu Suzuki at the SFZC for two years and then I sat for another year at the Shambhala Meditation Center in Boulder, CO under the direction of Lama Chogyam Trungpa. I've been meditating every day for over forty-nine years and I will attest that meditation is very similar in many different traditions. If you have any question about meditation I could probably teach you how to meditate in just a few minutes. It's not complicated. Self Realization Fellowship: http://www.yogananda-srf.org/ http://www.yogananda-srf.org/ San Francisco Zen Center: http://www.sfzc.org/ http://www.sfzc.org/ Shambhala Meditation Center: http://www.boulder.shambhala.org/ http://www.boulder.shambhala.org/ meditation – noun 1. to think calm thoughts in order to relax or as a religious activity: Sophie meditates for 20 minutes every day. 2. to think seriously about something for a long time: He meditated on the consequences of his decision. Works cited: 'Maharishi - A Promise for the Family of Man' Historic Lecture at Jones Hall, Houston, TX http://youtu.be/k3swI5n_mW0 Cambridge University Dictionary: http://tinyurl.com/dz5ut2 http://tinyurl.com/dz5ut2 On 11/30/2013 11:44 AM, emilymaenot@... mailto: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.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] Judy Stein#39;s Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
Judy, what do you mean by: taken severely to task and strong community disapproval? Those parts weren't clear yet imo they are what drives you. As best as I can I've read all the posts on this topic. I agree with another poster in that I think people are basically honest. I think they have faulty memories, etc. That's all that happened with regards to my recent post. When you don't like someone, you turn even their spelling mistakes into indications of a deep seated character flaw! Now even Emily is so eager to be negative towards me that she criticized my using the term half sister to refer to the woman with whom I have the same father but a different mother! If that isn't gratuitous criticism, I don't know what is! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: 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: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Poor Judy Stein
P.S. And thank you Richard for offering, but I don't need to be taught how to meditate. I know how. Smile. I like what you said about how meditation is very similar in many different traditions. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Richard, as far as I'm concerned, if one can breathe, one can meditate. The mind is an endless playground. What it thinks it knows is simply feeding its high opinion of itself. I want to live my life based on core principles and a connection to life that stems from the heart and soul and informs my mind so that it *can* be aware. I do want to improve my character and I want my behavior to reflect my intentions as aligned with the *reality of life and human beingness*. Stilling the mind is helpful to get it out of the way and allow for this possibility to occur. Teaching and training my mind what to pay attention to and how to interpret experience is important also, imho. At this moment, this is my approach. TM isn't a necessary part of this approach. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: Emily - According to MMY, meditation is based on thinking - Anyone who can think can meditate. Meditation simply means to think things over. Based on that definition, everyone on the entire planet meditates. Everyone pauses once or twice a day to take stock of their own mental contents. And, we're all transcending all the time, even without a special technique! There are a few things about TM that Barry and Judy didn't tell you about TM - it costs thousands of dollars to learn TM, and that alone wouldn't entitle you to get inside the golden dome at MUM for a group meditation. For that, you'd probably have to pay thousands of more dollars to learn the TM-Sidhi program. Barry posted that he paid over $5,000 in order to learn how to bun-hop. However, there are lots of places you can learn how to meditate for free. Go figure. And, even if you did learn TM you'd probably be meditating on your own anyway. It's not likely you'd ever get to Fairfield, IA to just be able to join a group meditation inside the MUM women's dome, and there's only three other golden domes that I know of. One is down here at Radiance, TX, at the TM Ideal Village - the Maharishi Golden Dome of Pure Knowledge - home of the Super Radiance Program; and there's a golden dome at Skelmer's Dale - Sidha Land - over in Lancashire, UK; and there's a golden dome called Siddha Dorp over in Lelystad, NE. Not likely you'd be over there anytime soon either, just to be able to meditate inside a golden dome. So, I can speak from some experience having been initiated into TM back in 1964 - according to Beaulah Smith, I was TMer #214 in the U.S. I meditated with MMY himself on several occasions at the SRM and I have learned two advanced techniques from SIMS under Jerry Jarvis in 1965 and Brahmacharya Satyanand in 1968. Before I started TM I was a meditation student at the SRF under Swami Paramahamsa Yogananda in Los Angeles, CA, and I can say without the least hesitation that TM is very similar to the Kriya Yoga that I learned there. Later, I moved to San Francisco, CA and sat under Shunryu Suzuki at the SFZC for two years and then I sat for another year at the Shambhala Meditation Center in Boulder, CO under the direction of Lama Chogyam Trungpa. I've been meditating every day for over forty-nine years and I will attest that meditation is very similar in many different traditions. If you have any question about meditation I could probably teach you how to meditate in just a few minutes. It's not complicated. Self Realization Fellowship: http://www.yogananda-srf.org/ http://www.yogananda-srf.org/ San Francisco Zen Center: http://www.sfzc.org/ http://www.sfzc.org/ Shambhala Meditation Center: http://www.boulder.shambhala.org/ http://www.boulder.shambhala.org/ meditation – noun 1. to think calm thoughts in order to relax or as a religious activity: Sophie meditates for 20 minutes every day. 2. to think seriously about something for a long time: He meditated on the consequences of his decision. Works cited: 'Maharishi - A Promise for the Family of Man' Historic Lecture at Jones Hall, Houston, TX http://youtu.be/k3swI5n_mW0 Cambridge University Dictionary: http://tinyurl.com/dz5ut2 http://tinyurl.com/dz5ut2 On 11/30/2013 11:44 AM, emilymaenot@... mailto: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.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Chinese give birth in the United States t o secure benefits: ‘Birth-tourism’ is born
Does China have a similar entitlement? If so, maybe American and European women should give birth in China. The Chinese are cash rich and the US and a good slice of Europe (including the UK and Mediterranean countries) are technically broke. When I say technically I don't mean something a tiresome pedant would insist on. I mean we really and truly are bankrupt. It's in everyone's interests to carry on pretending for now that this isn't the case (there isn't an alternative plan) but the debts really are astronomical and one day some child is going to blurt out that the Emperor is wearing nothing at all and the West is facing Armageddon. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote: It would also be interesting to see what percentage of home buyers in the US are from China. The house I sold back in September was bought by a couple from China. After all they've got the money. American's don't. So it goes. On 12/01/2013 04:47 AM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/29/chinese-give-birth-america-secure-benefits/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/29/chinese-give-birth-america-secure-benefits/
RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
You know, Feste, Share just loved it when you said a few days back that you hadn't been happy with her attack on Ann. She told you so herself; remember? Today you have a chance to give Share an even bigger thrill by making it clear you don't approve of the way she's trying to wiggle out of all the errors of fact she made yesterday about my September 9 post of last year. I have the sneaking suspicion you're going to say anything you can think of to avoid doing that, though. Saving face (yours and Share's) is much more important to you (and her) than being truthful and taking responsibility. So you dumped on Ann instead. But it's still early; maybe you'll prove me wrong yet. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: That's a great idea, Ann! Why don't we all write as if we are someone else -- then we can show how much wiser and better we are in every respect than the individual we are impersonating! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Judy, we remember it differently. That's all there is to it imo. I read this and, just as an experiment, I thought about what I would write if I were you (but really me) in this situation. Here is what, to the best of my ability putting myself in this situation, I would have written, as Ann: Judy, I obviously remembered this differently which is an interesting fact in and of itself since I would have to question myself why that would/could be. However, putting that aside for the moment and based on your clear documentation of exactly how our conversation went down back in September I would have to say that I was wrong in accusing you of what I did. Now, when reading that post that you dissected above I was able to see that, in fact, you did account for the fact that you were postulating and wondering, not, in fact, passing a big judgment on me. You were seeming to explore the situation and wondering about it. I mean, it is written right there in front of me so I would have to ask myself why I did not remember it that way. Figuring that out could take more time. I'm sorry if (and it appears I did) misrepresent the interaction we had back then. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 9:47 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Barry, of course, is actually encouraging a pissing contest by advising Share to refrain from acknowledging reality. (Although goodness knows, she doesn't need any help doing that.) And good grief, I've let lie far more than I've ever taken up on this forum, as Barry well knows. I'm not going to let this one lie, though. Share can either acknowledge her (Barry-inspired, gratuitous, thoroughly mean) untruthfulness now, or continue to be confronted with it over and over until she does. Note to Barry: This is about the misrepresentation of facts. Nothing to do with opinions per se, sorry. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Ah. Demonstrating once again that she can't let *anything* lie, and feels compelled to start it back up again and try to turn it into one of her endless tarbaby arguments, Judy challenges Share to a pissing contest. Might I remind Share before she falls for it how pissing contests tend to end? http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Hb2h_XAIKp8/TTEOb-lcvLI/B4A/FMEPJJcCFbI/s400/oneup.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Hb2h_XAIKp8/TTEOb-lcvLI/B4A/FMEPJJcCFbI/s400/oneup.jpg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: OK, Share, let's see if you can both listen and reply to this post, which is about some unfinished business from yesterday that we need to deal with. In a post to Barry, you wrote: Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. As I've already noted, this is not true. We had clashed well before September 9. But this is what I want to discuss with you today, since you didn't respond to what I told you yesterday. You wrote: She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or even I think. In fact, I said: After all the lovely conversations you'd had with him, covering a wide range of themes, that you had decided you were going to suspend communications altogether because of a single remark sure sounded like you had felt seriously insulted. AND: Because this post sure doesn't sound to me as though you want to do anything but beat up on Robin, even after he's taken the blame on himself for *your* misunderstanding and apologized at length. Then you wrote: 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. In fact, I said: And now you seem to feel even more seriously
RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Oh, auth, you want to control everyone's responses so they say exactly what you think they ought to say. You seem to demand it as a kind of self-validation: you are right and everyone must acknowledge how right you are and how wrong your dishonest opponents are. They are disreputable human beings and must be denounced by the entire community. You're kind of nuts, really. Has anyone ever pointed that out to you? Regarding Ann's post, I gave it the reply it deserved. It's very easy to smugly decide what you think others should say when you are not yourself involved in the situation. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: You know, Feste, Share just loved it when you said a few days back that you hadn't been happy with her attack on Ann. She told you so herself; remember? Today you have a chance to give Share an even bigger thrill by making it clear you don't approve of the way she's trying to wiggle out of all the errors of fact she made yesterday about my September 9 post of last year. I have the sneaking suspicion you're going to say anything you can think of to avoid doing that, though. Saving face (yours and Share's) is much more important to you (and her) than being truthful and taking responsibility. So you dumped on Ann instead. But it's still early; maybe you'll prove me wrong yet. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: That's a great idea, Ann! Why don't we all write as if we are someone else -- then we can show how much wiser and better we are in every respect than the individual we are impersonating! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Judy, we remember it differently. That's all there is to it imo. I read this and, just as an experiment, I thought about what I would write if I were you (but really me) in this situation. Here is what, to the best of my ability putting myself in this situation, I would have written, as Ann: Judy, I obviously remembered this differently which is an interesting fact in and of itself since I would have to question myself why that would/could be. However, putting that aside for the moment and based on your clear documentation of exactly how our conversation went down back in September I would have to say that I was wrong in accusing you of what I did. Now, when reading that post that you dissected above I was able to see that, in fact, you did account for the fact that you were postulating and wondering, not, in fact, passing a big judgment on me. You were seeming to explore the situation and wondering about it. I mean, it is written right there in front of me so I would have to ask myself why I did not remember it that way. Figuring that out could take more time. I'm sorry if (and it appears I did) misrepresent the interaction we had back then. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 9:47 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Barry, of course, is actually encouraging a pissing contest by advising Share to refrain from acknowledging reality. (Although goodness knows, she doesn't need any help doing that.) And good grief, I've let lie far more than I've ever taken up on this forum, as Barry well knows. I'm not going to let this one lie, though. Share can either acknowledge her (Barry-inspired, gratuitous, thoroughly mean) untruthfulness now, or continue to be confronted with it over and over until she does. Note to Barry: This is about the misrepresentation of facts. Nothing to do with opinions per se, sorry. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Ah. Demonstrating once again that she can't let *anything* lie, and feels compelled to start it back up again and try to turn it into one of her endless tarbaby arguments, Judy challenges Share to a pissing contest. Might I remind Share before she falls for it how pissing contests tend to end? http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Hb2h_XAIKp8/TTEOb-lcvLI/B4A/FMEPJJcCFbI/s400/oneup.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Hb2h_XAIKp8/TTEOb-lcvLI/B4A/FMEPJJcCFbI/s400/oneup.jpg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: OK, Share, let's see if you can both listen and reply to this post, which is about some unfinished business from yesterday that we need to deal with. In a post to Barry, you wrote: Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. As I've already noted, this is not true. We had clashed well before September 9. But this is what I want to discuss with you today, since you didn't respond to what I told you yesterday. You wrote: She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or even I think. In fact, I said: After all the lovely conversations you'd had with him, covering a wide range of themes, that you had decided
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] Judy Stein#39;s Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
Re: Now even Emily is so eager to be negative towards me that she criticized my using the term half sister to refer to the woman with whom I have the same father but a different mother! If that isn't gratuitous criticism, I don't know what is! No Share, not at all. You assume that you know my intentions with that question and you are completely in error as to why I asked the question. I was getting to a curiosity about how you think and feel about the word half-sister. At this point in your relationship, is defining her as a half-sister relevant to how you view your relationship with her? What is a half-sister really, in terms of relationship, and by that I don't mean how she is related to you. For example, I refer to the children my father had with his second wife as my sister and brother; I don't consider them half in terms of my relationship with them. The word gratuitous is defined as uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted. I wasn't criticizing you; I was asking you a question. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Judy, what do you mean by: taken severely to task and strong community disapproval? Those parts weren't clear yet imo they are what drives you. As best as I can I've read all the posts on this topic. I agree with another poster in that I think people are basically honest. I think they have faulty memories, etc. That's all that happened with regards to my recent post. When you don't like someone, you turn even their spelling mistakes into indications of a deep seated character flaw! Now even Emily is so eager to be negative towards me that she criticized my using the term half sister to refer to the woman with whom I have the same father but a different mother! If that isn't gratuitous criticism, I don't know what is! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: 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: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] Judy Stein#39;s Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
Share wanted to know: Judy, what do you mean by: taken severely to task and strong community disapproval? Those parts weren't clear Share, you're a college graduate, right? Which words did you not understand? (Anybody else out there who read this, did you find it unclear?) yet imo they are what drives you. I have no idea what the hell this means. I've said these things are what I'd like to see happen. It's my goal, of course it drives me. Why would you call it your opinion? As best as I can I've read all the posts on this topic. I agree with another poster in that I think people are basically honest. Yes, I've said the same exact thing. Maybe I'm the other poster you're thinking of. I think they have faulty memories, etc. That's all that happened with regards to my recent post. This sounds promising, but I need you to elaborate on it a little bit. Are you acknowledging that when you made those gratuitous, nasty, false comments yesterday to Barry about my September 9 post, you weren't remembering correctly? And if so, is there something else you need to say to me about it? When you don't like someone, you turn even their spelling mistakes into indications of a deep seated character flaw! Now even Emily is so eager to be negative towards me that she criticized my using the term half sister to refer to the woman with whom I have the same father but a different mother! If that isn't gratuitous criticism, I don't know what is! Neither of these two statements is factually accurate, Share. Bad sign. IMO, given how poor your memory is, especially for things people you don't like have said, if I were you I'd always check the archives to make sure you're representing them accurately. I believe I've made this suggestion to you before. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: 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] And you always wondered why they call it Black Friday...
Infowars also posted a video with scenes from Dawn of the Dead and Black Friday. Thing is the zombies in Dawn of the Dead are sluggish Romero zombies and Black Friday Shoppers are highly animated. Infowars also posted a video of Black Friday Shopping in the UK which was calm and orderly though of course it wasn't a holiday as it was in the US. Romero, BTW, declined to direct an episode of The Walking Dead which completes the first half of it's season tonight and goes into hiatus until next year. On 12/01/2013 01:16 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/q71/1461107_663916086972994_1797573319_n.jpg https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/q71/1461107_663916086972994_1797573319_n.jpg
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Personal Gender Pronouns
Share, That is a good reason why a person who can write well will be successful in any big organization like the government and universities. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: John and Judy, I have been shocked by the grammar and spelling mistakes I have seen in so called formal documents, such as business memos. So nothing would surprise me in that regard. Like how many people get it's and its wrong; don't use possessive before a gerund; get there, their and they're wrong. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 9:32 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Probably not, at least right now, but it's becoming increasingly accepted in less-formal contexts, as I say. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: Judy, I don't believe they as a single pronoun would pass muster in a formal report to Congress. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: John, as Seraphita points out, they as a singular pronoun has been in popular use for a long time, including by some top-notch writers. It was declared a solecism in the 18th century by overly persnickety grammarians, but that didn't succeed in stamping it out; and it's currently undergoing a revival. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: I would agree that the use of the person's given name sounds better and would be grammatically correct. It would take a long time for they to be accepted as a singular pronoun. As it is, American English is probably evolving quite differently from British English. For example, foreign words have become acceptable over here, such as tacos, chow mein, sushi, shish-kabob, and tandoori chicken. Or, sometimes existential verbs are inferred in a sentence, such as He the man, which could refer to the past, present and future. The use of this sentence could also show that you're hep to the street language in big cities. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: 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?
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
As demonstrated on this forum, at least, Share's makeup prevents her from taking personal accountability for her words or actions. This isn't a criticism, it is simply a fact based on hundreds of examples she has provided in black and white. To ask her to do that is a waste of time. It has *never* happened; doesn't matter if the proof is right in front of her. I do believe that if Share said It is raining and I said Did you say it was raining, Share?, she wouldn't be able to answer with yes. Don't worry Share, I won't ask. I will stop interacting with you, as I understand how you perceive me. I am responsible for asking you to be accountable and giving you feedback on that front. Maybe we define the word differently. How do you define it? Wait, there I go again, criticizing you. My bad. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Oh, auth, you want to control everyone's responses so they say exactly what you think they ought to say. You seem to demand it as a kind of self-validation: you are right and everyone must acknowledge how right you are and how wrong your dishonest opponents are. They are disreputable human beings and must be denounced by the entire community. You're kind of nuts, really. Has anyone ever pointed that out to you? Regarding Ann's post, I gave it the reply it deserved. It's very easy to smugly decide what you think others should say when you are not yourself involved in the situation. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: You know, Feste, Share just loved it when you said a few days back that you hadn't been happy with her attack on Ann. She told you so herself; remember? Today you have a chance to give Share an even bigger thrill by making it clear you don't approve of the way she's trying to wiggle out of all the errors of fact she made yesterday about my September 9 post of last year. I have the sneaking suspicion you're going to say anything you can think of to avoid doing that, though. Saving face (yours and Share's) is much more important to you (and her) than being truthful and taking responsibility. So you dumped on Ann instead. But it's still early; maybe you'll prove me wrong yet. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: That's a great idea, Ann! Why don't we all write as if we are someone else -- then we can show how much wiser and better we are in every respect than the individual we are impersonating! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Judy, we remember it differently. That's all there is to it imo. I read this and, just as an experiment, I thought about what I would write if I were you (but really me) in this situation. Here is what, to the best of my ability putting myself in this situation, I would have written, as Ann: Judy, I obviously remembered this differently which is an interesting fact in and of itself since I would have to question myself why that would/could be. However, putting that aside for the moment and based on your clear documentation of exactly how our conversation went down back in September I would have to say that I was wrong in accusing you of what I did. Now, when reading that post that you dissected above I was able to see that, in fact, you did account for the fact that you were postulating and wondering, not, in fact, passing a big judgment on me. You were seeming to explore the situation and wondering about it. I mean, it is written right there in front of me so I would have to ask myself why I did not remember it that way. Figuring that out could take more time. I'm sorry if (and it appears I did) misrepresent the interaction we had back then. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 9:47 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Barry, of course, is actually encouraging a pissing contest by advising Share to refrain from acknowledging reality. (Although goodness knows, she doesn't need any help doing that.) And good grief, I've let lie far more than I've ever taken up on this forum, as Barry well knows. I'm not going to let this one lie, though. Share can either acknowledge her (Barry-inspired, gratuitous, thoroughly mean) untruthfulness now, or continue to be confronted with it over and over until she does. Note to Barry: This is about the misrepresentation of facts. Nothing to do with opinions per se, sorry. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Ah. Demonstrating once again that she can't let *anything* lie, and feels compelled to start it back up again and try to turn it into one of her endless tarbaby arguments, Judy challenges Share to a pissing contest. Might I remind Share before she falls for it how pissing contests tend to end?
RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Personal Gender Pronouns
JR, how do you define success in the context of your comment? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: Share, That is a good reason why a person who can write well will be successful in any big organization like the government and universities. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: John and Judy, I have been shocked by the grammar and spelling mistakes I have seen in so called formal documents, such as business memos. So nothing would surprise me in that regard. Like how many people get it's and its wrong; don't use possessive before a gerund; get there, their and they're wrong. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 9:32 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Probably not, at least right now, but it's becoming increasingly accepted in less-formal contexts, as I say. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: Judy, I don't believe they as a single pronoun would pass muster in a formal report to Congress. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: John, as Seraphita points out, they as a singular pronoun has been in popular use for a long time, including by some top-notch writers. It was declared a solecism in the 18th century by overly persnickety grammarians, but that didn't succeed in stamping it out; and it's currently undergoing a revival. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: I would agree that the use of the person's given name sounds better and would be grammatically correct. It would take a long time for they to be accepted as a singular pronoun. As it is, American English is probably evolving quite differently from British English. For example, foreign words have become acceptable over here, such as tacos, chow mein, sushi, shish-kabob, and tandoori chicken. Or, sometimes existential verbs are inferred in a sentence, such as He the man, which could refer to the past, present and future. The use of this sentence could also show that you're hep to the street language in big cities. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: 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?
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Feste sputtered: Oh, auth, you want to control everyone's responses so they say exactly what you think they ought to say. You seem to demand it as a kind of self-validation: you are right and everyone must acknowledge how right you are and how wrong your dishonest opponents are. They are disreputable human beings and must be denounced by the entire community. Is this you trying to write as if you were me? If by say exactly what you think they ought to say you mean try their best to be honest and accurate, you're quite correct. I gather you don't agree that folks ought to strive to be be honest and accurate, right? You're kind of nuts, really. Has anyone ever pointed that out to you? You know, in all the other groups I've ever been a part of (not just on the Web but in real life as well), it was taken as a given that people should be as honest and accurate as they could be. I guess if I'm really kind of nuts, all those people have been as well. Imagine anyone holding honesty as a value! Just insane. Regarding Ann's post, I gave it the reply it deserved. It's very easy to smugly decide what you think others should say when you are not yourself involved in the situation. I'm involved in the situation, and I thought Ann put it perfectly. In fact, I think Ann gave Share an idea of how she could manage to worm her way out of the very bad spot she'd gotten herself in. She's not quite there yet, but she's taken (I think) a first step in that direction. It was a very compassionate comment on Ann's part. At any rate, I sure was correct in my prediction below, wasn't I? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: You know, Feste, Share just loved it when you said a few days back that you hadn't been happy with her attack on Ann. She told you so herself; remember? Today you have a chance to give Share an even bigger thrill by making it clear you don't approve of the way she's trying to wiggle out of all the errors of fact she made yesterday about my September 9 post of last year. I have the sneaking suspicion you're going to say anything you can think of to avoid doing that, though. Saving face (yours and Share's) is much more important to you (and her) than being truthful and taking responsibility. So you dumped on Ann instead. But it's still early; maybe you'll prove me wrong yet. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: That's a great idea, Ann! Why don't we all write as if we are someone else -- then we can show how much wiser and better we are in every respect than the individual we are impersonating! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Judy, we remember it differently. That's all there is to it imo. I read this and, just as an experiment, I thought about what I would write if I were you (but really me) in this situation. Here is what, to the best of my ability putting myself in this situation, I would have written, as Ann: Judy, I obviously remembered this differently which is an interesting fact in and of itself since I would have to question myself why that would/could be. However, putting that aside for the moment and based on your clear documentation of exactly how our conversation went down back in September I would have to say that I was wrong in accusing you of what I did. Now, when reading that post that you dissected above I was able to see that, in fact, you did account for the fact that you were postulating and wondering, not, in fact, passing a big judgment on me. You were seeming to explore the situation and wondering about it. I mean, it is written right there in front of me so I would have to ask myself why I did not remember it that way. Figuring that out could take more time. I'm sorry if (and it appears I did) misrepresent the interaction we had back then. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 9:47 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Barry, of course, is actually encouraging a pissing contest by advising Share to refrain from acknowledging reality. (Although goodness knows, she doesn't need any help doing that.) And good grief, I've let lie far more than I've ever taken up on this forum, as Barry well knows. I'm not going to let this one lie, though. Share can either acknowledge her (Barry-inspired, gratuitous, thoroughly mean) untruthfulness now, or continue to be confronted with it over and over until she does. Note to Barry: This is about the misrepresentation of facts. Nothing to do with opinions per se, sorry. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Ah. Demonstrating once again that she can't let *anything* lie, and feels compelled to start it back up again and try to turn it into one of her endless tarbaby arguments, Judy challenges Share to a pissing contest.
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] And you always wondered why they call it Black Friday...
Bhairitu wrote: Infowars also posted a video with scenes from Dawn of the Dead and Black Friday. Thing is the zombies in Dawn of the Dead are sluggish Romero zombies and Black Friday Shoppers are highly animated. LOL. Infowars also posted a video of Black Friday Shopping in the UK which was calm and orderly though of course it wasn't a holiday as it was in the US. Romero, BTW, declined to direct an episode of The Walking Dead which completes the first half of it's season tonight and goes into hiatus until next year. On 12/01/2013 01:16 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/q71/1461107_663916086972994_1797573319_n.jpg https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/q71/1461107_663916086972994_1797573319_n.jpg
RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Isn't that incredible? Looks like Share's defenders had the shit scared out of them by my post documenting her untruthfulness. There's no possible rebuttal, and they can't admit even that she misremembered, so they're frantically standing on their heads and wiggling their ears trying to save her from herself (and save their own faces) by distracting attention from the ugly facts. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote: Authfriend's modus operandi: A falsis principiis proficisci. (Marcus Tullius Cicero) And you're the guy in Unity?
RE: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
This example is what I mean by accountability and it is done objectively. Not that hard and it works to keep lines of communication between two people open, imho. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Judy, we remember it differently. That's all there is to it imo. I read this and, just as an experiment, I thought about what I would write if I were you (but really me) in this situation. Here is what, to the best of my ability putting myself in this situation, I would have written, as Ann: Judy, I obviously remembered this differently which is an interesting fact in and of itself since I would have to question myself why that would/could be. However, putting that aside for the moment and based on your clear documentation of exactly how our conversation went down back in September I would have to say that I was wrong in accusing you of what I did. Now, when reading that post that you dissected above I was able to see that, in fact, you did account for the fact that you were postulating and wondering, not, in fact, passing a big judgment on me. You were seeming to explore the situation and wondering about it. I mean, it is written right there in front of me so I would have to ask myself why I did not remember it that way. Figuring that out could take more time. I'm sorry if (and it appears I did) misrepresent the interaction we had back then. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 9:47 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Barry, of course, is actually encouraging a pissing contest by advising Share to refrain from acknowledging reality. (Although goodness knows, she doesn't need any help doing that.) And good grief, I've let lie far more than I've ever taken up on this forum, as Barry well knows. I'm not going to let this one lie, though. Share can either acknowledge her (Barry-inspired, gratuitous, thoroughly mean) untruthfulness now, or continue to be confronted with it over and over until she does. Note to Barry: This is about the misrepresentation of facts. Nothing to do with opinions per se, sorry. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Ah. Demonstrating once again that she can't let *anything* lie, and feels compelled to start it back up again and try to turn it into one of her endless tarbaby arguments, Judy challenges Share to a pissing contest. Might I remind Share before she falls for it how pissing contests tend to end? http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Hb2h_XAIKp8/TTEOb-lcvLI/B4A/FMEPJJcCFbI/s400/oneup.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Hb2h_XAIKp8/TTEOb-lcvLI/B4A/FMEPJJcCFbI/s400/oneup.jpg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: OK, Share, let's see if you can both listen and reply to this post, which is about some unfinished business from yesterday that we need to deal with. In a post to Barry, you wrote: Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. As I've already noted, this is not true. We had clashed well before September 9. But this is what I want to discuss with you today, since you didn't respond to what I told you yesterday. You wrote: She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or even I think. In fact, I said: After all the lovely conversations you'd had with him, covering a wide range of themes, that you had decided you were going to suspend communications altogether because of a single remark sure sounded like you had felt seriously insulted. AND: Because this post sure doesn't sound to me as though you want to do anything but beat up on Robin, even after he's taken the blame on himself for *your* misunderstanding and apologized at length. Then you wrote: 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. In fact, I said: And now you seem to feel even more seriously insulted that he's left you a public apology. AND: I couldn't figure out either what your problem was with what he had said. AND: For the life of me, I can't see why you're being so snarky. Now, let's see if you can bring yourself to acknowledge that what you claimed yesterday about my September 9 post was not true. (Let's just look at what you said about it yesterday, and not try to avoid that issue by shifting attention to the merits of the arguments back then, OK?) For your convenience, here's the link to my September 9 post so you can check to make sure I haven't misquoted either you or myself: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521
[FairfieldLife] RE: Personal Gender Pronouns
Emily, It means one gets promoted to a better position that requires good writing, job security, and better pay. If one can't achieve this in one organization, there will be others who will gladly take him or her. Above all, you should be enjoying the work itself to be successful at it. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: JR, how do you define success in the context of your comment? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: Share, That is a good reason why a person who can write well will be successful in any big organization like the government and universities. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: John and Judy, I have been shocked by the grammar and spelling mistakes I have seen in so called formal documents, such as business memos. So nothing would surprise me in that regard. Like how many people get it's and its wrong; don't use possessive before a gerund; get there, their and they're wrong. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 9:32 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Probably not, at least right now, but it's becoming increasingly accepted in less-formal contexts, as I say. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: Judy, I don't believe they as a single pronoun would pass muster in a formal report to Congress. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: John, as Seraphita points out, they as a singular pronoun has been in popular use for a long time, including by some top-notch writers. It was declared a solecism in the 18th century by overly persnickety grammarians, but that didn't succeed in stamping it out; and it's currently undergoing a revival. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: I would agree that the use of the person's given name sounds better and would be grammatically correct. It would take a long time for they to be accepted as a singular pronoun. As it is, American English is probably evolving quite differently from British English. For example, foreign words have become acceptable over here, such as tacos, chow mein, sushi, shish-kabob, and tandoori chicken. Or, sometimes existential verbs are inferred in a sentence, such as He the man, which could refer to the past, present and future. The use of this sentence could also show that you're hep to the street language in big cities. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: 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?
[FairfieldLife] RE: Personal Gender Pronouns
Barry, Whatever happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: It's a grammar jungle out there imho (-: http://www.buzzfeed.com/aj8/19-jokes-only-grammar-nerds-will-understand-cfe3 http://www.buzzfeed.com/aj8/19-jokes-only-grammar-nerds-will-understand-cfe3
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Personal Gender Pronouns
Thanks John. I haven't found that success in terms of promotion or better pay depends much on good writing as a criteria in general, but depends on the position. Success is a subjective term and certainly to enjoy one's work is to have succeeded. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: Emily, It means one gets promoted to a better position that requires good writing, job security, and better pay. If one can't achieve this in one organization, there will be others who will gladly take him or her. Above all, you should be enjoying the work itself to be successful at it. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: JR, how do you define success in the context of your comment? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: Share, That is a good reason why a person who can write well will be successful in any big organization like the government and universities. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: John and Judy, I have been shocked by the grammar and spelling mistakes I have seen in so called formal documents, such as business memos. So nothing would surprise me in that regard. Like how many people get it's and its wrong; don't use possessive before a gerund; get there, their and they're wrong. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 9:32 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Probably not, at least right now, but it's becoming increasingly accepted in less-formal contexts, as I say. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: Judy, I don't believe they as a single pronoun would pass muster in a formal report to Congress. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: John, as Seraphita points out, they as a singular pronoun has been in popular use for a long time, including by some top-notch writers. It was declared a solecism in the 18th century by overly persnickety grammarians, but that didn't succeed in stamping it out; and it's currently undergoing a revival. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: I would agree that the use of the person's given name sounds better and would be grammatically correct. It would take a long time for they to be accepted as a singular pronoun. As it is, American English is probably evolving quite differently from British English. For example, foreign words have become acceptable over here, such as tacos, chow mein, sushi, shish-kabob, and tandoori chicken. Or, sometimes existential verbs are inferred in a sentence, such as He the man, which could refer to the past, present and future. The use of this sentence could also show that you're hep to the street language in big cities. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: 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?
[FairfieldLife] RE: Personal Gender Pronouns
Re I don't believe they as a single pronoun would pass muster in a formal report to Congress.: Yes, I was wondering if legal documents have strict rules on this to avoid dangerous ambiguity. Don't many US colleges encourage students to use she as the singular (instead of he) or is that just a myth put about by right-wingers? Is there a house style at universities where they insist students stick to one preferred solution? Another alternative is to use she and he more-or-less alternately in an article. In some contexts that can work fine - it even adds variety to a piece - but in many cases it just makes me pause and wonder if indeed a woman or a man is actually being discussed rather than a generic human. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: Judy, I don't believe they as a single pronoun would pass muster in a formal report to Congress. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: John, as Seraphita points out, they as a singular pronoun has been in popular use for a long time, including by some top-notch writers. It was declared a solecism in the 18th century by overly persnickety grammarians, but that didn't succeed in stamping it out; and it's currently undergoing a revival. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: I would agree that the use of the person's given name sounds better and would be grammatically correct. It would take a long time for they to be accepted as a singular pronoun. As it is, American English is probably evolving quite differently from British English. For example, foreign words have become acceptable over here, such as tacos, chow mein, sushi, shish-kabob, and tandoori chicken. Or, sometimes existential verbs are inferred in a sentence, such as He the man, which could refer to the past, present and future. The use of this sentence could also show that you're hep to the street language in big cities. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: 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?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Just speaking for myself, I sure am glad we have Judy around to remind us of our ethical duties on this discussion group. What would we do without her? Go figure. The rudeness, the arrogance, the insulting manner of my approach was to deliver perhaps enough of a shock to make her utter something other than her daily New Age affirmations. - Robin Carlsen, Monday, October 1, 2012 6:38 PM cavil: 1. To make petty or unnecessary objections. 2. An objection seen as petty or unnecessary. 3. To find fault unnecessarily; raise trivial objections. 4. To quibble about; detect petty flaws in. 5. A carping or trivial objection. Judy caviled about her dialog with Robin. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cavil http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cavil On 12/1/2013 9:14 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: OK, Share, let's see if you can both listen and reply to this post, which is about some unfinished business from yesterday that we need to deal with. In a post to Barry, you wrote: Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. As I've already noted, this is not true. We had clashed well before September 9. But this is what I want to discuss with you today, since you didn't respond to what I told you yesterday. You wrote: She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or even I think. In fact, I said: After all the lovely conversations you'd had with him, covering a wide range of themes, that you had decided you were going to suspend communications altogether because of a single remark sure sounded like you had felt seriously insulted. AND: Because this post sure doesn't sound to me as though you want to do anything but beat up on Robin, even after he's taken the blame on himself for *your* misunderstanding and apologized at length. Then you wrote: 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. In fact, I said: And now you seem to feel even more seriously insulted that he's left you a public apology. AND: I couldn't figure out either what your problem was with what he had said. AND: For the life of me, I can't seewhy you're being so snarky. Now, let's see if you can bring yourself to acknowledge that what you claimed yesterday about my September 9 post was not true. (Let's just look at what you said about it yesterday, and not try to avoid that issue by shifting attention to the merits of the arguments back then, OK?) For your convenience, here's the link to my September 9 post so you can check to make sure I haven't misquoted either you or myself: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 It was crammed with qualifiers and expressions of uncertainty, entirely contrary to your characterization of it yesterday. And it wasn't even a nasty post! I'm betting you can't do it, Share. I don't think you have the intestinal fortitude to confess to your untruthfulness, even with the evidence right in front of your eyes, even knowing it's in front of everyone else's eyes here as well. Goodness knows this wasn't the first or the only time you've misrepresented what someone else has said in an attempt to make them look bad and yourself appear to be a blameless victim. It's just such a clear-cut case, and you brought it on yourself. Your post yesterday was an entirely gratuitous slam, piling on to a long list of dishonest statements of Barry's about me. I ran my number on you? No, babe, you ran your number on me. As Ann pointed out to you: 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. Share wrote, oblivious to the irony: Nice, turq, and I'd add: we often listen with the intention to reply and by replying, *improve* our fellow humans any way we can, whether they want to be *improved* or not! Of course this doesn't apply much to the Funny Farm Lounge (-:
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why FFL isn't more interesting, in one graphic
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams wrote: Just speaking for myself, I sure am glad we have Judy around to remind us of our ethical duties on this discussion group. What would we do without her? Uh, maybe talk about the things this forum was created to talk about? It's Judy and her minions Ann and Emily who have been trying all day to drag any discussion down to the level of a Mean Girl Get Share Fest.
RE: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn't more interesting, in one graphic
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 wrote: Oh, auth, you want to control everyone's responses so they say exactly what you think they ought to say. You seem to demand it as a kind of self-validation: you are right and everyone must acknowledge how right you are and how wrong your dishonest opponents are. They are disreputable human beings and must be denounced by the entire community. You're kind of nuts, really. Has anyone ever pointed that out to you? Kind of nuts? The only people who have appeared on this forum who are even in the same ballpark of crazy as Judy Stein were Ravi and Robin Carlsen. I think she glommed onto them and co-opted them as minions so they'd stick around and divert attention from how insane she really is.
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Personal Gender Pronouns
I always thought it would make sense for writers to use the pronoun appropriate to their sex. A man would always use he and a woman she. If that became the consistent standard convention, it would make things so much simpler. (Only problem would be if an author's name wasn't gender-specific, but there are plenty of ways to clue the reader in on that.) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re I don't believe they as a single pronoun would pass muster in a formal report to Congress.: Yes, I was wondering if legal documents have strict rules on this to avoid dangerous ambiguity. Don't many US colleges encourage students to use she as the singular (instead of he) or is that just a myth put about by right-wingers? Is there a house style at universities where they insist students stick to one preferred solution? Another alternative is to use she and he more-or-less alternately in an article. In some contexts that can work fine - it even adds variety to a piece - but in many cases it just makes me pause and wonder if indeed a woman or a man is actually being discussed rather than a generic human. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: Judy, I don't believe they as a single pronoun would pass muster in a formal report to Congress. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: John, as Seraphita points out, they as a singular pronoun has been in popular use for a long time, including by some top-notch writers. It was declared a solecism in the 18th century by overly persnickety grammarians, but that didn't succeed in stamping it out; and it's currently undergoing a revival. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: I would agree that the use of the person's given name sounds better and would be grammatically correct. It would take a long time for they to be accepted as a singular pronoun. As it is, American English is probably evolving quite differently from British English. For example, foreign words have become acceptable over here, such as tacos, chow mein, sushi, shish-kabob, and tandoori chicken. Or, sometimes existential verbs are inferred in a sentence, such as He the man, which could refer to the past, present and future. The use of this sentence could also show that you're hep to the street language in big cities. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: 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?
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Correction: To ask her to do that is a waste of my time currently. Maybe later. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: As demonstrated on this forum, at least, Share's makeup prevents her from taking personal accountability for her words or actions. This isn't a criticism, it is simply a fact based on hundreds of examples she has provided in black and white. To ask her to do that is a waste of time. It has *never* happened; doesn't matter if the proof is right in front of her. I do believe that if Share said It is raining and I said Did you say it was raining, Share?, she wouldn't be able to answer with yes. Don't worry Share, I won't ask. I will stop interacting with you, as I understand how you perceive me. I am responsible for asking you to be accountable and giving you feedback on that front. Maybe we define the word differently. How do you define it? Wait, there I go again, criticizing you. My bad. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Oh, auth, you want to control everyone's responses so they say exactly what you think they ought to say. You seem to demand it as a kind of self-validation: you are right and everyone must acknowledge how right you are and how wrong your dishonest opponents are. They are disreputable human beings and must be denounced by the entire community. You're kind of nuts, really. Has anyone ever pointed that out to you? Regarding Ann's post, I gave it the reply it deserved. It's very easy to smugly decide what you think others should say when you are not yourself involved in the situation. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: You know, Feste, Share just loved it when you said a few days back that you hadn't been happy with her attack on Ann. She told you so herself; remember? Today you have a chance to give Share an even bigger thrill by making it clear you don't approve of the way she's trying to wiggle out of all the errors of fact she made yesterday about my September 9 post of last year. I have the sneaking suspicion you're going to say anything you can think of to avoid doing that, though. Saving face (yours and Share's) is much more important to you (and her) than being truthful and taking responsibility. So you dumped on Ann instead. But it's still early; maybe you'll prove me wrong yet. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: That's a great idea, Ann! Why don't we all write as if we are someone else -- then we can show how much wiser and better we are in every respect than the individual we are impersonating! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Judy, we remember it differently. That's all there is to it imo. I read this and, just as an experiment, I thought about what I would write if I were you (but really me) in this situation. Here is what, to the best of my ability putting myself in this situation, I would have written, as Ann: Judy, I obviously remembered this differently which is an interesting fact in and of itself since I would have to question myself why that would/could be. However, putting that aside for the moment and based on your clear documentation of exactly how our conversation went down back in September I would have to say that I was wrong in accusing you of what I did. Now, when reading that post that you dissected above I was able to see that, in fact, you did account for the fact that you were postulating and wondering, not, in fact, passing a big judgment on me. You were seeming to explore the situation and wondering about it. I mean, it is written right there in front of me so I would have to ask myself why I did not remember it that way. Figuring that out could take more time. I'm sorry if (and it appears I did) misrepresent the interaction we had back then. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 9:47 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Barry, of course, is actually encouraging a pissing contest by advising Share to refrain from acknowledging reality. (Although goodness knows, she doesn't need any help doing that.) And good grief, I've let lie far more than I've ever taken up on this forum, as Barry well knows. I'm not going to let this one lie, though. Share can either acknowledge her (Barry-inspired, gratuitous, thoroughly mean) untruthfulness now, or continue to be confronted with it over and over until she does. Note to Barry: This is about the misrepresentation of facts. Nothing to do with opinions per se, sorry. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Ah. Demonstrating once again that she can't let *anything* lie, and feels compelled to start it back up again and try to turn it into one of her endless tarbaby arguments, Judy challenges Share to a pissing contest. Might I
RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Barry, that is by far the craziest thing you've said in a long time. It really is crazy; do you believe what you write? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 wrote: Oh, auth, you want to control everyone's responses so they say exactly what you think they ought to say. You seem to demand it as a kind of self-validation: you are right and everyone must acknowledge how right you are and how wrong your dishonest opponents are. They are disreputable human beings and must be denounced by the entire community. You're kind of nuts, really. Has anyone ever pointed that out to you? Kind of nuts? The only people who have appeared on this forum who are even in the same ballpark of crazy as Judy Stein were Ravi and Robin Carlsen. I think she glommed onto them and co-opted them as minions so they'd stick around and divert attention from how insane she really is.
RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
giggle Poor Barry. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 wrote: Oh, auth, you want to control everyone's responses so they say exactly what you think they ought to say. You seem to demand it as a kind of self-validation: you are right and everyone must acknowledge how right you are and how wrong your dishonest opponents are. They are disreputable human beings and must be denounced by the entire community. You're kind of nuts, really. Has anyone ever pointed that out to you? Kind of nuts? The only people who have appeared on this forum who are even in the same ballpark of crazy as Judy Stein were Ravi and Robin Carlsen. I think she glommed onto them and co-opted them as minions so they'd stick around and divert attention from how insane she really is.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Re: Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
You stooge. Nobody is getting Share. Share has the opportunity to stand up to the plate and be honest and acknowledge the reality of her words. I doubt either Ann or Judy has, and I certainly don't, have any expectations that this will occur. It's very simple, really. But, fear is one of the strongest motivators and Share is afraid of herself, imho. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams wrote: Just speaking for myself, I sure am glad we have Judy around to remind us of our ethical duties on this discussion group. What would we do without her? Uh, maybe talk about the things this forum was created to talk about? It's Judy and her minions Ann and Emily who have been trying all day to drag any discussion down to the level of a Mean Girl Get Share Fest.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Re: Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Actually it's just been a single discussion concerning Share's mean, gratuitous, and deeply untruthful post to you, Barry, about a post of mine to her from last year. It's so interesting how a Get Judy, Ann, and Emily Fest is entirely acceptable to you and your band of Mean Girls (Xeno and Share and Richard), but the four of you are Untouchable, especially Share, totally innocent and high-minded and honest to a fault, would never, no never, insult or attack anyone or say anything about anybody that wasn't totally fair and irreproachably accurate and true. (I threw up a little in my mouth when I wrote that.) Too bad you can't recruit Feste to your band of thugs, but he thinks you're an S.O.B. (otherwise known as Son. Of. A. Bitch). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams wrote: Just speaking for myself, I sure am glad we have Judy around to remind us of our ethical duties on this discussion group. What would we do without her? Uh, maybe talk about the things this forum was created to talk about? It's Judy and her minions Ann and Emily who have been trying all day to drag any discussion down to the level of a Mean Girl Get Share Fest.
Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Al Gore debates Global Warming
Fuckin scam artist On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 10:49 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: If we didn't eat 'em they wouldn't raise 'em. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: Maybe you forgot to mention the bovine flatulence in Iowa and farming in general which produces more CO2 that auto emissions. And, don't forget sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. Face it, Buck, you're screwed on the farm. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissionshttp://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-co2-from-cars-427843.html On 12/1/2013 6:35 AM, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: “There is a broad scientific consensus that to keep global warming in check, we need to phase out 80 percent of all oil, coal and natural gas by mid-century. President Obama has set a nonbinding target to do precisely that.” http://www.npr.org/2013/11/30/247519058/tech-leaders-economists-split-over-clean-energys-prospects
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Herbalife?
Seems like anything that packaged and processed would have low prana. On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 10:23 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: You can certainly take this all with a large grain of salt. I am sure there are many other sites that recommend it and many that do not. http://enlita.com/blog/herbalife-review-herbalife-scam ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Card, I don't recommend Herbalife either. But I think it's good to go by your own intuition. You could try it and see how you feel. On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:28 AM, Richard J. Williams punditster@... wrote: There's nothing wrong with taking a few vitamins and an occasional laxative, as long as you don't overdo it. But, who knows what's in those pills? Most of them, so I've read, are manufactured over in China, so take most vitamins at your own risk. There are lots of natural diet foods to eat that will be a lot easier on your bowels too. Really, if you eat four square meals a day, and get some exercise four times a week, you'll be plenty healthy naturally. The real problem with Herbalife products is that it's based on a pyramid scheme, just like Amway. On 11/27/2013 3:54 AM, cardemaister@... wrote: Anyone tried Herbalife products? My TM-instructor has for several years been a fairly successful distributor, belonging to the International President's Team. Seems to me he's a bit coy about once being a TM-teacher...
[FairfieldLife] Another Yahoo Groups Note
Please note that Yahoo Groups does not support 7.0 or earlier versions of Internet Explorer. I recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox. If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off Compatibility View.
[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Personal Gender Pronouns
S3, When a writer wants to address both or all genders, it is recommended to use a generic term such as the spectator or meditator. If the writer wants to be more specific, then the gender specific pronouns. like he and she, can be used. But the accepted authority in the USA for the American English usage is contained in Elements of Style by Strunk and White. Also, for specific organizations, there are several style manuals that are used. http://www.calstatela.edu/library/styleman.htm http://www.calstatela.edu/library/styleman.htm ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re I don't believe they as a single pronoun would pass muster in a formal report to Congress.: Yes, I was wondering if legal documents have strict rules on this to avoid dangerous ambiguity. Don't many US colleges encourage students to use she as the singular (instead of he) or is that just a myth put about by right-wingers? Is there a house style at universities where they insist students stick to one preferred solution? Another alternative is to use she and he more-or-less alternately in an article. In some contexts that can work fine - it even adds variety to a piece - but in many cases it just makes me pause and wonder if indeed a woman or a man is actually being discussed rather than a generic human. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: Judy, I don't believe they as a single pronoun would pass muster in a formal report to Congress. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: John, as Seraphita points out, they as a singular pronoun has been in popular use for a long time, including by some top-notch writers. It was declared a solecism in the 18th century by overly persnickety grammarians, but that didn't succeed in stamping it out; and it's currently undergoing a revival. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: I would agree that the use of the person's given name sounds better and would be grammatically correct. It would take a long time for they to be accepted as a singular pronoun. As it is, American English is probably evolving quite differently from British English. For example, foreign words have become acceptable over here, such as tacos, chow mein, sushi, shish-kabob, and tandoori chicken. Or, sometimes existential verbs are inferred in a sentence, such as He the man, which could refer to the past, present and future. The use of this sentence could also show that you're hep to the street language in big cities. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: 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?
Re: [FairfieldLife] FF Meditator Kids caught, allegedly holding the Pot.
End the War on Drugs! http://www.leap.cc/ Check it out finker :) @Richard J. Williams pundits...@gmail.com On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Richard J. Williams pundits...@gmail.comwrote: It's one thing to fink on your friends; it another thing to fink on total strangers. Go figure. On 11/22/2013 7:58 PM, Michael Jackson wrote: God you're an idiot! What friends are you referring to? Sir Paul? Never met him. The guys who were doing dope at MIU when I was there were not friends of mine. Satisfied? On Fri, 11/22/13, Richard J. Williams pundits...@gmail.compundits...@gmail.comwrote: Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] FF Meditator Kids caught, allegedly holding the Pot. To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, November 22, 2013, 8:42 PM Never let an opportunity go by to fink on your old friends. On 11/22/2013 1:41 PM, Michael Jackson wrote: Bucky, while I agree with your sentiments, the facts are that drug use on campus itself has been there as long as MIU/MUM has been there. There were drugs used and sold on campus in the 80's when I was there, and if you can believe some of the post on the FB page MUM Secrets, the passing years have seen an upsurge in dope sales and use on campus and I bet in town too. Now, one could point the finger of blame at the townies, but one cannot fault the meditators of Fairfield if they take dope, and sell it too. I mean after all, the have the fine example of Sir Paul McCartney to look up to. You know, Sir Paul, musician, former Beatle, main-most famouser than the other TM celebs since he hung out with the Great and Might Oz (I mean Marshy), current TM booster and 40 some year daily doper. On Fri, 11/22/13, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com dhamiltony...@yahoo.com dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] FF Meditator Kids caught, allegedly holding the Pot. To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, November 22, 2013, 3:54 PM Thank you for not selling drugs or supplying alcohol to our FF spiritual children..-Buck http://fairfield-ia.villagesoup.com/p/fairfield-police-sieze-100-pounds-of-marijuana/1083665
Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn't more interesting, in one graphic
What's unfortunate is that Emily used to wrote some interesting posts but once she got on Judy's bandwagon she's become imo sort of repetitive. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 10:22 AM, anartax...@yahoo.com anartax...@yahoo.com wrote: Authfriend's modus operandi: A falsis principiis proficisci. (Marcus Tullius Cicero)
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: Jesuit Trained Pope Trashes Capitalism in Call for Worldwide Socialism
That is revisionist history, Mike. The original founding fathers had a bad taste in their mouth from capitalism in the form of the British East India Company. The founding fathers believed in a commons. You maintain the commons with government. That's what government is for. It's for the things we all share. And if we don't want homeless living in our commons then were need to do things to keep people from becoming homeless. A lot of today's homeless are not there because they don't want to work but because there is no work or means of income for them. I have a revision of that Luke 19 thang you referenced. The third guy didn't spend the money his boss gave him because the other two guys invested in derivatives and were about to lose all that profit. He would still have money. :-D On 12/01/2013 05:53 AM, Mike Dixon wrote: Yet *trickle down* capitalism has been the story of America since it's inception. American capitalism has created more wealth than any other economic system and with that wealth has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system and come to the aid of those in dire straights to lift them up as well. Would the middle -east, China or India be in the economic situation they are in today had it not been for Americans spending their wealth, investing in and buying their goods and services ? Capitalism creates wealth, socialism just divides it up. You can't be charitable if you have nothing to give. The Pope may be compassionate, but he's down right ignorant.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Re: Why FFL isn't more interesting, in one graphic
One of Judy's main tactics is to define the context and or parameters of an argument. IOW, it's about what she says it's about. Of course, that only works if one is talking only to one's self (-: On Sunday, December 1, 2013 1:29 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Actually it's just been a single discussion concerning Share's mean, gratuitous, and deeply untruthful post to you, Barry, about a post of mine to her from last year. It's so interesting how a Get Judy, Ann, and Emily Fest is entirely acceptable to you and your band of Mean Girls (Xeno and Share and Richard), but the four of you are Untouchable, especially Share, totally innocent and high-minded and honest to a fault, would never, no never, insult or attack anyone or say anything about anybody that wasn't totally fair and irreproachably accurate and true. (I threw up a little in my mouth when I wrote that.) Too bad you can't recruit Feste to your band of thugs, but he thinks you're an S.O.B. (otherwise known as Son. Of. A. Bitch). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams wrote: Just speaking for myself, I sure am glad we have Judy around to remind us of our ethical duties on this discussion group. What would we do without her? Uh, maybe talk about the things this forum was created to talk about? It's Judy and her minions Ann and Emily who have been trying all day to drag any discussion down to the level of a Mean Girl Get Share Fest.
RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Conversation between Share and Emily: Share: It's raining in Iowa. Emily: Share, is it raining in Fairfield? Share: Emily, I heard it on the news today that it's raining. Emily: Share, is it raining outside your door? Share: Emily, the Farmer's Almanac says that it will be raining this winter. Emily: Share, I'm asking you if it is raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Barry: Share, Emily is one of Ravi's minions so disregard her, and btw, STFU, you are causing all this. Emily: Share, does it upset you that Barry just told you to STFU? Share: Emily, Barry is like a half-brother to me. Also, Jon Grayweather, who is an expert on what women want out of sex, says that having sex in the rain is good for pitta types. Emily: Share, are you a pitta type? Bhairitu: Share, have you tried juicing grass? It's very good for pitta types. Richard: Share, I went to Whole Foods today and bought spinach. Share: Richard, there is a Whole Foods in Iowa and I will be going next week. Emily: Share, is it raining in Iowa today? Share: Emily, you are honing in on my conversation with Richard in a mean and spiteful way. Emily: Share, *you* said it was raining in Iowa today, I just wanted to know if it was raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Share: Emily, you are being repetitive and vicious and critical and negative and I am only responding in-kind. You are one of Judy's minions and I hate her so I hate you too. I will stand up for myself. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: What's unfortunate is that Emily used to wrote some interesting posts but once she got on Judy's bandwagon she's become imo sort of repetitive. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 10:22 AM, anartaxius@... anartaxius@... wrote: Authfriend's modus operandi: A falsis principiis proficisci. (Marcus Tullius Cicero)
Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn't more interesting, in one graphic
Jeez! Now Emily has gone bonkers too! On Sunday, December 1, 2013 2:33 PM, emilymae...@yahoo.com emilymae...@yahoo.com wrote: Conversation between Share and Emily: Share: It's raining in Iowa. Emily: Share, is it raining in Fairfield? Share: Emily, I heard it on the news today that it's raining. Emily: Share, is it raining outside your door? Share: Emily, the Farmer's Almanac says that it will be raining this winter. Emily: Share, I'm asking you if it is raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Barry: Share, Emily is one of Ravi's minions so disregard her, and btw, STFU, you are causing all this. Emily: Share, does it upset you that Barry just told you to STFU? Share: Emily, Barry is like a half-brother to me. Also, Jon Grayweather, who is an expert on what women want out of sex, says that having sex in the rain is good for pitta types. Emily: Share, are you a pitta type? Bhairitu: Share, have you tried juicing grass? It's very good for pitta types. Richard: Share, I went to Whole Foods today and bought spinach. Share: Richard, there is a Whole Foods in Iowa and I will be going next week. Emily: Share, is it raining in Iowa today? Share: Emily, you are honing in on my conversation with Richard in a mean and spiteful way. Emily: Share, *you* said it was raining in Iowa today, I just wanted to know if it was raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Share: Emily, you are being repetitive and vicious and critical and negative and I am only responding in-kind. You are one of Judy's minions and I hate her so I hate you too. I will stand up for myself. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: What's unfortunate is that Emily used to wrote some interesting posts but once she got on Judy's bandwagon she's become imo sort of repetitive. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 10:22 AM, anartaxius@... anartaxius@... wrote: Authfriend's modus operandi: A falsis principiis proficisci. (Marcus Tullius Cicero)
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
You misunderstand. I meant that Ann is not involved in the situation, not you. By kind of nuts, I mean your relentless obsession with small, unimportant details, your inability to let go of anything in the way that a normal person would. Quite frankly, you often sound like a patient in a mental hospital -- a kind of maniac who lacks a proper sense of balance in her interactions with others and who therefore stands out in a crowd as, well, kind of nuts. I'm sorry I can't deliver a kinder verdict because, as I have said before, I actually like you, although I'm glad I am not married to you. That would be hard. Have a wonderful day, auth, and remember, it's only a chat forum. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Feste sputtered: Oh, auth, you want to control everyone's responses so they say exactly what you think they ought to say. You seem to demand it as a kind of self-validation: you are right and everyone must acknowledge how right you are and how wrong your dishonest opponents are. They are disreputable human beings and must be denounced by the entire community. Is this you trying to write as if you were me? If by say exactly what you think they ought to say you mean try their best to be honest and accurate, you're quite correct. I gather you don't agree that folks ought to strive to be be honest and accurate, right? You're kind of nuts, really. Has anyone ever pointed that out to you? You know, in all the other groups I've ever been a part of (not just on the Web but in real life as well), it was taken as a given that people should be as honest and accurate as they could be. I guess if I'm really kind of nuts, all those people have been as well. Imagine anyone holding honesty as a value! Just insane. Regarding Ann's post, I gave it the reply it deserved. It's very easy to smugly decide what you think others should say when you are not yourself involved in the situation. I'm involved in the situation, and I thought Ann put it perfectly. In fact, I think Ann gave Share an idea of how she could manage to worm her way out of the very bad spot she'd gotten herself in. She's not quite there yet, but she's taken (I think) a first step in that direction. It was a very compassionate comment on Ann's part. At any rate, I sure was correct in my prediction below, wasn't I? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: You know, Feste, Share just loved it when you said a few days back that you hadn't been happy with her attack on Ann. She told you so herself; remember? Today you have a chance to give Share an even bigger thrill by making it clear you don't approve of the way she's trying to wiggle out of all the errors of fact she made yesterday about my September 9 post of last year. I have the sneaking suspicion you're going to say anything you can think of to avoid doing that, though. Saving face (yours and Share's) is much more important to you (and her) than being truthful and taking responsibility. So you dumped on Ann instead. But it's still early; maybe you'll prove me wrong yet. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: That's a great idea, Ann! Why don't we all write as if we are someone else -- then we can show how much wiser and better we are in every respect than the individual we are impersonating! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Judy, we remember it differently. That's all there is to it imo. I read this and, just as an experiment, I thought about what I would write if I were you (but really me) in this situation. Here is what, to the best of my ability putting myself in this situation, I would have written, as Ann: Judy, I obviously remembered this differently which is an interesting fact in and of itself since I would have to question myself why that would/could be. However, putting that aside for the moment and based on your clear documentation of exactly how our conversation went down back in September I would have to say that I was wrong in accusing you of what I did. Now, when reading that post that you dissected above I was able to see that, in fact, you did account for the fact that you were postulating and wondering, not, in fact, passing a big judgment on me. You were seeming to explore the situation and wondering about it. I mean, it is written right there in front of me so I would have to ask myself why I did not remember it that way. Figuring that out could take more time. I'm sorry if (and it appears I did) misrepresent the interaction we had back then. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 9:47 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Barry, of course, is actually encouraging a pissing contest by advising Share to refrain from acknowledging reality. (Although
RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
O.K. Share, let's try one more time. Re: What's unfortunate is that Emily used to wrote some interesting posts... Share: What posts of mine did you used to find interesting? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Jeez! Now Emily has gone bonkers too! On Sunday, December 1, 2013 2:33 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Conversation between Share and Emily: Share: It's raining in Iowa. Emily: Share, is it raining in Fairfield? Share: Emily, I heard it on the news today that it's raining. Emily: Share, is it raining outside your door? Share: Emily, the Farmer's Almanac says that it will be raining this winter. Emily: Share, I'm asking you if it is raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Barry: Share, Emily is one of Ravi's minions so disregard her, and btw, STFU, you are causing all this. Emily: Share, does it upset you that Barry just told you to STFU? Share: Emily, Barry is like a half-brother to me. Also, Jon Grayweather, who is an expert on what women want out of sex, says that having sex in the rain is good for pitta types. Emily: Share, are you a pitta type? Bhairitu: Share, have you tried juicing grass? It's very good for pitta types. Richard: Share, I went to Whole Foods today and bought spinach. Share: Richard, there is a Whole Foods in Iowa and I will be going next week. Emily: Share, is it raining in Iowa today? Share: Emily, you are honing in on my conversation with Richard in a mean and spiteful way. Emily: Share, *you* said it was raining in Iowa today, I just wanted to know if it was raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Share: Emily, you are being repetitive and vicious and critical and negative and I am only responding in-kind. You are one of Judy's minions and I hate her so I hate you too. I will stand up for myself. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: What's unfortunate is that Emily used to wrote some interesting posts but once she got on Judy's bandwagon she's become imo sort of repetitive. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 10:22 AM, anartaxius@... anartaxius@... wrote: Authfriend's modus operandi: A falsis principiis proficisci. (Marcus Tullius Cicero)
Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn't more interesting, in one graphic
For example, Emily, you used to have some interesting exchanges with Curtis, I think about music. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 2:45 PM, emilymae...@yahoo.com emilymae...@yahoo.com wrote: O.K. Share, let's try one more time. Re: What's unfortunate is that Emily used to wrote some interesting posts... Share: What posts of mine did you used to find interesting? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Jeez! Now Emily has gone bonkers too! On Sunday, December 1, 2013 2:33 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Conversation between Share and Emily: Share: It's raining in Iowa. Emily: Share, is it raining in Fairfield? Share: Emily, I heard it on the news today that it's raining. Emily: Share, is it raining outside your door? Share: Emily, the Farmer's Almanac says that it will be raining this winter. Emily: Share, I'm asking you if it is raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Barry: Share, Emily is one of Ravi's minions so disregard her, and btw, STFU, you are causing all this. Emily: Share, does it upset you that Barry just told you to STFU? Share: Emily, Barry is like a half-brother to me. Also, Jon Grayweather, who is an expert on what women want out of sex, says that having sex in the rain is good for pitta types. Emily: Share, are you a pitta type? Bhairitu: Share, have you tried juicing grass? It's very good for pitta types. Richard: Share, I went to Whole Foods today and bought spinach. Share: Richard, there is a Whole Foods in Iowa and I will be going next week. Emily: Share, is it raining in Iowa today? Share: Emily, you are honing in on my conversation with Richard in a mean and spiteful way. Emily: Share, *you* said it was raining in Iowa today, I just wanted to know if it was raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Share: Emily, you are being repetitive and vicious and critical and negative and I am only responding in-kind. You are one of Judy's minions and I hate her so I hate you too. I will stand up for myself. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: What's unfortunate is that Emily used to wrote some interesting posts but once she got on Judy's bandwagon she's become imo sort of repetitive. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 10:22 AM, anartaxius@... anartaxius@... wrote: Authfriend's modus operandi: A falsis principiis proficisci. (Marcus Tullius Cicero)
RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Good lord, somebody get her some Valium before she goes completely off the rails. I don't have a bandwagon, and if I did, Emily would be about the last to get on it. She runs her own show, always has. See, Share is using Barry's incredibly cowardly tactic. She's so hard up it isn't surprising she'd be groping around for something, anything, to use against her critics, and she's too dense to realize how foolish it makes her look. Share, listen up: The people who criticize you do so on their own hook, independently of each other. Same with Barry's critics. Each of them has his or her negative opinions of you and of Barry because your behavior engenders such opinions. It isn't the case that only one of us perceives you negatively and the others just go blindly along for the ride. Believing that may make you feel better, but it's false comfort. Share spewed: What's unfortunate is that Emily used to wrote some interesting posts but once she got on Judy's bandwagon she's become imo sort of repetitive. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 10:22 AM, anartaxius@... anartaxius@... wrote: Authfriend's modus operandi: A falsis principiis proficisci. (Marcus Tullius Cicero)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
So Emily, tell us why you are on FFL and have no background in TM? I would think you'd feel like a fish out of water. On 12/01/2013 12:45 PM, emilymae...@yahoo.com wrote: O.K. Share, let's try one more time. Re: What's unfortunate is that Emily used to wrote some interesting posts... Share: What posts of mine did you used to find interesting? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Jeez! Now Emily has gone bonkers too! On Sunday, December 1, 2013 2:33 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Conversation between Share and Emily: Share: It's raining in Iowa. Emily: Share, is it raining in Fairfield? Share: Emily, I heard it on the news today that it's raining. Emily: Share, is it raining outside your door? Share: Emily, the Farmer's Almanac says that it will be raining this winter. Emily: Share, I'm asking you if it is raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Barry: Share, Emily is one of Ravi's minions so disregard her, and btw, STFU, you are causing all this. Emily: Share, does it upset you that Barry just told you to STFU? Share: Emily, Barry is like a half-brother to me. Also, Jon Grayweather, who is an expert on what women want out of sex, says that having sex in the rain is good for pitta types. Emily: Share, are you a pitta type? Bhairitu: Share, have you tried juicing grass? It's very good for pitta types. Richard: Share, I went to Whole Foods today and bought spinach. Share: Richard, there is a Whole Foods in Iowa and I will be going next week. Emily: Share, is it raining in Iowa today? Share: Emily, you are honing in on my conversation with Richard in a mean and spiteful way. Emily: Share, *you* said it was raining in Iowa today, I just wanted to know if it was raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Share: Emily, you are being repetitive and vicious and critical and negative and I am only responding in-kind. You are one of Judy's minions and I hate her so I hate you too. I will stand up for myself. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: What's unfortunate is that Emily used to wrote some interesting posts but once she got on Judy's bandwagon she's become imo sort of repetitive. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 10:22 AM, anartaxius@... anartaxius@... wrote: Authfriend's modus operandi: *A falsis principiis proficisci. (Marcus Tullius Cicero)*
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Re: Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Share, you're already in way deep shit. Don't make it any deeper, and don't make of yourself an even bigger target with idiotic, senseless observations like this. Share puked: One of Judy's main tactics is to define the context and or parameters of an argument. IOW, it's about what she says it's about. Of course, that only works if one is talking only to one's self (-: On Sunday, December 1, 2013 1:29 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Actually it's just been a single discussion concerning Share's mean, gratuitous, and deeply untruthful post to you, Barry, about a post of mine to her from last year. It's so interesting how a Get Judy, Ann, and Emily Fest is entirely acceptable to you and your band of Mean Girls (Xeno and Share and Richard), but the four of you are Untouchable, especially Share, totally innocent and high-minded and honest to a fault, would never, no never, insult or attack anyone or say anything about anybody that wasn't totally fair and irreproachably accurate and true. (I threw up a little in my mouth when I wrote that.) Too bad you can't recruit Feste to your band of thugs, but he thinks you're an S.O.B. (otherwise known as Son. Of. A. Bitch). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams wrote: Just speaking for myself, I sure am glad we have Judy around to remind us of our ethical duties on this discussion group. What would we do without her? Uh, maybe talk about the things this forum was created to talk about? It's Judy and her minions Ann and Emily who have been trying all day to drag any discussion down to the level of a Mean Girl Get Share Fest.
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Re: Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Share, you're already in very deep shit; your poor, frantic defenders are trying to save you from drowning in your own excreta. Don't make it tougher on them with idiotic remarks like this. Share retched: One of Judy's main tactics is to define the context and or parameters of an argument. IOW, it's about what she says it's about. Of course, that only works if one is talking only to one's self (-: On Sunday, December 1, 2013 1:29 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Actually it's just been a single discussion concerning Share's mean, gratuitous, and deeply untruthful post to you, Barry, about a post of mine to her from last year. It's so interesting how a Get Judy, Ann, and Emily Fest is entirely acceptable to you and your band of Mean Girls (Xeno and Share and Richard), but the four of you are Untouchable, especially Share, totally innocent and high-minded and honest to a fault, would never, no never, insult or attack anyone or say anything about anybody that wasn't totally fair and irreproachably accurate and true. (I threw up a little in my mouth when I wrote that.) Too bad you can't recruit Feste to your band of thugs, but he thinks you're an S.O.B. (otherwise known as Son. Of. A. Bitch).
RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Er, Share, she's parodying you (and Barry). And very aptly, too. Can you laugh at yourself? No, of course not. Neither can Barry. Share upchucks: Jeez! Now Emily has gone bonkers too! On Sunday, December 1, 2013 2:33 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Conversation between Share and Emily: Share: It's raining in Iowa. Emily: Share, is it raining in Fairfield? Share: Emily, I heard it on the news today that it's raining. Emily: Share, is it raining outside your door? Share: Emily, the Farmer's Almanac says that it will be raining this winter. Emily: Share, I'm asking you if it is raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Barry: Share, Emily is one of Ravi's minions so disregard her, and btw, STFU, you are causing all this. Emily: Share, does it upset you that Barry just told you to STFU? Share: Emily, Barry is like a half-brother to me. Also, Jon Grayweather, who is an expert on what women want out of sex, says that having sex in the rain is good for pitta types. Emily: Share, are you a pitta type? Bhairitu: Share, have you tried juicing grass? It's very good for pitta types. Richard: Share, I went to Whole Foods today and bought spinach. Share: Richard, there is a Whole Foods in Iowa and I will be going next week. Emily: Share, is it raining in Iowa today? Share: Emily, you are honing in on my conversation with Richard in a mean and spiteful way. Emily: Share, *you* said it was raining in Iowa today, I just wanted to know if it was raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Share: Emily, you are being repetitive and vicious and critical and negative and I am only responding in-kind. You are one of Judy's minions and I hate her so I hate you too. I will stand up for myself. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: What's unfortunate is that Emily used to wrote some interesting posts but once she got on Judy's bandwagon she's become imo sort of repetitive. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 10:22 AM, anartaxius@... anartaxius@... wrote: Authfriend's modus operandi: A falsis principiis proficisci. (Marcus Tullius Cicero)
[FairfieldLife] JR, Got Snowshoes?
According to the Weather Channel it's supposed to rain in the Bay Area on Tuesday. AND temps are supposed to be in the high 20s overnight (at least around here). That could lead to snow and funny thing is the other night I had a dream about driving in SF in the snow (like Seattle gets). That would be a real mess. Fortunately the Weather Channel's forecasts aren't alway that good. Much of the US is getting record low temperatures due to the flow of arctic air. Even in the Bay Area we are getting some low over night temps which means that we are getting 4 seasons in one day because it can warm up by late morning. In fact I wore shorts and a t-shirt to the waterfront park and skipped putting on a jacket. In spite of warming up the parking on the street downtown was fairly empty as was the farmer's market. Maybe buying food was the last thing on folks mind after the Thursday gorge.
RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
I am glad you enjoyed those Share. Curtis has been gone a long time now though, although I am curious about what he thinks of Robbie Robertson. Here is a second question for you: How to you remember the posts that Judy wrote differently than she wrote them? No, this is not a setup. I am genuinely curious and will take what you say at face value. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: For example, Emily, you used to have some interesting exchanges with Curtis, I think about music. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 2:45 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: O.K. Share, let's try one more time. Re: What's unfortunate is that Emily used to wrote some interesting posts... Share: What posts of mine did you used to find interesting? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Jeez! Now Emily has gone bonkers too! On Sunday, December 1, 2013 2:33 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Conversation between Share and Emily: Share: It's raining in Iowa. Emily: Share, is it raining in Fairfield? Share: Emily, I heard it on the news today that it's raining. Emily: Share, is it raining outside your door? Share: Emily, the Farmer's Almanac says that it will be raining this winter. Emily: Share, I'm asking you if it is raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Barry: Share, Emily is one of Ravi's minions so disregard her, and btw, STFU, you are causing all this. Emily: Share, does it upset you that Barry just told you to STFU? Share: Emily, Barry is like a half-brother to me. Also, Jon Grayweather, who is an expert on what women want out of sex, says that having sex in the rain is good for pitta types. Emily: Share, are you a pitta type? Bhairitu: Share, have you tried juicing grass? It's very good for pitta types. Richard: Share, I went to Whole Foods today and bought spinach. Share: Richard, there is a Whole Foods in Iowa and I will be going next week. Emily: Share, is it raining in Iowa today? Share: Emily, you are honing in on my conversation with Richard in a mean and spiteful way. Emily: Share, *you* said it was raining in Iowa today, I just wanted to know if it was raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Share: Emily, you are being repetitive and vicious and critical and negative and I am only responding in-kind. You are one of Judy's minions and I hate her so I hate you too. I will stand up for myself. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: What's unfortunate is that Emily used to wrote some interesting posts but once she got on Judy's bandwagon she's become imo sort of repetitive. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 10:22 AM, anartaxius@... anartaxius@... wrote: Authfriend's modus operandi: A falsis principiis proficisci. (Marcus Tullius Cicero)
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
You know, I've been asking myself this and I have an answer. I'll get back to you later as I have no more time today to write it out. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote: So Emily, tell us why you are on FFL and have no background in TM? I would think you'd feel like a fish out of water. On 12/01/2013 12:45 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote: O.K. Share, let's try one more time. Re: What's unfortunate is that Emily used to wrote some interesting posts... Share: What posts of mine did you used to find interesting? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... mailto:sharelong60@... wrote: Jeez! Now Emily has gone bonkers too! On Sunday, December 1, 2013 2:33 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote: Conversation between Share and Emily: Share: It's raining in Iowa. Emily: Share, is it raining in Fairfield? Share: Emily, I heard it on the news today that it's raining. Emily: Share, is it raining outside your door? Share: Emily, the Farmer's Almanac says that it will be raining this winter. Emily: Share, I'm asking you if it is raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Barry: Share, Emily is one of Ravi's minions so disregard her, and btw, STFU, you are causing all this. Emily: Share, does it upset you that Barry just told you to STFU? Share: Emily, Barry is like a half-brother to me. Also, Jon Grayweather, who is an expert on what women want out of sex, says that having sex in the rain is good for pitta types. Emily: Share, are you a pitta type? Bhairitu: Share, have you tried juicing grass? It's very good for pitta types. Richard: Share, I went to Whole Foods today and bought spinach. Share: Richard, there is a Whole Foods in Iowa and I will be going next week. Emily: Share, is it raining in Iowa today? Share: Emily, you are honing in on my conversation with Richard in a mean and spiteful way. Emily: Share, *you* said it was raining in Iowa today, I just wanted to know if it was raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Share: Emily, you are being repetitive and vicious and critical and negative and I am only responding in-kind. You are one of Judy's minions and I hate her so I hate you too. I will stand up for myself. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... mailto:sharelong60@... wrote: What's unfortunate is that Emily used to wrote some interesting posts but once she got on Judy's bandwagon she's become imo sort of repetitive. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 10:22 AM, anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... wrote: Authfriend's modus operandi: A falsis principiis proficisci. (Marcus Tullius Cicero)
Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn't more interesting, in one graphic
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: I am glad you enjoyed those Share. Curtis has been gone a long time now though, although I am curious about what he thinks of Robbie Robertson. Here is a second question for you: How to you remember the posts that Judy wrote differently than she wrote them? No, this is not a setup. I am genuinely curious and will take what you say at face value. Share, don't be a dunce and fall for this shit. Feste already warned you what Emily's game is, and she's trying to run it on you. It's to ask seemingly non-hostile questions of you to suck you into interacting with her, at which point she'll switch over to dumping on you again. You've been starting to fall for Judy doing the same thing, by replying to her posts, too. STOP be a codependent in all of this. YOU can stop it all by just cutting them out of your life.
Re: [FairfieldLife] What I Did Today
Today we went by this place: [image: Inline image 2] On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.comwrote: 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.com wrote: 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.com wrote: 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.com wrote: 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.com wrote: 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.com wrote: 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.com wrote: 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]
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Re: Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
The problem boils down to one of moral turpitude, or the lack of it. 1. Taking part in a conspiracy (or attempting to take part in a conspiracy) to commit a crime involving moral turpitude where the attempted crime would not itself constitute moral turpitude. Go figure. Fraud: Making false representation Knowledge of such false representation by the perpetrator Reliance on the false representation by the person defrauded An intent to defraud The actual act of committing fraud http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_turpitude On 12/1/2013 1:29 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Actually it's just been a single discussion concerning Share's mean, gratuitous, and deeply untruthful post to you, Barry, about a post of mine to her from last year. It's so interesting how a Get Judy, Ann, and Emily Fest is entirely acceptable to you and your band of Mean Girls (Xeno and Share and Richard), but the four of you are Untouchable, especially Share, totally innocent and high-minded and honest to a fault, would never, no never, insult or attack anyone or say anything about anybody that wasn't totally fair and irreproachably accurate and true. (I threw up a little in my mouth when I wrote that.) Too bad you can't recruit Feste to your band of thugs, but he thinks you're an S.O.B. (otherwise known as Son. Of. A. Bitch). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams wrote: Just speaking for myself, I sure am glad we have Judy around to remind us of our ethical duties on this discussion group. What would we do without her? Uh, maybe talk about the things this forum was created to talk about? It's Judy and her minions Ann and Emily who have been trying all day to drag any discussion down to the level of a Mean Girl Get Share Fest.
Re: [FairfieldLife] FF Meditator Kids caught, allegedly holding the Pot.
Well, at least you could pick someone that's dead before you pick their name to post with. Go figure. On 12/1/2013 1:50 PM, Toby Walker wrote: End the War on Drugs! http://www.leap.cc/ Check it out finker :) @Richard J. williamspundits...@gmail.com mailto:pundits...@gmail.com On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Richard J. Williams pundits...@gmail.com mailto:pundits...@gmail.com wrote: It's one thing to fink on your friends; it another thing to fink on total strangers. Go figure. On 11/22/2013 7:58 PM, Michael Jackson wrote: God you're an idiot! What friends are you referring to? Sir Paul? Never met him. The guys who were doing dope at MIU when I was there were not friends of mine. Satisfied? On Fri, 11/22/13, Richard J. Williams pundits...@gmail.com mailto:pundits...@gmail.com wrote: Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] FF Meditator Kids caught, allegedly holding the Pot. To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, November 22, 2013, 8:42 PM Never let an opportunity go by to fink on your old friends. On 11/22/2013 1:41 PM, Michael Jackson wrote: Bucky, while I agree with your sentiments, the facts are that drug use on campus itself has been there as long as MIU/MUM has been there. There were drugs used and sold on campus in the 80's when I was there, and if you can believe some of the post on the FB page MUM Secrets, the passing years have seen an upsurge in dope sales and use on campus and I bet in town too. Now, one could point the finger of blame at the townies, but one cannot fault the meditators of Fairfield if they take dope, and sell it too. I mean after all, the have the fine example of Sir Paul McCartney to look up to. You know, Sir Paul, musician, former Beatle, main-most famouser than the other TM celebs since he hung out with the Great and Might Oz (I mean Marshy), current TM booster and 40 some year daily doper. On Fri, 11/22/13, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com mailto:dhamiltony...@yahoo.com dhamiltony...@yahoo.com mailto:dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] FF Meditator Kids caught, allegedly holding the Pot. To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, November 22, 2013, 3:54 PM Thank you for not selling drugs or supplying alcohol to our FF spiritual children..-Buck http://fairfield-ia.villagesoup.com/p/fairfield-police-sieze-100-pounds-of-marijuana/1083665
[FairfieldLife] Puns Can Be Fun
Evidence has been found that William Tell and his family were avid bowlers. Unfortunately, all the Swiss league records were destroyed in a fire. And, so we'll never know for whom the Tells bowled.
RE: RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Emily, if you'll forgive me, I can't figure out what this question means; I wouldn't blame Share if she couldn't either: Emily wrote: Here is a second question for you: How to you remember the posts that Judy wrote differently than she wrote them? No, this is not a setup. I am genuinely curious and will take what you say at face value.
Re: [FairfieldLife] FF Meditator Kids caught, allegedly holding the Pot.
Well, at least you could pick someone that's dead before you pick their name to post with. Go figure. What ? Richard? On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Richard J. Williams pundits...@gmail.comwrote: Well, at least you could pick someone that's dead before you pick their name to post with. Go figure. On 12/1/2013 1:50 PM, Toby Walker wrote: End the War on Drugs! http://www.leap.cc/ Check it out finker :) @Richard J. Williams pundits...@gmail.com On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Richard J. Williams pundits...@gmail.com wrote: It's one thing to fink on your friends; it another thing to fink on total strangers. Go figure. On 11/22/2013 7:58 PM, Michael Jackson wrote: God you're an idiot! What friends are you referring to? Sir Paul? Never met him. The guys who were doing dope at MIU when I was there were not friends of mine. Satisfied? On Fri, 11/22/13, Richard J. Williams pundits...@gmail.compundits...@gmail.comwrote: Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] FF Meditator Kids caught, allegedly holding the Pot. To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, November 22, 2013, 8:42 PM Never let an opportunity go by to fink on your old friends. On 11/22/2013 1:41 PM, Michael Jackson wrote: Bucky, while I agree with your sentiments, the facts are that drug use on campus itself has been there as long as MIU/MUM has been there. There were drugs used and sold on campus in the 80's when I was there, and if you can believe some of the post on the FB page MUM Secrets, the passing years have seen an upsurge in dope sales and use on campus and I bet in town too. Now, one could point the finger of blame at the townies, but one cannot fault the meditators of Fairfield if they take dope, and sell it too. I mean after all, the have the fine example of Sir Paul McCartney to look up to. You know, Sir Paul, musician, former Beatle, main-most famouser than the other TM celebs since he hung out with the Great and Might Oz (I mean Marshy), current TM booster and 40 some year daily doper. On Fri, 11/22/13, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com dhamiltony...@yahoo.com dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] FF Meditator Kids caught, allegedly holding the Pot. To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, November 22, 2013, 3:54 PM Thank you for not selling drugs or supplying alcohol to our FF spiritual children..-Buck http://fairfield-ia.villagesoup.com/p/fairfield-police-sieze-100-pounds-of-marijuana/1083665
Re: [FairfieldLife] JR, Got Snowshoes?
If I eat one more bite of chicken, I think I'm gonna sprout feathers! Mom and I went to PF Chang today and she got lettuce wrapped chicken. Yum, but I'm yearning for my quinoa (-: On Sunday, December 1, 2013 3:13 PM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net wrote: According to the Weather Channel it's supposed to rain in the Bay Area on Tuesday. AND temps are supposed to be in the high 20s overnight (at least around here). That could lead to snow and funny thing is the other night I had a dream about driving in SF in the snow (like Seattle gets). That would be a real mess. Fortunately the Weather Channel's forecasts aren't alway that good. Much of the US is getting record low temperatures due to the flow of arctic air. Even in the Bay Area we are getting some low over night temps which means that we are getting 4 seasons in one day because it can warm up by late morning. In fact I wore shorts and a t-shirt to the waterfront park and skipped putting on a jacket. In spite of warming up the parking on the street downtown was fairly empty as was the farmer's market. Maybe buying food was the last thing on folks mind after the Thursday gorge.
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Yep Bhari2, that has become my question also. So Emily, since you never learned TM, why are you here on this forum? Is this your little gossip parlor? Maybe instead this is this your prayer hut. So which deity do you pray to anyway? Yhvh? Jesus? Christos Pantocrator? Is it a He, a She or an It? Maybe a GenderQueer? What caused you to choose a barroom like FFL to wander around in and critique the inhabitants? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote: So Emily, tell us why you are on FFL and have no background in TM? I would think you'd feel like a fish out of water. On 12/01/2013 12:45 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote: O.K. Share, let's try one more time. Re: What's unfortunate is that Emily used to wrote some interesting posts... Share: What posts of mine did you used to find interesting? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... mailto:sharelong60@... wrote: Jeez! Now Emily has gone bonkers too! On Sunday, December 1, 2013 2:33 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote: Conversation between Share and Emily: Share: It's raining in Iowa. Emily: Share, is it raining in Fairfield? Share: Emily, I heard it on the news today that it's raining. Emily: Share, is it raining outside your door? Share: Emily, the Farmer's Almanac says that it will be raining this winter. Emily: Share, I'm asking you if it is raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Barry: Share, Emily is one of Ravi's minions so disregard her, and btw, STFU, you are causing all this. Emily: Share, does it upset you that Barry just told you to STFU? Share: Emily, Barry is like a half-brother to me. Also, Jon Grayweather, who is an expert on what women want out of sex, says that having sex in the rain is good for pitta types. Emily: Share, are you a pitta type? Bhairitu: Share, have you tried juicing grass? It's very good for pitta types. Richard: Share, I went to Whole Foods today and bought spinach. Share: Richard, there is a Whole Foods in Iowa and I will be going next week. Emily: Share, is it raining in Iowa today? Share: Emily, you are honing in on my conversation with Richard in a mean and spiteful way. Emily: Share, *you* said it was raining in Iowa today, I just wanted to know if it was raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Share: Emily, you are being repetitive and vicious and critical and negative and I am only responding in-kind. You are one of Judy's minions and I hate her so I hate you too. I will stand up for myself. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... mailto:sharelong60@... wrote: What's unfortunate is that Emily used to wrote some interesting posts but once she got on Judy's bandwagon she's become imo sort of repetitive. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 10:22 AM, anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... wrote: Authfriend's modus operandi: A falsis principiis proficisci. (Marcus Tullius Cicero)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Empty, been noticing Alex Jones using phrases like absolute enlightenment these days? On 12/01/2013 02:58 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: Yep Bhari2, that has become my question also. So Emily, since you never learned TM, why are you here on this forum? Is this your little gossip parlor? Maybe instead this is this your prayer hut. So which deity do you pray to anyway? Yhvh? Jesus? Christos Pantocrator? Is it a He, a She or an It? Maybe a GenderQueer? What caused you to choose a barroom like FFL to wander around in and critique the inhabitants? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote: So Emily, tell us why you are on FFL and have no background in TM? I would think you'd feel like a fish out of water. On 12/01/2013 12:45 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote: O.K. Share, let's try one more time. Re: What's unfortunate is that Emily used to wrote some interesting posts... Share: What posts of mine did you used to find interesting? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... mailto:sharelong60@... wrote: Jeez! Now Emily has gone bonkers too! On Sunday, December 1, 2013 2:33 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote: Conversation between Share and Emily: Share: It's raining in Iowa. Emily: Share, is it raining in Fairfield? Share: Emily, I heard it on the news today that it's raining. Emily: Share, is it raining outside your door? Share: Emily, the Farmer's Almanac says that it will be raining this winter. Emily: Share, I'm asking you if it is raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Barry: Share, Emily is one of Ravi's minions so disregard her, and btw, STFU, you are causing all this. Emily: Share, does it upset you that Barry just told you to STFU? Share: Emily, Barry is like a half-brother to me. Also, Jon Grayweather, who is an expert on what women want out of sex, says that having sex in the rain is good for pitta types. Emily: Share, are you a pitta type? Bhairitu: Share, have you tried juicing grass? It's very good for pitta types. Richard: Share, I went to Whole Foods today and bought spinach. Share: Richard, there is a Whole Foods in Iowa and I will be going next week. Emily: Share, is it raining in Iowa today? Share: Emily, you are honing in on my conversation with Richard in a mean and spiteful way. Emily: Share, *you* said it was raining in Iowa today, I just wanted to know if it was raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Share: Emily, you are being repetitive and vicious and critical and negative and I am only responding in-kind. You are one of Judy's minions and I hate her so I hate you too. I will stand up for myself. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... mailto:sharelong60@... wrote: What's unfortunate is that Emily used to wrote some interesting posts but once she got on Judy's bandwagon she's become imo sort of repetitive. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 10:22 AM, anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... wrote: Authfriend's modus operandi: *A falsis principiis proficisci. (Marcus Tullius Cicero)*
[FairfieldLife] Senate and House Intelligence Committees Defend Destruction of Constitution
http://www.infowars.com/senate-and-house-intelligence-committees-defend-destruction-of-constitution/ http://www.infowars.com/senate-and-house-intelligence-committees-defend-destruction-of-constitution/
RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
You know, you guys, it's not as if Emily has never given us an account of why she's here. She has done so, in some detail, in her early posts and in subsequent updates. That you don't remember or never read them is not something for which you can blame her. Having learned TM is not a requirement for participation on FFL, BTW. And Emily has made very significant contributions here, more so than many of the TMers, former or current. Why are you trying to make her feel unwelcome now, when she's been here for several years already? That's pretty low, it seems to me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: Yep Bhari2, that has become my question also. So Emily, since you never learned TM, why are you here on this forum? Is this your little gossip parlor? Maybe instead this is this your prayer hut. So which deity do you pray to anyway? Yhvh? Jesus? Christos Pantocrator? Is it a He, a She or an It? Maybe a GenderQueer? What caused you to choose a barroom like FFL to wander around in and critique the inhabitants? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote: So Emily, tell us why you are on FFL and have no background in TM? I would think you'd feel like a fish out of water. On 12/01/2013 12:45 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote: O.K. Share, let's try one more time. Re: What's unfortunate is that Emily used to wrote some interesting posts... Share: What posts of mine did you used to find interesting? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... mailto:sharelong60@... wrote: Jeez! Now Emily has gone bonkers too! On Sunday, December 1, 2013 2:33 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote: Conversation between Share and Emily: Share: It's raining in Iowa. Emily: Share, is it raining in Fairfield? Share: Emily, I heard it on the news today that it's raining. Emily: Share, is it raining outside your door? Share: Emily, the Farmer's Almanac says that it will be raining this winter. Emily: Share, I'm asking you if it is raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Barry: Share, Emily is one of Ravi's minions so disregard her, and btw, STFU, you are causing all this. Emily: Share, does it upset you that Barry just told you to STFU? Share: Emily, Barry is like a half-brother to me. Also, Jon Grayweather, who is an expert on what women want out of sex, says that having sex in the rain is good for pitta types. Emily: Share, are you a pitta type? Bhairitu: Share, have you tried juicing grass? It's very good for pitta types. Richard: Share, I went to Whole Foods today and bought spinach. Share: Richard, there is a Whole Foods in Iowa and I will be going next week. Emily: Share, is it raining in Iowa today? Share: Emily, you are honing in on my conversation with Richard in a mean and spiteful way. Emily: Share, *you* said it was raining in Iowa today, I just wanted to know if it was raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Share: Emily, you are being repetitive and vicious and critical and negative and I am only responding in-kind. You are one of Judy's minions and I hate her so I hate you too. I will stand up for myself. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... mailto:sharelong60@... wrote: What's unfortunate is that Emily used to wrote some interesting posts but once she got on Judy's bandwagon she's become imo sort of repetitive. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 10:22 AM, anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... wrote: Authfriend's modus operandi: A falsis principiis proficisci. (Marcus Tullius Cicero)
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
After searching Absolute Enlightenment on the Inforwars site, not much came up other than the usual paranoia. Seems more of a diatribe type phrase used against the enlightened elites who rule over us - their cattle. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote: Empty, been noticing Alex Jones using phrases like absolute enlightenment these days? On 12/01/2013 02:58 PM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote: Yep Bhari2, that has become my question also. So Emily, since you never learned TM, why are you here on this forum? Is this your little gossip parlor? Maybe instead this is this your prayer hut. So which deity do you pray to anyway? Yhvh? Jesus? Christos Pantocrator? Is it a He, a She or an It? Maybe a GenderQueer? What caused you to choose a barroom like FFL to wander around in and critique the inhabitants? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... wrote: So Emily, tell us why you are on FFL and have no background in TM? I would think you'd feel like a fish out of water. On 12/01/2013 12:45 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote: O.K. Share, let's try one more time. Re: What's unfortunate is that Emily used to wrote some interesting posts... Share: What posts of mine did you used to find interesting? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... mailto:sharelong60@... wrote: Jeez! Now Emily has gone bonkers too! On Sunday, December 1, 2013 2:33 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote: Conversation between Share and Emily: Share: It's raining in Iowa. Emily: Share, is it raining in Fairfield? Share: Emily, I heard it on the news today that it's raining. Emily: Share, is it raining outside your door? Share: Emily, the Farmer's Almanac says that it will be raining this winter. Emily: Share, I'm asking you if it is raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Barry: Share, Emily is one of Ravi's minions so disregard her, and btw, STFU, you are causing all this. Emily: Share, does it upset you that Barry just told you to STFU? Share: Emily, Barry is like a half-brother to me. Also, Jon Grayweather, who is an expert on what women want out of sex, says that having sex in the rain is good for pitta types. Emily: Share, are you a pitta type? Bhairitu: Share, have you tried juicing grass? It's very good for pitta types. Richard: Share, I went to Whole Foods today and bought spinach. Share: Richard, there is a Whole Foods in Iowa and I will be going next week. Emily: Share, is it raining in Iowa today? Share: Emily, you are honing in on my conversation with Richard in a mean and spiteful way. Emily: Share, *you* said it was raining in Iowa today, I just wanted to know if it was raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Share: Emily, you are being repetitive and vicious and critical and negative and I am only responding in-kind. You are one of Judy's minions and I hate her so I hate you too. I will stand up for myself. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... mailto:sharelong60@... wrote: What's unfortunate is that Emily used to wrote some interesting posts but once she got on Judy's bandwagon she's become imo sort of repetitive. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 10:22 AM, anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... wrote: Authfriend's modus operandi: A falsis principiis proficisci. (Marcus Tullius Cicero)
RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
I addressed Emily rather than you. Perhaps you believe you now speak for her and can now answer questions posed to her. However, I am interested in Emily's response. I have faith that she is capable of responding directly with some intelligence - unencombered by your personal likes and dislikes. BTW ... since she is critiquing posters here, I am interested in the basis of her questions and claims. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: You know, you guys, it's not as if Emily has never given us an account of why she's here. She has done so, in some detail, in her early posts and in subsequent updates. That you don't remember or never read them is not something for which you can blame her. Having learned TM is not a requirement for participation on FFL, BTW. And Emily has made very significant contributions here, more so than many of the TMers, former or current. Why are you trying to make her feel unwelcome now, when she's been here for several years already? That's pretty low, it seems to me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: Yep Bhari2, that has become my question also. So Emily, since you never learned TM, why are you here on this forum? Is this your little gossip parlor? Maybe instead this is this your prayer hut. So which deity do you pray to anyway? Yhvh? Jesus? Christos Pantocrator? Is it a He, a She or an It? Maybe a GenderQueer? What caused you to choose a barroom like FFL to wander around in and critique the inhabitants? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote: So Emily, tell us why you are on FFL and have no background in TM? I would think you'd feel like a fish out of water. On 12/01/2013 12:45 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote: O.K. Share, let's try one more time. Re: What's unfortunate is that Emily used to wrote some interesting posts... Share: What posts of mine did you used to find interesting? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... mailto:sharelong60@... wrote: Jeez! Now Emily has gone bonkers too! On Sunday, December 1, 2013 2:33 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote: Conversation between Share and Emily: Share: It's raining in Iowa. Emily: Share, is it raining in Fairfield? Share: Emily, I heard it on the news today that it's raining. Emily: Share, is it raining outside your door? Share: Emily, the Farmer's Almanac says that it will be raining this winter. Emily: Share, I'm asking you if it is raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Barry: Share, Emily is one of Ravi's minions so disregard her, and btw, STFU, you are causing all this. Emily: Share, does it upset you that Barry just told you to STFU? Share: Emily, Barry is like a half-brother to me. Also, Jon Grayweather, who is an expert on what women want out of sex, says that having sex in the rain is good for pitta types. Emily: Share, are you a pitta type? Bhairitu: Share, have you tried juicing grass? It's very good for pitta types. Richard: Share, I went to Whole Foods today and bought spinach. Share: Richard, there is a Whole Foods in Iowa and I will be going next week. Emily: Share, is it raining in Iowa today? Share: Emily, you are honing in on my conversation with Richard in a mean and spiteful way. Emily: Share, *you* said it was raining in Iowa today, I just wanted to know if it was raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Share: Emily, you are being repetitive and vicious and critical and negative and I am only responding in-kind. You are one of Judy's minions and I hate her so I hate you too. I will stand up for myself. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... mailto:sharelong60@... wrote: What's unfortunate is that Emily used to wrote some interesting posts but once she got on Judy's bandwagon she's become imo sort of repetitive. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 10:22 AM, anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... wrote: Authfriend's modus operandi: A falsis principiis proficisci. (Marcus Tullius Cicero)
