[FairfieldLife] Happy New Year FFL

[bobpriced]

"This means we are not only children longer, we are childlike longer, and that 
has made us by far the most creative and adaptable creatures ever. "We are not 
a computer that follows routines laid down at birth," Jacob Bronowski once 
observed. "If we are any kind of machine, then we are a learning machine."
 

 This is why child's play and creativity are so deeply linked. Play has 
multiple meanings depending on whether you are an anthropologist, psychologist, 
parent, or child, but among its hallmarks are the simple joys of pushing 
boundaries, expanding limits, randomly galumphing around to see what happens 
just for kicks. Even long-faced philosopher Martin Buber had to admit, "Play is 
the exultation of the possible."
 

 At the heart of playing is the strange phenomenon of curiosity. You really 
can't have one without the other. One theory about curiosity is that we are all 
born "infovores", and in that curiosity we crave new knowledge and experience 
in something like the way we crave food. It's a kind of mental and emotional 
hunger that requires ongoing feeding and satisfaction. Old knowledge doesn't 
satisfy our curiosity because it is familiar; we have "eaten" it before. So how 
do we know when something is new? Because it surprises us, because it's 
different from what we are used to, fresh.  
 

 Every creature has an evolved talent for identifying what is surprising or out 
of the ordinary for one simple reason: it's central to our survival. Those that 
fail to tune into the change around them, those that aren't sensitive to 
surprise, soon join the legions of species no longer with us. It's a talent 
that reaches bank hundreds of millions of years.
 

 For modern humans like you and me this makes curiosity a way to gather new 
information that has survival benefits, but also a process for gathering the 
building blocks out of which we assemble entirely new experiences and new forms 
of knowledge. One of the behaviors that makes us different is our affection for 
playing around randomly, joining this with that or that with another thing with 
no particular reason except to create more surprises that satisfy our 
curiosity, which in turn results in still newer experiences, new inventions and 
insights. Innovation and originality are by-products of our lifelong, childlike 
love of goofing off!"
 

 -Chip Walter (LAST APE STANDING) 
 

 Henri Matisse:
 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOldcM7zubU 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOldcM7zubU

  

[FairfieldLife] RE: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[s3raphita]

Richard isn't confusing me. My point is that choosing a *woman* to be the first 
witness makes the "story" more believable (to moderns) as a made-up account 
would have had the first witness a male in that patriarchal society. Angels 
don't count being non-sexual!

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[Richard J. Williams]

On 12/31/2013 10:39 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:

> No, Mary was not the first person to see the risen Christ according 
to Luke.

>
Luke does not dispute the other Gospels, even if he does not mention 
Mary Magdalene by name. John 20 and Mark 16:9 specifically name her as 
the first person to see Jesus after his Resurrection. Every child in 
Sunday School knows this, including St. Augustine. Nobody argues that 
Mary Magdalen was not the first person to see the risen Christ. Nobody.


"She was at his burial, and she is the only person that all four Gospels 
say was first to realize that Jesus had risen and to testify to that 
central teaching of faith."


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

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[Richard J. Williams]

On 12/31/2013 10:38 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:

 > And one more time: Luke does not say that Mary M. or any of
 > the other women saw the risen Christ. (That's assuming Richard
 > is referring to the guy to whom the Gospel of Luke is attributed,
 > rather than to some dude he knows named Luke).
 >
No, lets look at the WIkipedia entry one more time:

"Mary was most prominent during Jesus' last days. When Jesus was 
crucified by the Romans, Mary Magdalene was there supporting him in his 
final moments and mourning his death. She stayed with him at the cross 
after the male disciples (except John the Beloved) had fled. She was at 
his burial, and she is the only person that all four Gospels say was 
first to realize that Jesus had risen and to testify to that central 
teaching of faith."

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

[FairfieldLife] RE: MMY's Soma

[s3raphita]

I like these psychedelic speculations but would point out that Amanita muscaria 
(fly agaric) is a deliriant rather than a lucid psych like LSD. A sweaty, 
unpleasant mind-fuck more suited to shamans seeking an out-of-the-body 
experience rather than sadhus seeking to escape from the wheel of life and 
death.
 

 An interesting fact about these mushrooms is that they retain their 
psychoactive properties after passing through the body. In Siberia the rich 
would pay to have fresh mushrooms collected for their brews. Afterwards their 
urine would be given to the poor for them to drink and enjoy their own astral 
voyage. 
 When we have to drink the piss of our bankers and politicians that's when 
we'll know we've been well and truly screwed. 
 

 A web search gives us:
 "The most interesting, and probably the strongest supporting evidence that 
Amanita muscaria is the divine Soma is the mentioning in the Rigveda of there 
being two forms of Soma. 
 With those two forms which stand facing us, O Soma, thou reignest over all 
things (Mandala IX 66). 
 Wasson in his studies of Amanita use in other cultures also came across two 
forms of Amanita. The first being the expressed juice of a fresh or re-hydrated 
mushroom, and the second being the urine of those who have drunk the juice."

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[Richard J. Williams]

On 12/31/2013 9:56 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:

 > Just so Richard doesn't confuse you, Seraphita, there's been no
 > dispute about Mary M. having been the first to see the risen
 > Christ according to Matthew, Mark, and John.
 >
Maybe Judy should take it up with Wikipedia.

"In listing witnesses who saw where Jesus was buried by Joseph of 
Aramathea, Mark 15:47 and Matthew 27:61 both name only two people: Mary 
Magdalene and "the other Mary", who in Mark is "the mother of James". 
Luke 23:55 describes the witnesses as "the women who had come with Jesus 
from Galilee". John 19:39-42 mentions no other witness to Joseph's 
burial of Jesus except for Nicodemus. Mark 16:1 says "...Mary Magdalene, 
Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go 
to anoint Jesus’ body". The connection with the earlier Anointing of 
Jesus, and his remarks then, was one of the arguments used in favour of 
the "composite Magdalen"

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

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[Richard J. Williams]

On 12/31/2013 9:53 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:

 > Richard than getting the story straight about his lying trolls.
 >
"Uniquely among the followers of Jesus, she is specified by name (though 
not consistently by any one gospel) as a witness to three key events: 
Jesus' crucifixion, his burial, and the discovery that his tomb was 
empty. Mark 15:40, Matthew 27:56 and John 19:25 mention Mary Magdalene 
as a witness to crucifixion, along with various other women. Luke does 
not name any witnesses, but mentions "women who had followed him from 
Galilee" standing at a distance."

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

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[Richard J. Williams]

On 12/31/2013 9:44 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote

 > No, Luke does not say that, as you know. Luke says there were at
 > least five women, first of all (as you know): Mary M., the mother of
 > James, and a Joanna, plus unnamed "others with them."
 >
"In Mark, Matthew, and John, Mary Magdalene is first witness to the 
resurrection. John 20:1 names Mary Magdalene in describing who 
discovered the tomb was empty. Mark 16:9 says she was accompanied by 
Salome and Mary the mother of James, while Matthew 28:1 omits Salome. 
Luke 24:10 says the group who reported to the disciples the finding of 
the empty tomb consisted of "Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of 
James, and the others with them". In Luke 24 the resurrection is 
announced to the women at the tomb by "two men in clothes that gleamed 
like lightning" who suddenly appeared next to them."

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

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[Richard J. Williams]

On 12/31/2013 9:44 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote

 > No, Luke does not say that, as you know. Luke says there were at
 > least five women, first of all (as you know): Mary M., the mother of
 > James, and a Joanna, plus unnamed "others with them."
 >
"In Mark, Matthew, and John, Mary Magdalene is first witness to the 
resurrection. John 20:1 names Mary Magdalene in describing who 
discovered the tomb was empty. Mark 16:9 says she was accompanied by 
Salome and Mary the mother of James, while Matthew 28:1 omits Salome. 
Luke 24:10 says the group who reported to the disciples the finding of 
the empty tomb consisted of "Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of 
James, and the others with them". In Luke 24 the resurrection is 
announced to the women at the tomb by "two men in clothes that gleamed 
like lightning" who suddenly appeared next to them."

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

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[authfriend]

No, Mary was not the first person to see the risen Christ according to Luke.
 

 > But not, as Richard knows, according to Luke (although he claimed all
 >  four Gospels agreed); and according to all four Gospels, nobody saw
 > Jesus "hovering in the air" until the Ascension
 >
 What part of the Bible do you not understand - can't you even read Greek? 
Let's see if I can make it a little clearer: Mary Magdalene was the first 
person to see the risen Christ - all four Gospels agree.
 
 "She was at his burial, and she is the only person that all four Gospels say 
was first to realize that Jesus had risen and to testify to that central 
teaching of faith."
 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene
 
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[Richard J. Williams]

On 12/31/2013 9:35 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Indeed. Now bear in mind that in those far-off days a woman's testimony
> would be regarded as very much inferior to a male witness. If the Gospel
> writers were making the story up would they have chosen Mary as a witness
>  to that pivotal event rather than, say, Peter?
>
"John 20 and Mark 16:9 specifically name her as the first person to see 
Jesus after his Resurrection. She was there at the "beginning of a 
movement that was going to transform the West". She was the "Apostle to 
the Apostles", an honorific that fourth-century orthodox theologian 
Augustine gave her and that others earlier had possibly conferred on her."


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

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[authfriend]

OK, so now we know that when Richard tells us about Bible stories, he's not 
necessarily talking about what's in the Bible; he may be talking about stuff he 
made up. But he's not going to tell us this up front; he'll tell us only if 
otherwise we all assume he's telling lies about what's in the Bible.
 

 And one more time: Luke does not say that Mary M. or any of the other women 
saw the risen Christ. (That's assuming Richard is referring to the guy to whom 
the Gospel of Luke is attributed, rather than to some dude he knows named Luke).
 

 > Your previous posts have said Mary M. saw the risen Christ "hovering
 > in the air." None of the Gospels say that.
 >
 Nobody said the Gospels say that the risen Christ was hovering in the 
 air. Richard said that - that''s what Richard thinks a "risen soul" 
 does- hover in the air. Risen means for the soul to rise up.
 
 > Nobody is arguing that Mary M. wasn't the first to see him, as related
 > in the Gospel of John. That has never been in dispute
 >
 Mary Magdalene was the first person to see the risen Christ. "All the 
 four gospels agree on this: Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10, and 
 John 20:1."
 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene

[FairfieldLife] RE: Secret Doctrines

[emptybill]

Back to the usual clap-trap.
 

 If there is no false interpretation then Buddhists are free to believe that:
 
 
 1. there is an eternal Atman along with 

 2. a changeless, eternal substance supporting the universe and  

 3. a personal god who creates people like you to subvert the essential
differences between traditions 
 

 Congrads. Kumbaya ... all is one.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[Richard J. Williams]

On 12/31/2013 9:35 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:

> But not, as Richard knows, according to Luke (although he claimed all
>  four Gospels agreed); and according to all four Gospels, nobody saw
> Jesus "hovering in the air" until the Ascension
>
What part of the Bible do you not understand - can't you even read 
Greek? Let's see if I can make it a little clearer: Mary Magdalene was 
the first person to see the risen Christ - all four Gospels agree.


"She was at his burial, and she is the only person that all four Gospels 
say was first to realize that Jesus had risen and to testify to that 
central teaching of faith."


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

[FairfieldLife] RE: MMY's Adwaita

[s3raphita]

Re "The Trinity is a theological formulation in Christianity ... not a 
philosophical idea. :
 

 Yes, but the Christian theologians were indebted to the Neoplatonists, 
especially the divine Plotinus and Iamblichus.
 The One is at the top of the hierarchy. The first emanation is Nous (Divine 
Mind). From Nous proceeds the World Soul.

 There are similar notions in Kabbalah (which also pinched its ideas from Greek 
Platonists) with their Supernal Triad - the three heavenly Sefirot (Kether, 
Chokmah and Binah). Those ideas have their origin in number "theory". In 
Christian terminology you could say that the original "creation" occurs when 
the primal One (the Father) withdraws to leave space for the other (the Son). A 
split is avoided because the Father has knowledge of and loves the Son. The 
love is the Holy Spirit.
 Bleeding obvious when you think about it.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[Richard J. Williams]

On 12/31/2013 7:55 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:

 > This, FYI, folks, is why there's no point in arguing with Richard.
 > I've been doing it just so you all can see what happens if you try.
 >
 > > Exactly. Nice job and you too have the muddy knees and bruised
 > > elbows to show for it crawling amid the mine fields. Come on in
 > > now for a nice meal and hot drink. Oh yea, and there's a hot bath
 > > waiting too...
 > >
Have either of you two ever been to a Sunday School class or even read 
the Bible?

"Mary was most prominent during Jesus' last days. When Jesus was 
crucified by the Romans, Mary Magdalene was there supporting him in his 
final moments and mourning his death. She stayed with him at the cross 
after the male disciples (except John the Beloved) had fled. She was at 
his burial, and she is the only person that all four Gospels say was 
first to realize that Jesus had risen and to testify to that central 
teaching of faith."

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

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[Richard J. Williams]

On 12/31/2013 7:55 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Richard knows all this, Ann. He's known it all along. He's
> just doing his usual trolling and lying.
>
"John 20 and Mark 16:9 specifically name her as the first person to see 
Jesus after his Resurrection."


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

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[Richard J. Williams]

On 12/31/2013 7:52 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:
*This, FYI, folks, is why there's no point in arguing with Richard. 
I've been doing it just so you all can see what happens if you try.*
"She was at his burial, and she is the only person that all four Gospels 
say was first to realize that Jesus had risen and to testify to that 
central teaching of faith."


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

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[Richard J. Williams]

On 12/31/2013 7:50 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote:

 > Ahh, I think Judy may have the court advantage at this point.
 > The "Ascension" is what clinched it for me. Richard?
 >
The Ascension came forty years later - that's when Christ went up to 
heaven. Everyone knows that Mary Magdalene was the first person to see 
the risen Christ at his tomb after his soul rose from the dead. Everyone 
knows this because that's what they read in the Bible and what is taught 
in Sunday school.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[Richard J. Williams]

On 12/31/2013 7:46 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:

 > Your previous posts have said Mary M. saw the risen Christ "hovering
 > in the air." None of the Gospels say that.
 >
Nobody said the Gospels say that the risen Christ was hovering in the 
air. Richard said that - that''s what Richard thinks a "risen soul" 
does- hover in the air. Risen means for the soul to rise up.

 > Nobody is arguing that Mary M. wasn't the first to see him, as related
 > in the Gospel of John. That has never been in dispute
 >
Mary Magdalene was the first person to see the risen Christ. "All the 
four gospels agree on this: Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10, and 
John 20:1."

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

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[Richard J. Williams]

On 12/31/2013 7:42 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:

<< Luke 23:55 states: "the women who had come with Jesus from Galilee" - 
the women were Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary", who in Mark is "the 
mother of James". They were the first to see the risen Jesus. >>


> No, as you know, Luke does not say they saw the risen Jesus.
> The women, as you know, were told Jesus had risen by two
> men in shining clothes (presumably angels) who were at the
> tomb, but the women didn't see Jesus. (And as you know,
> Luke says,

> "It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James,
> and the others with them who told this to the apostles," not
> just Mary M. and "the other Mary." According to Luke, as you
> know, at least five women came to the tomb. The two men spoke
>  to them all at the same time, and Luke, as you know, does not
> tell us which of the women first understood what the men were saying.)
>
"In listing witnesses who saw where Jesus was buried by Joseph of 
Aramathea, Mark 15:47 and Matthew 27:61 both name only two people: Mary 
Magdalene and "the other Mary", who in Mark is "the mother of James". 
Luke 23:55 describes the witnesses as "the women who had come with Jesus 
from Galilee". John 19:39-42 mentions no other witness to Joseph's 
burial of Jesus except for Nicodemus."


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

>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene

> And none of the Gospels say he was "hovering in the air" when Mary M. 
saw him.

.
Nobody said the Bible said he was "hovering in the air." That's what 
Richard said - it's his opinion - all risen souls of the dead rise up 
and hover in the air - they don't fall down like dead people.


<< Where else do you think a risen "Christ" would be, if not hovering in 
the air - lying on the ground? Go figure. >>


> As you know, the Gospel accounts describe him as just standing, or
> walking, or sitting. As you know, in Luke, Mary M. at first mistakes
> him for the gardener. As you know, he doesn't "hover in the air" or
> "rise into the air" until the Ascension 40 days after his death and
> resurrection.
>
A Christ does not just stand on the ground like a common gardener - 
that's why they called Jesus "the risen Christ." He was the Christ, not 
Jesus - he rose into heaven later. How do you think Christ got all the 
way to the road to Damascus where he was seen by Saul? Crawled on the 
ground or hitched a ride on a camel?

[FairfieldLife] RE: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[authfriend]

Just so Richard doesn't confuse you, Seraphita, there's been no dispute about 
Mary M. having been the first to see the risen Christ according to Matthew, 
Mark, and John.
 

 Luke is the outlier: he says the women were told by two men, presumably 
angels, at the tomb that Christ had risen, whereupon the women ran to tell the 
(male) disciples what the men had told them. As you suggest, the disciples 
didn't believe the women, according to Luke, and Peter himself ran to the tomb 
to see. But he didn't see the risen Christ then either.
 
 Re "According to the Bible, Mary Magdalen was the first to see the risen 
Christ.":

 Indeed. Now bear in mind that in those far-off days a woman's testimony would 
be regarded as very much inferior to a male witness. If the Gospel writers were 
making the story up would they have chosen Mary as a witness to that pivotal 
event rather than, say, Peter?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[authfriend]

Again, nobody is disupting this. Share's lost the plot completely because she 
didn't read the posts with any attention and is much more interested in 
defending Richard than getting the story straight about his lying trolls.
 

 << > Judy, I think you and Richard were using the word *risen* in different 
ways. Richard was saying that Mary M was first to see Jesus after he had risen 
from the dead whereas you were talking about Jesus' ascension into heaven.


 According to the Bible, Christ had risen from the grave - before that 
 Jesus was dead. His soul rose up out of the grave in a rising. His soul 
 rose up and became the Christ. That's when he was seen for the first 
 time by Mary Magdalene - she was the first to see the risen Christ. 
 There were two omen at the tomb- Mary Magdalene and the mother of James. 
 They had come from Galilee. According to the Gospels, there were two 
 women who saw the risen Christ - one was Mary Magdalene and the other 
 was James' mother. Or, put another way, the risen Christ appeared to 
 Mary Magdalene, and another woman, both from Galilee. >>

[FairfieldLife] RE: Scientific Breakthroughs of 2013

[s3raphita]

Another possibility is that aliens have picked up our transmissions of  
"Keeping Up with the Kardashians" and are avoiding us like we avoid vacationing 
in Detroit or Newark.

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[Richard J. Williams]

On 12/31/2013 7:22 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote:

> I could buy that if I could first buy the fact that there was
> a Christ, a Mary Magdalene and a rising.
>
Nobody is asking you to buy anything, but it says in the Bible that Mary 
Magdalene was the first person to see the risen Christ. If you don't 
understand that, just go see your pastor or go to Sunday school. We are 
not here to teach you Bible history - you should have learned that back 
in grade school, if not in college. Everyone knows about Mary Magdalene 
- she is mentioned twelve times in the New Testament.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[authfriend]

No, Luke does not say that, as you know. Luke says there were at least five 
women, first of all (as you know): Mary M., the mother of James, and a Joanna, 
plus unnamed "others with them."
 

 And Luke makes it crystal clear that none of those women saw the risen Christ. 
As you know.
 
 << > Luke does not say Mary M. was the first to see Christ risen from the 
dead--but Richard insists all four Gospels say that.. 

 Luke said there were two women from Galilee that first saw the risen Christ - 
that was Mary Magdalene and the mother of James. Were you thinking that Luke 
was talking about some women from Lebanon? >>
 
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[Richard J. Williams]

On 12/31/2013 4:00 PM, Share Long wrote:

 > Judy, I think you and Richard were using the word *risen* in
 > different ways. Richard was saying that Mary M was first to
 > see Jesus after he had risen from the dead whereas you were
 > talking about Jesus' ascension into heaven.
 >
According to the Bible, Christ had risen from the grave - before that 
Jesus was dead. His soul rose up out of the grave in a rising. His soul 
rose up and became the Christ. That's when he was seen for the first 
time by Mary Magdalene - she was the first to see the risen Christ. 
There were two omen at the tomb- Mary Magdalene and the mother of James. 
They had come from Galilee. According to the Gospels, there were two 
women who saw the risen Christ - one was Mary Magdalene and the other 
was James' mother. Or, put another way, the risen Christ appeared to 
Mary Magdalene, and another woman, both from Galilee.

[FairfieldLife] RE: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[s3raphita]

Re "According to the Bible, Mary Magdalen was the first to see the risen 
Christ.":

 Indeed. Now bear in mind that in those far-off days a woman's testimony would 
be regarded as very much inferior to a male witness. If the Gospel writers were 
making the story up would they have chosen Mary as a witness to that pivotal 
event rather than, say, Peter?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[authfriend]

But not, as Richard knows, according to Luke (although he claimed all four 
Gospels agreed); and according to all four Gospels, nobody saw Jesus "hovering 
in the air" until the Ascension,
 

 Richard is now taking his trolling and lying even further by lying about what 
the dispute concerned. That's one of his standard trolling tactics.
 
 << > Judy, I think Richard was saying that Mary Magdelene from first to 
 see Christ risen from the dead.

 According to the Bible, Mary Magdalen was the first to see the risen 
 Christ. That's what the Bible says. Mary Magdalene was the first. It's 
 in the Bible. Anyone can look it up. It's in there - in the Gospels, in 
 the Bible. Mary Magdalen was the first, according to the Bible. >>
 

 He sure has Share fooled, though. I think she must be the only one here who 
hasn't seen through him.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[Richard J. Williams]

On 12/31/2013 3:53 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Luke does not say Mary M. was the first to see Christ risen from the
> dead--but Richard insists all four Gospels say that.
>
Luke said there were two women from Galilee that first saw the risen 
Christ - that was Mary Magdalene and the mother of James. Were you 
thinking that Luke was talking about some women from Lebanon?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[Richard J. Williams]

On 12/31/2013 3:33 PM, Share Long wrote:

 > Judy, I think Richard was saying that Mary Magdelene from first to 
see Christ risen from the dead.
 >
According to the Bible, Mary Magdalen was the first to see the risen 
Christ. That's what the Bible says. Mary Magdalene was the first. It's 
in the Bible. Anyone can look it up. It's in there - in the Gospels, in 
the Bible. Mary Magdalen was the first, according to the Bible.

[FairfieldLife] RE: Gallup: Only 5% of Religious Americans Are Non-Christians

[emptybill]

Barack Hussein O'Muslim said it so well ...

We have never been "just a Christian nation". America has long included Jews, 
Mormons, Freemasons and other non-Christians. They made up proly close to 5%.

Now we have Muslims here to ennoble us and lead us to Dar-As-Salam.

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Secret Doctrines

[Richard J. Williams]

On 12/31/2013 12:14 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote:

 > Such “enlightenment” is utter make-believe. It is a false
 > interpretation - both of Shankara’s Advaita and of Buddhist
 > Mahamudra and Dzogchen.
 >
First of all, there's no such thing as "false interpretation", because 
there are numerous interpretations of what the historical Buddha taught 
- there were over eighteen sects withing fifty years of the Buddha's 
demise. So, there's your interpretation and there's my interpretation. 
So, the question is - what did the Buddha teach?

Let's review what we know:

The Buddhist term for enlightenment is "bodhi" which  consists of 
nirvana, the same thing as kensho or satori. The Buddha achieved bodhi - 
that makes sense when you realize that bodhi is Sanskrit and Pali for 
"buddha". The term Buddha means "one who woke up" - the goal of 
Buddhism. This awakening is an understanding into the nature of 
*causality*. Causality is how sentient beings come into existence. 
Causality is also the operation of the mind which keeps all sentient 
beings locked into craving, suffering and rebirth. So, bodhi is an 
understanding of how things are and thus the understanding of the way to 
liberate ones self from the prison of causality. The Buddha described 
causality as a wheel with twelve spokes: The Wheel of Dependent Origination.

Are we agreed so far?

In the Yogacara school of Vjarayana Buddhism, so-called because of its 
use of yoga techniques, the practice is described as a sudden turning 
about in the deepest seat of consciousness. Turning back the alaya 
vijnana into its original state of purity, a condition of 
non-attachment, non-discrimination and non-duality.

This is illustrated in the Buddhist scriptures where the Buddha 
explained what he had attained at the moment of enlightenment - he 
attained three knowings, according to Warder:

1. Insight into his past lives
2. Insight into the workings of Karma and Reincarnation
3.Insight into the Four Noble Truths

So, to sum up:

Existence, the world, is the result of physical causation, in a logical 
process. And, its mechanics can be known, measured, and categorized. 
Humanity is governed by action-reaction, that is, karma, based on the 
theory of physical and moral reciprocity, which acts just like a 
mechanical, physical and natural law. Whatever goes up must come down; 
all things falls to the ground; there is a reaction to any action. This 
works on the physical level as well as on the mental level of thought.

Works cited:

'Indian Buddhism'
by A.K. Warder
Motilal Banarsidass Publishers
p. 45-50

'Causality: The Central Philosophy of Buddhism'
by David J. Kalupahana
University of Hawai'i Press, 1986

'Zen Buddhism: A History'
by Heinrich Dumoulin
World Wisdom Books,

'The Three Pillars of Zen'
by Phillip Kapleau
Shamballaha Publishing, 1989

[FairfieldLife] RE: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's Nephew Arrested on Rape Charge - The New Indian Express

[dhamiltony2k5]

Girish Varma in the news again?  Om, how demoralizing to everyone in TM who try 
to do good participating in a spiritual regeneration movement to then have this 
leadership out there cuckolding his people . Is this characteristic of TM 
leadership? Who would want to be involved with these people? This is really 
bad. If the organization can't separate themselves from this guy then the guy 
should separate himself from the teaching if he had any sense of respect about 
it. TM should at least take a lesson from the Catholics and quickly cut this 
guy entirely off for the due-process of law as a cast-away. He evidently has 
done it to himself. This has been going on for months. If Nadir Ram, Bevan and 
Raja Hagelin can't fire and relieve from duties this guy outright, at least 
make a statement and put him out on a long administrative leave until the 
courts really settle it. TM needs to make clear that in going forward this kind 
of thing is not acceptable. Code of Conduct? What says the organization?
 
 -Buck   

Re: [FairfieldLife] Gallup: Only 5% of Religious Americans Are Non-Christians

[authfriend]

Not surprisingly, the quote was taken out of context and an important qualifier 
deleted. Here's the actual quote:
 

 "Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers 
of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no 
longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a 
Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."

 

 From FactCheck.org, 2008 (yes, this misleading claim has been around for a 
while):

 

 http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obama-and-the-christian-nation-quote/ 
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obama-and-the-christian-nation-quote/

 

 And remember that 5 percent of the U.S. population is almost 16 million people.
 

[FairfieldLife] Global 'warming' hits the US.

[wgm4u]

Frigid New Year's forecast for parts of U.S. -- 40 below zero 

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-weather-cold-new-year-20131231,0,4139182.story#ixzz2p6n8k0UG
 
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-weather-cold-new-year-20131231,0,4139182.story#ixzz2p6n8k0UG

[FairfieldLife] Pretty creepy and cool...

[awoelflebater]

http://distractify.com/culture/arts/the-most-spectacular-abandoned-places-in-the-world/
 
http://distractify.com/culture/arts/the-most-spectacular-abandoned-places-in-the-world/
 
 

 I wouldn't call them necessarily "spectacular" but they are "abandoned".

[FairfieldLife] RE: Post Count Wed 01-Jan-14 00:15:03 UTC

[awoelflebater]

 Hey Ricky, Share has performed 69 for you. Nice work and go figure.

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

 Fairfield Life Post Counter
 ===
 Start Date (UTC): 12/28/13 00:00:00
 End Date (UTC): 01/04/14 00:00:00
 489 messages as of (UTC) 01/01/14 00:08:28
 
 69 Share Long 
 67 Richard J. Williams 
 46 Richard Williams 
 44 authfriend
 38 awoelflebater
 32 s3raphita
 29 TurquoiseB 
 28 dhamiltony2k5
 27 emptybill
 24 Bhairitu 
 14 doctordumbass
 13 bobpriced
 9 jr_esq
 8 steve.sundur
 8 cardemaister
 6 Mike Dixon 
 5 feste37 
 4 nablusoss1008 
 3 wgm4u 
 3 waspaligap 
 2 martin.quickman
 2 Dick Mays 
 1 yifuxero
 1 turquoiseb 
 1 martyboi
 1 brian.lee108 
 1 anartaxius
 1 Rick Archer 
 1 Michael Jackson 
 1 Duveyoung 
 Posters: 30
 Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
 =
 Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
 US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
 Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
 Standard Time (Winter):
 US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
 Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
 For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[awoelflebater]

 

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

 This, FYI, folks, is why there's no point in arguing with Richard. I've been 
doing it just so you all can see what happens if you try.
 

 Exactly. Nice job and you too have the muddy knees and bruised elbows to show 
for it crawling amid the mine fields. Come on in now for a nice meal and hot 
drink. Oh yea, and there's a hot bath waiting too...
 
 > No, sorry, Share, but I had made it quite clear what I meant by "risen."


 

 << Risen means risen - where else do you think the dead rise, if not into 

 the air? Are you thinking that the risen Christ was crawling on the 
 floor? A resurrected Christ isn't a mere human being with a body - a 
 Christ is a holy spirit - not a gross body. You need to get your ducks 
 in a row and do some research
 

 > In this case, it doesn't mean "risen into the air," as Richard maintains.
 


 When a spirit-soul "rises from the dead" it's a rising, up into the air 
 - they don't just bow and scrape. The resurrected soul that has risen, 
 goes up, not down. A Christ that has been resurrected is totally 
 surrounded by air. Otherwise how could the soul rise up - without air, 
 the soul would sink into the earth.
 > Christ is not reported in the Bible to have been "hovering in the air"
 > when Mary Magdalene saw him. Richard knows that. He also knows
 > (if he's read the Bible passages he cites) that not all of them say Mary
 > M. was the first to see Christ after he rose from the grave (and none
 > of them say he was
 >
 Nobody said that it says in the Bible that Christ "hovered in the air." 
 The Bible say what it says: two women were the first to see the risen 
 Christ - Mary Magdalene and the mother of James. Can't you read?
 
 > hovering in the air above the tomb when he appeared to Mary Magdalene").
 > This is just another of his lying trolls. Like you, initially he made a
 > mistake, but he can't admit it.
 >
 The risen Christ had to be hovering somewhere - where do you think he 
 was hovering? Under the table? The Christ obviously had to be hovering 
 somewhere where Mary Magdalene could see him. If he was the Christ he 
 would have been a holy spirit-soul, not a gross body. Otherwise, how 
 would anyone have known Jesus was the Christ? Go figure. >>

[FairfieldLife] RE: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's Nephew Arrested on Rape Charge - The New Indian Express

[emptybill]

A purported $9.7 Billion fortune. 

Hummh ...

Could the TMO just be about the $$$?
 

 May this is what they mean by evolution of consciousness.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[authfriend]

Richard knows all this, Ann. He's known it all along. He's just doing his usual 
trolling and lying.
 

 << Ahh, I think Judy may have the court advantage at this point. The 
"Ascension" is what clinched it for me. Richard? >>



 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[authfriend]

This, FYI, folks, is why there's no point in arguing with Richard. I've been 
doing it just so you all can see what happens if you try.
 
 > No, sorry, Share, but I had made it quite clear what I meant by "risen."


 

 << Risen means risen - where else do you think the dead rise, if not into 

 the air? Are you thinking that the risen Christ was crawling on the 
 floor? A resurrected Christ isn't a mere human being with a body - a 
 Christ is a holy spirit - not a gross body. You need to get your ducks 
 in a row and do some research
 

 > In this case, it doesn't mean "risen into the air," as Richard maintains.
 


 When a spirit-soul "rises from the dead" it's a rising, up into the air 
 - they don't just bow and scrape. The resurrected soul that has risen, 
 goes up, not down. A Christ that has been resurrected is totally 
 surrounded by air. Otherwise how could the soul rise up - without air, 
 the soul would sink into the earth.
 > Christ is not reported in the Bible to have been "hovering in the air"
 > when Mary Magdalene saw him. Richard knows that. He also knows
 > (if he's read the Bible passages he cites) that not all of them say Mary
 > M. was the first to see Christ after he rose from the grave (and none
 > of them say he was
 >
 Nobody said that it says in the Bible that Christ "hovered in the air." 
 The Bible say what it says: two women were the first to see the risen 
 Christ - Mary Magdalene and the mother of James. Can't you read?
 
 > hovering in the air above the tomb when he appeared to Mary Magdalene").
 > This is just another of his lying trolls. Like you, initially he made a
 > mistake, but he can't admit it.
 >
 The risen Christ had to be hovering somewhere - where do you think he 
 was hovering? Under the table? The Christ obviously had to be hovering 
 somewhere where Mary Magdalene could see him. If he was the Christ he 
 would have been a holy spirit-soul, not a gross body. Otherwise, how 
 would anyone have known Jesus was the Christ? Go figure. >>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[awoelflebater]

 

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

 

 

 Luke (as you know) doesn't say Mary Magdalene was the first to see the risen 
Christ. 


<< Mary Magdalene was at Jesus burial, and she is the only person that all four 
Gospels say was first to realize that Jesus had risen. >>
 

 "Realizing," as you know, is not "seeing," Richard.
 

 << John 20 and Mark 16:9 specifically name her as the first person to see 
Jesus after his Resurrection. >>
 

 Right. Nobody was arguing about that, as you know.
 

 << Luke 23:55 states: "the women who had come with Jesus from Galilee" - the 
women were Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary", who in Mark is "the mother of 
James". They were the first to see the risen Jesus. >>
 

 No, as you know, Luke does not say they saw the risen Jesus. The women, as you 
know, were told Jesus had risen by two men in shining clothes (presumably 
angels) who were at the tomb, but the women didn't see Jesus. (And as you know, 
Luke says, "It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the 
others with them who told this to the apostles," not just Mary M. and "the 
other Mary." According to Luke, as you know, at least five women came to the 
tomb. The two men spoke to them all at the same time, and Luke, as you know, 
does not tell us which of the women first understood what the men were saying.)
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene
 
And none of the Gospels say he was "hovering in the air" when Mary M. saw him.
 

 << Where else do you think a risen "Christ" would be, if not hovering in the 
air - lying on the ground? Go figure. >>
 
 

 As you know, the Gospel accounts describe him as just standing, or walking, or 
sitting. As you know, in Luke, Mary M. at first mistakes him for the gardener. 
As you know, he doesn't "hover in the air" or "rise into the air" until the 
Ascension 40 days after his death and resurrection.
 

 Ahh, I think Judy may have the court advantage at this point. The "Ascension" 
is what clinched it for me. Richard?
 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[authfriend]

Your previous posts have said Mary M. saw the risen Christ "hovering in the 
air." None of the Gospels say that.
 

 Nobody is arguing that Mary M. wasn't the first to see him, as related in the 
Gospel of John. That has never been in dispute.
 
 << The lies are in your previous posts about what Mary M. 
style="font-style:italic;">saw,
 



 Mary Magdalene was the first person to see the risen Christ - that much has 
now been established. What she saw was the risen Christ - so, I guess we could 
say that Mary Magdalene saw the risen Christ. This has now been established. 
She was the first who saw the risen Christ. Or, put another way: the first 
person to see the risen Christ was Mary of Magdala, called Magdalene. >>
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[authfriend]

 

 Luke (as you know) doesn't say Mary Magdalene was the first to see the risen 
Christ. 


<< Mary Magdalene was at Jesus burial, and she is the only person that all four 
Gospels say was first to realize that Jesus had risen. >>
 

 "Realizing," as you know, is not "seeing," Richard.
 

 << John 20 and Mark 16:9 specifically name her as the first person to see 
Jesus after his Resurrection. >>
 

 Right. Nobody was arguing about that, as you know.
 

 << Luke 23:55 states: "the women who had come with Jesus from Galilee" - the 
women were Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary", who in Mark is "the mother of 
James". They were the first to see the risen Jesus. >>
 

 No, as you know, Luke does not say they saw the risen Jesus. The women, as you 
know, were told Jesus had risen by two men in shining clothes (presumably 
angels) who were at the tomb, but the women didn't see Jesus. (And as you know, 
Luke says, "It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the 
others with them who told this to the apostles," not just Mary M. and "the 
other Mary." According to Luke, as you know, at least five women came to the 
tomb. The two men spoke to them all at the same time, and Luke, as you know, 
does not tell us which of the women first understood what the men were saying.)
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene
 
And none of the Gospels say he was "hovering in the air" when Mary M. saw him.
 

 << Where else do you think a risen "Christ" would be, if not hovering in the 
air - lying on the ground? Go figure. >>
 
 

 As you know, the Gospel accounts describe him as just standing, or walking, or 
sitting. As you know, in Luke, Mary M. at first mistakes him for the gardener. 
As you know, he doesn't "hover in the air" or "rise into the air" until the 
Ascension 40 days after his death and resurrection.
 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Welcome to 2014

[Bhairitu]

Given that all the US did in 2008 was slap a band aid on the economic 
crisis the chickens are going to come home to roost.   The banksters 
will present us with their gambling bill and we in turn should salute 
with our middle fingers.  Then the brawl begins.  No way I'm paying for 
their losses.


On 12/31/2013 04:27 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote:


What does the new year have in store for us?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIFkjiJm0gc

[FairfieldLife] RE: Fw: Fwd: Stunning Portraits Of The World’s Remotest Tribes

[awoelflebater]

Fabulous exotic creatures these human beings are. Just look at the adornment, 
the body art, the color, the functionality that integrates with the aesthetic 
qualities of the garments, the jewelry, the body paint or the fur. This was 
great feasting for the eyes. Thank God for diversity and individuality that 
still exists in the hidden pockets of the world.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[Richard J. Williams]

On 12/31/2013 3:26 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:

 > No, sorry, Share, but I had made it quite clear what I meant by "risen."
 >
Risen means risen - where else do you think the dead rise, if not into 
the air? Are you thinking that the risen Christ was crawling on the 
floor? A resurrected Christ isn't a mere human being with a body - a 
Christ is a holy spirit - not a gross body. You need to get your ducks 
in a row and do some research.

 > In this case, it doesn't mean "risen into the air," as Richard maintains.
 >
When a spirit-soul "rises from the dead" it's a rising, up into the air 
- they don't just bow and scrape. The resurrected soul that has risen, 
goes up, not down. A Christ that has been resurrected is totally 
surrounded by air. Otherwise how could the soul rise up - without air, 
the soul would sink into the earth.

 > Christ is not reported in the Bible to have been "hovering in the air"
 > when Mary Magdalene saw him. Richard knows that. He also knows
 > (if he's read the Bible passages he cites) that not all of them say Mary
 > M. was the first to see Christ after he rose from the grave (and none
 > of them say he was
 >
Nobody said that it says in the Bible that Christ "hovered in the air." 
The Bible say what it says: two women were the first to see the risen 
Christ - Mary Magdalene and the mother of James. Can't you read?

 > hovering in the air above the tomb when he appeared to Mary Magdalene").
 > This is just another of his lying trolls. Like you, initially he made a
 > mistake, but he can't admit it.
 >
The risen Christ had to be hovering somewhere - where do you think he 
was hovering? Under the table? The Christ obviously had to be hovering 
somewhere where Mary Magdalene could see him. If he was the Christ he 
would have been a holy spirit-soul, not a gross body. Otherwise, how 
would anyone have known Jesus was the Christ? Go figure.

[FairfieldLife] RE: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[awoelflebater]

 

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

 On 12/31/2013 3:08 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 > The lies are in your previous posts about what Mary M. 
 > style="font-style:italic;">saw,
 >
 
 Mary Magdalene was the first person to see the risen Christ - that much has 
now been established. What she saw was the risen Christ - so, I guess we could 
say that Mary Magdalene saw the risen Christ. This has now been established. 
She was the first who saw the risen Christ. Or, put another way: the first 
person to see the risen Christ was Mary of Magdala, called Magdalene.
 
 

 I could buy that if I could first buy the fact that there was a Christ, a Mary 
Magdalene and a rising. 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Gallup: Only 5% of Religious Americans Are Non-Christians

[Bhairitu]

Depends on what questions they asked, doesn't it?  If they asked me if I 
was from a "Christian family" about the only thing I could say was my 
maternal grandmother was a Methodist and attended church.  The rest of 
us just said "meh."



On 12/31/2013 05:06 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote:


A recent Gallup poll refutes the claim 
 made by Barack Obama on 
March 9, 2008 that “we are no longer a Christian nation.”



Gallup  found that three quarters of all 
Americans - a supermajority - identify themselves as Christians, with 
only five percent saying they are practicing members of a 
non-Christian faith.



http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/gallup-only-5-religious-americans-are-non-christians

[FairfieldLife] RE: Scientific Breakthroughs of 2013

[awoelflebater]

 

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

 Share,
 

 It's hard to fathom.  But there are many intelligent fundamentalist Christians 
who believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old.  And they believe in the 
literal interpretation of the Old and New Testament.
 

 I would really have to reevaluate the meaning of the word "intelligent" then, 
John. Truly, how could one possibly see someone as "intelligent" on a level 
that matters if they believe this kind of thing. Intelligence surely needs to 
include an ability to reason, to understand history and evolution and to grasp 
in some way the rudimentary principles of science and geology and biology (to 
list two fields out of a number of them) that might be able to shed some light 
on why and how the world is not 6,000 years old.  I would really question the 
intelligence of anyone who refuses to open their minds up to bigger 
possibilities that perhaps go against their hard-held beliefs. One is not 
intelligent if one is closed or unwilling to entertain alternate explanations 
or ideas.

[FairfieldLife] Gallup: Only 5% of Religious Americans Are Non-Christians

[emptybill]

A recent Gallup poll refutes the claim 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmC3IevZiik made by Barack Obama on March 9, 
2008 that “we are no longer a Christian nation.”
 

 Gallup http://www.gallup.com/ found that three quarters of all Americans - a 
supermajority - identify themselves as Christians, with only five percent 
saying they are practicing members of a non-Christian faith.
 

 
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/gallup-only-5-religious-americans-are-non-christians
 
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/gallup-only-5-religious-americans-are-non-christians

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[Richard J. Williams]

On 12/31/2013 3:08 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:
> The lies are in your previous posts about what Mary M. saw,
>
Mary Magdalene was the first person to see the risen Christ - that much 
has now been established. What she saw was the risen Christ - so, I 
guess we could say that Mary Magdalene saw the risen Christ. This has 
now been established. She was the first who saw the risen Christ. Or, 
put another way: the first person to see the risen Christ was Mary of 
Magdala, called Magdalene.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[Richard J. Williams]

On 12/31/2013 3:05 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Luke (as you know) doesn't say Mary Magdalene was the

first to see the risen Christ.

>
Mary Magdalene was at Jesus burial, and she is the only person that all 
four Gospels say was first to realize that Jesus had risen. John 20 and 
Mark 16:9 specifically name her as the first person to see Jesus after 
his Resurrection. Luke 23:55 states: "the women who had come with Jesus 
from Galilee" - the women were Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary", who 
in Mark is "the mother of James". They were the first to see the risen 
Jesus.


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

> And /none/ of the Gospels say he was "hovering in the air" when Mary 
M. saw him.

>
Where else do you think a risen "Christ" would be, if not hovering in 
the air - lying on the ground? Go figure.

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: HUM... HUM...HUM... ! ! !

[Bhairitu]

Unfortunately the "land of the Ved" is quite less than Vedic or even 
civilized.  Those with money live like kings while those without 
struggle.  They are often illiterate too.  This is NO right.  Things 
must change.


On 12/31/2013 03:39 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote:


Re "Yes, this *is *India where money talks":


Money talks everywhere unfortunately, but the recent high-profile rape 
cases in India which have shocked the world probably mean something 
will be done this time.


Is there anything viler than the rape and murder of that young Indian 
girl some months ago? Perhaps there is: the deliberate disfiguring of 
young women by throwing acid in their faces. The following BBC 
documentary, "India - a Dangerous Place to be a Woman" makes very 
uncomfortable viewing, especially from the 23:03 mark.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TR-aZymFHSw

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: 100 Great Rock Artists

[Richard Williams]

Janis Joplin

[image: Inline image 1]

Me and Bobby McGee - from the album Pearl
http://youtu.be/6iX-EcRKXJw

Cheap Thrills
http://youtu.be/VobLiLA9qAk

Janis Joplin was born in Port Arthur, Texas the same year I was born. I met
Janis at Thomas Jefferson High School in San Antonio - we both graduated at
the same time in 1960 and later in Austin when she came back from the San
Francisco scene. Later back in San Francisco we met up again at the Family
Dog in 1968 when she was performing with Big Brother and the Holding
Company. She and the band moved into a commune house up in Lagunitas -
later Janis rented a house in Larkspur.

Their biggest hit record was the album Cheap Thrills which featured cover
art by Robert Crumb. The album was number one on the Billboard Hot 100 for
eight weeks in 1968. Cheap Thrills was ranked number 338 in Rolling Stone's
the 500 greatest albums of all time. After she split with Big Brother she
formed a new band called the Full Tilt Boogie Band. Her album Pearl was
ranked No. 122 on Rolling Stone magazine's list of the 500 Greatest Albums
of All Time.

[image: Inline image 2]

"Janis was ranked number 46 on its list of of the 100 Greatest Artists of
All Time in 2004, and and number 28 on its list of the 100 Greatest Singers
of All Time. Time magazine called Joplin "probably the most powerful singer
to emerge from the white rock movement", and Richard Goldstein wrote for
the May 1968 issue of Vogue magazine that Joplin was "the most staggering
leading woman in rock..."

Read more:

http://www.rollingstone.com//100-greatest-artists-of-all-time

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

'Rock Chicks'
by Alison Stieven-Taylor
Rockpool Publishing, 2007



On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Richard Williams wrote:

> Jefferson Airplane
>
> [image: Inline image 1]
>
> Jefferson Airplane - White Rabbit 1967
> http://youtu.be/WANNqr-vcx0
>
> In this song you can hear Grace Slick's great contralto voice. Two hits
> from the album Surrealistic Pillow are "Somebody to Love" and "White
> Rabbit", listed in Rolling Stone's "500 Greatest Songs of All Time."
>
> I first saw them at the first "Human Be-In" held in Golden Gate Park in
> 1967 and later at Chet Helm's Family Dog venue in San Francisco and at the
> Avalon Ballroom. I once played snooker with Mac Rebennack (Dr. John, the
> Night Tripper) at the Airplane mansion down in the basement which was
> located at 2400 Fulton Street. My ex-wife, Sally Mann, married Spencer
> Dryden (RIP), the Airplane drummer, after he got fired from the band,
> according to Tamarkin. Go figure.
>
> Work cited:
>
> 'Got a revolution!: the turbulent flight of Jefferson Airplane'
> Jeff Tamarkin
> Atria Books, 2003
> p. 197
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Richard Williams wrote:
>
>> The Grateful Dead
>>
>> [image: Inline image 1]
>>
>> Cover art by Mouse
>>
>> Grateful Dead - Touch of Grey 1987
>> http://youtu.be/wOaXTg3nAuY
>>
>> Rolling Stone ranked them 57th in the list of the "Greatest Artists of
>> all Time." I attended several Dead performances in San Francisco in 1966 at
>> the Fillmore Auditorium and at the Avalon Ballroom along with Owsley
>> Stanley. The Dead are listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as
>> performing the most rock concerts - 2,318 concerts. Founding members: Jerry
>> Garcia - guitar, vocals; Bob Weir - guitar, vocals; Ron "Pigpen" McKernan -
>> keyboards, harmonica, vocals; Phil Lesh -bass, vocals; and Bill Kreutzmann
>> - drums.
>>
>> Read more:
>>
>> 'Rock of Ages: The Rolling Stone History of Rock and Roll'
>> by Ed Ward, Geoffrey Stokes and Ken Tucker
>> Rolling Stone Press
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Richard Williams 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Heart
>>>
>>> [image: Inline image 1]
>>>
>>> Heart - Crazy On You (live 1977) HQ
>>> http://youtu.be/V44HiAX91Hs
>>>
>>> One of the greatest rock bands of all time, Ann and Nancy Wilson. Number
>>> 57 on VH1's "100 Greatest Artists of Hard Rock". They performed at the
>>> first Texxas Jam on the July 4 weekend in 1978 in Dallas, Texas, and at the
>>> Cotton Bowl in front of 100,000 people, along with Aerosmith, Van Halen,
>>> Ted Nugent, Journey, Frank Marino, Atlanta Rhythm Section, Head East, and
>>> Walter Egan. "Heart is among the most commercially enduring hard rock bands
>>> in history. This span of over four decades gives them the longest span of
>>> Top 10 albums by a female fronted band."
>>>
>>> Read more:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_(band)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Richard Williams 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Doug Sahm

 [image: Inline image 1]

 Sir Douglas Quintet - She's About A Mover
 http://youtu.be/XboE3_7KZ3Y

 Taking advantage of the British invasion! This song has a unique,
 haunting sound - a credit to Augie Meyers' signature playing on a Vox organ
 that I had to lug around in a U-Haul for

[FairfieldLife] Welcome to 2014

[s3raphita]

What does the new year have in store for us? 
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIFkjiJm0gc 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIFkjiJm0gc

[FairfieldLife] Post Count Wed 01-Jan-14 00:15:03 UTC

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): 12/28/13 00:00:00
End Date (UTC): 01/04/14 00:00:00
489 messages as of (UTC) 01/01/14 00:08:28

 69 Share Long 
 67 Richard J. Williams 
 46 Richard Williams 
 44 authfriend
 38 awoelflebater
 32 s3raphita
 29 TurquoiseB 
 28 dhamiltony2k5
 27 emptybill
 24 Bhairitu 
 14 doctordumbass
 13 bobpriced
  9 jr_esq
  8 steve.sundur
  8 cardemaister
  6 Mike Dixon 
  5 feste37 
  4 nablusoss1008 
  3 wgm4u 
  3 waspaligap 
  2 martin.quickman
  2 Dick Mays 
  1 yifuxero
  1 turquoiseb 
  1 martyboi
  1 brian.lee108 
  1 anartaxius
  1 Rick Archer 
  1 Michael Jackson 
  1 Duveyoung 
Posters: 30
Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
=
Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
Standard Time (Winter):
US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[authfriend]

Share, just read over the discussion between Richard and me, once, twice, as 
many times as necessary until you see Richard's original mistake and then his 
lies after I corrected him.
 

 One of your biggest problems in any debate-type situation is that you do not 
take the time to read and understand what others are saying. That makes your 
comments non sequiturs at best, and at worst you end up trying to defend people 
without integrity.
 

 << Judy, I think you and Richard were using the word *risen* in different 
ways. Richard was saying that Mary M was first to see Jesus after he had risen 
from the dead whereas you were talking about Jesus' ascension into heaven. >>
 

 
 
 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 3:53 PM, "authfriend@..."  wrote:
 
   Care to translate that into English for me, Share?
 

 Perhaps you meant to type "was the" instead of "from"?
 

 If so, of course nobody was arguing otherwise. And of course that isn't what 
Richard has been saying anyway, as you know if you've been following the 
discussion. You can just read what I quoted below in my previous post if you've 
forgotten. But I don't think you have.
 

 Why are you trying to protect him when the only tactic you have is to be 
dishonest about what he's said? 
 
 << Judy, I think Richard was saying that Mary Magdelene from first to see 
Christ risen from the dead. >>
 

 Oh, and by the way, as you know if you read your Bible, Luke does not say Mary 
M. was the first to see Christ risen from the dead--but Richard insists all 
four Gospels say that.
 

 
   << No, sorry, Share, but I had made it quite clear what I meant by "risen." 
In this case, it doesn't mean "risen into the air," as Richard maintains. 
Christ is not reported in the Bible to have been "hovering in the air" when 
Mary Magdalene saw him. Richard knows that. He also knows (if he's read the 
Bible passages he cites) that not all of them say Mary M. was the first to see 
Christ after he rose from the grave (and none of them say he was "hovering in 
the air above the tomb when he appeared to Mary Magdalene"). This is just 
another of his lying trolls. Like you, initially he made a mistake, but he 
can't admit it.
 

 The point here is not that you make mistakes; everybody does that. The point 
is how poorly it reflects on your character that you not only can't just 
acknowledge the mistake and move on, but that you actually try to defend the 
mistakes of your pals and their attempts to cover them up.
 

 << Judy, I don't think Richard is lying at all! You and he are merely defining 
*risen* differently. >>
 
 
 
 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:37 AM, "authfriend@..."  
wrote:
 
   Why Richard is lying about something so easy to check, I have no idea.
 


 Let me make myself clear: Mary Magdalene was the first person to see Jesus 
after the crucifixion when He had risen up out of His tomb, hovering in the 
air. The Ascension into heaven came later. Mary Magdalene was the first person 
to see the risen Christ. All the four gospels agree on this: Matthew 28:1, Mark 
16:1, Luke 24:10, and John 20:1.
 

 Christ was hovering in the air above the tomb when he appeared to Mary 
Magdalene, she was the first to see Him and this was forty days BEFORE the 
Ascension when He was taken up into the clouds into heaven.
 
 

 On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 11:24 PM, mailto:authfriend@...> wrote:
   She saw him risen from the grave, but not risen into the sky. The Ascension 
didn't take place for another 40 days, and only the remaining disciples 
witnessed it.
 

 
 << authfriend wrote:
 > I don't believe Mary Magdalen was "the first 
 > to see the Jesus rise up into the sky," either.
 >
 Maybe it's time to get all our ducks in a row: Mary Magdalene was the first 
person to see the risen Christ. >>
 

 

 On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 7:03 PM, mailto:authfriend@...> wrote:
   I don't believe Mary Magdalen was "the first to see the Jesus rise up into 
the sky," either.
 
 







































 
 
 
 



 
 

 
 



 
 
 
 

[FairfieldLife] RE: Sixties Brit pop ladies

[s3raphita]

Let's not forget groovy Julie Driscoll. Probably the best cover of Donovan's 
"Season of the Witch". Eat your heart out Austin Powers.:
 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCKZPEleI-U 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCKZPEleI-U

[FairfieldLife] RE: HUM... HUM...HUM... ! ! !

[s3raphita]

Re "Yes, this is India where money talks":

 

 Money talks everywhere unfortunately, but the recent high-profile rape cases 
in India which have shocked the world probably mean something will be done this 
time.
 Is there anything viler than the rape and murder of that young Indian girl 
some months ago? Perhaps there is: the deliberate disfiguring of young women by 
throwing acid in their faces. The following BBC documentary, "India - a 
Dangerous Place to be a Woman" makes very uncomfortable viewing, especially 
from the 23:03 mark.
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TR-aZymFHSw 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TR-aZymFHSw

 

[FairfieldLife] RE: Female Rock Stars

[s3raphita]

Barry plugs John Renbourn on a parallel thread. I only know his work with 
Pentangle. I prefer their old songs to Fairport these days.
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q9of8OhkeQ&list=FLJad8vN225Nr5hDIzlEOYMA 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q9of8OhkeQ&list=FLJad8vN225Nr5hDIzlEOYMA

 

[FairfieldLife] RE: Secret Doctrines

[s3raphita]

The photo you post of Lama Yongden was on the title page of "The Secret Oral 
Teachings in Tibetan Buddhist Sects" by Alexandra David-Neel. I bought the book 
decades ago in a regular book store and remember the assistant who served me 
couldn't stop smirking. Alas, the petty humiliations we must endure on our long 
road to awakening . . .  
 

[FairfieldLife] RE: Sixties Brit pop ladies

[s3raphita]

"Johnny Remember Me" - yes. My favourite Joe Meek production (whereas Maggie 
Thatcher's was "Telstar"!). The fawning and fainting girls . . .
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e4JXwd7XMo&feature=youtu.be 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e4JXwd7XMo&feature=youtu.be

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[Share Long]

Judy, I think you and Richard were using the word *risen* in different ways. 
Richard was saying that Mary M was first to see Jesus after he had risen from 
the dead whereas you were talking about Jesus' ascension into heaven.





On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 3:53 PM, "authfri...@yahoo.com" 
 wrote:
 
  
Care to translate that into English for me, Share?

Perhaps you meant to type "was the" instead of "from"?

If so, of course nobody was arguing otherwise. And of course that isn't what 
Richard has been saying anyway, as you know if you've been following the 
discussion. You can just read what I quoted below in my previous post if you've 
forgotten. But I don't think you have.

Why are you trying to protect him when the only tactic you have is to be 
dishonest about what he's said? 


<< Judy, I think Richard was saying that Mary Magdelene from first to see 
Christ risen from the dead. >>

Oh, and by the way, as you know if you read your Bible, Luke does not say Mary 
M. was the first to see Christ risen from the dead--but Richard insists all 
four Gospels say that.


  
<< No, sorry, Share, but I had made it quite clear what I meant by "risen." In 
this case, it doesn't mean "risen into the air," as Richard maintains. Christ 
is not reported in the Bible to have been "hovering in the air" when Mary 
Magdalene saw him. Richard knows that. He also knows (if he's read the Bible 
passages he cites) that not all of them say Mary M. was the first to see Christ 
after he rose from the grave (and none of them say he was "hovering in the air 
above the tomb when he appeared to Mary Magdalene").This is just another of his 
lying trolls. Like you, initially he made a mistake, but he can't admit it.

The point here is not that you make mistakes; everybody does that. The point is 
how poorly it reflects on your character that you not only can't just 
acknowledge the mistake and move on, but that you actually try to defend the 
mistakes of your pals and their attempts to cover them up.



<< Judy, I don't think Richard is lying at all! You and he are merely defining 
*risen* differently. >>




On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:37 AM, "authfriend@..."  wrote:
 
  
Why Richard is lying about something so easy to check, I have no idea.




Let me make myself clear: Mary Magdalene was the first person to see Jesus 
after the crucifixion when He had risen up out of His tomb, hovering in the 
air. The Ascension into heaven came later. Mary Magdalene was the first person 
to see the risen Christ. All the four gospels agree on this: Matthew 28:1, Mark 
16:1, Luke 24:10, and John 20:1.


Christ was hovering in the air above the tomb when he appeared to Mary 
Magdalene, she was the first to see Him and this was forty days BEFORE the 
Ascension when He was taken up into the clouds into heaven.



On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 11:24 PM,  wrote:
>
> 
>>  
>>She saw him risen from the grave, but not risen into the sky. The Ascension 
>>didn't take place for another 40 days, and only the remaining disciples 
>>witnessed it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>><< authfriend wrote:
>>> I don't believe Mary Magdalen was "the first 
>>> to see the Jesus rise up into the sky," either.
>>>
>>Maybe it's time to get all our ducks in a row: Mary Magdalene was the first 
>>person to see the risen Christ. >>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 7:03 PM,  wrote:
>>>
>>> 
  
I don't believe Mary Magdalen was"the first to see the Jesus rise up into 
the sky," either.

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Scientific Breakthroughs of 2013

[authfriend]

Not necessarily the same article. As I just got done saying, the poll results 
are all over the news. He could have read about them anywhere.
 

 << Judy, here's what noozguru posted: I can really believe that 1/3 of the US 
population does not accept evolution. >>

 

 I know what he said, Share.
 
<< I didn't know that you two were referring to the same article, the same 
group. >>
 

 
 
 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 3:47 PM, "authfriend@..."  wrote:
 
   Same group, Share. He's referring to that recent poll discussed in the 
article I linked to. It's all over the news.
 

 << Judy, you're talking about the group you read about. And I'm talking about 
the group that noozguru posted about! >>
 

 Nice try, Share, but that's wrong too. They don't believe in evolution--for 
any critter, or even any plant--because evolution isn't in the Bible. The Bible 
says God made everything once for all time. That's what the poll question 
asked, and they said that's what they believed.

 
 << IOW, Judy, I took what noozguru said at face value. I was not guessing 
about 1/3. I was guessing about why they don't believe in evolution. >>
 

 
 
 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 2:12 PM, Share Long  wrote:
 
   Judy, my post was not a wrong guess. It was a reference to noozguru saying 
that 1/3 of Americans don't believe in evolution.
 

 
 
 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:53 PM, "authfriend@..."  wrote:
 
   Wrong guess (and why guess, when it's so easy to find out what the facts 
are?):
 

 "A poll out Monday shows that less than half – 43 percent – of those who 
identify with the Republican Party say they believe humans have evolved over 
time, plunging from 54 percent four years ago. Forty-eight percent say they 
believe 'humans and other living things have existed in their present form 
since the beginning of time,' up from 39 percent in 2009. [my italics]
 

 "At 67 percent and 65 percent, respectively, the numbers of Democrats and 
independents who believe in evolution have remained more or less the same since 
2009. They’re also in step with the population nationally: Six-in-10 Americans 
say they believe humans have evolved."
 

 Read more:
 
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-belief-in-evolution-plummets-poll-reveals/
 
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-belief-in-evolution-plummets-poll-reveals/

 

 
 << noozguru, my guess is that what is meant is that 1/3 or Americans do not 
believe that humans evolved from apes. I'd further speculate that for many of 
that 1/3, the rejection of evolution is based almost entirely on their 
religious beliefs. Still, it is pretty mind boggling in this day and age! >>
 

 I can really believe that 1/3 of the US population does not accept evolution.  
It's pretty obvious in their behavior and lack of intelligence. :-D  >>






 
 
 
 




 
 

 




 
 
 
 


 
 

 
 




 
 
 
 




 
 

 




 
 
 
 



 
 

 
 



 
 
 
 

[FairfieldLife] "Won't Last Long" (Tom Petty) - Sayonara, 2013!

[doctordumbass]

A fitting send-off!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjCaUhiVXg8 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjCaUhiVXg8

lyrics:

Won't last Long - (by one of the great American troubadours, Tom Petty)

 You and me been over this ground
 Over this ground before
 I can't explain, I can't explain
 I can't explain anymore
 Oh it's hard to watch you go
 I'm down but it won't last long
 I'm down but it won't last long
 Don't let me down, don't let me down
 Don't let me down like this
 It's not the same
 Over and over, over and over again
 Yeah, this is not my day
 I'm down but it won't last long
 I'm down but it won't last long
 Half my brain has gone away
 Half my brain has gone
 So far away
 Don't let me down, don't let me down
 Don't let me down again
 Don't shake me up, don't burn me out
 I'm hurt and you won't let me in
 Yeah, this is not my day
 I'm down but it won't last long
 I'm down but it won't last long
 Oh
 I'm down but it won't last long
 I'm down but it won't last long
 I'm down but it won't last long
 Yeah, no
 I'm down but it won't last long
 Oh
 
 

 Songwriters
 PETTY, TOM
 Published by
 Lyrics © Warner/Chappell Music, Inc.
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[authfriend]

Care to translate that into English for me, Share?
 

 Perhaps you meant to type "was the" instead of "from"?
 

 If so, of course nobody was arguing otherwise. And of course that isn't what 
Richard has been saying anyway, as you know if you've been following the 
discussion. You can just read what I quoted below in my previous post if you've 
forgotten. But I don't think you have.
 

 Why are you trying to protect him when the only tactic you have is to be 
dishonest about what he's said? 
 
 << Judy, I think Richard was saying that Mary Magdelene from first to see 
Christ risen from the dead. >>
 

 Oh, and by the way, as you know if you read your Bible, Luke does not say Mary 
M. was the first to see Christ risen from the dead--but Richard insists all 
four Gospels say that.
 

 
   << No, sorry, Share, but I had made it quite clear what I meant by "risen." 
In this case, it doesn't mean "risen into the air," as Richard maintains. 
Christ is not reported in the Bible to have been "hovering in the air" when 
Mary Magdalene saw him. Richard knows that. He also knows (if he's read the 
Bible passages he cites) that not all of them say Mary M. was the first to see 
Christ after he rose from the grave (and none of them say he was "hovering in 
the air above the tomb when he appeared to Mary Magdalene"). This is just 
another of his lying trolls. Like you, initially he made a mistake, but he 
can't admit it.
 

 The point here is not that you make mistakes; everybody does that. The point 
is how poorly it reflects on your character that you not only can't just 
acknowledge the mistake and move on, but that you actually try to defend the 
mistakes of your pals and their attempts to cover them up.
 

 << Judy, I don't think Richard is lying at all! You and he are merely defining 
*risen* differently. >>
 
 
 
 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:37 AM, "authfriend@..."  
wrote:
 
   Why Richard is lying about something so easy to check, I have no idea.
 


 Let me make myself clear: Mary Magdalene was the first person to see Jesus 
after the crucifixion when He had risen up out of His tomb, hovering in the 
air. The Ascension into heaven came later. Mary Magdalene was the first person 
to see the risen Christ. All the four gospels agree on this: Matthew 28:1, Mark 
16:1, Luke 24:10, and John 20:1.
 

 Christ was hovering in the air above the tomb when he appeared to Mary 
Magdalene, she was the first to see Him and this was forty days BEFORE the 
Ascension when He was taken up into the clouds into heaven.
 
 

 On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 11:24 PM, mailto:authfriend@...> wrote:
   She saw him risen from the grave, but not risen into the sky. The Ascension 
didn't take place for another 40 days, and only the remaining disciples 
witnessed it.
 

 
 << authfriend wrote:
 > I don't believe Mary Magdalen was "the first 
 > to see the Jesus rise up into the sky," either.
 >
 Maybe it's time to get all our ducks in a row: Mary Magdalene was the first 
person to see the risen Christ. >>
 

 

 On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 7:03 PM, mailto:authfriend@...> wrote:
   I don't believe Mary Magdalen was "the first to see the Jesus rise up into 
the sky," either.
 
 







































 
 
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Scientific Breakthroughs of 2013

[Share Long]

Judy, here's what noozguru posted: I can really believe that 1/3 of the US 
population does not accept evolution.

I didn't know that you two were referring to the same article, the same group.





On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 3:47 PM, "authfri...@yahoo.com" 
 wrote:
 
  
Same group, Share. He's referring to that recent poll discussed in the article 
I linked to. It's all over the news.



<< Judy, you're talking about the group you read about. And I'm talking about 
the group that noozguru posted about! >>


Nice try, Share, but that's wrong too. They don't believe in evolution--for any 
critter, or even any plant--because evolution isn't in the Bible. The Bible 
says God made everything once for all time. That's what the poll question 
asked, and they said that's what they believed.



<< IOW, Judy, I took what noozguru said at face value. I was not guessing about 
1/3. I was guessing about why they don't believe in evolution. >>





On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 2:12 PM, Share Long  wrote:
 
  
Judy, my post was not a wrong guess. It was a reference to noozguru saying that 
1/3 of Americans don't believe in evolution.





On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:53 PM, "authfriend@..."  wrote:
 
  
Wrong guess (and why guess, when it's so easy to find out what the facts are?):

"A poll out Monday shows that less than half – 43 percent – of those who 
identify with the Republican Party say they believe humans have evolved over 
time, plunging from 54 percent four years ago. Forty-eight percent say they 
believe 'humans and other living things have existed in their present form 
since the beginning of time,' up from 39 percent in 2009. [my italics]

"At 67 percent and 65 percent, respectively, the numbers of Democrats and 
independents who believe in evolution have remained more or less the same since 
2009. They’re also in step with the population nationally: Six-in-10 Americans 
say they believe humans have evolved."

Read more:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-belief-in-evolution-plummets-poll-reveals/




<< noozguru, my guess is that what is meant is that 1/3 or Americans do not 
believe that humans evolved from apes. I'd further speculate that for many of 
that 1/3, the rejection of evolution is based almost entirely on their 
religious beliefs. Still, it is pretty mind boggling in this day and age! >>

I can really believe that 1/3 of the US population does not accept evolution.  
It's pretty obvious in their behavior and lack of intelligence. :-D  >>

[FairfieldLife] RE: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's Nephew Arrested on Rape Charge - The New Indian Express

[authfriend]

Rick, see:
 

 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/368936 
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/368936

 
 
http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/Maharishi-Mahesh-Yogis-Nephew-Arrested-on-Rape-Charge/2013/12/31/article1973903.ece
 
http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/Maharishi-Mahesh-Yogis-Nephew-Arrested-on-Rape-Charge/2013/12/31/article1973903.ece

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Scientific Breakthroughs of 2013

[authfriend]

Same group, Share. He's referring to that recent poll discussed in the article 
I linked to. It's all over the news.
 

 << Judy, you're talking about the group you read about. And I'm talking about 
the group that noozguru posted about! >>
 

 Nice try, Share, but that's wrong too. They don't believe in evolution--for 
any critter, or even any plant--because evolution isn't in the Bible. The Bible 
says God made everything once for all time. That's what the poll question 
asked, and they said that's what they believed.

 
 << IOW, Judy, I took what noozguru said at face value. I was not guessing 
about 1/3. I was guessing about why they don't believe in evolution. >>
 

 
 
 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 2:12 PM, Share Long  wrote:
 
   Judy, my post was not a wrong guess. It was a reference to noozguru saying 
that 1/3 of Americans don't believe in evolution.
 

 
 
 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:53 PM, "authfriend@..."  wrote:
 
   Wrong guess (and why guess, when it's so easy to find out what the facts 
are?):
 

 "A poll out Monday shows that less than half – 43 percent – of those who 
identify with the Republican Party say they believe humans have evolved over 
time, plunging from 54 percent four years ago. Forty-eight percent say they 
believe 'humans and other living things have existed in their present form 
since the beginning of time,' up from 39 percent in 2009. [my italics]
 

 "At 67 percent and 65 percent, respectively, the numbers of Democrats and 
independents who believe in evolution have remained more or less the same since 
2009. They’re also in step with the population nationally: Six-in-10 Americans 
say they believe humans have evolved."
 

 Read more:
 
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-belief-in-evolution-plummets-poll-reveals/
 
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-belief-in-evolution-plummets-poll-reveals/

 

 
 << noozguru, my guess is that what is meant is that 1/3 or Americans do not 
believe that humans evolved from apes. I'd further speculate that for many of 
that 1/3, the rejection of evolution is based almost entirely on their 
religious beliefs. Still, it is pretty mind boggling in this day and age! >>
 

 I can really believe that 1/3 of the US population does not accept evolution.  
It's pretty obvious in their behavior and lack of intelligence. :-D  >>






 
 
 
 




 
 

 




 
 
 
 


 
 

 
 




 
 
 
 




 
 

 
 



 
 
 
 

[FairfieldLife] Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's Nephew Arrested on Rape Charge - The New Indian Express

[Rick Archer]

http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/Maharishi-Mahesh-Yogis-Nephew-Arreste
d-on-Rape-Charge/2013/12/31/article1973903.ece

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: ACLU Sues for Disclosure of Surveillance Executive Order

[Share Long]

noozguru, and hopefully they won't figure out who Sharon is!





On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:56 PM, Bhairitu  wrote:
 
  
I'm sure the first things the NSA kids do each day is to check what Empty, 
Sharon and Bhairitu have posted on FFL.  It's very important for "national 
security", you know.

On 12/31/2013 11:31 AM, Share Long wrote:

  
>emptybill, do we really need TWO Big Brothers watching us?!
>
>
>
>
>On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:22 PM, "emptyb...@yahoo.com" 
> wrote:
> 
>  
>What else but to keep you from "Sharon" them.
>
>Just repeat to the clerk ... my name
  ain't Sharon.
>
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Scientific Breakthroughs of 2013

[Share Long]

Judy, you're talking about the group you read about. And I'm talking about the 
group that noozguru posted about!





On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 3:24 PM, "authfri...@yahoo.com" 
 wrote:
 
  
Nice try, Share, but that's wrong too. They don't believe in evolution--for any 
critter, or even any plant--because evolution isn't in the Bible. The Bible 
says God made everything once for all time. That's what the poll question 
asked, and they said that's what they believed.


<< IOW, Judy, I took what noozguru said at face value. I was not guessing about 
1/3. I was guessing about why they don't believe in evolution. >>





On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 2:12 PM, Share Long  wrote:
 
  
Judy, my post was not a wrong guess. It was a reference to noozguru saying that 
1/3 of Americans don't believe in evolution.





On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:53 PM, "authfriend@..."  wrote:
 
  
Wrong guess (and why guess, when it's so easy to find out what the facts are?):

"A poll out Monday shows that less than half – 43 percent – of those who 
identify with the Republican Party say they believe humans have evolved over 
time, plunging from 54 percent four years ago. Forty-eight percent say they 
believe 'humans and other living things have existed in their present form 
since the beginning of time,' up from 39 percent in 2009. [my italics]

"At 67 percent and 65 percent, respectively, the numbers of Democrats and 
independents who believe in evolution have remained more or less the same since 
2009. They’re also in step with the population nationally: Six-in-10 Americans 
say they believe humans have evolved."

Read more:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-belief-in-evolution-plummets-poll-reveals/




<< noozguru, my guess is that what is meant is that 1/3 or Americans do not 
believe that humans evolved from apes. I'd further speculate that for many of 
that 1/3, the rejection of evolution is based almost entirely on their 
religious beliefs. Still, it is pretty mind boggling in this day and age! >>

I can really believe that 1/3 of the US population does not accept evolution.  
It's pretty obvious in their behavior and lack of intelligence. :-D  >>

[FairfieldLife] Soundbreaker

[cardemaister]

Kimmo Pohjonen From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Jump to: navigation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimmo_Pohjonen#mw-navigation, 
search http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimmo_Pohjonen#p-search 
 Kimmo Pohjonen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kimmo_solo_3867.jpg
 Kimmo Pohjonen, photo by Kalle Björklid
 Background information Born August 16, 1964 (age 49) Genres 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_genre Alternative accordion Occupations 
Musician http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musician, composer 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composer Instruments Accordion 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accordion, voice 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice Associated acts KTU 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KTU_%28band%29, Kimmo Pohjonen Kluster, K Cube 
Website KimmoPohjonen.com http://www.kimmopohjonen.com/ Kimmo Pohjonen (born 
August 16, 1964) is a Finnish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland accordionist 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accordion who has revolutionized accordion sounds 
and performance with his custom-made electrified and modified instrument. Since 
the mid-nineties he has released numerous albums and toured the world with 
various projects.
 

 [kim-maw pokh-yaw-nen: kim-more northern]
 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8Mut8-k0J4
 

 (He fluently speaks the infamous 'tankero-English'...)

 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[Share Long]

Judy, I think Richard was saying that Mary Magdelene from first to see Christ 
risen from the dead.





On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 3:26 PM, "authfri...@yahoo.com" 
 wrote:
 
  
No, sorry, Share, but I had made it quite clear what I meant by "risen." In 
this case, it doesn't mean "risen into the air," as Richard maintains. Christ 
is not reported in the Bible to have been "hovering in the air" when Mary 
Magdalene saw him. Richard knows that. He also knows (if he's read the Bible 
passages he cites) that not all of them say Mary M. was the first to see Christ 
after he rose from the grave (and none of them say he was "hovering in the air 
above the tomb when he appeared to Mary Magdalene").This is just another of his 
lying trolls. Like you, initially he made a mistake, but he can't admit it.

The point here is not that you make mistakes; everybody does that. The point is 
how poorly it reflects on your character that you not only can't just 
acknowledge the mistake and move on, but that you actually try to defend the 
mistakes of your pals and their attempts to cover them up.



<< Judy, I don't think Richard is lying at all! You and he are merely defining 
*risen* differently. >>




On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:37 AM, "authfriend@..."  wrote:
 
  
Why Richard is lying about something so easy to check, I have no idea.




Let me make myself clear: Mary Magdalene was the first person to see Jesus 
after the crucifixion when He had risen up out of His tomb, hovering in the 
air. The Ascension into heaven came later. Mary Magdalene was the first person 
to see the risen Christ. All the four gospels agree on this: Matthew 28:1, Mark 
16:1, Luke 24:10, and John 20:1.


Christ was hovering in the air above the tomb when he appeared to Mary 
Magdalene, she was the first to see Him and this was forty days BEFORE the 
Ascension when He was taken up into the clouds into heaven.



On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 11:24 PM,  wrote:
>
> 
>>  
>>She saw him risen from the grave, but not risen into the sky. The Ascension 
>>didn't take place for another 40 days, and only the remaining disciples 
>>witnessed it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>><< authfriend wrote:
>>> I don't believe Mary Magdalen was "the first 
>>> to see the Jesus rise up into the sky," either.
>>>
>>Maybe it's time to get all our ducks in a row: Mary Magdalene was the first 
>>person to see the risen Christ. >>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 7:03 PM,  wrote:
>>>
>>> 
  
I don't believe Mary Magdalen was"the first to see the Jesus rise up into 
the sky," either.


<< Wait- on! Wait- on! Mike wasn't insinuating anything about Jesus being 
indifferent towards any sin. Jesus came not to judge but to serve( Isaiah 
53) as the *suffering servant*, showing mankind how to live life. "Judge 
not , lest ye be judged" , "Do unto others..." etc. Jesus said He has the 
power to forgive sin, doesn't mean He's in favor of it. >>




From: "awoelflebater@..." 

To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 2:38 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

  


---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}},  wrote: 
>On 12/29/2013 2:40 PM, awoelflebater@... wrote:
>
> 
>>I don't think "a couple of spiritual teachers" talking about 
>>"indifference" relates to anything Mike was posting about.
Maybe not, but I think Mike's point was that Jesus was indifferent to social 
mores concerning adultery. From what I've read, hardly anybody back then was 
indifferent to having multiple wives - they were all in favor of it. So, if 
Jesus was forgiving about adultery, I wonder if he was also in favor of 
polygamy? And, I don't think any spiritual teachers back then were in favor of 
polyandry, except maybe over in India. But, I guess it all depends on what you 
mean by "spiritual teachers". According to Robin, Saul had a spiritual 
experience on the road to Damascus when he thought he had seen the risen Christ 
for the first time; but everyone knows that Mary Magdalene was the first to see 
the Jesus rise up into the sky. Obviously the New Testament was written by men. 
Go figure.  
>>
>
>>
>I don't care what you think and I wasn't talkin' to you. Keep your pie 
>hole shut and give the little lady a chance to speak for herself. She's 
>not quite a corpse yet. Go figure.
>>>
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY's Darshan

[dhamiltony2k5]

Thanks, this narrative is a really nice personal voice. Recounting a time it is 
also good insight in to something not much spoken about, personal illumination. 
Especially Maharishi's personal experience with it. 
 Jai the Jagad Sat Guru, 
 
 -Buck Das in the Dome
 

 AEGTC, Seeligsburg, Switzerland 1976:
 

 "Maharishi, these experiences I've had over the past six months have been 
glimpses of enlightenment for me. I had a tremendous awakening experience 
before I started TM, but due to the circumstances, I feel a little shy about 
telling it in the group." I then sent him a thought message that I would relate 
my "experience" and not the "circumstances."
 

 Maharishi paused for a moment to think about what I'd just said. "It'll be all 
right to tell it," he said finally, in a thoughtful sort of way. 
 

 "Maharishi, you've said that for every state of consciousness there is a 
separate, corresponding state of reality. Waking state has its reality, dream 
state has its reality, and deep sleep is another reality."
 

 "Yes."
 

 "You've taught us that transcendental consciousness is a fourth state of 
consciousness?a fourth reality that is the underlying reality of all life."
 

 "Yes."
 

 "And you've taught that cosmic consciousness is a higher state of reality, 
because one never loses consciousness of the transcendent even during waking, 
dreaming and sleeping."
 

 "Yes."
 

 "You've also said that God consciousness and unity consciousness are even 
deeper states of reality; so we have all these states of consciousness and all 
these states of corresponding realities."
 

 Maharishi said "yes" this time in a somewhat impatient way, as if to convey, 
"Get to the point, where are you going with this?"
 

 I'd been feeling an almighty power rise up inside of me as I asked Maharishi 
each one of these questions, because I was consciously setting him up? To 
refute all that he had just said. I knew he knew the truth, but I wanted him to 
come out with it in a way he had never done before. It was time for us to stop 
playing around like little children at his feet, and elicit from him the real 
truth. A great rage suddenly ripped through my chest, burning the lie in my 
heart. I wanted Maharishi to kill it right then and there, for all time.
 

 "Maharishi, in the experience of wholeness I had before I started TM, what 
you've just said that basically reality is different in different states of 
consciousness, is a total lie! What I experienced one night five years ago, is 
that there is only one reality, has always been one reality, and will forever 
be one reality! EVERYTHING ELSE IS A COMPLETE AND TOTAL LIE!"
 

 "YES! YES! YES!" Maharishi loudly proclaimed. With each "YES," his fist came 
down on the table, "Bang, Bang, Bang!" Never had I seen him respond so 
powerfully. It was as if the "Hammer of God" was slamming that table. He then 
exclaimed loudly, "This is real wholeness! I don't want to hear anything but 
experiences of real wholeness! Continue with your experience."
 

 "What I discovered in my experience, Maharishi, was that the personality I 
know as Jay Latharn is a complete, fictitious lie. There is only one Being, 
God. Everything else, even the 'reality' of God consciousness, is an illusion. 
It's just like Shankara said."
 

 "Now this is the real experience of wholeness!" Maharishi proclaimed excitedly.
 

 "What happened is that I had an experience in which I went through all of the 
states of consciousness. When I hit cosmic consciousness I closed my eyes to 
meditate and witnessed creation in the flow of soma out of the bindu point 
between my eyes. Everything shot out of that point, in stereo?whatever came out 
on the left came out on the right. I saw the mechanics of creation. It was the 
most amazing sight I ever saw. After that I started having celestial perception 
with my eyes open."
 

 I then briefly explained the major points of my experience the jewels I'd seen 
in the ceiling and how things were constructed of light rays created from God's 
mind?how I walked and moved through a cosmic plasma that erased the force of 
gravity, etc. Maharishi was paying close attention to what I was saying, and 
having his attention on me like this was like having God Almighty bum the lie 
right out of my heart. The longer I held his attention, the more enlightened I 
got. Yes, lie had closely followed rny progress for the past six months and 
given me a lot of attention, but this moment was the greatest I'd ever had with 
him.
 

 I continued relating to Maharishi the progressive stages of my awakening; how 
I had felt the presence of God in everything and how everything I perceived 
became the "artwork of the Creator" (Maharishi's descriptive words for sensory 
experiences in the state of God consciousness). I told him of my insights into 
God revealing to man the blueprints for a more comfortable life on earth 
throughout the centuries, and how I went from God consciousness into Unity 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[authfriend]

No, sorry, Share, but I had made it quite clear what I meant by "risen." In 
this case, it doesn't mean "risen into the air," as Richard maintains. Christ 
is not reported in the Bible to have been "hovering in the air" when Mary 
Magdalene saw him. Richard knows that. He also knows (if he's read the Bible 
passages he cites) that not all of them say Mary M. was the first to see Christ 
after he rose from the grave (and none of them say he was "hovering in the air 
above the tomb when he appeared to Mary Magdalene"). This is just another of 
his lying trolls. Like you, initially he made a mistake, but he can't admit it.
 

 The point here is not that you make mistakes; everybody does that. The point 
is how poorly it reflects on your character that you not only can't just 
acknowledge the mistake and move on, but that you actually try to defend the 
mistakes of your pals and their attempts to cover them up.
 

 << Judy, I don't think Richard is lying at all! You and he are merely defining 
*risen* differently. >>
 
 
 
 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:37 AM, "authfriend@..."  
wrote:
 
   Why Richard is lying about something so easy to check, I have no idea.
 


 Let me make myself clear: Mary Magdalene was the first person to see Jesus 
after the crucifixion when He had risen up out of His tomb, hovering in the 
air. The Ascension into heaven came later. Mary Magdalene was the first person 
to see the risen Christ. All the four gospels agree on this: Matthew 28:1, Mark 
16:1, Luke 24:10, and John 20:1.
 

 Christ was hovering in the air above the tomb when he appeared to Mary 
Magdalene, she was the first to see Him and this was forty days BEFORE the 
Ascension when He was taken up into the clouds into heaven.
 
 

 On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 11:24 PM, mailto:authfriend@...> wrote:
   She saw him risen from the grave, but not risen into the sky. The Ascension 
didn't take place for another 40 days, and only the remaining disciples 
witnessed it.
 

 
 << authfriend wrote:
 > I don't believe Mary Magdalen was "the first 
 > to see the Jesus rise up into the sky," either.
 >
 Maybe it's time to get all our ducks in a row: Mary Magdalene was the first 
person to see the risen Christ. >>
 

 

 On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 7:03 PM, mailto:authfriend@...> wrote:
   I don't believe Mary Magdalen was "the first to see the Jesus rise up into 
the sky," either.
 
 << Wait- on! Wait- on! Mike wasn't insinuating anything about Jesus being 
indifferent towards any sin. Jesus came not to judge but to serve( Isaiah 53) 
as the *suffering servant*, showing mankind how to live life. "Judge not , lest 
ye be judged" , "Do unto others..." etc. Jesus said He has the power to forgive 
sin, doesn't mean He's in favor of it. >>
 
 



 From: "awoelflebater@..."  
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 2:38 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row


   

 ---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}},  wrote: On 12/29/2013 
2:40 PM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote:

 I don't think "a couple of spiritual teachers" talking about "indifference" 
relates to anything Mike was posting about. Maybe not, but I think Mike's point 
was that Jesus was indifferent to social mores concerning adultery. From what 
I've read, hardly anybody back then was indifferent to having multiple wives - 
they were all in favor of it. So, if Jesus was forgiving about adultery, I 
wonder if he was also in favor of polygamy? And, I don't think any spiritual 
teachers back then were in favor of polyandry, except maybe over in India. But, 
I guess it all depends on what you mean by "spiritual teachers". According to 
Robin, Saul had a spiritual experience on the road to Damascus when he thought 
he had seen the risen Christ for the first time; but everyone knows that Mary 
Magdalene was the first to see the Jesus rise up into the sky. Obviously the 
New Testament was written by men. Go figure.  
 
 I don't care what you think and I wasn't talkin' to you. Keep your pie hole 
shut and give the little lady a chance to speak for herself. She's not quite a 
corpse yet. Go figure. 


 


 








 
 
 
 




 


 
 
 
 




 

 
 

 
 



 
 
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Scientific Breakthroughs of 2013

[authfriend]

Nice try, Share, but that's wrong too. They don't believe in evolution--for any 
critter, or even any plant--because evolution isn't in the Bible. The Bible 
says God made everything once for all time. That's what the poll question 
asked, and they said that's what they believed.
 
 << IOW, Judy, I took what noozguru said at face value. I was not guessing 
about 1/3. I was guessing about why they don't believe in evolution. >>
 

 
 
 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 2:12 PM, Share Long  wrote:
 
   Judy, my post was not a wrong guess. It was a reference to noozguru saying 
that 1/3 of Americans don't believe in evolution.
 

 
 
 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:53 PM, "authfriend@..."  wrote:
 
   Wrong guess (and why guess, when it's so easy to find out what the facts 
are?):
 

 "A poll out Monday shows that less than half – 43 percent – of those who 
identify with the Republican Party say they believe humans have evolved over 
time, plunging from 54 percent four years ago. Forty-eight percent say they 
believe 'humans and other living things have existed in their present form 
since the beginning of time,' up from 39 percent in 2009. [my italics]
 

 "At 67 percent and 65 percent, respectively, the numbers of Democrats and 
independents who believe in evolution have remained more or less the same since 
2009. They’re also in step with the population nationally: Six-in-10 Americans 
say they believe humans have evolved."
 

 Read more:
 
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-belief-in-evolution-plummets-poll-reveals/
 
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-belief-in-evolution-plummets-poll-reveals/

 

 
 << noozguru, my guess is that what is meant is that 1/3 or Americans do not 
believe that humans evolved from apes. I'd further speculate that for many of 
that 1/3, the rejection of evolution is based almost entirely on their 
religious beliefs. Still, it is pretty mind boggling in this day and age! >>
 

 I can really believe that 1/3 of the US population does not accept evolution.  
It's pretty obvious in their behavior and lack of intelligence. :-D  >>






 
 
 
 




 
 

 




 
 
 
 


 
 

 
 




 
 
 
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Female Rock Stars

[doctordumbass]

Loved these guys! Bought a bootleg of L&L in Taiwan (their main source of 
income, pre-computer chips) - I think it was blue plastic.

[FairfieldLife] 2014, The Dome Numbers, Resolutions, Some humble suggestions for the coming FF New Year

[dhamiltony2k5]

Yes indeed, let us be humble now at year's end with the New Year beginning. 
Taking stock now at year's end our community Dome meditation numbers are 
frightfully low.
 Men's Dome meditation numbers are more frequently even below 200. That is 
 even lower than whence the Assembly started back in 2006 of the real nadir
 days with TM in the West. This low meditation number now does not bode well. 
With the collapse and failure of the Assembly around the Settle grant we need 
now more than ever before better leadership in this new year. 
 The old adage, “you can't lead from behind”; Our leadership needs to come to 
the Domes too where they might even get seen in battle.
 All meditators, rich as well as poor, praise the Unified Field and come to 
meditation for world peace in the New Year,
 
 -Buck   
 

 Om come, humble sinner, in whose breast
A thousand thoughts revolve.
Come with your guilt and fear oppressed,
And make this last resolve. 

I'll go to meditate, though my sin
Hath like a mountain rose;
I know its courts, I'll enter in,
Whatever may oppose.

I can but perish if I do not go,
I am resolved to try,
For if I stay away I know
I must forever die.
 

 Fairfield:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXLJepRUYYE 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXLJepRUYYE

 

 

 

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

 These are just suggestions. They are *not*, as some calling for the 
reinstatement of posting limits or more stringent "rules" or "moderation" seem 
to want, restrictions or demands. React to them as you will:

* When reading people's posts, think about *intent*, in the Castanedan sense. 
What was the *intent* of the post; that is, what did the poster hope to 
accomplish with it? Did he or she *intend* to uplift or help people, or did 
they merely try to dump on and demean someone? If the latter, do you really 
want to reply to what they wrote and thus become a party to that *intent*?

* When responding to other people's posts, cast a thought or two before you 
press the Send key as to what your *intent* is. 

* When reading other people's posts, give a thought as to whether anything in 
the post is *original*, or has anything to do with the poster's actual 
real-world life. Do they share with you some adventure or spiritual experience 
they've had *recently*, or are they lost in the past, or in theory, 
intellectually masturbating to concepts they've only read about or heard about, 
and never experienced personally? If the latter, what can you ever expect to 
learn from interacting with such a person?

* When reading other people's posts, try to discern whether or not the poster 
whose post you're reading is trying to "win" something. If they are, do you 
really give a shit about the 'war' or 'dick-size contest' they're trying to 
"win," or is it all in the poster's head? If they're the only ones concerned 
about "winning," click Next and move along. Leave the fighting of the petty 
ego-wars to those who believe they actually exist.

* When someone posts the same tired old putdown post that they've made a 
thousand times before, with only the name of the intended victim changed in its 
latest iteration, is there any reason to respond? If you can't think of any, 
why respond and add to the repetition? Allowing the person to *demonstrate* 
their obsessive compulsive disorder is usually more effective than trying to 
answer or counter it. 

* If a person who has a history of being chronically angry and nasty seems to 
get the *most* angry and nasty when the people they lash out at ignore them and 
don't respond to or even read their posts, isn't that a great reason to *keep* 
ignoring them and not responding or reading? They've already revealed the thing 
that bothers them the most -- their greatest fear, that people will treat them 
as if they don't exist and as if nothing they ever say could possibly matter. 
Seems to me that the best thing one could do to deal with people who think like 
this is to help it come true. 

Happy New Year, and happy posting...

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Scientific Breakthroughs of 2013

[jr_esq]

Share,
 

 I found this strange correlation with the British royalty:
 

 1.  Prince Charles had the conjunction of Rahu and Moon in his birth chart.
 

 2.  Princess Diana had the conjunction of Ketu and the Moon.
 

 3.  Both Prince William and Kate Middleton had the conjunctions of Rahu and 
the Moon.
 

 As you well know, both Rahu and Ketu have associations with the snake or 
reptile.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[authfriend]

Except that nobody has been arguing about what you just stated. The lies are in 
your previous posts about what Mary M. saw.
 < < Judy, I don't think Richard is lying at all! You and he are merely 
defining *risen* differently. According to the Gospels, Mary Magdalene was the 
first person to realize 
 that Jesus had risen. Mary testified about this to the apostles that 
 Jesus had risen; she was the Apostle to he Apostles; and so they each 
 included the report in their Gospels: Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1, Luke 
 24:10, and John 20:1. It's not complicated. >>

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Scientific Breakthroughs of 2013

[Share Long]

IOW, Judy, I took what noozguru said at face value. I was not guessing about 
1/3. I was guessing about why they don't believe in evolution.





On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 2:12 PM, Share Long  wrote:
 
  
Judy, my post was not a wrong guess. It was a reference to noozguru saying that 
1/3 of Americans don't believe in evolution.





On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:53 PM, "authfri...@yahoo.com" 
 wrote:
 
  
Wrong guess (and why guess, when it's so easy to find out what the facts are?):

"A poll out Monday shows that less than half – 43 percent – of those who 
identify with the Republican Party say they believe humans have evolved over 
time, plunging from 54 percent four years ago. Forty-eight percent say they 
believe 'humans and other living things have existed in their present form 
since the beginning of time,' up from 39 percent in 2009. [my italics]

"At 67 percent and 65 percent, respectively, the numbers of Democrats and 
independents who believe in evolution have remained more or less the same since 
2009. They’re also in step with the population nationally: Six-in-10 Americans 
say they believe humans have evolved."

Read more:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-belief-in-evolution-plummets-poll-reveals/




<< noozguru, my guess is that what is meant is that 1/3 or Americans do not 
believe that humans evolved from apes. I'd further speculate that for many of 
that 1/3, the rejection of evolution is based almost entirely on their 
religious beliefs. Still, it is pretty mind boggling in this day and age! >>

I can really believe that 1/3 of the US population does not accept evolution.  
It's pretty obvious in their behavior and lack of intelligence. :-D  >>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[authfriend]

Luke (as you know) doesn't say Mary Magdalene was the first to see the risen 
Christ. And none of the Gospels say he was "hovering in the air" when Mary M. 
saw him.
 
 Why Richard is lying about something so easy to check, I have no idea. It 
should be easy to check: All the four gospels agree on this - Mary Magdalene 
was the first to see the risen Christ.
 
 Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10, and John 20:1.
 
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[Richard J. Williams]

On 12/31/2013 2:38 PM, Share Long wrote:

 > Judy, I don't think Richard is lying at all! You and he are merely 
defining *risen* differently.
 >
According to the Gospels, Mary Magdalene was the first person to realize 
that Jesus had risen. Mary testified about this to the apostles that 
Jesus had risen; she was the Apostle to he Apostles; and so they each 
included the report in their Gospels: Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1, Luke 
24:10, and John 20:1. It's not complicated.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Scientific Breakthroughs of 2013

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
>
> Share,
>
>  It's hard to fathom.  But there are many intelligent fundamentalist
Christians who believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old.  And they
believe in the literal interpretation of the Old and New Testament.

A shockingly sizable portion of the American population believes that
the United States of Amerca is about to celebrate its 2014th birthday as
a nation.

Re: [FairfieldLife] The *other* great English folk-rock album of all time

[Richard J. Williams]

On 12/31/2013 10:50 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:*/
> For those few here (hopefully) who don't know it.
> If you don't, you were really fuckin' out of it. :-)
>
/*
Thanks for the link. Out of it for not remembering a folk-rock artist?

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Scientific Breakthroughs of 2013

[authfriend]

<< Note the courtesy with which Share corrects auth's mistake. >>
 

 HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You are determined to trash every bit of credibility you may 
ever have had for the sake of defending Poor Innocent Share from her own 
mistakes.
 

 << Just the facts. >>
 

 The fact is that her "guess" was wrong. Another fact is that she could have 
found out very easily, just as I did, that the poll results reflect a flat 
rejection of evolution in general by a third of the U.S. population, not just 
that those folks don't think humans evolved from apes. She was trying to wiggle 
out of the mistake by pretending that I had somehow misunderstood what she was 
commenting on (Bhairitu's statement that 1/3 of the population doesn't believe 
in evolution).
 

 You aren't doing her any favors by trying to help her get away with it, Feste, 
and goodness knows you aren't doing yourself any favors either.
 

 Just FYI, had I made the mistake she did and been shown to be wrong, I'd have 
said, "You're right, I should have checked rather than guessed. That's a really 
depressing statistic."
 

 << No sneering or nastiness. Now imagine what it would have been like the 
other way round. Try to learn from Share, auth. 

 

 
 Judy, my post was not a wrong guess. It was a reference to noozguru saying 
that 1/3 of Americans don't believe in evolution. >>
 

 
 
 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:53 PM, "authfriend@..."  wrote:
 
   Wrong guess (and why guess, when it's so easy to find out what the facts 
are?):
 

 "A poll out Monday shows that less than half – 43 percent – of those who 
identify with the Republican Party say they believe humans have evolved over 
time, plunging from 54 percent four years ago. Forty-eight percent say they 
believe 'humans and other living things have existed in their present form 
since the beginning of time,' up from 39 percent in 2009. [my italics]
 

 "At 67 percent and 65 percent, respectively, the numbers of Democrats and 
independents who believe in evolution have remained more or less the same since 
2009. They’re also in step with the population nationally: Six-in-10 Americans 
say they believe humans have evolved."
 

 Read more:
 
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-belief-in-evolution-plummets-poll-reveals/
 
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-belief-in-evolution-plummets-poll-reveals/

 

 
 << noozguru, my guess is that what is meant is that 1/3 or Americans do not 
believe that humans evolved from apes. I'd further speculate that for many of 
that 1/3, the rejection of evolution is based almost entirely on their 
religious beliefs. Still, it is pretty mind boggling in this day and age! >>
 

 I can really believe that 1/3 of the US population does not accept evolution.  
It's pretty obvious in their behavior and lack of intelligence. :-D  >>






 
 
 
 




 
 

 
 



 
 
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[Richard J. Williams]

On 12/31/2013 11:37 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:

Why Richard is lying about something so easy to check, I have no idea.
It should be easy to check: All the four gospels agree on this - Mary 
Magdalene was the first to see the risen Christ.


Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10, and John 20:1.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

[Share Long]

Judy, I don't think Richard is lying at all! You and he are merely defining 
*risen* differently.





On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:37 AM, "authfri...@yahoo.com" 
 wrote:
 
  
Why Richard is lying about something so easy to check, I have no idea.




Let me make myself clear: Mary Magdalene was the first person to see Jesus 
after the crucifixion when He had risen up out of His tomb, hovering in the 
air. The Ascension into heaven came later. Mary Magdalene was the first person 
to see the risen Christ. All the four gospels agree on this: Matthew 28:1, Mark 
16:1, Luke 24:10, and John 20:1.


Christ was hovering in the air above the tomb when he appeared to Mary 
Magdalene, she was the first to see Him and this was forty days BEFORE the 
Ascension when He was taken up into the clouds into heaven.



On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 11:24 PM,  wrote:
>
> 
>>  
>>She saw him risen from the grave, but not risen into the sky. The Ascension 
>>didn't take place for another 40 days, and only the remaining disciples 
>>witnessed it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>><< authfriend wrote:
>>> I don't believe Mary Magdalen was "the first 
>>> to see the Jesus rise up into the sky," either.
>>>
>>Maybe it's time to get all our ducks in a row: Mary Magdalene was the first 
>>person to see the risen Christ. >>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 7:03 PM,  wrote:
>>>
>>> 
  
I don't believe Mary Magdalen was"the first to see the Jesus rise up into 
the sky," either.


<< Wait- on! Wait- on! Mike wasn't insinuating anything about Jesus being 
indifferent towards any sin. Jesus came not to judge but to serve( Isaiah 
53) as the *suffering servant*, showing mankind how to live life. "Judge 
not , lest ye be judged" , "Do unto others..." etc. Jesus said He has the 
power to forgive sin, doesn't mean He's in favor of it. >>




From: "awoelflebater@..." 

To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 2:38 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Your Ducks in a Row

  


---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}},  wrote: 
>On 12/29/2013 2:40 PM, awoelflebater@... wrote:
>
> 
>>I don't think "a couple of spiritual teachers" talking about 
>>"indifference" relates to anything Mike was posting about.
Maybe not, but I think Mike's point was that Jesus was indifferent to social 
mores concerning adultery. From what I've read, hardly anybody back then was 
indifferent to having multiple wives - they were all in favor of it. So, if 
Jesus was forgiving about adultery, I wonder if he was also in favor of 
polygamy? And, I don't think any spiritual teachers back then were in favor of 
polyandry, except maybe over in India. But, I guess it all depends on what you 
mean by "spiritual teachers". According to Robin, Saul had a spiritual 
experience on the road to Damascus when he thought he had seen the risen Christ 
for the first time; but everyone knows that Mary Magdalene was the first to see 
the Jesus rise up into the sky. Obviously the New Testament was written by men. 
Go figure.  
>>
>
>>
>I don't care what you think and I wasn't talkin' to you. Keep your pie 
>hole shut and give the little lady a chance to speak for herself. She's 
>not quite a corpse yet. Go figure.
>>>
>

[FairfieldLife] Happy, Healthy, Prosperous 2014 to all beings everywhere

[Share Long]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XP-f7wPM0A

[FairfieldLife] RE: Scientific Breakthroughs of 2013

[jr_esq]

Share,
 

 It's hard to fathom.  But there are many intelligent fundamentalist Christians 
who believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old.  And they believe in the 
literal interpretation of the Old and New Testament.

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Scientific Breakthroughs of 2013

[authfriend]

I know what you were referring to, Share. But what you said your guess was, was 
wrong. It's not just that folks don't believe humans evolved from apes, as you 
said; rather, they don't accept evolution, period (as Bhairitu said). That's 
why I italicized "since the beginning of time," you see.
 

 Try reading what you wrote, and then what I wrote, again.
 

 << Judy, my post was not a wrong guess. It was a reference to noozguru saying 
that 1/3 of Americans don't believe in evolution. >>
 

 
 
 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:53 PM, "authfriend@..."  wrote:
 
   Wrong guess (and why guess, when it's so easy to find out what the facts 
are?):
 

 "A poll out Monday shows that less than half – 43 percent – of those who 
identify with the Republican Party say they believe humans have evolved over 
time, plunging from 54 percent four years ago. Forty-eight percent say they 
believe 'humans and other living things have existed in their present form 
since the beginning of time,' up from 39 percent in 2009. [my italics]
 

 "At 67 percent and 65 percent, respectively, the numbers of Democrats and 
independents who believe in evolution have remained more or less the same since 
2009. They’re also in step with the population nationally: Six-in-10 Americans 
say they believe humans have evolved."
 

 Read more:
 
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-belief-in-evolution-plummets-poll-reveals/
 
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-belief-in-evolution-plummets-poll-reveals/

 

 
 << noozguru, my guess is that what is meant is that 1/3 or Americans do not 
believe that humans evolved from apes. I'd further speculate that for many of 
that 1/3, the rejection of evolution is based almost entirely on their 
religious beliefs. Still, it is pretty mind boggling in this day and age! >>
 

 I can really believe that 1/3 of the US population does not accept evolution.  
It's pretty obvious in their behavior and lack of intelligence. :-D  >>






 
 
 
 




 
 

 
 



 
 
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Scientific Breakthroughs of 2013

[feste37]

Note the courtesy with which Share corrects auth's mistake. Just the facts. No 
sneering or nastiness. Now imagine what it would have been like the other way 
round. Try to learn from Share, auth. 

 

 

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

 Judy, my post was not a wrong guess. It was a reference to noozguru saying 
that 1/3 of Americans don't believe in evolution.
 

 
 
 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:53 PM, "authfriend@..."  wrote:
 
   Wrong guess (and why guess, when it's so easy to find out what the facts 
are?):
 

 "A poll out Monday shows that less than half – 43 percent – of those who 
identify with the Republican Party say they believe humans have evolved over 
time, plunging from 54 percent four years ago. Forty-eight percent say they 
believe 'humans and other living things have existed in their present form 
since the beginning of time,' up from 39 percent in 2009. [my italics]
 

 "At 67 percent and 65 percent, respectively, the numbers of Democrats and 
independents who believe in evolution have remained more or less the same since 
2009. They’re also in step with the population nationally: Six-in-10 Americans 
say they believe humans have evolved."
 

 Read more:
 
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-belief-in-evolution-plummets-poll-reveals/
 
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-belief-in-evolution-plummets-poll-reveals/

 

 
 << noozguru, my guess is that what is meant is that 1/3 or Americans do not 
believe that humans evolved from apes. I'd further speculate that for many of 
that 1/3, the rejection of evolution is based almost entirely on their 
religious beliefs. Still, it is pretty mind boggling in this day and age! >>
 

 I can really believe that 1/3 of the US population does not accept evolution.  
It's pretty obvious in their behavior and lack of intelligence. :-D  >>






 
 
 
 




 
 

 
 



 
 
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Scientific Breakthroughs of 2013

[feste37]

MMY didn't believe in evolution either. Humans were created as humans, not as 
apes who had a lot of evolving to do. 

 

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

 Judy, my post was not a wrong guess. It was a reference to noozguru saying 
that 1/3 of Americans don't believe in evolution.
 

 
 
 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:53 PM, "authfriend@..."  wrote:
 
   Wrong guess (and why guess, when it's so easy to find out what the facts 
are?):
 

 "A poll out Monday shows that less than half – 43 percent – of those who 
identify with the Republican Party say they believe humans have evolved over 
time, plunging from 54 percent four years ago. Forty-eight percent say they 
believe 'humans and other living things have existed in their present form 
since the beginning of time,' up from 39 percent in 2009. [my italics]
 

 "At 67 percent and 65 percent, respectively, the numbers of Democrats and 
independents who believe in evolution have remained more or less the same since 
2009. They’re also in step with the population nationally: Six-in-10 Americans 
say they believe humans have evolved."
 

 Read more:
 
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-belief-in-evolution-plummets-poll-reveals/
 
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-belief-in-evolution-plummets-poll-reveals/

 

 
 << noozguru, my guess is that what is meant is that 1/3 or Americans do not 
believe that humans evolved from apes. I'd further speculate that for many of 
that 1/3, the rejection of evolution is based almost entirely on their 
religious beliefs. Still, it is pretty mind boggling in this day and age! >>
 

 I can really believe that 1/3 of the US population does not accept evolution.  
It's pretty obvious in their behavior and lack of intelligence. :-D  >>






 
 
 
 




 
 

 
 



 
 
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: HUM... HUM...HUM... ! ! !

[Bhairitu]

Yes, this *is *India where money talks.

On 12/31/2013 12:02 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:


*Now, /that's/ what I call a promising start to the new year. 
(Assuming he's guilty, that is.) I was afraid the authorities were 
going to leave him be. Of course he could still get off even if he is 
guilty, but at least they're taking the accusation seriously.*


*
*

*
*

<< 
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/vedic-varsity-chancellor-in-3day-custody-in-rape-case/1213575/



http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/maharishi-vidya-mandir-group-chairman-arrested-on-rape-charges-113123000729_1.html

http://www.indiatvnews.com/crime/news/latest-news-maharishi-mahesh-yogi-vedic-university-chancellor-4870.html 
>>

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Scientific Breakthroughs of 2013

[Share Long]

Judy, my post was not a wrong guess. It was a reference to noozguru saying that 
1/3 of Americans don't believe in evolution.





On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:53 PM, "authfri...@yahoo.com" 
 wrote:
 
  
Wrong guess (and why guess, when it's so easy to find out what the facts are?):

"A poll out Monday shows that less than half – 43 percent – of those who 
identify with the Republican Party say they believe humans have evolved over 
time, plunging from 54 percent four years ago. Forty-eight percent say they 
believe 'humans and other living things have existed in their present form 
since the beginning of time,' up from 39 percent in 2009. [my italics]

"At 67 percent and 65 percent, respectively, the numbers of Democrats and 
independents who believe in evolution have remained more or less the same since 
2009. They’re also in step with the population nationally: Six-in-10 Americans 
say they believe humans have evolved."

Read more:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-belief-in-evolution-plummets-poll-reveals/




<< noozguru, my guess is that what is meant is that 1/3 or Americans do not 
believe that humans evolved from apes. I'd further speculate that for many of 
that 1/3, the rejection of evolution is based almost entirely on their 
religious beliefs. Still, it is pretty mind boggling in this day and age! >>

I can really believe that 1/3 of the US population does not accept evolution.  
It's pretty obvious in their behavior and lack of intelligence. :-D  >>

[FairfieldLife] RE: HUM... HUM...HUM... ! ! !

[authfriend]

Now, that's what I call a promising start to the new year. (Assuming he's 
guilty, that is.) I was afraid the authorities were going to leave him be. Of 
course he could still get off even if he is guilty, but at least they're taking 
the accusation seriously.
 

 

 << 
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/vedic-varsity-chancellor-in-3day-custody-in-rape-case/1213575/

 
http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/maharishi-vidya-mandir-group-chairman-arrested-on-rape-charges-113123000729_1.html

http://www.indiatvnews.com/crime/news/latest-news-maharishi-mahesh-yogi-vedic-university-chancellor-4870.html
 >>

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: ACLU Sues for Disclosure of Surveillance Executive Order

[Bhairitu]

I'm sure the first things the NSA kids do each day is to check what 
Empty, Sharon and Bhairitu have posted on FFL.  It's very important for 
"national security", you know.


On 12/31/2013 11:31 AM, Share Long wrote:

emptybill, do we really need TWO Big Brothers watching us?!


On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:22 PM, "emptyb...@yahoo.com" 
 wrote:

What else but to keep you from "Sharon" them.

Just repeat to the clerk ... my name ain't Sharon.