[FairfieldLife] The evils of prosyletution
So what is the characteristic that distinguishes some posts on Fairfield Life from others? We all know how we react to the different posters, and the thoughts that they type in and Send our way. But is there a common denominator to the ones that tend to get reacted to negatively here? I think that there is. As I see it, the thoughts that get "reacted to" the most are the ones that are trying to SELL us something. Whether it is God or Hillary Clinton, Neo-Advaita or Neo-Conservatism, the thing that sets most people's teeth to grinding is that it seems to *matter* to the poster that we BUY his or her ideas. And it matters a *lot*. For some reason, some people so identify with their thoughts and ideas that they want to "share" them with everyone, to SELL them to others. It often feels as if their image of themselves is centered on how *well* they can SELL these ideas. Conversely, their opinions of others are centered on whether or not they BUY these ideas. If the other posters buy into the ideas or thoughts or dogma being sold, they are wise; if they do not, they are REEEAL REEEAL STPID. As I see it, most of the posters here on FFL, what- ever their current political or spiritual leanings, have a pretty good feel for when they are being SOLD something. After all, look at the organization in which they all paid their dues for many years. That was a non-stop exercise in SELL, SELL, SELL. As a result, they may be a little wary of someone who *obviously* has a point of view or a set of dogma or a belief system that they want -- and sometimes seem to NEED -- to sell to others. I tend to think of such matters in terms of the metaphor of sexual or romantic attraction. I'm not a big fan of flash -- flashy clothes, makeup, dress, etc. Those do nothing for me. What impresses me in a woman is her seeming knowledge of herself and what she believes, and a level of comfort with that, comfort that is not threatened even for a moment by someone else believing something else. But when I run into a woman who is clearly trying to SELL me something -- whether it be her body or her ideas -- I instantly back off. Call me old-fashioned, but after all these decades of being SOLD things by the spiritual institutions and the political insti- tutions of the world, my immediate reaction to being hit with the sales vibe is about the same as most people's when approached by a high-pressure used car salesman -- revulsion. Paint a pretty face on it, put a slinky dress on it, cover it up with the best cosmetics in the world, and I'm sorry, but to me it's still a two-dollar whore.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Exploring The Mechanics Of Judgment, Beliefs
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > > > Fascinating article, Vaj. Thanks for posting it. I > > > > was particularly taken with: > > > > > > > > > ...judgments often depend on whether the judging > > > > > person is in conflict with the person performing > > > > > the action. When a soldier sets off a bomb, an > > > > > observer's perception of whether the soldier > > > > > intended to kill civilians depends on whether > > > > > the soldier and observer are on the same side > > > > > of the conflict. > > > > > > > > Isn't this Fairfield Life in a nutshell? > > > > > > > > And isn't it the heart of the current discussion > > > > about what "becoming in tune with nature" might > > > > really mean? Doesn't it explain the tendency to > > > > excuse in Maharishi or Hillary the *same* actions > > > > one would soundly condemn in another? > > > > > > The example of this tendency that absolutely > > > fascinates me is how the TM critics complain > > > endlessly about the purported lack of honesty > > > of MMY and the TMO, yet happily tolerate the > > > presence here of chronic, malicious liars like > > > Barry and Vaj. > > > > This, in a nutshell, is the very *intent* I > > was commenting on in the post you called > > RELY RELY STOOPID. > > > > It's a behavioral pattern, one that you share > > with Hillary Clinton. Whenever anyone says > > anything that challenges the image you are > > trying to project or what you believe, your > > first impulse is to shoot the messenger, to > > demonize and try to undermine the credibility > > of the person who has said the thing you don't > > agree with. > > > > Your second impulse -- both you and Hillary -- > > is to deny that you did it. "I just posted > > a URL to an article, without comment." > > > > Yeah, right. > > > > You share an ethical system with Hillary Clinton, > > Judy. Both of you are *completely* reactive; you > > cannot *stand* to have anyone say anything about > > you or about what you believe that you don't agree > > with. You are both *compelled* to rebut it. And > > you are both *compelled* to rebut it the same way. > > Your first reaction is *almost always* to attempt > > to discredit the person who has disagreed with you. > > Your second is claim you didn't do it, and that > > that was not your intent. > > > > Yeah, right. > > > > I suspect that there is not one person on this > > forum who buys it, other than yourself. They can > > see your behavioral patterns, even if you cannot. > > Exactly the way they can see Hillary's, when > > you cannot. > > Quite a sight to witness on a daily basis. More surprising than anything else, that someone who postures as being so smart is unaware of her own patterns. The problem with being completely reactive is that *when* one reacts, one tends to be caught up in the moment, and forgets what the last moment was, and the one before that, and... Those who are not as overwhelmed by emotion can easily perceive the patterns, while the person who is (as you put it) hyperventilating often cannot. The *benefit* of being completely reactive on a talk forum, however, is that one never needs to propose anything original. All they have to do is "rebut" something that someone else said, or demonize the person who said it. Can you think of a thread on FFL that Judy has started, one that was not a repost of someone else's thinking? Think back. Has there been even *one* in the last few months? Constant reactivity is a smokescreen to obscure the fact that one doesn't have any ideas of one's own.
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Louis McKenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Remember a great man once said the government reflect the consciousness of the people. I have seen how that part of my mentality that is BUSHIAN has made as much of a mess of my own life as George Has made of the world. > > I believe in Kicking ass. I believe in full force attacks. If someone declares war on me I will hit them on every possible level before we go to battle.The only difference between me and Bush may be intelligence and how we use our resources. Yet I have had to really look at the Bush in me. > > So who we put in the white house is reflective of our state of consciousness as a nation. If I have a choice of seeing a film about an English butler and an English maid, or a Film with Arnold S ripping the heads off some believed terror ist I have chosen the Arnold film. Or Bruce Lee films where they fight to resolve issues. > > Of course a good Robert Redford movie is much more rewarding. However the box office indicates that Schwartzenegger movies make more money. > > So maybe it is not so good to laugh at and make mockery of the Dali Lama, or kill monks or support genocide in any form. Maybe the people who have fought for the liberation of the very country might have a problem with the new Capitalism. GOD = GOOD even Atheist believe in the GOOD. So the idea of Jesus may be a little much to accept. Yet the idea of a personal God that inspires one to evolve is not a bad thing. > > However people getting carried away is reflective in the current state of affairs. So Maharishi is 1000% correct in saying that we have to change things from the level of consciousness because there is where the only real change can take place. Changing the consciousness of the masses will change governments through the transformation from the level of consciousness perhaps there will be no need for Terror or guerrilla warfare. > I hope you're right Louis, I always root for the opitimist. And I've taken part in many a WPA myself. To me the Maharishi Effect is a case of 'theory not proved'. It seems like the world is just turning on oblivious of us, wars, financial disaster, food crisis, environmental collapse, and yet we have pundits everywhere. Maybe I'm too cynical but it aint lookin so good to me. Not yet. But I do hope you're right. > I dont just believe in God I know it from a very scientific and intimate basis. Yet it is not to be confused with the banana peel. God is that but the human consciousness can only be where it is. Look at how it varies in this group. Then you can see the world. Maharishi technology is like a tuning fork without it there is just chaos... I'm sure I get what you would call the intimate knowledge of God, my heart is overflowing with it, and I can see where all the devotion comes from. I just call it something else that's all. I think all people are the same, they are just switched on to their hearts or they are not. And the "nots" are perhaps where the problems lies? The scientific part escapes me, I think God has been remarkably elusive there. > sandiego108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > His father had promised him a car for his birthday. Dad was > > > nowhere > > > > in sight. His mother gave him 5.00$, yet what he had > received > > > was a > > > > grace from God that on his birthday the sun and the birds > awakened > > > > him, the sweet smells of the divine filled the air and he knew > > > without > > > > a doubt that there had to be a God and that God just gave him > the > > > > greatest birthday gift ever. > > > > > > > > > > > > So following this weather based theology we can assume that God > > > > absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's > ass > > > and > > > > despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? > > > > > > > > It seems a little grandiose and narcissistic to me to > attribute a > > > > day's weather to God's intention to give him a bitch'n > birthday > > > while > > > > his same power over the weather is causing untold misery and > > death > > > in > > > > other places. > > > > > > > > > I think we as humans like to look for patterns and extrapolate > our > > > intelligence onto nature. Whether we do it through a belief in > God > > > or in science, the motive is the same, and either belief remains > > > full of holes when viewed superficially. > > > > > > > > > I don't think the motive is the same, opposite in fact. > > I sum it up as; Religion claims to explain reality whereas > > science is an *attempt* to explain experience. You have to > > remove projection to do science it woul
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Instant Karma for Clinton's...'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think Clinton is the awful person many people paint > her as. Its just that I am willing to risk what comes up next > on Obama. I have a pretty good idea of what to expect with > her, and its not so bad, but I want more than that. I'm very much afraid you're going to get much, much less. This is my 50th post for the week, so I'm going to piggyback on my response to you: I'm happy to take on any other examples folks may have of Clinton's supposed unprincipled campaigning but they'll have to wait till Saturday. And I'd like to post a column by Gene Lyons, obviously a Clinton supporter, co-author with Joe Conason of "The Hunting of the President: The 10 Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton." Sadly, it appears they're going to have to write a sequel. I think most folks here would enthusiastically applaud Lyons's non-Clinton columns for their lucidity, humanity, and just plain common sense. He's a true progressive of intelligence, insight, compassion, and uncompromising integrity. Here's what he thinks of the current campaign situation: Clinton navigates `perfect storm' of naysayers Gene Lyons Posted on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 URL: http://www.nwanews.com/adg/Editorial/225676/ It's long been my opinion that if Hillary Clinton could be appointed president, nobody could do the job better. In a parliamentary system, she'd stand an excellent chance of becoming prime minister, since political parties tend to select leaders more on the basis of competence than the dubious skills of a game show host. Like Al Gore, Clinton is seen by friends as warm, funny and empathetic. She does better in small groups and town hall-type events than in large arenas. Also like Gore, she's motivated more by duty than most politicians. Unfriendly eyes see her determination as "entitlement." Misogyny runs deeper in American culture than many admit; brainy women are seen as unnatural. The camera doesn't love her the way it loves Sen. Barack Obama. Too, her candidacy has labored under the manifest disadvantage of the Beltway media's unreasoning hatred of her husband, the virulence of which continues to amaze. In Arkansas, some think it's rooted in resentment that some smooth-talking, white- trash hayseed from the American outback could become president. In Washington, it's whispered that her unresponsiveness to certain socially prominent hostesses made them loathe her. Who knows ? There's no denying that her candidacy has encountered what a friend calls a "perfect storm" of progressive idealists merging with Clinton-hating celebrity courtiers in the "mainstream" media. And yet she keeps chugging along like the Little Engine That Could, defying increasingly shrill demands to quit. Weeks before the Indiana primary, Obama described it as the potential tiebreaker. Then he went out and lost it. Nevertheless, all but openly gloating, NBC's Tim Russert took it upon himself to announce, "We now know who the Democratic nominee's going to be, and no one's going to dispute it." Reaction among some Obama supporters was less polite. "It's high time," wrote John Aravosis on americablog. com, "the Superdelegates told the Clintons to take their sorry, scandal-ridden asses and get the hell out. We are going to have another month of these vindictive, racist losers destroying Obama's credibility with the very voters he is going to need in the fall to beat [John ] McCain." Clinton didn't help herself with an infelicitous demographic allusion, citing an Associated Press story "that found how Senator Obama's support... among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again." This prompted even so normally sensible an observer as my good friend Joe Conason to compare her to George Wallace. So did New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, who's been fanning the racial flames since Obama's New Hampshire loss. This because under the politically correct rules of engagement preferred by the Obama camp, only the Illinois senator gets to make ex cathedra observations about such ticklish matters as race and class, which must be treated as infallible. Pundits like Herbert and The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson have been chattering about the so-called "Bradley effect" ever since New Hampshire, but the Clinton camp must not. Why not ? Because contrary to conventional wisdom, it wasn't the Clintons who "racialized" the campaign at all. It was the Obama campaign, seemingly for the sake of galvanizing African American voters in must-win South Carolina. (See Princeton historian Sean Wilentz's article, "Race Man: How Barack Obama Played the Race Card and Blamed Hillary Clinton," in The New Republic. ) The problem, however, is that tactic, along with the crackpot effusions of Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Obama's deeply unpersuasive claim that he knew nothing about them, transformed his cand
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Instant Karma for Clinton's...'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In my opinion, he is at least as calculating and > unprincipled as Hillary is portrayed as being, at > least as obsessed with power, but with vastly less > to offer the country and vastly more impressed with > his own wonderfulness. He's traded almost exclusively > on his charisma and oratorical abilities. He's no > friend of progressives, either. > > I think he is very likely unelectable, and if he > were to win, he'd be an absolute disaster in office > (although not as bad as McCain). He's fundamentally, > in my view, a fraud, and we'll live to regret it if > we elect him. > I disagree, not with the endless machinations that accompany any national political campaign, especially for President, but that Obama would be a disaster. When I watch him I watch the silence that he carries with him, and the way that he thinks on his feet. For these reasons alone, I think he learns well on the job through his immediate experience. I don't think Clinton is the awful person many people paint her as. Its just that I am willing to risk what comes up next on Obama. I have a pretty good idea of what to expect with her, and its not so bad, but I want more than that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Instant Karma for Clinton's...'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On May 19, 2008, at 7:57 PM, authfriend wrote: > > >> I'm sure that he and I could sit down and cook up quite > >> a list. I'd have to help him because he has MS and finds > >> it hard to talk, much less write. For starters, I'm sure > >> he'd include the fact that she claims that Florida and > >> Michigan should be counted, while she and all the candidates > >> promised not to campaign there and Obama wasn't even on the > >> ballot in Michigan. How sleazy is that? It's like agreeing > >> not to use weapons in a fight, then pulling out a knife once > >> the fight is underway and your opponent is unarmed. > > > > I'm glad I asked, because this is a serious > > misunderstanding. It isn't the least bit "sleazy," > > it's a legitimate issue and is recognized as such > > by Democratic Party officials. They've been working > > for some time to arrive at a fair solution. > > Judy, tell me, is there *anything* HIllary could do that you > couldn't find a way to rationalize, or blame on Obama or his > supporters? Well, Sal, that's your stopidest question yet. Was there anything in my explanation of the Florida- Michigan situation that you had a problem with, anything you thought wasn't accurate? Were you even aware of any of the things I mentioned relating to that situation? Did you know, for example, that Democratic Party officials consider it important that they find some way to count the votes and the delegates that's fair to both Clinton and Obama? Or did you, like Rick and his friend, simply *assume* Clinton was playing a "sleazy" game because somebody on an anti-Hillary site said so?
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Instant Karma for Clinton's...'
I commend Judy for looking up the particulars of this interview. Obviously it was the interviewer who, not satisfied with the answer he got, kept pushing, until he got some controversy. And yet the impression remains, as in Feste's case. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" wrote: > > > > I feel the same way about Clinton as Rick's friend. I had a > > favorable impression of her when the campaign started, but > > when the pressure was on her she resorted to some nasty > > little games. Just to give one example, when asked about > > rumors that Obama might be a Muslim, she said that he was > > not, but then added "As far as I know," which was a > > dirty trick designed to keep the rumors alive. > > Excellent example of how you've been flummoxed by > the media. Here's the transcript of that exchange: > > KROFT: You don't believe that Senator Obama's a Muslim. > > CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that's--you know, there is not > basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he > says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that. > > KROFT: And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that > he's not a Muslim. > > CLINTON: Right. Right. > > KROFT: You don't believe that he's a Muslim or implying? Right. > > CLINTON: No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that > on, as far as I know. > > KROFT: It's just scurrilous -- > > CLINTON: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous > rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, > you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the > time. > > Here's part of what Media Matters had to say about this: > > "[Reporters and pundits] said Clinton was guilty of 'hemming > and hawing' in response to Kroft's peculiar, repeated > insistence that she make some sort of declarative statement > about her opponents religious beliefs. And then when she did, > Kroft asked that she do it again. > > "That's when Clinton, looking befuddled by the multiple > requests, added some qualifiers to her response, including > 'as far as I know.' > > "What stood out in the exchange was not Clinton's responses, > but Kroft's weird persistence in asking a question that > Clinton addressed unequivocally the first time, as though > he was trying to draw out something she was not saying. > > "Even more peculiar was Kroft's obsession with the Muslim > question amid a 60 Minutes report that was about Ohio's > shrinking working class and what Clinton and Obama were > going to do to try stop of the overseas flow of U.S. > manufacturing jobs. (Note to Kroft and the rest of the > media: Obama is not a Muslim; Clinton knows Obama is not > a Muslim; Clinton does not believe Obama is a Muslim. > Clinton made this very clear.)" > > Read the rest, including a detailed, documented account > of how the media deliberately made it seem as though she > was waffling on the question: > > http://mediamatters.org/columns/200803110002 > > "A dirty trick designed to keep the rumors alive"? > > She said it wasn't true seven times (not counting > the repetitions of "No") and followed that up by > expressing sympathy with Obama for having had to > deal with a false smear. "As far as I know" was a > reflex, meaning "What the hell are you getting at?" > > > There have been other examples, as in the Philadelphia debate > > when she chose to take up the moderators' bidding and mention > > that Obama had been on the same board as William Ayers (the > > former Weather Underground guy). She wanted to smear Obama by > > linking him to Ayers. Again, thoroughly nasty stuff that you > > would expect from a Republican but not from a Democrat. I > > thought it went over the line. > > I could have done without that too. > > > Then soon after that she started talking about "totally > > obliterating" Iran, and at that point I realized that here > > is a woman who has sold her soul to the devil in exchange > > for shot at what she longs for most -- power. > > Oh, for pete's sake. The whole point of that was > *deterrence*. It's the last thing she'd ever want > to have to do. This is by contrast to McCain (and > Bush, of course), who want to bomb Iran *before* > it acquires nuclear weapons. If you read the whole > interview, the idea is to discourage Iran from even > *trying* to acquire nukes by making it clear that it > wouldn't ever dare use them. > > > I find her central argument, that she is more electable than > > Obama, to be weak in the extreme. If Obama, who has run a > > brilliant campaign, is so unelectable, how come he's just > > defeated the formidable Hillary Clinton? > > Well, in the first place, he hasn't quite yet done so. > It's still a very close race. In the second place, > "electable" refers to the general election, not the > primaries. Two very different animals. You have to > look at the demographics in a very different way. You
[FairfieldLife] Re: Exploring The Mechanics Of Judgment, Beliefs
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > When you want a really good laugh azgrey, go to: > > http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/ > > She got into it with a highly respected award winning > journalist who completely skewers her. > The "cracked pot" makes me laugh till I cry. Enjoy. Old news, satvadude. I know you never will, but you'd see something quite different if you went to look at the original exchanges on alt.m.t before Andrew took them out of context for his site. That site is his cowardly way of taking revenge for having *been* skewered, over and over and over, by me and other TMers on that newsgroup. As far as I'm concerned, it's a badge of honor. (Oh, and by the way, his big award--the one that made his career--was for an extraordinarily deceitful and misleading article in JAMA about Deepak Chopra and the TMO. He's an even more incurable liar than Barry, although he's a lot better at it than Barry is.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Instant Karma for Clinton's...'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I feel the same way about Clinton as Rick's friend. I had a > favorable impression of her when the campaign started, but > when the pressure was on her she resorted to some nasty > little games. Just to give one example, when asked about > rumors that Obama might be a Muslim, she said that he was > not, but then added "As far as I know," which was a > dirty trick designed to keep the rumors alive. Excellent example of how you've been flummoxed by the media. Here's the transcript of that exchange: KROFT: You don't believe that Senator Obama's a Muslim. CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that's--you know, there is not basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that. KROFT: And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim. CLINTON: Right. Right. KROFT: You don't believe that he's a Muslim or implying? Right. CLINTON: No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know. KROFT: It's just scurrilous -- CLINTON: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time. Here's part of what Media Matters had to say about this: "[Reporters and pundits] said Clinton was guilty of 'hemming and hawing' in response to Kroft's peculiar, repeated insistence that she make some sort of declarative statement about her opponents religious beliefs. And then when she did, Kroft asked that she do it again. "That's when Clinton, looking befuddled by the multiple requests, added some qualifiers to her response, including 'as far as I know.' "What stood out in the exchange was not Clinton's responses, but Kroft's weird persistence in asking a question that Clinton addressed unequivocally the first time, as though he was trying to draw out something she was not saying. "Even more peculiar was Kroft's obsession with the Muslim question amid a 60 Minutes report that was about Ohio's shrinking working class and what Clinton and Obama were going to do to try stop of the overseas flow of U.S. manufacturing jobs. (Note to Kroft and the rest of the media: Obama is not a Muslim; Clinton knows Obama is not a Muslim; Clinton does not believe Obama is a Muslim. Clinton made this very clear.)" Read the rest, including a detailed, documented account of how the media deliberately made it seem as though she was waffling on the question: http://mediamatters.org/columns/200803110002 "A dirty trick designed to keep the rumors alive"? She said it wasn't true seven times (not counting the repetitions of "No") and followed that up by expressing sympathy with Obama for having had to deal with a false smear. "As far as I know" was a reflex, meaning "What the hell are you getting at?" > There have been other examples, as in the Philadelphia debate > when she chose to take up the moderators' bidding and mention > that Obama had been on the same board as William Ayers (the > former Weather Underground guy). She wanted to smear Obama by > linking him to Ayers. Again, thoroughly nasty stuff that you > would expect from a Republican but not from a Democrat. I > thought it went over the line. I could have done without that too. > Then soon after that she started talking about "totally > obliterating" Iran, and at that point I realized that here > is a woman who has sold her soul to the devil in exchange > for shot at what she longs for most -- power. Oh, for pete's sake. The whole point of that was *deterrence*. It's the last thing she'd ever want to have to do. This is by contrast to McCain (and Bush, of course), who want to bomb Iran *before* it acquires nuclear weapons. If you read the whole interview, the idea is to discourage Iran from even *trying* to acquire nukes by making it clear that it wouldn't ever dare use them. > I find her central argument, that she is more electable than > Obama, to be weak in the extreme. If Obama, who has run a > brilliant campaign, is so unelectable, how come he's just > defeated the formidable Hillary Clinton? Well, in the first place, he hasn't quite yet done so. It's still a very close race. In the second place, "electable" refers to the general election, not the primaries. Two very different animals. You have to look at the demographics in a very different way. You may have seen Brigante's post of Karl Rove's analysis; it's only one of many such. There are differences of opinion on this, obviously, but it's not at all an outlandish or even a "weak" claim. > The thing about Obama is that he was born under a lucky star. > I'm reminded of the story told about Napoleon, who when > considering promoting an officer, would ask, "Is he lucky?" > Luck counted for as much in Napoleon's eyes as military > prowess. (I guess some of us would call it "nature support.") > Obama was lucky when h
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Instant Karma for Clinton's...'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On May 19, 2008, at 8:32 PM, Tom wrote: > > > Of course I noticed that Sweetie. Of course I read them. > > Of course I saw your weak attempt at manipulation. > > I'm not upset in the least that you, once again, > > prove my premise. I *am* bothered, mildly, that you so > > easily twist the truth for your own ends. Stupid > > your not. Immune to honesty you are. I feel sorry for you. > > > Chronic liars with personality disorders and an internet connection > are something to watch out for. Editing ability or no. In real life we > close off such imbalanced communication; in digital life you have to > sidestep the latest vomitus. > > It's rarely a "nice" scene. > > Thanks for noticing. :-) > Vaj, you are no one to be talking in this regard. You may favor passive agressive attacks, as does Tom, but neither of you wins any prizes for being more ethical or upstanding or even having better manners here. (and before you start slinging it my way, I take responsibility for everything I write here-- no problem...)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Exploring The Mechanics Of Judgment, Beliefs
When you want a really good laugh azgrey, go to: http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/ She got into it with a highly respected award winning journalist who completely skewers her. The "cracked pot" makes me laugh till I cry. Enjoy. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > Fascinating article, Vaj. Thanks for posting it. I > > > was particularly taken with: > > > > > > > ...judgments often depend on whether the judging > > > > person is in conflict with the person performing > > > > the action. When a soldier sets off a bomb, an > > > > observer's perception of whether the soldier > > > > intended to kill civilians depends on whether > > > > the soldier and observer are on the same side > > > > of the conflict. > > > > > > Isn't this Fairfield Life in a nutshell? > > > > > > And isn't it the heart of the current discussion > > > about what "becoming in tune with nature" might > > > really mean? Doesn't it explain the tendency to > > > excuse in Maharishi or Hillary the *same* actions > > > one would soundly condemn in another? > > > > The example of this tendency that absolutely > > fascinates me is how the TM critics complain > > endlessly about the purported lack of honesty > > of MMY and the TMO, yet happily tolerate the > > presence here of chronic, malicious liars like > > Barry and Vaj. > > > > While I am not aware of mendaciousness on the part of > Vaj and TurquoiseB, the presence of your chronic and > malicious lying is noted but neither tolerated nor > happily embraced. Good day to you Madam. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Instant Karma for Clinton's...'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On May 19, 2008, at 8:32 PM, Tom wrote: > > > Of course I noticed that Sweetie. Of course I read them. > > Of course I saw your weak attempt at manipulation. > > I'm not upset in the least that you, once again, > > prove my premise. I *am* bothered, mildly, that you so > > easily twist the truth for your own ends. Stupid > > your not. Immune to honesty you are. I feel sorry for you. > > Chronic liars with personality disorders and an internet > connection are something to watch out for. But never, ever specify what their supposed lies are, because you don't want to give them a chance to prove your accusation is false. Shades of Guantanamo, as I said. Editing ability or no. In real life we > close off such imbalanced communication; in digital life you have to > sidestep the latest vomitus. > > It's rarely a "nice" scene. > > Thanks for noticing. :-) >
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Instant Karma for Clinton's...'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On May 19, 2008, at 7:30 PM, authfriend wrote: > > >> Jeez, Judy, talk about "utterly idiotic." > > > > No, these kinds of vague complaints are tossed > > around about Hillary as if it were established > > fact that she's conducted herself badly, without > > actually saying what the conduct they're objecting > > to *is*. A lot of the time, if they're asked for > > specifics, it turns out to be one of the many > > smears against her, like the accusation she > > "leaked" the photo of Obama in "Muslim" dress, > > which was a complete fabrication. A lot of the > > stuff in Paglia's column that was posted here > > awhile back was also fabrication. > > > > That's the thing, see, when all you read is > > anti-Hillary stuff, you have no reason to > > question these negative stories. That's why it's > > important to get the specifics. > > OK, well Rick mentioned one specific--the Florida and > Michigan situation, in which she agreed to one set of rules, > and then, when she started losing, tried to change them. Yeah, that's a huge misunderstanding, as I explained to Rick. > And I'll venture one of my own--supposedly it was her > campaign that orchestrated than inane Iron My Shirt > scenario, specifically trying to manipulate > voters like yourself. And you're falling for all of it. I am? I don't believe I ever mentioned the "iron my shirt" incident, and I'm not sure how I could have been "manipulated" by it, since I was already supporting Hillary when it occurred. Actually the voters being manipulated in this case are folks like you who are only too ready to believe the worst of Hillary. The two guys were tracked down, and it turns out it was a stunt by a radio program in Boston. No evidence whatsoever that they were plants. Too bad, Sal. Got any more complaints about how Hillary has conducted her campaign? Let's get 'em all on the table.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Instant Karma for Clinton's...'
I feel the same way about Clinton as Rick's friend. I had a favorable impression of her when the campaign started, but when the pressure was on her she resorted to some nasty little games. Just to give one example, when asked about rumors that Obama might be a Muslim, she said that he was not, but then added "As far as I know," which was a dirty trick designed to keep the rumors alive. There have been other examples, as in the Philadelphia debate when she chose to take up the moderators' bidding and mention that Obama had been on the same board as William Ayers (the former Weather Underground guy). She wanted to smear Obama by linking him to Ayers. Again, thoroughly nasty stuff that you would expect from a Republican but not from a Democrat. I thought it went over the line. Then soon after that she started talking about "totally obliterating" Iran, and at that point I realized that here is a woman who has sold her soul to the devil in exchange for shot at what she longs for most -- power. I find her central argument, that she is more electable than Obama, to be weak in the extreme. If Obama, who has run a brilliant campaign, is so unelectable, how come he's just defeated the formidable Hillary Clinton? The thing about Obama is that he was born under a lucky star. I'm reminded of the story told about Napoleon, who when considering promoting an officer, would ask, "Is he lucky?" Luck counted for as much in Napoleon's eyes as military prowess. (I guess some of us would call it "nature support.") Obama was lucky when he ran for the Senate in 2004, because his opponent dropped out as a result of a sex scandal. Obama had it easy. He was also lucky in the timing of his run for the presidency, because if there was ever a year in which every sign for the Democrats was favorable, it is this year. He was in the right place at the right time. I have great hopes for Obama. He is far from being unelectable. In fact, I keep hearing the sound of distant rocks falling (remember that Jim Reeves song about distant drums?) . . . that will end up as a LANDSLIDE for Obama! I wouldn't bet against him on that. His star is rising and I think it will rise pretty high. As for Hillary, I hope she returns to the Senate and rediscovers some of the dignity she sacrificed in her ruthless, unprincipled pursuit of the presidency. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine > wrote: > > > > On May 19, 2008, at 6:07 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > >> > > >> I didn't see Hillary in Iowa because every time she was > > >> scheduled to come here, winter weather forced her to cancel. > > >> A good friend went over to Mt. Pleasant to see her and came > > >> back inspired. He said that he doubted very much that > > >> anything could change his mind. He would be voting for her. > > >> Now, based on the way she has conducted herself during the > > >> campaign, > > > > > > Meaning what, specifically? What conduct is he > > > referring to? > > > > Jeez, Judy, talk about "utterly idiotic." > > No, these kinds of vague complaints are tossed > around about Hillary as if it were established > fact that she's conducted herself badly, without > actually saying what the conduct they're objecting > to *is*. A lot of the time, if they're asked for > specifics, it turns out to be one of the many > smears against her, like the accusation she > "leaked" the photo of Obama in "Muslim" dress, > which was a complete fabrication. A lot of the > stuff in Paglia's column that was posted here > awhile back was also fabrication. > > That's the thing, see, when all you read is > anti-Hillary stuff, you have no reason to > question these negative stories. That's why it's > important to get the specifics. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Instant Karma for Clinton's...'
On May 19, 2008, at 7:57 PM, authfriend wrote: I'm sure that he and I could sit down and cook up quite a list. I'd have to help him because he has MS and finds it hard to talk, much less write. For starters, I'm sure he'd include the fact that she claims that Florida and Michigan should be counted, while she and all the candidates promised not to campaign there and Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. How sleazy is that? It's like agreeing not to use weapons in a fight, then pulling out a knife once the fight is underway and your opponent is unarmed. I'm glad I asked, because this is a serious misunderstanding. It isn't the least bit "sleazy," it's a legitimate issue and is recognized as such by Democratic Party officials. They've been working for some time to arrive at a fair solution. Judy, tell me, is there *anything* HIllary could do that you couldn't find a way to rationalize, or blame on Obama or his supporters?If she came out wearing a white robe and pointed hood with White Power emblazoned on her forehead, I'm guessing you could easily find a way to justify it. My top picks would be: a) She's only kidding. Can't you guys take a joke? b) Obama's supporters made her do it. c) David Duke's supporters made her do it. d) Woodrow Wilson's supporters made her do it. e) It's the only way she can still keep Bill interested. I know, this is an "utterly reprehensible" thing to even suggest, and doing so makes me: a) A sleazebag b) A scumbag c) A dirtbag d) A moron e) A liar f) All of the above See, I've saved you the trouble of having to launch a series (or even one) of attacking posts. Don't thank me. :) Now, please answer the question. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Exploring The Mechanics Of Judgment, Beliefs
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > Fascinating article, Vaj. Thanks for posting it. I > > > was particularly taken with: > > > > > > > ...judgments often depend on whether the judging > > > > person is in conflict with the person performing > > > > the action. When a soldier sets off a bomb, an > > > > observer's perception of whether the soldier > > > > intended to kill civilians depends on whether > > > > the soldier and observer are on the same side > > > > of the conflict. > > > > > > Isn't this Fairfield Life in a nutshell? > > > > > > And isn't it the heart of the current discussion > > > about what "becoming in tune with nature" might > > > really mean? Doesn't it explain the tendency to > > > excuse in Maharishi or Hillary the *same* actions > > > one would soundly condemn in another? > > > > The example of this tendency that absolutely > > fascinates me is how the TM critics complain > > endlessly about the purported lack of honesty > > of MMY and the TMO, yet happily tolerate the > > presence here of chronic, malicious liars like > > Barry and Vaj. > > While I am not aware of mendaciousness on the part of > Vaj and TurquoiseB, Even though it's been documented over and over... > the presence of your chronic and > malicious lying is noted but neither tolerated nor > happily embraced. And never to be specified, let alone documented. Why am I reminded of the kangaroo courts at Guantanamo, I wonder? Good day to you Madam.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Instant Karma for Clinton's...'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Of course I noticed that Sweetie. Of course I read them. > Of course I saw your weak attempt at manipulation. Let's see now, by "weak attempt at manipulation," you're referring to the fact that I posted a piece from an Obama supporter that refutes Cooper's claims against Hillary. But the post that detailed those false claims in the first place wasn't an attempt at manipulation at all. Have I got that right? > I'm not upset in the least that you, once again, > prove my premise. I *am* bothered, mildly, that you so > easily twist the truth for your own ends. But somehow you will not be willing to say exactly what that purported twisting of the truth involves. Funny how that works. Stupid > your not. Immune to honesty you are. I feel sorry for you. > > You really should breathe deeply and stop hyperventilating. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > Heehee. A one-two dose of RELY RELY STOOPID. > > > > Neither of these dorks managed to notice that the piece > > I posted in defense of Clinton was *written by an Obama > > supporter*. For that matter, neither of them actually > > read the piece they're so upset about. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Tom" wrote: > > > > > > > > I sleep so much better knowing that no matter how > > > > accurate, valid, and factual the criticism of a Clinton, > > > > FFL will be swiftly corrected by its own personal > > > > Clintonista. > > > > > > > > > It's the voice of the laws of nature speaking, > > > Tom. Not content with how quickly the TM and TM- > > > Siddhi programs are allowing people to directly > > > perceive what it "wants" and to persuade us to > > > fall in line with its "will," Nature has chosen > > > to speak to us directly through Judy. > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] God is a wuss
So, we both read Sartre as teens, but I liked Camus better. I started reading these dudes when I was fourteen and attending a boarding school right outside of Paris, France. Where were you? On the whole, I agree with your assessment. Like you, Blake thought of the ego (he called it "the selfhood") as "Satan." "I in my very selfhood am that evil one." And God, for him, was the "human imagination" itself, in its ground state, a term he did not use, but it is everywhere implicit. It included what you are calling "all there is." But there is a lot more to Satan than the ego, because the ego, though small and a mere fiction, is also as large as the manifest universe in its effects and tenacious as hell. Like God, Satan is a term that has suffered an influx of much silliness-- in the last three hundred years especially. To be a viable term, rather than denoting the familiar figure we inherited from folk tales and then made into something literal, Satan has to be understood as myth in the fullest literary sense of that term. Myth in that sense is a necessary organizing principle for the mind, including and especially the collective mind (if there is to be social cohesion), a principle which is designed to function as a counter balance for the reasoning intellect. The understanding and the imagination (working as one) that creates such myth does so from a vantage point which has direct apprehension of the underlying mechanics of nature together with its laws of form. Obviously, such writing is not fully understood by anyone who cannot also achieve the point of view of the visionary who sees "the underlying mechanics of nature." In addition, he must be schooled in reading the language of myth, which is NOT to be read the same way we read the newspaper or a scientific report, but hardly anyone these days has the training to realize this. If you've been following me, then you understand that there always has been and continues to be a tradition of yogic praxis in the West, it just takes someone with a little practice in Comparative Studies to see that. It doesn't look like what India calls such praxis, and because it uses a different vocabulary, folks like willietex who are fooled by appearances are not in a position to see it. But back to Satan. Because our age is a fundamentalist age, its reading of the Bible is woefully so woefully insufficient to the demands of reading myth that it confuses God with Satan, which is what happens especially in the Book of Job. At the end of the book, what most people take to be God is speaking about how he created the world. Really, however, it is Satan bragging about having done it. I don't have time to show you, nor do you prolly have the inclination to read my demonstration, but the point is that Satan is more than just ego--he is also the first impulse of consciousness that manifests the physical universe. This goes to the heart of the discussion of Jim's claim that he creates what he perceives and everyone's objection to him by telling him to do impossible things like walk through walls and prevent the next war. It was a hopelessly shallow discussion from my perspective . --- Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I guess if you're going to look at "God" as a > "personal" deity then your > blog makes some sense. But you're forgetting that > MMY and the Shankara > tradition taught "God" as the impersonal. I always > got a charge out of > reading the free books ISKON was handing out, > especially their Srimad > Bhagavatam where Prabupad would go on a rant against > the impersonal and > he, of course, was ranting against the competition > of the time. :) > > "Laws of Nature" is still a pretty good secular > notion to explain what > many call "God" especially in abstract terms rather > than some being that > micromanages your life. If you don't believe in the > laws of nature then > turn on your webcam so we can see you walk through > that wall next to > you. :) > > I was not raised in a religious family. I only went > to church to get a > scout badge and after that I was through with it. > To me, even at that > age it was pretty lame. As a teenager I was a big > fan of the > existentialist movement (particularly reading a lot > of Sarte) and > considered myself an atheist. I now think that > becoming an atheist is > the last stage before one treads the true path of > "God" realization. > Note I put "God" in quotes. I think it was Bucky > Fuller who gave a talk > (maybe with MMY) that "God" was concept and you > could name that concept > whatever you want. The three letter word tends to > be a little lacking > though. > > Now, I "believe" or "experience" "God" as the > totality of everything > that is, has ever been or will ever be. I also like > to think of the > analogy of "God" in terms of sound physics. It's > like a string on a > guitar or bass. "God" is the fundamental tone and
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Instant Karma for Clinton's...'
On May 19, 2008, at 8:32 PM, Tom wrote: > Of course I noticed that Sweetie. Of course I read them. > Of course I saw your weak attempt at manipulation. > I'm not upset in the least that you, once again, > prove my premise. I *am* bothered, mildly, that you so > easily twist the truth for your own ends. Stupid > your not. Immune to honesty you are. I feel sorry for you. Chronic liars with personality disorders and an internet connection are something to watch out for. Editing ability or no. In real life we close off such imbalanced communication; in digital life you have to sidestep the latest vomitus. It's rarely a "nice" scene. Thanks for noticing. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Instant Karma for Clinton's...'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Behalf Of authfriend > FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > > > I didn't see Hillary in Iowa because every time she was > > scheduled to come here, winter weather forced her to cancel. > > A good friend went over to Mt. Pleasant to see her and came > > back inspired. He said that he doubted very much that > > anything could change his mind. He would be voting for her. > > Now, based on the way she has conducted herself during the > > campaign, > > Meaning what, specifically? What conduct is he > referring to? > > I'm sure that he and I could sit down and cook up quite > a list. I'd have to help him because he has MS and finds > it hard to talk, much less write. For starters, I'm sure > he'd include the fact that she claims that Florida and > Michigan should be counted, while she and all the candidates > promised not to campaign there and Obama wasn't even on the > ballot in Michigan. How sleazy is that? It's like agreeing > not to use weapons in a fight, then pulling out a knife once > the fight is underway and your opponent is unarmed. I'm glad I asked, because this is a serious misunderstanding. It isn't the least bit "sleazy," it's a legitimate issue and is recognized as such by Democratic Party officials. They've been working for some time to arrive at a fair solution. Basically, the issue is that voters in Florida and Michigan have been disenfranchised. At the time the decision was made to disqualify those primaries, nobody dreamed it would make any difference; nobody expected the race to be this close or last so long. Now it turns out these people's votes *could* make a difference, and the party realizes not counting them is a problem. It's actually extremely complicated. There were some shady shenanigans involved in the decision to hold the primaries early, possibly influenced by Republican state legislators; there's a question whether one pro-Obama Democratic official ruled that *all* the delegates should be disqualified, when party rules provide for only half of them to be disqualified, because she anticipated that Hillary would win both states; Obama ran TV commercials nationally that he knew would play in Florida before the primary; his surrogates in Michigan urged Obama supporters to vote for Uncommitted; Obama wouldn't agree to revotes; etc., etc. There's loads of information about all this on the Web if you'd like to get a more complete story rather than automatically assuming that it's just a "sleazy" Hillary tactic. So you said you could make "quite a list." What would some of the other items on that list be?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Instant Karma for Clinton's...'
On May 19, 2008, at 7:30 PM, authfriend wrote: Jeez, Judy, talk about "utterly idiotic." No, these kinds of vague complaints are tossed around about Hillary as if it were established fact that she's conducted herself badly, without actually saying what the conduct they're objecting to *is*. A lot of the time, if they're asked for specifics, it turns out to be one of the many smears against her, like the accusation she "leaked" the photo of Obama in "Muslim" dress, which was a complete fabrication. A lot of the stuff in Paglia's column that was posted here awhile back was also fabrication. That's the thing, see, when all you read is anti-Hillary stuff, you have no reason to question these negative stories. That's why it's important to get the specifics. OK, well Rick mentioned one specific--the Florida and Michigan situation, in which she agreed to one set of rules, and then, when she started losing, tried to change them. And I'll venture one of my own--supposedly it was her campaign that orchestrated than inane Iron My Shirt scenario, specifically trying to manipulate voters like yourself. And you're falling for all of it. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Natural trans fats may be good for you
http://tinyurl.com/5rervx Natural trans fats may be good for you Found in milk and yogurt, vaccenic acid -- a naturally occurring trans fat -- lowered cholesterol in rats, a Canadian study finds. By Susan Bowerman, Special to The Los Angeles Times May 19, 2008 Trans fats: We've been told that they're worse for our hearts than saturated animal fats. Now, as consumers increasingly turn to food that's trans-fat-free and manufacturers pull them from more and more processed foods, comes a twist. Some trans fats, ones that exist naturally, may be good for you. In a 4-month study at the University of Alberta presented in March at a scientific meeting, obese rats fed a diet enriched with vaccenic acid -- a naturally occurring trans fat found in milk and yogurt -- had significant reductions in total cholesterol, LDL (or "bad") cholesterol and triglycerides. The researchers reported that a key benefit of vaccenic acid is its ability to reduce the production of chylomicrons -- small particles of fat, protein and cholesterol formed in the gut that transport fats to various tissues of the body. Like humans, obese rats produce too many chylomicrons, which raises lipids in the bloodstream. After 16 weeks of consuming vaccenic acid- enriched chow, however, the levels of chylomicrons dropped by more than half. It's not clear what this finding means for humans. First, the study was done in rats -- the researchers say they're planning some human clinical trials with vaccenic acid supplementation. Second, because the study diets were supplemented with vaccenic acid, the amounts the rats ate relative to their body weight was more than we would naturally eat in our usual diet. The study is in line with other reports that natural trans fats have different effects on the body than the industrially created ones. Most of the trans fats we eat -- by far -- come from partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, produced from liquid oils by industrial processing to create a firmer fat. Others occur naturally in milk products, formed in the rumen (or first stomach) of ruminant animals such as cows, goats, sheep and yaks when they're fed a grass-rich diet. Several studies of large populations have looked at the link between trans fatty acid intake and risk of developing atherosclerosis, and all have shown that the risk goes up only with the intake of "industrial" trans fatty acids, not the natural ones. Several clinical trials -- in which people were fed special diets for weeks or months -- have shown that manufactured trans fats raise LDL cholesterol levels to the same degree as saturated fats, and also lead to lower levels of the good, or HDL, cholesterol. It's been estimated that it takes only about 12 grams of manmade trans fats to see this effect. Trans-fat-free foods are big business, and today the majority of margarines, cookies, snack cakes and chips are devoid of the stuff. The change was fueled by the fact that, two years ago, it became law that food labels disclose industrial trans fat content. Even if all the partially hydrogenated vegetable oil disappeared from our foods, we'd still consume about 1% to 5% of our calories from naturally occurring trans fatty acids, mostly vaccenic acid. At this point, it's not known how much vaccenic acid we'd need to consume to reap benefits. But in the meantime, anyone wanting to increase their natural-trans-fat intake might want to develop a taste for exotic cheese. A study published in February in the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry reported that yak cheese, from animals grazing in alpine grassland, contains more than four times the vaccenic acid of conventional cheddar cheese from grain-fed dairy cows. (The study didn't investigate the levels in cheese from grass-fed cattle.) It also contains three times more beneficial omega-3 fatty acids. The authors conclude that a daily serving of 3 ounces of yak cheese might promote health. Yak cheese isn't easy to find -- but the bottom line seems to be that the fatty acid composition of milk, cheese and yogurt from grass-fed animals may be more healthful than we knew -- and perhaps, when the clinical trials are done, vaccenic acid-rich milkfat may join the ranks of other healthful fats along with those found in fish oil and nuts. Cheese as a new, heart-positive snack? Just make sure you put it on a whole-grain, trans-fat-free cracker. Susan Bowerman is a registered dietitian and assistant director of the UCLA Center for Human Nutrition.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Instant Karma for Clinton's...'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of authfriend > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 6:08 PM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Instant Karma for Clinton's...' > > > > --- In HYPERLINK > "mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com"FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick > Archer" wrote: > > > > I didn't see Hillary in Iowa because every time she was > > scheduled to come here, winter weather forced her to cancel. > > A good friend went over to Mt. Pleasant to see her and came > > back inspired. He said that he doubted very much that > > anything could change his mind. He would be voting for her. > > Now, based on the way she has conducted herself during the > > campaign, > > Meaning what, specifically? What conduct is he > referring to? > > I'm sure that he and I could sit down and cook up quite a list. I'd have to > help him because he has MS and finds it hard to talk, much less write. For > starters, I'm sure he'd include the fact that she claims that Florida and > Michigan should be counted, while she and all the candidates promised not to > campaign there and Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. How sleazy > is that? It's like agreeing not to use weapons in a fight, then pulling out > a knife once the fight is underway and your opponent is unarmed. > The analogy is spot-on.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Instant Karma for Clinton's...'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On May 19, 2008, at 6:07 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > >> > >> I didn't see Hillary in Iowa because every time she was > >> scheduled to come here, winter weather forced her to cancel. > >> A good friend went over to Mt. Pleasant to see her and came > >> back inspired. He said that he doubted very much that > >> anything could change his mind. He would be voting for her. > >> Now, based on the way she has conducted herself during the > >> campaign, > > > > Meaning what, specifically? What conduct is he > > referring to? > > Jeez, Judy, talk about "utterly idiotic." > > Sal > Amazing isn't it?
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Instant Karma for Clinton's...'
Not an uncommon reaction and closely at the root of why she is a failure in her attempt at gaining the nomination. The more ya get to know her, the less there is to like. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I didn't see Hillary in Iowa because every time she was scheduled to come > here, winter weather forced her to cancel. A good friend went over to Mt. > Pleasant to see her and came back inspired. He said that he doubted very > much that anything could change his mind. He would be voting for her. Now, > based on the way she has conducted herself during the campaign, he says that > if she won the nomination, he'd still vote for her, but he'd have to hold > his nose.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Exploring The Mechanics Of Judgment, Beliefs
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > Fascinating article, Vaj. Thanks for posting it. I > > > was particularly taken with: > > > > > > > ...judgments often depend on whether the judging > > > > person is in conflict with the person performing > > > > the action. When a soldier sets off a bomb, an > > > > observer's perception of whether the soldier > > > > intended to kill civilians depends on whether > > > > the soldier and observer are on the same side > > > > of the conflict. > > > > > > Isn't this Fairfield Life in a nutshell? > > > > > > And isn't it the heart of the current discussion > > > about what "becoming in tune with nature" might > > > really mean? Doesn't it explain the tendency to > > > excuse in Maharishi or Hillary the *same* actions > > > one would soundly condemn in another? > > > > The example of this tendency that absolutely > > fascinates me is how the TM critics complain > > endlessly about the purported lack of honesty > > of MMY and the TMO, yet happily tolerate the > > presence here of chronic, malicious liars like > > Barry and Vaj. > > This, in a nutshell, is the very *intent* I > was commenting on in the post you called > RELY RELY STOOPID. > > It's a behavioral pattern, one that you share > with Hillary Clinton. Whenever anyone says > anything that challenges the image you are > trying to project or what you believe, your > first impulse is to shoot the messenger, to > demonize and try to undermine the credibility > of the person who has said the thing you don't > agree with. > > Your second impulse -- both you and Hillary -- > is to deny that you did it. "I just posted > a URL to an article, without comment." > > Yeah, right. > > You share an ethical system with Hillary Clinton, > Judy. Both of you are *completely* reactive; you > cannot *stand* to have anyone say anything about > you or about what you believe that you don't agree > with. You are both *compelled* to rebut it. And > you are both *compelled* to rebut it the same way. > Your first reaction is *almost always* to attempt > to discredit the person who has disagreed with you. > Your second is claim you didn't do it, and that > that was not your intent. > > Yeah, right. > > I suspect that there is not one person on this > forum who buys it, other than yourself. They can > see your behavioral patterns, even if you cannot. > Exactly the way they can see Hillary's, when > you cannot. > Quite a sight to witness on a daily basis.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Exploring The Mechanics Of Judgment, Beliefs
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > Fascinating article, Vaj. Thanks for posting it. I > > was particularly taken with: > > > > > ...judgments often depend on whether the judging > > > person is in conflict with the person performing > > > the action. When a soldier sets off a bomb, an > > > observer's perception of whether the soldier > > > intended to kill civilians depends on whether > > > the soldier and observer are on the same side > > > of the conflict. > > > > Isn't this Fairfield Life in a nutshell? > > > > And isn't it the heart of the current discussion > > about what "becoming in tune with nature" might > > really mean? Doesn't it explain the tendency to > > excuse in Maharishi or Hillary the *same* actions > > one would soundly condemn in another? > > The example of this tendency that absolutely > fascinates me is how the TM critics complain > endlessly about the purported lack of honesty > of MMY and the TMO, yet happily tolerate the > presence here of chronic, malicious liars like > Barry and Vaj. > While I am not aware of mendaciousness on the part of Vaj and TurquoiseB, the presence of your chronic and malicious lying is noted but neither tolerated nor happily embraced. Good day to you Madam.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Instant Karma for Clinton's...'
Of course I noticed that Sweetie. Of course I read them. Of course I saw your weak attempt at manipulation. I'm not upset in the least that you, once again, prove my premise. I *am* bothered, mildly, that you so easily twist the truth for your own ends. Stupid your not. Immune to honesty you are. I feel sorry for you. You really should breathe deeply and stop hyperventilating. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Heehee. A one-two dose of RELY RELY STOOPID. > > Neither of these dorks managed to notice that the piece > I posted in defense of Clinton was *written by an Obama > supporter*. For that matter, neither of them actually > read the piece they're so upset about. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Tom" wrote: > > > > > > I sleep so much better knowing that no matter how > > > accurate, valid, and factual the criticism of a Clinton, > > > FFL will be swiftly corrected by its own personal > > > Clintonista. > > > > > > It's the voice of the laws of nature speaking, > > Tom. Not content with how quickly the TM and TM- > > Siddhi programs are allowing people to directly > > perceive what it "wants" and to persuade us to > > fall in line with its "will," Nature has chosen > > to speak to us directly through Judy. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Instant Karma for Clinton's...'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On May 19, 2008, at 6:07 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > >> > >> I didn't see Hillary in Iowa because every time she was > >> scheduled to come here, winter weather forced her to cancel. > >> A good friend went over to Mt. Pleasant to see her and came > >> back inspired. He said that he doubted very much that > >> anything could change his mind. He would be voting for her. > >> Now, based on the way she has conducted herself during the > >> campaign, > > > > Meaning what, specifically? What conduct is he > > referring to? > > Jeez, Judy, talk about "utterly idiotic." No, these kinds of vague complaints are tossed around about Hillary as if it were established fact that she's conducted herself badly, without actually saying what the conduct they're objecting to *is*. A lot of the time, if they're asked for specifics, it turns out to be one of the many smears against her, like the accusation she "leaked" the photo of Obama in "Muslim" dress, which was a complete fabrication. A lot of the stuff in Paglia's column that was posted here awhile back was also fabrication. That's the thing, see, when all you read is anti-Hillary stuff, you have no reason to question these negative stories. That's why it's important to get the specifics.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Elizabeth Cotten, was: God is a wuss
On May 19, 2008, at 6:43 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > Hey Vaj, yes thanks for the link. I haven't taken the time to really > check it out. Is RL playing an acoustic guitar? My favorite CDs are > his first two on acoustic. This is electric. Trancey electric. He loves the drone. So many hard rock acts stole this schtick. There are others considered classics on dime I haven't downloaded, but they are highly rated, Holland tour IIRC. > I never learned Freight Train before but I am building a show for a > museum with a train theme. There are so many interesting references > to trains both physical and as metaphor in early blues. So it was > natural to go back and take another look at Elizabeth's famous piece. > I had sort of categorized it as light weight folk music before, and > was completely blown away at how I had missed the whole point of the > song, that she is fleeing! The second verse is such a poetic way to > convey that information which is in such dramatic contrast to the > bouncy beat. I find it doubtful that she penned that verse when she > was 11 as the Wiki claims. I have heard her give different accounts > of why she wrote it too. I have such a new found respect for that song > and am busy doing reps on the old school cord shapes necessary to play > it. I'm not trying it her way, upside down, thats for sure! The train metaphor is just so deep, you just can't help yourself. I know the feeling. > It is amazing how close we were to never hearing her music at all! > So > many of the people in the folk revival were snatched from obscurity. > My life would look very different today without that revival! Well I'm more the folkie, so I hear a different subset. But a lot of the classics seem to still hit downeast believe it or not and we occasionally just seem to run into these folks. Right before he died, my wife and I ran into Gatemouth on the way to the Salt Lake City smoking area (with PBS film crew in tow). Last I ran into him he was walking off the bus in Ellsworth, Maine... Gone now.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Clinton better against McCain than Obama
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "If you're a Karl Rove conspiracy theorist, get ready for some head > spinning as you try to figure out this one: maps produced by the > consulting firm Rove heads show that, right now, in a hypothetical > head-to-head matchup, Hillary Clinton would be beating John McCain in > the Electoral College. In the same situation, Barack Obama would be > losing to McCain. (You can download the maps in PDF form here.) > > More specifically, this latest edition of the Rove firm's maps -- > they've been done before -- shows Clinton making a win all but > impossible for McCain. She wins 19 states, plus the District of > Columbia, for a total of 259 electoral votes. (There are 538 total > Electoral College votes; 270 are needed for victory.) In the same > analysis, McCain wins 25 states and 206 electoral votes. Six states -- > New Mexico, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan and New Hampshire -- > and 73 electoral votes are shown as tossups (defined as being within > 3 percentage points either way). In this situation, if Clinton were > to win almost any combination of two tossups, or either Michigan or > Missouri alone, she'd win the presidency. On the other hand, the only > states McCain could afford to lose would be Iowa, New Hampshire and > New Mexico, and even then, if he lost Iowa he couldn't lose either of > the other two. > > The Obama/McCain map, by contrast, shows a very close race with > McCain ahead slightly. In this map, McCain wins 27 states and 238 > electoral votes; Obama wins 15 states, plus the District of Columbia, > for 221 electoral votes. Eight states -- New Mexico, Colorado, > Nebraska, North Dakota, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio and Virginia -- and 79 > electoral votes are tossups. > > (more) > > http://tinyurl.com/3spnk5 Karl Rove's 'Math' - November 12, 2006 For years, Karl Rove has been the center of hyperbolic attention -- called the genius, the electoral mastermind, the most powerful presidential adviser in a century, Bush's brain, the master of the dark arts of wedge politics, the Republican Moses leading conservatives out of the desert. The mythology grew to such an outsized degree that when Rove insisted again and again during the campaign that Republicans would win despite the odds, fearful Democrats convinced themselves that he must have known something they did not and waited for an October surprise to spring. Rove encouraged that with supreme confidence. "You are entitled to your math, and I'm entitled to the math," he told a National Public Radio interviewer who suggested Democrats might win. It turns out that Rove is mortal after all, and not always so good at math. And his critics are crowing. Washington Post: http://tinyurl.com/yx92aq
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Instant Karma for Clinton's...'
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 6:08 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Instant Karma for Clinton's...' --- In HYPERLINK "mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com"FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I didn't see Hillary in Iowa because every time she was > scheduled to come here, winter weather forced her to cancel. > A good friend went over to Mt. Pleasant to see her and came > back inspired. He said that he doubted very much that > anything could change his mind. He would be voting for her. > Now, based on the way she has conducted herself during the > campaign, Meaning what, specifically? What conduct is he referring to? I’m sure that he and I could sit down and cook up quite a list. I’d have to help him because he has MS and finds it hard to talk, much less write. For starters, I’m sure he’d include the fact that she claims that Florida and Michigan should be counted, while she and all the candidates promised not to campaign there and Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan. How sleazy is that? It’s like agreeing not to use weapons in a fight, then pulling out a knife once the fight is underway and your opponent is unarmed. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.21/1454 - Release Date: 5/19/2008 7:44 AM
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Instant Karma for Clinton's...'
On May 19, 2008, at 6:07 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I didn't see Hillary in Iowa because every time she was scheduled to come here, winter weather forced her to cancel. A good friend went over to Mt. Pleasant to see her and came back inspired. He said that he doubted very much that anything could change his mind. He would be voting for her. Now, based on the way she has conducted herself during the campaign, Meaning what, specifically? What conduct is he referring to? Jeez, Judy, talk about "utterly idiotic." Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Instant Karma for Clinton's...'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I didn't see Hillary in Iowa because every time she was > scheduled to come here, winter weather forced her to cancel. > A good friend went over to Mt. Pleasant to see her and came > back inspired. He said that he doubted very much that > anything could change his mind. He would be voting for her. > Now, based on the way she has conducted herself during the > campaign, Meaning what, specifically? What conduct is he referring to? he says that > if she won the nomination, he'd still vote for her, but he'd > have to hold his nose.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Elizabeth Cotten, was: God is a wuss
Hey Vaj, yes thanks for the link. I haven't taken the time to really check it out. Is RL playing an acoustic guitar? My favorite CDs are his first two on acoustic. I never learned Freight Train before but I am building a show for a museum with a train theme. There are so many interesting references to trains both physical and as metaphor in early blues. So it was natural to go back and take another look at Elizabeth's famous piece. I had sort of categorized it as light weight folk music before, and was completely blown away at how I had missed the whole point of the song, that she is fleeing! The second verse is such a poetic way to convey that information which is in such dramatic contrast to the bouncy beat. I find it doubtful that she penned that verse when she was 11 as the Wiki claims. I have heard her give different accounts of why she wrote it too. I have such a new found respect for that song and am busy doing reps on the old school cord shapes necessary to play it. I'm not trying it her way, upside down, thats for sure! It is amazing how close we were to never hearing her music at all! So many of the people in the folk revival were snatched from obscurity. My life would look very different today without that revival! Pete Seeger is the more famous brother, but it is Mike Seeger who is my gourd banjo guru. He has preserved a lot of old-time finger picking styles for guitar too. Freight Train Freight train, freight train, run so fast Freight train, freight train, run so fast Please don't tell what train I'm on They won't know what route I'm going When I'm dead and in my grave No more good times here I crave Place the stones at my head and feet And tell them all I've gone to sleep When I die, oh bury me deep Down at the end of old Chestnut Street So I can hear old Number Nine As she comes rolling by When I die, oh bury me deep Down at the end of old Chestnut Street Place the stones at my head and feet And tell them all I've gone to sleep Freight train, freight train, run so fast Freight train, freight train, run so fast Please don't tell what train I'm on They won't know what route I'm going --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Vaj > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 3:48 PM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Elizabeth Cotten, was: God is a wuss > > > > > > On May 19, 2008, at 4:04 PM, Rick Archer wrote: > > > > > > Wow, thanks, Curtis, I'd never heard of Elizabeth Cotten before; > she's wonderful -- everything about her. Still alive? > > HYPERLINK > "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Cotten"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ > Elizabeth_Cotten > > I hadn't heard of her either, but my wife had. In fact, she used to be a > folk singer and Elizabeth Cotten's version of "Freight Train" is the song > she remembers best. We both enjoyed watching her. Thanks for the link. > > It's says she passed in '87. What an American treasure. I love that name > "Libba" as a nickname for Elizabeth. It sounds African. > > > > Did you get that message on the R.L. Burnside boots? > > > > Who, me? Nope. I just happened to spot the one on Elizabeth by chance, since > the thread title was "God is a wuss." > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.21/1454 - Release Date: 5/19/2008 > 7:44 AM >
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Instant Karma for Clinton's...'
I didn’t see Hillary in Iowa because every time she was scheduled to come here, winter weather forced her to cancel. A good friend went over to Mt. Pleasant to see her and came back inspired. He said that he doubted very much that anything could change his mind. He would be voting for her. Now, based on the way she has conducted herself during the campaign, he says that if she won the nomination, he’d still vote for her, but he’d have to hold his nose. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.21/1454 - Release Date: 5/19/2008 7:44 AM
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Instant Karma for Clinton's...'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On May 19, 2008, at 10:08 AM, authfriend wrote: > > >> On May 19, 2008, at 8:20 AM, authfriend wrote: > >> > >>> He doesn't *want* to have to confront the fact, for > >>> instance, that the vast majority of those who have > >>> encountered Hillary close up have found her exactly > >>> the opposite of an "arrogant, insufferable bitch": > >>> friendly, warm, empathetic, deeply concerned with > >>> other people's needs, and with a terrific sense of > >>> humor. > >> > >> Red herring, Judy. So what? Her policies support neither > >> empathy nor concern with average Americans, as per the > >> letter Rick posted. > > > > Not true, by a mile. > > > > First of all, the "letter" Rick posted was almost > > all about *Bill Clinton's* policies, not Hillary's > > policies. Whether the statements made in it are > > true, I don't have the resources to research. > > > > I have reason to suspect this was not an anguished > > cry from the heart of an innocent mother but a > > professional political hit job, so I'm rather > > dubious about its veracity. (If you were to read > > the comments to the piece, you'd see I'm not alone > > in this suspicion.) > > > > Just for one thing, the "letter" decries Hillary's > > plan to centralize control of food safety, when in > > fact this is exactly what food safety advocates have > > been demanding for quite some time; they see the > > current decentralization as *the* main barrier to > > making food safer in this country. Yet the writer of > > the "letter" attempts to make the idea sound sinister. > > > > Second, Hillary's own policies are very much in tune > > with people's needs. Only somebody who hadn't looked > > at them could possibly say otherwise. On the off- > > chance you might want to do your homework: > > But you were claiming that if someone encountered Hillary > up close, Judy, they would have a much more favorable opinion of > her. How is that different from any other garden-variety > cult-of-personality? That's such an utterly idiotic question I don't know how to begin to answer it. Everybody has, you know, a personality. Barry claimed Hillary's was "arrogant" and "insufferable." I pointed out that most people who encounter her up close disagree. How that amounts to a "cult of personality" in your alleged mind, I can't imagine. > And I did check out the first 2 of your articles, thanks. The > first mentions that she was either the sponsor or co-sponsor > of around 400 bills "related to energy and the environment," > but neglects to say, from what I could see, whether or not > those bills came to fruition or did much of anything else. Very little proposed by Democrats got anywhere in the years Hillary's been in Congress, as I suspect you're aware. But the issue was her *policies*, remember? You claimed: "Her policies support neither empathy nor concern with average Americans." That's obviously untrue, as a look at her record shows. > The second seems to be all about her future plans, if she gets > the nomination. I wonder, what has kept her from advocating > those stands and pushing for reforms in those areas up until > now? She couldn't do *everything*, for pete's sake. She was doing a great deal already. Everybody acknowledges she worked very hard in the Senate, and there's just no question at all--contrary to your nitwit claim-- that her priorities have always been the concerns of average Americans. I'd guess that she thought some of those concerns, such as health care, especially for children, were more urgent at the time than food safety per se. There are just too many urgent concerns these days to take them all on at once; you've got to choose the ones you think are the most urgent and work on those. And your choices are never going to please everybody. (She did work on some Senate legislation to protect food from bioterrorism, which is pretty damn important. And she is in favor of labeling GMO foods.) Recently food safety has moved up in urgency with the recent spate of recalls. As president, she'd be able to take on a lot more issues, so she can add that one to the list.
[FairfieldLife] Clinton better against McCain than Obama
"If you're a Karl Rove conspiracy theorist, get ready for some head spinning as you try to figure out this one: maps produced by the consulting firm Rove heads show that, right now, in a hypothetical head-to-head matchup, Hillary Clinton would be beating John McCain in the Electoral College. In the same situation, Barack Obama would be losing to McCain. (You can download the maps in PDF form here.) More specifically, this latest edition of the Rove firm's maps -- they've been done before -- shows Clinton making a win all but impossible for McCain. She wins 19 states, plus the District of Columbia, for a total of 259 electoral votes. (There are 538 total Electoral College votes; 270 are needed for victory.) In the same analysis, McCain wins 25 states and 206 electoral votes. Six states -- New Mexico, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan and New Hampshire -- and 73 electoral votes are shown as tossups (defined as being within 3 percentage points either way). In this situation, if Clinton were to win almost any combination of two tossups, or either Michigan or Missouri alone, she'd win the presidency. On the other hand, the only states McCain could afford to lose would be Iowa, New Hampshire and New Mexico, and even then, if he lost Iowa he couldn't lose either of the other two. The Obama/McCain map, by contrast, shows a very close race with McCain ahead slightly. In this map, McCain wins 27 states and 238 electoral votes; Obama wins 15 states, plus the District of Columbia, for 221 electoral votes. Eight states -- New Mexico, Colorado, Nebraska, North Dakota, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio and Virginia -- and 79 electoral votes are tossups. (more) http://tinyurl.com/3spnk5
RE: [FairfieldLife] Elizabeth Cotten, was: God is a wuss
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vaj Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 3:48 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Elizabeth Cotten, was: God is a wuss On May 19, 2008, at 4:04 PM, Rick Archer wrote: Wow, thanks, Curtis, I'd never heard of Elizabeth Cotten before; she's wonderful -- everything about her. Still alive? HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Cotten"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Elizabeth_Cotten I hadn’t heard of her either, but my wife had. In fact, she used to be a folk singer and Elizabeth Cotten’s version of “Freight Train” is the song she remembers best. We both enjoyed watching her. Thanks for the link. It's says she passed in '87. What an American treasure. I love that name "Libba" as a nickname for Elizabeth. It sounds African. Did you get that message on the R.L. Burnside boots? Who, me? Nope. I just happened to spot the one on Elizabeth by chance, since the thread title was “God is a wuss.” No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.21/1454 - Release Date: 5/19/2008 7:44 AM
Re: [FairfieldLife] Elizabeth Cotten, was: God is a wuss
On May 19, 2008, at 4:04 PM, Rick Archer wrote: Wow, thanks, Curtis, I'd never heard of Elizabeth Cotten before; she's wonderful -- everything about her. Still alive? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Cotten I hadn’t heard of her either, but my wife had. In fact, she used to be a folk singer and Elizabeth Cotten’s version of “Freight Train” is the song she remembers best. We both enjoyed watching her. Thanks for the link. It's says she passed in '87. What an American treasure. I love that name "Libba" as a nickname for Elizabeth. It sounds African. Did you get that message on the R.L. Burnside boots?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Instant Karma for Clinton's...'
On May 19, 2008, at 10:08 AM, authfriend wrote: On May 19, 2008, at 8:20 AM, authfriend wrote: He doesn't *want* to have to confront the fact, for instance, that the vast majority of those who have encountered Hillary close up have found her exactly the opposite of an "arrogant, insufferable bitch": friendly, warm, empathetic, deeply concerned with other people's needs, and with a terrific sense of humor. Red herring, Judy. So what? Her policies support neither empathy nor concern with average Americans, as per the letter Rick posted. Not true, by a mile. First of all, the "letter" Rick posted was almost all about *Bill Clinton's* policies, not Hillary's policies. Whether the statements made in it are true, I don't have the resources to research. I have reason to suspect this was not an anguished cry from the heart of an innocent mother but a professional political hit job, so I'm rather dubious about its veracity. (If you were to read the comments to the piece, you'd see I'm not alone in this suspicion.) Just for one thing, the "letter" decries Hillary's plan to centralize control of food safety, when in fact this is exactly what food safety advocates have been demanding for quite some time; they see the current decentralization as *the* main barrier to making food safer in this country. Yet the writer of the "letter" attempts to make the idea sound sinister. Second, Hillary's own policies are very much in tune with people's needs. Only somebody who hadn't looked at them could possibly say otherwise. On the off- chance you might want to do your homework: But you were claiming that if someone encountered Hillary up close, Judy, they would have a much more favorable opinion of her. How is that different from any other garden-variety cult-of-personality? And I did check out the first 2 of your articles, thanks. The first mentions that she was either the sponsor or co-sponsor of around 400 bills "related to energy and the environment," but neglects to say, from what I could see, whether or not those bills came to fruition or did much of anything else. The second seems to be all about her future plans, if she gets the nomination. I wonder, what has kept her from advocating those stands and pushing for reforms in those areas up until now? Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I guess if you're going to look at "God" as a "personal" > deity then your blog (than your post?) > makes some sense. But you're forgetting that MMY and the > Shankara tradition taught "God" as the impersonal. Exactly. MMY did teach about "personal God," but much more abstractly than the Western conception thereof, so that the "God's will" notion was also much more abstract. Barry's is a cartoon version. > "Laws of Nature" is still a pretty good secular notion to > explain what many call "God" especially in abstract terms > rather than some being that micromanages your life. Yup. I'm in agreement with everything you say in the rest of your post, so I'm gonna snip it, but very well stated.
[FairfieldLife] Elizabeth Cotten, was: God is a wuss
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marek Reavis Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 2:48 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss Wow, thanks, Curtis, I'd never heard of Elizabeth Cotten before; she's wonderful -- everything about her. Still alive? HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Cotten"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Elizabeth_Cotten I hadn’t heard of her either, but my wife had. In fact, she used to be a folk singer and Elizabeth Cotten’s version of “Freight Train” is the song she remembers best. We both enjoyed watching her. Thanks for the link. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.21/1454 - Release Date: 5/19/2008 7:44 AM
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I guess if you're going to look at "God" as a "personal" deity then your > blog makes some sense. But you're forgetting that MMY and the Shankara > tradition taught "God" as the impersonal. I always got a charge out of > reading the free books ISKON was handing out, especially their Srimad > Bhagavatam where Prabupad would go on a rant against the impersonal and > he, of course, was ranting against the competition of the time. :) > > "Laws of Nature" is still a pretty good secular notion to explain what > many call "God" especially in abstract terms rather than some being that > micromanages your life. If you don't believe in the laws of nature then > turn on your webcam so we can see you walk through that wall next to > you. :) > > I was not raised in a religious family. I only went to church to get a > scout badge and after that I was through with it. To me, even at that > age it was pretty lame. As a teenager I was a big fan of the > existentialist movement (particularly reading a lot of Sarte) and > considered myself an atheist. I now think that becoming an atheist is > the last stage before one treads the true path of "God" realization. > Note I put "God" in quotes. I think it was Bucky Fuller who gave a talk > (maybe with MMY) that "God" was concept and you could name that concept > whatever you want. The three letter word tends to be a little lacking > though. > > Now, I "believe" or "experience" "God" as the totality of everything > that is, has ever been or will ever be. I also like to think of the > analogy of "God" in terms of sound physics. I enjoy saying the word in my mind and being aware on a vibrational level the sum total of what the word is, and isn't-- Easy enough to do, since words repeated about five times in succession lose their literal meanings... It's like a string on a > guitar or bass. "God" is the fundamental tone and the rest of the > universe is the overtone series. That explains the expansion and > energy which is creation. It also allows me to explain pre- destiny > which cannot be disproved any more than free will can. Under this > analogy we would be nothing more than a vibration whose destiny was > created when the "string" was plucked. Everything you have though, now > think and will be thinking is an overtone of that. I like this analogy a lot, though I would say the plucking of the string, including overtones is our full potential. Whether or not we realize it fully in this life or another remains a mystery. > > What one should be experiencing in meditation is the absolute stillness > from which all things spring. If you have that experience then it is > pretty undeniable and a good platform to understand all of creation and > its logic. To the religious, who believe there is a "Satan" then I like > to suggest that "Satan" is the "ego" which blinds you from having this > knowledge because to experience it the "ego" must fall away. To the > religious I also like to suggest that Jesus was one of many teachers who > taught this (though their teachings were perverted with time). > > > TurquoiseB wrote: > > Recent discussions about "becoming in tune with the laws > > of nature" have pointed out that Maharishi clearly was > > using "laws of nature" and "the will of nature" as > > euphemisms for "God" and "God's will" all along. As > > would be expected, considering that his teacher Guru > > Dev clearly thought in those terms. > > > > However (and assuming for the purposes of this discussion > > the existence of a sentient God who could actually *have* > > a "will"), I think it's time to step back and spend a > > little time pondering whether it's a good *idea* to want > > to become "in tune with God's will." > > > > I mean, wouldn't that kinda be backing a loser? > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
Wow, thanks, Curtis, I'd never heard of Elizabeth Cotten before; she's wonderful -- everything about her. Still alive? ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I thought a 'wuss' was always female, but I > > didn't know that you didn't like black, older > > women. > > > > What's up with that? > > Black older women are adorable, especially this one: > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tm5-WdB_aVE&feature=related > > Make sure you get to her doing "Freight Train" at the end of the clip. > > > > > > > > > [snip] > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] God is a wuss
I guess if you're going to look at "God" as a "personal" deity then your blog makes some sense. But you're forgetting that MMY and the Shankara tradition taught "God" as the impersonal. I always got a charge out of reading the free books ISKON was handing out, especially their Srimad Bhagavatam where Prabupad would go on a rant against the impersonal and he, of course, was ranting against the competition of the time. :) "Laws of Nature" is still a pretty good secular notion to explain what many call "God" especially in abstract terms rather than some being that micromanages your life. If you don't believe in the laws of nature then turn on your webcam so we can see you walk through that wall next to you. :) I was not raised in a religious family. I only went to church to get a scout badge and after that I was through with it. To me, even at that age it was pretty lame. As a teenager I was a big fan of the existentialist movement (particularly reading a lot of Sarte) and considered myself an atheist. I now think that becoming an atheist is the last stage before one treads the true path of "God" realization. Note I put "God" in quotes. I think it was Bucky Fuller who gave a talk (maybe with MMY) that "God" was concept and you could name that concept whatever you want. The three letter word tends to be a little lacking though. Now, I "believe" or "experience" "God" as the totality of everything that is, has ever been or will ever be. I also like to think of the analogy of "God" in terms of sound physics. It's like a string on a guitar or bass. "God" is the fundamental tone and the rest of the universe is the overtone series. That explains the expansion and energy which is creation. It also allows me to explain pre-destiny which cannot be disproved any more than free will can. Under this analogy we would be nothing more than a vibration whose destiny was created when the "string" was plucked. Everything you have though, now think and will be thinking is an overtone of that. What one should be experiencing in meditation is the absolute stillness from which all things spring. If you have that experience then it is pretty undeniable and a good platform to understand all of creation and its logic. To the religious, who believe there is a "Satan" then I like to suggest that "Satan" is the "ego" which blinds you from having this knowledge because to experience it the "ego" must fall away. To the religious I also like to suggest that Jesus was one of many teachers who taught this (though their teachings were perverted with time). TurquoiseB wrote: > Recent discussions about "becoming in tune with the laws > of nature" have pointed out that Maharishi clearly was > using "laws of nature" and "the will of nature" as > euphemisms for "God" and "God's will" all along. As > would be expected, considering that his teacher Guru > Dev clearly thought in those terms. > > However (and assuming for the purposes of this discussion > the existence of a sentient God who could actually *have* > a "will"), I think it's time to step back and spend a > little time pondering whether it's a good *idea* to want > to become "in tune with God's will." > > I mean, wouldn't that kinda be backing a loser? > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
that is really neat I like old Black Ladies curtisdeltablues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I thought a 'wuss' was always female, but I > didn't know that you didn't like black, older > women. > > What's up with that? Black older women are adorable, especially this one: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tm5-WdB_aVE&feature=related Make sure you get to her doing "Freight Train" at the end of the clip. > > [snip] > To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
God is the intelligence that makes the banana and the banana peel. Yet religion in essence as in the spirit of or people in is also God. Yet Religion in the action of controlling, of limiting, of closing the vision may be the result of genetic engineering to make blue and pink banana peels Louis McKenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Remember a great man once said the government reflect the consciousness of the people. I have seen how that part of my mentality that is BUSHIAN has made as much of a mess of my own life as George Has made of the world. I believe in Kicking ass. I believe in full force attacks. If someone declares war on me I will hit them on every possible level before we go to battle.The only difference between me and Bush may be intelligence and how we use our resources. Yet I have had to really look at the Bush in me. So who we put in the white house is reflective of our state of consciousness as a nation. If I have a choice of seeing a film about an English butler and an English maid, or a Film with Arnold S ripping the heads off some believed terror ist I have chosen the Arnold film. Or Bruce Lee films where they fight to resolve issues. Of course a good Robert Redford movie is much more rewarding. However the box office indicates that Schwartzenegger movies make more money. So maybe it is not so good to laugh at and make mockery of the Dali Lama, or kill monks or support genocide in any form. Maybe the people who have fought for the liberation of the very country might have a problem with the new Capitalism. GOD = GOOD even Atheist believe in the GOOD. So the idea of Jesus may be a little much to accept. Yet the idea of a personal God that inspires one to evolve is not a bad thing. However people getting carried away is reflective in the current state of affairs. So Maharishi is 1000% correct in saying that we have to change things from the level of consciousness because there is where the only real change can take place. Changing the consciousness of the masses will change governments through the transformation from the level of consciousness perhaps there will be no need for Terror or guerrilla warfare. I dont just believe in God I know it from a very scientific and intimate basis. Yet it is not to be confused with the banana peel. God is that but the human consciousness can only be where it is. Look at how it varies in this group. Then you can see the world. Maharishi technology is like a tuning fork without it there is just chaos... sandiego108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > > His father had promised him a car for his birthday. Dad was > > nowhere > > > in sight. His mother gave him 5.00$, yet what he had received > > was a > > > grace from God that on his birthday the sun and the birds awakened > > > him, the sweet smells of the divine filled the air and he knew > > without > > > a doubt that there had to be a God and that God just gave him the > > > greatest birthday gift ever. > > > > > > > > > So following this weather based theology we can assume that God > > > absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass > > and > > > despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? > > > > > > It seems a little grandiose and narcissistic to me to attribute a > > > day's weather to God's intention to give him a bitch'n birthday > > while > > > his same power over the weather is causing untold misery and > death > > in > > > other places. > > > > > > I think we as humans like to look for patterns and extrapolate our > > intelligence onto nature. Whether we do it through a belief in God > > or in science, the motive is the same, and either belief remains > > full of holes when viewed superficially. > > > > > I don't think the motive is the same, opposite in fact. > I sum it up as; Religion claims to explain reality whereas > science is an *attempt* to explain experience. You have to > remove projection to do science it wouldn't work otherwise, > you have to keep challenging things or you never progress. "you have to keep challenging things or you never progress." Agreed, both in science and regarding God. > If a creationist ends up in the White house you could have > "intelligent design" taught to kids and instantly their > education stops because of the limit a religious belief > has insisted be put on discovery. Not in the spirit of > science at all as spotting where the holes are in a theory > is how it all moves on. > To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
Remember a great man once said the government reflect the consciousness of the people. I have seen how that part of my mentality that is BUSHIAN has made as much of a mess of my own life as George Has made of the world. I believe in Kicking ass. I believe in full force attacks. If someone declares war on me I will hit them on every possible level before we go to battle.The only difference between me and Bush may be intelligence and how we use our resources. Yet I have had to really look at the Bush in me. So who we put in the white house is reflective of our state of consciousness as a nation. If I have a choice of seeing a film about an English butler and an English maid, or a Film with Arnold S ripping the heads off some believed terror ist I have chosen the Arnold film. Or Bruce Lee films where they fight to resolve issues. Of course a good Robert Redford movie is much more rewarding. However the box office indicates that Schwartzenegger movies make more money. So maybe it is not so good to laugh at and make mockery of the Dali Lama, or kill monks or support genocide in any form. Maybe the people who have fought for the liberation of the very country might have a problem with the new Capitalism. GOD = GOOD even Atheist believe in the GOOD. So the idea of Jesus may be a little much to accept. Yet the idea of a personal God that inspires one to evolve is not a bad thing. However people getting carried away is reflective in the current state of affairs. So Maharishi is 1000% correct in saying that we have to change things from the level of consciousness because there is where the only real change can take place. Changing the consciousness of the masses will change governments through the transformation from the level of consciousness perhaps there will be no need for Terror or guerrilla warfare. I dont just believe in God I know it from a very scientific and intimate basis. Yet it is not to be confused with the banana peel. God is that but the human consciousness can only be where it is. Look at how it varies in this group. Then you can see the world. Maharishi technology is like a tuning fork without it there is just chaos... sandiego108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > > His father had promised him a car for his birthday. Dad was > > nowhere > > > in sight. His mother gave him 5.00$, yet what he had received > > was a > > > grace from God that on his birthday the sun and the birds awakened > > > him, the sweet smells of the divine filled the air and he knew > > without > > > a doubt that there had to be a God and that God just gave him the > > > greatest birthday gift ever. > > > > > > > > > So following this weather based theology we can assume that God > > > absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass > > and > > > despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? > > > > > > It seems a little grandiose and narcissistic to me to attribute a > > > day's weather to God's intention to give him a bitch'n birthday > > while > > > his same power over the weather is causing untold misery and > death > > in > > > other places. > > > > > > I think we as humans like to look for patterns and extrapolate our > > intelligence onto nature. Whether we do it through a belief in God > > or in science, the motive is the same, and either belief remains > > full of holes when viewed superficially. > > > > > I don't think the motive is the same, opposite in fact. > I sum it up as; Religion claims to explain reality whereas > science is an *attempt* to explain experience. You have to > remove projection to do science it wouldn't work otherwise, > you have to keep challenging things or you never progress. "you have to keep challenging things or you never progress." Agreed, both in science and regarding God. > If a creationist ends up in the White house you could have > "intelligent design" taught to kids and instantly their > education stops because of the limit a religious belief > has insisted be put on discovery. Not in the spirit of > science at all as spotting where the holes are in a theory > is how it all moves on. > To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
curtisdeltablues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am with you on appreciating nature Louis. I'll bet you are as aware as I am of nature's dark side. But since I'm having a charmed life by the luck of the draw I am inclined to agree with another great guy named Louis: http://youtube.com/watch?v=vnRqYMTpXHc My lack of belief in a deity is not meant as being disrespectful of your right to attribute the beauty of life to one of the many versions of God. As long as your God doesn't tell you to kill the non-believers I think we can hang with the grilled salmon together. That was a great story about Finland and sums up my feelings too. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Louis McKenzie wrote: > > I always think of God as the visible and invisible. I think of God as Pure Consciousness or Divine Intelligence. Which for me means that the intelligence which determines the sky, the clouds, the earth, the planets, that which keeps all of this functioning to me that is what I call God. > > Then when you look at the Oceans the rivers the wind the air the sun all of these thing may have principals of nature that control them. For me this to I call God. I am not negating Jesus or Krishna, I am saying that God can be even more simple than that. So to appreciate God in nature this is a good thing, I think. > > I once heard a story of a man who was visiting Finland, there he was with Atheist In Finland you get a tax break if you are atheist. So the atheist like to sit in nature and grill Salmon over a fire and sausage drink beer and just feel the beauty of the environment. > > The man laughed. He thought how Holy and atheist these people are. > > curtisdeltablues wrote: > I think we as humans like to look for patterns and extrapolate our > > intelligence onto nature. > > Agreed. > > Whether we do it through a belief in God > > or in science, the motive is the same, and either belief remains > > full of holes when viewed superficially. > > Here I disagree. Science is not a belief like the belief in God. It > is a method used to help improve the odds of our beliefs being > accurate. The method is a work around for our cognitive flaws. So I > see the motives in holding a God belief and using the methods of > science to be almost opposite. > > And most God believers get scientific real fast in the hospital > emergency room. The God belief is the last resort after every avenue > of science is pursued. (or until your health insurance cuts you off) > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > > His father had promised him a car for his birthday. Dad was > > nowhere > > > in sight. His mother gave him 5.00$, yet what he had received > > was a > > > grace from God that on his birthday the sun and the birds awakened > > > him, the sweet smells of the divine filled the air and he knew > > without > > > a doubt that there had to be a God and that God just gave him the > > > greatest birthday gift ever. > > > > > > > > > So following this weather based theology we can assume that God > > > absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass > > and > > > despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? > > > > > > It seems a little grandiose and narcissistic to me to attribute a > > > day's weather to God's intention to give him a bitch'n birthday > > while > > > his same power over the weather is causing untold misery and death > > in > > > other places. > > > > > > I think we as humans like to look for patterns and extrapolate our > > intelligence onto nature. Whether we do it through a belief in God > > or in science, the motive is the same, and either belief remains > > full of holes when viewed superficially. > > > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links > To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I think we as humans like to look for patterns and extrapolate our > > intelligence onto nature. > > Agreed. > > Whether we do it through a belief in God > > or in science, the motive is the same, and either belief remains > > full of holes when viewed superficially. > > Here I disagree. Science is not a belief like the belief in God. It > is a method used to help improve the odds of our beliefs being > accurate. The method is a work around for our cognitive flaws. So I > see the motives in holding a God belief and using the methods of > science to be almost opposite. >From my point of view, both are active methods of inquiry, and both have the same ability to become stagnant and fundamentalist. One of the greatest limitations of science is that only physical phenomena can be studied and proven, and even then it is only physical phenomenon for which we have instruments to measure. Leaves a lot out. One of the greatest limitations in a belief in God is using such a belief to explain everything. Lately I have found the use of the term God both imprecise and primitive. > > And most God believers get scientific real fast in the hospital > emergency room. The God belief is the last resort after every avenue > of science is pursued. (or until your health insurance cuts you off) > On the oither hand, an interesting story my wife told me recently about a scuba certification class she took awhile back: The instructor was asking a student what he would do in an emergency, and the student was naming all the correct stuff to do, and the instructor kept asking, Yes, and what else? what else? The student was eventually stumped, and the instructor added, "pray".
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > wrote: > > > > I don't think the motive is the same, opposite in fact. > > I sum it up as; Religion claims to explain reality whereas > > science is an *attempt* to explain experience. You have to > > remove projection to do science it wouldn't work otherwise, > > you have to keep challenging things or you never progress. > > "you have to keep challenging things or you never progress." > > Agreed, both in science and regarding God. Good for you, I've gone and scienced God out of my life! > > If a creationist ends up in the White house you could have > > "intelligent design" taught to kids and instantly their > > education stops because of the limit a religious belief > > has insisted be put on discovery. Not in the spirit of > > science at all as spotting where the holes are in a theory > > is how it all moves on. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > > His father had promised him a car for his birthday. Dad was > > nowhere > > > in sight. His mother gave him 5.00$, yet what he had received > > was a > > > grace from God that on his birthday the sun and the birds awakened > > > him, the sweet smells of the divine filled the air and he knew > > without > > > a doubt that there had to be a God and that God just gave him the > > > greatest birthday gift ever. > > > > > > > > > So following this weather based theology we can assume that God > > > absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass > > and > > > despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? > > > > > > It seems a little grandiose and narcissistic to me to attribute a > > > day's weather to God's intention to give him a bitch'n birthday > > while > > > his same power over the weather is causing untold misery and > death > > in > > > other places. > > > > > > I think we as humans like to look for patterns and extrapolate our > > intelligence onto nature. Whether we do it through a belief in God > > or in science, the motive is the same, and either belief remains > > full of holes when viewed superficially. > > > > > I don't think the motive is the same, opposite in fact. > I sum it up as; Religion claims to explain reality whereas > science is an *attempt* to explain experience. You have to > remove projection to do science it wouldn't work otherwise, > you have to keep challenging things or you never progress. "you have to keep challenging things or you never progress." Agreed, both in science and regarding God. > If a creationist ends up in the White house you could have > "intelligent design" taught to kids and instantly their > education stops because of the limit a religious belief > has insisted be put on discovery. Not in the spirit of > science at all as spotting where the holes are in a theory > is how it all moves on. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
> > I thought a 'wuss' was always female, but I > didn't know that you didn't like black, older > women. > > What's up with that? Black older women are adorable, especially this one: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tm5-WdB_aVE&feature=related Make sure you get to her doing "Freight Train" at the end of the clip. > > [snip] >
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > What the hell is 'karma' - you TM teachers are so > > > full of yourselves that it's pathetic. > > > > > That is a misquote. You are having trouble keeping > > people straight in this thread Richard. Let me > > smell that cup you are drinking from... > > > So, you believe people create their own 'karma', but > that was a 'misquote', but I'm the one having trouble > keeping people straight? > > "I do believe that people create their own Karma." That was Louis's quote. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/177409 >
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
> > What the hell is 'karma' - you TM teachers are so > > full of yourselves that it's pathetic. > > > That is a misquote. You are having trouble keeping > people straight in this thread Richard. Let me > smell that cup you are drinking from... > So, you believe people create their own 'karma', but that was a 'misquote', but I'm the one having trouble keeping people straight? "I do believe that people create their own Karma." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/177409
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
> > Why is it that you TM teachers are so ignorant > > and crass? > > Curtis wrote: > As far as your trying to get me to give you one of > the many versions of the God idea, my answer is crack > a book. > So, you're a wuss. I thought so - all hat and no cattle. [snip] > I am ignorant about many things in this world. > Then, why not just shut your pie-hole?
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Curtis wrote: > > I do believe that people create their own Karma. > > [snip] > > Oh, come on, Curtis, you can do better than this. > > What the hell is 'karma' - you TM teachers are so > full of yourselves that it's pathetic. And to think > that you once took philosophy courses at MUM. > > For what purpose? > > How can people 'create' anything when there's no > evidence of anyone ever in the history of mankind > 'creating' anything, much less, creating their own > moral reciprocity. > > This is just outrageous! That is a misquote. You are having trouble keeping people straight in this thread Richard. Let me smell that cup you are drinking from... >
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
Curtis wrote: > I'll bet you are as aware as I am of > nature's dark side. > How much would you be willing to wager? So, now you're saying that 'God' is a black Mother - nature's 'dark side'? Does that make any sense? 'God' is 'dark nature', and a 'wuss'. I thought a 'wuss' was always female, but I didn't know that you didn't like black, older women. What's up with that? [snip]
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > So, you can't define 'enlightenment' or 'God'. > > > > > I could give you many different versions of either > > belief from some of the various sources who hold > > such beliefs. > > > So, why not do so? Instead of making fun of poor > religious people, victims of an earthquake and a > cyclone? Why is it that you TM teachers are so > ignorant and crass? I was showing the contradiction in the story Richard. You have missed the point in your desire to attack Ex TM teachers. As far as your trying to get me to give you one of the many versions of the God idea, my answer is crack a book. Enlightenment is not meaningful concept for me Richard. If it has meaning for you, you can define it for yourself. I am ignorant about many things in this world. I learn more every day. Do you find me crass? OK, thanks for sharing. > > > What does that have to do with anything? > > > That 'God is a wuss' is the subject of this thread? I didn't create the title Richard. > > > > That's nothing to be ashamed of Curtis, so why > > > not just admit it, instead of making fun of poor > > > religious people? > > > > Are they poor Richard? > > > You're pathetic, Curtis. Now we are getting somewhere. So from now on I'll expect a little more compassion from you instead of verbal insults. > > [snip] >
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
Curtis wrote: > I do believe that people create their own Karma. [snip] Oh, come on, Curtis, you can do better than this. What the hell is 'karma' - you TM teachers are so full of yourselves that it's pathetic. And to think that you once took philosophy courses at MUM. For what purpose? How can people 'create' anything when there's no evidence of anyone ever in the history of mankind 'creating' anything, much less, creating their own moral reciprocity. This is just outrageous!
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
I am with you on appreciating nature Louis. I'll bet you are as aware as I am of nature's dark side. But since I'm having a charmed life by the luck of the draw I am inclined to agree with another great guy named Louis: http://youtube.com/watch?v=vnRqYMTpXHc My lack of belief in a deity is not meant as being disrespectful of your right to attribute the beauty of life to one of the many versions of God. As long as your God doesn't tell you to kill the non-believers I think we can hang with the grilled salmon together. That was a great story about Finland and sums up my feelings too. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Louis McKenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I always think of God as the visible and invisible. I think of God as Pure Consciousness or Divine Intelligence. Which for me means that the intelligence which determines the sky, the clouds, the earth, the planets, that which keeps all of this functioning to me that is what I call God. > > Then when you look at the Oceans the rivers the wind the air the sun all of these thing may have principals of nature that control them. For me this to I call God. I am not negating Jesus or Krishna, I am saying that God can be even more simple than that. So to appreciate God in nature this is a good thing, I think. > > I once heard a story of a man who was visiting Finland, there he was with Atheist In Finland you get a tax break if you are atheist. So the atheist like to sit in nature and grill Salmon over a fire and sausage drink beer and just feel the beauty of the environment. > > The man laughed. He thought how Holy and atheist these people are. > > curtisdeltablues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think we as humans like to look for patterns and extrapolate our > > intelligence onto nature. > > Agreed. > > Whether we do it through a belief in God > > or in science, the motive is the same, and either belief remains > > full of holes when viewed superficially. > > Here I disagree. Science is not a belief like the belief in God. It > is a method used to help improve the odds of our beliefs being > accurate. The method is a work around for our cognitive flaws. So I > see the motives in holding a God belief and using the methods of > science to be almost opposite. > > And most God believers get scientific real fast in the hospital > emergency room. The God belief is the last resort after every avenue > of science is pursued. (or until your health insurance cuts you off) > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > > His father had promised him a car for his birthday. Dad was > > nowhere > > > in sight. His mother gave him 5.00$, yet what he had received > > was a > > > grace from God that on his birthday the sun and the birds awakened > > > him, the sweet smells of the divine filled the air and he knew > > without > > > a doubt that there had to be a God and that God just gave him the > > > greatest birthday gift ever. > > > > > > > > > So following this weather based theology we can assume that God > > > absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass > > and > > > despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? > > > > > > It seems a little grandiose and narcissistic to me to attribute a > > > day's weather to God's intention to give him a bitch'n birthday > > while > > > his same power over the weather is causing untold misery and death > > in > > > other places. > > > > > > I think we as humans like to look for patterns and extrapolate our > > intelligence onto nature. Whether we do it through a belief in God > > or in science, the motive is the same, and either belief remains > > full of holes when viewed superficially. > > > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links >
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
> > So, you can't define 'enlightenment' or 'God'. > > > I could give you many different versions of either > belief from some of the various sources who hold > such beliefs. > So, why not do so? Instead of making fun of poor religious people, victims of an earthquake and a cyclone? Why is it that you TM teachers are so ignorant and crass? > What does that have to do with anything? > That 'God is a wuss' is the subject of this thread? > > That's nothing to be ashamed of Curtis, so why > > not just admit it, instead of making fun of poor > > religious people? > > Are they poor Richard? > You're pathetic, Curtis. [snip]
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Louis McKenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What does one thing have to do with the other? As a TM teacher one would not be talking about this in this way. The planet is in big trouble because of man's free will. We do not even know if earth quakes can be caused intentionally. I do not believe that God would ever cause suffering. Then why do so many animals eat each other alive without a kill bite strategy that some animals were programmed to use? This is the classic contradiction brought out by Hume in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: How could an omnipotent omniscient God who is also moral and good, not only allow suffering, but also create it. I do believe that people create their own Karma. Maybe Chickens actually do come home to roost. Who is to say well this is because of that? I think the only thing to do now is to assist in whatever way one can. If I were a monk from Nepal I may have one opinion. If I were Tibetan living under Chinese domination I may think something else. The law of cause and effect, one aspect of the divine intelligence known as God is always functioning. So to try and figure out if God was angry I doubt it is about blaming our mistakes on God. > > I just wish that these things could happen even more frequently in more places. Human being forget quickly. George Bush will say oh what a tragedy today and campaign to bomb Iran tomorrow. People will pass through 9/11, Iraq missiles of mass destruction, the economic disaster, Katrina and on and on and still think about putting a Republican who wants to continue the current strategies in office. > > Brasil never has MAJOR DISASTERS but one is coming I believe, why? Because of the way the country treats its own people. No matter how much money this country makes, no matter how much resources it has a great percentage of the people live in complete poverty. Only a few people are rich but those few control all and rape all. I say bring it on, maybe the message will be loud enough that people will begin to listen. > > God speaks softly we ignore, God speaks a little louder we hear but rationalize the message away, the world begins to speak and then we think well what to do? When God comes around and kicks us in the ass we cry OH GOD IS ANGRY OR GOD IS CRUEL > > "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Curtis wrote: > > So following this weather based theology we can > > assume that God absolutely hates China and dropped > > a huge earthquake on it's ass and despises Burma > > and sent them a nasty cyclone? > > > As a TM teacher, you should be able to define 'God' > and 'enlightenment', otherwise you're circle jerking > and just making fun of the poor Burmese. > > Why would you want to make fun of those poor people? > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
I always think of God as the visible and invisible. I think of God as Pure Consciousness or Divine Intelligence. Which for me means that the intelligence which determines the sky, the clouds, the earth, the planets, that which keeps all of this functioning to me that is what I call God. Then when you look at the Oceans the rivers the wind the air the sun all of these thing may have principals of nature that control them. For me this to I call God. I am not negating Jesus or Krishna, I am saying that God can be even more simple than that. So to appreciate God in nature this is a good thing, I think. I once heard a story of a man who was visiting Finland, there he was with Atheist In Finland you get a tax break if you are atheist. So the atheist like to sit in nature and grill Salmon over a fire and sausage drink beer and just feel the beauty of the environment. The man laughed. He thought how Holy and atheist these people are. curtisdeltablues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think we as humans like to look for patterns and extrapolate our > intelligence onto nature. Agreed. Whether we do it through a belief in God > or in science, the motive is the same, and either belief remains > full of holes when viewed superficially. Here I disagree. Science is not a belief like the belief in God. It is a method used to help improve the odds of our beliefs being accurate. The method is a work around for our cognitive flaws. So I see the motives in holding a God belief and using the methods of science to be almost opposite. And most God believers get scientific real fast in the hospital emergency room. The God belief is the last resort after every avenue of science is pursued. (or until your health insurance cuts you off) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > > His father had promised him a car for his birthday. Dad was > nowhere > > in sight. His mother gave him 5.00$, yet what he had received > was a > > grace from God that on his birthday the sun and the birds awakened > > him, the sweet smells of the divine filled the air and he knew > without > > a doubt that there had to be a God and that God just gave him the > > greatest birthday gift ever. > > > > > > So following this weather based theology we can assume that God > > absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass > and > > despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? > > > > It seems a little grandiose and narcissistic to me to attribute a > > day's weather to God's intention to give him a bitch'n birthday > while > > his same power over the weather is causing untold misery and death > in > > other places. > > > I think we as humans like to look for patterns and extrapolate our > intelligence onto nature. Whether we do it through a belief in God > or in science, the motive is the same, and either belief remains > full of holes when viewed superficially. > To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: Exploring The Mechanics Of Judgment, Beliefs
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > RJ wrote: > What is 'desire'? > What is 'full-fillment' or 'Becoming'? Did you just start learning English today? If so, I think that would go some way to explaining your weird postings this afternoon. Try here: http://tinyurl.com/tbwfp
[FairfieldLife] Re: Exploring The Mechanics Of Judgment, Beliefs
> > You've done nothing in this post except use > > circular logic, Vaj. > > Vaj wrote: > The idea of support of nature come from the > derivation of the Sanskrit word "dharma" > whose root "dhr" means "to support". > Maybe so, but you failed to point out that the word dharma has multiple meanings. The word 'dharma' relates to the momentary constituents of phenomenology, epi-phenomena, a basic unit of existence as described in the Pali Sutras. > "Support of Nature" is a translation of the > word Dharma and it's root dhr defines it's > activity in the sphere of action. So therefore > "Support of Nature" is being in ones "Dharma". > If one is in ones dharma, one has support of > nature. > You failed to define the term 'nature'. You again used circular logic. You can't define an undefined word by using another undefined word. When you do this, you cause an infinite regress. > Kama just means desire. > What is 'desire'? > Fulfillment of desire really means becoming > desire-less, without desire. > What is 'full-fillment' or 'Becoming'? You're not making any sense - you're just 'circle-jerking', making stuff up. A TM teacher who has hung out with Shakaracharyas should be able to make basic word definitions.
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > > His father had promised him a car for his birthday. Dad was > nowhere > > in sight. His mother gave him 5.00$, yet what he had received > was a > > grace from God that on his birthday the sun and the birds awakened > > him, the sweet smells of the divine filled the air and he knew > without > > a doubt that there had to be a God and that God just gave him the > > greatest birthday gift ever. > > > > > > So following this weather based theology we can assume that God > > absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass > and > > despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? > > > > It seems a little grandiose and narcissistic to me to attribute a > > day's weather to God's intention to give him a bitch'n birthday > while > > his same power over the weather is causing untold misery and death > in > > other places. > > > I think we as humans like to look for patterns and extrapolate our > intelligence onto nature. Whether we do it through a belief in God > or in science, the motive is the same, and either belief remains > full of holes when viewed superficially. > I don't think the motive is the same, opposite in fact. I sum it up as; Religion claims to explain reality whereas science is an *attempt* to explain experience. You have to remove projection to do science it wouldn't work otherwise, you have to keep challenging things or you never progress. If a creationist ends up in the White house you could have "intelligent design" taught to kids and instantly their education stops because of the limit a religious belief has insisted be put on discovery. Not in the spirit of science at all as spotting where the holes are in a theory is how it all moves on.
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
> So, you can't define 'enlightenment' or 'God'. What are you talking about? You have me confused with another poster Richard. I could give you many different versions of either belief from some of the various sources who hold such beliefs. What does that have to do with anything? > > That's nothing to be ashamed of Curtis, so why not > just admit it, instead of making fun of poor > religious people? Are they poor Richard? I would think that since they are s tight with an all powerful deity they would be able to see my skepticism in a compassionate light. You know the paternal feeling that it is Curtis who is the poor one, with his lack of ability to believe in any of the versions of invisible, but sports event influencing, big daddies in the sky, or within his heart or in the beauty of a sunset or the scent of orange blossoms floating in the wind or in the imagined cannibalistic ritual of drinking the blood of Jesus and eating his flesh in a church. And what is poor Curtis to do when he dies in his state of sin and lack of enlightenment when faced by the almighty OZ who demands an explanation from him for not being like the people who saw his miraculous sign of Mary's face in a piece of burnt toast sold on Ebay...have a little pity on my wretched soul Richard. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > As a TM teacher, you should be able to define > > > 'God' and 'enlightenment', > > > > Curtis wrote: > > Why does it always have to do with sex with you > > Richard? > > > Non sequitur. > > So, you can't define 'enlightenment' or 'God'. > > That's nothing to be ashamed of Curtis, so why not > just admit it, instead of making fun of poor > religious people? >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
What does one thing have to do with the other? As a TM teacher one would not be talking about this in this way. The planet is in big trouble because of man's free will. We do not even know if earth quakes can be caused intentionally. I do not believe that God would ever cause suffering. I do believe that people create their own Karma. Maybe Chickens actually do come home to roost. Who is to say well this is because of that? I think the only thing to do now is to assist in whatever way one can. If I were a monk from Nepal I may have one opinion. If I were Tibetan living under Chinese domination I may think something else. The law of cause and effect, one aspect of the divine intelligence known as God is always functioning. So to try and figure out if God was angry I doubt it is about blaming our mistakes on God. I just wish that these things could happen even more frequently in more places. Human being forget quickly. George Bush will say oh what a tragedy today and campaign to bomb Iran tomorrow. People will pass through 9/11, Iraq missiles of mass destruction, the economic disaster, Katrina and on and on and still think about putting a Republican who wants to continue the current strategies in office. Brasil never has MAJOR DISASTERS but one is coming I believe, why? Because of the way the country treats its own people. No matter how much money this country makes, no matter how much resources it has a great percentage of the people live in complete poverty. Only a few people are rich but those few control all and rape all. I say bring it on, maybe the message will be loud enough that people will begin to listen. God speaks softly we ignore, God speaks a little louder we hear but rationalize the message away, the world begins to speak and then we think well what to do? When God comes around and kicks us in the ass we cry OH GOD IS ANGRY OR GOD IS CRUEL "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Curtis wrote: > So following this weather based theology we can > assume that God absolutely hates China and dropped > a huge earthquake on it's ass and despises Burma > and sent them a nasty cyclone? > As a TM teacher, you should be able to define 'God' and 'enlightenment', otherwise you're circle jerking and just making fun of the poor Burmese. Why would you want to make fun of those poor people? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
> I think we as humans like to look for patterns and extrapolate our > intelligence onto nature. Agreed. Whether we do it through a belief in God > or in science, the motive is the same, and either belief remains > full of holes when viewed superficially. Here I disagree. Science is not a belief like the belief in God. It is a method used to help improve the odds of our beliefs being accurate. The method is a work around for our cognitive flaws. So I see the motives in holding a God belief and using the methods of science to be almost opposite. And most God believers get scientific real fast in the hospital emergency room. The God belief is the last resort after every avenue of science is pursued. (or until your health insurance cuts you off) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > > His father had promised him a car for his birthday. Dad was > nowhere > > in sight. His mother gave him 5.00$, yet what he had received > was a > > grace from God that on his birthday the sun and the birds awakened > > him, the sweet smells of the divine filled the air and he knew > without > > a doubt that there had to be a God and that God just gave him the > > greatest birthday gift ever. > > > > > > So following this weather based theology we can assume that God > > absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass > and > > despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? > > > > It seems a little grandiose and narcissistic to me to attribute a > > day's weather to God's intention to give him a bitch'n birthday > while > > his same power over the weather is causing untold misery and death > in > > other places. > > > I think we as humans like to look for patterns and extrapolate our > intelligence onto nature. Whether we do it through a belief in God > or in science, the motive is the same, and either belief remains > full of holes when viewed superficially. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
> > As a TM teacher, you should be able to define > > 'God' and 'enlightenment', > > Curtis wrote: > Why does it always have to do with sex with you > Richard? > Non sequitur. So, you can't define 'enlightenment' or 'God'. That's nothing to be ashamed of Curtis, so why not just admit it, instead of making fun of poor religious people?
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
> > > > So following this weather based theology we > > > > can assume that God absolutely hates China > > > > and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass > > > > and despises Burma and sent them a nasty > > > > cyclone? > > > > > > Absolutely. He wasn't too keen on New Orleans, either. > > > Except for the French Quarter. He spared that because > > > secretly God is a breast man. Has been since Eden. You > > > will notice that He gave Eve only one fig leaf, right? > > > I rest my case. Anyway, God's got this thing for boobs, > > > and He really likes watching the whole bead thing during > > > Mardi Gras, so the French Quarter got a free pass. > > > Turq wrote: > Hilarious. > So, you ARE making fun of the poor Burmese and the poor residents of New Orleans. But that still doesn't explain why you're using the 'circle jerk' on us, Barry. Why is that?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
I guess it is simply called appreciation. curtisdeltablues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > His father had promised him a car for his birthday. Dad was nowhere in sight. His mother gave him 5.00$, yet what he had received was a grace from God that on his birthday the sun and the birds awakened him, the sweet smells of the divine filled the air and he knew without a doubt that there had to be a God and that God just gave him the greatest birthday gift ever. So following this weather based theology we can assume that God absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass and despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? It seems a little grandiose and narcissistic to me to attribute a day's weather to God's intention to give him a bitch'n birthday while his same power over the weather is causing untold misery and death in other places. The atheist can enjoy the beauty of a great day also, he just doesn't need to imagine that a divine being is slapping him five with the weather. This discussion reminds me of those guys who pray for victory for their sports teams and then sing his praises if they win. Or the musicians at the Grammies who thank God for their award. Any God who would change the weather for a birthday, create a game turning interception for a specific sports team, or meddle in the affairs of the voting process for best female hip hop artist...while ignoring the Guinea worm and malaria mosquito, would be the lamest God ever imagined by man. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Louis McKenzie wrote: > > I once knew an atheist who believed that God was just something that was created to control people. He believed that the word God was used to keep people stuck in churches and waiting for the will of God. > > Then one day his birthday something happened extra ordinary, I don't know if it was what happened or the fact that the boy realized that it happened but in any case. His birthday was in the month of April, in the eastern part of the US North East it is common to have snow and cold or rain in this time period. > > Well on this third day of April after snow had begun to clear the rain had fallen strong for days and it was still very cold even thought it was spring. The boy woke up that April morning to the most beautiful day. The sun was shining bright the temperature was 75 birds were singing outside his window and the smell of spring was strong in the air. > > His father had promised him a car for his birthday. Dad was nowhere in sight. His mother gave him 5.00$, yet what he had received was a grace from God that on his birthday the sun and the birds awakened him, the sweet smells of the divine filled the air and he knew without a doubt that there had to be a God and that God just gave him the greatest birthday gift ever. > > > > TurquoiseB wrote: > Recent discussions about "becoming in tune with the laws > of nature" have pointed out that Maharishi clearly was > using "laws of nature" and "the will of nature" as > euphemisms for "God" and "God's will" all along. As > would be expected, considering that his teacher Guru > Dev clearly thought in those terms. > > However (and assuming for the purposes of this discussion > the existence of a sentient God who could actually *have* > a "will"), I think it's time to step back and spend a > little time pondering whether it's a good *idea* to want > to become "in tune with God's will." > > I mean, wouldn't that kinda be backing a loser? > > Look at the Dude's *track record*!!! Has He *ever* gotten > His way? There have been complaints from the supposedly- > holy (prophets, spiritual teachers, leaders of religion, > and other such spokespersons for God) since the dawn of > time that the majority of people (that is, everyone but > them) don't understand His will, and are "sinning" by not > acting in accord with it. You could fill the Superbowl > with the books written about this subject and the sermons > preached to the ignorant to get them to swing over to the > side of God and start doing His will. > > And has any of it worked? Not a bit of it. God's spokes- > persons are *still* whining that no one pays attention > to them, and that "sin" and not following the will of God > are the reasons for the state that the planet is in. > > Even when God *Himself* steps in and preaches a few sermons > in the form of hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, typhoons, > plagues, famines and the like, no one seems to pay attention. > They keep acting the way they act. He tries again, and lays > a new set of plagues and pestilences on their sinning asses, > and the people never get the picture and submit to His will. > > Seems to me that God's a bit of a wuss. > > I mean, where's all this supposed omnipotence we keep hear- > ing about in his P.R. blurbs? If He is so damned powerful, > why can't He just impose His will with a wave of the hand, > eh? Surely He doesn't nee
[FairfieldLife] Re: Circle Jerk
> > The last time I checked, a westerner had to have at > > least a letter of introduction in order to get an > > audience with a Shankaracharya. > > new wrote: > Better check again. I had a personal audience with > one, Puri, by just coming the the Math with no intent > or request for an audience. A staffer simply said > the S. would like to meet with me. > Did you ask the Shankaracharya about his position concerning his support of the caste system based on birth circumstances? If not, why not? It is well known that the Puri Shankaracharya has said in public that he is against the unscheduled class being admitted into the local temple. What's up with that? > In Kanchi, I was pushed thru a door, to find a group > of 30 waiting for an audience. The S came, performed > and interesting puja and then answered questions to > those who approached him. > Maybe so, but did you ask the Shankaracharya of Kanchi about the murder charges against him? It is well-known that the Kanchi matha is not one of the original four mathas founded by the Adi Shankara. What's up with that? So, based on the above it would seem that the Marshy was correct: the other Shankaracharyas have got it all wrong! Why didn't you tell us about the racism associated with the Puri Shankaracharya and the murder charges against the Kanchi Shankaracharya? What's up with that?
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > So following this weather based theology we can assume that God > > > absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass > > > and despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? > > > > Absolutely. He wasn't too keen on New Orleans, either. > > Except for the French Quarter. He spared that because > > secretly God is a breast man. Has been since Eden. You > > will notice that He gave Eve only one fig leaf, right? > > I rest my case. Anyway, God's got this thing for boobs, > > and He really likes watching the whole bead thing during > > Mardi Gras, so the French Quarter got a free pass. > > > You just reminded me of one of my favourite cartoons, > the Perry Bible Fellowship. > > http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF016-Eden.jpg Hilarious. > That one is topical. Pick from the list in the middle, > I think he has a pretty damn good hit rate. I really liked this one, because it kinda goes along with your comment to RJ: http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF026-Butterflies.jpg > (I know RJ, it always comes down to sex with us guys)
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > His father had promised him a car for his birthday. Dad was nowhere > in sight. His mother gave him 5.00$, yet what he had received was a > grace from God that on his birthday the sun and the birds awakened > him, the sweet smells of the divine filled the air and he knew without > a doubt that there had to be a God and that God just gave him the > greatest birthday gift ever. > > > So following this weather based theology we can assume that God > absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass and > despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? > > It seems a little grandiose and narcissistic to me to attribute a > day's weather to God's intention to give him a bitch'n birthday while > his same power over the weather is causing untold misery and death in > other places. I think we as humans like to look for patterns and extrapolate our intelligence onto nature. Whether we do it through a belief in God or in science, the motive is the same, and either belief remains full of holes when viewed superficially.
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > That one is topical. Pick from the list in the middle, > > I think he has a pretty damn good hit rate. > > > > I had never seen them,thanks for the hook up! The one called 'Wishing Well' is my fave, had me in tears. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > So following this weather based theology we can assume that God > > > > absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass > > > > and despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? > > > > > > Absolutely. He wasn't too keen on New Orleans, either. > > > Except for the French Quarter. He spared that because > > > secretly God is a breast man. Has been since Eden. You > > > will notice that He gave Eve only one fig leaf, right? > > > I rest my case. Anyway, God's got this thing for boobs, > > > and He really likes watching the whole bead thing during > > > Mardi Gras, so the French Quarter got a free pass. > > > > > > You just reminded me of one of my favourite cartoons, > > the Perry Bible Fellowship. > > > > http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF016-Eden.jpg > > > > That one is topical. Pick from the list in the middle, > > I think he has a pretty damn good hit rate. > > > > (I know RJ, it always comes down to sex with us guys) > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
> That one is topical. Pick from the list in the middle, > I think he has a pretty damn good hit rate. > I had never seen them,thanks for the hook up! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > > So following this weather based theology we can assume that God > > > absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass > > > and despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? > > > > Absolutely. He wasn't too keen on New Orleans, either. > > Except for the French Quarter. He spared that because > > secretly God is a breast man. Has been since Eden. You > > will notice that He gave Eve only one fig leaf, right? > > I rest my case. Anyway, God's got this thing for boobs, > > and He really likes watching the whole bead thing during > > Mardi Gras, so the French Quarter got a free pass. > > > You just reminded me of one of my favourite cartoons, > the Perry Bible Fellowship. > > http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF016-Eden.jpg > > That one is topical. Pick from the list in the middle, > I think he has a pretty damn good hit rate. > > (I know RJ, it always comes down to sex with us guys) >
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Curtis wrote: > > So following this weather based theology we can > > assume that God absolutely hates China and dropped > > a huge earthquake on it's ass and despises Burma > > and sent them a nasty cyclone? > > What an odd chain of cognitive disconnects... > As a TM teacher, you should be able to define 'God' > and 'enlightenment', OK, so what does that have to do with what I wrote? Why does it always have to do with sex with you Richard? > and just making fun of the poor Burmese. WTF? > > Why would you want to make fun of those poor people? WTF, WTF? I am so often put into a state of befuddlement by your posts. Sometimes I see a glimmer of wit and think, I can relate to this guy. Then you come from left field like in this post and I can't follow it as humor or as something serious. Were you confusing this post with another post, me with Turq? I have a crazy image in my mind of what you look like when you post that involves the unlikely combination of wild lurching movements and typing. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Exploring The Mechanics Of Judgment, Beliefs
On May 19, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote: Isn't this Fairfield Life in a nutshell? And isn't it the heart of the current discussion about what "becoming in tune with nature" might really mean? Doesn't it explain the tendency to excuse in Maharishi or Hillary the *same* actions one would soundly condemn in another? Vaj wrote: What being in tune with nature probably actually was meant to be part of was attaining the state of apta-kama... You've done nothing in this post except use circular logic, Vaj. You can't define one undefined word by using another, undefined word. What, exactly is 'nature' and 'kama'? As a TM teacher, you should be able to make these definitions, especially after having 'hung out' with the Shankaracharyas. The idea of support of nature come from the derivation of the Sanskrit word "dharma" whose root "dhr" means "to support". "Support of Nature" is a translation of the word Dharma and it's root dhr defines it's activity in the sphere of action. So therefore "Support of Nature" is being in ones "Dharma". If one is in ones dharma, one has support of nature. For example it is the dharma of trolls to live under bridges and say grumpy things when disturbed. It is not their dharma to post on the internet. That's why we have moderators who do yagyas to invoke the rain-gods who wash away the trolls. That's their dharma. Kama just means desire. Fulfillment of desire really means becoming desire-less, without desire.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Instant Karma for Clinton's...'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On May 19, 2008, at 8:20 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > He doesn't *want* to have to confront the fact, for > > instance, that the vast majority of those who have > > encountered Hillary close up have found her exactly > > the opposite of an "arrogant, insufferable bitch": > > friendly, warm, empathetic, deeply concerned with > > other people's needs, and with a terrific sense of > > humor. > > Red herring, Judy. So what? Her policies support neither > empathy nor concern with average Americans, as per the > letter Rick posted. Not true, by a mile. First of all, the "letter" Rick posted was almost all about *Bill Clinton's* policies, not Hillary's policies. Whether the statements made in it are true, I don't have the resources to research. I have reason to suspect this was not an anguished cry from the heart of an innocent mother but a professional political hit job, so I'm rather dubious about its veracity. (If you were to read the comments to the piece, you'd see I'm not alone in this suspicion.) Just for one thing, the "letter" decries Hillary's plan to centralize control of food safety, when in fact this is exactly what food safety advocates have been demanding for quite some time; they see the current decentralization as *the* main barrier to making food safer in this country. Yet the writer of the "letter" attempts to make the idea sound sinister. Second, Hillary's own policies are very much in tune with people's needs. Only somebody who hadn't looked at them could possibly say otherwise. On the off- chance you might want to do your homework: http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/08/09/clinton/ http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4306 http://www.pfb.com/government-affairs/candidate%20platforms/Clinton- Plan.pdf http://tinyurl.com/5nmmww As far as food safety specifically is concerned, you might want to read this piece from Salon's War Room comparing her response to the big beef recall in February to that of Obama: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/02/19/recall/ The writer has a particular interest in food safety issues and is not a Hillary supporter. His conclusion: "Obama's response...was almost entirely devoid of substance or concrete solutions; it made Clinton look like good-food guru Alice Waters by contrast." > > That image of Hillary would be too disturbing. > > Yeah, I'm sure that image has Barry quaking in his proverbial > boots. Indeed. That's why he reacts so violently when I defend Hillary and freaks when I point out that the Hillary-haters have a veracity problem. He doesn't *want* their veracity questioned. You suffer from a similar problem, as do Tom and some of the other fanatical Hillary-haters here. You're actively threatened by positive views and facts about Hillary. Obviously she isn't immune from criticism. But reasonable people should want to hear both sides of the story; people of integrity should not want her--or anybody else--to be smeared by falsehoods and distortions, no matter whom they support.
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > So following this weather based theology we can assume that God > > absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass > > and despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? > > Absolutely. He wasn't too keen on New Orleans, either. > Except for the French Quarter. He spared that because > secretly God is a breast man. Has been since Eden. You > will notice that He gave Eve only one fig leaf, right? > I rest my case. Anyway, God's got this thing for boobs, > and He really likes watching the whole bead thing during > Mardi Gras, so the French Quarter got a free pass. You just reminded me of one of my favourite cartoons, the Perry Bible Fellowship. http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF016-Eden.jpg That one is topical. Pick from the list in the middle, I think he has a pretty damn good hit rate. (I know RJ, it always comes down to sex with us guys)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Circle Jerk
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The last time I checked, a westerner had to have at > least a letter of introduction in order to get an > audience with a Shankaracharya. Better check again. I had a personal audience with one, Puri, by just coming the the Math with no intent or request for an audience. A staffer simply said the S. would like to meet with me. In Kanchi, I was pushed thru a door, to find a group of 30 waiting for an audience. The S came, performed and interesting puja and then answered questions to those who approached him.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Exploring The Mechanics Of Judgment, Beliefs
> > Isn't this Fairfield Life in a nutshell? > > > > And isn't it the heart of the current discussion > > about what "becoming in tune with nature" might > > really mean? Doesn't it explain the tendency to > > excuse in Maharishi or Hillary the *same* actions > > one would soundly condemn in another? > > Vaj wrote: > What being in tune with nature probably actually was > meant to be part of was attaining the state of > apta-kama... > You've done nothing in this post except use circular logic, Vaj. You can't define one undefined word by using another, undefined word. What, exactly is 'nature' and 'kama'? As a TM teacher, you should be able to make these definitions, especially after having 'hung out' with the Shankaracharyas. [snip]
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Exploring The Mechanics Of Judgment, Beliefs
On May 19, 2008, at 8:34 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Isn't this Fairfield Life in a nutshell? And isn't it the heart of the current discussion about what "becoming in tune with nature" might really mean? Doesn't it explain the tendency to excuse in Maharishi or Hillary the *same* actions one would soundly condemn in another? What being in tune with nature probably actually was meant to be part of was attaining the state of apta-kama, the fulfillment of all desires, which is an Upanishadic and Shankaran ideal. But I don't believe the actual philosophy behind this is explained in the TM dilution of "Vedic wisdom". What it's meant to achieve is a way one can handle the "objects" of the world in a way that supporting of one's path. One is to no longer have relative objects and their events intruding on ones path or one can use the objects to assist in the path. Either way, attachment to objects has to go, otherwise there is no support of nature and one instead becomes enmeshed in the phenomenal world, like Hillary and the Maharishi. 'All desires melt in the Light of the Self' I believe is the saying in the Upanishads. If we're still enmeshed in desire, how could we be established in the Self?
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > His father had promised him a car for his birthday. Dad was > > nowhere in sight. His mother gave him 5.00$, yet what he had > > received was a grace from God that on his birthday the sun > > and the birds awakened him, the sweet smells of the divine > > filled the air and he knew without a doubt that there had to > > be a God and that God just gave him the greatest birthday > > gift ever. > > So following this weather based theology we can assume that God > absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass > and despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? Absolutely. He wasn't too keen on New Orleans, either. Except for the French Quarter. He spared that because secretly God is a breast man. Has been since Eden. You will notice that He gave Eve only one fig leaf, right? I rest my case. Anyway, God's got this thing for boobs, and He really likes watching the whole bead thing during Mardi Gras, so the French Quarter got a free pass. > It seems a little grandiose and narcissistic to me to attribute a > day's weather to God's intention to give him a bitch'n birthday > while his same power over the weather is causing untold misery > and death in other places. Indeed. Well said. > The atheist can enjoy the beauty of a great day also, he just > doesn't need to imagine that a divine being is slapping him five > with the weather. Well said again. > This discussion reminds me of those guys who pray for victory > for their sports teams and then sing his praises if they win. > Or the musicians at the Grammies who thank God for their award. > > Any God who would change the weather for a birthday, create a > game turning interception for a specific sports team, or meddle > in the affairs of the voting process for best female hip hop > artist...while ignoring the Guinea worm and malaria mosquito, > would be the lamest God ever imagined by man. And yet, there you have it. That IS the God imagined by man. Then again, we're talking man. As a creature, he is ill-regarded in the greater universe. The actual definition in the Encyclopedia Galactica for "man" reads, "An ape-descended, primitive life form so lost in self-importance that it imagines an all-powerful and interven- tionist God, and then the most important thing it can think of to ask Him for is that the Raiders win the game today."
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
Curtis wrote: > So following this weather based theology we can > assume that God absolutely hates China and dropped > a huge earthquake on it's ass and despises Burma > and sent them a nasty cyclone? > As a TM teacher, you should be able to define 'God' and 'enlightenment', otherwise you're circle jerking and just making fun of the poor Burmese. Why would you want to make fun of those poor people?
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
> His father had promised him a car for his birthday. Dad was nowhere in sight. His mother gave him 5.00$, yet what he had received was a grace from God that on his birthday the sun and the birds awakened him, the sweet smells of the divine filled the air and he knew without a doubt that there had to be a God and that God just gave him the greatest birthday gift ever. So following this weather based theology we can assume that God absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass and despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? It seems a little grandiose and narcissistic to me to attribute a day's weather to God's intention to give him a bitch'n birthday while his same power over the weather is causing untold misery and death in other places. The atheist can enjoy the beauty of a great day also, he just doesn't need to imagine that a divine being is slapping him five with the weather. This discussion reminds me of those guys who pray for victory for their sports teams and then sing his praises if they win. Or the musicians at the Grammies who thank God for their award. Any God who would change the weather for a birthday, create a game turning interception for a specific sports team, or meddle in the affairs of the voting process for best female hip hop artist...while ignoring the Guinea worm and malaria mosquito, would be the lamest God ever imagined by man. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Louis McKenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I once knew an atheist who believed that God was just something that was created to control people. He believed that the word God was used to keep people stuck in churches and waiting for the will of God. > > Then one day his birthday something happened extra ordinary, I don't know if it was what happened or the fact that the boy realized that it happened but in any case. His birthday was in the month of April, in the eastern part of the US North East it is common to have snow and cold or rain in this time period. > > Well on this third day of April after snow had begun to clear the rain had fallen strong for days and it was still very cold even thought it was spring. The boy woke up that April morning to the most beautiful day. The sun was shining bright the temperature was 75 birds were singing outside his window and the smell of spring was strong in the air. > > His father had promised him a car for his birthday. Dad was nowhere in sight. His mother gave him 5.00$, yet what he had received was a grace from God that on his birthday the sun and the birds awakened him, the sweet smells of the divine filled the air and he knew without a doubt that there had to be a God and that God just gave him the greatest birthday gift ever. > > > > TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Recent discussions about "becoming in tune with the laws > of nature" have pointed out that Maharishi clearly was > using "laws of nature" and "the will of nature" as > euphemisms for "God" and "God's will" all along. As > would be expected, considering that his teacher Guru > Dev clearly thought in those terms. > > However (and assuming for the purposes of this discussion > the existence of a sentient God who could actually *have* > a "will"), I think it's time to step back and spend a > little time pondering whether it's a good *idea* to want > to become "in tune with God's will." > > I mean, wouldn't that kinda be backing a loser? > > Look at the Dude's *track record*!!! Has He *ever* gotten > His way? There have been complaints from the supposedly- > holy (prophets, spiritual teachers, leaders of religion, > and other such spokespersons for God) since the dawn of > time that the majority of people (that is, everyone but > them) don't understand His will, and are "sinning" by not > acting in accord with it. You could fill the Superbowl > with the books written about this subject and the sermons > preached to the ignorant to get them to swing over to the > side of God and start doing His will. > > And has any of it worked? Not a bit of it. God's spokes- > persons are *still* whining that no one pays attention > to them, and that "sin" and not following the will of God > are the reasons for the state that the planet is in. > > Even when God *Himself* steps in and preaches a few sermons > in the form of hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, typhoons, > plagues, famines and the like, no one seems to pay attention. > They keep acting the way they act. He tries again, and lays > a new set of plagues and pestilences on their sinning asses, > and the people never get the picture and submit to His will. > > Seems to me that God's a bit of a wuss. > > I mean, where's all this supposed omnipotence we keep hear- > ing about in his P.R. blurbs? If He is so damned powerful, > why can't He just impose His will with a wave of the hand, > eh? Surely He doesn't need all these natural disasters (a > euphemism for both
[FairfieldLife] Re: Exploring The Mechanics Of Judgment, Beliefs
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > Fascinating article, Vaj. Thanks for posting it. I > > > was particularly taken with: > > > > > > > ...judgments often depend on whether the judging > > > > person is in conflict with the person performing > > > > the action. When a soldier sets off a bomb, an > > > > observer's perception of whether the soldier > > > > intended to kill civilians depends on whether > > > > the soldier and observer are on the same side > > > > of the conflict. > > > > > > Isn't this Fairfield Life in a nutshell? > > > > > > And isn't it the heart of the current discussion > > > about what "becoming in tune with nature" might > > > really mean? Doesn't it explain the tendency to > > > excuse in Maharishi or Hillary the *same* actions > > > one would soundly condemn in another? > > > > The example of this tendency that absolutely > > fascinates me is how the TM critics complain > > endlessly about the purported lack of honesty > > of MMY and the TMO, yet happily tolerate the > > presence here of chronic, malicious liars like > > Barry and Vaj. > > This, in a nutshell, is the very *intent* I > was commenting on in the post you called > RELY RELY STOOPID. Good, I was hoping Barry would respond with another bunch of lies to confirm what I said. Let's have a look: > It's a behavioral pattern, one that you share > with Hillary Clinton. Whenever anyone says > anything that challenges the image you are > trying to project or what you believe, your > first impulse is to shoot the messenger, to > demonize and try to undermine the credibility > of the person who has said the thing you don't > agree with. No, I'm not talking about disagreements or beliefs or images, I'm talking about lies--saying things one knows are factually not true. That's what Barry does, and what Vaj does, repeatedly. Yet they're still tolerated on this supposedly spiritually oriented forum. Hillary's irrelevant here, and in any case, she doesn't do that. That's Obama's trick. > Your second impulse -- both you and Hillary -- > is to deny that you did it. "I just posted > a URL to an article, without comment." Nope, didn't say that. (Remember, Barry earlier claimed to have read the whole post, so he *knows* I didn't say that.) Barry's invited to document similar behavior on Hillary's part. He won't even attempt to, of course, but he couldn't even if he tried. As I noted earlier, his image of Hillary is taken straight from the Hillary-haters; he'll automatically believe whatever they say about her. He doesn't know anything *else* about her but what they tell him. He's never looked into any other information about Hillary. > Yeah, right. > > You share an ethical system with Hillary Clinton, > Judy. Both of you are *completely* reactive; you > cannot *stand* to have anyone say anything about > you or about what you believe that you don't agree > with. You are both *compelled* to rebut it. And > you are both *compelled* to rebut it the same way. > Your first reaction is *almost always* to attempt > to discredit the person who has disagreed with you. > Your second is claim you didn't do it, and that > that was not your intent. This description is straight out of Barry's endlessly boiling fantasy vat of a mind. > Yeah, right. > > I suspect that there is not one person on this > forum who buys it, other than yourself. They can > see your behavioral patterns, even if you cannot. > Exactly the way they can see Hillary's, when > you cannot. Yeah, right. Tell us another one, Barry.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Instant Karma for Clinton's...'
Sal wrote: > Her policies support neither empathy nor concern > with average Americans, as per the letter Rick > posted. > "Really, the entire future of the pro-choice movement rests on spitting in the eye of the strongest woman candidate in the history of the country, rather than waiting three more weeks to put whatever organizational muscle it has left after today to work for Obama, that this sliver of times will make the difference between winning and losing in November?" Read more: 'NARAL Sticks a Finger in Our Eye' Huffungton Post, May 15, 2008 http://tinyurl.com/4jndxd "Less than one hour after Clinton announced her candidacy in January 2007, the group issued an endorsement statement from president Ellen Malcolm. "I am one of the millions of women who have waited all their lives to see the first woman sworn in as President of the United States," wrote Malcolm. "And now we have our best opportunity to see that dream fulfilled." Full story: 'The Feminist Divide Over Obama' By Amy Sullivan Time, Friday, May. 16, 2008 http://tinyurl.com/5df6je
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Instant Karma for Clinton's...'
On May 19, 2008, at 8:20 AM, authfriend wrote: He doesn't *want* to have to confront the fact, for instance, that the vast majority of those who have encountered Hillary close up have found her exactly the opposite of an "arrogant, insufferable bitch": friendly, warm, empathetic, deeply concerned with other people's needs, and with a terrific sense of humor. Red herring, Judy. So what? Her policies support neither empathy nor concern with average Americans, as per the letter Rick posted. That image of Hillary would be too disturbing. Yeah, I'm sure that image has Barry quaking in his proverbial boots. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry is a circle jerker
Uh, Barry, you've just posted the mother of all circle jerks! You didn't define the term 'God', 'will', or even 'nature'. TurquoiseB wrote: > Recent discussions about "becoming in tune with the laws > of nature" have pointed out that Maharishi clearly was > using "laws of nature" and "the will of nature" as > euphemisms for "God" and "God's will" all along. As > would be expected, considering that his teacher Guru > Dev clearly thought in those terms. > > However (and assuming for the purposes of this discussion > the existence of a sentient God who could actually *have* > a "will"), I think it's time to step back and spend a > little time pondering whether it's a good *idea* to want > to become "in tune with God's will." > > I mean, wouldn't that kinda be backing a loser? > > Look at the Dude's *track record*!!! Has He *ever* gotten > His way? There have been complaints from the supposedly- > holy (prophets, spiritual teachers, leaders of religion, > and other such spokespersons for God) since the dawn of > time that the majority of people (that is, everyone but > them) don't understand His will, and are "sinning" by not > acting in accord with it. You could fill the Superbowl > with the books written about this subject and the sermons > preached to the ignorant to get them to swing over to the > side of God and start doing His will. > > And has any of it worked? Not a bit of it. God's spokes- > persons are *still* whining that no one pays attention > to them, and that "sin" and not following the will of God > are the reasons for the state that the planet is in. > > Even when God *Himself* steps in and preaches a few sermons > in the form of hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, typhoons, > plagues, famines and the like, no one seems to pay attention. > They keep acting the way they act. He tries again, and lays > a new set of plagues and pestilences on their sinning asses, > and the people never get the picture and submit to His will. > > Seems to me that God's a bit of a wuss. > > I mean, where's all this supposed omnipotence we keep hear- > ing about in his P.R. blurbs? If He is so damned powerful, > why can't He just impose His will with a wave of the hand, > eh? Surely He doesn't need all these natural disasters (a > euphemism for both the floods *and* the preachers in my > estimation) to keep trying to convince us of the wisdom of > submitting to His will. If He is so omniscient, and His > will represents how he "wants" the world to be, why the > heck doesn't he just pull a Jean-Luc Picard and "Make > it so?" Why all this continual whining about us not > getting His "will?" > > Seems to me that "God's will" ain't any more desirable a > goal than the will of Joe Blow from Peoria, Illinois. Both > seem to have an equal ability to cause their will to happen. > The difference is that Joe is less attached, and doesn't > send out teams of professional whiners to preach to others > about how sinful they are when they don't abide by his will. > Joe may not be any more omnipotent than God, but he seems > to have far more class, and is far less of a wuss. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The "Improved Behavior" Myth of TM
On May 19, 2008, at 8:09 AM, dhamiltony2k5 wrote: Start a new culture inside the movement based on forthright honesty. Honest science, openness, and merit. It is about integrity. People have a good sense about it that no amount of PR can skirt. Change is needed to go forward. Where did all the teachers go? The money, go? Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio? Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Burned hydrogen?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "uns_tressor" > wrote: > > Maybe Yes, maybe No. Try translating "water" > > into Sanskrit, and settle for that. > > uns. > > > > Well, 'jalam' is one of several words for 'water' in Sanskrit, > but where in it is 'pure'..er...'burned' and 'hydrogen'? ; ) > Should we ask "Idge teh Vagno-rant"? :0 > If you burn hydrogen in oxygen, you will get water. That is why the crocodiles of Florida get a right royal drenching every time the shuttle takes off. Uns.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Circle Jerk Offs
TurquoiseB wrote: > Circle jerk. No one I was conversing with was > able to step out of the circle. Few seemed to > recognize that the attributes they believe are > associated with the state of enlightenment were > *taught* to them. > The TM teachers seem to be having a real problem with this. Apparently they can't even define the word 'enlightenment'. Turq thinks the Rama guy taught 'circle jerk yoga', Angela thinks the Western philosophers taught yoga praxis; Vaj says he once visited a Shankaracahraya, which one he won't say; and Judy doesn't even seem to have a clue what the definition of enlightement is, and Bharat2 thinks maybe the Bavarian 'illuminati' may have something to do with it. So, after reading all these posts on the subject, it would seem that almost all the respondents here are just circle jerkers, running around and around using circular logic. I expected more from the TM teachers - why can't they just be honest and admit they don't even have a clue? So, Turq wins on this one. Only problem is, Turq seems to be the biggest jerk off around, since he studied with TWO supposedly 'enlightened' teachers, and yet Turq himself can't seem to define what enlightenment is.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Exploring The Mechanics Of Judgment, Beliefs
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > Fascinating article, Vaj. Thanks for posting it. I > > was particularly taken with: > > > > > ...judgments often depend on whether the judging > > > person is in conflict with the person performing > > > the action. When a soldier sets off a bomb, an > > > observer's perception of whether the soldier > > > intended to kill civilians depends on whether > > > the soldier and observer are on the same side > > > of the conflict. > > > > Isn't this Fairfield Life in a nutshell? > > > > And isn't it the heart of the current discussion > > about what "becoming in tune with nature" might > > really mean? Doesn't it explain the tendency to > > excuse in Maharishi or Hillary the *same* actions > > one would soundly condemn in another? > > The example of this tendency that absolutely > fascinates me is how the TM critics complain > endlessly about the purported lack of honesty > of MMY and the TMO, yet happily tolerate the > presence here of chronic, malicious liars like > Barry and Vaj. This, in a nutshell, is the very *intent* I was commenting on in the post you called RELY RELY STOOPID. It's a behavioral pattern, one that you share with Hillary Clinton. Whenever anyone says anything that challenges the image you are trying to project or what you believe, your first impulse is to shoot the messenger, to demonize and try to undermine the credibility of the person who has said the thing you don't agree with. Your second impulse -- both you and Hillary -- is to deny that you did it. "I just posted a URL to an article, without comment." Yeah, right. You share an ethical system with Hillary Clinton, Judy. Both of you are *completely* reactive; you cannot *stand* to have anyone say anything about you or about what you believe that you don't agree with. You are both *compelled* to rebut it. And you are both *compelled* to rebut it the same way. Your first reaction is *almost always* to attempt to discredit the person who has disagreed with you. Your second is claim you didn't do it, and that that was not your intent. Yeah, right. I suspect that there is not one person on this forum who buys it, other than yourself. They can see your behavioral patterns, even if you cannot. Exactly the way they can see Hillary's, when you cannot.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
Maybe God is a Democrat authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > Even when God *Himself* steps in and preaches a few sermons > in the form of hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, typhoons, > plagues, famines and the like, no one seems to pay attention. > They keep acting the way they act. He tries again, and lays > a new set of plagues and pestilences on their sinning asses, > and the people never get the picture and submit to His will. > > Seems to me that God's a bit of a wuss. Actually, in Western theology, at least, God had the divine cojones to set himself the God-sized challenge of giving his human creations the choice *not* to submit to his will, when he could have created a bunch of mindless automatons who would do whatever he wanted. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [FairfieldLife] God is a wuss
I once knew an atheist who believed that God was just something that was created to control people. He believed that the word God was used to keep people stuck in churches and waiting for the will of God. Then one day his birthday something happened extra ordinary, I don't know if it was what happened or the fact that the boy realized that it happened but in any case. His birthday was in the month of April, in the eastern part of the US North East it is common to have snow and cold or rain in this time period. Well on this third day of April after snow had begun to clear the rain had fallen strong for days and it was still very cold even thought it was spring. The boy woke up that April morning to the most beautiful day. The sun was shining bright the temperature was 75 birds were singing outside his window and the smell of spring was strong in the air. His father had promised him a car for his birthday. Dad was nowhere in sight. His mother gave him 5.00$, yet what he had received was a grace from God that on his birthday the sun and the birds awakened him, the sweet smells of the divine filled the air and he knew without a doubt that there had to be a God and that God just gave him the greatest birthday gift ever. TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Recent discussions about "becoming in tune with the laws of nature" have pointed out that Maharishi clearly was using "laws of nature" and "the will of nature" as euphemisms for "God" and "God's will" all along. As would be expected, considering that his teacher Guru Dev clearly thought in those terms. However (and assuming for the purposes of this discussion the existence of a sentient God who could actually *have* a "will"), I think it's time to step back and spend a little time pondering whether it's a good *idea* to want to become "in tune with God's will." I mean, wouldn't that kinda be backing a loser? Look at the Dude's *track record*!!! Has He *ever* gotten His way? There have been complaints from the supposedly- holy (prophets, spiritual teachers, leaders of religion, and other such spokespersons for God) since the dawn of time that the majority of people (that is, everyone but them) don't understand His will, and are "sinning" by not acting in accord with it. You could fill the Superbowl with the books written about this subject and the sermons preached to the ignorant to get them to swing over to the side of God and start doing His will. And has any of it worked? Not a bit of it. God's spokes- persons are *still* whining that no one pays attention to them, and that "sin" and not following the will of God are the reasons for the state that the planet is in. Even when God *Himself* steps in and preaches a few sermons in the form of hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, typhoons, plagues, famines and the like, no one seems to pay attention. They keep acting the way they act. He tries again, and lays a new set of plagues and pestilences on their sinning asses, and the people never get the picture and submit to His will. Seems to me that God's a bit of a wuss. I mean, where's all this supposed omnipotence we keep hear- ing about in his P.R. blurbs? If He is so damned powerful, why can't He just impose His will with a wave of the hand, eh? Surely He doesn't need all these natural disasters (a euphemism for both the floods *and* the preachers in my estimation) to keep trying to convince us of the wisdom of submitting to His will. If He is so omniscient, and His will represents how he "wants" the world to be, why the heck doesn't he just pull a Jean-Luc Picard and "Make it so?" Why all this continual whining about us not getting His "will?" Seems to me that "God's will" ain't any more desirable a goal than the will of Joe Blow from Peoria, Illinois. Both seem to have an equal ability to cause their will to happen. The difference is that Joe is less attached, and doesn't send out teams of professional whiners to preach to others about how sinful they are when they don't abide by his will. Joe may not be any more omnipotent than God, but he seems to have far more class, and is far less of a wuss. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Instant Karma for Clinton's...'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > Heehee. A one-two dose of RELY RELY STOOPID. > > > > Neither of these dorks managed to notice that the piece > > I posted in defense of Clinton was *written by an Obama > > supporter*. For that matter, neither of them actually > > read the piece they're so upset about. > > I both noticed that, and read the article. Or so Barry claims, a bit late... > I also noticed what your intent was in posting > it. That is what I commented on, not the article. The interesting thing is, both the piece I posted and the facts it relates would have existed whether I brought them to anyone's attention or not. But if I hadn't posted the piece, nobody here would ever have had the opportunity to realize that there was any reason to question the negative, largely false story I posted the piece to correct. Barry clearly thinks that would have been a Good Thing; he doesn't want his assumptions challenged. He wants to be able to continue to parrot what he hears from the Hillary-haters and have it remain uncontested truth in his mind. He doesn't *want* to have to confront the fact, for instance, that the vast majority of those who have encountered Hillary close up have found her exactly the opposite of an "arrogant, insufferable bitch": friendly, warm, empathetic, deeply concerned with other people's needs, and with a terrific sense of humor. That image of Hillary would be too disturbing. Barry *wants* to remain ignorant of it, and of any other facts about Hillary that put her in a positive light.
