[FairfieldLife] e=mc2: 103 years later, Einstein's proven right
[ Some friends of mine from the French AI company I work for worked on this project while on sabbatical (every developer in the company and most of the market- ing people have at least one Ph.D.), using some of the software that they write for us. I wonder how long it will be until we use 'Einstein' as the code name for a new project. :-) ] PARIS (AFP) It's taken more than a century, but Einstein's celebrated formula e=mc2 has finally been corroborated, thanks to a heroic computational effort by French, German and Hungarian physicists. A brainpower consortium led by Laurent Lellouch of France's Centre for Theoretical Physics, using some of the world's mightiest supercomputers, have set down the calculations for estimating the mass of protons and neutrons, the particles at the nucleus of atoms. According to the conventional model of particle physics, protons and neutrons comprise smaller particles known as quarks, which in turn are bound by gluons. The odd thing is this: the mass of gluons is zero and the mass of quarks is only five percent. Where, therefore, is the missing 95 percent? The answer, according to the study published in the US journal Science on Thursday, comes from the energy from the movements and interactions of quarks and gluons. In other words, energy and mass are equivalent, as Einstein proposed in his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905. The e=mc2 formula shows that mass can be converted into energy, and energy can be converted into mass. By showing how much energy would be released if a certain amount of mass were to be converted into energy, the equation has been used many times, most famously as the inspirational basis for building atomic weapons. But resolving e=mc2 at the scale of sub-atomic particles -- in equations called quantum chromodynamics -- has been fiendishly difficult. Until now, this has been a hypothesis, France's National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) said proudly in a press release. It has now been corroborated for the first time. For those keen to know more: the computations involve envisioning space and time as part of a four-dimensional crystal lattice, with discrete points spaced along columns and rows.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hillary accepts job as Secretary of State...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think she will be great, so much stronger than Condi. It also speaks well of Obama that he picked a person who will challenge him since he disagreed with her foreign policy POV in the primaries. He is already doing the opposite of what Bush did (pick a yes women) so he must be on track. Actually, I agree. I occasionally post stuff about Hillary to taunt the compulsive Hillbots into posting out early, but I think it's an excellent choice, because *it will force Hillary Clinton to develop skills she currently does not have*. Her whole act is about barging into a room with her dick not only out of her pants, but as angry as she is. And that is the *opposite* of what is required in the world of international diplomacy. Diplomacy requires tact, and keeping your dick in your pants as long as humanly possible. I knew a woman in the Rama trip who was a Bitch with a capital 'B.' She literally made every person in the small computer company she worked with hate her, because of the callous and thought- less way she treated them. They finally bought out her shares to get rid of her. So what did she do? She became a psychologist. She went back to school, got her license, and set up a practice. And today, several years later, the change in her and in the way she treats *everyone*, not just her patients, is extra- ordinary. She wisely put herself in the position of *having* to be compassionate, *having* to keep her inner dick in her pants, *having* to find a way to help the people she was interacting with rather than yell at them and blame them for *her* failures. And it transformed her into a real human being. I suspect that, if Hillary has *any* chops at all, and there is any substance underneath her bluster, being Secretary Of State for a few years will have a similar effect on her. Given the diminished stature of the United States, it's not as if she *could* barge into a room with dick swinging any more. The U.S. has neither the military nor eco- nomic might to swing its dick at *anyone* any more. And to do so would be antithetical to her boss's view of what America's place in a new world should be. She's going to *have* to learn diplomacy, and *have* to learn compassion, and *have* to learn to keep her dick in her pants. For that reason I think it's a brilliant choice on Obama's part. He is giving her a chance to show that she has another side, and to prove it. And she will, one way or another. If she tries doing her job the way she's done it before (like when she single- handedly derailed health care reform for a decade by acting like a swinging dick), she won't last very long, and she'll have no prestigious Senate seat to return to. She'll be SOL, and it'll be her own fault. If she tries to run the swinging dick routine on other countries, they will laugh at her, because they are tired of it, and they'll quickly put her in her place. If she tries to run it on her boss, he will put her in her place even faster, probably without the laughter. The reaction of the Hillary camp to this offer has shown that they are still in campaign mode, long after it was appropriate. They're still milking this offer for headlines for Hillary. That will come to an abrupt halt the moment she accepts the offer (if she does). She'll have to change from dick-out campaign mode to keep-it-in-your-pants-and-just-do- the-job mode. If she can. That is yet to be proven. It'll be interesting to watch. Here is how I view our new president: http://images.plurk.com/36733_e7f482ba81beda85c3717278242ee9a1.jpg Exactly. This man keeps his dick in his pants. So will the people who work for him, unless they fuck up and don't do what they were hired to do. Then God help them. It remains to be seen what Hillary will do with the opportunity she has been given. Someone who really cared about her country would take the ball and run with it and drop the ego in favor of selfless service. Whether she does will indicate how attached she is *to* that ego.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Agnes Schwarzenegger
Great rap, Curtis. Tangential comments below. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Women and men who are hot learn to use it. They learn that it is sometimes a plus and sometimes a minus but on the whole it opens a lot of doors for them. One of my heroes, Charlie Chaplin, once said, The saddest thing I can imagine is to get used to luxury. For me, the saddest thing I can imagine is to get used to being able to wrap people with your looks. Good-looking people often get LAZY because of how easy it is to wrap people with their looks. They skimp on learning and they skimp on real achievement, because they've never needed them. They've gotten by on their looks for so long that they think they'll be able to forever. I would list George W. Bush as such a person, and I would *certainly* list Sarah Palin as such a person. Both are intellectually lazy, but they *became* intellectually lazy because they never had to use their intellect. skip to I used to look too young as a young adult man. It caused me trouble in business sometimes. Now I've got the salt and pepper hair and people take me a bit more seriously, but I became invisible to 20 something women! Oh well, that age group is more trouble than they are worth anyway, so I have to suck it up and move with the changes. I've noticed that men and women my age go through this identity change and everybody handles it differently. Women discover that men no longer notice them to hold the door for them. They don't find guys quite as eager to help them in stores after a lifetime of men falling all over themselves to assist. I once had the education of seeing this happen to a woman I knew in Santa Fe, the night it first happened. She was in her mid-forties, and still attractive in my opinion, but definitely losing her wrap. (I knew that, but she didn't, until the night in question.) I was clearly not interested in her, but she asked me to go with her to a rock club anyway, because (as she put it), I desperately need to get laid. The thought never occurred to her that she would NOT get laid. Such a thing had never happened to her in her entire life. No matter where she went, her whole life, all she had to do to get laid was to pout a little or hike her skirt up a bit, and some man would come running. Well, on this particular night, no one came running. In fact, after she noticed this and turned more aggressive in her attempts to wrap the men at the club, some of them ran the other way. She went home alone. You should have seen the look on her face. It was like watching a vampire come home hungry after a night of hunting that hadn't worked out as expected. And, as you suggest, Curtis, the key to whether she was worth spending time with in the future was how she *handled* this realization that she could no longer have anyone she wanted. This particular woman didn't handle it well, and went into a few years of desperation mode until she finally got it and settled into being a little more comfortable with her actual age and appearance. Guys like me stop getting the furtive glance from 20 something women (unless they are practicing or hate their dads) and we have to acknowledge this gracefully and not be bitter about it, not blame women for doing what is natural. Tell me about it. :-) How you handle becoming sexually invisible to women you still find sexually *very* visible is what makes or breaks you as a guy IMO. That's OK cuz if you are not bitter, you can find a person who matches your stage of life and continue the party. The ones who get bitter -- be they men or women -- basically don't get to party any more, period. They get rejected as the bitter old fucks they are, and nobody -- not even people their own age -- want to be around them, much less get it on with them. What interests me in a woman over her mid-forties is how well she wears it, and how comfortable she is with her real age. I would imagine that it's the same thing women find attractive (or unattractive) in older men. It's a great *gift* to no longer be able to rely on your looks. It forces you to rely on deeper things, and to develop them.
[FairfieldLife] A couple of questions about YF
1. How can doing one session (a couple of minutes) of YF seemingly cure a disorder that appeared as a sharp and burning but fortunately only momentary pain in my left shoulder after stretching my arms, especially upwards, like for instance for doing chin-ups? That had lasted several months. The main reason might have been practicing boogie woogie almost every day after buying a digi-piano last January. 2. Why does YF sometimes seem to make one needlessly horny, so much so that it's for instance, this time, a bit hard to concentrate on reading and studying Brahma-suutras, which I've, as a rather slow reader because of a mild visual defect, been doing for a couple of days now, although someone with a fairly normal vision would read and study them through in a couple of hours, because there are only some 500 of them and most of them consist of only a couple of words, although the translations usually are remarkably longer to make them suutras at least somewhat understandable?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A couple of questions about YF
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. How can doing one session (a couple of minutes) of YF seemingly cure a disorder that appeared as a sharp and burning but fortunately only momentary pain in my left shoulder after stretching my arms, especially upwards, like for instance for doing chin-ups? That had lasted several months. The main reason might have been practicing boogie woogie almost every day after buying a digi-piano last January. One early article about YF suggested that the shaking part was apparently related to aligning the spine. 2. Why does YF sometimes seem to make one needlessly horny, so much so that it's for instance, this time, a bit hard to concentrate on reading and studying Brahma-suutras, which I've, as a rather slow reader because of a mild visual defect, been doing for a couple of days now, although someone with a fairly normal vision would read and study them through in a couple of hours, because there are only some 500 of them and most of them consist of only a couple of words, although the translations usually are remarkably longer to make them suutras at least somewhat understandable? Excessive horniness from YF isn't exactly unknown, on my part. Shortly after learning, I managed to get 2 women pregnant within a few months of each other, out of the 4 I was seeing during that time. One went on to have my daughter and hasn't spoken to me in years. One went on to have my son and still lives with me in a platonic marriage that may last the rest of our lives. One went on to become involved in a 3-way lesbian marriage living in a log cabin in the middle of nowhere, and the last hasn't spoken to me since the day I informed her my son was on the way nearly 23 years ago. Count your blessings if the only sexual interference YF causes in your life is that you find it hard to study Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Stick to it!
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_3/bs_3-3-34.html One may follow any Vidya according to his option, and stick to it till he reaches the goal, as the result of all Vidyas or the goal is the same, namely the realisation of Self or Brahman. If we adopt many, the mind will get distracted and the spiritual progress will be retarded. When the Brahman is realised through one meditation, a second meditation would be purposeless. Therefore, one must select one particular Vidya and stick to it and remain intent on it till the fruit of the Vidya is attained through the intuition of the object of meditation.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Shiva Sutras'
Vaj wrote: If you don't understand the difference, then you're probably not qualified to comment. Lawson wrote: For those who are awaree of how different they are from those around them, everything becomes an opportunity to reveal those differences. Or, everything becomes an opportunity to reveal the unity in the experience of pure consciopusness. Differences are only apparent - there's really only a sameness in the experience. According to Bernard, Kashmere Saivism accepts the fundamental premise that pure conciousness is the substance of the universe. Work cited: 'Philosophical Foundations of India' by Theos. Bernard Rider, 1945 Amazon Paperback Being the last living guru of Kashmir Saivism meant that Swamiji held the pure distillation of a rich spiritual tradition Self Realization in Kashmere Shaivism The Oral teachings of Swami Laksmanjoo By John Hughes SUNY, 1994 Centering: The Supreme Awakening: http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/centering.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count
Rick Archer wrote: ...and the 51 may have been a Yahoo glitch. So, Rick, there may be a Yahoo 'glitch'? This doesn't even make any sense. On Behalf Of FFL PostCount Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 6:15 PM To: FairfieldLife Subject: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): Sat Nov 15 00:00:00 2008 End Date (UTC): Sat Nov 22 00:00:00 2008 784 messages as of (UTC) Fri Nov 21 23:54:35 2008 54 shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:shempmcgurk%40netscape.net 52 off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com 51 authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:jstein%40panix.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hillary accepts job as Secretary of State...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I think she will be great, so much stronger than Condi. It also speaks well of Obama that he picked a person who will challenge him since he disagreed with her foreign policy POV in the primaries. In fact, their views on foreign policy are very close to identical. The minor differences became wildly exaggerated and oversimplified in the course of the campaign. He is already doing the opposite of what Bush did (pick a yes women) so he must be on track. Actually, I agree. I occasionally post stuff about Hillary to taunt the compulsive Hillbots into posting out early, Actually, sometimes Barry plays this childish game, and sometimes he's dead serious about what he posts concerning Hillary. The Hillbots know the difference and don't respond to the former. but I think it's an excellent choice, because *it will force Hillary Clinton to develop skills she currently does not have*. Her whole act is about barging into a room with her dick not only out of her pants, but as angry as she is. And that is the *opposite* of what is required in the world of international diplomacy. This is from Pluto, totally untrue. It reflects how politically ignorant Barry is to even suggest such a thing, but even more than that, how threatening he finds strong women in general and Hillary in particular. Hillary is, in fact, widely known for her diplomatic skills. Foreign leaders have enormous respect for her; and even the Republicans in the Senate rave about how easy she is to work with. snip I suspect that, if Hillary has *any* chops at all, and there is any substance underneath her bluster, being Secretary Of State for a few years will have a similar effect on her. Not to mention how utterly ludicrous it would be, given the current situation of the U.S. internationally, for Obama to pick someone for SoS who had to learn how to be diplomatic on the job and would take a few years to do so. He can't afford that risk and is way smarter than to take it. The last thing the country needs is a replay, even for just a few years, of the Bush dick- swinging arrogance in foreign relations. He's picked Hillary because he knows she'll get it right from the start. snip For that reason I think it's a brilliant choice on Obama's part. He is giving her a chance to show that she has another side, and to prove it. And she will, one way or another. If she tries doing her job the way she's done it before (like when she single- handedly derailed health care reform for a decade by acting like a swinging dick) This was a vastly more complicated situation than Barry has even the vaguest knowledge of. He's not aware that it was the right wing at the time that created the false story that it was all Hillary's fault, and of course pro-Obama liberals picked it up for use against her in the primary campaign. Barry, of course, isn't interested in the facts, but for anyone who is, one account of the debacle from someone who was a White House senior health care adviser at the time and intimately involved in the process, titled The Hillarycare Mythology, see: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_hillarycare_mythology http://tinyurl.com/2thebl A more detailed 1995 Atlantic article by James Fallows, entitled A Triumph of Misinformation, is here: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199501/hillary-clinton-health-plan http://tinyurl.com/5znjm4
[FairfieldLife] Re: Adolf Hitler and the Real Estate Crash
Funny --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNmcf4Y3lGM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Take the The Civic Literacy Quiz
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How well do you know your [U.S.] civics? I scored 81.82%. How about you? 87.88% (4 wrong out of 33). I thought most of the questions were elementary (but with some of them, it helped to be older). I was surprised that I got all 9 of the economic (25-33) questions right. That isn't usually my strong suit. SPOILERS FOLLOW I got these wrong: 4) What was the main issue in the debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas in 1858? A. Is slavery morally wrong? B. Would slavery be allowed to expand to new territories? C. Do Southern states have the constitutional right to leave the union? D. Are free African Americans citizens of the United States? I really didn't know. I figured it was B or C but guessed C. 7) What was the source of the following phrase: Government of the people, for the people, by the people? A. the speech I Have a Dream B. Declaration of Independence C. U.S. Constitution D. Gettysburg Address Knew it was either B or D but picked B. Others who got this wrong are saying the mistake was embarrassing, and the introductory material on the site seems to think it was the most shocking mistake most people made. I beg to disagree. When a phrase is that familiar, it's often very difficult to recall which of several equally familiar sources it came from. 9) Under Our Constitution, some powers belong to the federal government. What is one power of the federal government? A. Make treaties B. Levy income taxes C. Maintain prisons D. Natural Disaster Aid Thought both A and B were correct, picked B. I still don't understand why it's wrong. If the federal government doesn't have the power to levy income taxes, who does?? Somebody please explain! I assumed income taxes meant federal income taxes, but maybe it's wrong because states also levy income taxes. 11) What impact did the Anti-Federalists have on the United States Constitution? A. their arguments helped lead to the adoption of the Bill of Rights B. their arguments helped lead to the abolition of the slave trade C. their influence ensured that the federal government would maintain a standing army D. their influence ensured that the federal government would have the power to tax Didn't know this one; figured it was A or B, picked B. Had no idea who the Anti-Federalists were or when they were active. Looked them up afterward; they were against the ratification of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was proposed to placate the states that would otherwise not have voted for ratification due to the influence of the Anti-Federalists. This was well before the slave trade had become a big issue, and it isn't addressed in the Constitution anyway, so that was a really dumb mistake.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama-jaya-hetu-dvayam?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Here's the real issue: It simply doesn't occur to men who don't have an underlying streak of misogyny to insult/attack/criticize a woman using terms that denigrate her on the basis of her gender. Doing so is therefore a sure sign of a bad attitude toward women. *Especially* in a person who styles himself a writer, I might add, because he presumably has a larger and more varied vocabulary on which to draw to formulate his criticisms/insults/attacks. It's a dead giveaway. And the pretense here is all yours. Actually, I've found that using gender-neutral terms when insulting a woman gets a MUCH bigger response. Example called a woman a jerk once instead of a bitch. She was quite upset. That's not surprising. In my experience, women tend to take gender-based insults a lot less seriously *personally* because the guy who uses them is so obviously a loser. He's handed them a weapon to use against him; he's virtually declared that his point of view is worthless, grounded in misogyny rather than any real complaint against the woman.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Take the The Civic Literacy Quiz
9) Under Our Constitution, some powers belong to the federal government. What is one power of the federal government? A. Make treaties B. Levy income taxes C. Maintain prisons D. Natural Disaster Aid Thought both A and B were correct, picked B. I still don't understand why it's wrong. If the federal government doesn't have the power to levy income taxes, who does?? Somebody please explain! I assumed income taxes meant federal income taxes, but maybe it's wrong because states also levy income taxes. I guess it is not mentioned as a governmental power in the Constitution. I think this is one of the issues that the crazy The government can't legally tax me so I'm not paying any guys use in their arguments. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: How well do you know your [U.S.] civics? I scored 81.82%. How about you? 87.88% (4 wrong out of 33). I thought most of the questions were elementary (but with some of them, it helped to be older). I was surprised that I got all 9 of the economic (25-33) questions right. That isn't usually my strong suit. SPOILERS FOLLOW I got these wrong: 4) What was the main issue in the debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas in 1858? A. Is slavery morally wrong? B. Would slavery be allowed to expand to new territories? C. Do Southern states have the constitutional right to leave the union? D. Are free African Americans citizens of the United States? I really didn't know. I figured it was B or C but guessed C. 7) What was the source of the following phrase: Government of the people, for the people, by the people? A. the speech I Have a Dream B. Declaration of Independence C. U.S. Constitution D. Gettysburg Address Knew it was either B or D but picked B. Others who got this wrong are saying the mistake was embarrassing, and the introductory material on the site seems to think it was the most shocking mistake most people made. I beg to disagree. When a phrase is that familiar, it's often very difficult to recall which of several equally familiar sources it came from. 9) Under Our Constitution, some powers belong to the federal government. What is one power of the federal government? A. Make treaties B. Levy income taxes C. Maintain prisons D. Natural Disaster Aid Thought both A and B were correct, picked B. I still don't understand why it's wrong. If the federal government doesn't have the power to levy income taxes, who does?? Somebody please explain! I assumed income taxes meant federal income taxes, but maybe it's wrong because states also levy income taxes. 11) What impact did the Anti-Federalists have on the United States Constitution? A. their arguments helped lead to the adoption of the Bill of Rights B. their arguments helped lead to the abolition of the slave trade C. their influence ensured that the federal government would maintain a standing army D. their influence ensured that the federal government would have the power to tax Didn't know this one; figured it was A or B, picked B. Had no idea who the Anti-Federalists were or when they were active. Looked them up afterward; they were against the ratification of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was proposed to placate the states that would otherwise not have voted for ratification due to the influence of the Anti-Federalists. This was well before the slave trade had become a big issue, and it isn't addressed in the Constitution anyway, so that was a really dumb mistake.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Take the The Civic Literacy Quiz
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How well do you know your [U.S.] civics? I scored 81.82%. How about you? Take the quiz: http://americancivicliteracy.org/ SPOILERS AGAIN! (scroll down for content) I missed one, but I'm going to quibble about it. :-) 33) If taxes equal government spending, then: A. government debt is zero B. printing money no longer causes inflation C. government is not helping anybody D. tax per person equals government spending per person E. tax loopholes and special-interest spending are absent The quiz says that D is the correct answer, but it is only if you assume that what they are talking about is that the *average* tax per person equals the *average* government spending per person. Obviously, neither is true if you do not throw the word average in there. So I went for A, which isn't literally true either, because they could have debt from previous years, but I thought it was better than D, which was worded even more sloppily. I was WAY surprised I did as well as I did, and have to admit to guessing based on this makes the most sense rather than actually knowing the answer. Fun.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Hillary jerking Obama's chain a bit?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom azgrey@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Barry is so sunk in fantasy, so convinced that he won't be held accountable for what he says, that he feels perfectly free to lie about what's in an article in the *New York Times*: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: An article in HuffPost today (originally from the New York Times) says that all of the talk about Hillary being offered the position of SoS in the first place was leaked to the press by the *Clinton* people, not from the Obama camp. The latter are quite distraught about the leaks. http://tinyurl.com/5cd3c6 -snip- i saw the same thing on cnn and msnbc - the supposed source of the SoS leak was a common story on the news, nothing confined to just the huffington post. just one of those things that comes and goes. who cares if its true or not? i personally think hc would make one hell of a good sec o' state. You are on the right track ed11. Hillary's people carefully leaked it. Wow. Now Tom's lying too. Somebody explain it to me: Why do we tolerate liars on this forum, again? because most of us don't care? if we didn't tolerate lying, or just making stuff up, B would have been gone long ago. as it is he is a colorful member of the forum. what's the big deal? this isn't some media like blog. its a place to post anything.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hillary accepts job as Secretary of State...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I think she will be great, so much stronger than Condi. It also speaks well of Obama that he picked a person who will challenge him since he disagreed with her foreign policy POV in the primaries. He is already doing the opposite of what Bush did (pick a yes women) so he must be on track. Actually, I agree. I occasionally post stuff about Hillary to taunt the compulsive Hillbots into posting out early, but I think it's an excellent choice, because *it will force Hillary Clinton to develop skills she currently does not have*. -snip- i would not be comfortable thinking that the SoS would be getting on the job training to improve her character. c'mon, this is a pretty important job. if the sos fucks up a meeting with someone, it means more than better luck next time. i think clinton knows how to play it from day one. to entrust the job to someone who is still learning would be at least extremely irresponsible.
[FairfieldLife] The story of the story
For anyone who is interested in the facts (i.e., not Barry), there's a fascinating piece in the New York Observer tracing the development of the Hillary-for- SoS story through November 18: http://www.observer.com/2008/media/foggy-bottom-top It begins: Andrea Mitchell started it. It was she who told viewers of NBC's The Nightly News With Brian Williams on Thursday, Nov. 13, that Hillary Clinton 'is under consideration to be secretary of state.'... On Nov. 13, Ms. Mitchell came on with Brian Williams and offered a very tight, succinct report. Few details, but 'two advisers to Barack Obama' confirmed that, yes, Hillary was under consideration for the secretary of state post. It was at this point we knew she made a business trip to Chicago, but we didn't know why. (Ms Mitchell reported that an 'adviser says that [it] was on personal business.') [Note that when the story first broke, Clinton's people weren't even acknowledging she had had a meeting with Obama.] It took real reporting. Ms. Mitchell said this wasn't a 'trial balloon' that the Obama or Clinton people wanted out there. This wasn't a story that both camps were planting to see how it played out. 'There are several people who have said, This is a campaign that hadn't leaked for 22 months and now they're leaking like a sieve!' she said in an interview with Off the Record. I want to make this clear. This is something I picked up 10 days earlier and had really worked on.' Here's the video of her scoop from Nightly News: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619#27706294
[FairfieldLife] Re: Take the The Civic Literacy Quiz
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 9) Under Our Constitution, some powers belong to the federal government. What is one power of the federal government? A. Make treaties B. Levy income taxes C. Maintain prisons D. Natural Disaster Aid Thought both A and B were correct, picked B. I still don't understand why it's wrong. If the federal government doesn't have the power to levy income taxes, who does?? Somebody please explain! I assumed income taxes meant federal income taxes, but maybe it's wrong because states also levy income taxes. I guess it is not mentioned as a governmental power in the Constitution. I think this is one of the issues that the crazy The government can't legally tax me so I'm not paying any guys use in their arguments. OIC, thanks. Yeah, I've heard that but didn't recall it. I got the distinct impression from the last set of questions, on economics, that the test-makers leaned right. This question might be more evidence of that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Take the The Civic Literacy Quiz
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 9) Under Our Constitution, some powers belong to the federal government. What is one power of the federal government? A. Make treaties B. Levy income taxes C. Maintain prisons D. Natural Disaster Aid Thought both A and B were correct, picked B. I still don't understand why it's wrong. If the federal government doesn't have the power to levy income taxes, who does?? Somebody please explain! I assumed income taxes meant federal income taxes, but maybe it's wrong because states also levy income taxes. I guess it is not mentioned as a governmental power in the Constitution. I think this is one of the issues that the crazy The government can't legally tax me so I'm not paying any guys use in their arguments. -snip- it is kind of a trick question because the ability of the congress to levy a federal income tax became law as a result of the 16th amendment to the constitution, ratified in 1913. so technically the constitution does include answer B above. I got 84.85% on the civics test also.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Hillary jerking Obama's chain a bit?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom azgrey@ wrote: snip Hillary's people carefully leaked it. Wow. Now Tom's lying too. Somebody explain it to me: Why do we tolerate liars on this forum, again? because most of us don't care? Well, obviously. The question is, why not? if we didn't tolerate lying, or just making stuff up, B would have been gone long ago. as it is he is a colorful member of the forum. Along with several others who make lying a habit. what's the big deal? this isn't some media like blog. its a place to post anything. The very first sentence of the group's description on the home page is: Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere. One would think that deliberate falsehoods were not encompassed by that description. The other problem is the hypocrisy. People here are oh-so-quick to accuse TMO folks of lying. They also are outraged at the apparent lies of public figures of all sorts. Hillary was widely pilloried here for her story about being under sniper fire in Tusla, just for one example. Why are we intolerant of the lies of people outside FFL but perfectly fine with the lies of those within it? Why do we not tolerate lying from important public figures, but don't see anything wrong with lying by our associates? Why the double standard?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hillary accepts job as Secretary of State...
Her whole act is about barging into a room with her dick not only out of her pants, but as angry as she is. And that is the *opposite* of what is required in the world of international diplomacy. Judy wrote: Hillary is, in fact, widely known for her diplomatic skills. Foreign leaders have enormous respect for her; and even the Republicans in the Senate rave about how easy she is to work with. Which diplomatic occasion was Hillary Clinton involved in? Do U.S. Senators engage in international diplomacy? Apparently Senator Clinton has never had to engage in 'high-stakes' diplomacy, which is why selecting her for SoS is a gamble. Nobody really knows how she will fit in with Obama's foreign policies. 'Obama Tilts to Center, Inviting a Clash of Ideas' By David E. Sanger New York Times, November 21, 2008 http://tinyurl.com/67p9cx
[FairfieldLife] Psychics say business is thriving
November 23, 2008 Love, Jobs 401(k)s By RUTH LA FERLA ON a good day last summer, Thomas Taccetta, a stock trader, might have checked his financial charts before plotting the day's investments. Today he is likely to check in with his psychic as well. I'll play the broadest index, the S.P. 500, Mr. Taccetta said, and if she tells me she is getting a negative view, I will sell. Since September, when the Dow collapsed, Mr. Taccetta, who trades for his own portfolio in Boca Raton, Fla., has talked with his psychic about once a month, roughly twice as often as a year ago. There is no rhyme or reason to the way the market is trading, he said. When conditions are this volatile, consulting a psychic can be as good a strategy as any other. In an era when even Henry M. Paulson Jr., the Treasury secretary, changes his mind weekly about how to rescue the United States economy, Mr. Taccetta's decision to seek the advice of a psychic may not seem all that irrational. With Washington flinging pieces of the $700 billion bailout package around, dithering about whom to rescue homeowners? automakers? cousin Fred? a good set of tarot cards might come in handy. Your mortgage agents, your realtors, your bankers, you can't go to these people anymore, said Tori Hartman, a psychic in Los Angeles. They're just reading a script at least that's how my clients feel. People are sensing that the traditional avenues have not worked, that all of a sudden this so-called security that they've built up isn't there anymore. They come to a psychic for a different perspective Many more men have joined the ranks of seekers. In the old days men would turn to their wives and ask, `What did that goofball say, honey?' said Michael Lutins, a New York writer and astrologer. Now they are raising their heads, interested in matters that were once considered women's stuff. Read more at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/fashion/23psychic.html?ref=fashion http://tinyurl.com/6gfpl8
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Hillary jerking Obama's chain a bit?
Judy wrote: Why are we intolerant of the lies of people outside FFL but perfectly fine with the lies of those within it? Why do we not tolerate lying from important public figures, but don't see anything wrong with lying by our associates? Why the double standard? Remaining silent about a posted topic or statement usually denotes agreement? If so, then everyone here is a big liar many times over. But in fact according to a recent study, the average person tells a fib dozens of times per minute in ordinary conversation. But why would someone post falsehoods on a 'news group'?
[FairfieldLife] Clear and Present Danger?
The Obama administration is about to discover that the terrorists detained at Guantánamo are there for good reason: The most dangerous men currently incarcerated at Guantánamo are the 14 high value detainees. The Bush administration gave them this designation because they are uniquely lethal, having planned and participated in the most devastating terrorist attacks in history. Their collective dossier includes, among other attacks, 9/11, the American embassy bombings (August 7, 1998), the USS Cole bombing (October 12, 2000), and the Bali bombings (October 12, 2002). They are responsible for murdering thousands of civilians around the globe, from the eastern United States to Southeast Asia. Had they not been captured, they surely would have murdered thousands more. Read more: 'Clear and Present Danger' by Thomas Joscelyn Weekly Standard, Dec. 12, 2008 http://tinyurl.com/5lxq25
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Hillary jerking Obama's chain a bit?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom azgrey@ wrote: snip Hillary's people carefully leaked it. Wow. Now Tom's lying too. Somebody explain it to me: Why do we tolerate liars on this forum, again? because most of us don't care? Well, obviously. The question is, why not? if we didn't tolerate lying, or just making stuff up, B would have been gone long ago. as it is he is a colorful member of the forum. Along with several others who make lying a habit. what's the big deal? this isn't some media like blog. its a place to post anything. The very first sentence of the group's description on the home page is: Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere. One would think that deliberate falsehoods were not encompassed by that description. The other problem is the hypocrisy. People here are oh-so-quick to accuse TMO folks of lying. They also are outraged at the apparent lies of public figures of all sorts. Hillary was widely pilloried here for her story about being under sniper fire in Tusla, just for one example. Why are we intolerant of the lies of people outside FFL but perfectly fine with the lies of those within it? Why do we not tolerate lying from important public figures, but don't see anything wrong with lying by our associates? Why the double standard? it seems to be in respective interpretations of the FFL group description: Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere. for me, if someone is just deliberately distorting stuff or even making it up out of their desire to get a rise out of others, i am not really interested in that; it isn't a topic of interest for me. rather than take the person to task for it, i just move on. with regard to a double standard on lies from public figures vs those here, it is all in the ramifications of the lies. if someone on this forum lies or distorts stuff, what is the result? nothing, really. imo, it is a big world and some poster making shit up is nothing to be concerned about in the least.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Hillary jerking Obama's chain a bit?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom azgrey@ wrote: You are on the right track ed11. Hillary's people carefully leaked it. Clintonistas live for the drama. 24/7 365 Like some others we know :-), they actually seem to rate their popularity by how many people dislike them. It's like they base their effectiveness rating on their own I'm a victim index. Actually, some of us rate our effectiveness on how definitively we're able to expose the lies of those who attempt to victimize Hillary. Not that Hillary worries about the wannabe victimizers. But just on general principles, people like Barry, who casually and habitually lie--about Hillary or anybody else--need to be publicly shamed and scorned.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Take the The Civic Literacy Quiz
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: How well do you know your [U.S.] civics? I scored 81.82%. How about you? Take the quiz: http://americancivicliteracy.org/ SPOILERS AGAIN! (scroll down for content) I missed one, but I'm going to quibble about it. :-) 33) If taxes equal government spending, then: A. government debt is zero B. printing money no longer causes inflation C. government is not helping anybody D. tax per person equals government spending per person E. tax loopholes and special-interest spending are absent The quiz says that D is the correct answer, but it is only if you assume that what they are talking about is that the *average* tax per person equals the *average* government spending per person. Obviously, neither is true if you do not throw the word average in there. So I went for A, which isn't literally true either, because they could have debt from previous years, but I thought it was better than D, which was worded even more sloppily. I was WAY surprised I did as well as I did, and have to admit to guessing based on this makes the most sense rather than actually knowing the answer. Fun. I went for A too. Call me over idealistic... then again it took me an awful long time to understand the difference between 'TMO Truth' and honest information. :/ JohnY
[FairfieldLife] Spiders on
http://tinyurl.com/6bc6ow
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Hillary jerking Obama's chain a bit?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom azgrey@ wrote: snip Hillary's people carefully leaked it. Wow. Now Tom's lying too. Somebody explain it to me: Why do we tolerate liars on this forum, again? because most of us don't care? Well, obviously. The question is, why not? if we didn't tolerate lying, or just making stuff up, B would have been gone long ago. as it is he is a colorful member of the forum. Along with several others who make lying a habit. what's the big deal? this isn't some media like blog. its a place to post anything. The very first sentence of the group's description on the home page is: Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere. One would think that deliberate falsehoods were not encompassed by that description. The other problem is the hypocrisy. People here are oh-so-quick to accuse TMO folks of lying. They also are outraged at the apparent lies of public figures of all sorts. Hillary was widely pilloried here for her story about being under sniper fire in Tusla, just for one example. Why are we intolerant of the lies of people outside FFL but perfectly fine with the lies of those within it? Why do we not tolerate lying from important public figures, but don't see anything wrong with lying by our associates? Why the double standard? it seems to be in respective interpretations of the FFL group description: Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere. for me, if someone is just deliberately distorting stuff or even making it up out of their desire to get a rise out of others, i am not really interested in that That isn't why Barry does it. That's his *excuse* for doing it, but it's transparently false. He does it in the hope that other people will believe what he says. ; it isn't a topic of interest for me. rather than take the person to task for it, i just move on. I don't think that's an ethical approach. Do you not recall a few days ago, when Barry was spewing his fantasies about you, you got pretty bent out of shape? And when I stood up for you, you thanked me. with regard to a double standard on lies from public figures vs those here, it is all in the ramifications of the lies. if someone on this forum lies or distorts stuff, what is the result? nothing, really. I think this is a bogus excuse for laissez-faire laziness. We should hold everyone to the same standard. If our standards are lax where our associates are concerned, we aren't going to be likely to be able to accurately evaluate the truthfulness of public figures. We may find that we employ lower standards for public figures we're predisposed to like, and come down unreasonably hard on those we don't like. Double standards perpetuate and reinforce unfairness, in other words.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Take the The Civic Literacy Quiz
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I missed one, but I'm going to quibble about it. :-) 33) If taxes equal government spending, then: A. government debt is zero B. printing money no longer causes inflation C. government is not helping anybody D. tax per person equals government spending per person E. tax loopholes and special-interest spending are absent The quiz says that D is the correct answer, but it is only if you assume that what they are talking about is that the *average* tax per person equals the *average* government spending per person. Actually, that's the only assumption that makes any sense at all.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Hillary jerking Obama's chain a bit?
Three quick additional points: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Why are we intolerant of the lies of people outside FFL but perfectly fine with the lies of those within it? Why do we not tolerate lying from important public figures, but don't see anything wrong with lying by our associates? Why the double standard? it seems to be in respective interpretations of the FFL group description: Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere. for me, if someone is just deliberately distorting stuff or even making it up out of their desire to get a rise out of others, i am not really interested in that That isn't why Barry does it. That's his *excuse* for doing it, but it's transparently false. He does it in the hope that other people will believe what he says. Willytex is an example of someone who *does* do this. He's a classic troll. But more people tend to engage him about his lies than they do Barry about his. ; it isn't a topic of interest for me. rather than take the person to task for it, i just move on. I don't think that's an ethical approach. Do you not recall a few days ago, when Barry was spewing his fantasies about you, you got pretty bent out of shape? And when I stood up for you, you thanked me. with regard to a double standard on lies from public figures vs those here, it is all in the ramifications of the lies. if someone on this forum lies or distorts stuff, what is the result? nothing, really. I think this is a bogus excuse for laissez-faire laziness. We should hold everyone to the same standard. If our standards are lax where our associates are concerned, I should add, especially those associates who lie blatantly and habitually. we aren't going to be likely to be able to accurately evaluate the truthfulness of public figures. We may find that we employ lower standards for public figures we're predisposed to like, and come down unreasonably hard on those we don't like. With regard to our associates who lie, we see this dynamic clearly in the dichotomy I mentioned above between how people respond to Willytex, who is a right-winger, and to Barry, who's distinctly a leftie. Barry gets a pass because most of us here lean left. Double standards perpetuate and reinforce unfairness, in other words.
[FairfieldLife] Spectacular photographs of ships battling treacherous seas
Can you detect the US Coast Guard ship overwhelmed by that leviathan-sized, rogue wave? See photo: http://tinyurl.com/6ot8db Note: No one was hurt or killed in that incident, and the boat made it through. See more photos of that incident [in the third part] and dozens of other incidents with enormous mega-tankers, cargo ships and ocean liners including a few amazing video clips. Click for the first of three 3-parts: http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/01/ships-battling-heavy-seas.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Spectacular photographs of ships battling treacherous seas
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can you detect the US Coast Guard ship overwhelmed by that leviathan-sized, rogue wave? See photo: http://tinyurl.com/6ot8db Apparently there was a glitch. You can see the above photo here: http://agonist.org/canuck/20081121/photographps_of_ships_battling_with_heavy_seas http://tinyurl.com/5dq79v Note: No one was hurt or killed in that incident, and the boat made it through. See more photos of that incident [in the third part] and dozens of other incidents with enormous mega-tankers, cargo ships and ocean liners including a few amazing video clips. Click for the first of three 3-parts: http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/01/ships-battling-heavy-seas.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: A couple of questions about YF
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. How can doing one session (a couple of minutes) of YF seemingly cure a disorder that appeared as a sharp and burning but fortunately only momentary pain in my left shoulder after stretching my arms, especially upwards, like for instance for doing chin-ups? That had lasted several months. The main reason might have been practicing boogie woogie almost every day after buying a digi-piano last January. I think if you are practicing an aggressively physical music style like boogie woogie piano you have to exercise your arms and shoulders regularly with weights. That is true of the acoustic guitar style that I play. The guys who started these early blues styles often worked manual labor jobs so they came to the keys or strings very very strong. It is one reason that so many performers miss their tone on acoustic instruments, they don't have relaxed power because they are too physically weak. 2. Why does YF sometimes seem to make one needlessly horny, so much so that it's for instance, this time, a bit hard to concentrate on reading and studying Brahma-suutras, This is the natural tendency of life to go to fields of greater pleasure telling you that reading old scriptures is very boring. There is no needless horniness. It is a sign that you are alive in this wonderful world. The day you lose your ability to feel horny is when you should worry. The teaching that our body's desires are a distraction to what is important is one of the most destructive so called spiritual teachings I have come across. (Oh my, that was an unfortunate choice of words wasn't it?) which I've, as a rather slow reader because of a mild visual defect, been doing for a couple of days now, although someone with a fairly normal vision would read and study them through in a couple of hours, because there are only some 500 of them and most of them consist of only a couple of words, although the translations usually are remarkably longer to make them suutras at least somewhat understandable?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Hillary jerking Obama's chain a bit?
--Judy wrote: Willytex is an example of someone who *does* do this. He's a classic troll. But more people tend to engage him about his lies than they do Barry about his. Stop the lying, Judy, you know perfectly well that I have not posted any lies to this forum. Point out a single 'lie' that I've posted or keep your pie hole shut.
[FairfieldLife] Red Raiders Matchup
A huge matchup with possible national title implications takes place in Norman this weekend, as the second-ranked Texas Tech Red Raiders attempt to remain perfect on the season when they take on the fifth-ranked Oklahoma Sooners. Read more: 'The Sports Network' By Scott Haynes http://tinyurl.com/5mns49
[FairfieldLife] Re: Agnes Schwarzenegger
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What interests me in a woman over her mid-forties is how well she wears it, and how comfortable she is with her real age. I would imagine that it's the same thing women find attractive (or unattractive) in older men. It's a great *gift* to no longer be able to rely on your looks. It forces you to rely on deeper things, and to develop them. Since no one else seems to have considered this subject interesting, and I do, I'll follow up on it myself. :-) Since my taste in women is often a subject of prurient interest here, I thought I'd share with you my recollections of one of the 5 or 6 most beautiful women I've ever met. The recollection is spurred by finding a Steichen photograph of her as a young mother, breast-feeding her child, in a book called Family Of Man. I cut it out of the book and had it framed and am taking it tonight to my best friend, who introduced me to the woman in the photograph 17 years ago. I think it will please her, because she is about to have her own first child. The beautiful woman's name was Tasha Tudor. My friend, who I had only recently met but with whom I was already smitten, was staying for a time in Tasha's house in Vermont, and invited me to come up to visit her. When I did, and when I wandered into the world of Tasha's hand-built house, and her famous and hand-maintained gardens, and her Corgis, I knew at first sight that I had met one of the most beautiful women in the world. Tasha was 76 at the time. She died in June, at 92. Here's a bio of her, and a link to a tribute site that has some photos of her, her house, and her pretty much as she appeared when I met her: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasha_tudor http://blueberrycottage.blogspot.com/2008/06/farewell-to-tasha-tudor.html Tasha called herself, proudly, an old woman. She *delighted* in being an old woman. She lived alone, with the exception of her chickens and her goats and her Corgis, most of the time, and living alone had worn well on her. I remember at the time I met her thinking, I don't think I have ever in my entire life met anyone more comfortable in their own skin than this woman. By that time I had met Maharishi and Rama - Frederick Lenz and a number of other spiritual teachers. Since then I have met other spiritual teachers. I stand on my first impression. Tasha was active, she was mentally sharp as a tack (don't think for a moment that I didn't have to endure a bit of that sharp-as-a-tack mind since I was at her house to court a young woman she felt protective of, and who was twenty years younger than I was), and just an utter delight. She wore every moment of her extra- ordinary life in the lines on her face, and in her bearing, and especially in her laugh. I guess I passed muster as a suitor, because after a few minutes' grilling and seeing how I handled being handed a pail and being sent to milk the goats, she warmed to me considerably. (I had never extracted milk from anything in my life more complicated than a milk carton; I can only imagine that she was highly amused watching me give it my best shot.) She was outspoken, she was outrageous, but most she was grace personified. Watching her move about her house and gardens was like watching a goddess dance. She personifies for me someone who was comfortable with her real age. I can only hope to be as comfort- able with my own if I ever reach her age. If I do, and with a similar level of comfort, a lot of it will be due to having had a remarkable role model to set the bar for me. When I think of Tasha I almost always think of an early Bruce Cockburn song, written about his mother- in-law. I think it describes the kind of beauty I'm talking about better than I can: She is passing in a warm breeze Bars of light that cross the floor One smoke-gray, curled, tiny feather Skips aside By her middle hang the keys Made to open any door Even the one that lets in the cold wind From outside She lives in a house of colour Guarded by cats three in number And one great dog of gentle manner In among the trees Silence Carries No apprehension here In the warm sun By the window sill I can just sit still And watch her go by... Queen of field and forest pathway Understands the speech of stones She weaves peace upon her loom Life's mistress - Bruce Cockburn, 1969
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Hillary jerking Obama's chain a bit?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom azgrey@ wrote: snip Hillary's people carefully leaked it. Wow. Now Tom's lying too. Somebody explain it to me: Why do we tolerate liars on this forum, again? because most of us don't care? Well, obviously. The question is, why not? if we didn't tolerate lying, or just making stuff up, B would have been gone long ago. as it is he is a colorful member of the forum. Along with several others who make lying a habit. what's the big deal? this isn't some media like blog. its a place to post anything. The very first sentence of the group's description on the home page is: Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere. One would think that deliberate falsehoods were not encompassed by that description. The other problem is the hypocrisy. People here are oh-so-quick to accuse TMO folks of lying. They also are outraged at the apparent lies of public figures of all sorts. Hillary was widely pilloried here for her story about being under sniper fire in Tusla, just for one example. Why are we intolerant of the lies of people outside FFL but perfectly fine with the lies of those within it? Why do we not tolerate lying from important public figures, but don't see anything wrong with lying by our associates? Why the double standard? it seems to be in respective interpretations of the FFL group description: Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere. for me, if someone is just deliberately distorting stuff or even making it up out of their desire to get a rise out of others, i am not really interested in that That isn't why Barry does it. That's his *excuse* for doing it, but it's transparently false. He does it in the hope that other people will believe what he says. who cares? he's a poster in a chat room- doesn't influence my life at all. ; it isn't a topic of interest for me. rather than take the person to task for it, i just move on. I don't think that's an ethical approach. fine. Do you not recall a few days ago, when Barry was spewing his fantasies about you, you got pretty bent out of shape? And when I stood up for you, you thanked me. no i didn't get pretty bent out of shape. i responded to B. and then let it go. i appreciated you saying what you did, but if you hadn't i wasn't going to pursue it further. i think B. is a lot more important to you than he is to anyone else here. he's just a guy who writes stuff. who cares what his motives might be? he only has the power to influence you if you grant him that power. i don't. and maybe you ought to consider that option too, especially in light of your opinions about him. with regard to a double standard on lies from public figures vs those here, it is all in the ramifications of the lies. if someone on this forum lies or distorts stuff, what is the result? nothing, really. I think this is a bogus excuse for laissez-faire laziness. i am ok with being lazy in this regard. laziness like forgetting can be a virtue. We should hold everyone to the same standard. If our standards are lax where our associates are concerned, we aren't going to be likely to be able to accurately evaluate the truthfulness of public figures. We may find that we employ lower standards for public figures we're predisposed to like, and come down unreasonably hard on those we don't like. Double standards perpetuate and reinforce unfairness, in other words. its not a matter of holding everyone to the same standard. its priorities. in my life i don't place a high priority on what someone says here when i think they are just blowing smoke. they are free to do it and i am free to ignore them. like i said originally, who cares?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Agnes Schwarzenegger
On Nov 22, 2008, at 11:41 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: The beautiful woman's name was Tasha Tudor. Loved her stuff as a kid! Still do. My friend, who I had only recently met but with whom I was already smitten, was staying for a time in Tasha's house in Vermont, and invited me to come up to visit her. When I did, and when I wandered into the world of Tasha's hand-built house, and her famous and hand-maintained gardens, and her Corgis, I knew at first sight that I had met one of the most beautiful women in the world. Tasha was 76 at the time. She died in June, at 92. Here's a bio of her, and a link to a tribute site that has some photos of her, her house, and her pretty much as she appeared when I met her: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasha_tudor http://blueberrycottage.blogspot.com/2008/06/farewell-to-tasha-tudor.html Tasha called herself, proudly, an old woman. She *delighted* in being an old woman. She lived alone, with the exception of her chickens and her goats and her Corgis, most of the time, and living alone had worn well on her. I remember at the time I met her thinking, I don't think I have ever in my entire life met anyone more comfortable in their own skin than this woman. By that time I had met Maharishi and Rama - Frederick Lenz and a number of other spiritual teachers. Since then I have met other spiritual teachers. I stand on my first impression. Tasha was active, she was mentally sharp as a tack (don't think for a moment that I didn't have to endure a bit of that sharp-as-a-tack mind since I was at her house to court a young woman she felt protective of, and who was twenty years younger than I was), and just an utter delight. She wore every moment of her extra- ordinary life in the lines on her face, and in her bearing, and especially in her laugh. I guess I passed muster as a suitor, because after a few minutes' grilling and seeing how I handled being handed a pail and being sent to milk the goats, she warmed to me considerably. (I had never extracted milk from anything in my life more complicated than a milk carton; I can only imagine that she was highly amused watching me give it my best shot.) She was outspoken, she was outrageous, but most she was grace personified. Watching her move about her house and gardens was like watching a goddess dance. She personifies for me someone who was comfortable with her real age. I can only hope to be as comfort- able with my own if I ever reach her age. If I do, and with a similar level of comfort, a lot of it will be due to having had a remarkable role model to set the bar for me. When I think of Tasha I almost always think of an early Bruce Cockburn song, written about his mother- in-law. I think it describes the kind of beauty I'm talking about better than I can: She is passing in a warm breeze Bars of light that cross the floor One smoke-gray, curled, tiny feather Skips aside And 10 minutes after he wrote those lines, he went out and got smashed at the thought of having to interact with her again. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Agnes Schwarzenegger
Turq you are SUCH a misogynist, it is obvious! Thanks for sharing a glimpse of such a charming human. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: What interests me in a woman over her mid-forties is how well she wears it, and how comfortable she is with her real age. I would imagine that it's the same thing women find attractive (or unattractive) in older men. It's a great *gift* to no longer be able to rely on your looks. It forces you to rely on deeper things, and to develop them. Since no one else seems to have considered this subject interesting, and I do, I'll follow up on it myself. :-) Since my taste in women is often a subject of prurient interest here, I thought I'd share with you my recollections of one of the 5 or 6 most beautiful women I've ever met. The recollection is spurred by finding a Steichen photograph of her as a young mother, breast-feeding her child, in a book called Family Of Man. I cut it out of the book and had it framed and am taking it tonight to my best friend, who introduced me to the woman in the photograph 17 years ago. I think it will please her, because she is about to have her own first child. The beautiful woman's name was Tasha Tudor. My friend, who I had only recently met but with whom I was already smitten, was staying for a time in Tasha's house in Vermont, and invited me to come up to visit her. When I did, and when I wandered into the world of Tasha's hand-built house, and her famous and hand-maintained gardens, and her Corgis, I knew at first sight that I had met one of the most beautiful women in the world. Tasha was 76 at the time. She died in June, at 92. Here's a bio of her, and a link to a tribute site that has some photos of her, her house, and her pretty much as she appeared when I met her: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasha_tudor http://blueberrycottage.blogspot.com/2008/06/farewell-to-tasha-tudor.html Tasha called herself, proudly, an old woman. She *delighted* in being an old woman. She lived alone, with the exception of her chickens and her goats and her Corgis, most of the time, and living alone had worn well on her. I remember at the time I met her thinking, I don't think I have ever in my entire life met anyone more comfortable in their own skin than this woman. By that time I had met Maharishi and Rama - Frederick Lenz and a number of other spiritual teachers. Since then I have met other spiritual teachers. I stand on my first impression. Tasha was active, she was mentally sharp as a tack (don't think for a moment that I didn't have to endure a bit of that sharp-as-a-tack mind since I was at her house to court a young woman she felt protective of, and who was twenty years younger than I was), and just an utter delight. She wore every moment of her extra- ordinary life in the lines on her face, and in her bearing, and especially in her laugh. I guess I passed muster as a suitor, because after a few minutes' grilling and seeing how I handled being handed a pail and being sent to milk the goats, she warmed to me considerably. (I had never extracted milk from anything in my life more complicated than a milk carton; I can only imagine that she was highly amused watching me give it my best shot.) She was outspoken, she was outrageous, but most she was grace personified. Watching her move about her house and gardens was like watching a goddess dance. She personifies for me someone who was comfortable with her real age. I can only hope to be as comfort- able with my own if I ever reach her age. If I do, and with a similar level of comfort, a lot of it will be due to having had a remarkable role model to set the bar for me. When I think of Tasha I almost always think of an early Bruce Cockburn song, written about his mother- in-law. I think it describes the kind of beauty I'm talking about better than I can: She is passing in a warm breeze Bars of light that cross the floor One smoke-gray, curled, tiny feather Skips aside By her middle hang the keys Made to open any door Even the one that lets in the cold wind From outside She lives in a house of colour Guarded by cats three in number And one great dog of gentle manner In among the trees Silence Carries No apprehension here In the warm sun By the window sill I can just sit still And watch her go by... Queen of field and forest pathway Understands the speech of stones She weaves peace upon her loom Life's mistress - Bruce Cockburn, 1969
[FairfieldLife] Re: Agnes Schwarzenegger
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 22, 2008, at 11:41 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: When I think of Tasha I almost always think of an early Bruce Cockburn song, written about his mother- in-law. I think it describes the kind of beauty I'm talking about better than I can: She is passing in a warm breeze Bars of light that cross the floor One smoke-gray, curled, tiny feather Skips aside And 10 minutes after he wrote those lines, he went out and got smashed at the thought of having to interact with her again. Somehow I doubt it. :-) His marriage did not last (and the pain of its breakup led to one of his best albums, Humans), but the way he tells it, his friendship with his ex's mother-in-law continued. Then again, he's a man, so you by definition can't believe a word he says, right? :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Agnes Schwarzenegger
On Nov 22, 2008, at 12:00 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: And 10 minutes after he wrote those lines, he went out and got smashed at the thought of having to interact with her again. Somehow I doubt it. :-) His marriage did not last (and the pain of its breakup led to one of his best albums, Humans), but the way he tells it, his friendship with his ex's mother-in-law continued. Then again, he's a man, so you by definition can't believe a word he says, right? :-) Actually, Barry, your many rants--all full of lies, of course--have gotten me interested in BC, so I've started checking out some of his stuff. Have you heard his all-acoustic guitar album? (Silly question, I know.) Wow. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Agnes Schwarzenegger
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 22, 2008, at 12:00 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: And 10 minutes after he wrote those lines, he went out and got smashed at the thought of having to interact with her again. Somehow I doubt it. :-) His marriage did not last (and the pain of its breakup led to one of his best albums, Humans), but the way he tells it, his friendship with his ex's mother-in-law continued. Then again, he's a man, so you by definition can't believe a word he says, right? :-) Actually, Barry, your many rants--all full of lies, of course--have gotten me interested in BC, so I've started checking out some of his stuff. Have you heard his all-acoustic guitar album? (Silly question, I know.) Wow. Duh. I am a fan in the sense of the word from which that contraction was extracted, fanatic. I own pretty much everything Bruce has ever recorded, and an equal num- ber of bootlegs. Speechless, the album you refer to, is truly lovely. The songs on it were recorded at *very* different times and in *very* different states of attention, but Bruce somehow found a way to sequence them in such a way that the whole album plays seamlessly and without a single jarring moment. Speak- ing from experience, it is one of the best albums I've ever found to play as dinner music, because somehow it always provokes just the *best* conversations. For the Bruce fanatic, there are even a few new instrumentals on the album, the best being a gem called End Of All Rivers. I could listen to that song on a loop for hours. Actually, I have, while writing a story once. Bruce is one of those multi-tasking artists. You either like his voice or you don't, but few can deny the excellence of his songwriting. But it's his guitar skills that often go with- out sufficient notice. This album helps to correct that, on the softer, acoustic side. To hear how Bruce can wail on his electric guitars, you pretty much have to go to live bootlegs; very few moments of how good he is have ever made it onto his albums. How good a guitarist is he? Well, one time I saw him perform live in Boston, a guest per- former in the set was a fellow graduate of the Berkeley School Of Music there, Gary Burton. Gary is a quiet performer, like Bruce, and rarely says anything much onstage; he pre- fers to say what he has to say in music. But this evening he insisted on saying something before they launched into a kickin' version of Mistress Of Storms. He said, I just want those of you who don't know how lucky you are to be here tonight that I'm privileged to be playing with one of the best guitarists I've ever met. Do a search on Gary Burton and some of the greats of jazz guitar he has played with to get a feel for his statement. Mistress Of Storms is on the album Speechless, with Gary Burton on it. So are some of the following cuts from YouTube, to give you a taste: Deer Dancing Around A Broken Mirror: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyk9AT6f_tE Jammin' with Ali Farke Toure: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GK64qc-Mbts Down To The Delta: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9Uj4CTiHQI Jerusalem Poker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX6A80bVolI A discussion of Bruce as guitarist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GK64qc-Mbts End Of All Rivers (live(: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcHviL77kBc
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Agnes Schwarzenegger
On Nov 22, 2008, at 12:43 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: Bruce is one of those multi-tasking artists. You either like his voice or you don't, but few can deny the excellence of his songwriting. Yep--pretty amazing. But it's his guitar skills that often go with- out sufficient notice. This album helps to correct that, on the softer, acoustic side. To hear how Bruce can wail on his electric guitars, you pretty much have to go to live bootlegs; very few moments of how good he is have ever made it onto his albums. I'm pretty much of an acoustic guitar freak, so Speechless is perfect. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Hillary jerking Obama's chain a bit?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip i think B. is a lot more important to you than he is to anyone else here. he's just a guy who writes stuff. who cares what his motives might be? he only has the power to influence you if you grant him that power. i don't. and maybe you ought to consider that option too, especially in light of your opinions about him. Uh, he doesn't influence me at all. I think you've missed my point completely. It's about social responsibility, which you don't seem to want to have anything to do with. Never mind.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Agnes Schwarzenegger
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Turq you are SUCH a misogynist, it is obvious! You really think what Barry wrote about Tasha Tudor exonerates him from the charge of misogyny??
[FairfieldLife] Sarah Palin, Has-Been
Oprah, Leno, Letterman: What's Palin to do next? By MICHAEL R. BLOOD Associated Press Writer Sat Nov 22, 10:07 am ET ANCHORAGE, Alaska Sarah Palin is juggling offers to write books, appear in films and sit on dozens of interview couches at a rate astonishing for most Hollywood stars, let alone a first-term governor. Oprah wants her. So do Letterman and Leno. The failed Republican vice presidential candidate crunched state budget numbers this past week in her 17th-floor office as tumbling oil prices hit Alaska's revenues. Her staff, meanwhile, fielded television requests seeking the 44-year-old Palin for late-night banter and Sunday morning Washington policy. Agents from the William Morris Agency and elsewhere, have come knocking. There even has been an offer to host a TV show. Tomorrow, Governor Palin could do an interview with any news media on the planet, said her spokesman, Bill McAllister. Tomorrow, she could probably sign any one of a dozen book deals. She could start talking to people about a documentary or a movie on her life. That's the level we are at here. Barbara Walters called me. George Stephanopoulos called me, McAllister said. I've had multiple conversations with producers for Oprah, Letterman, Leno and 'The Daily Show.' Asked whether Winfrey was pursuing Palin for a sit- down, Michelle McIntyre, a spokeswoman for Winfrey's Chicago-based Harpo Productions Inc., said she was unable to confirm any future plans for the show. Palin may have emerged from the campaign politically wounded, with questions about her preparedness for higher office and reports of an expensive wardrobe. But she has returned to Alaska with an expanded, if unofficial, title international celebrity. John McCain plucked Palin out of relative obscurity in late August and put her on the national GOP ticket. Now, she has to decide how and where to spend her time, which could have implications for her political future and her bank account, with possible land mines of legal and ethical rules. Palin is considering about 800 requests for appearances from December through 2009, with 75 percent coming from out of state. A year ago, just a sprinkle of requests came from beyond Alaska's borders. They range from invitations to speak at The Chief Executives' Club of Boston to attend a 5-year- old's birthday party, from a prayer breakfast in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, to a business conference in Britain. Michael Steele, the former Maryland lieutenant governor who wants to be the next chairman of the Republican National Committee, is seeking face time. She has invitations to make appearances in 20 foreign countries, typically with all expenses paid, McAllister said. She has more than 200 requests for media interviews, again from around the globe. She has to pace herself, suggested veteran Hollywood publicist Howard Bragman. She wants a career made in a Crock-Pot, not a microwave. Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081122/ap_en_ot/palin_s_popularity http://tinyurl.com/5gq6x6
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Hillary jerking Obama's chain a bit?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: snip i think B. is a lot more important to you than he is to anyone else here. he's just a guy who writes stuff. who cares what his motives might be? he only has the power to influence you if you grant him that power. i don't. and maybe you ought to consider that option too, especially in light of your opinions about him. Uh, he doesn't influence me at all. I think you've missed my point completely. It's about social responsibility, which you don't seem to want to have anything to do with. Never mind. ok, but let me ask you this- do you think one word of what you have written has changed the thinking of, or the life outlook of your nemesis, B, here? in my opinion that has never happened, and will never happen. if you haven't noticed, B. is very much ossified, and happy to be. as far as i can tell, both you and B are locked into this bizarre rivalry, trying to influenece others who may or may not read anything either of you say. although you have some good things to say sometimes, as does B., both of you have built these elaboarate fantasies in your respective minds that you are somehow widely read and followed by a large audience here, and it is incumbent upon each of you to prove the other wrong (you towards B), or less of a human (B towards you) in the minds of this fictitious audience. in this particular way, imo both of you are delusional and certifiably nuts :). however it is something both of you feel a need to work through, or just enjoy, so by all means have at it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inspiring Up-date on India's Success in TM for Education--Up-date #1
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alarik is such a bright guy. He has a unique way of thinking. He makes these lateral intellectual moves that are so unexpected and such a delight. One of the brighter gems in the MIU/MUM/MERU faculty. I think he's from another planet! ;-) --- On Sat, 11/22/08, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Inspiring Up-date on India's Success in TM for Education--Up-date #1 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, November 22, 2008, 12:53 PM From: David Orme-Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 11:40 AM To: 'David Orme-Johnson' Subject: Inspiring Up-date on India's Success in TM for Education--Up-date #1 Dear Friends and Family, here is some very inspiring news about rising coherence in collective consciousness from Alarik and Cynthia Arenander. All the best, David Maharishi Vedic India Education Project Maharishi Vidya Mandirs The largest Chain of Privately Owned Public Schools in India Over 90,000 Students in 143 Branches in 118 Cities Quote from Maharishi on Education: If the age is to rise to invincibility, a fundamental value has to be supplied to the field of education: Knowledge of pure consciousness and how to experience it. Dear Friends, We are so happy you are interested in getting up-dates on what is happening in India. During our tour in September and October, we came to the realization that India is the key to establishing collective coherence for the whole world. With that said-- We have made our goal: 100,000 Indian Students to Learn Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation On Wednesday, November 19th: It was confirmed that a public school in India with over 1000 students, faculty and staff will begin the practice of Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation on December 1st. Can you imagine the momentum that will be gained when 1000 students start TM in just a few days and meditate together? The heart warming story of how this all came together is so inspiring that when a dear friend heard about it said--We have to make this into a video to put onto You Tube so everyone's heart can over flow! On Thursday, November 20th: An anonymous angel raised $2500 from about 6 wonderful donors so that a whole school of 500 students and 30 faculty from lower income families could learn Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation. These donors really loved the fact that they could give $100 to $250 and for that donation, they were responsible for 50 or more students to begin Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation. It even sounds competitively priced at $4.72 / initiation . JohnY
[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rick Archer wrote: ...and the 51 may have been a Yahoo glitch. So, Rick, there may be a Yahoo 'glitch'? This doesn't even make any sense. Go easy on Rick here WillieTex. He prolly just wants to avoid She Who Received A Death Threat On FFL from throwing another hissy fit.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Agnes Schwarzenegger
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Turq you are SUCH a misogynist, it is obvious! You really think what Barry wrote about Tasha Tudor exonerates him from the charge of misogyny?? From you and Raunchy? No. But then I don't believe that there could be any counter evidence to your view that you would accept. This detailed appreciation for women is what I have seen in all of Barry's posts about women with a few exceptions, the ones directed towards you Raunchy and Hillary... there may be a few more. So for me, when Barry expresses his hatred for certain specific women, it does not generalize to all women inductively. Especially when he often waxes poetically in all the ways that he appreciates and loves other women. I believe there are some posters here who do hate women as a group, most are fans of the woman hating Shankara. But for me, Barry is not one of them. Applying the term to Barry is an overgeneralization IMO, based on a personal hatred of him but which does not lead me to conclude that the people who apply it to Barry hate ALL men.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: And to go with that new Blu-Ray player
You livee in a McMansion? 52 is fine for my living room. My house is a small 4 bedroom (built in 1962) almost like a large apartment. It was passed up by couples looking to by because it was too small in the first few hours it went back on the market when I bought it. I would probably want a refund or a coupon for another showing if I ever went to the local theater and the only seats available were in the lower tier. In some of the auditoriums I sit at the last row and the screen still fills my field of vision. Some people must be into neck exercises. I don't buy home theater gear for it's trophy value. The 52 is about 6' feet away and fills my field of vision. Here's a calculator based on THX's research for determining what size screen to put in a room: http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html More folks than expected are greeting the digital changeover in February by buying new sets if they get TV by antenna than just getting the converter boxes. One thing folks doing that need to remember if they are replacing a set like a 27 (people not into home theater) then they need one 1 1/4 times that 27 to at least have the same height of image as they had on the 27. Since there is no 34 sets they would need a 37 and a 32 would actually be a little shorter and they may actually notice that (or that something is wrong). gullible fool wrote: 73 is too small. Get a front projector and a 92 to 110 diagonal screen. Or go with a high gain screen and you can go even larger, like with a 133 or 159 diagonal Da-lite High power screen. If you can fit it, that is. Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no `you,' only love. - Amma --- On Fri, 11/21/08, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: And to go with that new Blu-Ray player To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, November 21, 2008, 10:46 PM Alex Stanley wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rick Archer wrote: What does DLP stand for? Digital Light Processing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DLP DLP sets aren't as popular anymore as the LCD sets seem to be taking over. They are rear projection and may have more artifacts than LCDs. The bulb can be expensive to replace. So there are blowout sales on DLP sets at stores. DLP is being used for digital projectors including the ones at my local theater. DLP's niche is humongous screen size. For the price of a 52 LCD flat screen, you can get a 73 rear projection DLP. Sony's new 70 LCD flat screen, by comparison, will set you back almost twenty grand. In fact most of the online retailers don't show anything other than 61+ sets. I know Fry's in store has more than those. Best Buy does show a 56 Samsung DLP for $999. Tempting. The Mitsubishi LaserVue sets are now the hot item but pricey: http://laservuetv.com/ 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: And to go with that new Blu-Ray player
bob_brigante wrote:- NYT's tech guy has a simple guide to TV: http://tinyurl.com/66dqea A little wrong on the 1080p stuff. You can't make an LCD panel that is interlaced so all the 1080 line panels are progressive. So there is no money anymore to be saved. I don't even think you can find a DLP anymore that is displaying 1080i (if they ever could). There is no broadcast standard for it but even some inexpensive upscaling DVD players support it. How good the frame assembly is when converting from interlaced to progressive is another matter. It that is too cheap you get mouse teeth on frames during a pan. You see this effect sometimes on YouTube videos which are from HD footage. You actually have to have logic that figures out what is the best way to de-interlace the 1080i frame as there are several techniques and you want to use different ones for different circumstances. The reason some of the lower priced bans can be as good as name brands is because they didn't have to pay to design the set. They basically are assembling a kit and putting their label on it. Vizio just caved into MPEG-LA as they weren't paying royalties on patents which will drive their price up a little. They actually assemble their sets in the US.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Agnes Schwarzenegger
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Mistress Of Storms is on the album Speechless, with Gary Burton on it. So are some of the following cuts from YouTube, to give you a taste: Deer Dancing Around A Broken Mirror: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyk9AT6f_tE Jammin' with Ali Farke Toure: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GK64qc-Mbts Down To The Delta: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9Uj4CTiHQI Jerusalem Poker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX6A80bVolI A discussion of Bruce as guitarist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GK64qc-Mbts End Of All Rivers (live(: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcHviL77kBc Damn! That last one is intoxicatingly nice. I can't get the tune out of my mind.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Checking the price of oil
Okay but who was driving the futures price down (not that I understand any of the wall street gambling voodoo)? The person who reported this back in June knows the people who do have the money to control the prices. And why was OPEC meeting recently to cut production because they think the price is too low. We can all have our armchair theories and when I heard that report back in June I also scoffed. I don't care about money but it seems everyone else does so I have to collect it somehow. gullible fool wrote: Rumor is it'll stay at $50 a barrel for 6 months or a year. The elite want to bankrupt the Middle East. Rumor? Crude oil is traded as a futures contract and it is the price on the futures market that determines the price the refineries pay. If anyone had enough foresight to know where the price of crude oil was heading, whether higher, lower, or sideways, he or she would have enough money to satisfy even the greedy TMO. Hint: No one knows. Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no `you,' only love. - Amma
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count
Tom wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rick Archer wrote: ...and the 51 may have been a Yahoo glitch. So, Rick, there may be a Yahoo 'glitch'? This doesn't even make any sense. Go easy on Rick here WillieTex. He prolly just wants to avoid She Who Received A Death Threat On FFL from throwing another hissy fit. I only got a count of 50 for Judy with the program that runs on my desktop. Alex may have received a duplicate email on the account he uses. Yahoo sometime burps and sends duplicates and sometimes does not send some emails at all resulting in a lower count. Then sometimes it will send a message out via email that never shows up on the web. I have also found that their searches will sometimes omit messages that show up in the normal listing. I thought I might be able to add some code to check for duplicates but the duplicates do have different message numbers even if they have the same time code. Usually the variances are only one or two messages and I've always suggested people challenge the count if they think it is off a little as there is a log generated that is easily checked and can be cross checked against the web site.
[FairfieldLife] YouTube - Pranic Healing - Special Assignment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahg6Ut1cyhA
[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams willytex@ wrote: Rick Archer wrote: ...and the 51 may have been a Yahoo glitch. So, Rick, there may be a Yahoo 'glitch'? This doesn't even make any sense. Go easy on Rick here WillieTex. He prolly just wants to avoid She Who Received A Death Threat On FFL from throwing another hissy fit. I only got a count of 50 for Judy with the program that runs on my desktop. Alex may have received a duplicate email on the account he uses. I now get my FFL email feed from a Gmail account, and my post count was the same as the official post count, which also uses a Gmail account. I looked at the time/date column for her week's worth of posts, and I didn't see any pairs posted at the same time.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Agnes Schwarzenegger
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Turq you are SUCH a misogynist, it is obvious! You really think what Barry wrote about Tasha Tudor exonerates him from the charge of misogyny?? From you and Raunchy? No. But then I don't believe that there could be any counter evidence to your view that you would accept. Not after all the evidence he's provided *for* that charge, no. This detailed appreciation for women is what I have seen in all of Barry's posts about women with a few exceptions, the ones directed towards you Raunchy and Hillary... there may be a few more. LOL!! Yes, there certainly have been a few more. So for me, when Barry expresses his hatred for certain specific women, it does not generalize to all women inductively. You're stuck in the dictionary definition, as we've discussed before, interpreting the term narrowly to mean hatred of all women, such that professed admiration for certain individual women would render it inapplicable. But that isn't how it works. That's how Barry wants you to *think* it works; that's the motive behind all his poetic posts about this or that woman or women. Dictionary misogynists are rare. That isn't what women are complaining about. Maybe there should be another word, but most people these days understand what it refers to. Just as you don't have to hate all black people to be a racist, or all Jews to be anti-Semitic, you don't have to hate all women to be a misogynist. Heck, you don't have to hate *any* specific woman to be a misogynist. That isn't what it's about. But as I've pointed out before, while admiring some women doesn't exonerate you from misogyny, what *defines* you as a misogynist is attacking women you don't like on the basis of their gender. Same goes for racism and anti-Semitism: if you attack a black person on the basis of their race, or a Jew on the basis of their religion/ethnicity, that *defines* you as racist or anti-Semitic. It never occurs to people who aren't inherently bigoted to attack someone in such a manner, no matter how much they dislike the person. Especially when he often waxes poetically in all the ways that he appreciates and loves other women. Just as an exercise, you might see if you can find a common element in his descriptions of the women he claims to appreciate and love. You might also want to think about the declaration Some of my best friends are Jews and see if you can figure out why it's subject to such derision. (Minor semantic point: it's wax poetic, not wax poetically. Wax in this sense is roughly synonymous with become. I see wax used incorrectly all the time these days, so you aren't alone!)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: snip I only got a count of 50 for Judy with the program that runs on my desktop. Alex may have received a duplicate email on the account he uses. I now get my FFL email feed from a Gmail account, and my post count was the same as the official post count, which also uses a Gmail account. I looked at the time/date column for her week's worth of posts, and I didn't see any pairs posted at the same time. Alex, Tuesday's post count had me at 48. I made only two posts after that, but Wednesday's post count had me at 51. So there's an error somewhere.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Hillary jerking Obama's chain a bit?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: snip i think B. is a lot more important to you than he is to anyone else here. he's just a guy who writes stuff. who cares what his motives might be? he only has the power to influence you if you grant him that power. i don't. and maybe you ought to consider that option too, especially in light of your opinions about him. Uh, he doesn't influence me at all. I think you've missed my point completely. It's about social responsibility, which you don't seem to want to have anything to do with. Never mind. ok, but let me ask you this- do you think one word of what you have written has changed the thinking of, or the life outlook of your nemesis, B, here? Nope. It would take a bunch of people indicating on a regular basis that his lies were unacceptable, and refusing to interact with him until he stopped telling them, for him to change, and even then it would only be his behavior that changed, not his thinking or life outlook. If he were ever to change his thinking or life outlook, it wouldn't be on the basis of what anybody said to him, but because he had had some kind of personal epiphany that made him realize what an appalling phony he was. We can always hope for that, but in the meantime a change in his behavior would make this forum a lot more pleasant. snip although you have some good things to say sometimes, as does B., both of you have built these elaboarate fantasies in your respective minds that you are somehow widely read and followed by a large audience here I won't speak for Barry (although it's obvious from his posts that he's a chronic fantasist), but I certainly have no such fantasy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hillary accepts job as Secretary of State...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 21, 2008, at 3:13 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I think she will be great, so much stronger than Condi. It also speaks well of Obama that he picked a person who will challenge him since he disagreed with her foreign policy POV in the primaries. He is already doing the opposite of what Bush did (pick a yes women) so he must be on track. I agree. It will also free up her Senate seat for a real Democrat, :) There is no realer Democrat than Hillary Clinton.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count
Alex Stanley wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams willytex@ wrote: Rick Archer wrote: ...and the 51 may have been a Yahoo glitch. So, Rick, there may be a Yahoo 'glitch'? This doesn't even make any sense. Go easy on Rick here WillieTex. He prolly just wants to avoid She Who Received A Death Threat On FFL from throwing another hissy fit. I only got a count of 50 for Judy with the program that runs on my desktop. Alex may have received a duplicate email on the account he uses. I now get my FFL email feed from a Gmail account, and my post count was the same as the official post count, which also uses a Gmail account. I looked at the time/date column for her week's worth of posts, and I didn't see any pairs posted at the same time. They don't have to come in at the same time though some do but can be minutes apart and in some cases recently days. And of course in some cases maybe if the person was posting using the web site and Yahoo hung for a while after they clicked submit and they click submit again Yahoo may also post again from the second click. If they do that I would say the second click post gets counted. IOW, wait a while if it hangs. Sometime when I post using a web site and it can be flaky I copy the message to a temporarily to text editor in case the post fails. Then I can paste it back in when I try again.
[FairfieldLife] The Obama New Deal: Era of Trickle Down Economics Has Ended
Obama economic plan aims for 2.5M new jobs by 2011 WASHINGTON President-elect Barack Obama promoted an economic plan Saturday he said would create 2.5 million jobs by rebuilding roads and bridges and modernizing schools while developing alternative energy sources and more efficient cars. These aren't just steps to pull ourselves out of this immediate crisis. These are the long-term investments in our economic future that have been ignored for far too long, Obama said in the weekly Democratic radio address. The goal is to get the plan quickly through Congress, with help from both parties, after Obama takes office Jan. 20. The plan, which envisions those new jobs by January 2011, is big enough to meet the challenges we face, he said. The president-elect said he has asked his economic advisers to flesh out the recovery plan one big enough to meet the challenges we face. ... We'll be working out the details in the weeks ahead, but it will be a two-year, nationwide effort to jump-start job creation in America and lay the foundation for a strong and growing economy. Obama noted the growing evidence the country is facing an economic crisis of historic proportions and said he was pleased Congress passed an extension of unemployment benefits this past week. But, he added, `We must do more to put people back to work and get our economy moving again. Nonetheless, he said, There are no quick or easy fixes to this crisis, which has been many years in the making, and it's likely to get worse before it gets better. It will take support from Democrats and Republicans to pass the economic plan, Obama said. I'll be welcome to ideas and suggestions from both sides of the aisle, he said. But what is not negotiable is the need for immediate action. People are lying awake at night wondering if next week's paycheck will cover next month's bills, if their jobs will remain, if their retirement savings will disappear, he added. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said congressional Democrats will continue pushing for aggressive but necessary measures. Part of that is passing a substantial economic recovery package, like the one President-elect Obama discussed this morning, that creates good-paying jobs here in America and stabilizes a volatile market. In a slap at President George W. Bush, Reid added, We will soon finally have a leader and partner in the White House who recognizes the urgency with which we must turn around our economy, and I look forward to working with him and the new Congress to do so. The Labor Department reported that claims for unemployment benefits jumped last week to the highest level since July 1992, providing fresh evidence of the weakening job market. We'll put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, modernizing schools that are failing our children, and building wind farms and solar panels, Obama said. He also made a commitment to fuel-efficient cars and alternative energy technologies that can free us from our dependence on foreign oil and keep our economy competitive in the years ahead. Obama pointed to the past, saying that Americans in this country's darkest hours have risen above their divisions to solve their problems, as a hope for the future. We have acted boldly, bravely, and above all, together, Obama said. That is the chance our new beginning now offers us, and that is the challenge we must rise to in the days to come. It is time to act. As the next president of the United States, I will. ~~Associated Press: http://tinyurl.com/68l86a
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hillary accepts job as Secretary of State...
(snip) There is no realer Democrat than Hillary Clinton. I think Hillary has transcended the Democrat label at this point... We all know, she is a team player, and we know which side she is on. Both Barack and Bill are Leos, and she seems to have good chemistry with, Both of these two alpha males...a good support woman, for sure. I believe, Secretary of State, is a bigger and better position for her, than to be: The President... Since the United States is still regard as the 'leader' in consciousness, in so many ways.. That the International nature of this position, will free Hillary to play a role on the world stage, Especially to raise girls and woman up, around the world. Congrats to Hill...from, R.G.
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Obama New Deal: Era of Trickle Down Economics Has Ended
On Nov 22, 2008, at 3:34 PM, do.rflex wrote: The Labor Department reported that claims for unemployment benefits jumped last week to the highest level since July 1992, providing fresh evidence of the weakening job market. We'll put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, modernizing schools that are failing our children, and building wind farms and solar panels, Obama said. Wouldn't it be great if Bush, after being found guilty of war crimes, had to do at least part of his sentence by building wind farms and solar panels? Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin, Has-Been
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oprah, Leno, Letterman: What's Palin to do next? By MICHAEL R. BLOOD Associated Press Writer Sat Nov 22, 10:07 am ET ANCHORAGE, Alaska Sarah Palin is juggling offers to write books, appear in films and sit on dozens of interview couches at a rate astonishing for most Hollywood stars, let alone a first-term governor. Oprah wants her. So do Letterman and Leno. I wonder if they would in case Sarah looked for instance a bit like this: http://tinyurl.com/628lrm
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin, Has-Been
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Oprah, Leno, Letterman: What's Palin to do next? By MICHAEL R. BLOOD Associated Press Writer Sat Nov 22, 10:07 am ET ANCHORAGE, Alaska Sarah Palin is juggling offers to write books, appear in films and sit on dozens of interview couches at a rate astonishing for most Hollywood stars, let alone a first-term governor. Oprah wants her. So do Letterman and Leno. I wonder if they would in case Sarah looked for instance a bit like this: http://tinyurl.com/628lrm You may be able to intuit from this photo why some women only post anonymously to Fairfield Life, and why their fame will go no further than this forum. Ever. :-) You also might have some idea why some of them manage to go through half of their limit of 50 posts per week on this forum in one day. Being that angry is all they've got.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin, Has-Been
On Nov 22, 2008, at 3:57 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Oprah, Leno, Letterman: What's Palin to do next? Well, I don't know, but one thing she might consider doing next is actually putting some effort into raising her 3 remaining children. By MICHAEL R. BLOOD Associated Press Writer Sat Nov 22, 10:07 am ET ANCHORAGE, Alaska – Sarah Palin is juggling offers to write books, appear in films and sit on dozens of interview couches at a rate astonishing for most Hollywood stars, let alone a first-term governor. Oprah wants her. So do Letterman and Leno. Bet her kids want her even more. Yes, the Party of Family Values strikes again-- now that the errant son is packed off to Iraq and the pregnant teenage daughter is safely out of sight in some undisclosed location, the mother of these unfortunate kids can once more opt our for a few more years while she screws up her remaining ones. Welcome to the face of the new GOP-- even more hypocritical than the old GOP! Surely a stunning achievement. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Mac/Bootcamp/Vmware/TechTool question
Hey, good people. I've gotten some outstanding Mac advice here in the past and as a Mac nOOb I appreciate FFL's advice in this area. My question is in regards to installing TechTool on my MacBook Pro. My unit is running Leopard. I went ahead and setup Boot Camp and run Windows XP Pro on the unit as well. After I got Boot Camp and XP Pro running great, I purchased and setup VMWare which runs just fine, too. I would like to add TechTool to the Mac side of things, but don't know if Boot Camp and XP's partition will screw up or be screwed by the Tech Tool intstallation. I don't won't to learn this the hard way, if there is already an answer out there. Any input would be appreciated.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Laughter, the best weapon against irrationality
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip These two irrational women CAN'T HANDLE being laughed at. It drives them crazier than anything else that could possibly happen to them, and they become even MORE laughable than they were before as they sputter and pontificate and trot out their manufactured outrage. The more they sputter about being laughed at, the more people laugh at them. And that's the way things should be -- the closest thing to Natural Law I can imagine. Dunno about anybody else, but I get a HUGE kick out of the image of Barry getting off on his fantasies of raunchydog and me sputtering. He hasn't noticed that we ignore him when he tries to make fun of us. But if that doesn't tickle your funny bone, check out the elaborate mess Barry makes of his rant about Palin and Fey: Think about the recent election. For a while people were actually so shocked that McNumnuts chose Sarah Palin as his running mate that they were almost afraid to point out the obvious -- that she was an idiot in the true sense of the word, both ignorant and proud of it. Actually, if Barry had been paying attention, he'd know that Palin's deficiencies had been noticed and discussed at great length--even by some conservatives--immediately after she was announced as McCain's choice for VP. Our own Shemp observed, in a post of August 29, the day her selection was announced: I've seen more hatred --sputtering hatred -- expressed against Palin in the MSM in the past 6 hours since her nomination was announced than in the last 6 months of Hillary's running. Then along came Tina Fey. In one five-minute monologue she showed America what Sarah Palin was, by doing nothing more than *emulating her own behavior* and accentuating it to laughable levels. Bingo. Tina Fey, in a very real sense, pointed out the Empresses' lack of clothes (something that Sarah quickly tried to rectify using the RNC credit cards), and that she was an intellectual midget who was not even *remotely* qualified to be Vice-President, much less President. She was literally laughed out of contention. Actually, of course, Fey never did a Palin five-minute monologue; Barry appears to have hallucinated that along with everything else. All Fey's Palin impressions on SNL were done with other people. Fey's first Palin impression was her joint appearance with Amy Poehler playing Hillary, in which the two were giving a press conference; this was on September 13, *after* Palin's interview with ABC's Charles Gibson, in which she didn't seem to know what the Bush doctrine was and made a bunch of other gaffes, including that being able to see Russia from Alaska somehow gave her foreign policy experience. Folks had been laughing about that all week. Barry seems to be thinking of the parody Fey did two weeks later, on September 27, of Palin's interview with Katie Couric, in which a number of Palin's responses to Couric were repeated almost verbatim by Fey. But Palin had long since become a laughingstock for much of America without Fey's help. Have a look at the posts here (624 of 'em, more than 40 a day) between the time she was announced as McCain's pick and Tina Fey's first SNL impression of Palin for a good reflection of what most of the country was saying about her.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin, Has-Been
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Oprah, Leno, Letterman: What's Palin to do next? Well, I don't know, but one thing she might consider doing next is actually putting some effort into raising her 3 remaining children. Right. After all, as MMY always said, a woman's place is in the home, raising the children. guffaw
[FairfieldLife] Re: And to go with that new Blu-Ray player
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: bob_brigante wrote:- NYT's tech guy has a simple guide to TV: http://tinyurl.com/66dqea A little wrong on the 1080p stuff. You can't make an LCD panel that is interlaced so all the 1080 line panels are progressive. *** Apparently most tech reviewers think that true LCD 1080P is here: http://reviews.cnet.com/4321-6482_7-6591614.html Description of i/p TVs: http://techdigs.net/content/view/53/42/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count
Bhairitu wrote: Then I can paste it back in when I try again. Paste it back? This doesn't even make any sense and what has it got to do with a Yahoo glitch? Is it a rule that there has to be a glitch so you have to copy and paste it back, or you get kicked off the forum for a week? It looks like you wrote in some secret code, a worm, or a trojan or maybe a bot, that lets Judy post fifty-one. If so, that was very unfair of you. Or, maybe somebody should just learn to count. If this happened to me, I'd just avoid posting for a week - instead of sneaking back in here to send a flame to Barry and Willytex. Judy either overposted or she didn't - just count the posts and then state the facts. If she's over, then ban her for a week. If she didn't, then ban her for a week for calling me a liar, which is a lie - she is very aware that I did no such thing. You informants, lurkers, trolls, and flamers need to stop all the lying and double standards if you are going to be the chosen counters and moderators. You probably sucked as a TM teacher and you suck as a counter-of-postings. Where's Dick Richardson when we need him? Can't we have some information please, instead of obsfuscation - don't you people have anything to say?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Obama New Deal: Era of Trickle Down Economics Has Ended
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 22, 2008, at 3:34 PM, do.rflex wrote: The Labor Department reported that claims for unemployment benefits jumped last week to the highest level since July 1992, providing fresh evidence of the weakening job market. We'll put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, modernizing schools that are failing our children, and building wind farms and solar panels, Obama said. Wouldn't it be great if Bush, after being found guilty of war crimes, had to do at least part of his sentence by building wind farms and solar panels? Sal I really wonder if he's too unconscious to recognize how extensively he's despised, both in the USA and globally.
[FairfieldLife] Re: George Bush openly snubbed at the G20 Summit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Everyone greeting each other and shaking hands, but Bush walks with his head down like the dejected most unpopular kid in high school. Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6Y_ncOVlDw This is a great example of the kind of crap we allow ourselves to fall for concerning public figures we don't like. Shemp's response to this was on the nose. Bush doesn't look in the slightest bit dejected; and in fact, as Shemp guessed, he *had*, in fact, already shaken the hands of those who were lined up earlier that day and the previous day. The others who were walking along the line had not yet had the chance to shake their hands. Nobody was snubbing Bush. We might wish they would, but they didn't. CNN's Jeanne Moos did a story debunking this, complete with video of Bush shaking hands with the leaders one by one: http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=225893
[FairfieldLife] Walmart v the world
In Germany, where Wal-Mart was already fighting an uphill battle in a very competitive market, it also faced problems of etiquette. Locals balked at other people bagging their groceries or smiling at them when they entered the store. (German men, apparently, thought they were being hit on.) http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/number-1/2008/11/21/wal-marts-ruble-\ trouble http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/number-1/2008/11/21/wal-marts-ruble\ -trouble
[FairfieldLife] What is a sexaholic?
A sexaholic is one who *must* have sex, and is unable to control the appetite, gay or straight. Outside of just being a scourge on the individual and society it inhibits his ability to use the sex energy (kama or shakti) for the far superior and lasting creative effects it can produce. Anyone who has sex for sex's sake is a fool who trades in a diamond for a bag of spinach. Addiction to sex inhibits the ability of the soul to transcend during meditation and experience the far superior joy of eternal bliss. If the shakti energy is tied up in the lower chakras governing lust, anger and greed (the lower three) the kundalini pranic fire sleeping in the muladhar chakra (root chakra) will not awake taking the consciousness or jiva with it. The process of transcending is withdrawing the prana from the mind and senses, (pratyahara) this is not possible if strong attachments are impeding the withdrawal of this pranic force. Samskaras (impressions or memories from sex indulgences, etc.) exist in the subconscious mind and have their correlation in the physical body (MMY calls these stresses), these vrittis (whirlpools in the chitta or mind) must be stilled (nirodha) through the application of Patanjali's 8 limbs of Yoga, chastity being in one of these limbs! Until these vrittis (or sleeping elephants as MMY calls them) are completely stilled the prana will not withdraw and take the soul or jiva to transcendental consciousness. Through *grace* during TM and *effort* through living a moral ethical life as recommended by Patanjali, salvation (freedom from the wheel of birth and death, samsara) are possible. You can't have your cake and eat it too! Either you live a good life and have sex for the reasons it was created in marriage with the view to children in the Grahasta period of life (one of four of life's stages) and be happy and have good meditations or, you slip into addictions which rob the soul of its peace of mind and hold one in material slavery. Sex for sex's sake is inconsistent with the spiritual life...
[FairfieldLife] Re: What is a sexaholic?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A sexaholic is one who *must* have sex, and is unable to control the appetite, gay or straight. Outside of just being a scourge on the individual and society it inhibits his ability to use the sex energy (kama or shakti) for the far superior and lasting creative effects it can produce. Anyone who has sex for sex's sake is a fool who trades in a diamond for a bag of spinach. Addiction to sex inhibits the ability of the soul to transcend during meditation and experience the far superior joy of eternal bliss. If the shakti energy is tied up in the lower chakras governing lust, anger and greed (the lower three) the kundalini pranic fire sleeping in the muladhar chakra (root chakra) will not awake taking the consciousness or jiva with it. The process of transcending is withdrawing the prana from the mind and senses, (pratyahara) this is not possible if strong attachments are impeding the withdrawal of this pranic force. Samskaras (impressions or memories from sex indulgences, etc.) exist in the subconscious mind and have their correlation in the physical body (MMY calls these stresses), these vrittis (whirlpools in the chitta or mind) must be stilled (nirodha) through the application of Patanjali's 8 limbs of Yoga, chastity being in one of these limbs! Until these vrittis (or sleeping elephants as MMY calls them) are completely stilled the prana will not withdraw and take the soul or jiva to transcendental consciousness. Through *grace* during TM and *effort* through living a moral ethical life as recommended by Patanjali, salvation (freedom from the wheel of birth and death, samsara) are possible. You can't have your cake and eat it too! Either you live a good life and have sex for the reasons it was created in marriage with the view to children in the Grahasta period of life (one of four of life's stages) and be happy and have good meditations or, you slip into addictions which rob the soul of its peace of mind and hold one in material slavery. Sex for sex's sake is inconsistent with the spiritual life... Come on over here Billy honey, I think you need some lovin'.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: And to go with that new Blu-Ray player
bob_brigante wrote: *** Apparently most tech reviewers think that true LCD 1080P is here: http://reviews.cnet.com/4321-6482_7-6591614.html Description of i/p TVs: http://techdigs.net/content/view/53/42/ Another piece of hype is 120hz LCDs. Maybe for sports but I wonder if the typical user could tell the difference. And now they are marketing 240hz sets. I wouldn't be surprised that in 6 months they won't be selling anything less than 120hz sets because they often don't like to manufacture too many varieties. But by then the price of the 120hz may be the same as today's 60hz.
Re: [FairfieldLife] YouTube - Pranic Healing - Special Assignment
2008/11/22 Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahg6Ut1cyhA From Humboldt: Maharishi, I've been doing experiments where I've been transmitting subtle energy to rats. You've been what? Placing my hands on rats and transmitting subtle energy to them. What? Sort of like Tie Chi. Tie what? Tie Chi. It's Chinese. Oh. Like those ching chung boys. This is a bunch of foolishness.
[FairfieldLife] Post Count
Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): Sat Nov 22 00:00:00 2008 End Date (UTC): Sat Nov 29 00:00:00 2008 114 messages as of (UTC) Sat Nov 22 23:51:47 2008 28 authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10 TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9 enlightened_dawn11 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8 Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8 Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] 7 Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6 do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4 raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4 curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4 bob_brigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4 Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3 cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2 lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2 jyouells2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2 gullible fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2 Tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2 Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 ultrarishi [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 I am the eternal [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 Samadhi Is Much Closer Than You Think -- Really! -- It's A No-Brainer. Who'd've Thunk It? [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Posters: 26 Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times = Daylight Saving Time (Summer): US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM Standard Time (Winter): US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Obama New Deal: Era of Trickle Down Economics Has Ended
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 4:20 PM, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wouldn't it be great if Bush, after being found guilty of war crimes, had to do at least part of his sentence by building wind farms and solar panels? Sal I really wonder if he's too unconscious to recognize how extensively he's despised, both in the USA and globally. Bush Tours America To Survey Damage Caused By His Disastrous Presidency http://www.theonion.com/content/video/bush_tours_america_to_survey
[FairfieldLife] Re: What is a sexaholic?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote: A sexaholic is one who *must* have sex, and is unable to control the appetite, gay or straight. Outside of just being a scourge on the individual and society it inhibits his ability to use the sex energy (kama or shakti) for the far superior and lasting creative effects it can produce. Anyone who has sex for sex's sake is a fool who trades in a diamond for a bag of spinach. Addiction to sex inhibits the ability of the soul to transcend during meditation and experience the far superior joy of eternal bliss. If the shakti energy is tied up in the lower chakras governing lust, anger and greed (the lower three) the kundalini pranic fire sleeping in the muladhar chakra (root chakra) will not awake taking the consciousness or jiva with it. The process of transcending is withdrawing the prana from the mind and senses, (pratyahara) this is not possible if strong attachments are impeding the withdrawal of this pranic force. Samskaras (impressions or memories from sex indulgences, etc.) exist in the subconscious mind and have their correlation in the physical body (MMY calls these stresses), these vrittis (whirlpools in the chitta or mind) must be stilled (nirodha) through the application of Patanjali's 8 limbs of Yoga, chastity being in one of these limbs! Until these vrittis (or sleeping elephants as MMY calls them) are completely stilled the prana will not withdraw and take the soul or jiva to transcendental consciousness. Through *grace* during TM and *effort* through living a moral ethical life as recommended by Patanjali, salvation (freedom from the wheel of birth and death, samsara) are possible. You can't have your cake and eat it too! Either you live a good life and have sex for the reasons it was created in marriage with the view to children in the Grahasta period of life (one of four of life's stages) and be happy and have good meditations or, you slip into addictions which rob the soul of its peace of mind and hold one in material slavery. Sex for sex's sake is inconsistent with the spiritual life... Come on over here Billy honey, I think you need some lovin'. Let me tell you sweetie, all you got to offer is 'chump change' compared to the almighty presence of God; and it certainly isn't love! I hate to disappoint you but, a woman's 'love' is not the ultimate joy that life has to offer and don't expect me to grovel for itLove, what an overworked word, gads!
[FairfieldLife] Re: What is a sexaholic?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: snip Come on over here Billy honey, I think you need some lovin'. Let me tell you sweetie, all you got to offer is 'chump change' compared to the almighty presence of God; and it certainly isn't love! I hate to disappoint you but, a woman's 'love' is not the ultimate joy that life has to offer and don't expect me to grovel for itLove, what an overworked word, gads! Wow, Billypoo, you just positively *radiate* God's love. It's clear as it can be that the ultimate joy of the almighty presence has transformed you.
[FairfieldLife] For You Dick Lovers
Six part 1994 BBC documentary on Philip K Dick: Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJehaCfnXHE
[FairfieldLife] Re: Take the The Civic Literacy Quiz
I got only 3 wrong, so my score was 90.91%. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: How well do you know your [U.S.] civics? I scored 81.82%. How about you? 87.88% (4 wrong out of 33). I thought most of the questions were elementary (but with some of them, it helped to be older). I was surprised that I got all 9 of the economic (25-33) questions right. That isn't usually my strong suit. SPOILERS FOLLOW I got these wrong: 4) What was the main issue in the debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas in 1858? A. Is slavery morally wrong? B. Would slavery be allowed to expand to new territories? C. Do Southern states have the constitutional right to leave the union? D. Are free African Americans citizens of the United States? I really didn't know. I figured it was B or C but guessed C. 7) What was the source of the following phrase: Government of the people, for the people, by the people? A. the speech I Have a Dream B. Declaration of Independence C. U.S. Constitution D. Gettysburg Address Knew it was either B or D but picked B. Others who got this wrong are saying the mistake was embarrassing, and the introductory material on the site seems to think it was the most shocking mistake most people made. I beg to disagree. When a phrase is that familiar, it's often very difficult to recall which of several equally familiar sources it came from. 9) Under Our Constitution, some powers belong to the federal government. What is one power of the federal government? A. Make treaties B. Levy income taxes C. Maintain prisons D. Natural Disaster Aid Thought both A and B were correct, picked B. I still don't understand why it's wrong. If the federal government doesn't have the power to levy income taxes, who does?? Somebody please explain! I assumed income taxes meant federal income taxes, but maybe it's wrong because states also levy income taxes. 11) What impact did the Anti-Federalists have on the United States Constitution? A. their arguments helped lead to the adoption of the Bill of Rights B. their arguments helped lead to the abolition of the slave trade C. their influence ensured that the federal government would maintain a standing army D. their influence ensured that the federal government would have the power to tax Didn't know this one; figured it was A or B, picked B. Had no idea who the Anti-Federalists were or when they were active. Looked them up afterward; they were against the ratification of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was proposed to placate the states that would otherwise not have voted for ratification due to the influence of the Anti-Federalists. This was well before the slave trade had become a big issue, and it isn't addressed in the Constitution anyway, so that was a really dumb mistake.
[FairfieldLife] Re: For You Dick Lovers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Six part 1994 BBC documentary on Philip K Dick: Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJehaCfnXHE Billy put me off of loving Dick.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What is a sexaholic?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: snip Come on over here Billy honey, I think you need some lovin'. Let me tell you sweetie, all you got to offer is 'chump change' compared to the almighty presence of God; and it certainly isn't love! I hate to disappoint you but, a woman's 'love' is not the ultimate joy that life has to offer and don't expect me to grovel for itLove, what an overworked word, gads! Wow, Billypoo, you just positively *radiate* God's love. It's clear as it can be that the ultimate joy of the almighty presence has transformed you. No, nor did I imply that! It takes time, but surely Judy after all your study and meditation I don't have to explain all of this to you, do I, or perhaps I inadvertently pushed a button? Perhaps you should reexamine your reply, I think with a little introspection you might learn something about yourself... just a suggestion. You know the old saying, If you don't like the message, kill the messenger, do you think this applies to your response?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count
I only got a count of 50 for Judy with the program that runs on my desktop. Alex may have received a duplicate email on the account he uses. Alex wrote: I now get my FFL email feed from a Gmail account, and my post count was the same as the official post count, which also uses a Gmail account. I looked at the time/date column for her week's worth of posts, and I didn't see any pairs posted at the same time. Judy wrote: Alex, Tuesday's post count had me at 48. I made only two posts after that, but Wednesday's post count had me at 51. So there's an error somewhere. Error? The only error I see is you were over the limit and instead of refraining from sending anymore posts you went online and slammed me and Barry, calling us liars for no apparent good reason. You should have worked this out with the counters BEFORE you lied like you did. You known perfectly well I have not posted any lies to this forum - if I did, you would have pointed them out by now. The counters do not lie and there is no glitch - now you're way over the limit! Maybe you should keep your pie hole shut for about a week and stop this incessant trolling!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count
Maybe you should keep your pie hole shut for about a week and stop this incessant trolling! What would she eat her pies with? Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no `you,' only love. - Amma --- On Sat, 11/22/08, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, November 22, 2008, 9:15 PM I only got a count of 50 for Judy with the program that runs on my desktop. Alex may have received a duplicate email on the account he uses. Alex wrote: I now get my FFL email feed from a Gmail account, and my post count was the same as the official post count, which also uses a Gmail account. I looked at the time/date column for her week's worth of posts, and I didn't see any pairs posted at the same time. Judy wrote: Alex, Tuesday's post count had me at 48. I made only two posts after that, but Wednesday's post count had me at 51. So there's an error somewhere. Error? The only error I see is you were over the limit and instead of refraining from sending anymore posts you went online and slammed me and Barry, calling us liars for no apparent good reason. You should have worked this out with the counters BEFORE you lied like you did. You known perfectly well I have not posted any lies to this forum - if I did, you would have pointed them out by now. The counters do not lie and there is no glitch - now you're way over the limit! Maybe you should keep your pie hole shut for about a week and stop this incessant trolling! 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: Post Count
Maybe you should keep your pie hole shut for about a week and stop this incessant trolling! gullible fool wrote: What would she eat her pies with? She could give up eating the pies for a week or so and just follow the rules set up by the three moderators and one informant. I don't make the rules around here - apparently we voted for the rules so we could talk about Sarah Palin for seventy-five posts a week. Maybe we should just vote on dropping the fifty rule and let people post anything they want to - nobody seems to object when Judy calls other people liars without the slightest evidence, so what's the point? Let the people have all the pies they want. Obviously the fifty rule doesn't prevent senseless flames. Let us eat the cake and get rid of the FFL cops! I mean, nobody has anything to say, Dick already proved that.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What is a sexaholic?
Billy, you remind me of myself 35 years ago. You're afraid of the emotional intimacy of a sexual relationship so you spout all this spiritual nonsense that, while very true, is also adharmic for the majority of people. If you're truly celibate you don't run around lecturing people about the joys of semen retention. You need to examine your motivation for your emotional isolation from others you are intrinsically attracted to and stop spouting spiritual claptrap. If you masturbate at all, your post is a fraud. Now, I know you're going to tell us how you don't masturbate, but you know that's not true, right? --- On Sat, 11/22/08, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What is a sexaholic? To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, November 22, 2008, 7:36 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote: A sexaholic is one who *must* have sex, and is unable to control the appetite, gay or straight. Outside of just being a scourge on the individual and society it inhibits his ability to use the sex energy (kama or shakti) for the far superior and lasting creative effects it can produce. Anyone who has sex for sex's sake is a fool who trades in a diamond for a bag of spinach. Addiction to sex inhibits the ability of the soul to transcend during meditation and experience the far superior joy of eternal bliss. If the shakti energy is tied up in the lower chakras governing lust, anger and greed (the lower three) the kundalini pranic fire sleeping in the muladhar chakra (root chakra) will not awake taking the consciousness or jiva with it. The process of transcending is withdrawing the prana from the mind and senses, (pratyahara) this is not possible if strong attachments are impeding the withdrawal of this pranic force. Samskaras (impressions or memories from sex indulgences, etc.) exist in the subconscious mind and have their correlation in the physical body (MMY calls these stresses), these vrittis (whirlpools in the chitta or mind) must be stilled (nirodha) through the application of Patanjali's 8 limbs of Yoga, chastity being in one of these limbs! Until these vrittis (or sleeping elephants as MMY calls them) are completely stilled the prana will not withdraw and take the soul or jiva to transcendental consciousness. Through *grace* during TM and *effort* through living a moral ethical life as recommended by Patanjali, salvation (freedom from the wheel of birth and death, samsara) are possible. You can't have your cake and eat it too! Either you live a good life and have sex for the reasons it was created in marriage with the view to children in the Grahasta period of life (one of four of life's stages) and be happy and have good meditations or, you slip into addictions which rob the soul of its peace of mind and hold one in material slavery. Sex for sex's sake is inconsistent with the spiritual life... Come on over here Billy honey, I think you need some lovin'. Let me tell you sweetie, all you got to offer is 'chump change' compared to the almighty presence of God; and it certainly isn't love! I hate to disappoint you but, a woman's 'love' is not the ultimate joy that life has to offer and don't expect me to grovel for itLove, what an overworked word, gads! 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: 'The Shiva Sutras'
Silly Willy: On Nov 21, 2008, at 8:57 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote: Vaj wrote: It helps to have an experiential understanding of the different states of consciousness being expressed in the two different types of texts, The transcendental state is the state being discussed in the Shiva Sutras and there is only one transcendental state of consciousness. You can get an experiential unsterstanding of the transcendental state by practicing transcendental meditation. Willy the word transcendental is an English word and does not appear in the Shiva sutras of Vasagupta. It's actually left undefined in TM- speak in terms of Sanskrit equivalents so it could be applied to whatever the Marsh-man wanted. Great for marketing your product, bad for authenticity. yoga and nondualism. They're different states of consciousness. According to the Shiva Sutras, there are three states of conciousness, Trika, but there is also a fourth state, Turiya, the non-dual state. The purpose of practicing yoga is to experience this non-dual state. Willy, it's the approach to that state that differs. Although one can intellectually understand it, it really is only clear if you are actually experientially familiar with the states of consciousness and their POV. You can read the Shiva Sutras and you can read commentaries by the Lachsmanjoo, but until you've reached the transcendental state, you will not understand the non-dual state of Turiya. Unfortunately for your typically weak hypothesis the word transcendental is a moving target. It can mean whatever you want it to mean. You need to actually refer to a source word in the original text, not a vague or universal adjective in English--and these would have to be in synch with realizers and the way-of-seeing of the text you're referring to--you do neither. Methinks you're falling for the very common fallacy of other TMer TB's on this list, trying to argue from a vague but attractive English marketing term! :-) Well at least we know you were sold! To the ignorant it would just sound like nit-picking. Only the ignorant need to nit-pick - especaiily those who have not experienced the transcendent, and those who cannot read Sanskrit and those who do not understand that the peractice of TM is the best and fasted way to reach the transcendent. What do you think the transcendent means experientially Willy? Wise men like the Swami Lachsmanjoo practice TM as taught by the Marshy, THEN they expound on the various states of consciousness and read the sutras. Actually Swami Lakshman Joo didn't practice TM. But some fools have even tried to connect Trika literature to TM. Swami Lakshman Joo meditated with his eyes wide open. I'm guessing, but I think you might want to get checked Willy. Since you seem to speak Texan, you might want to have an English-Texan translator available!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe you should keep your pie hole shut for about a week and stop this incessant trolling! gullible fool wrote: What would she eat her pies with? She could give up eating the pies for a week or so and just follow the rules set up by the three moderators and one informant. I don't make the rules around here - apparently we voted for the rules so we could talk about Sarah Palin for seventy-five posts a week. Maybe we should just vote on dropping the fifty rule and let people post anything they want to - nobody seems to object when Judy calls other people liars without the slightest evidence, so what's the point? Let the people have all the pies they want. Obviously the fifty rule doesn't prevent senseless flames. Let us eat the cake and get rid of the FFL cops! I mean, nobody has anything to say, Dick already proved that. ++ In the context of cosmic significance, how big a deal is an extra post or two. There are obviously some great minds here but, at times, it looks like they are idling or, running on screen saver. N.
[FairfieldLife] Re: For You Dick Lovers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: Six part 1994 BBC documentary on Philip K Dick: Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJehaCfnXHE Billy put me off of loving Dick. Say it ain't so. The world is a better place if that ain't so sweet thang.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What is a sexaholic?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Billy, you remind me of myself 35 years ago. You're afraid of the emotional intimacy of a sexual relationship so you spout all this spiritual nonsense that, while very true, is also adharmic for the majority of people. If you're truly celibate you don't run around lecturing people about the joys of semen retention. The only reason I brought it up is it needs to be said! There is not enough masculine values in our World and society, this is one! Hercules was a mythical hero who embodied these masculine virtues. I hope you haven't given up on yourself, after all, time is the most precious capital we have here on earth and winning the battle between good (harmony with the laws of nature) and evil (ego based willfullness) is a battle that must be waged and must be won! What do you think the Bhagavad Gita was all about? You need to examine your motivation for your emotional isolation from others you are intrinsically attracted to and stop spouting spiritual claptrap. If you masturbate at all, your post is a fraud. Now, I know you're going to tell us how you don't masturbate, but you know that's not true, right? Love and marriage in the context of the laws of nature (or the will of God) is a source of inspiration and happiness, I haven't achieved that but the foundation of that is spiritual and moral growth, since I started actually practicing the virtues associated with Yoga (yama and niyama) I have made remarkable progress!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count
She could give up eating the pies for a week or so and just follow the rules set up by the three moderators and one informant One moderator. There should be a two-day moratorium on the pie abstinence. We can't ask anyone to skip eating the pies on the Thanksgiving holiday and Friday should be available for the leftovers. Let us eat the cake and get rid of the FFL cops! One FFL cop. Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no `you,' only love. - Amma --- On Sat, 11/22/08, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, November 22, 2008, 9:33 PM Maybe you should keep your pie hole shut for about a week and stop this incessant trolling! gullible fool wrote: What would she eat her pies with? She could give up eating the pies for a week or so and just follow the rules set up by the three moderators and one informant. I don't make the rules around here - apparently we voted for the rules so we could talk about Sarah Palin for seventy-five posts a week. Maybe we should just vote on dropping the fifty rule and let people post anything they want to - nobody seems to object when Judy calls other people liars without the slightest evidence, so what's the point? Let the people have all the pies they want. Obviously the fifty rule doesn't prevent senseless flames. Let us eat the cake and get rid of the FFL cops! I mean, nobody has anything to say, Dick already proved that. 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: Is Hillary jerking Obama's chain a bit?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: snip i think B. is a lot more important to you than he is to anyone else here. he's just a guy who writes stuff. who cares what his motives might be? he only has the power to influence you if you grant him that power. i don't. and maybe you ought to consider that option too, especially in light of your opinions about him. Uh, he doesn't influence me at all. I think you've missed my point completely. It's about social responsibility, which you don't seem to want to have anything to do with. Never mind. ok, but let me ask you this- do you think one word of what you have written has changed the thinking of, or the life outlook of your nemesis, B, here? Nope. It would take a bunch of people indicating on a regular basis that his lies were unacceptable, and refusing to interact with him until he stopped telling them, for him to change, and even then it would only be his behavior that changed, not his thinking or life outlook. If he were ever to change his thinking or life outlook, it wouldn't be on the basis of what anybody said to him, but because he had had some kind of personal epiphany that made him realize what an appalling phony he was. We can always hope for that, but in the meantime a change in his behavior would make this forum a lot more pleasant. snip although you have some good things to say sometimes, as does B., both of you have built these elaboarate fantasies in your respective minds that you are somehow widely read and followed by a large audience here I won't speak for Barry (although it's obvious from his posts that he's a chronic fantasist), but I certainly have no such fantasy. ok-- thanks for mentioning that.
[FairfieldLife] Debunking the myth of the $70-per-hour autoworker
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=1026e955-541c-4aa6-bcf2-56dfc3323682 Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no `you,' only love. - Amma
