[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: CSA
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: Kinda close to hog heaven, no? Hog heaven? I have only a vague recollection of a hog heaven sign somewhere north of FF on Highway 1. If there's a large-scale hog operation in this area, we're certainly not smelling it down here on 155th street, directly south of the greenhouses. Alex, how do you like the big pig's attire? The people who live on that property love their pig. They dress it up in seasonal costumes. It has appeared as the Easter Bunny, a Halloween witch, and Santa. They should dress it as a pork chop. Now, that would be funny. Anyway it's one of the more interesting things to see driving north on HWY 1. I don't get any whiff of hog confinement when I drive by there. On my way up to Iowa City this morning, I made a point of looking out for that place. The name is actually Hog Haven Agri Sales, and it doesn't appear to me to be a hog confinement operation. I seldom travel up that way, and I have never noticed the pig statue dressed up in seasonal attire.
[FairfieldLife] MUM Enrollment etc
I've been thinking of how little can be inferred from the titles of FFL posts as we wind our way through topics completely unrelated to the original title. Thinking of this, I just entered MUM Enrollment into Bing.com and guess what came up as the third (!) entry? Just read between the lines! _ Message #225652 Re: MUM enrollment etc Saturday, July 25th, 2009 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: Regarding male Teachers; I would love to meet a female Lama, are there any ? If not, why not ? Nabby is still reluctant to admit to being gay, but I think it's a positive step that he has admitted his...uh...fondness for animals, so here's a female lama I think he'd hit it off with: [http://uweb.und.nodak.edu/~andrew.thole/BusterLlama.jpg] I love her. She is one cute llama! ___ In Google, the first two (!) entries were from the MUM Enrollment thread - but from a few days ago. I cannot imagine what someone who is looking for MUM enrollment numbers would think as s/he sees these entries.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Name one female Buddhist Lama
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool ffl...@... wrote: An equally important high lama, the last Karmapa, took an important role in Pema Chödrön's ordination. But was he approved by the Dalai Lama? Absolutely. He had the Dalai Lama's official tattoo and everything. [http://www.jetcityorange.com/Buddhism/tattoos/Endless-Knot-and-Lotus.jp\ g] You ain't nuttin' in the Tibetan Buddhist community until you got yer tats.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: I missed the story too, so I'm glad Rick posted it. Thanks again Rick. Here's a a blog about it from Dr. Violet Socks, a feminist, who has a thoughtful perspective on the story : Once again, Raunchy has posted an opinion by a feminist but without posting her photo, so we can add data to our ongoing study of whether they are mainly homely or not. I rectify the situation by posting Dr. Sock's own bio below, with obviously fake but entertaining photo. I actually like this one, because the Virginia blogster seems 1) to have a sense of humor, and 2) to be aware that she is a completely-made-up creation with no credibility whatsoever. That's a rare quality in a blogger, much less a feminist blogger. Dr. Violet Socks (currently deceased) is a fictional character and the author of the blog Reclusive Leftist. In her youth she was a bonne vivante and circus performer; now she is a crabbed and eccentric recluse who occupies a small house deep in the forest, where she writes and researches topics of interest. She is accompanied by her faithful dog Molly. Dr. Socks's tenure as the host of Reclusive Leftist has been marked by a number of startling personal transformations, as well as assaults by sinister miscreants. On April 1, 2006, she briefly became a Christian http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/?p=205 following a phone call with Naomi Wolf and a mystical encounter with a paperback copy of The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. This brief but horrifying incident left deep psychic wounds from which neither Dr. Socks nor her dog have ever entirely recovered. In August 2006, Dr. Socks's body was overtaken by a virus http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/?p=364 , which proceeded to seize control of the blog and begin writing posts about Jonas Salk. The Virus's week-long spree came to end when Dr. Socks unexpectedly won the death match for her soul by dragging herself to the computer and posting several pictures of ballet dancers. Barely a month later the blog was occupied by the Ministry of Truth http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/?p=397 while Dr. Socks was attending a debriefing at the Ministry of Love, though it must be stressed that in that case Dr. Socks completely welcomed the attention and was deeply and sincerely grateful to Minitrue for their assistance. Sometime during the late evening hours of August 10, 2007, Dr. Socks was assimilated mid-post http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/?p=637 by Chris Clarke's BlogWarBot, resulting in a new, horrifying entity: Dr. BlogWarBot Socks http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/?page_id=641 . This Borg-like creature maintained control of the blog for several days, until an emergency intervention by a crack team of lolkitteh avatars http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/?p=643 , commanded by the Rev. B. Dagger Lee, succeeded in removing the alien implants from Dr. Socks on the morning of August 14. Death and Removal to the Smoking Lounge [The Apotheosis of Dr. Socks] On August 24, 2007, Dr. Socks was killed http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/?p=652 in a freak accident involving President Bush, Martin Heidegger, and some smack. Since then she has devoted herself to dispensing wisdom from the realm beyond and goofing off in the Spirit Smoking Lounge http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/welcome-to-the-spirit-smoking-lounge/ , where God occasionally drops by to do tequila shots. She is accompanied by her spirit boyfriend, Raoul, and through the magic of fiction her still-very-much-alive dog Molly. Jimmy Carter was in the news this past week because of an editorial http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/12/jimmy-carter-womens\ \ -rights-equality he wrote for the Observer about how godbaggism is used to oppress women. Carter is a lifelong godbag himself, but he left the Baptist Church some time ago when he realized that the dudes running the Southern Baptist Convention weren't going to ease up on the misogyny any time soon. In fact, they were hunkering down and ordering in giant stocks of canned food for the long haul. Jimmy Carter should join the Church of Trope http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/2009/07/19/jimmy-carter-should-join-the\ \ -church-of-trope/ Reclusive Leftist Violet Socks, Sunday, July 19th, 2009 By the way, the timing of Carter's editorial appears to be connected to something The Elders are doing. The Elders, of course, are a group of wizards who were sent by Valar to assist the people of Middle Earth in their contest with Sauron. Since the discords of Melkor they have sought to heal the world of strife and restore the harmonies of Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Ilúvatar. At any rate, The Elders (love that name) are taking on equality for women and girls http://www.theelders.org/ , which is an excellent thing. I am always happy and grateful for any attention to women's rights paid by world leaders. Or wizards. And Carter's
[FairfieldLife] Crowley Breaks Protocol
Sergeant Crowley broke protocol when he responded to a break in at Dr. Gates house. After he established identification of the owner of the house, Gates himself, Crowley was then supposed to have had Gates wait outside while he (Crowley) went back inside with assistance and *clear* the house. This means he was supposed to have completely checked out the house for possible intruders. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090726/ap_on_re_us/us_harvard_scholar_disorderly
[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM enrollment etc
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, scienceofabundance no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: Sorry mate, that's not my experience. I've seen gays agressively getting on to hetero fellows on the tube, expecially young boys, to the effect that the police had to be summoned. Not that there is anything wrong with it... being gay. But they should stay the f... away from heteros not wanting their attention. I don't think you have the faintest idea how fabricated/conjured your responses appear. He really doesn't. Then again, our Nabby also believes that the people on this forum who criticize Maharishi and the TMO are being paid by the CIA to do so. :-) It's a self importance thang. Anyone who believes in something different than he does is doing it to spite him or attack him or steal his energy somehow. It's all about him. You see the same levels of self-important paranoia in TBs of other stripes as well. Raunchy and Judy are *still* trying to claim that someone suggesting that they are so angry that they are in danger of bursting into flames (the well-known phenomenon of spontaneous human combustion) is a death threat. Judy says *with a straight face* that the cop she accuses of entrap- ment lured the black professor out onto his porch *so that* he could arrest him. Cuckoo. Once it's become an established pattern of thinking, the paranoid see nothing *unusual* about their paranoia. They don't think twice about saying stuff like this. Other people, a bit more balanced, listen to what they say and start looking for the tin foil hat.
[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM Enrollment etc
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, scienceofabundance no_re...@... wrote: I've been thinking of how little can be inferred from the titles of FFL posts as we wind our way through topics completely unrelated to the original title. Thinking of this, I just entered MUM Enrollment into Bing.com and guess what came up as the third (!) entry? Just read between the lines! _ Message #225652 Re: MUM enrollment etc Saturday, July 25th, 2009 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: Regarding male Teachers; I would love to meet a female Lama, are there any ? If not, why not ? Nabby is still reluctant to admit to being gay, but I think it's a positive step that he has admitted his...uh...fondness for animals, so here's a female lama I think he'd hit it off with: [http://uweb.und.nodak.edu/~andrew.thole/BusterLlama.jpg] I love her. She is one cute llama! ___ In Google, the first two (!) entries were from the MUM Enrollment thread - but from a few days ago. I cannot imagine what someone who is looking for MUM enrollment numbers would think as s/he sees these entries. I would expect that if the person doing the search were interested in either gay sex or sex with llamas, they would realize that they should definitely enroll at MUM. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM enrollment etc
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, scienceofabundance no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote: So what is the purpose of Gay sex? I mean, why do men have sex with other men? I mean, I can understand men hugging each other to show their mutual love, and even kiss in some cultures, but SEX? Why would you need to have sex with someone of the same sex to show them that you love them? It has something to do with your Willie getting hard. Funny. I like the way you capitalize Willie. Yes, we must honor The Penis. It's a spiritual thing, the same way that Nabby capitalizes He and Him when referring to Maharishi. Gotta honor that which you worship. :-) Billy does the same thing in his original question by capitalizing Gay. That must means that subcon- sciously he worships gayness. And who knows *what* his use of full caps for SEX must mean. He does seem to talk about SEX more often than any other fearful celibate I've ever met. Just joshin' wit ya, Billy. But I do have a reply to your question. Simply turn your last sentence around: Why would you NOT have sex with someone of the same sex to show them that you love them? Or even more fundamental, Why would you NOT have sex with someone of ANY sex to show them that you love them? Please answer this for us. My suspicion is that you cannot do so without 1) appealing to some authority or scripture that you believe in, and 2) using that authority or scripture to pretend that there is something inherently wrong or bad about sex unless it is done in circumstances that the authority or scripture wants it done in. My opinion? Sex is no more wrong or bad than any other bodily function. Only thinking makes it so. To believe that sex is inherently wrong and that you should abstain from it makes as much sense as believing that taking a dump is wrong and that you should abstain from that, too. It's OK to believe the latter, I guess, but all that happens is that you wind up becoming all anal retentive and full of shit. My feeling is that the same thing happens if you believe in the former as well. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can Machines Develop Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: To All: Machines can play chess, and compute equations in nanoseconds. But at the present state of technology, it can't think and understand the meaning of, I think, therefore I am. But scientists are worried, nonetheless of the future possibilities of machines. I am always amused when TMers trot out Descartes' old saw as if it were profound philosophy. Espec- ially because if their TM practice were working the way they claim it is, they should have the experience of disproving it twice daily. You am, therefore you think. Or you am and not think, depending on the circumstances. Stop trying to put Descartes before the horse... As mortals living in the internet age, isn't it now 'you post therefore you are' and when your ISP link goes down it's then, 'publish or perish'. The soul search of the weekly 50 post limit we see. A spiritual practice in FFL guideline for some like a guided meditation for others. Thanks for the mindful post Turq. JGD, -D in FF
[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM Enrollment etc
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, scienceofabundance no_re...@... wrote: I've been thinking of how little can be inferred from the titles of FFL posts as we wind our way through topics completely unrelated to the original title. Yea, seems is an un-written FFL policy guideline of 'don't ask, don't tell, don't change the subject heading' and then really see who is really reading all this stuff. Is just the way it goes. Got to act quick or it all goes by fast. 4instance, i did had some anecdotal things from the street about enrollments at MSAE to post back a while ago that i dropped instead once the original thread about MUM enrollment got overrun with the homosexual stuff. But the homosexual stuff at MUM became interesting pulp in its moment instead. Is just the way of it on the internet publishing. I do find it helps a lot to set my spam filter against the non-meditators on the FFL list. Is way more useful and effective to just read the posts of the practicing meditators. When non-meditators actualy have something worthwhile to write it gets picked up in the echo later by better more germain meditating FFL writers. JGD, -D Thinking of this, I just entered MUM Enrollment into Bing.com and guess what came up as the third (!) entry? Just read between the lines! _ Message #225652 Re: MUM enrollment etc Saturday, July 25th, 2009 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: Regarding male Teachers; I would love to meet a female Lama, are there any ? If not, why not ? Nabby is still reluctant to admit to being gay, but I think it's a positive step that he has admitted his...uh...fondness for animals, so here's a female lama I think he'd hit it off with: [http://uweb.und.nodak.edu/~andrew.thole/BusterLlama.jpg] I love her. She is one cute llama! ___ In Google, the first two (!) entries were from the MUM Enrollment thread - but from a few days ago. I cannot imagine what someone who is looking for MUM enrollment numbers would think as s/he sees these entries.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can Machines Develop Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_...@... wrote: To All: Machines can play chess, and compute equations in nanoseconds. But at the present state of technology, it can't think and understand the meaning of, I think, therefore I am. But scientists are worried, nonetheless of the future possibilities of machines. I am always amused when TMers trot out Descartes' old saw as if it were profound philosophy. Espec- ially because if their TM practice were working the way they claim it is, they should have the experience of disproving it twice daily. You am, therefore you think. Or you am and not think, depending on the circumstances. Stop trying to put Descartes before the horse...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can Machines Develop Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: To All: Machines can play chess, and compute equations in nanoseconds. But at the present state of technology, it can't think and understand the meaning of, I think, therefore I am. But scientists are worried, nonetheless of the future possibilities of machines. I am always amused when TMers trot out Descartes' old saw as if it were profound philosophy. Espec- ially because if their TM practice were working the way they claim it is, they should have the experience of disproving it twice daily. You am, therefore you think. Or you am and not think, depending on the circumstances. Stop trying to put Descartes before the horse... As mortals living in the internet age, isn't it now 'you post therefore you are' and when your ISP link goes down it's then, 'publish or perish'. Speaking from recent experience, the Descartesean Internet Meme would be more like, My packet is received, therefore I am. In a Descartesean uni- verse, it's more blessed to Receive than Send. I know this because at the company I consult for, which is still transitioning from privately-held French AI company to being owned by Big American Company, as the result of a software glitch my email went kerflooey for the last two weeks. I could Send all I wanted, but no one was receiv- ing any of my emails. It was a fascinating experience. Software design conversations went on as always, with me believing that my comments on them had been considered but rejected, so that's why they never came up again and obviously Bad Ideas continued to be discussed as Done Deals. I began to self-censor, thinking, Hey, if they didn't agree with me that that last Bad Idea was a Bad Idea, maybe I shouldn't point out these next three or four Bad Ideas. Finally I just shut up and allowed the Bad Ideas to work their way into the product design. After all, my paychecks were still arriving, so what the heck. Then someone said, Barry, what do you think about all this?, and I finally figured out that no one had been getting any of my emails. I got on the horn to the Help Desk, got the problem fixed, and now most of the Bad Ideas are in the trashcan where they belong and not in the product spec. All is well with the universe again. :-) But to bring the situation back to Fairfield Life, doesn't it often seem to be a kind of computer built with WOM chips as well? (If ROMs are Read Only Memory, WOMs are Write Only Memory). We've got people here who write, write, write and whom -- for one understandable reason or another -- never get replied to. The other members have either stopped reading the things they write, or have realized that it is never worth their time to reply to anything that they write, so in essense these FFL posters are in continual Write Only mode. It's like the ultimate CyberSolipsistic Universe: I write...therefore I am. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Please give the TM explanation for why marriage makes sex OK
One of the reasons I have not given up on FFL yet is that I never tire of hearing the TM explanations for things. You know what I'm talking about. The TM explanations are the euphemisms used by long-term TMers to pretend that the things they clearly believe are caused by magic are NOT really caused by magic but by something else, something scientific. For example, TM is not properly described as Sitting with one's eyes closed twice a day, as a result of which all prob- lems disappear as a result of magic. That would be inaccurate. The accurate TM explanation is that TM somehow releases stress, and as a result all problems disappear. That is the real TM explanation for why all long-term TMers on this forum obviously have no more problems. :-) Yagyas and pujas are described similarly. You're not bowing down to gods and goddesses and making offerings to them, you are merely enlivening impulses of creative intelligence or laws of nature by focusing on them. These impulses of creative intelligence then do all the work as you bring yourself into alignment with them...it's not magic...nope. So here's my challenge to John (jr_esq), to BillyG, to Nabby, and to all of those other long-term TMers who have stated clearly on this forum that sex outside of marriage is a sin and thus bad, but sex inside marriage is *not* a sin, and in fact verging on good. EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THIS WORKS. What is the TM explanation for how this transformation occurs, so that the *same* act that was bad before a ceremony in which a few words are said somehow becomes good (or at the least, acceptable) after a ceremony in which a few words are said. This sounds a lot like a belief in magic to me. Then again, believing that mantras are somehow special and that TM resolves all problems without doing anything about the prob- lems sounds like a belief in magic to me, and believing that yagyas do anything *at all* sounds like a belief in magic to me. You've got pat TM explanations for all these other things, explanations that you have convinced yourselves are scientific, so that you don't have to admit to believing in magic. So what's your TM explanation for believing that marriage turns sex from something bad into something good? HOW DOES THIS **WORK**??? What are the scientific principles that you believe *make* it work? I'm really interested in hearing your TM explanations. I suspect they'll be real doozies.
[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM enrollment etc
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: It's a spiritual thing, the same way that Nabby capitalizes He and Him when referring to Maharishi. Gotta honor that which you worship. :-) Billy does the same thing in his original question by capitalizing Gay. That must means that subcon- sciously he worships gayness. Pretty good turq do you work for 1-800-psychic too? And who knows *what* his use of full caps for SEX must mean. He does seem to talk about SEX more often than any other fearful celibate I've ever met. Just tryin' to save you lost souls! :-) Just joshin' wit ya, Billy. But I do have a reply to your question. Simply turn your last sentence around: Why would you NOT have sex with someone of the same sex to show them that you love them? Because sex is for procreation, do babies come from your arse? Or even more fundamental, Why would you NOT have sex with someone of ANY sex to show them that you love them? Seems more like self-love to me, is it not so? Please answer this for us. My suspicion is that you cannot do so without 1) appealing to some authority or scripture that you believe in, and 2) using that authority or scripture to pretend that there is something inherently wrong or bad about sex unless it is done in circumstances that the authority or scripture wants it done in. Authority is for wimps, freedom is for the bold and carefree! My opinion? Sex is no more wrong or bad than any other bodily function. Only thinking makes it so. How about if you crap on someones face, does just 'thinking' make it bad? To believe that sex is inherently wrong and that you should abstain from it makes as much sense as believing that taking a dump is wrong and that you should abstain from that, too. You just mis-characterized what I said, I never even suggested that sex was inherently wrong, only in the improper context, life has its rules, deal with it! It's OK to believe the latter, I guess, but all that happens is that you wind up becoming all anal retentive and full of shit. My feeling is that the same thing happens if you believe in the former as well. :-) I like the way you make up your own rules,.. I think you feel threatened by Religion and frankly you should, it is inimical to the ego, why should we give up all the fun we've been havin' right? For fools rush in where angels fear to tread..yada, yada, gotta go. Going up to Lake Arrowhead for the weekend...adios.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Please give the TM explanation for why marriage makes sex OK
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: One of the reasons I have not given up on FFL yet is that I never tire of hearing the TM explanations for things. You know what I'm talking about. The TM explanations are the euphemisms used by long-term TMers to pretend that the things they clearly believe are caused by magic are NOT really caused by magic but by something else, something scientific. For example, TM is not properly described as Sitting with one's eyes closed twice a day, as a result of which all prob- lems disappear as a result of magic. That would be inaccurate. The accurate TM explanation is that TM somehow releases stress, and as a result all problems disappear. That is the real TM explanation for why all long-term TMers on this forum obviously have no more problems. :-) Yagyas and pujas are described similarly. You're not bowing down to gods and goddesses and making offerings to them, you are merely enlivening impulses of creative intelligence or laws of nature by focusing on them. These impulses of creative intelligence then do all the work as you bring yourself into alignment with them...it's not magic...nope. So here's my challenge to John (jr_esq), to BillyG, to Nabby, and to all of those other long-term TMers who have stated clearly on this forum that sex outside of marriage is a sin and thus bad, but sex inside marriage is *not* a sin, and in fact verging on good. EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THIS WORKS. What is the TM explanation for how this transformation occurs, so that the *same* act that was bad before a ceremony in which a few words are said somehow becomes good (or at the least, acceptable) after a ceremony in which a few words are said. This sounds a lot like a belief in magic to me. Then again, believing that mantras are somehow special and that TM resolves all problems without doing anything about the prob- lems sounds like a belief in magic to me, and believing that yagyas do anything *at all* sounds like a belief in magic to me. You've got pat TM explanations for all these other things, explanations that you have convinced yourselves are scientific, so that you don't have to admit to believing in magic. So what's your TM explanation for believing that marriage turns sex from something bad into something good? HOW DOES THIS **WORK**??? What are the scientific principles that you believe *make* it work? I'm really interested in hearing your TM explanations. I suspect they'll be real doozies. A marriage license alone does not sanctify sex, so you are right, many couples in marriage are just in it for the sex anyway. So a marriage certificate alone does not define that which is chaste or unchaste, (or OK as you put it). Only your conscience can make that judgment, though in general we think of marriage as the context for the rearing of children, to that degree sex is chaste and good and in harmony with natural law. Sin (or the misuse of sex) can happen in or out of marriage. (Not necessarily a TM explanation, since TM does not have a moral code per se, anthough there is a general suggestion that one should follow ones own Religion)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Satan-the negative power!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote: Lust, anger, greed and a host of other kleshas (obstructions to spiritual progress-also dosha) fulfill Satan's mission to keep spiritual souls bound to the wheel of karma (samsara), commonly called 'damnation', to reincarnate indefinitely. The moment the soul wakes up to his spiritual destiny Satan becomes alarmed, he might lose one to the almighty and finally lose ALL to the almighty, then what use would there be for him? And so the cosmic drama continues and man is slammed against the hard rocks of ignorance and duality until he obeys natural law and cooperates with the Divine Plan and realizes his oneness with God. Civilizations that fell due to their violation of natural law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis Hey, this is Bruno...don't mess with us, and we won't mess with you... We been at this game for a long time, like from the beginning of time... So, don't think you're going to change anything...'cause we're winning...just look around...you can't even get this thing with health care passed...humans are really not up to par, with playing this game, with us...we just been at it longer... Hey, why don't you just follow the example of two of our prime players...Donald Trump and Micky Jagger...we take care of them, very well...they show us respect, and follow our instructions... So, go back to your boring life...stay out of our business and we'll stay out of yours... -El Diablo Satan dog ;-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liSseCH6_p8
[FairfieldLife] Re: Please give the TM explanation for why marriage makes sex OK
-Although, at one time, marriage was about love and commitment...'Until Death do we Part...' Now, it's not much more than a business contract... No more, no less... That's all it is... Sex has little to do with it... The dog down the street, has lot's of sex... Last time I checked, he had absolutely no idea what a marriage license was...
[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM enrollment etc
For the record, Billy, even though we disagree on most things, I love the way you are willing to get into over the things you believe, and often in a fun way. I will try to do the same. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: It's a spiritual thing, the same way that Nabby capitalizes He and Him when referring to Maharishi. Gotta honor that which you worship. :-) Billy does the same thing in his original question by capitalizing Gay. That must means that subcon- sciously he worships gayness. Pretty good turq do you work for 1-800-psychic too? Why *did* you capitalize Gay? :-) Do you think it's a proper noun, or in your belief system, an improper noun? And who knows *what* his use of full caps for SEX must mean. He does seem to talk about SEX more often than any other fearful celibate I've ever met. Just tryin' to save you lost souls! :-) Why *did* you put SEX in full caps? :-) Just joshin' wit ya, Billy. But I do have a reply to your question. Simply turn your last sentence around: Why would you NOT have sex with someone of the same sex to show them that you love them? Because sex is for procreation, do babies come from your arse? Sex is not *just* for procreation. In the vedic literature, in which, BTW, babies have come from places *far* stranger than my ass :-), gods and goddesses are gettin' it on all the time, with nary a baby in sight. And I don't remember any mention of the *offspring* of Krishna diddling a thousand milkmaids at once. Did Krishna just have low motility and weak sperm, ya think? Or could there have been some *other* reason he was gettin' it on with these babes? :-) Or even more fundamental, Why would you NOT have sex with someone of ANY sex to show them that you love them? Seems more like self-love to me, is it not so? We seem to have finally arrived at the source of your problem, Billy. Self love is what you do at night to yourself. Sex is what you do to and with someone else. :-) Please answer this for us. My suspicion is that you cannot do so without 1) appealing to some authority or scripture that you believe in, and 2) using that authority or scripture to pretend that there is something inherently wrong or bad about sex unless it is done in circumstances that the authority or scripture wants it done in. Authority is for wimps, freedom is for the bold and carefree! Above you suggested that those who indulge in sex in improper circumstances were lost souls. That doesn't sound much like a bold and carefree belief to me...it sound more like someone believing some- thing he's been told by someone or something he treats as an authority. My opinion? Sex is no more wrong or bad than any other bodily function. Only thinking makes it so. How about if you crap on someones face, does just 'thinking' make it bad? There are probably societies on this planet where crapping on someone's face is viewed as polite. Hell, there are probably places in my town where this is viewed as polite. :-) To believe that sex is inherently wrong and that you should abstain from it makes as much sense as believing that taking a dump is wrong and that you should abstain from that, too. You just mis-characterized what I said, I never even suggested that sex was inherently wrong, only in the improper context, life has its rules, deal with it! And you know these rules how? I'll wait. Again, you will be unable to come up with any that are not based on 1) belief, and 2) citing authority of some kind. Are they rules that affect me if I don't share your beliefs, or accept your authorities? If you say Yes, please explain WHY. It's OK to believe the latter, I guess, but all that happens is that you wind up becoming all anal retentive and full of shit. My feeling is that the same thing happens if you believe in the former as well. :-) I like the way you make up your own rules,.. Thanks. I kinda like it, too. :-) Seriously, it feels a lot more natural than doing what YOU do, which is allow *someone else* to make up all the rules for you. I think you feel threatened by Religion... I am no more threatened by religion than I am any other form of fiction. ...and frankly you should, it is inimical to the ego, why should we give up all the fun we've been havin' right? Why, indeed? You have still failed to answer this question. All you have done is what I suggested you would do: cite your own beliefs, and then an authority -- in this case, religion. What argument can you present to someone like myself who believes that both your beliefs and your religion are fiction? Please try to do better than, Buh...buh...but you're wrong and I'm right. :-) :-) :-) For fools rush in where angels fear to tread..yada, yada, gotta go. Going up to Lake Arrowhead for the
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women
When Jimmie Carter was President, the country still had some of it's soul left... Unfortunately, the CIA and the Hostage Crisis Rescue Mission, and Reagan's secret dealings with Iran, tilted the election of 1980. Since Reagan sold out everything that could possibly be sold out, to corporate interests, the soul of the United States, is now an entity called the Abyss... I visited Plains, Georgia, one time, and the humble Carter Library there, which is housed in his old school building.. A really sweet town, and a really sweet library... Don't have any interest whatsoever, in ever visiting the Reagan Library. Robert.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Please give the TM explanation for why marriage makes sex OK
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wg...@... wrote: A marriage license alone does not sanctify sex... What -- or who -- does? Show some balls...answer the question. ...so you are right, many couples in marriage are just in it for the sex anyway. And is this a bad thing, or improper in some way? If you say Yes, please explain WHY. So a marriage certificate alone does not define that which is chaste or unchaste, (or OK as you put it). What -- or who -- does? Only your conscience can make that judgment... Based on WHAT, exactly. For example, my conscience could not possibly be more clear and comfortable with having sex, in or out of marriage. Does that mean that it is chaste for me? If you believe what you say above, you have to answer Yes. If you do not choose to answer Yes, and now want to say that although my conscience is clear there is something or someone *else* that deter- mines what is chaste or unchaste, you have yet to explain to us what exactly that is. Is it G...G...God? :-) If so, why are you afraid to say so? And if you believe that the agency that determines what is chaste and unchaste **IS** God, then how do you know what He/She/It thinks on the subject? Again, you've come down to 1) belief, and 2) citing authority. Real bold and free of you, Billy. :-) ...though in general we think of marriage as the context for the rearing of children, to that degree sex is chaste and good and in harmony with natural law. Who is this we that you speak of, Billy? *I* certainly don't think of marriage as merely the context for the rearing of children, and I know that I am joined in this by billions of others on this planet. You seem to then go on and suggest that if these married people are NOT rearing children, then their sex is unchaste and NOT in harmony with natural law. Is this really what you believe? Children = chaste and in accordance with natural law? No Children = unchaste and in violation of natural law? Sin (or the misuse of sex) can happen in or out of marriage. I'm pretty sure how you'll answer, but is pleasure one of the misuses of sex? (Not necessarily a TM explanation, since TM does not have a moral code per se, anthough there is a general suggestion that one should follow ones own Religion) I have no religion of my own. Never have. What would you suggest I do in this case? Since I believe that religion is fiction, should I pick a favorite piece of fiction and follow *that* instead of a religion? :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: CSA
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: Kinda close to hog heaven, no? Hog heaven? I have only a vague recollection of a hog heaven sign somewhere north of FF on Highway 1. If there's a large-scale hog operation in this area, we're certainly not smelling it down here on 155th street, directly south of the greenhouses. Alex, how do you like the big pig's attire? The people who live on that property love their pig. They dress it up in seasonal costumes. It has appeared as the Easter Bunny, a Halloween witch, and Santa. They should dress it as a pork chop. Now, that would be funny. Anyway it's one of the more interesting things to see driving north on HWY 1. I don't get any whiff of hog confinement when I drive by there. On my way up to Iowa City this morning, I made a point of looking out for that place. The name is actually Hog Haven Agri Sales, and it doesn't appear to me to be a hog confinement operation. I seldom travel up that way, and I have never noticed the pig statue dressed up in seasonal attire. The Guy needs to change his sign: 'Our Pigs Are Pure' These pigs are bathed in the atmosphere of the super-radiance of the enlightened in Fairfield.. Our pigs are the purest pigs, in the land... Heck, our pigs are 'Kosher for Passover'...
[FairfieldLife] 'In just a few hours, they will get me dead!'
'Samskaras and Scars' Last lifetime, I had realized I had made a mega-mistake... I had just a few hours to think about this, and say goodbye... I was killed in the most vicious way, by the coldest hearted of persons... There was not a second, really to process this traumatic end of: My mortal existence. In this lifetime, I have had the luxury of having lot’s of time... Infinite amounts of time... To ponder all of this... And, still the many years, in this present body. And still those scars are not healed... Perhaps they never will... Harry 'Chaim' Steinschneider
[FairfieldLife] Vedic sexuality
The three Gunä(s), the three fundamental tendencies of Prakriti, are to be found in all that exists. All aspects of the divine are reflected in creation. The primordial impulses are expressed in the masculine aspect (Purushä-Shivä), substance in the female aspect (Prakiti-Vishnu ). The resulting principle is neutral. It is represented by Brahmâ, the world's artisan, or by Shivä in the aspect of the primordial androgyne. Once a certain level of androgyneity develops in living beings, it is called the Third Nature (Tritiya Prakriti) or the nonmale (napunsaka). Everything that lies between the poles of absolute masculinity and femininity derives from both. Everything is imbued to some extent with this double nature and is thus both male and female. The differentiation between things and beings arises from the degree of masculinity and femininity of their composing elements, with the result that in the complex relationships of the formal world, each aspect or being is male or female in relation to another aspect or state of being. When applied to human society, this principle means that each hierarchical level is masculine with regard to the superior or inferior levels. Thus the king is feminine in relation to a priest and is therefore subservient to him; the merchant is feminine in relation to the king and owes him obedience; the artisan is feminine in relation to the merchant and serves him as a slave. All living beings, stemming from Prakriti, are basically feminine. The adolescent male is feminine in relation to an adult man and only achieves stability as a male when he realizes his identity with the mature man. It is the degree of femininity or masculinity in each person in relation to others that determines his role and function. In order to achieve his potential, everyone must establish his position in relation to those with whom he comes into contact, and thus realize his nature (his Dharmä, a word that basically means conformity with that which one is). The task of the man eager to free himself from the slavery of existence is thus, first of all, to know himself and conform to his own nature in order eventually to liberate himself from it. The ascetics and wise men who saw the godhero Ramä in the forest obtained from him as a reward for their sacrifices the right to be reborn as gopis (female cattleherders) so that they could be his lovers when he returned to earth in the form of Krishna, the incarnation of love. Men and women who are marked by sexual ambivalence have a role other than the transmission of the genetic code, and also have special functions within society. It is largely from among this class of people that shamans, magicians, wandering monks, initiates, holy virgins, priestesses, and also creative artists are recruited. To turn this androgynous aspect to full account, the shaman will dress as a woman and will eventually take a husband. The priests of Cybele dressed as women; some underwent castration, the better to identify themselves with the goddess. Etruscan priestesses wore phalluses. In modern times, Râmäkrishnä (founder of the monastic order that bears his name), a worshiper of the goddess Durgâ, wore feminine clothes for many years as part of his Sâdhanä (his method of spiritual fulfillment). The adoption of female dress by male shamans and priests is a worldwide phenomenon. (...) Intersexuals, in whom certain male and female aspects are combined, are considered holy because they evoke the primordial androgyneity, the wholeness of principles. Corresponding to the neuter principle represented by the god Brahma, the creator in the cosmic trinity, they are particularly adapted to artisanal or artistic creation. In all societies intersexuals play an important part in literature, poetry, and the arts. In their sections on fertility, the practical works on Yoga, such as the Shivä Svarodayä, explain the psychological, physical, and astrological circumstances that give rise to intersexuals. They speak of fourteen nonreproductive categories (napunsaka), outlined by V. S. Apte in his Sanskrit dictionary. Castration, impotence, continence, and homosexuality are various forms of exclusion from genetic continuity which affect man as an individual, but even more as a link in the genetic chain, for these traits break the continuity of that chain and destroy one of the prime functions of the being of flesh. Nevertheless, this break in the chain is also part of the plan. The Greek word corresponding to napunsaka is eunychos, meaning he who guards the marriage bed; that is, he who protects the virtue of women while the menfolk, the warriors, are absent. There is no implication here of the emasculation involved in the modern term eunuch. It was thus a misrepresentation of the Evangelist's words (Matthew 19:1012) to use the word eunuch (in place of
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: CSA
(snip) Just one more suggestion for those good folks at 'Hog Heaven'... Paint a big fat sign, that says: 'Bevan Eats Here!' Then get a photograph of Bevan, in a nice frame, inside the store, shaking hands with the owner... Like they used to have in New York, with Frank Sinatra shaking hands with the owner of 'Mamma Leoni's'... Something like that. Ahh, so good, it was... (And a good Holy Sunday, to ya, Sarah, and... to all those good Roman Soldiers for Christ, somewhere out there...) r.g. On my way up to Iowa City this morning, I made a point of looking out for that place. The name is actually Hog Haven Agri Sales, and it doesn't appear to me to be a hog confinement operation. I seldom travel up that way, and I have never noticed the pig statue dressed up in seasonal attire. The Guy needs to change his sign: 'Our Pigs Are Pure' These pigs are bathed in the atmosphere of the super-radiance of the enlightened in Fairfield.. Our pigs are the purest pigs, in the land... Heck, our pigs are 'Kosher for Passover'...
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'In just a few hours, they will get me dead!'
Robert, Tell us more. Are you O.K.? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii...@... wrote: 'Samskaras and Scars' Last lifetime, I had realized I had made a mega-mistake... I had just a few hours to think about this, and say goodbye... I was killed in the most vicious way, by the coldest hearted of persons... There was not a second, really to process this traumatic end of: My mortal existence. In this lifetime, I have had the luxury of having lotâs of time... Infinite amounts of time... To ponder all of this... And, still the many years, in this present body. And still those scars are not healed... Perhaps they never will... Harry 'Chaim' Steinschneider
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: CSA
Robert, Good to hear you talking about the pigs. Your last post sounded like you were about to do yourself in. What's up with that? And who the hell is Harry 'Chaim' Steinschneider? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii...@... wrote: (snip) Just one more suggestion for those good folks at 'Hog Heaven'... Paint a big fat sign, that says: 'Bevan Eats Here!' Then get a photograph of Bevan, in a nice frame, inside the store, shaking hands with the owner... Like they used to have in New York, with Frank Sinatra shaking hands with the owner of 'Mamma Leoni's'... Something like that. Ahh, so good, it was... (And a good Holy Sunday, to ya, Sarah, and... to all those good Roman Soldiers for Christ, somewhere out there...) r.g. On my way up to Iowa City this morning, I made a point of looking out for that place. The name is actually Hog Haven Agri Sales, and it doesn't appear to me to be a hog confinement operation. I seldom travel up that way, and I have never noticed the pig statue dressed up in seasonal attire. The Guy needs to change his sign: 'Our Pigs Are Pure' These pigs are bathed in the atmosphere of the super-radiance of the enlightened in Fairfield.. Our pigs are the purest pigs, in the land... Heck, our pigs are 'Kosher for Passover'...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: CSA
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: Kinda close to hog heaven, no? Hog heaven? I have only a vague recollection of a hog heaven sign somewhere north of FF on Highway 1. If there's a large-scale hog operation in this area, we're certainly not smelling it down here on 155th street, directly south of the greenhouses. Alex, how do you like the big pig's attire? The people who live on that property love their pig. They dress it up in seasonal costumes. It has appeared as the Easter Bunny, a Halloween witch, and Santa. They should dress it as a pork chop. Now, that would be funny. Anyway it's one of the more interesting things to see driving north on HWY 1. I don't get any whiff of hog confinement when I drive by there. On my way up to Iowa City this morning, I made a point of looking out for that place. The name is actually Hog Haven Agri Sales, and it doesn't appear to me to be a hog confinement operation. I seldom travel up that way, and I have never noticed the pig statue dressed up in seasonal attire. Oops! Sorry, Alex. The pig is on Hwy 34 east last seen wearing a 4th of July hat.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: I missed the story too, so I'm glad Rick posted it. Thanks again Rick. Here's a a blog about it from Dr. Violet Socks, a feminist, who has a thoughtful perspective on the story : Once again, Raunchy has posted an opinion by a feminist but without posting her photo, so we can add data to our ongoing study of whether they are mainly homely or not. I rectify the situation by posting Dr. Sock's own bio below, with obviously fake but entertaining photo. Barry, still nelly-fussing over the appearance of females, knowing it doesn't matter to me, insists that posting pictures of feminists somehow proves something. It only proves that Barry, feels threatened by feminists and will do anything he can to discredit them, as if we should judge the value of anyone's ideas, male, female, gay, or straight, for the most superficial of reasons, appearance. Barry's relationship to women never left puberty. He still thinks it's acceptable to make fun of girls using juvenile taunts, Hey! Get a load of the zits on her face. Wow! Is she a Fatso! etc. etc. etc. How asinine can you get? I agree Violet Socks has a great sense of humor but she also writes very insightful commentaries on women's issues, which Barry sidestepped by not mentioning it. Violet made an important observation: What makes me tired is that this not just women! maneuver is still necessary. It makes me tired to realize that it's still not enough to simply say, women are human, and that's why it's wrong to oppress them. We still have to make the case that other people real people, presumably will also benefit. It reminds me of the First Wave of feminism, when these same arguments were being made in almost precisely the same terms. Emancipated women, the suffragists said, would make better mothers and wives, which of course would mean healthier children and happier husbands. That was the argument for treating women like humans: because it would benefit men and children. Two centuries on, and this is still where we are. Barry is perfectly happy living in his imaginary world where women don't get in his face about his sexist pig. Well, hello again. How's your sexist pig today, Barry? Take him for a walk of the beach, did ya? That's great. Whisper sweet nothings in his little pink ears? Beautiful. [http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2270/2432436192_cb98220d54.jpg?v=0]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: I missed the story too, so I'm glad Rick posted it. Thanks again Rick. Here's a a blog about it from Dr. Violet Socks, a feminist, who has a thoughtful perspective on the story : Once again, Raunchy has posted an opinion by a feminist but without posting her photo, so we can add data to our ongoing study of whether they are mainly homely or not. I rectify the situation by posting Dr. Sock's own bio below, with obviously fake but entertaining photo. Barry, still nelly-fussing over the appearance of females... Barry, still rather successfully pushing Raunchy's buttons big-time... :-) ...knowing it doesn't matter to me... ...knowing that it matters to her so much that she's likely to spend 27 lines and over 300 words telling us how much it doesn't matter to her... :-) ...insists that posting pictures of feminists somehow proves something. I would say that it proves that Raunchydog is even more manipulatible than I figured she'd be. :-) She even missed the part where I *complimented* the feminist in question on her humor and her self-effacing humility, which I thought were pretty neat, especially compared to the pseudo- feminist who quoted her. Read what Raunchy claims I said: He still thinks it's acceptable to make fun of girls using juvenile taunts, 'Hey! Get a load of the zits on her face. Wow! Is she a Fatso! etc. etc. etc.' How asinine can you get? I said not a word of this. I paid the lady a COMPLIMENT, ferchrissakes. And yet this is what Raunchy read into what I wrote. I rest my case. She's a nutbag. NOT a woman nutbag or a female nutbag or a feminist nutbag, mind you...just a plain, old, ordinary nutbag. She'd be JUST as crazy if she were a man making up all this stuff that never happened and claiming that it did.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Please give the TM explanation for why marriage makes sex OK
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: One of the reasons I have not given up on FFL yet is that I never tire of hearing the TM explanations for things. From who? Nabby? If you think Nabby is representative of the people on this forum who do TM, Barry, the fantasy world you live in is way more unhinged than I previously thought. Where are these TM explanations you talk about? Because I don't read them. You know what I'm talking about. No, I don't. Does anyone know what Barry is talking about? Methinks, Barry, you are living in your own mind back in 1978. The TM explanations are the euphemisms used by long-term TMers to pretend that the things they clearly believe are caused by magic are NOT really caused by magic but by something else, something scientific. For example, TM is not properly described as Sitting with one's eyes closed twice a day, as a result of which all prob- lems disappear as a result of magic. That would be inaccurate. The accurate TM explanation is that TM somehow releases stress, and as a result all problems disappear. That is the real TM explanation for why all long-term TMers on this forum obviously have no more problems. :-) Yagyas and pujas are described similarly. You're not bowing down to gods and goddesses and making offerings to them, you are merely enlivening impulses of creative intelligence or laws of nature by focusing on them. These impulses of creative intelligence then do all the work as you bring yourself into alignment with them...it's not magic...nope. So here's my challenge to John (jr_esq), to BillyG, to Nabby, and to all of those other long-term TMers who have stated clearly on this forum that sex outside of marriage is a sin and thus bad, but sex inside marriage is *not* a sin, and in fact verging on good. EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THIS WORKS. What is the TM explanation for how this transformation occurs, so that the *same* act that was bad before a ceremony in which a few words are said somehow becomes good (or at the least, acceptable) after a ceremony in which a few words are said. This sounds a lot like a belief in magic to me. Then again, believing that mantras are somehow special and that TM resolves all problems without doing anything about the prob- lems sounds like a belief in magic to me, and believing that yagyas do anything *at all* sounds like a belief in magic to me. You've got pat TM explanations for all these other things, explanations that you have convinced yourselves are scientific, so that you don't have to admit to believing in magic. So what's your TM explanation for believing that marriage turns sex from something bad into something good? HOW DOES THIS **WORK**??? What are the scientific principles that you believe *make* it work? I'm really interested in hearing your TM explanations. I suspect they'll be real doozies.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Hey that's great, Rick. Thanks for posting good news about women's issues. I always liked Carter for his commitment to public service, especially his work with Habitat for Humanity. His willingness to stand on principle, even this late in life, shows he is a man of integrity. It's amazing, how religion, the supposed fountain of love and kindness, breeds such bigotry and hatred toward gays, people of color and women. How do you feel about Carter's stand against abortion, probably the strongest opponent of abortion of all 44 presidents? Shremp is trolling again: Jimmy Carter: Abortion Redux This was an issue that I had to face when I was campaigning 25 years ago. I have always been against abortion; it's not possible for me in my own concept of Christ to believe that Jesus would favor abortion. But at the same time, I have supported the Supreme Court ruling of our country as the law of the land. And the present arrangement, whereby a woman is authorized to have an abortion in the first trimester of the pregnancy, or when the pregnancy is caused by rape or incest -- these are the things that moderates who have beliefs like mine can accept as the present circumstances in our country. The liberality of abortion is anointed by the laws of our country, including the ultimate ruling of the Supreme Court. http://www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/November05/nv110705.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: When disorderly conduct is a cop's judgement call (to intimidate)
bill hicks wrote: Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually ... a racket. So, what did the black professor say to the white cop to get himself arrested?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy Watch :-)
TurquoiseB wrote: Fourteen compulsive gotcha posts so far today. And interestingly, her credibility and interest factor has become so low that even with this number of posts, only one person on the forum has bothered to reply to her. And that was Shemp, because Judy had fallen for a troll of *his*. That's one more than you got with this post. LOL!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Racial profiling and the Gates case
shemp wrote: We shall see whether they support Crowley's and the black officer's report as to what happened. do you have any doubt they will back up the black officer? The bottom line is that it's illegal to make a comment about a cop's mother in public, so Gates got arrested. Gates not only owes the cop an apology, but Gates should be made to pay some money to the cop for slander. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of professors mouthing off and making lewd comments in public about other people's mother. It's no excuse that Gates is a black man.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: I missed the story too, so I'm glad Rick posted it. Thanks again Rick. Here's a a blog about it from Dr. Violet Socks, a feminist, who has a thoughtful perspective on the story : Once again, Raunchy has posted an opinion by a feminist but without posting her photo, so we can add data to our ongoing study of whether they are mainly homely or not. I rectify the situation by posting Dr. Sock's own bio below, with obviously fake but entertaining photo. Barry, still nelly-fussing over the appearance of females... Barry, still rather successfully pushing Raunchy's buttons big-time... :-) ...knowing it doesn't matter to me... ...knowing that it matters to her so much that she's likely to spend 27 lines and over 300 words telling us how much it doesn't matter to her... :-) ...insists that posting pictures of feminists somehow proves something. I would say that it proves that Raunchydog is even more manipulatible than I figured she'd be. :-) She even missed the part where I *complimented* the feminist in question on her humor and her self-effacing humility, which I thought were pretty neat, especially compared to the pseudo- feminist who quoted her. Read what Raunchy claims I said: He still thinks it's acceptable to make fun of girls using juvenile taunts, 'Hey! Get a load of the zits on her face. Wow! Is she a Fatso! etc. etc. etc.' How asinine can you get? I said not a word of this. I paid the lady a COMPLIMENT, ferchrissakes. And yet this is what Raunchy read into what I wrote. I rest my case. She's a nutbag. NOT a woman nutbag or a female nutbag or a feminist nutbag, mind you...just a plain, old, ordinary nutbag. She'd be JUST as crazy if she were a man making up all this stuff that never happened and claiming that it did. Says, Barry, going hysterically, ape-shit I called him out on sexism...again. Don't be fooled folks, the only reason Barry posts pictures of feminists is to discredit them based on their appearance. I mocked him for his sexist piggy behavior and juvenile relationship to women and now he's pissed...again. Get a grip. First he denies implied juvenile taunts about women then he launches into a string of juvenile taunts about me. Now, THAT'S what I call crazy. Maybe Barry should put lipstick on his pig, it needs a make-over.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women
TurquoiseB wrote: 'Hey! Get a load of the zits on her face. Speaking of 'zits', apparently Barry doesn't have much hair left on his head, so we won't be seeing a webcam photo of him anytime soon. I once saw a photo of Barry in a magazine where he was featured as some kind of TMO authority figure. That was back in 1985 when Barry had some hair left. From what I've read here, both Barry's are really a sight to see these days - no hair, no muscles, no guts or abs, just fat and bald, and very envious of anyone, male or female, that was good lookin'. Maybe that's why they want to get rid of the gals here. Are the gals taller than Barry?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: CSA
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: Kinda close to hog heaven, no? Hog heaven? I have only a vague recollection of a hog heaven sign somewhere north of FF on Highway 1. If there's a large-scale hog operation in this area, we're certainly not smelling it down here on 155th street, directly south of the greenhouses. Alex, how do you like the big pig's attire? The people who live on that property love their pig. They dress it up in seasonal costumes. It has appeared as the Easter Bunny, a Halloween witch, and Santa. They should dress it as a pork chop. Now, that would be funny. Anyway it's one of the more interesting things to see driving north on HWY 1. I don't get any whiff of hog confinement when I drive by there. On my way up to Iowa City this morning, I made a point of looking out for that place. The name is actually Hog Haven Agri Sales, and it doesn't appear to me to be a hog confinement operation. I seldom travel up that way, and I have never noticed the pig statue dressed up in seasonal attire. Oops! Sorry, Alex. The pig is on Hwy 34 east last seen wearing a 4th of July hat.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: When disorderly conduct is a cop's judgement call (to intimidate)
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 9:51 AM, WillyTexno_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: bill hicks wrote: Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually ... a racket. So, what did the black professor say to the white cop to get himself arrested? It doesn't matter what he said. In the US, cops have the judgement call when it comes to disorderly conduct. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1912777,00.html This is, after all, the part of the country where Reading The Riot Act and disorderly conduct were both invented, IRRC. A cop has discretion, legal or not, of doing anything between tasering and arresting Gates for assaulting a police officer (everybody saw Gates take a swing at Crowley, right? Wrong?) to just driving away, allowing him to rage. I maintain that had Gates been white, preferably of Irish descent, Crowley would have tried to calm Gates down, explaining the Police Department's duty to protect the resident and his property. It's been pointed out that Crowley didn't clear the property as he should have in such suspicious circumstances. Had he done so, Gates would have been really fuming, charging unlawful search. That he didn't do so shows Crowley isn't much of a cop, despite his great reputation. Obama had it right the first time. Unfortunately Obama played the race card. If he had only been presidential enough to point out that the tide needs to turn. In this land of the Bill of Rights, Freedom of Speech and Home of the Free and the Brave, we allow ourselves as a people to be at the whims of the police. Gates made the mistake of not kissing Crowley's ass, as is expected and required here in these United States. I suppose Obama is used to better treatment from the Chicago Police Department, which I suspect has one of the best PDs money can buy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women
Says, Barry, going hysterically, ape-shit I called him out on sexism...
[FairfieldLife] Re: When disorderly conduct is a cop's judgement call (to intimidate)
bil hicks wrote: It doesn't matter what he said. But isn't it illegal to slander someone in public?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex no_re...@... wrote: TurquoiseB wrote: 'Hey! Get a load of the zits on her face. Speaking of 'zits', apparently Barry doesn't have much hair left on his head, so we won't be seeing a webcam photo of him anytime soon. I once saw a photo of Barry in a magazine where he was featured as some kind of TMO authority figure. That was back in 1985 when Barry had some hair left. From what I've read here, both Barry's are really a sight to see these days - no hair, no muscles, no guts or abs, just fat and bald, and very envious of anyone, male or female, that was good lookin'. Maybe that's why they want to get rid of the gals here. Are the gals taller than Barry? WillyTex, How tall is Barry? I'm 5'6 I have gorgeous gray hair, I'm physically fit, I have all my teeth, beautiful skin, good muscle tone, a healthy sex life and I'm good looking. Do I win? Does that give me more credibility than him? Of course it doesn't. But in Barry's world these are important statistics, especially when he wants to discredit a spit feminist. If Judy and I stopped posting, Barry's sexist pig would shrivel up and die. I think he would miss us poking his pig and want us to come back. However, the upside for him would be fewer apoplectic fits and less blood pressure medication reading our posts.
[FairfieldLife] cutting edge Meditation Research
Fred Travis at MUM seems is a lot like this Daniel Siegel at UCLA. Do these guys talk? Evidently they have a lot in common. Fred Travis : http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2009/may2009/brain.htm Dan Siegel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr4Od7kqDT8 Dr. Dan Siegel, MD, father of modern attachment psychiatry and meditation researcher on Google Tech Talks Personal Growth Series speaks on Mindsight, the new science of personal transformation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr4Od7kqDT8 Dr. Dan Siegel, MD, father of modern attachment psychiatry and meditation researcher on Google Tech Talks Personal Growth Series speaks on Mindsight, the new science of personal transformation. Om, Neurons that fire together wire together as integrative process. Isn't that a definition of meditation? Fabulous stuff vaj. Thanks for posting this link. Seems is very cutting edge. Does comes back again to what are we going to do about that non-meditator unhealthy public influence all around us? Those non-meditators are such a damned drag. Does this guy have public health proposal as a plan to reduce non-meditation? Pay people to meditate like David Lynch Foundation or Howard Settle? Given all the worthy research and thot about it, what would be his policy initiatives towards more mindfulness? Teach it systematically in public schools to each generation and rid the world of non-meditation generation by generation? He's a scientist with no apparent affiliation other than UCLA. Just as mental health policy, he might be able to get away with it. Evidently would change the world. I wish him well. -D in FF
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: Says, Barry, going hysterically, ape-shit I called him out on sexism...again. Raunchy, because you have stupidly made the mistake of trying to be a macho feminist bitch without Big Jude to rush in and rescue you, I am going to take pity on you and explain to you (as I have explained to her in the past, with what will be similar effects) *exactly* what I think of you, and why I do what I do to you. You have no value as a thinking human being to me, because you have never demonstrated that you are one. You do nothing but parrot Other Peoeple's Thoughts on this forum, unless you're writing your poetry. I *understand* that you think the latter is good, and I feel compassion for that belief, but I do not share it. I was, after all, a Poetry major for some time in college. You can call me on whatever you want. I not only allow you to do so, without attempting to refute or deny the names you call me and the faults you project onto me, I consistently taunt you into doing more of it. You fall for EVERY ONE OF THEM. I'm explaining this to you -- even though I know it will do no good -- because this is how Rama used to run the pushing-buttons-for-the-person's-own-good act on us, as his students. He would actually TELL us what he was going to do to us, and then do it, and it would work *anyway*, because our egos and selves (small s) were so locked into them-selves that they thought he was fucking with us about what he was really doing, and not being honest with us. I'm being honest with you. I am PUSHING YOUR HOT BUTTONS. I am doing this in the hope that someday you will realize that they are, in fact, hot buttons -- in the Sanskrit, samskarss -- and that as long as these hot buttons remain hot buttons, and pushable, you remain locked into ignorance and unaware of your own enlightenment. You wear your hot buttons on your sleeve, Raunchy. You *demonstrated* them in this very thread. You claimed that I said things I never said. You only *believed* that I said them because *someone else* said them to you, way back in time, way back when you were growing up. You've never posted a photo of yourself on this forum. I would suggest that there is a reason for this, and that reason is related to why you think that any mention of a feminist's appearance is a personal attack on not only that feminist, but on you. You heard me saying the things you claimed I said *in your head*, but I never said them. But you really *heard* them, because they are still IN your head, from hearing them while growing up. I have NO IDEA what you look like in real life, and don't care. Friends in Fairfield, when you first joined this forum, described you in email as sixty- ish, not terribly atractive, probably a lesbian. I have no idea whether that is true or not, and don't much care. The *only* reason I keep harping on this Post a photo of the 'feminist' authors Raunchy cites as 'authorities' thang is to PUSH YOUR BUTTONS. And it works EVERY TIME. The reason is that you have a serious, Grade-A samskara that revolves around physical appearance, and being judged on the basis of that appearance. That is a WEAKNESS, not a badge of honor. I'm trying to clue you in to the fact that it IS a WEAKNESS, not a badge of honor. You and Judy are NOTHING to me. I'm sorry if that makes you feel less important than you'd like to be, but it's true. Both of you long ago established your lack of worth as spiritual seekers, or as thinking human beings. Why on earth should I CARE what the two of you say about me? I *understand* that this displays a lack of compassion and feeling on my part, but I am content with that. I'll either get there in this lifetime, or I won't. But *while it is true*, NOTHING you could could *possibly* say about me can affect me. TRYING to affect me by saying the nastiest things you can think of to say about me is as ineffectual as a gnat trying to disturb the meditations of a buddha. NOT that I'm a buddha. Just that you're the gnat in this scenario. ( This is a movie reference...get it? ) Don't be fooled folks, the only reason Barry posts pictures of feminists is to discredit them based on their appearance. The only reason Barry posts photos of the feminists you cite is to PUSH YOUR BUTTONS. And it works EVERy TIME. If I were you, I would pay more attention to this than to the photos, or to me. I mocked him for his sexist piggy behavior and juvenile relationship to women... Neither of which you know anything about. You are projecting your own hot buttons / samskaras onto someone you dislike. This forum contains a few lurkers who are my former lovers. They have contacted me offline. Some of them are still TB TMers. Doncha think that if they AGREED with you they might have said something? Raunchy, I am really trying to HELP you by pushing your oh-so-obvious hot buttons. My theory -- which may be incorrect -- is
Re: [FairfieldLife] cutting edge Meditation Research
On Jul 26, 2009, at 12:01 PM, dhamiltony2k5 wrote: Fred Travis at MUM seems is a lot like this Daniel Siegel at UCLA. Do these guys talk? Evidently they have a lot in common. Fred Travis : http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2009/may2009/brain.htm I doubt it. My guess is Siegel and others would be pretty PO'd to find out he was stealing their ideas and then publishing them as his own. Siegel's books don't mention any TM research or anything about this Travis guy. The word's pretty much out to steer clear of these folks.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: When disorderly conduct is a cop's judgement call (to intimidate)
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:48 AM, WillyTexno_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: bil hicks wrote: It doesn't matter what he said. But isn't it illegal to slander someone in public? No. It's not illegal. Legal deals with criminal matters. Slander/Libel are causes for a court of chancery/equity. One can sue another for a civil matter such as slander or libel. But why not stop trolling and get to the point? You maintain that Crowley did rightly because Gates accused Crowley and his mother of untruths, right? I stand on what I've already written.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Says, Barry, going hysterically, ape-shit I called him out on sexism...again. Raunchy, because you have stupidly made the mistake of trying to be a macho feminist bitch without Big Jude to rush in and rescue you, I am going to take pity on you and explain to you (as I have explained to her in the past, with what will be similar effects) *exactly* what I think of you, and why I do what I do to you. You have no value as a thinking human being to me, because you have never demonstrated that you are one. snip,, In contemplating the some of the posting here and, observing that a lot of people are interested in the unified field, home of the laws of nature, unity. oneness etc, wouldn't it then seem that we all have a common denominator and each should be accorded their own measure of respect and act with some dignity? A body, where the parts are not in harmony as in the immune system causing other parts to fail, results in less than peak performance. I enjoy this forum but, at times, it does seem a bit spastic. N.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women
Barry just wrote over 1,022 words, going hysterically ape-shit...again, having his sexist pig buttons pushed...again, just to tell us how much he doesn't care about what I have to say. LOL. It's his idea of a love letter, I guess. Rama taught him well. Barry's an abusive asshole just like him. If pushing buttons is Barry's idea of a path to enlightenment, it explains a lot. It takes a GIGANTIC ego to think so highly of yourself that you should be THE ONE ordained to help someone get over themselves by cleverly pushing buttons. One word, Barry. Get-over-yourself. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Says, Barry, going hysterically, ape-shit I called him out on sexism...again. Raunchy, because you have stupidly made the mistake of trying to be a macho feminist bitch without Big Jude to rush in and rescue you, I am going to take pity on you and explain to you (as I have explained to her in the past, with what will be similar effects) *exactly* what I think of you, and why I do what I do to you. You have no value as a thinking human being to me, because you have never demonstrated that you are one. You do nothing but parrot Other Peoeple's Thoughts on this forum, unless you're writing your poetry. I *understand* that you think the latter is good, and I feel compassion for that belief, but I do not share it. I was, after all, a Poetry major for some time in college. You can call me on whatever you want. I not only allow you to do so, without attempting to refute or deny the names you call me and the faults you project onto me, I consistently taunt you into doing more of it. You fall for EVERY ONE OF THEM. I'm explaining this to you -- even though I know it will do no good -- because this is how Rama used to run the pushing-buttons-for-the-person's-own-good act on us, as his students. He would actually TELL us what he was going to do to us, and then do it, and it would work *anyway*, because our egos and selves (small s) were so locked into them-selves that they thought he was fucking with us about what he was really doing, and not being honest with us. I'm being honest with you. I am PUSHING YOUR HOT BUTTONS. I am doing this in the hope that someday you will realize that they are, in fact, hot buttons -- in the Sanskrit, samskarss -- and that as long as these hot buttons remain hot buttons, and pushable, you remain locked into ignorance and unaware of your own enlightenment. You wear your hot buttons on your sleeve, Raunchy. You *demonstrated* them in this very thread. You claimed that I said things I never said. You only *believed* that I said them because *someone else* said them to you, way back in time, way back when you were growing up. You've never posted a photo of yourself on this forum. I would suggest that there is a reason for this, and that reason is related to why you think that any mention of a feminist's appearance is a personal attack on not only that feminist, but on you. You heard me saying the things you claimed I said *in your head*, but I never said them. But you really *heard* them, because they are still IN your head, from hearing them while growing up. I have NO IDEA what you look like in real life, and don't care. Friends in Fairfield, when you first joined this forum, described you in email as sixty- ish, not terribly atractive, probably a lesbian. I have no idea whether that is true or not, and don't much care. The *only* reason I keep harping on this Post a photo of the 'feminist' authors Raunchy cites as 'authorities' thang is to PUSH YOUR BUTTONS. And it works EVERY TIME. The reason is that you have a serious, Grade-A samskara that revolves around physical appearance, and being judged on the basis of that appearance. That is a WEAKNESS, not a badge of honor. I'm trying to clue you in to the fact that it IS a WEAKNESS, not a badge of honor. You and Judy are NOTHING to me. I'm sorry if that makes you feel less important than you'd like to be, but it's true. Both of you long ago established your lack of worth as spiritual seekers, or as thinking human beings. Why on earth should I CARE what the two of you say about me? I *understand* that this displays a lack of compassion and feeling on my part, but I am content with that. I'll either get there in this lifetime, or I won't. But *while it is true*, NOTHING you could could *possibly* say about me can affect me. TRYING to affect me by saying the nastiest things you can think of to say about me is as ineffectual as a gnat trying to disturb the meditations of a buddha. NOT that I'm a buddha. Just that you're the gnat in this scenario. ( This is a movie reference...get it? ) Don't be fooled folks, the only reason Barry posts pictures of feminists is to discredit them based
[FairfieldLife] Spiritual India: River of Compassion
http://www.hulu.com/watch/82011/explore-spiritual-india-river-of-compassion This is a 30 minute documentary entitled Spiritual India; River of Compassion. The narrator is a wealthy philanthropist and member of the Annenberg family who traveled to India in search of spiritual awakening and to learn about giving. The foundation's web site is listed below. http://www.annenbergfoundation.org/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Nelson nelsonriddle2...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Says, Barry, going hysterically, ape-shit I called him out on sexism...again. Raunchy, because you have stupidly made the mistake of trying to be a macho feminist bitch without Big Jude to rush in and rescue you, I am going to take pity on you and explain to you (as I have explained to her in the past, with what will be similar effects) *exactly* what I think of you, and why I do what I do to you. You have no value as a thinking human being to me, because you have never demonstrated that you are one. snip,, In contemplating the some of the posting here and, observing that a lot of people are interested in the unified field, home of the laws of nature, unity. oneness etc, wouldn't it then seem that we all have a common denominator and each should be accorded their own measure of respect and act with some dignity? A body, where the parts are not in harmony as in the immune system causing other parts to fail, results in less than peak performance. I enjoy this forum but, at times, it does seem a bit spastic. N. Nelson, sorry you had to see Barry's nasty rant. He doesn't like it when I have take him out to the woodshed to teach him a lesson on how to be a decent human being. He's madder than usual today. He'll get over it, after he gets-over-himself. Again, sorry for our public display of affection.
[FairfieldLife] Re: When disorderly conduct is a cop's judgement call (to intimidate)
But isn't it illegal to slander someone in public? No. It's not illegal. It is a misdemeanor to yell at a cop and cause a public disturbance. You can get arrested for that kind of behavior. But the real problem is the class problem. The black professor thinks he is better than the white cop. The real divide is the class divide between the local law enforcement and the Harvard elite. The elite think nothing of saying things about your mother in public. These elites need to be taught a lesson: don't cause a public disturbance or a riot with your big fat pie hole. A Cambridge police union official said yesterday that it was standard procedure for the department to record all radio transmissions between police officers and headquarters, lending credence to claims that the release of the tapes could provide a window into the overheated exchange that led to the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr... Read more: `Gates tapes' may reveal angry rants' By Richard Weir Laura Crimaldi Boston Herald, July 25, 2009 http://tinyurl.com/mb397h http://tinyurl.com/mb397h
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women
I enjoy this forum but, at times, it does seem a bit spastic. Nelson, sorry you had to see Barry's nasty rant... The problem is Barry's ego - he simply can't stand it when people post here - people that obviously know more than he does. He's been out of the TMO loop for over a decade, but he still thinks he has some inside info that anyone would care to read about. He goes ape shit when he finds out that a few of us are actually still TMers and live near a Golden Dome. All he seems to be able to do these days is make fun of people - he's obviously very insecure and maybe frightened of women who are smarter than he is.
[FairfieldLife] Joe Cocker - With A Little Help From My Friends
Most powerful version I've seen/heard - REAL soul... love... in expression... music More than worth a watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wG6Cgmgn5U
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex no_re...@... wrote: I enjoy this forum but, at times, it does seem a bit spastic. Nelson, sorry you had to see Barry's nasty rant... The problem is Barry's ego - he simply can't stand it when people post here - people that obviously know more than he does. He's been out of the TMO loop for over a decade, but he still thinks he has some inside info that anyone would care to read about. He goes ape shit when he finds out that a few of us are actually still TMers and live near a Golden Dome. All he seems to be able to do these days is make fun of people - he's obviously very insecure and maybe frightened of women who are smarter than he is. I enjoy people that know more than I do as knowledge, like water, doesn't usually run uphill. Everyone here has some subject they could speak on with authority and politeness and, it could be a help to all.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex no_re...@... wrote: I enjoy this forum but, at times, it does seem a bit spastic. Nelson, sorry you had to see Barry's nasty rant... The problem is Barry's ego - he simply can't stand it when people post here - people that obviously know more than he does. He's been out of the TMO loop for over a decade, but he still thinks he has some inside info that anyone would care to read about. He goes ape shit when he finds out that a few of us are actually still TMers and live near a Golden Dome. All he seems to be able to do these days is make fun of people - he's obviously very insecure and maybe frightened of women who are smarter than he is. The subject of Barry's ego deserves some discussion, since he thinks he doesn't have one. Wouldn't it surprise him to know that all that time he spent with Rama pushing his buttons to help him get past his ego, ended up making his ego even bigger? We're talking clinically ready for the loony bin bigger, brain-welling, cranium bulging, fat head, bigger. I couldn't figure it out before but now I understand why Judy posted the Dog on Pokemon youtube link of the Boston Terrier humping humping Pokemon's big head. It's Barry's comeuppance for trying to fuck with us. LOL.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Nelson nelsonriddle2...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex no_reply@ wrote: I enjoy this forum but, at times, it does seem a bit spastic. Nelson, sorry you had to see Barry's nasty rant... The problem is Barry's ego - he simply can't stand it when people post here - people that obviously know more than he does. He's been out of the TMO loop for over a decade, but he still thinks he has some inside info that anyone would care to read about. He goes ape shit when he finds out that a few of us are actually still TMers and live near a Golden Dome. All he seems to be able to do these days is make fun of people - he's obviously very insecure and maybe frightened of women who are smarter than he is. I enjoy people that know more than I do as knowledge, like water, doesn't usually run uphill. Everyone here has some subject they could speak on with authority and politeness and, it could be a help to all. I agree Nelson and I thank you for saying so.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Hey that's great, Rick. Thanks for posting good news about women's issues. I always liked Carter for his commitment to public service, especially his work with Habitat for Humanity. His willingness to stand on principle, even this late in life, shows he is a man of integrity. It's amazing, how religion, the supposed fountain of love and kindness, breeds such bigotry and hatred toward gays, people of color and women. How do you feel about Carter's stand against abortion, probably the strongest opponent of abortion of all 44 presidents? Shremp is trolling again: How is what I said trolling? See: A bit of a stunner from this morning's Washington Times: Former President Jimmy Carter yesterday condemned all abortions and chastised his party for its intolerance of candidates and nominees who oppose abortion. 'I never have felt that any abortion should be committed -- I think each abortion is the result of a series of errors,' he told reporters over breakfast at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, while across town Senate Democrats deliberated whether to filibuster the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. because he may share President Bush and Mr. Carter's abhorrence of abortion. 'These things impact other issues on which [Mr. Bush] and I basically agree,' the Georgia Democrat said. 'I've never been convinced, if you let me inject my Christianity into it, that Jesus Christ would approve abortion.' from: http://newsbusters.org/node/2677 I have seen Carter talk about abortion on TV in terms that would make the Pope blush. The fact that he sang a different tune 30 years ago when he ran for president and then was president has no bearing on what I originally claimed. This is how he feels now. And here' s a novel concept for you, John Manning: people can disagree without one party being a troll. I think it's quite obvious to anyone that for you to dig up the quote that you did -- and as I did -- you had to google carter and abortion...and in doing so you came across quite a few contradictory statements by Carter, as I just did. So you KNEW that Carter had said conflicting things and that it was quite possible that I could be under the impression I was under if I was going on what I had seen Carter say on TV once (which is precisely the case). And that's hardly being a troll. So you are deceiving people. You're being too cute by half. Jimmy Carter: Abortion Redux This was an issue that I had to face when I was campaigning 25 years ago. I have always been against abortion; it's not possible for me in my own concept of Christ to believe that Jesus would favor abortion. But at the same time, I have supported the Supreme Court ruling of our country as the law of the land. And the present arrangement, whereby a woman is authorized to have an abortion in the first trimester of the pregnancy, or when the pregnancy is caused by rape or incest -- these are the things that moderates who have beliefs like mine can accept as the present circumstances in our country. The liberality of abortion is anointed by the laws of our country, including the ultimate ruling of the Supreme Court. http://www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/November05/nv110705.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: [snip] Raunchy, because you have stupidly made the mistake of trying to be a macho feminist bitch [snip] Under European Union sex discrimination laws, Barry has committed numerous offenses just by writing -- and disseminating over the internet -- such words. The beloved Europe which Barry constantly praises and holds higher than any other geo-political entity would prosecute him without delay and, presumably, deport him upon conviction for his sexist statements. Will the members of FFL join with me, collectively, to formally complain to the European Court of Human Rights for the indictment, conviction, and subsequent deportation of Barry Wright from any of the member countries of the European Union: http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/Applicants/Apply+to+the+Court/Application+form+online/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Spiritual India: River of Compassion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: http://www.hulu.com/watch/82011/explore-spiritual-india-river-of-compassion This is a 30 minute documentary entitled Spiritual India; River of Compassion. The narrator is a wealthy philanthropist and member of the Annenberg family who traveled to India in search of spiritual awakening and to learn about giving. The foundation's web site is listed below. http://www.annenbergfoundation.org/ Not sure about other countries, but Hulu videos don't play here in Brazil. Here is another good link to the video: http://www.linktv.org/video/2437 UPDATE: I just finished watching the video. Thank you, Rick. I hope others here will watch it also.
[FairfieldLife] A Genuinely Uplifting Love Story
A heartwarming and uplifting love story for a Sunday afternoon (in the US), or whatever day/time it is where you are. Definitely worth savoring - we all _can_ experience love. http://tinyurl.com/kl9mvu
Re: [FairfieldLife] Please give the TM explanation for why marriage makes sex OK
On Jul 26, 2009, at 4:04 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: One of the reasons I have not given up on FFL yet is that I never tire of hearing the TM explanations for things. You know what I'm talking about. The TM explanations are the euphemisms used by long-term TMers to pretend that the things they clearly believe are caused by magic are NOT really caused by magic but by something else, something scientific. For example, TM is not properly described as Sitting with one's eyes closed twice a day, as a result of which all prob- lems disappear as a result of magic. That would be inaccurate. The accurate TM explanation is that TM somehow releases stress, and as a result all problems disappear. That is the real TM explanation for why all long-term TMers on this forum obviously have no more problems. :-) Yagyas and pujas are described similarly. You're not bowing down to gods and goddesses and making offerings to them, you are merely enlivening impulses of creative intelligence or laws of nature by focusing on them. These impulses of creative intelligence then do all the work as you bring yourself into alignment with them...it's not magic...nope. And all of this has been scientifically verified over and over in peer-reviewed journals, of course. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Does Enlightenment exist as an absolute?
Does anyone have any thoughts or knowledge on this point? It sometimes bothers me that there might, in reality, never be an end to our evolutionary path. Maharishi himself said in late 2005 something like; we swim and swim, but never quite reach the goal, because it is infinite, but we can get so close that we are living in the waves of bliss. When I am suffering I really pray that there is final absolute end to the path, but when I'm feelng good, it doesn't seem to be so important :) David, Skelmersdale, UK
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Racial profiling and the Gates case
It's just a ride wrote: On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 1:50 PM, authfriendjst...@panix.com wrote: Absolutely. And he should have refused. My point is that there was no reason for Crowley to have asked him to in the first place. I agree I'm saying Crowley *tempted* him, lured him, enticed him into being disruptive in public so that Crowley would have the legal justification to arrest him. I passed this by the local sheriff, whom I'm friends with. The sheriff didn't tell me what I didn't already know. Gates was cruisin' for a bruisin'. T'ain't racial profiling when there's a report of a possible break in and you ask for ID to make sure you're leaving the house in the hands of the rightful occupant or his/her designate. The black cop said Gates wasn't acting quite right, was perhaps tired from his trip. Translation: we deal with nuts all day long but Gates was acting nuttier and more aggressively than most. The laws and procedure are taught in police academy but the how to's are taught in less public venues. One how to is in getting someone who's wasting your time and ticking you off to make a fatal mistake. Getting Gates out of the house was the best way to handle this malefactor. Just let him take his rants outside then arrest him for creating a public disturbance. Standard police procedure to settle a score or speed up resolution of a problem. Crowley erred in arresting a noted black scholar with a big mouth (not that a lot of black men don't have big mouths when it comes to dealing with the law). There's the unusual turn of events of a black professor/scholar and a white blue collar guy involved here. Obama's no fool. He sized up what had gone on. Unlikely Gates lives in a rundown lean to in a rough neighborhood. I am convinced, as is my sheriff friend, that had this been a white male (Irish even better) Crowley would have been a lot more accommodating, perhaps even asking for backup to get someone to explain to Gates why this was the police doing everything possible to protect /his/ property. It's not a case of Crowley acting illegally, it's a case of Crowley acting differently than he would have with a white. This whole issue is just a distraction the corporate press can use to keep the public attention off the health care bill and other more important issues. I think when I've only heard one commentator ask why didn't the neighbor know that was Gates? I guess this says a lot about our isolated society that the neighbor didn't know who lives across the street or nearby. And some of that might have been Gates fault for not knowing his neighbors himself. I know most of my neighbors and it took years to meet some of them. Just because I moved from an apartment where there is often greater isolation to a house didn't mean it was easy to meet anybody. When I got new neighbors next door and they had a little garage sale after moving in I went over and introduced myself. I also had the good fortune that the selling agent for this house lives across the street and has introduced me to many of the neighbors. But everybody says the same thing that we are so busy coming and going in this society we frequently don't know our neighbors when we should.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex no_re...@... wrote: The problem is Barry's ego - he simply can't stand it when people post here - people that obviously know more than he does. He's been out of the TMO loop for over a decade, but he still thinks he has some inside info that anyone would care to read about. He goes ape shit when he finds out that a few of us are actually still TMers and live near a Golden Dome. All he seems to be able to do these days is make fun of people - he's obviously very insecure and maybe frightened of women who are smarter than he is. That's right. And what does that tell you about his Guru, the Dolly Lama ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Racial profiling and the Gates case
Bhairitu wrote: This whole issue is just a distraction the corporate press can use to keep the public attention off the health care bill and other more important issues... Well, I think Professor Gates was just looking for an excuse to cause a race riot. And, maybe Gates thought the perfect opportunity was when the white police officer asked him for an ID. Both Obama and Gates acted stupidly when they opened their big pie holes withhout knowing the facts of the situation.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Hey that's great, Rick. Thanks for posting good news about women's issues. I always liked Carter for his commitment to public service, especially his work with Habitat for Humanity. His willingness to stand on principle, even this late in life, shows he is a man of integrity. It's amazing, how religion, the supposed fountain of love and kindness, breeds such bigotry and hatred toward gays, people of color and women. How do you feel about Carter's stand against abortion, probably the strongest opponent of abortion of all 44 presidents? Shremp is trolling again: How is what I said trolling? See: A bit of a stunner from this morning's Washington Times: NOTE: Shremp, that article is from November 2005 - the SAME time that Carter made the statement I posted. Former President Jimmy Carter yesterday condemned all abortions and chastised his party for its intolerance of candidates and nominees who oppose abortion. 'I never have felt that any abortion should be committed -- I think each abortion is the result of a series of errors,' he told reporters over breakfast at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, while across town Senate Democrats deliberated whether to filibuster the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. because he may share President Bush and Mr. Carter's abhorrence of abortion. 'These things impact other issues on which [Mr. Bush] and I basically agree,' the Georgia Democrat said. 'I've never been convinced, if you let me inject my Christianity into it, that Jesus Christ would approve abortion.' from: http://newsbusters.org/node/2677 I have seen Carter talk about abortion on TV in terms that would make the Pope blush. I doubt it, Shremp. Let's see you produce a verifiable quote in context in terms that would make the Pope blush. The fact that he sang a different tune 30 years ago when he ran for president and then was president has no bearing on what I originally claimed. This is how he feels now. You simply don't pay attention, Shremp. The piece you posted from the Washington [read: Wingnut] Times is from November 2005 - the SAME time that Carter made the statement I posted - which included what WAS LEFT OUT of your article: This was an issue that I had to face when I was campaigning 25 years ago. I have always been against abortion; it's not possible for me in my own concept of Christ to believe that Jesus would favor abortion. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I have supported the Supreme Court ruling of our country as the law of the land. And the present arrangement, whereby a woman is authorized to have an abortion in the first trimester of the pregnancy, or when the pregnancy is caused by rape or incest -- THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT MODERATES WHO HAVE BELIEFS LIKE MINE CAN ACCEPT as the present circumstances in our country. The liberality of abortion is anointed by the laws of our country, including the ultimate ruling of the Supreme Court. [emphasis added] =Here's your FALSE trolling statement: ...Carter's stand against abortion, probably the strongest opponent of abortion of all 44 presidents. Grow up, kid. And here' s a novel concept for you, John Manning: people can disagree without one party being a troll. I think it's quite obvious to anyone that for you to dig up the quote that you did -- and as I did -- you had to google carter and abortion...and in doing so you came across quite a few contradictory statements by Carter, as I just did. So you KNEW that Carter had said conflicting things and that it was quite possible that I could be under the impression I was under if I was going on what I had seen Carter say on TV once (which is precisely the case). And that's hardly being a troll. So you are deceiving people. You're being too cute by half. Jimmy Carter: Abortion Redux This was an issue that I had to face when I was campaigning 25 years ago. I have always been against abortion; it's not possible for me in my own concept of Christ to believe that Jesus would favor abortion. But at the same time, I have supported the Supreme Court ruling of our country as the law of the land. And the present arrangement, whereby a woman is authorized to have an abortion in the first trimester of the pregnancy, or when the pregnancy is caused by rape or incest -- these are the things that moderates who have beliefs like mine can accept as the present circumstances in our country. The liberality of abortion is anointed by the laws of our country, including the ultimate ruling of the Supreme Court.
[FairfieldLife] Has Obama ever been racially profiled?
Jake Tapper asked the question. The answer was, not really, but he has had some incidents that he felt were based on his race: = = One small, as-yet-unreported example: in the Fall of 2004, then-state sen. Barack Obama was his party's nominee for the U.S. Senate seat and an emerging national figure because of his rousing speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. But there he stood, at a country buffet in Western Illinois, fielding a question from a white customer as if he worked there. As recalled by a campaign staffer from that time, Obama was standing with three staffers, waiting for their table, when a white man came in and asked for a table for him and his three friends. The woman is about to seat me and my party of four, so I imagine you'll be next, the President said, trying to defuse any embarrassment by playing it off. The man who'd assumed Obama worked at the country buffet seemed embarrassed, the former campaign aide recalled, who emphasized that this was not a big deal by any stretch. http://snipurl.com/o0d48 [blogs_abcnews_com]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Does Enlightenment exist as an absolute?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, davidpalmer108 davidpalmer...@... wrote: Does anyone have any thoughts or knowledge on this point? It sometimes bothers me that there might, in reality, never be an end to our evolutionary path. Maharishi himself said in late 2005 something like; we swim and swim, but never quite reach the goal, because it is infinite, but we can get so close that we are living in the waves of bliss. When I am suffering I really pray that there is final absolute end to the path, but when I'm feelng good, it doesn't seem to be so important :) David, Skelmersdale, UK Thoughts- If we see ourselves as essentially eternal,and, being here taking some post grad courses from time to time, it might put the issue in a different light. In our present status, it is a bit difficult to have a good handle on infinity. N.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Does Enlightenment exist as an absolute?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, davidpalmer108 davidpalmer...@... wrote: Does anyone have any thoughts or knowledge on this point? It sometimes bothers me that there might, in reality, never be an end to our evolutionary path. Maharishi himself said in late 2005 something like; we swim and swim, but never quite reach the goal, because it is infinite, but we can get so close that we are living in the waves of bliss. When I am suffering I really pray that there is final absolute end to the path, but when I'm feelng good, it doesn't seem to be so important :) David, Skelmersdale, UK From Guru Dev: Having become a devotee of God one can never remain unhappy. This is our experience. The Jiva (ego) is going on doing its work from several births. Its tendency to work exists from time immemorial. Therefore, if the work is started with just a little co-operation from the mind, it will continue to go on. Just like the train car, way in the back of the line, if it is just pushed and jerked a little by the engine. It is necessary to bifurcate the work into primary and secondary. Thinking of Paramatman should be considered as primary and giving a little attention to worldly activity is secondary. Apply your body mainly and your mind secondarily to your worldly activity. When your mind is mainly engaged in God you shall receive his grace. God is all-powerful. Even a little of His grace is capable of bestowing on the Jiva all that is good in its entirety. The declaration of the Lord that is proved by the scriptures is this; `Whosoever thinks of Me with one-pointed devotion, I shall conduct his necessary work also. The experience of the bhaktas also goes to prove this declaration of the Lord. Accumulate worldly wealth, but in such a way that is not against transcendental wealth. That which hinders transcendental wealth results in accumulation in sin and is not wealth but a burden and a debt. As is the cloth, so is the price. For carrying on the short-lived work of your worldly activity, employ your short-lived body and worldly wealth. Mind is permanent and remains with you always. Even after you leave this world, it remains with you. Therefore, connect your mind with a permanent thing. God, being the eternal existence in animate and inanimate things, is the only permanent thing of the highest order. Therefore connect your mind with Him. If the mind could be satisfied with wealth, wife or children, why does it go elsewhere? Because it cannot stick with anything in the world. From this it is clear that it cannot be satisfied with anything of this world. It runs after things in the world, taking them to be good and desirable. But after a short while it leaves them. Nobody wants your mind in this world. And the mind is not satisfied with anything of this world. So, it is certain that mind is not fit for the world, nor the world for the mind. When the mind realizes God, it is permanently established there and does not desire other things. From this we can understand that God alone is fit for the mind and nothing else. Remember this; that your mind, which is not useful for anything in this world, is very useful to take you near God. Therefore, in this marketplace of the world, carry on work with your body and your wealth, and allow your mind to go towards God. Then your work in this world will get on well, and the path to transcendental wealth will also be clear. http://www.srigurudev.net/gurudev/discourses.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Does Enlightenment exist as an absolute?
On Jul 26, 2009, at 3:17 PM, davidpalmer108 wrote: Does anyone have any thoughts or knowledge on this point? It sometimes bothers me that there might, in reality, never be an end to our evolutionary path. Maharishi himself said in late 2005 something like; we swim and swim, but never quite reach the goal, because it is infinite, but we can get so close that we are living in the waves of bliss. When I am suffering I really pray that there is final absolute end to the path, but when I'm feelng good, it doesn't seem to be so important :) David, Skelmersdale, UK Relatively speaking, in the human dimension of this world-system, the limit would be when the physical body returns to it's source--which we know from Einstein the source of physical matter is light. So the highest form of enlightenment is one whose epiphenomenon is the dissolution of the the physical body into light. Of course there are subjective qualities associated with this state of consciousness as well. But that's the ultimate limit in this world system.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: [snip] You simply don't pay attention, Shremp. The piece you posted from the Washington [read: Wingnut] Times is from November 2005 - the SAME time that Carter made the statement I posted - which included what WAS LEFT OUT of your article: This was an issue that I had to face when I was campaigning 25 years ago. I have always been against abortion; it's not possible for me in my own concept of Christ to believe that Jesus would favor abortion. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I have supported the Supreme Court ruling of our country as the law of the land. And the present arrangement, whereby a woman is authorized to have an abortion in the first trimester of the pregnancy, or when the pregnancy is caused by rape or incest -- THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT MODERATES WHO HAVE BELIEFS LIKE MINE CAN ACCEPT as the present circumstances in our country. The liberality of abortion is anointed by the laws of our country, including the ultimate ruling of the Supreme Court. [emphasis added] A politician walks a fine line on the abortion issue. After Roe v Wade the Democrats owned it. Carter tried to walk it back a little so that he could win against Ford, so he became a moderate saying, I don't personally believe in abortion, but I support the law of the land. That statement from Carter was made in 2005. Was Carter running against Ford in 2005? By the way it's the same position that Sarah Palin holds. There isn't a single Democrat who will say they are pro-abortion...no such animal. Hillary: I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard. http://www.issues2000.org/senate/Hillary_Clinton_Abortion.htm Here's the tell that even Rightwingers are not pleased with Carter's stand on abortion: http://eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=e48z4zIr6U
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can Machines Develop Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: To All: Machines can play chess, and compute equations in nanoseconds. But at the present state of technology, it can't think and understand the meaning of, I think, therefore I am. But scientists are worried, nonetheless of the future possibilities of machines. I am always amused when TMers trot out Descartes' old saw as if it were profound philosophy. Espec- ially because if their TM practice were working the way they claim it is, they should have the experience of disproving it twice daily. You am, therefore you think. Or you am and not think, depending on the circumstances. Stop trying to put Descartes before the horse... As mortals living in the internet age, isn't it now 'you post therefore you are' and when your ISP link goes down it's then, 'publish or perish'. Speaking from recent experience, the Descartesean Internet Meme would be more like, My packet is received, therefore I am. In a Descartesean uni- verse, it's more blessed to Receive than Send. Regarding TM ideology, your doubts can be cleared in how you answer the following profound questions: 1. Why does Hugh Hefner have sexy, blonde, and young girfriends every three months or so? 2. Why does he always look tired and bored (with a forced smile) when posing in front of cameras with his girlfriends?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Has Obama ever been racially profiled?
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 3:05 PM, do.rflex do.rf...@yahoo.com wrote: I don't see where a black would be targeted as waitstaff at a country buffet. I've been all over the US and very rarely encounter black waitstaff unless I've gone into a soul food or barbecue place. I've been mistaken as waitstaff or a stocker about half a dozen times in my life. I've mistaken other diners/customers as waitstaff/stockers. It definitely wasn't racial as both parties were white. Also, remember that Obama passes the paper sack test while Michelle doesn't.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Obamacare anything like Ayurveda?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, It's just a ride bill.hicks.all.a.r...@... wrote: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/obama-witchdoctor-muck.jpg -- Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually ... a racket. I am curious why you posted this Bill. Do you think the image posted is racist? Do you think it could be seen as offensive? Do you think it is humorous? Do you think it is satire? Do you think it is truth-telling? I look forward to your answer Bill.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: [snip] You simply don't pay attention, Shremp. The piece you posted from the Washington [read: Wingnut] Times is from November 2005 - the SAME time that Carter made the statement I posted - which included what WAS LEFT OUT of your article: This was an issue that I had to face when I was campaigning 25 years ago. I have always been against abortion; it's not possible for me in my own concept of Christ to believe that Jesus would favor abortion. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I have supported the Supreme Court ruling of our country as the law of the land. And the present arrangement, whereby a woman is authorized to have an abortion in the first trimester of the pregnancy, or when the pregnancy is caused by rape or incest -- THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT MODERATES WHO HAVE BELIEFS LIKE MINE CAN ACCEPT as the present circumstances in our country. The liberality of abortion is anointed by the laws of our country, including the ultimate ruling of the Supreme Court. [emphasis added] A politician walks a fine line on the abortion issue. After Roe v Wade the Democrats owned it. Carter tried to walk it back a little so that he could win against Ford, so he became a moderate saying, I don't personally believe in abortion, but I support the law of the land. That statement from Carter was made in 2005. Was Carter running against Ford in 2005? Whoever said it was about when the president was in office? You know, I used to berate Judy about her unconditional love of Al Gore, Sr. because he once visited her class at Oberland College. When I pointed out to her that Gore had voted against the Civil Rights Act, she was quick to point out that he changed his mind AFTER he left politics. People change their positions on things and Carter certainly did. By the way it's the same position that Sarah Palin holds. There isn't a single Democrat who will say they are pro-abortion...no such animal. Hillary: I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard. http://www.issues2000.org/senate/Hillary_Clinton_Abortion.htm Here's the tell that even Rightwingers are not pleased with Carter's stand on abortion: http://eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=e48z4zIr6U
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Obamacare anything like Ayurveda?
It's just a ride wrote: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/obama-witchdoctor-muck.jpg It would be nice if it was. We could save a lot of money using ayurveda and training the public to learn some of its methods. I believe it is the simplest and most powerful of alternative care methods. It is based on sound principles some which can even be found in western medicine. What I think has happened to a few people on FFL is: 1) They've had a bad experience with ayurveda either with an inexperience practitioner or not liked the remedies recommended especially bitter herbal remedies. But you have those in western medicine too, they're just synthetic (and probably work the same way). 2) They associate ayurveda only with Maharishi Ayurveda and it's claims and know nothing about other ayurvedic schools such as Dr. Lad's and the many practical and inexpensive remedies taught there or in his books. 3) And we have a number of people who've never had an ayurvedic consultation and know nothing about it but have an irrational knee-jerk reaction against it. We put those folks in the criticizing the movie without having seen it bin.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Obamacare anything like Ayurveda?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, okpeachman2000 no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, It's just a ride bill.hicks.all.a.ride@ wrote: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/obama-witchdoctor-muck.jpg -- Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually ... a racket. I am curious why you posted this Bill. Do you think the image posted is racist? Do you think it could be seen as offensive? Do you think it is humorous? Do you think it is satire? Do you think it is truth-telling? I look forward to your answer Bill. Actually, dollar for dollar, I suspect that a lot of those indigenous systems of medicine, such as Ayur-Veda, are a whole lot more effective than our Western system.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Does Enlightenment exist as an absolute?
davidpalmer108 wrote: Does anyone have any thoughts or knowledge on this point? It sometimes bothers me that there might, in reality, never be an end to our evolutionary path. Maharishi himself said in late 2005 something like; we swim and swim, but never quite reach the goal, because it is infinite, but we can get so close that we are living in the waves of bliss. When I am suffering I really pray that there is final absolute end to the path, but when I'm feelng good, it doesn't seem to be so important :) David, Skelmersdale, UK You step over the line at some point. MMY might have liked to call this Cosmic Consciousness but other paths describe it as Moksha supposedly further down the path. And once in Moksha the experience will continue to grow. But you'll know when you stepped over the line. You may realize that you've spent a whole day without focusing on the small self (localization). We still have to localize when someone calls our name and needs to deal with us personally. Otherwise we'd just be some kind of space case but I swear the description that some TM'ers think is enlightenment makes the large self seem overwhelming or overbearing. No, you just localize when needed. Then there is that constant background of silence. You can focus on it if you want and think well that's nice and usually continue on with your thoughts dealing with day to day issues.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Has Obama ever been racially profiled?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote: Jake Tapper asked the question. The answer was, not really, but he has had some incidents that he felt were based on his race: = = One small, as-yet-unreported example: in the Fall of 2004, then-state sen. Barack Obama was his party's nominee for the U.S. Senate seat and an emerging national figure because of his rousing speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. But there he stood, at a country buffet in Western Illinois, fielding a question from a white customer as if he worked there. That's the silliest -- and racist -- thing I've read in a while. I can't tell you how many times I've been mistaken for a waiter or a clerk in a store not because of my skin colour BUT BECAUSE I WAS WEARING A TIE! Men reading this: hasn't that ever happened to you? And the fact that Obama UNTIL VERY RECENTLY used to dress like Mr. Pink from Reservoir Dogs and wore a tie and a dark suit LIKE AN UNDERTAKER WITH ZERO FASHION SENSE is more than likely the reason he was mistaken for a waiter. FOR CHRISSAKE, HE RAN FOR THE SENATE LOOKING LIKE A WAITER As recalled by a campaign staffer from that time, Obama was standing with three staffers, waiting for their table, when a white man came in and asked for a table for him and his three friends. The woman is about to seat me and my party of four, so I imagine you'll be next, the President said, trying to defuse any embarrassment by playing it off. The man who'd assumed Obama worked at the country buffet seemed embarrassed, the former campaign aide recalled, who emphasized that this was not a big deal by any stretch. http://snipurl.com/o0d48 http://snipurl.com/o0d48 [blogs_abcnews_com]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Has Obama ever been racially profiled?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: Jake Tapper asked the question. The answer was, not really, but he has had some incidents that he felt were based on his race: = = One small, as-yet-unreported example: in the Fall of 2004, then-state sen. Barack Obama was his party's nominee for the U.S. Senate seat and an emerging national figure because of his rousing speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. But there he stood, at a country buffet in Western Illinois, fielding a question from a white customer as if he worked there. That's the silliest -- and racist -- thing I've read in a while. I can't tell you how many times I've been mistaken for a waiter or a clerk in a store not because of my skin colour BUT BECAUSE I WAS WEARING A TIE! Men reading this: hasn't that ever happened to you? And the fact that Obama UNTIL VERY RECENTLY used to dress like Mr. Pink from Reservoir Dogs and wore a tie and a dark suit LIKE AN UNDERTAKER WITH ZERO FASHION SENSE is more than likely the reason he was mistaken for a waiter. FOR CHRISSAKE, HE RAN FOR THE SENATE LOOKING LIKE A WAITER Willytex is better at it, Shremp. Get another hobby, you don't measure up. As recalled by a campaign staffer from that time, Obama was standing with three staffers, waiting for their table, when a white man came in and asked for a table for him and his three friends. The woman is about to seat me and my party of four, so I imagine you'll be next, the President said, trying to defuse any embarrassment by playing it off. The man who'd assumed Obama worked at the country buffet seemed embarrassed, the former campaign aide recalled, who emphasized that this was not a big deal by any stretch. http://snipurl.com/o0d48 http://snipurl.com/o0d48 [blogs_abcnews_com]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can Machines Develop Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_...@... wrote: To All: Machines can play chess, and compute equations in nanoseconds. But at the present state of technology, it can't think and understand the meaning of, I think, therefore I am. But scientists are worried, nonetheless of the future possibilities of machines. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/science/26robot.html?ref=science Machines can think! They can think with whatever degree of intelligence their makers and programmers have managed to instill in them. A machine could be programmed to understand that, I compute, therefore I am. Anyway, the expression I think, therefore I am is logically flawed - There is a thought, therefore thought exists makes more sense to me. Then one has to conclude that, since we know that thoughts exist, the existence of an experiencer of thoughts is implied. But is the experiencer of thoughts finite or infinite? I think we are all aware that He is infinite. We must conclude that the infinite exists, experiencing thought, and that the whole idea of an individual I must be rejected. But where is the experiencer of the computations of our machine? Infinite intelligence is everywhere and is aware of everything, so therefore must be aware of the computations of the machine. All machines already are self-aware. They have more simple nervous systems than us, we could say they have electronic nervous systems, so we are like Gods to them, but I think it is only a matter of degree. D
[FairfieldLife] Joe Biden - What You Might Not Know About the Recovery
Six months ago, when President Obama and I took office, we were confronted with an economic crisis unparalleled in our lifetime. The nation was hemorrhaging more than 700,000 jobs a month, the housing market was in free fall, and the fate of the financial system hung in the balance. Credible economists were handicapping the probability of a depression. The actions we took passing the Recovery Act, stabilizing the banking system, pressing to get credit flowing again and helping responsible homeowners brought us back from the precipice. Monthly job losses are down, financial markets are improved, and economic contraction has slowed. We still have a long way to go, but clearly we are closer to recovery today than we were in January. The Recovery Act has been critical to that progress. Notwithstanding this progress, the nature of the Recovery Act remains misunderstood by many, and misconstrued by others: critics have suggested that the entire $787 billion is being spent on pet programs. As the person leading the administration's efforts to put the Recovery Act into effect, I want to set the record straight. The single largest part of the Recovery Act more than one-third of it is tax cuts: 95 percent of working Americans have seen their taxes go down as a result of the act. The second-largest part just under a third is direct relief to state governments and individuals. The money is allowing state governments to avoid laying off teachers (14,000 in New York City alone), firefighters and police officers and preventing states' budget gaps from growing wider. And those hardest hit by the recession are getting extended unemployment insurance, health coverage and other help to get through these tough times. The bottom line is that two-thirds of the Recovery Act doesn't finance programs, but goes directly to tax cuts, state governments and families in need, without red tape or delays. As for the final third, the act is financing the largest investment in roads since the creation of the Interstate highway system; construction projects at military bases, ports, bridges and tunnels; long overdue Superfund cleanups; the creation of clean energy jobs of the future; improvements in badly outdated rural water systems; upgrades to overtaxed mass transit and rail systems; and much more. These investments create jobs today and support economic growth for years to come. Far from being a negative, the wide array of these investments is needed given the incredible diversity of the American economy. Projects are being chosen without earmarks or political consideration, and many contracts have come in under budget. More than 30,000 projects have been approved, and thousands are already posted on recovery.gov providing a high level of transparency and accountability. Taxpayers should know that we have not hesitated to reject proposals that have failed to meet our merit-based standards. The care with which we are carrying out the provisions of the Recovery Act has led some people to ask whether we are moving too slowly. But the act was intended to provide steady support for our economy over an extended period not a jolt that would last only a few months. Instead of quick-hit rebates, we are giving Americans a tax cut in each paycheck. Instead of pumping out all the state aid immediately, we are spreading it over the two years that it will be needed. Road projects, energy projects and construction projects are being started as soon as they pass review, contracts are competitively bid and reporting systems are in place. Even with such care being taken, we have already committed more than one-fourth of the Recovery Act's total funds, and we are on track to meet the deadline set when the act was passed in February spending 70 percent by the end of September 2010. The Recovery Act is not the cure for all our economic ills no single piece of legislation could be. But how many government initiatives can point to both large numbers of projects coming in under budget and a Government Accountability Office finding that we are ahead of schedule in key areas? It is true that the act's effort to address multiple problems simultaneously makes it an easy target for second-guessing. Critics have argued that the tax cuts are too small (or too large); that too much (or not enough) aid is going to rural areas; that too little (or too much) is being spent on roads. Recently, some have even criticized the act for helping support soup kitchens and food banks. But the way I see it, our balanced approach recognizes that there is no silver bullet, no single thing, that can address the many and complex needs of America's vast economy. We need relief, recovery and reinvestment to cope with our multifaceted crisis and only 159 days after it was signed by President Obama, the Recovery Act is already at work providing all three. ~~Joe Biden
[FairfieldLife] Re: Has Obama ever been racially profiled?
That's the silliest -- and racist -- thing I've read in a while. do.rflex wrote: Willytex is better at it, Shremp. The impression that I am left with-at this point-is that Gates had a chip on his shoulder and acted like a jerk... 'The Henry Louis Gates Incident' Posted by Gary Fouse Thursday, July 23, 2009 http://tinyurl.com/laj7by
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: A politician walks a fine line on the abortion issue. After Roe v Wade the Democrats owned it. Carter tried to walk it back a little so that he could win against Ford, so he became a moderate saying, I don't personally believe in abortion, but I support the law of the land. That statement from Carter was made in 2005. Was Carter running against Ford in 2005? Carter ran against Ford in 1976, of course: [In the McGarvey 2005 interview] Carter paints himself as having been forced to operate under Roe's thumb. Worth noting, as the Washington Times account of his meeting last week with reporters did, that when Carter ran in 1976, Roe was only three years old. He said in those days, I think abortion is wrong and that the government ought never do anything to encourage abortion, adding, But I do not favor a constitutional amendment which would prohibit all abortions, nor one that would give states [a] local option to ban abortions. In other words, candidate Carter said he would neither promote nor challenge Roe's verdict of abortion on demand. Suffice it to say here that when it came to dealing with Roe, the Carter Administration was missing in action. http://www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/November05/nv110705.html [The rightwing thinks Carter was talking out of both sides of his mouth on abortion in '76 as well as in the 2005 interview. They think Carter's opinion is essentially the same old hypocritical trope: I don't believe in abortion personally but I support the law. They want him to say he favors overturning Roe v. Wade which he never has and never will. So in the rightwing considers him a moderate and that's fine by me. raunchydog] By the way it's the same position that Sarah Palin holds. There isn't a single Democrat who will say they are pro-abortion...no such animal. Hillary: I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard. http://www.issues2000.org/senate/Hillary_Clinton_Abortion.htm Here's the tell that even Rightwingers are not pleased with Carter's stand on abortion: http://eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=e48z4zIr6U
[FairfieldLife] 'Shri Charpata Panjarika Stotram' ('Bhaja Govindam') sung by Guru Dev
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbEDqdJSxoofeature=channel_page http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbEDqdJSxoofeature=channel_page
[FairfieldLife] Re: Has Obama ever been racially profiled?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: Jake Tapper asked the question. The answer was, not really, but he has had some incidents that he felt were based on his race: = = One small, as-yet-unreported example: in the Fall of 2004, then-state sen. Barack Obama was his party's nominee for the U.S. Senate seat and an emerging national figure because of his rousing speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. But there he stood, at a country buffet in Western Illinois, fielding a question from a white customer as if he worked there. That's the silliest -- and racist -- thing I've read in a while. I can't tell you how many times I've been mistaken for a waiter or a clerk in a store not because of my skin colour BUT BECAUSE I WAS WEARING A TIE! Men reading this: hasn't that ever happened to you? And the fact that Obama UNTIL VERY RECENTLY used to dress like Mr. Pink from Reservoir Dogs and wore a tie and a dark suit LIKE AN UNDERTAKER WITH ZERO FASHION SENSE is more than likely the reason he was mistaken for a waiter. FOR CHRISSAKE, HE RAN FOR THE SENATE LOOKING LIKE A WAITER Willytex is better at it, Shremp. Get another hobby, you don't measure up. Perhaps it's because I live in the desert and the culture as it is is one in which people are NOT expected to wear ties. But I do only because it makes me feel more comfortable in business settings. And perhaps that makes me stand out. Again, it has happened to me several times that when wearing a tie in retail settings -- restaurants or stores -- that I have been mistaken for a clerk or employee of the establishment. To assign a racial motive to mistaking the drab suit-wearing and tie-wearing Barack Obama as a waiter is itself a racist thing. As recalled by a campaign staffer from that time, Obama was standing with three staffers, waiting for their table, when a white man came in and asked for a table for him and his three friends. The woman is about to seat me and my party of four, so I imagine you'll be next, the President said, trying to defuse any embarrassment by playing it off. The man who'd assumed Obama worked at the country buffet seemed embarrassed, the former campaign aide recalled, who emphasized that this was not a big deal by any stretch. http://snipurl.com/o0d48 http://snipurl.com/o0d48 [blogs_abcnews_com]
Re: [FairfieldLife] Please give the TM explanation for why marriage makes sex OK
On Jul 26, 2009, at 2:16 PM, Bhairitu wrote: TurquoiseB wrote: So what's your TM explanation for believing that marriage turns sex from something bad into something good? HOW DOES THIS **WORK**??? What are the scientific principles that you believe *make* it work? I'm really interested in hearing your TM explanations. I suspect they'll be real doozies. Though not a TM sanctioned reason there is the Indian philosophy or superstition that out of wedlock sex or even cohabitation is a rakshasa marriage. Of course I believe a lot of these rules were simply mind games created to keep the population down especially in times of famine. Which in India was pretty much all the time. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Machines Develop Consciousness?
On Jul 26, 2009, at 4:51 PM, davidpalmer108 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_...@... wrote: To All: Machines can play chess, and compute equations in nanoseconds. But at the present state of technology, it can't think and understand the meaning of, I think, therefore I am. But scientists are worried, nonetheless of the future possibilities of machines. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/science/26robot.html?ref=science Machines can think! They can think with whatever degree of intelligence their makers and programmers have managed to instill in them. A machine could be programmed to understand that, I compute, therefore I am. Anyway, the expression I think, therefore I am is logically flawed - There is a thought, therefore thought exists makes more sense to me. Then one has to conclude that, since we know that thoughts exist, the existence of an experiencer of thoughts is implied. But is the experiencer of thoughts finite or infinite? I think we are all aware that He is infinite. We must conclude that the infinite exists, experiencing thought, and that the whole idea of an individual I must be rejected. But where is the experiencer of the computations of our machine? Infinite intelligence is everywhere and is aware of everything, so therefore must be aware of the computations of the machine. All machines already are self-aware. They have more simple nervous systems than us, we could say they have electronic nervous systems, so we are like Gods to them, but I think it is only a matter of degree. D HH the Dalai Lama was asked at one of the earlier Mind and Life conferences if a robot could sustain consciousness and he said once the physical substrate was available, consciousness could be transferred to an appropriate vehicle. Many Buddhist practitioners, in visionary states, have seen such future-beings.
[FairfieldLife] A Sidha above London
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8otUHv78Jgfeature=related
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can Machines Develop Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: HH the Dalai Lama... This lama is now presenting himself as His Highness ? Or is this simply the fantasies of the Vaj ? If he is so high, why can't he free Tibet even after all these years ? Probably because he is nothing more than a impotent politician who is a hostage to the low collective consciousness of the Tibetans. Just like Maharishi indicated.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Machines Develop Consciousness?
On Jul 26, 2009, at 6:15 PM, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: HH the Dalai Lama... This lama is now presenting himself as His Highness ? Or is this simply the fantasies of the Vaj ? His Holiness. He's been known as that for many decades. I guess it's one of the dangers of being realized early on. ;-) If he is so high, why can't he free Tibet even after all these years ? He's the Dalai Lama Nabby, not Kal-El. How come the Big Reesh couldn't stop the 350,000 pundit families of Kashmir from being expelled and slaughtered by the Muslims? What about the over a million Hindus who were slaughtered trying to escape from Bangladesh? How come he had to live in exile in Holland and couldn't return to India or the USA? Why was the land of the Ved (Pakistan) taken over by Muslims? Couldn't he use his Vedic super powers to defeat them? Probably because he is nothing more than a impotent politician who is a hostage to the low collective consciousness of the Tibetans. Just like Maharishi indicated. The Maharishi was a avaricious old fool, bhogi and lecher. Good riddance. May he be known for who he truly was!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Please give the TM explanation for why marriage makes sex OK
Sal Sunshine wrote: On Jul 26, 2009, at 2:16 PM, Bhairitu wrote: TurquoiseB wrote: So what's your TM explanation for believing that marriage turns sex from something bad into something good? HOW DOES THIS **WORK**??? What are the scientific principles that you believe *make* it work? I'm really interested in hearing your TM explanations. I suspect they'll be real doozies. Though not a TM sanctioned reason there is the Indian philosophy or superstition that out of wedlock sex or even cohabitation is a rakshasa marriage. Of course I believe a lot of these rules were simply mind games created to keep the population down especially in times of famine. Which in India was pretty much all the time. Sal Not currently. They haven't had a famine in India for years. But they do have a population control initiative and the US does not.
[FairfieldLife] Latin America enjoys expansion of Consciousness-Based Education
Latin America enjoys rise of invincibility through remarkable expansion of Consciousness-Based Education by Global Good News staff writer Global Good News Translate This Article 25 July 2009 In Latin America, 170 educational institutions and 20 universities in 20 countries are now implementing Consciousness-Based Education. Two thousand faculty members and 65,000 students have been trained in Transcendental Meditation, and training is now in process for 20,000 Yogic Flyers. Invincibilityis gradually developing in the continent of Latin America as a whole. Speaking during the global celebration of Guru Purnimaon 7 July in MERU, Holland, Raja Jose Luis Alvarez, Rajaof Latin America for the Global Country of World Peace, reported on the remarkable achievements in his domain in the past year. He described this expansion of Consciousness-Based Education in Latin America and said that invincibility is gradually developing in Latin America as a whole, and especially in Colombia*, Bolivia, Peru, and Mexico. In the next few months Panama, Guatamala, Ecuador, Chile, Brazil, Venezuela, Guyana, and Suriname will also be rising to invincibility**. From many angles invincibility is rising, Raja Luis said; it started with education. On 22 August a webinar for educators will be held in 30 countries. Those taking part include 200-300 school principals and 25 vice-chancellors of universities. During this webinar they will put together a plan for introducing Consciousness-Based Education throughout the continent, in the Caribbean, and in some countries in Africa. There will also be a continental association and programme to support all the activities on a much greater scale. 'Before we were doing it school by school,' Raja Luis explained. 'Now in some countries we have already contacted 200 schools' and also the authorities at the same time. He said that their approach continues to develop and expand: with the support of the International Foundation of Consciousness-Based Educationfor the curriculae, and great support from everyone, they intend to accomplish the establishment of Maharishi'sTranscendental Meditation and Yogic Flying everywhere in education. Raja Luis praised Dr Richard Tuckeras a model of a Vice-Chancellor; as president of a group of universities, he is taking a leading role in making educators aware of the importance of Consciousness-Based Education. In the coming days Global Good News will feature further achievements in Latin America presented by Raja Luis. * For articles reporting rising invincibility in each of these countries, please visit the News by Countrypage of Global Good News. ** Rising to invincibility: Invincibility is created for a country when the required number of Yogic Flyers—equal to the square root of one per cent of the population—practises Transcendental Meditationand the Transcendental Meditation Sidhi Programme, including Yogic Flying, together daily in large groups. In Latin Americaand throughout the world, educationis one of the main areas through which invincibility is being achieved. It can also be achieved through any area of society where groups are living and working together, for example in the military, in companies, or in communities where individuals come together regularly in large groups, specifically for this purpose. © Copyright 2009 Global Good News®
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: [snip] Raunchy, because you have stupidly made the mistake of trying to be a macho feminist bitch [snip] Under European Union sex discrimination laws, Barry has committed numerous offenses just by writing -- and disseminating over the internet -- such words. The beloved Europe which Barry constantly praises and holds higher than any other geo-political entity would prosecute him without delay and, presumably, deport him upon conviction for his sexist statements. Will the members of FFL join with me, collectively, to formally complain to the European Court of Human Rights for the indictment, conviction, and subsequent deportation of Barry Wright from any of the member countries of the European Union: http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/Applicants/Apply+to+the+Court/Application+form+online/ LOL. Great idea Shemp. Although evidence of sexist piggery weighs heavily against Barry, and the court would undoubtedly rule my favor, they would probably consider the payment he owes in damages paid in full and a mere pittance, compared to the fun I've had kicking his ass. I rest my case.
[FairfieldLife] Post Count
Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): Sat Jul 25 00:00:00 2009 End Date (UTC): Sat Aug 01 00:00:00 2009 220 messages as of (UTC) Sun Jul 26 23:56:17 2009 22 shempmcgurk shempmcg...@netscape.net 20 nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 18 raunchydog raunchy...@yahoo.com 15 TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com 15 do.rflex do.rf...@yahoo.com 14 authfriend jst...@panix.com 14 Robert babajii...@yahoo.com 12 Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net 11 WillyTex no_re...@yahoogroups.com 11 It's just a ride bill.hicks.all.a.r...@gmail.com 8 Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net 7 scienceofabundance no_re...@yahoogroups.com 7 BillyG. wg...@yahoo.com 5 gullible fool ffl...@yahoo.com 5 Rick Archer r...@searchsummit.com 5 Nelson nelsonriddle2...@yahoo.com 4 dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony...@yahoo.com 4 Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com 2 yifuxero yifux...@yahoo.com 2 wayback71 waybac...@yahoo.com 2 davidpalmer108 davidpalmer...@yahoo.co.uk 2 cardemaister no_re...@yahoogroups.com 2 bob_brigante no_re...@yahoogroups.com 2 Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@lisco.com 2 John jr_...@yahoo.com 2 Dick Mays dickm...@lisco.com 1 shukra69 shukr...@yahoo.ca 1 shinkai_birx crb...@radford.edu 1 okpeachman2000 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 1 michael vedamer...@yahoo.de 1 guyfawkes91 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 1 Joe Smith msilver1...@yahoo.com 1 Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com Posters: 33 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] Please give the TM explanation for why marriage makes sex OK
On Jul 26, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Bhairitu wrote: Sal Sunshine wrote: On Jul 26, 2009, at 2:16 PM, Bhairitu wrote: TurquoiseB wrote: So what's your TM explanation for believing that marriage turns sex from something bad into something good? HOW DOES THIS **WORK**??? What are the scientific principles that you believe *make* it work? I'm really interested in hearing your TM explanations. I suspect they'll be real doozies. Though not a TM sanctioned reason there is the Indian philosophy or superstition that out of wedlock sex or even cohabitation is a rakshasa marriage. Of course I believe a lot of these rules were simply mind games created to keep the population down especially in times of famine. Which in India was pretty much all the time. Sal Not currently. They haven't had a famine in India for years. But they do have a population control initiative and the US does not. The US doesn't need one--we currently have negative population growth in the largest groups. Our population control is called education and wanting to live well and realizing that endless numbers of children don't contribute to that. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Mother Meera Darshan in New York, October 2009
I received an email today saying that Mother Meera would be in NYC in October. Anyone know if Mother Meera will tour around other northeast cities, same as last year? Michael, do you know if NYC is the extent of the fall tour? Dear Friends, You are receiving this email because you attended or expressed an interest in Mother Meera's Darshan in the past. We are excited to announce that Mother Meera will be giving Darshan in the New York City area on Sunday October 4th and Monday October 5th, 2009 at 2:00PM and 6:00PM each day. Darshan is free but reservations are required. To make a reservation please visit our website: http://www.mothermeeranortheast.com. During this event, you may attend only one darshan session. When making reservations for multiple people please make a different reservation for each person who will be attending - for example, married couples should make two reservations. After you have made your reservation(s), please print out your reservation confirmation page and bring it with you to darshan. Bringing this printout will allow you faster access to the darshan hall. Please plan to arrive no later than 30 minutes before your darshan session begins. Darshan will be held at a location near but outside of New York City. The venue and additional information about transportation and lodging will be announced on our website as soon as it is known, so please check back frequently in the upcoming weeks to view the latest information. To ensure that you receive our email communications, please add reservationsmmnorthe...@gmail.com and reservationsm...@gmail.com to your address book or safe list. We do not give your email address to anyone or use it for any purpose other than to provide you with information about Mother Meera's visits. If you have questions, please email us at reservationsmmnorthe...@gmail.com We look forward to seeing you in New York! Lots of love, Mother Meera's New York Volunteer Team This e-mail was sent by Mother Meera Northeast, located at 1006 TOWER DR, Edgewater, NJ 07020-2204 (USA). To receive no further e-mails, please click here or reply to this e-mail with unlist in the Subject line. Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no `you,' only love. - Amma --- On Sun, 7/26/09, michael vedamer...@yahoo.de wrote: From: michael vedamer...@yahoo.de Subject: [FairfieldLife] Latin America enjoys expansion of Consciousness-Based Education To: Date: Sunday, July 26, 2009, 6:51 PM Latin America enjoys rise of invincibility through remarkable expansion of Consciousness-Based Education by Global Good News staff writer Global Good News Translate This Article 25 July 2009 In Latin America, 170 educational institutions and 20 universities in 20 countries are now implementing Consciousness-Based Education. Two thousand faculty members and 65,000 students have been trained in Transcendental Meditation, and training is now in process for 20,000 Yogic Flyers. Invincibility is gradually developing in the continent of Latin America as a whole. Speaking during the global celebration of Guru Purnima on 7 July in MERU, Holland, Raja Jose Luis Alvarez, Raja of Latin America for the Global Country of World Peace, reported on the remarkable achievements in his domain in the past year. He described this expansion of Consciousness-Based Education in Latin America and said that invincibility is gradually developing in Latin America as a whole, and especially in Colombia*, Bolivia, Peru, and Mexico. In the next few months Panama, Guatamala, Ecuador, Chile, Brazil, Venezuela, Guyana, and Suriname will also be rising to invincibility**. From many angles invincibility is rising, Raja Luis said; it started with education. On 22 August a webinar for educators will be held in 30 countries. Those taking part include 200-300 school principals and 25 vice-chancellors of universities. During this webinar they will put together a plan for introducing Consciousness-Based Education throughout the continent, in the Caribbean, and in some countries in Africa. There will also be a continental association and programme to support all the activities on a much greater scale. 'Before we were doing it school by school,' Raja Luis explained. 'Now in some countries we have already contacted 200 schools' and also the authorities at the same time. He said that their approach continues to develop and expand: with the support of the International Foundation of Consciousness-Based Education for the curriculae, and great support from everyone, they intend to accomplish the establishment of Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation and Yogic Flying everywhere in education. Raja Luis praised Dr Richard Tucker as a model of a Vice-Chancellor; as president of a group of universities, he is taking a leading role in making educators aware of the importance of Consciousness-Based Education. In the coming days
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy Watch :-)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex no_re...@... wrote: TurquoiseB wrote: Fourteen compulsive gotcha posts so far today. And interestingly, her credibility and interest factor has become so low that even with this number of posts, only one person on the forum has bothered to reply to her. And that was Shemp, because Judy had fallen for a troll of *his*. That's one more than you got with this post. LOL! Oh hell, here's another. Call it a pity post. And for those who may have noticed Judy and Raunchy having a blast making fun of Barry's sexist pig, and still think feminists don't have a sense of humor, this one is for you: [http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_t-EfdceTs60/R4ieT1vCgSI/CqE/03UE9ryM0\ hQ/s200/feminism%2520is%2520funny.jpg]
Re: [FairfieldLife] Can Machines Develop Consciousness?
John wrote: To All: Machines can play chess, and compute equations in nanoseconds. But at the present state of technology, it can't think and understand the meaning of, I think, therefore I am. But scientists are worried, nonetheless of the future possibilities of machines. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/science/26robot.html?ref=science What if that which we perceive as consciousness is not consciousness at all but really a machine state?
[FairfieldLife] Recipes for Crow Eaters
http://www.crowbusters.com/recipes.htm
[FairfieldLife] Hillary on Meet the Press
Hillary: The president is the president, and the president is responsible for setting policy. We have a great relationship. I see him usually several times a week, at least one on one,'' she said. I am the chief advisor on foreign policy, but the president makes the decisions At the end of the day, it is the president who has to set and articulate policy... But I know very well that a team that works together is going to do a better job for America. http://tinyurl.com/ljrufl http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/07/hillary_clinton_advisor_team_p.html
