[FairfieldLife] Re: Which smartphone are you going to buy?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: On 09/20/2012 02:44 PM, card wrote: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/09/iphone5-spec-showdown/ I paid $350 for the Nexus. Unlocked the Galaxy III is $600-$800. I don't think you can get an iPhone 5 unlocked. Microsoft must have sent out an email to their employees to vote for the Lumia (or Nokia did). Business is war these days. Yeah, I agree. I think the Lumia 920 shall fail for at least two reasons: it's way too heavy (185 grams; iPhone 5, 114 grams), and perhaps even too wide for many people (~ 70 millimetres; iPhone ~ 60 millimetres?). Of course, the camera of the Lumia is superb, but that's prolly not enough. And as a Nokia share holder, I'm afraid Windoze Phone 8 shall be a disaster... BTW, just recommended my sister to buy a Macbook(?), instead of a PC laptop!
[FairfieldLife] Open Mike Thread (was Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Raunchy, you remind me of the proper etiquette to be used at Comedy Clubs on Open Mike Night, so I will reply. When someone gets up on stage and tries to be funny, you applaud them at the end, even if they haven't been. You do this because it took guts to get up there and embarrass themselves, and they deserve encouragement. I'm sure even Robin Williams bombed a few times before he made it to Actual Funny. Barry's reaction to your post is proof positive you were really, really funny. So good luck, and thank you for taking up my Creativity Challenge. My only advice is to keep working at it, and not to become an applause slut over Awoe's gushing... she is what we call in the biz an easy audience. Who is the we? Since when are you in show biz and what kind? Easy audience, I don't know, I haven't been too easy on you lately. As for the Woodstock condom, I wasn't there, but I do have a friend (a former TMer, now touring the world as a kind of non-guru guru) who not only was, he carried around in his wallet his original *tickets* to Woodstock. He used to use them to impress much younger women he was trying to hustle. His success with this ploy was on about the same level as yours with the condom ploy, so don't lose heart. If you keep working at it, you might someday become a guru yourself. :-) P.S. I haven't worn my Garcia ties in years, but I *do* actually have a couple of pairs of Garcia boxer shorts. Silk. Cool designs (better than the one below). Never really wear them except when entertaining ladies who prefer the boxer look. I'm more of a briefs kinda guy. If you actually have any comedy chops, you should be able to take that piece of information and run with it. Good luck... :-) Raunchy, the gauntlet has been thrown down. Now, do you prefer boxers or briefs? I usually wear briefs. I meant what do you prefer on BARRY? How old are you? Just asking coz you come across like one of those emotionally backward teenagers that gets even facebook a bad name. I've never made a habit of reading more of your hysteria than message view provides, but recently I've started praying your relentless shrieking causes you to overpost and have to go somewhere else for a week, only one nutbag less round here but a distinct improvement for the rest of us. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: At the risk of 'piling on' this little vignette was priceless. Probably because it rang so true. All you left out was some bimbo trying to climb onto his lap. Hold the applause, Ann. You're only encouraging me. I can't... no I mustn't...Help! Somebody STOP ME! Oh alright. Scene: Leiden, Holland, 2:00 am. Two Dutch grifters discuss their recent mark. Guy: Hey, what's in his wallet? Gal: ID, Barry Wright, two bucks and a condom...expiration date, August 18, 1969. Guy: Sonofabitch, the last time that old geezer got laid was at Woodstock! Gal: Thought so...probably explains the tie-dyed boxer shorts. Guy: Did you get those too? Gal: Yep, trophy for my easy mark collection. Guy: Two bucks? Hardly worth the trouble of letting him feel your ass. Gal: My ass, his shorts, win, win. Meanwhile, alone in a fleabag hotel, passed out cold, handcuffed to a chair and stripped naked except for a Jerry Garcia tie* gracefully covering his privates. Barry slowly regains consciousness, muttering, win, win...win, win. Barry: What a night! Can't wait to write about it. *Jerry Garcia tie: Barry's most prized possession.
[FairfieldLife] Open Mike Thread -- the winners
The management and patrons of the FFL Comedy Club would like to thank all participants in yesterday's online Doing Standup While Sitting Down competition. We appreciate all those who tried their best to be funny, and salute them for being very trying indeed. You'll have to consult our website for a full list of winners, but a couple of categories deserve special mention here. First, in the coveted category of Bitter Old Women Trying To Write Comedy Material Based On Sex Acts They're Too Dried Up And Senile To Remember, we have a rare TIE. The co-award goes to two MEN who more than proved themselves the equals of the women in this category. Congratulations, guys. Turn your ballsacks in at the bar to receive your awards. Honorable Mention goes to an unwitting participant in the contest who, offstage, managed to win the The Best Parodies Of Myself Are The Ones I Act Out Myself award by attacking a clique member for giving her lip only a few minutes after someone had written a parody of that same participant...uh... attacking members of their own clique for standing up to them. Congratulations on the brilliant portrayal. No need to turn in your ballsack at the bar...just give the bartender shit for asking what you want to drink and not knowing it ahead of time like you would have known because you're so psychic and all, and he'll know who you are. Again, thanks to all participants, and remember to come back for next week's Open Mike competition. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Open Mike Thread -- the winners
Doc sez, you'll get over it. Please remember that the parodies on here poking rude fun at you have exactly as much truth to them as your posts do - very, very little. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: The management and patrons of the FFL Comedy Club would like to thank all participants in yesterday's online Doing Standup While Sitting Down competition. We appreciate all those who tried their best to be funny, and salute them for being very trying indeed. You'll have to consult our website for a full list of winners, but a couple of categories deserve special mention here. First, in the coveted category of Bitter Old Women Trying To Write Comedy Material Based On Sex Acts They're Too Dried Up And Senile To Remember, we have a rare TIE. The co-award goes to two MEN who more than proved themselves the equals of the women in this category. Congratulations, guys. Turn your ballsacks in at the bar to receive your awards. Honorable Mention goes to an unwitting participant in the contest who, offstage, managed to win the The Best Parodies Of Myself Are The Ones I Act Out Myself award by attacking a clique member for giving her lip only a few minutes after someone had written a parody of that same participant...uh... attacking members of their own clique for standing up to them. Congratulations on the brilliant portrayal. No need to turn in your ballsack at the bar...just give the bartender shit for asking what you want to drink and not knowing it ahead of time like you would have known because you're so psychic and all, and he'll know who you are. Again, thanks to all participants, and remember to come back for next week's Open Mike competition. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Was Steve Jobs a soda man?
A study out of the Harvard School of Public Health has shown that sugary beverage consumption- specifically, soda- is an independent health risk for heart disease. This means that it isn#8217;t just a contributing factor#8230;drinking too much soda alone can cause heart disease. Not only does a sugared beverage have an excess of processed sugar that spikes blood sugar levels and leads to obesity, but the chemicals in it have been shown to instantly trigger an inflammatory response all over the body within minutes of consumption. The Harvard study showed that people who consumed as few as two sodas per day were at significantly increased risk of heart disease- more than 20%. What#8217;s worse, other risk factors skyrocketed with just 2 sodas per day as well, such as pancreatic cancer (87%), diabetes (44%) and gout (85%). http://blueheronhealthnews.com/site/?p=5709
[FairfieldLife] BECOME A FRIEND:
http://www.tm.org/friends Friends of the TM program provides scholarships to people in your community with financial challenges who have a sincere desire to learn the TM program. Your support makes it possible for everyone, regardless of circumstances, to enjoy the benefits of this life-long program of personal growth. Charitable contributions to Maharishi Foundation USA are tax deductible.
[FairfieldLife] Fwd: Remember, the November election is important; Read THIS!
From: eb7...@dejazzd.com To: bgbg4...@gmail.com, cpk...@ptd.net CC: wle...@aol.com, rlwil...@embarqmail.com Sent: 9/20/2012 2:37:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time Subj: Fwd: Remember, the November election is important; Read THIS! Begin forwarded message: From: _tideebowl@aol.com_ (mailto:tideeb...@aol.com) Date: September 20, 2012 2:13:44 PM EDT Subject: Remember, the November election is important; Read THIS! This is unbelievable; the average American is going bankrupt trying to pay for gas to get to work (in addition to all the increased prices across the board to pay YET AGAIN for fuel!) and the gov't. is hog-tying extraction! OIL - You better be sitting down when you read this!! As you may know, Cruz Construction started a division in North Dakota Just 6 months ago. They sent every Kenworth (9 trucks) we had here in Alaskato North Dakota and several drivers. They just bought two new Ken worth’s to add to that fleet; one being a Tri-Drive tractor and a new 65 ton lowboy to go with it. They also bought two new cranes (one crawler one rubber tired) for that Division. Dave Cruz said they have moved more rigs in the last 6 months in ND than Cruz Construction moved in Alaska in the last 6 years. Williston is like a gold rush town; they moved one of our 40 man camps Down there since there are no rooms available. Unemployment in ND is the lowest in the nation at 3.4 percent last I Checked. See anything in the national news about how the oil industry is fueling North Dakota ’s economy? Here's an astonishing read. Important and verifiable information: About 6 months ago, the writer was watching a news program on oil and one Of the Forbes Bros. Was the guest. The host said to Forbes, I am going to ask you a direct question and I Would like a direct answer; How much oil does the U.S. Have in the ground? Forbes did not miss a Beat, he said, more than all the Middle East put together.. The U. S.. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only Scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since 1995) on how much oil Was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota , Western South Dakota and extreme eastern Montana . Check THIS out: The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to Eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates It at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable (5 Billion barrels), at $107 a barrel, We're looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3 trillion. When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see Their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea.. says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's Financial analyst. This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found In the past 56 years, reports The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a formation known as the Williston Basin , but is more commonly Referred to as the ’Bakken.' It stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada . For years, U. S. Oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells Decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakker’s Massive reserves, And we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is Light, sweet oil, Those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!! That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years Straight. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - Because it’s from 2006!! U.. S. Oil Discovery - Largest Reserve in the World Stanberry Report Online - 4/20/2006 Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the Largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush Mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherland of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore Drilling? They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves On earth. Here are the official estimates: 8 times as much oil as Saudi Arabia 18 times as much oil as Iraq 21 times as much oil as Kuwait 22 times as much oil as Iran 500 times as much oil as Yemen and it's all right here in the Western United States !! HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting
[FairfieldLife] Open Mike Thread (was Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Raunchy, you remind me of the proper etiquette to be used at Comedy Clubs on Open Mike Night, so I will reply. When someone gets up on stage and tries to be funny, you applaud them at the end, even if they haven't been. You do this because it took guts to get up there and embarrass themselves, and they deserve encouragement. I'm sure even Robin Williams bombed a few times before he made it to Actual Funny. Barry's reaction to your post is proof positive you were really, really funny. So good luck, and thank you for taking up my Creativity Challenge. My only advice is to keep working at it, and not to become an applause slut over Awoe's gushing... she is what we call in the biz an easy audience. Who is the we? Since when are you in show biz and what kind? Easy audience, I don't know, I haven't been too easy on you lately. As for the Woodstock condom, I wasn't there, but I do have a friend (a former TMer, now touring the world as a kind of non-guru guru) who not only was, he carried around in his wallet his original *tickets* to Woodstock. He used to use them to impress much younger women he was trying to hustle. His success with this ploy was on about the same level as yours with the condom ploy, so don't lose heart. If you keep working at it, you might someday become a guru yourself. :-) P.S. I haven't worn my Garcia ties in years, but I *do* actually have a couple of pairs of Garcia boxer shorts. Silk. Cool designs (better than the one below). Never really wear them except when entertaining ladies who prefer the boxer look. I'm more of a briefs kinda guy. If you actually have any comedy chops, you should be able to take that piece of information and run with it. Good luck... :-) Raunchy, the gauntlet has been thrown down. Now, do you prefer boxers or briefs? I usually wear briefs. I meant what do you prefer on BARRY? How old are you? Just asking coz you come across like one of those emotionally backward teenagers that gets even facebook a bad name. I've never made a habit of reading more of your hysteria than message view provides, but recently I've started praying your relentless shrieking causes you to overpost and have to go somewhere else for a week, only one nutbag less round here but a distinct improvement for the rest of us. I'm not sure who you're talking to here but I'll answer for whoever it may be. I'm 55 years old. Hysterical can only possibly be referring to the hilarity of yesterday's comic posts, relentless shrieking can only be the result of your hearing aid being turned up too high, I suggest you have that checked. Other than that, speak to Barry about the nutbag issue, I think he already advised the others to check their ballsacks at the bar, but you can double check on that. Wanna be my friend on FB? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: At the risk of 'piling on' this little vignette was priceless. Probably because it rang so true. All you left out was some bimbo trying to climb onto his lap. Hold the applause, Ann. You're only encouraging me. I can't... no I mustn't...Help! Somebody STOP ME! Oh alright. Scene: Leiden, Holland, 2:00 am. Two Dutch grifters discuss their recent mark. Guy: Hey, what's in his wallet? Gal: ID, Barry Wright, two bucks and a condom...expiration date, August 18, 1969. Guy: Sonofabitch, the last time that old geezer got laid was at Woodstock! Gal: Thought so...probably explains the tie-dyed boxer shorts. Guy: Did you get those too? Gal: Yep, trophy for my easy mark collection. Guy: Two bucks? Hardly worth the trouble of letting him feel your ass. Gal: My ass, his shorts, win, win. Meanwhile, alone in a fleabag hotel, passed out cold, handcuffed to a chair and stripped naked except for a Jerry Garcia tie* gracefully covering his privates. Barry slowly regains consciousness, muttering, win, win...win, win. Barry: What a night! Can't wait to write about it. *Jerry Garcia tie: Barry's most prized possession.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the import of my complete thought as contained in the whole paragraph. Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but tripping on what you said above, I thought I should draw your attention to a post I made here recently entitled This is your brain on reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510 It details some fascinating research being done on people to determine what is going on in their brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is called close reading, as if they have to report on what they're reading later in an essay about it. The researchers, watching the brains of people through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered that very different parts of the brain are being used, depending on whether one is reading for pleasure, or doing close reading. Riffing on what you say above, is it possible that a certain person is using different parts of their brain when reading your posts than you used when writing them? I find this an interesting question when applied to this forum. Different strokes for different folks turns out to be true even in the brain, and at different times, depending on the *intent* with which we read. Two people could read the same piece of literature -- in the experiments, passages from Jane Austen -- and get two very different things from them. That's not a surprise, of course, chances are we *all* would see the same passages slightly differently. *However*, the new information from these studies is that the *same* person could view and interpret these passages completely differently, depend- ing on how they're reading them -- for pleasure, or for work. Taking a profession completely at random, consider the case of a professional editor. Their day job is parsing other people's writing, *looking for nits to pick*. The person is, as you suggest, parsing word by word, sentence by sentence, *look- ing for errors or lapses in grammar or logic*. And to such a person, a single typo or misspelling could render an entire work unworthy of publication, and thus of being taken seriously. Now consider another random profession, say a person who makes their living as a musician and an educator. Such a person might have said many times that they read the posts on FFL -- and write their own -- for pleasure. They do *not* tend to parse them carefully, looking for things not right in them; instead they might be looking for things to enjoy. Which is the objective, after all, of reading for pleasure. These two types of people, conditioned by years of habit to read either for pleasure or for work, might be using entirely different parts of their brains while reading, and as a result might have a tendency to react to what you write completely differently. Now make a mental leap with me beyond the context of the experiments so far and to the next level. If humans use different parts of their brains when either reading for pleasure or reading more seriously, close reading, is it possible that they do the exact same thing when writing? The musician in my completely random example, for example, might have gone on record many times as saying that he writes for pleasure, for the sheer fun of writing and for the joy of seeing one's ideas come together as a result of the very act of writing. I'm like that, and I intuit that you might be, too. Someone else might tend to bring the same close reading brain functioning they practice as a reader to their writing, and tend to take the writing more seriously, and less as an opportunity to have fun. They might, in fact, be practicing close writing. If this were the case, would it not be likely that they are using an entirely different mode of brain functioning when writing than the person who is writing for the pleasure of it? Just a few random thoughts, written for the pleasure of writing them. Parse them as you will, and do with them what you will, using whatever parts of your brain you tend to use when doing that sorta stuff. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- replying to BW
Hi BW, yes, I saw that article. Read quickly as is my tendency. Sometimes I think I'm using a VERY small part of my brain here on FFL. Sometimes I think I'm using too much! Wonder how that combo of thoughts would look on MRI. I was a Lit major in undergrad and then TV/Film in grad school. Now can't even imagine reading or watching for anything other than pleasure. But, having said that, it seems deeply imbued in my perceiving such to notice patterns, themes, overarching tones. Dare I say that I attribute this to my jyotish chart?! I think it would be fascinating to do similar research on musicians. I read somewhere, not recently, that overall, musicians tend to live longer. Don't remember other details. Not my strong suit to do so. But wanted to mention it anyway. And wonder if maybe they, more than any other artists, combine pleasure and work. Hmmm, now that I think of it, I'd put poets in this category too. Probably missing merudanda more than is reasonable. Yes, I take into account that someone might be accustomed to close reading. And it makes sense to me that that trait would spill over into writing. Even into other activities. I appreciate your bringing this to my attention again. Can aim for compassion. As I anticipate a new posting week (-: Also want to say that I appreciate your being somewhat of a good sport about the Stand Up Comedy Awards, etc. PS I enjoyed both reading your post and replying to it. win win, my favorite From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 9:10 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the import of my complete thought as contained in the whole paragraph. Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but tripping on what you said above, I thought I should draw your attention to a post I made here recently entitled This is your brain on reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510 It details some fascinating research being done on people to determine what is going on in their brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is called close reading, as if they have to report on what they're reading later in an essay about it. The researchers, watching the brains of people through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered that very different parts of the brain are being used, depending on whether one is reading for pleasure, or doing close reading. Riffing on what you say above, is it possible that a certain person is using different parts of their brain when reading your posts than you used when writing them? I find this an interesting question when applied to this forum. Different strokes for different folks turns out to be true even in the brain, and at different times, depending on the *intent* with which we read. Two people could read the same piece of literature -- in the experiments, passages from Jane Austen -- and get two very different things from them. That's not a surprise, of course, chances are we *all* would see the same passages slightly differently. *However*, the new information from these studies is that the *same* person could view and interpret these passages completely differently, depend- ing on how they're reading them -- for pleasure, or for work. Taking a profession completely at random, consider the case of a professional editor. Their day job is parsing other people's writing, *looking for nits to pick*. The person is, as you suggest, parsing word by word, sentence by sentence, *look- ing for errors or lapses in grammar or logic*. And to such a person, a single typo or misspelling could render an entire work unworthy of publication, and thus of being taken seriously. Now consider another random profession, say a person who makes their living as a musician and an educator. Such a person might have said many times that they read the posts on FFL -- and write their own -- for pleasure. They do *not* tend to parse them carefully, looking for things not right in them; instead they might be looking for things to enjoy. Which is the objective, after all, of reading for pleasure. These two types of people, conditioned by years of habit to read either for pleasure or for work, might be using entirely different parts of their brains while reading, and as a result might have a tendency to react to what you write completely differently. Now make a mental leap with me beyond the context of the experiments so far and to the next level. If humans use different parts of their brains when either reading for pleasure or reading more seriously, close
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: That was a bit of a revelation and a cogent analysis of why we can't get there from here between some posters. Since I know the hypothetical guy you were imagining...it also explains why it can be fun to go point by point to stimulate a different part of my brain. That was largely what doing philosophy involved and I enjoy that in a different way from creative writing. Drilling deeper into this thoery I can also see how being attacked here stimulates a pseudo fear mechanism that prompts and urgency of response. Combined with things that a reader feels are inaccurate it creates a sturdy chain to pull and get pulled by. That may be a case for not posting in a place where a lot of that goes on. It is hard to resist getting pulled into that cycle, especially when not much more of that writing is going on. I used to think about some of the back and forth stuff about Maharishi's philosophy here as more of the first thing, the stimulation of the close attention part of my brain. As it has drifted further and further from any content, it has become less and less satisfying in that regard, so I switch to the creative but negative angle creating images of trollish scenes to keep me interested in writing. This really gives me a lot to think about, thanks for that Barry. I would like to become a bit more conscious of my outcomes here and ultimately if being here is where my real outcomes are likely to get met in becoming the kind of writer I want to be. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the import of my complete thought as contained in the whole paragraph. Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but tripping on what you said above, I thought I should draw your attention to a post I made here recently entitled This is your brain on reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510 It details some fascinating research being done on people to determine what is going on in their brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is called close reading, as if they have to report on what they're reading later in an essay about it. The researchers, watching the brains of people through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered that very different parts of the brain are being used, depending on whether one is reading for pleasure, or doing close reading. Riffing on what you say above, is it possible that a certain person is using different parts of their brain when reading your posts than you used when writing them? I find this an interesting question when applied to this forum. Different strokes for different folks turns out to be true even in the brain, and at different times, depending on the *intent* with which we read. Two people could read the same piece of literature -- in the experiments, passages from Jane Austen -- and get two very different things from them. That's not a surprise, of course, chances are we *all* would see the same passages slightly differently. *However*, the new information from these studies is that the *same* person could view and interpret these passages completely differently, depend- ing on how they're reading them -- for pleasure, or for work. Taking a profession completely at random, consider the case of a professional editor. Their day job is parsing other people's writing, *looking for nits to pick*. The person is, as you suggest, parsing word by word, sentence by sentence, *look- ing for errors or lapses in grammar or logic*. And to such a person, a single typo or misspelling could render an entire work unworthy of publication, and thus of being taken seriously. Now consider another random profession, say a person who makes their living as a musician and an educator. Such a person might have said many times that they read the posts on FFL -- and write their own -- for pleasure. They do *not* tend to parse them carefully, looking for things not right in them; instead they might be looking for things to enjoy. Which is the objective, after all, of reading for pleasure. These two types of people, conditioned by years of habit to read either for pleasure or for work, might be using entirely different parts of their brains while reading, and as a result might have a tendency to react to what you write completely differently. Now make a mental leap with me beyond the context of the experiments so far and to the next level. If humans use different parts of their brains when either reading for pleasure or reading more seriously, close reading, is it possible that they do the exact same thing when writing? The musician in my completely random
[FairfieldLife] John, what about the benefics of FFL chart?
Hi John, I was rereading what you've so generously written about the FFL chart. Thank you so much for all those insights. I do find them helpful. Can you say a little about Shukra Venus and Guru Jupiter? Especially Guru being so close to Rahu. Also, I have heard, as happens in FF a lot, that Venus in the 9th takes care of any problems in the chart. Realize Moon and Venus not buddies but Moon is in sign of Venus exaltation. What are good remedies, besides puja and yagya, for Ketu? Any other malefics need a little help? What is yoga karaka of chart. What is atma karaka? Thanks again. Share
[FairfieldLife] Fw: John, what about the benefics of FFL chart? PS
I once posted here about how as we evolve, the negative aspects of our chart as if get vibed up. Based on something the President of MUM had said to students. Of course, with more elegant language. Anyway, what do you think of that? - Forwarded Message - From: Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com To: fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 9:52 AM Subject: John, what about the benefics of FFL chart? Hi John, I was rereading what you've so generously written about the FFL chart. Thank you so much for all those insights. I do find them helpful. Can you say a little about Shukra Venus and Guru Jupiter? Especially Guru being so close to Rahu. Also, I have heard, as happens in FF a lot, that Venus in the 9th takes care of any problems in the chart. Realize Moon and Venus not buddies but Moon is in sign of Venus exaltation. What are good remedies, besides puja and yagya, for Ketu? Any other malefics need a little help? What is yoga karaka of chart. What is atma karaka? Thanks again. Share
[FairfieldLife] Re: Open Mike Thread -- the winners
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: Doc sez, you'll get over it. Please remember that the parodies on here poking rude fun at you have exactly as much truth to them as your posts do - very, very little. The Angel Gabriel blows his horn and the gates of heaven open. Barry looks bewildered. Barry: Am I dead? RD: Yep, and so am I, got here last night with all the reprobates from FFLife. Barry: Everyone, all at once? RD: Yep, Nabby made the travel arrangements. Crop circle guys sucked us up to heaven though our cell phones...same technology aliens use for cow abductions. Barry: Cows don't have cell phones. RD: Ha! Always the skeptic. Barry: I want to go home. RD: No can do. You have some work to do. Barry: No one can make me do anything. RD: Fine. No work. No friends. Barry: Friends? Who needs them? RD: You do. We all do. Barry: O.K. I'll bite. What kind of work are you talking about? RD: Soul searching, atonement, self-inquiry, stuff like that. Barry: Been there done that. RD: Well, there is an alternative program that requires no work at all, but the climate is quite a bit warmer. Barry: I can't take the heat. RD: It's your choice, Barry. Do some work or take the heat. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: The management and patrons of the FFL Comedy Club would like to thank all participants in yesterday's online Doing Standup While Sitting Down competition. We appreciate all those who tried their best to be funny, and salute them for being very trying indeed. You'll have to consult our website for a full list of winners, but a couple of categories deserve special mention here. First, in the coveted category of Bitter Old Women Trying To Write Comedy Material Based On Sex Acts They're Too Dried Up And Senile To Remember, we have a rare TIE. The co-award goes to two MEN who more than proved themselves the equals of the women in this category. Congratulations, guys. Turn your ballsacks in at the bar to receive your awards. Honorable Mention goes to an unwitting participant in the contest who, offstage, managed to win the The Best Parodies Of Myself Are The Ones I Act Out Myself award by attacking a clique member for giving her lip only a few minutes after someone had written a parody of that same participant...uh... attacking members of their own clique for standing up to them. Congratulations on the brilliant portrayal. No need to turn in your ballsack at the bar...just give the bartender shit for asking what you want to drink and not knowing it ahead of time like you would have known because you're so psychic and all, and he'll know who you are. Again, thanks to all participants, and remember to come back for next week's Open Mike competition. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- replying to Curtis
Enjoying what you say here Curtis. AND I also want to add my 2 cents worth about emotions, such as fear, and the body and or energy field around it. I'll speak from personal experience. Which is, especially recently, if I've eaten sugar, even the day before, I get triggered quite easily. What I mean by triggered, is that I have a physiological response that initially is ALMOST ENTIRELY energetic. Neither thoughts nor emotions attached to it yet. They can come later. So I've learned to postpone responding at least until my physiology is settled down. Another confession: if I suspect that a post will upset me, I don't read it until there's a soothing activity on the horizon. Such as getting together with a friend, going to writing group, going to the Dome. I'm not suggesting that any of this applies directly to you. I thought my experience might add something to the conversation. BTW, I've also been thinking about the wisdom of participating here. I think even more than the gratuitous negativity I get triggered by the ganging up on one person. Probably something from my childhood. From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 9:47 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: That was a bit of a revelation and a cogent analysis of why we can't get there from here between some posters. Since I know the hypothetical guy you were imagining...it also explains why it can be fun to go point by point to stimulate a different part of my brain. That was largely what doing philosophy involved and I enjoy that in a different way from creative writing. Drilling deeper into this thoery I can also see how being attacked here stimulates a pseudo fear mechanism that prompts and urgency of response. Combined with things that a reader feels are inaccurate it creates a sturdy chain to pull and get pulled by. That may be a case for not posting in a place where a lot of that goes on. It is hard to resist getting pulled into that cycle, especially when not much more of that writing is going on. I used to think about some of the back and forth stuff about Maharishi's philosophy here as more of the first thing, the stimulation of the close attention part of my brain. As it has drifted further and further from any content, it has become less and less satisfying in that regard, so I switch to the creative but negative angle creating images of trollish scenes to keep me interested in writing. This really gives me a lot to think about, thanks for that Barry. I would like to become a bit more conscious of my outcomes here and ultimately if being here is where my real outcomes are likely to get met in becoming the kind of writer I want to be. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the import of my complete thought as contained in the whole paragraph. Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but tripping on what you said above, I thought I should draw your attention to a post I made here recently entitled This is your brain on reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510 It details some fascinating research being done on people to determine what is going on in their brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is called close reading, as if they have to report on what they're reading later in an essay about it. The researchers, watching the brains of people through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered that very different parts of the brain are being used, depending on whether one is reading for pleasure, or doing close reading. Riffing on what you say above, is it possible that a certain person is using different parts of their brain when reading your posts than you used when writing them? I find this an interesting question when applied to this forum. Different strokes for different folks turns out to be true even in the brain, and at different times, depending on the *intent* with which we read. Two people could read the same piece of literature -- in the experiments, passages from Jane Austen -- and get two very different things from them. That's not a surprise, of course, chances are we *all* would see the same passages slightly differently. *However*, the new information from these studies is that the *same* person could view and interpret these passages completely differently, depend- ing on how they're reading them -- for pleasure, or for work. Taking a profession completely at random, consider the case of a
[FairfieldLife] Re: Devas and Architecture
mjackson74: I noticed that you have not responded to the notion that if sthapatya veda is so important to health, well-being and world peace, seems like the Big M might have mentioned it a few years ago so it could be working its magic all these many years. MMY mentioned vastu before the erection of the Golden Dome at Fairfield, IA, in 1972. Why do you think it's a dome? http://www.mmyvv.com/machieve1.jsp Perhaps you were not directing this to me, but I am not a TM teacher, merely one of the peons who meditate. So, where did your TM bija mantra come from? The point I'm trying to make is that the bijas mantras used in TM practice came from the Sri Vidya sect. So, I don't think they were 'made up' by MMY or Satyanand or Nandakishore. This is probably the most important aspect of TM practice that was mentioned on Usenet posts which could discredit MMY, that TM was 'invented' by MMY, when in fact, it's a centuries old yoga technique used by Buddhists and Hindus since at least the time of the historical Buddha and the use of mandalas, if not long before in the Upper Paleolithic in South Asia, according to historians. To sum up what has been established: If SBS had in his possession a Sri Yantra, and placed it in the Brahmastan of his cave, worshipped it and meditated on it while muttering the Saraswati bija mantra, and since SBS posed in Padma Asana displaying the chit mudra, and since SBS's teacher was SKS of Sringeri, the headquarters of the Saraswati sannyasins, and since the Sri Yantra is placed on the mandir for worship at the Sringeri, in a vastu tantric temple which has a south facing entrance, and since all the Saraswati sannyasins of the Shankara order at Sringeri all adhere to the Soundarylahari in which is mentioned the TM bija mantra for Saraswati, and every Saraswati sannyasin meditates on the Saraswati bija mantra at least twice every day, most people would conclude that the TM bija derived from the Sri Vidya sect of Karnataka, since the TM bija mantra for Saraswati is mentioned in the most revered scripture of the Sri Vidya, and is enumerated in the Soundaryalahari, right? Work cited: 'History of the Tantric Religion' by Bhattacharyya, N. N. New Delhi: Manohar, 1999 Read more: When the term Tantra is used in relation to authentic Hindu Shaktism, it most often refers to a class of ritual manuals, and more broadly to an esoteric methodology of Goddess-focused spiritual practice (sadhana) involving mantra, yantra, nyasa, mudra and certain elements of traditional kundalini yoga, all practiced under the guidance of a qualified guru after due initiation (diksha) and oral instruction to supplement various written sources... 'Shaktism's focus on the Divine Feminine does not imply a rejection of Masculine or Neuter divinity. However, both are deemed to be inactive in the absence of Shakti. As set out in the first line of Adi Shankara's renowned Shakta hymn, Saundaryalahari (c. 800 CE)... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaktism In the principally Shakta theology of the Shri Vidya the goddess is supreme, transcending the cosmos which is a manifestation of her...The school has an extensive literature of its own. The details of the beliefs vary in different texts, but the general principles are similar to those found in Kashmir Shaivism...The goddess is worshipped in the form of a mystical diagram (Sanskrit: yantra) of nine intersecting triangles, called the Shri Chakra that is the central icon of the tradition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shri_Vidya
[FairfieldLife] Re: Devas and Architecture
I realized I was dreaming when I thought Maharishi was enlightened and that all the stuff he recommended had merit, I am glad I woke up. Non sequitur. mjackson74: To believe this is a non sequitur, leads one to believe that you are not able to string two thoughts together, but maybe this is an off day... You don't have to be 'enlightened' to realize that MMY was a Shakta adherent, anymore than MMY had to be enlightened in order to follow SBS. But, in fact it is doubtfull that MMY ascribed fully to the notion that this world is an illusion or 'maya'. If he did, he would have said so, right? The idea that the world is a dream and not real, is not a tenent of Shaktism - I don't think MMY really believed in the illusionary aspect of the universe. Other important texts include the canonical Shakta Upanishads, as well as Shakta-oriented Puranic literature such as the Devi Purana and Kalika Purana, the Lalita Sahasranama (from the Brahmanda Purana), the Devi Gita (from the Devi-Bhagavata Purana), Adi Shankara's Saundaryalahari and the Tantras. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaktism
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the import of my complete thought as contained in the whole paragraph. turquoiseb: Taking a profession completely at random, consider the case of a professional editor... Share, I already told you it's all about Judy. Don't you get it - Barry does. He'll write almost anything for hours, days, weeks, months, and years, to drag you down with him into the rabbit hole. LoL! Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but tripping on what you said above, I thought I should draw your attention to a post I made here recently entitled This is your brain on reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510 It details some fascinating research being done on people to determine what is going on in their brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is called close reading, as if they have to report on what they're reading later in an essay about it. The researchers, watching the brains of people through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered that very different parts of the brain are being used, depending on whether one is reading for pleasure, or doing close reading. Riffing on what you say above, is it possible that a certain person is using different parts of their brain when reading your posts than you used when writing them? I find this an interesting question when applied to this forum. Different strokes for different folks turns out to be true even in the brain, and at different times, depending on the *intent* with which we read. Two people could read the same piece of literature -- in the experiments, passages from Jane Austen -- and get two very different things from them. That's not a surprise, of course, chances are we *all* would see the same passages slightly differently. *However*, the new information from these studies is that the *same* person could view and interpret these passages completely differently, depend- ing on how they're reading them -- for pleasure, or for work. Taking a profession completely at random, consider the case of a professional editor. Their day job is parsing other people's writing, *looking for nits to pick*. The person is, as you suggest, parsing word by word, sentence by sentence, *look- ing for errors or lapses in grammar or logic*. And to such a person, a single typo or misspelling could render an entire work unworthy of publication, and thus of being taken seriously. Now consider another random profession, say a person who makes their living as a musician and an educator. Such a person might have said many times that they read the posts on FFL -- and write their own -- for pleasure. They do *not* tend to parse them carefully, looking for things not right in them; instead they might be looking for things to enjoy. Which is the objective, after all, of reading for pleasure. These two types of people, conditioned by years of habit to read either for pleasure or for work, might be using entirely different parts of their brains while reading, and as a result might have a tendency to react to what you write completely differently. Now make a mental leap with me beyond the context of the experiments so far and to the next level. If humans use different parts of their brains when either reading for pleasure or reading more seriously, close reading, is it possible that they do the exact same thing when writing? The musician in my completely random example, for example, might have gone on record many times as saying that he writes for pleasure, for the sheer fun of writing and for the joy of seeing one's ideas come together as a result of the very act of writing. I'm like that, and I intuit that you might be, too. Someone else might tend to bring the same close reading brain functioning they practice as a reader to their writing, and tend to take the writing more seriously, and less as an opportunity to have fun. They might, in fact, be practicing close writing. If this were the case, would it not be likely that they are using an entirely different mode of brain functioning when writing than the person who is writing for the pleasure of it? Just a few random thoughts, written for the pleasure of writing them. Parse them as you will, and do with them what you will, using whatever parts of your brain you tend to use when doing that sorta stuff. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Doc sez, through careful and conclusive research, it has been shown that blowing oneself up like a balloon, purely by virtue of a large internal volume of hot air, somehow distorts the visual field, making all of those around you look like pricks. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: That was a bit of a revelation and a cogent analysis of why we can't get there from here between some posters. Since I know the hypothetical guy you were imagining...it also explains why it can be fun to go point by point to stimulate a different part of my brain. That was largely what doing philosophy involved and I enjoy that in a different way from creative writing. Drilling deeper into this thoery I can also see how being attacked here stimulates a pseudo fear mechanism that prompts and urgency of response. Combined with things that a reader feels are inaccurate it creates a sturdy chain to pull and get pulled by. That may be a case for not posting in a place where a lot of that goes on. It is hard to resist getting pulled into that cycle, especially when not much more of that writing is going on. I used to think about some of the back and forth stuff about Maharishi's philosophy here as more of the first thing, the stimulation of the close attention part of my brain. As it has drifted further and further from any content, it has become less and less satisfying in that regard, so I switch to the creative but negative angle creating images of trollish scenes to keep me interested in writing. This really gives me a lot to think about, thanks for that Barry. I would like to become a bit more conscious of my outcomes here and ultimately if being here is where my real outcomes are likely to get met in becoming the kind of writer I want to be. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the import of my complete thought as contained in the whole paragraph. Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but tripping on what you said above, I thought I should draw your attention to a post I made here recently entitled This is your brain on reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510 It details some fascinating research being done on people to determine what is going on in their brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is called close reading, as if they have to report on what they're reading later in an essay about it. The researchers, watching the brains of people through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered that very different parts of the brain are being used, depending on whether one is reading for pleasure, or doing close reading. Riffing on what you say above, is it possible that a certain person is using different parts of their brain when reading your posts than you used when writing them? I find this an interesting question when applied to this forum. Different strokes for different folks turns out to be true even in the brain, and at different times, depending on the *intent* with which we read. Two people could read the same piece of literature -- in the experiments, passages from Jane Austen -- and get two very different things from them. That's not a surprise, of course, chances are we *all* would see the same passages slightly differently. *However*, the new information from these studies is that the *same* person could view and interpret these passages completely differently, depend- ing on how they're reading them -- for pleasure, or for work. Taking a profession completely at random, consider the case of a professional editor. Their day job is parsing other people's writing, *looking for nits to pick*. The person is, as you suggest, parsing word by word, sentence by sentence, *look- ing for errors or lapses in grammar or logic*. And to such a person, a single typo or misspelling could render an entire work unworthy of publication, and thus of being taken seriously. Now consider another random profession, say a person who makes their living as a musician and an educator. Such a person might have said many times that they read the posts on FFL -- and write their own -- for pleasure. They do *not* tend to parse them carefully, looking for things not right in them; instead they might be looking for things to enjoy. Which is the objective, after all, of reading for pleasure. These two types of people, conditioned by years of habit to read either for pleasure or for work, might be using entirely different parts of their brains while
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: That was a bit of a revelation and a cogent analysis of why we can't get there from here between some posters. Glad you enjoyed it. Since I know the hypothetical guy you were imagining... it also explains why it can be fun to go point by point to stimulate a different part of my brain. That was largely what doing philosophy involved and I enjoy that in a different way from creative writing. Professor Phillips points out that neither of these modes of brain functioning are superior, and in fact the real benefit is that we can switch between them, to train and develop different parts of the brain. In her words, ...cognition is shaped not just by what we read, but how we read it. Reading rigorously and analyzing the ideas presented and even the structure of the language and how the ideas are presented exercises one mode of functioning in our brains, and cultivates that mode. Reading just for the fun of it exercises another mode of functioning, and cultivates it. Both are necessary to see the world around us clearly, from a balanced point of view. Drilling deeper into this thoery I can also see how being attacked here stimulates a pseudo fear mechanism that prompts and urgency of response. Combined with things that a reader feels are inaccurate it creates a sturdy chain to pull and get pulled by. That may be a case for not posting in a place where a lot of that goes on. It is hard to resist getting pulled into that cycle, especially when not much more of that writing is going on. I used to think about some of the back and forth stuff about Maharishi's philosophy here as more of the first thing, the stimulation of the close attention part of my brain. As it has drifted further and further from any content, it has become less and less satisfying in that regard, so I switch to the creative but negative angle creating images of trollish scenes to keep me interested in writing. This really gives me a lot to think about, thanks for that Barry. I would like to become a bit more conscious of my outcomes here and ultimately if being here is where my real outcomes are likely to get met in becoming the kind of writer I want to be. Much more research is being done by this same team, including fMRI scans of readers to determine how the two different modes of reading affect such things as how they experience emotion arising from what they're reading. Will those emotions be stronger and affect the person more when reading for pleasure, or for analysis? But one of the valuable things learned even so far from this projects is that each of us has the ability to *change the way that our own brains work*. We can shift them from one mode of operation to another, just by the *intent* we bring to our reading. This is a discovery that I cannot help but relate to work on mindfulness meditation and fMRI, which has also shown that we can control which areas of our brains light up and are used or not used, depending on whether or not they are appropriate for the circumstances. On the literature side of the equation, these experiments may help us to understand the impact that great writing has on us. As Natalie Phillips says, ...give us a bigger, richer picture of how our minds engage with art or, in our case, of the complex experience we know as literary reading. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the import of my complete thought as contained in the whole paragraph. Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but tripping on what you said above, I thought I should draw your attention to a post I made here recently entitled This is your brain on reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510 It details some fascinating research being done on people to determine what is going on in their brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is called close reading, as if they have to report on what they're reading later in an essay about it. The researchers, watching the brains of people through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered that very different parts of the brain are being used, depending on whether one is reading for pleasure, or doing close reading. Riffing on what you say above, is it possible that a certain person is using different parts of their brain when reading your posts than you used when writing them? I find this an interesting question when applied to this forum. Different strokes for different folks turns out to be true even in the
[FairfieldLife] Sarah Silverman on vote suppression
hilarious and with many f bombs, etc. http://www.alternet.org/hot-news-views/sarah-silvermans-insanely-great-video-going-after-gop-vote-suppressors
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
This exchange made it worth participating on FFL this month! Thanks. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: That was a bit of a revelation and a cogent analysis of why we can't get there from here between some posters. Glad you enjoyed it. Since I know the hypothetical guy you were imagining... it also explains why it can be fun to go point by point to stimulate a different part of my brain. That was largely what doing philosophy involved and I enjoy that in a different way from creative writing. Professor Phillips points out that neither of these modes of brain functioning are superior, and in fact the real benefit is that we can switch between them, to train and develop different parts of the brain. In her words, ...cognition is shaped not just by what we read, but how we read it. Reading rigorously and analyzing the ideas presented and even the structure of the language and how the ideas are presented exercises one mode of functioning in our brains, and cultivates that mode. Reading just for the fun of it exercises another mode of functioning, and cultivates it. Both are necessary to see the world around us clearly, from a balanced point of view. Drilling deeper into this thoery I can also see how being attacked here stimulates a pseudo fear mechanism that prompts and urgency of response. Combined with things that a reader feels are inaccurate it creates a sturdy chain to pull and get pulled by. That may be a case for not posting in a place where a lot of that goes on. It is hard to resist getting pulled into that cycle, especially when not much more of that writing is going on. I used to think about some of the back and forth stuff about Maharishi's philosophy here as more of the first thing, the stimulation of the close attention part of my brain. As it has drifted further and further from any content, it has become less and less satisfying in that regard, so I switch to the creative but negative angle creating images of trollish scenes to keep me interested in writing. This really gives me a lot to think about, thanks for that Barry. I would like to become a bit more conscious of my outcomes here and ultimately if being here is where my real outcomes are likely to get met in becoming the kind of writer I want to be. Much more research is being done by this same team, including fMRI scans of readers to determine how the two different modes of reading affect such things as how they experience emotion arising from what they're reading. Will those emotions be stronger and affect the person more when reading for pleasure, or for analysis? But one of the valuable things learned even so far from this projects is that each of us has the ability to *change the way that our own brains work*. We can shift them from one mode of operation to another, just by the *intent* we bring to our reading. This is a discovery that I cannot help but relate to work on mindfulness meditation and fMRI, which has also shown that we can control which areas of our brains light up and are used or not used, depending on whether or not they are appropriate for the circumstances. On the literature side of the equation, these experiments may help us to understand the impact that great writing has on us. As Natalie Phillips says, ...give us a bigger, richer picture of how our minds engage with art or, in our case, of the complex experience we know as literary reading. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the import of my complete thought as contained in the whole paragraph. Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but tripping on what you said above, I thought I should draw your attention to a post I made here recently entitled This is your brain on reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510 It details some fascinating research being done on people to determine what is going on in their brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is called close reading, as if they have to report on what they're reading later in an essay about it. The researchers, watching the brains of people through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered that very different parts of the brain are being used, depending on whether one is reading for pleasure, or doing close reading. Riffing on what you say above, is it possible that a certain
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Which smartphone are you going to buy?
On 09/21/2012 12:25 AM, card wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: On 09/20/2012 02:44 PM, card wrote: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/09/iphone5-spec-showdown/ I paid $350 for the Nexus. Unlocked the Galaxy III is $600-$800. I don't think you can get an iPhone 5 unlocked. Microsoft must have sent out an email to their employees to vote for the Lumia (or Nokia did). Business is war these days. Yeah, I agree. I think the Lumia 920 shall fail for at least two reasons: it's way too heavy (185 grams; iPhone 5, 114 grams), and perhaps even too wide for many people (~ 70 millimetres; iPhone ~ 60 millimetres?). Of course, the camera of the Lumia is superb, but that's prolly not enough. And as a Nokia share holder, I'm afraid Windoze Phone 8 shall be a disaster... BTW, just recommended my sister to buy a Macbook(?), instead of a PC laptop! The camera is nice on my Galaxy Nexus but it can't begin to compare with my $200 Canon. On a camera you want optical zoom not digital which just blows up the pixels and a lot more control over what you're shooting. In a pinch these phones will take some great video but still not as well as if you have a dedicated camera with you. Windows 8 is an also ran. Android has over a 1/2 billion installs.
[FairfieldLife] A magic trick -- a challenge
http://youtu.be/BgUxheGmu4U The video shows a magic trick that I invented. It would be interesting to see what kinds of guesses you guys can come up with to explain how this trick is done. Edg
Fwd: [FairfieldLife] Fwd: Check out Sheriff Joe's Lead Investigator Just Back From Hawaii: Only p...
---BeginMessage--- From: wle...@aol.com To: wle...@aol.com Sent: 9/8/2012 8:35:33 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time Subj: Check out Sheriff Joeapos;s Lead Investigator Just Back From Hawaii: Only pResid _Sheriff Joe's Lead Investigator Just Back From Hawaii: Only pResident Ever To Have 3 Aliases | Birther Report: Obama Release_ (http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/09/sheriff-joes-lead-investigator-just.html) ---End Message---
[FairfieldLife] Fwd: Check out Sheriff Joe's Lead Investigator Just Back From Hawaii: Only pResid
---BeginMessage--- _Sheriff Joe's Lead Investigator Just Back From Hawaii: Only pResident Ever To Have 3 Aliases | Birther Report: Obama Release_ (http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/09/sheriff-joes-lead-investigator-just.html) ---End Message---
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Drilling deeper into this thoery I can also see how being attacked here stimulates a pseudo fear mechanism that prompts and urgency of response... curtisdeltablues: This exchange made it worth participating on FFL this month! Thanks. Looks like several respondents got really scared of Judy. LoL! That was a bit of a revelation and a cogent analysis of why we can't get there from here between some posters. Glad you enjoyed it. Since I know the hypothetical guy you were imagining... it also explains why it can be fun to go point by point to stimulate a different part of my brain. That was largely what doing philosophy involved and I enjoy that in a different way from creative writing. Professor Phillips points out that neither of these modes of brain functioning are superior, and in fact the real benefit is that we can switch between them, to train and develop different parts of the brain. In her words, ...cognition is shaped not just by what we read, but how we read it. Reading rigorously and analyzing the ideas presented and even the structure of the language and how the ideas are presented exercises one mode of functioning in our brains, and cultivates that mode. Reading just for the fun of it exercises another mode of functioning, and cultivates it. Both are necessary to see the world around us clearly, from a balanced point of view. Drilling deeper into this thoery I can also see how being attacked here stimulates a pseudo fear mechanism that prompts and urgency of response. Combined with things that a reader feels are inaccurate it creates a sturdy chain to pull and get pulled by. That may be a case for not posting in a place where a lot of that goes on. It is hard to resist getting pulled into that cycle, especially when not much more of that writing is going on. I used to think about some of the back and forth stuff about Maharishi's philosophy here as more of the first thing, the stimulation of the close attention part of my brain. As it has drifted further and further from any content, it has become less and less satisfying in that regard, so I switch to the creative but negative angle creating images of trollish scenes to keep me interested in writing. This really gives me a lot to think about, thanks for that Barry. I would like to become a bit more conscious of my outcomes here and ultimately if being here is where my real outcomes are likely to get met in becoming the kind of writer I want to be. Much more research is being done by this same team, including fMRI scans of readers to determine how the two different modes of reading affect such things as how they experience emotion arising from what they're reading. Will those emotions be stronger and affect the person more when reading for pleasure, or for analysis? But one of the valuable things learned even so far from this projects is that each of us has the ability to *change the way that our own brains work*. We can shift them from one mode of operation to another, just by the *intent* we bring to our reading. This is a discovery that I cannot help but relate to work on mindfulness meditation and fMRI, which has also shown that we can control which areas of our brains light up and are used or not used, depending on whether or not they are appropriate for the circumstances. On the literature side of the equation, these experiments may help us to understand the impact that great writing has on us. As Natalie Phillips says, ...give us a bigger, richer picture of how our minds engage with art or, in our case, of the complex experience we know as literary reading. Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the import of my complete thought as contained in the whole paragraph. Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but tripping on what you said above, I thought I should draw your attention to a post I made here recently entitled This is your brain on reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510 It details some fascinating research being done on people to determine what is going on in their brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is called close reading, as if they have to report on what they're reading later in an essay about it. The researchers, watching the brains of people through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered that very different parts of the brain are being used, depending on whether one is reading for pleasure, or doing close reading. Riffing on what you say
[FairfieldLife] Re: A magic trick -- a challenge
Cool Edg, no idea how you did it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@... wrote: http://youtu.be/BgUxheGmu4U The video shows a magic trick that I invented. It would be interesting to see what kinds of guesses you guys can come up with to explain how this trick is done. Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Check out Sheriff Joe's Lead Investigator Just Back From Hawaii: Only pResid
Bill, You do know that Obama would still be an American citizen wherever he was born because his mother was and American citizen. It doesn't matter where he was born. No one has ever doubted HER American citizenship. Think about it. An American tourist drops a baby in Paris during vacation. What nationality is the baby? So this whole where Obama was born nonsense is based on a faulty premise to begin with: that it would matter where an American citizen has her baby. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wleed3 WLeed3@... wrote: _Sheriff Joe's Lead Investigator Just Back From Hawaii: Only pResident Ever To Have 3 Aliases | Birther Report: Obama Release_ (http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/09/sheriff-joes-lead-investigator-just.html)
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Check out Sheriff Joe's Lead Investigator Just Back From Hawaii: Only pResid
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of curtisdeltablues Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 12:39 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Check out Sheriff Joe's Lead Investigator Just Back From Hawaii: Only pResid Bill, You do know that Obama would still be an American citizen wherever he was born because his mother was and American citizen. It doesn't matter where he was born. No one has ever doubted HER American citizenship. Think about it. An American tourist drops a baby in Paris during vacation. What nationality is the baby? So this whole where Obama was born nonsense is based on a faulty premise to begin with: that it would matter where an American citizen has her baby. Yes, but isn't there a provision in the Constitution or somewhere that a President has to be born in the US or one of its territories, not just born of an American parent? McCain was born in Panama, but that was a territory at the time, so he qualified.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I Love This
Elf Baiter sez: Well, I guess it has to be the witch since that is me circa 1960, the one on the right. Empty Bill sez: Congrads Elf Baiter, you're in good company. IMO, Margret Hamilton's role as the wicked witch of the West makes the 1939 film wonderful. FFL needs another Wicked Witch only one not quite as unreflective as those acted out in the other FFL auditions. Maybe you can fly up like a hawk with your piercing gaze and spot the tasty little morsel awaiting its karmic devouring. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@ wrote: Elf Baiter So which one do you identify with ... Nikko the winged monkey or the Witch of the West? Well, I guess it has to be the witch since that is me circa 1960, the one on the right. [fbPhotosSnowliftCaption]
Re: [FairfieldLife] A magic trick -- a challenge
On 09/21/2012 09:27 AM, Duveyoung wrote: http://youtu.be/BgUxheGmu4U The video shows a magic trick that I invented. It would be interesting to see what kinds of guesses you guys can come up with to explain how this trick is done. Edg Well one way of doing though it may not have been the way you did it is using the pattern as a filter and then passing an image through that filter creating the pattern that the image was in. Once you place the filter over the image it should pop out. This commonly done a number of ways with computer graphics to get certain overlays and blends with images. In other news, the shuttle wasn't flown over my house but if it had kept with the pattern originally planned it might have. Looked like it flew further west then down over the SF Bay area. Maybe John saw it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which smartphone are you going to buy?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: On 09/21/2012 12:25 AM, card wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: On 09/20/2012 02:44 PM, card wrote: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/09/iphone5-spec-showdown/ I paid $350 for the Nexus. Unlocked the Galaxy III is $600-$800. I don't think you can get an iPhone 5 unlocked. Microsoft must have sent out an email to their employees to vote for the Lumia (or Nokia did). Business is war these days. Yeah, I agree. I think the Lumia 920 shall fail for at least two reasons: it's way too heavy (185 grams; iPhone 5, 114 grams), and perhaps even too wide for many people (~ 70 millimetres; iPhone ~ 60 millimetres?). Of course, the camera of the Lumia is superb, but that's prolly not enough. And as a Nokia share holder, I'm afraid Windoze Phone 8 shall be a disaster... BTW, just recommended my sister to buy a Macbook(?), instead of a PC laptop! The camera is nice on my Galaxy Nexus but it can't begin to compare with my $200 Canon. On a camera you want optical zoom not digital which just blows up the pixels and a lot more control over what you're shooting. In a pinch these phones will take some great video but still not as well as if you have a dedicated camera with you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pureview#Pureview_Pro_camera Furthermore, the world#8217;s largest telecom operator China Mobile Limited (CHL), which covers nearly 75% of Chinese market, also plans to rollout TD-LTE technology in the upcoming months and will be using Nokia-Siemens technology, which we believe will act as a huge catalyst for growth going forward. According to the latest report provided by the Global mobile Suppliers Association (:GSA), out of the total 11 TD-LTE commercially deployed by the telecom carriers, 5 are using Nokia-Siemens Networks#8217; equipments. Taking all these factors into consideration we believe that Nokia#8217;s this particular segment will register impressive results in the upcoming quarters. Phew?! :-] Windows 8 is an also ran. Android has over a 1/2 billion installs.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Richard, do you have a little Irish in you? We Irish are prone to exaggerating for effect from time to time. Anyway, if by rabbit hole you mean my opinions of Judy, I assure you that Barry has little to do with that. When Judy butted in and continued to butt into a personal and emotional matter between me and Robin, that's when my current opinions of Judy were formed. From: Richard J. Williams rich...@rwilliams.us To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 10:45 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the import of my complete thought as contained in the whole paragraph. turquoiseb: Taking a profession completely at random, consider the case of a professional editor... Share, I already told you it's all about Judy. Don't you get it - Barry does. He'll write almost anything for hours, days, weeks, months, and years, to drag you down with him into the rabbit hole. LoL! Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but tripping on what you said above, I thought I should draw your attention to a post I made here recently entitled This is your brain on reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510 It details some fascinating research being done on people to determine what is going on in their brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is called close reading, as if they have to report on what they're reading later in an essay about it. The researchers, watching the brains of people through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered that very different parts of the brain are being used, depending on whether one is reading for pleasure, or doing close reading. Riffing on what you say above, is it possible that a certain person is using different parts of their brain when reading your posts than you used when writing them? I find this an interesting question when applied to this forum. Different strokes for different folks turns out to be true even in the brain, and at different times, depending on the *intent* with which we read. Two people could read the same piece of literature -- in the experiments, passages from Jane Austen -- and get two very different things from them. That's not a surprise, of course, chances are we *all* would see the same passages slightly differently. *However*, the new information from these studies is that the *same* person could view and interpret these passages completely differently, depend- ing on how they're reading them -- for pleasure, or for work. Taking a profession completely at random, consider the case of a professional editor. Their day job is parsing other people's writing, *looking for nits to pick*. The person is, as you suggest, parsing word by word, sentence by sentence, *look- ing for errors or lapses in grammar or logic*. And to such a person, a single typo or misspelling could render an entire work unworthy of publication, and thus of being taken seriously. Now consider another random profession, say a person who makes their living as a musician and an educator. Such a person might have said many times that they read the posts on FFL -- and write their own -- for pleasure. They do *not* tend to parse them carefully, looking for things not right in them; instead they might be looking for things to enjoy. Which is the objective, after all, of reading for pleasure. These two types of people, conditioned by years of habit to read either for pleasure or for work, might be using entirely different parts of their brains while reading, and as a result might have a tendency to react to what you write completely differently. Now make a mental leap with me beyond the context of the experiments so far and to the next level. If humans use different parts of their brains when either reading for pleasure or reading more seriously, close reading, is it possible that they do the exact same thing when writing? The musician in my completely random example, for example, might have gone on record many times as saying that he writes for pleasure, for the sheer fun of writing and for the joy of seeing one's ideas come together as a result of the very act of writing. I'm like that, and I intuit that you might be, too. Someone else might tend to bring the same close reading brain functioning they practice as a reader to their writing, and tend to take the writing more seriously, and less as an opportunity to have fun. They might, in fact, be practicing close writing. If this were the case, would it not be likely that they are using an entirely different mode of brain functioning when writing than
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Check out Sheriff Joe's Lead Investigator Just Back From Hawaii: Only pResid
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote: Yes, but isn't there a provision in the Constitution or somewhere that a President has to be born in the US or one of its territories, not just born of an American parent? McCain was born in Panama, but that was a territory at the time, so he qualified. The term in the Constitution is Natural Born Citizen I couldn't find any examples for it to be taken as physically on our dirt only. Maybe someone else has one.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Check out Sheriff Joe's Lead Investigator Just Back From Hawaii: Only pResid
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Yes, but isn't there a provision in the Constitution or somewhere that a President has to be born in the US or one of its territories, not just born of an American parent? McCain was born in Panama, but that was a territory at the time, so he qualified. The term in the Constitution is Natural Born Citizen I couldn't find any examples for it to be taken as physically on our dirt only. Maybe someone else has one. Wikipedia: Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for election to the office of President or Vice President. This requirement was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence. The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term natural born citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship by birth or at birth, either by being born in the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship at birth. Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an alien required to go through the legal process of naturalization to become a U.S. citizen.[1]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Richard, do you have a little Irish in you? We Irish are prone to exaggerating for effect from time to time. Anyway, if by rabbit hole you mean my opinions of Judy, I assure you that Barry has little to do with that. When Judy butted in and continued to butt into a personal and emotional matter between me and Robin, that's when my current opinions of Judy were formed. Pick Your Battles - Dr. Thema Bryant-Davis http://youtu.be/x6ZpdxlwxLI From: Richard J. Williams richard@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 10:45 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology  Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the import of my complete thought as contained in the whole paragraph. turquoiseb: Taking a profession completely at random, consider the case of a professional editor... Share, I already told you it's all about Judy. Don't you get it - Barry does. He'll write almost anything for hours, days, weeks, months, and years, to drag you down with him into the rabbit hole. LoL! Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but tripping on what you said above, I thought I should draw your attention to a post I made here recently entitled This is your brain on reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510 It details some fascinating research being done on people to determine what is going on in their brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is called close reading, as if they have to report on what they're reading later in an essay about it. The researchers, watching the brains of people through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered that very different parts of the brain are being used, depending on whether one is reading for pleasure, or doing close reading. Riffing on what you say above, is it possible that a certain person is using different parts of their brain when reading your posts than you used when writing them? I find this an interesting question when applied to this forum. Different strokes for different folks turns out to be true even in the brain, and at different times, depending on the *intent* with which we read. Two people could read the same piece of literature -- in the experiments, passages from Jane Austen -- and get two very different things from them. That's not a surprise, of course, chances are we *all* would see the same passages slightly differently. *However*, the new information from these studies is that the *same* person could view and interpret these passages completely differently, depend- ing on how they're reading them -- for pleasure, or for work. Taking a profession completely at random, consider the case of a professional editor. Their day job is parsing other people's writing, *looking for nits to pick*. The person is, as you suggest, parsing word by word, sentence by sentence, *look- ing for errors or lapses in grammar or logic*. And to such a person, a single typo or misspelling could render an entire work unworthy of publication, and thus of being taken seriously. Now consider another random profession, say a person who makes their living as a musician and an educator. Such a person might have said many times that they read the posts on FFL -- and write their own -- for pleasure. They do *not* tend to parse them carefully, looking for things not right in them; instead they might be looking for things to enjoy. Which is the objective, after all, of reading for pleasure. These two types of people, conditioned by years of habit to read either for pleasure or for work, might be using entirely different parts of their brains while reading, and as a result might have a tendency to react to what you write completely differently. Now make a mental leap with me beyond the context of the experiments so far and to the next level. If humans use different parts of their brains when either reading for pleasure or reading more seriously, close reading, is it possible that they do the exact same thing when writing? The musician in my completely random example, for example, might have gone on record many times as saying that he writes for pleasure, for the sheer fun of writing and for the joy of seeing one's ideas come together as a result of the very act of writing. I'm like that, and I intuit that you might be, too. Someone else might tend to bring the same close reading brain functioning they practice as a reader to their writing, and tend to
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Which smartphone are you going to buy?
On 09/21/2012 11:07 AM, card wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: On 09/21/2012 12:25 AM, card wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: On 09/20/2012 02:44 PM, card wrote: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/09/iphone5-spec-showdown/ I paid $350 for the Nexus. Unlocked the Galaxy III is $600-$800. I don't think you can get an iPhone 5 unlocked. Microsoft must have sent out an email to their employees to vote for the Lumia (or Nokia did). Business is war these days. Yeah, I agree. I think the Lumia 920 shall fail for at least two reasons: it's way too heavy (185 grams; iPhone 5, 114 grams), and perhaps even too wide for many people (~ 70 millimetres; iPhone ~ 60 millimetres?). Of course, the camera of the Lumia is superb, but that's prolly not enough. And as a Nokia share holder, I'm afraid Windoze Phone 8 shall be a disaster... BTW, just recommended my sister to buy a Macbook(?), instead of a PC laptop! The camera is nice on my Galaxy Nexus but it can't begin to compare with my $200 Canon. On a camera you want optical zoom not digital which just blows up the pixels and a lot more control over what you're shooting. In a pinch these phones will take some great video but still not as well as if you have a dedicated camera with you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pureview#Pureview_Pro_camera Furthermore, the world#8217;s largest telecom operator China Mobile Limited (CHL), which covers nearly 75% of Chinese market, also plans to rollout TD-LTE technology in the upcoming months and will be using Nokia-Siemens technology, which we believe will act as a huge catalyst for growth going forward. According to the latest report provided by the Global mobile Suppliers Association (:GSA), out of the total 11 TD-LTE commercially deployed by the telecom carriers, 5 are using Nokia-Siemens Networks#8217; equipments. Taking all these factors into consideration we believe that Nokia#8217;s this particular segment will register impressive results in the upcoming quarters. Phew?! :-] Windows 8 is an also ran. Android has over a 1/2 billion installs. I haven't even looked into Windows mobile development but for awhile you had to have the full Visual Studio not just their free version. I think someone said they dropped back to the free version. Android, OTOH, accommodates development for free on Windows, Mac and Linux and probably about anything else you can get Java on. How to make money on mobile platforms is a headache though as people want it all free even if it has ads. But you can't buy a new Porsche with ad revenue. :-D
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Check out Sheriff Joe's Lead Investigator Just Back From Hawaii: Only pResid
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Yes, but isn't there a provision in the Constitution or somewhere that a President has to be born in the US or one of its territories, not just born of an American parent? McCain was born in Panama, but that was a territory at the time, so he qualified. The term in the Constitution is Natural Born Citizen I couldn't find any examples for it to be taken as physically on our dirt only. Maybe someone else has one. The entire requirement: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Check out Sheriff Joe's Lead Investigator Just Back From Hawaii: Only pResid
What may be the problem with Obama's birth is that the dad may have been Frank Marshall Davis not the Kenyan marriage for convenience guy. Obama looks more like Davis than the Kenyan guy but with Davis then it becomes at least an embarrassing birth or that Davis, a poet in residence at the university, was a leftist. The latter gets the Bircher nuts riled up but who cares about them. Plenty of students back in the 60's were idealistic and there were lame FBI informants that hung around (obvious as hell). I'm so pissed at the banks and the Republicans I think it would serve them right if the country went communist for awhile but that is highly unlikely to happen. On 09/21/2012 10:38 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Bill, You do know that Obama would still be an American citizen wherever he was born because his mother was and American citizen. It doesn't matter where he was born. No one has ever doubted HER American citizenship. Think about it. An American tourist drops a baby in Paris during vacation. What nationality is the baby? So this whole where Obama was born nonsense is based on a faulty premise to begin with: that it would matter where an American citizen has her baby. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wleed3 WLeed3@... wrote: _Sheriff Joe's Lead Investigator Just Back From Hawaii: Only pResident Ever To Have 3 Aliases | Birther Report: Obama Release_ (http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/09/sheriff-joes-lead-investigator-just.html)
[FairfieldLife] The Master opens
P T Anderson's much awaited film The Master, a nod to L Ron Hubbard, opened in the US today. Unfortunately it didn't open at the nearby theater. It opened at the barn art house but I may go to their other newer theater a few miles away to see it. Haven't been to a movie in a theater since Prometheus. They showed mostly dumb Hollywood junk all summer. Cheaper to rent those for $1.50 on Bluray at Redbox.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Check out Sheriff Joe's Lead Investigator Just Back From Hawaii: Only pResid
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of raunchydog Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 1:58 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Check out Sheriff Joe's Lead Investigator Just Back From Hawaii: Only pResid --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Yes, but isn't there a provision in the Constitution or somewhere that a President has to be born in the US or one of its territories, not just born of an American parent? McCain was born in Panama, but that was a territory at the time, so he qualified. The term in the Constitution is Natural Born Citizen I couldn't find any examples for it to be taken as physically on our dirt only. Maybe someone else has one. Wikipedia: Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for election to the office of President or Vice President. This requirement was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence. The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term natural born citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship by birth or at birth, either by being born in the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship at birth. Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an alien required to go through the legal process of naturalization to become a U.S. citizen.[1] So then I don't understand the controversy, as Obama's mother was undisputedly an American citizen throughout her life. Seems like it's just a thing that idiots use to keep themselves worked into a racist, xenophobic frenzy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Check out Sheriff Joe's Lead Investigator Just Back From Hawaii: Only pResid
dude, seriously forget about Obama and whether or not he's a citizen. Trust me, I dislike him as much as you do. But it's time for us to stop hanging on to the idea that there's someone else who's going to come in and save the day. There's a reason we invented term limits in our constitution. It's because of people like him and GWB that we made limits on how long someone can be in office. Besides, if he gets another 4 years, so what? Yeah, he may take us to 20 trillion in debt and force us into another great depression like the 1930's. But in my opinion, it might be what we need as a country to force ourselves out of our disgraceful narcissism, laziness, apathy, and overall attitude of entitlement. If there was any motto that would describe a typical American these days it would be Gimme, it's mine!!!. Until we hit real hard times, that attitude won't go away. So in my opinion, Obama may be the better choice. I'm hoping he gets us to 20 trillion before the end of his 2nd term. seekliberation --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wleed3 WLeed3@... wrote: _Sheriff Joe's Lead Investigator Just Back From Hawaii: Only pResident Ever To Have 3 Aliases | Birther Report: Obama Release_ (http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/09/sheriff-joes-lead-investigator-just.html)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: Actually Steve, Ravi thought the story wasn't funny because he was joking that he thought story was real. Now, *that* was funny. Anyway, thanks for the kudos. Missing Ravi's humor. How could that happen!
[FairfieldLife] Re: John, what about the benefics of FFL chart?
Share, Venus is placed in the 9th house of dharma in the sign of Cancer. Since Venus is the lord of the 7th house, the forum reflects the beliefs of its members. Since Venus is the lord of the 12th, the forum is very familiar with the various techniques for meditation, particularly the TM method and the Sidhi/Yogic Flying program. The forum as a group knows the various sophisticated concepts in religion, philosophies, and the vedic idea of samadhi and cosmic consciousness. However, since Venus is in a badhaka position, the forum does not specifically endorse one path of enligthenment for its members. Rather, it makes the knowledge, both positive and negative, available for discussion. In the next post, we'll cover the meaning of the planets in the 8th house, which is the most mysterious of all. JR --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Hi John, I was rereading what you've so generously written about the FFL chart. Thank you so much for all those insights. I do find them helpful. Can you say a little about Shukra Venus and Guru Jupiter? Especially Guru being so close to Rahu. Also, I have heard, as happens in FF a lot, that Venus in the 9th takes care of any problems in the chart. Realize Moon and Venus not buddies but Moon is in sign of Venus exaltation. What are good remedies, besides puja and yagya, for Ketu? Any other malefics need a little help? What is yoga karaka of chart. What is atma karaka? Thanks again. Share
[FairfieldLife] Re: anaadi matparaM brahma or anaadimat paraM brahma??
Sorry, Willy, but you are starting to bluster again. No Western trained scholar (Indian or Euro-American) would believe these invented claims by Indians. There are no texts to read, Willy, because tantra only developed as puja-yajna during the puranic temple-historical phase later known as Hinduism. Individually oriented inner tantric practice is a later development which is centered upon the internalization the fire ritual (antara-agni-yaga). BTW, all smarta Brahmins claim allegiance to Shankara. So what, it means nothing. Current smarta sannyasins use Sri Vidya because they adhere to Yogic Advaita, which reinterprets advaita as a form of yoga. That may be yoga and/or tantra but it is not advaita. Many of the current Shankaracharya-s have proven to be shills who were voted in by various Brahmin groups after taking lakhs of rupees for their votes. However, you are probably getting screwed, Willy, `cause they ain't payin' you to make their fabulous claims here in 'Smerica. Wake up and smell the rupees. That would be smarta than what you're doin' now. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams richard@... wrote: emptybill: This does not mean that either Shankara or SBS were tantrika-s... Can't help you if you won't read the texts, Bill. Get some smarts and learn some history! MMY got the TM bijas from SBS and he got them from SKS, all they way back to the Adi Shankara. All the Sringeri sannyasins are tantrikas and adherents Sri Vidya. All the Sringeri sannyasisn worship the Sri Yantra - a tantric yoga. These are the facts. So, let's review what we know: The adherents of the Sri Vidya claim Shankara as their Adi Guru, and all of the Saraswati sannyasins worship Tripurasundari with the Sri Yantra, and they repeat the bija mantra of Saraswati at least twice each day. At their headquarters at Sringeri, the Saraswati yogins all proclaim their allegiance to the Adi Shankara. According to the Shankaracharya of Sringeri, the Adi Shankara placed the Sri Chakra, symbol of Tripurasundari, with the TM mantras inscribed thereon, at each of the seats of learning - Dwarka, Puri, Sringeri, and at Jyotirmath. So, the mantras of TM are DIRECTLY related to Sri Vidya. So, we get TM and the TM bijas from MMY, who got the bijas from SBS, who got the bijas from the Swami Krishananda Saraswati of Sringeri. So, the TM bijas come from the Shankaracharya tradition of Kaula Tantra which was founded at Sringeri by the Adi Shankara. So, when TMers use the bija mantra of Saraswati, there is no difference between the bija and the Absolute itself - there is only the illusion of duration. There is no difference between an object meditated upon and the object itself. Since the Absolute is not a subject to be cognized, TMers use bija mantras in order to provide the ideal opportunity for the transcending. According to Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, The difference is the same as the difference between rice and paddy. Remove the skin of the paddy and it is rice. Similarly, remove the covering of Maya, and the Jiva will become Brahman. ...it has now been established that at least two of the most sacred bija-mantras, out of the fifteen, contained in the Sound Arya La Hari, are in fact, TM bija-mantras. Subject: Re: Guru Dev and Sri Vidya From: James Duffy Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: April 28, 2003 http://tinyurl.com/2drn7gp I have the Mandukya Upanishad with Shankara's detailed commentary. Nowhere is there a discussion of 7 states of consciousness, much less Maharishi's 7 states. Shankara's so called usage of Kashmiri Trika or Shri Vidya is untrue and has long been disproven. It has already been established that Swami Brahmananda Saraswati was an adherent of the Sri Vidya. It has also already been established that MMY was a close confidant of Swami Laksmanjoo, the last Tantric teacher of Trika in Kashmere. Another crucial point that is often missed is that Maharishi's typology is a tantric rendering of the seven states, not a strictly Vedantic map. The 'God Consciousness' described by Maharishi is based on Sri Vidya principles: The Absolute as the creative source - the divine Mother, Tripura, which is the main doctrine of both Sri Vidya and Kashmere Shivaism. Tripura can be an anthropomorphic deity, but the subtler tantric practices are directed towards Tripura as the formless - that is, the fourth state which is beyond or transcendental to, the three gross states (three cities) symbolized by AUM in the Mandukhya Upanishad and the cogent commentary by Gaudapadacharya. In Sri Vidya, the Sri Yantra is the map of the seven states, which agrees with Maharishi's layout, with the Bindu at the center. According to Tantra the Bindu is the highest state of transcendenace. Swami Rama on the Mandukhya Upanishad:
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- replying to BW
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Hi BW, yes, I saw that article. Read quickly as is my tendency. Sometimes I think I'm using a VERY small part of my brain here on FFL. Sometimes I think I'm using too much! Wonder how that combo of thoughts would look on MRI. I was a Lit major in undergrad and then TV/Film in grad school. Now can't even imagine reading or watching for anything other than pleasure. But, having said that, it seems deeply imbued in my perceiving such to notice patterns, themes, overarching tones. Dare I say that I attribute this to my jyotish chart?! I think it would be fascinating to do similar research on musicians. I read somewhere, not recently, that overall, musicians tend to live longer. Don't remember other details. Not my strong suit to do so. But wanted to mention it anyway. And wonder if maybe they, more than any other artists, combine pleasure and work. Hmmm, now that I think of it, I'd put poets in this category too. Probably missing merudanda more than is reasonable. Yes, I take into account that someone might be accustomed to close reading. And it makes sense to me that that trait would spill over into writing. Even into other activities. I appreciate your bringing this to my attention again. Can aim for compassion. As I anticipate a new posting week (-: Also want to say that I appreciate your being somewhat of a good sport about the Stand Up Comedy Awards, etc. PS I enjoyed both reading your post and replying to it. win win, my favorite From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 9:10 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the import of my complete thought as contained in the whole paragraph. Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but tripping on what you said above, I thought I should draw your attention to a post I made here recently entitled This is your brain on reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510 It details some fascinating research being done on people to determine what is going on in their brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is called close reading, as if they have to report on what they're reading later in an essay about it. The researchers, watching the brains of people through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered that very different parts of the brain are being used, depending on whether one is reading for pleasure, or doing close reading. Riffing on what you say above, is it possible that a certain person is using different parts of their brain when reading your posts than you used when writing them? I find this an interesting question when applied to this forum. Different strokes for different folks turns out to be true even in the brain, and at different times, depending on the *intent* with which we read. Two people could read the same piece of literature -- in the experiments, passages from Jane Austen -- and get two very different things from them. That's not a surprise, of course, chances are we *all* would see the same passages slightly differently. *However*, the new information from these studies is that the *same* person could view and interpret these passages completely differently, depend- ing on how they're reading them -- for pleasure, or for work. Taking a profession completely at random, consider the case of a professional editor. Their day job is parsing other people's writing, *looking for nits to pick*. The person is, as you suggest, parsing word by word, sentence by sentence, *look- ing for errors or lapses in grammar or logic*. And to such a person, a single typo or misspelling could render an entire work unworthy of publication, and thus of being taken seriously. Now consider another random profession, say a person who makes their living as a musician and an educator. Such a person might have said many times that they read the posts on FFL -- and write their own -- for pleasure. They do *not* tend to parse them carefully, looking for things not right in them; instead they might be looking for things to enjoy. Which is the objective, after all, of reading for pleasure. These two types of people, conditioned by years of habit to read either for pleasure or for work, might be using entirely different parts of their brains while reading, and as a result might have a tendency to react to what you write completely differently.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Check out Sheriff Joe's Lead Investigator Just Back From Hawaii: Only pResid
I well know this but send to keep the related posts up in humor, with you. Again THANKS in great respect truly In a message dated 09/21/12 13:48:12 Eastern Daylight Time, r...@searchsummit.com writes: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of curtisdeltablues Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 12:39 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Check out Sheriff Joe's Lead Investigator Just Back From Hawaii: Only pResid Bill, You do know that Obama would still be an American citizen wherever he was born because his mother was and American citizen. It doesn't matter where he was born. No one has ever doubted HER American citizenship. Think about it. An American tourist drops a baby in Pari s during vacation. What nationality is the baby? So this whole where Obama was born nonsense is based on a faulty premise to begin with: that it would matter where an American citizen has her baby. Yes, but isn’t there a provision in the Constitution or somewhere that a President has to be born in the US or one of its territories, not just born of an American parent? McCain was born in Panama, but that was a territory at the time, so he qualified.
[FairfieldLife] Movie Rec: Stardust (1974)
I saw Stardust starring David Essex, Keith Moon and Larry Hagman (as a Texas millionaire who buys the rock group) when it came out in the 70s. I recall one probably early 20's kid with his girlfriend storming out of the theater pissed probably because it told the story about what being a famous rock group was really about. Movies dared not tread in this area just to keep the Horatio Alger illusion alive to give them plenty of young groups to exploit. It a story about a rock group that rises to fame and then crashes. It's available on Crackle and I ran it last night with their video app on my BD player. But it's also on their channel on YouTube. Problem is it was released as 1:85:1 and the Crackle version is 4:3. But I'm not sure that the 4:3 version may just be open frame because PS always looks cropped. By open frame I mean that movies were often filmed in Super 35 and then either cropped to 1:85:1 (VistaVision) or even 2:35:1 (Cinemascope) for the prints or sometimes with instructions for the projectionist to matte the full frame 35mm to the presentation format. Anyway for those yearning for the nostalgia days of the 1970s (actually a golden age in film when people started making more films outside of the studio system) and rock groups (lots of tunes in the soundtrack for that era) may enjoy it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-dS4yk1Cqk Unfortunately with ads.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Check out Sheriff Joe's Lead Investigator Just Back From Hawaii: Only pResid
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of wleed3 Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 3:24 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Check out Sheriff Joe's Lead Investigator Just Back From Hawaii: Only pResid I well know this but send to keep the related posts up in humor, with you. Again THANKS in great respect truly So are you saying that all this birther nonsense is a form of humor, for you at least?
[FairfieldLife] Phone camera enlightenment?
http://conversations.nokia.com/2012/09/21/nokias-pureview-smartphones-shine-at-photokina/ [ Eero: ~eh-raw ; Juha: ~you-huh]
[FairfieldLife] Thinking allowed: Sanskrit!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Brv2FaOluUfeature=related om :: human (huh!) :D
[FairfieldLife] Re: A magic trick -- a challenge
Bhairitu, Yeah, it's a filtering thingie, but to have no image in the database that a human brain can somewhat interpret is the trick part of this. This kind of thing has been played with for over 100 years; my only claim is that I can make the database unbreakable encryption -- a claim that is relative to the computational power and the software trying to break it. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: On 09/21/2012 09:27 AM, Duveyoung wrote: http://youtu.be/BgUxheGmu4U The video shows a magic trick that I invented. It would be interesting to see what kinds of guesses you guys can come up with to explain how this trick is done. Edg Well one way of doing though it may not have been the way you did it is using the pattern as a filter and then passing an image through that filter creating the pattern that the image was in. Once you place the filter over the image it should pop out. This commonly done a number of ways with computer graphics to get certain overlays and blends with images. In other news, the shuttle wasn't flown over my house but if it had kept with the pattern originally planned it might have. Looked like it flew further west then down over the SF Bay area. Maybe John saw it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I Love This
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@... wrote: Elf Baiter sez: Well, I guess it has to be the witch since that is me circa 1960, the one on the right. Empty Bill sez: Congrads Elf Baiter, you're in good company. IMO, Margret Hamilton's role as the wicked witch of the West makes the 1939 film wonderful. There is no other witch like her. She was amazing in that role. FFL needs another Wicked Witch only one not quite as unreflective as those acted out in the other FFL auditions. Maybe you can fly up like a hawk with your piercing gaze and spot the tasty little morsel awaiting its karmic devouring. Oh, I am no karmic deliverer although I wouldn't mind flying like a hawk and possessing great vision. Other than that I would prefer to devour lobster and chocolate cake, two of my favorites. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@ wrote: Elf Baiter So which one do you identify with ... Nikko the winged monkey or the Witch of the West? Well, I guess it has to be the witch since that is me circa 1960, the one on the right. [fbPhotosSnowliftCaption]
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Check out Sheriff Joe's Lead Investigator Just Back From Hawaii: Only pResid
We can stop further debt. No more bailouts for the banks. Let them fail. No bailouts for corporations. Let them fail. If my business fails I don't get a bailout. Why should they? Don't kowtow to corporate America. Those companies are mostly run by untalented rich kids with a classy pedigree. However people who tried to do this, such as JFK, didn't fare to well. Yes, I agree that the sheeple got all sold on going into deep debt so they could live the life of Riley. Anyone who wasn't asleep (and that seems to be only a tiny minority) didn't buy into buying the biggest home they can or the biggest car they can crap. Debt is a prison. Some people got into financial trouble years ago who borrowed to do TTC or the Sidhis and they learned that important lesson. For over 200 years there has been a group pissed that they lost their serfs to the USA where their serfs could own land just like them. They've been scheming all along to get those serfs back. Don't let them. On 09/21/2012 12:41 PM, seekliberation wrote: dude, seriously forget about Obama and whether or not he's a citizen. Trust me, I dislike him as much as you do. But it's time for us to stop hanging on to the idea that there's someone else who's going to come in and save the day. There's a reason we invented term limits in our constitution. It's because of people like him and GWB that we made limits on how long someone can be in office. Besides, if he gets another 4 years, so what? Yeah, he may take us to 20 trillion in debt and force us into another great depression like the 1930's. But in my opinion, it might be what we need as a country to force ourselves out of our disgraceful narcissism, laziness, apathy, and overall attitude of entitlement. If there was any motto that would describe a typical American these days it would be Gimme, it's mine!!!. Until we hit real hard times, that attitude won't go away. So in my opinion, Obama may be the better choice. I'm hoping he gets us to 20 trillion before the end of his 2nd term. seekliberation --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wleed3 WLeed3@... wrote: _Sheriff Joe's Lead Investigator Just Back From Hawaii: Only pResident Ever To Have 3 Aliases | Birther Report: Obama Release_ (http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/09/sheriff-joes-lead-investigator-just.html)
[FairfieldLife] Re: I Love This
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@ wrote: Elf Baiter sez: Well, I guess it has to be the witch since that is me circa 1960, the one on the right. Empty Bill sez: Congrads Elf Baiter, you're in good company. IMO, Margret Hamilton's role as the wicked witch of the West makes the 1939 film wonderful. There is no other witch like her. She was amazing in that role. FFL needs another Wicked Witch only one not quite as unreflective as those acted out in the other FFL auditions. Maybe you can fly up like a hawk with your piercing gaze and spot the tasty little morsel awaiting its karmic devouring. Oh, I am no karmic deliverer although I wouldn't mind flying like a hawk and possessing great vision. Other than that I would prefer to devour lobster and chocolate cake, two of my favorites. Wicked: The Untold Story of the Witches of Oz is a wonderful musical I saw in Chicago a few years ago. Hope you get a chance to see it. Loved the music. It's a prequel to the Wizard of OZ about an unlikely friendship between Galinda the Good and Elphaba the green skinned witch of the west. http://youtu.be/FlMBcTGJ4YM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@ wrote: Elf Baiter So which one do you identify with ... Nikko the winged monkey or the Witch of the West? Well, I guess it has to be the witch since that is me circa 1960, the one on the right. [fbPhotosSnowliftCaption]
[FairfieldLife] Re: I Love This
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@... wrote: Elf Baiter sez: Dude, you totally misspelled Waffle Beater.
[FairfieldLife] Re: anaadi matparaM brahma or anaadimat paraM brahma??
emptybill: No Western trained scholar (Indian or Euro-American) would believe these invented claims by Indians. Tmer devotees don't care what trained scholars say about SBS. What matters to us is what the current sannyasins and yogis believe and practice. What's relevant here is that SBS used to meditate on the Sri Chakra and the bija mantra of Saraswati and that the Sri Vidya is similar to Kashmere Trika. ...the general principles are similar to those found in Kashmir Shaivism...The goddess is worshipped in the form of a mystical diagram (Sanskrit: yantra) of nine intersecting triangles, called the Shri Chakra that is the central icon of the tradition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shri_Vidya Adi Shankara visited Sharada Peeth in Kashmir (now in POK, Pakistan... 'Sankara-Dig-Vijaya' by Swami Tapasyananda pp. 160185. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankara This does not mean that either Shankara or SBS were tantrika-s... Can't help you if you won't read the texts, Bill. Get some smarts and learn some history! MMY got the TM bijas from SBS and he got them from SKS, all they way back to the Adi Shankara. All the Sringeri sannyasins are tantrikas and adherents Sri Vidya. All the Sringeri sannyasisn worship the Sri Yantra - a tantric yoga. These are the facts. So, let's review what we know: The adherents of the Sri Vidya claim Shankara as their Adi Guru, and all of the Saraswati sannyasins worship Tripurasundari with the Sri Yantra, and they repeat the bija mantra of Saraswati at least twice each day. At their headquarters at Sringeri, the Saraswati yogins all proclaim their allegiance to the Adi Shankara. According to the Shankaracharya of Sringeri, the Adi Shankara placed the Sri Chakra, symbol of Tripurasundari, with the TM mantras inscribed thereon, at each of the seats of learning - Dwarka, Puri, Sringeri, and at Jyotirmath. So, the mantras of TM are DIRECTLY related to Sri Vidya. So, we get TM and the TM bijas from MMY, who got the bijas from SBS, who got the bijas from the Swami Krishananda Saraswati of Sringeri. So, the TM bijas come from the Shankaracharya tradition of Kaula Tantra which was founded at Sringeri by the Adi Shankara. So, when TMers use the bija mantra of Saraswati, there is no difference between the bija and the Absolute itself - there is only the illusion of duration. There is no difference between an object meditated upon and the object itself. Since the Absolute is not a subject to be cognized, TMers use bija mantras in order to provide the ideal opportunity for the transcending. According to Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, The difference is the same as the difference between rice and paddy. Remove the skin of the paddy and it is rice. Similarly, remove the covering of Maya, and the Jiva will become Brahman. ...it has now been established that at least two of the most sacred bija-mantras, out of the fifteen, contained in the Sound Arya La Hari, are in fact, TM bija-mantras. Subject: Re: Guru Dev and Sri Vidya From: James Duffy Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: April 28, 2003 http://tinyurl.com/2drn7gp I have the Mandukya Upanishad with Shankara's detailed commentary. Nowhere is there a discussion of 7 states of consciousness, much less Maharishi's 7 states. Shankara's so called usage of Kashmiri Trika or Shri Vidya is untrue and has long been disproven. It has already been established that Swami Brahmananda Saraswati was an adherent of the Sri Vidya. It has also already been established that MMY was a close confidant of Swami Laksmanjoo, the last Tantric teacher of Trika in Kashmere. Another crucial point that is often missed is that Maharishi's typology is a tantric rendering of the seven states, not a strictly Vedantic map. The 'God Consciousness' described by Maharishi is based on Sri Vidya principles: The Absolute as the creative source - the divine Mother, Tripura, which is the main doctrine of both Sri Vidya and Kashmere Shivaism. Tripura can be an anthropomorphic deity, but the subtler tantric practices are directed towards Tripura as the formless - that is, the fourth state which is beyond or transcendental to, the three gross states (three cities) symbolized by AUM in the Mandukhya Upanishad and the cogent commentary by Gaudapadacharya. In Sri Vidya, the Sri Yantra is the map of the seven states, which agrees with Maharishi's layout, with the Bindu at the center. According to Tantra the Bindu is the highest state of transcendenace. Swami Rama on the Mandukhya Upanishad: 2) Sarvam hyetad brahmayam-atma brahma soyamatma catushpat. Atman has Four Aspects: All of this, everywhere, is in truth Brahman, the Absolute Reality. This
[FairfieldLife] Post Count
Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): Sat Sep 15 00:00:00 2012 End Date (UTC): Sat Sep 22 00:00:00 2012 601 messages as of (UTC) Fri Sep 21 23:29:49 2012 50 authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com 49 turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com 43 Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com 40 awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.com 39 curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com 37 Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net 36 Richard J. Williams rich...@rwilliams.us 29 card cardemais...@yahoo.com 27 raunchydog raunchy...@yahoo.com 27 Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com 21 Susan waybac...@yahoo.com 16 seventhray1 lurkernomore20002...@yahoo.com 16 mjackson74 mjackso...@yahoo.com 15 wleed3 wle...@aol.com 13 sparaig lengli...@cox.net 13 salyavin808 fintlewoodle...@mail.com 12 John jr_...@yahoo.com 11 emptybill emptyb...@yahoo.com 10 wgm4u no_re...@yahoogroups.com 9 nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 9 Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com 8 Yifu yifux...@yahoo.com 7 merudanda no_re...@yahoogroups.com 7 doctordumb...@rocketmail.com, UNEXPECTED_DATA_AFTER_ADDRESS@.SYNTAX-ERROR. 6 merlin vedamer...@yahoo.de 5 Rick Archer r...@searchsummit.com 5 Emily Reyn emilymae.r...@yahoo.com 4 seekliberation seekliberat...@yahoo.com 4 richardatrwilliamsdotus rich...@rwilliams.us 4 laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 4 Robert babajii...@yahoo.com 4 Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com 3 wayback71 waybac...@yahoo.com 3 feste37 fest...@yahoo.com 2 wle...@aol.com 2 Duveyoung no_re...@yahoogroups.com 2 Dick Mays dickm...@lisco.com 1 stevelf ysoy1...@yahoo.com 1 sri...@ymail.com, UNEXPECTED_DATA_AFTER_ADDRESS@.SYNTAX-ERROR. 1 mainstream20016 mainstream20...@yahoo.com 1 j_alexander_stanley j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com 1 cardemaister cardemais...@yahoo.com 1 azgrey no_re...@yahoogroups.com 1 Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com 1 Seraphita s3raph...@yahoo.com 1 Lorenzo inmadi...@hotmail.com Posters: 46 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: snip Anyway, if by rabbit hole you mean my opinions of Judy, I assure you that Barry has little to do with that. When Judy butted in and continued to butt into a personal and emotional matter between me and Robin, that's when my current opinions of Judy were formed. You are not being truthful here, Share. You and I had *exactly one exchange* concerning the matter between you and Robin. I did not continue to butt in. Moreover, when you make public posts, you do not have the right to expect that nobody will comment on them, no matter how personal and emotional they are. You don't get to have a private exchange on a public forum. That's what email is for. It wasn't my butting in that formed your current opinions of me in any case. It's that I took you to task for the misstatements and unfairness in your posts. Curtis butted in as well, but he supported you, so you didn't form a negative opinion of him for doing so.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I Love This
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@ wrote: Elf Baiter sez: Dude, you totally misspelled Waffle Beater. That certainly is easier to spell than the real thing. Brings back memories from my childhood, always called Waffles. Now the married name 'Bater' is another matter. I am surprised no one has put on the 'master' yet. I like to think of it as 'incu' however.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: ... I think what I don't like is gratuitous negativity. Especially the kind that is mean and nasty towards someone else. Like the kind that seemingly pops up out of nowhere and functions merely to keep the negativity flowing. And ironically enough, often it happens here just when things have quieted down! DUH! A noble thought. Now let's see how you follow through on it. I've said what I had to say in my little Intervention riff. I've adopted the fictive voice of others and dared a certain someone to take a week off from dissing those she so habitually feels the need to demonize here on FFL. WHY am I doing this? As a kind of proactive experiment. We who have (ahem) been around FFL longer than you have are by now used to her attempting to restart the demon- izations after a break. Let's see what she -- and others who tend to join her in them -- do this time, shall we? From my side, I will try my best to neither read any- thing she writes, or respond to it. I shall also try to avoid mentioning her at all. I suspect that Curtis will do the same, since that is his current M.O. anyway. He rarely gets involved until after the first brick has been thrown attempting to damage his career as an educator. Vaj is silent for his own reasons, many of which have to do with the renewed presence on this forum of a rather disturbed troll. So...just sayin'...what will happen from *your* side, since you've weighed in above? Will you call *others* on this forum if *they* try to restart the olde bitterness and grudges? Or is that something you only do when those whom you've been taught to assoc- iate with the Curtis-Barry-Vaj troika speak up? I guess only time will tell, eh? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Share, you might want to read my response to Curtis below. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: I left in the post of mine you were responding to. I'd suggest you read it again to refresh your memory, and then see if you can bring yourself to respond to my question straightforwardly. M: If I could pick one snip of a post to express how Judy operates here, it might be this one. It is so pregnant with assumptive condescension. If it was a line spoken in a movie who would play it? Joan Crawford with the arching eyebrows? Perhaps the aging Betty Davis with her foundation cracking into her furrowed skin? Gee, Curtis, you wouldn't be trying to discourage Share from looking over the post again, would you? Share did say I was sounding more reasonable than you. Do you think she'll find this post of yours any more reasonable? Or do you think she'll realize you're doing your damndest to prevent her from acknowledging that you had lied about what I had said in your response to my earlier post? Nice touch calling my asking Robin for the reasons he finds stories of saints doing miraculous things a long time ago compelling as picking a fight. Sure it was. This type of issue has been one of the biggest sources of conflict between you and Robin. He hadn't been addressing you; you jumped into a discussion between him and Salyavin--and then acknowledged at the end of your post that you should have left it at the comment Salyavin had made, and that you hadn't helped further the discussion with your post. But you made it anyway. Hmmm. Jumping into discussions is something we often do here. But when you jump into a discussion on the side of a debating opponent of one of your biggest adversaries, concerning an issue that has always been a hot-button one between you, picking a fight is not an inappropriate characterization. Especially when that's the only post of substance you had addressed to Robin since your return. And I loved your doubling down on the death threat thing, even now, with the connection with the Darwin Awards spelled out for you, clueless to the end. Curtis, I do not believe you are so oblivious to the context of what I said to Share that you honestly think I doubled down on the death threat thing. I think you're trying very hard to make *Share*--and anyone else reading this--think I did. But you know I didn't. Share erred in saying Barry's remark hadn't had anything about death in it, and I corrected her. I also agreed with her that it wasn't a literal death threat. The Darwin Awards business is just misdirection, as you know. It was never relevant. It was only an excuse Barry used to fantasize about raunchy and me dying. Too stupid to tie their shoes or something similar would have conveyed the idea Barry claims he wanted to express just as well--but he chose too stupid to live. And then of course there was also the fantasy about our bursting into flame, which you have consistently avoided mentioning. Again Barry has tried to convince us that this was a reference to liar, liar, pants on fire--but neither raunchy nor I had lied, and in any case pants on fire refers to being spanked for lying, not to bursting into flame via spontaneous combustion. You're a writer who claims to be sensitive to nuance. These did not escape you. And all the time wagging her finger, liar, liar, liar, liar all around her liars. I'm wagging my finger at you and Barry. There are a few others here who lie, but none of them to anywhere near the same extent, or with the same intense malice, as the two of you. Now Share, obey her command to focus on her mighty words, dripping with contempt, Curtis-spin designed to keep Share from rereading what I wrote. There was no contempt at all in it. But if Curtis can convince her there was, he's hoping she'll be offended and refuse. and answer zee questions, zey are critical and will expose you before her mighty power. Just one question, actually, a rather simple one. And please remember to answer what she ASKED and do it straightforwardly zis time. Share *was* willing to answer my question, and *did* answer it in my favor. She just couldn't quite bring herself to acknowledge your attempts at deception. You are terribly afraid she will do so this time, so you are again attempting to deceive in an effort to keep her from acknowledging the blatantly obvious.
[FairfieldLife] Open Mike Thread (was Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein)
Dear Barry, Finally I am in perfect agreement with you about something: that response to Raunchy's second satirizing of you. It didn't come off--and I recognized this immediately--but hoped you would be so stung and embarrassed and humiliated that it would destroy your objectivity, and you would think Raunchy had actually scored a hit. But she didn't, and she needed just the dressing-down you gave to her. I think this changes things for me somehow, Barry: Mind you, I think you took a chance responding as the critic to someone who made you the object of their satire. That takes guts--but most of all it takes a feeling for the truth, and by God, you sure showed me you had that, Barry. I know everyone recognizes this already; it is self-evident; but as soon as I began to read your post to Raunchy, I felt the effect of what you were saying was already blotting out what poor Raunchy had tried her hand at [I even wince now]--and I felt sorry for her. But one must not weep for those who are brought down by the truth. I only hope you took into consideration Raunchy's feelings--but in my estimation you did exactly this. I just hope this is clear to Raunchy herself, for I know how bad she feels about this now. Anyhow, Barry: Congratulations! You are one wise and discerning guy. I would not have had the cojones to do what you did--but then I lack not only your confidence, but the shockingly intricate self-knowledge you have. You knew yourself so much better than Raunchy did; and when you went to put Raunchy in her place--with the right dose of mercy and forbearance--I felt the command you have over yourself, and even over how others see you; and so when you wrote your post you made it possible for every reader (those who don't have a hate on about you) to realize that you were the best judge of whether Raunchy had succeeded--and of course she had not. But how do you expect her to know more about you than you do? You of all people who post here have the most ruthless and honest assessment of yourself at all times. I have always known this, Barry, and it rankles--oh, you don't know how it rankles. In any case, Barry, I am sure somewhere in her soul Raunchy is grateful for the lesson you have taught her: If you're going to do irony, Raunchy, get it right, or don't even try it. I felt it was enormously generous of you, Barry, to step in to adjudicate Raunchy--even though I shuddered at the seeming bizarreness of this act: the object of the satire pronouncing upon how successful it was. *But you did it, Barry*, and I love you for this--as I believe eventually Raunchy will too. Great guy you are, Barry. Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Raunchy, you remind me of the proper etiquette to be used at Comedy Clubs on Open Mike Night, so I will reply. When someone gets up on stage and tries to be funny, you applaud them at the end, even if they haven't been. You do this because it took guts to get up there and embarrass themselves, and they deserve encouragement. I'm sure even Robin Williams bombed a few times before he made it to Actual Funny. So good luck, and thank you for taking up my Creativity Challenge. My only advice is to keep working at it, and not to become an applause slut over Awoe's gushing... she is what we call in the biz an easy audience. As for the Woodstock condom, I wasn't there, but I do have a friend (a former TMer, now touring the world as a kind of non-guru guru) who not only was, he carried around in his wallet his original *tickets* to Woodstock. He used to use them to impress much younger women he was trying to hustle. His success with this ploy was on about the same level as yours with the condom ploy, so don't lose heart. If you keep working at it, you might someday become a guru yourself. :-) P.S. I haven't worn my Garcia ties in years, but I *do* actually have a couple of pairs of Garcia boxer shorts. Silk. Cool designs (better than the one below). Never really wear them except when entertaining ladies who prefer the boxer look. I'm more of a briefs kinda guy. If you actually have any comedy chops, you should be able to take that piece of information and run with it. Good luck... :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: At the risk of 'piling on' this little vignette was priceless. Probably because it rang so true. All you left out was some bimbo trying to climb onto his lap. Hold the applause, Ann. You're only encouraging me. I can't... no I mustn't...Help! Somebody STOP ME! Oh alright. Scene: Leiden, Holland, 2:00 am. Two Dutch grifters discuss their recent mark. Guy: Hey, what's in his wallet? Gal: ID, Barry Wright, two bucks and a condom...expiration date, August 18, 1969. Guy: Sonofabitch, the last time that old geezer got laid was at
[FairfieldLife] Open Mike Thread (was Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Raunchy, you remind me of the proper etiquette to be used at Comedy Clubs on Open Mike Night, so I will reply. When someone gets up on stage and tries to be funny, you applaud them at the end, even if they haven't been. You do this because it took guts to get up there and embarrass themselves, and they deserve encouragement. I'm sure even Robin Williams bombed a few times before he made it to Actual Funny. Barry's reaction to your post is proof positive you were really, really funny. So good luck, and thank you for taking up my Creativity Challenge. My only advice is to keep working at it, and not to become an applause slut over Awoe's gushing... she is what we call in the biz an easy audience. Who is the we? Since when are you in show biz and what kind? Easy audience, I don't know, I haven't been too easy on you lately. As for the Woodstock condom, I wasn't there, but I do have a friend (a former TMer, now touring the world as a kind of non-guru guru) who not only was, he carried around in his wallet his original *tickets* to Woodstock. He used to use them to impress much younger women he was trying to hustle. His success with this ploy was on about the same level as yours with the condom ploy, so don't lose heart. If you keep working at it, you might someday become a guru yourself. :-) P.S. I haven't worn my Garcia ties in years, but I *do* actually have a couple of pairs of Garcia boxer shorts. Silk. Cool designs (better than the one below). Never really wear them except when entertaining ladies who prefer the boxer look. I'm more of a briefs kinda guy. If you actually have any comedy chops, you should be able to take that piece of information and run with it. Good luck... :-) Raunchy, the gauntlet has been thrown down. Now, do you prefer boxers or briefs? I usually wear briefs. I meant what do you prefer on BARRY? How old are you? Just asking coz you come across like one of those emotionally backward teenagers that gets even facebook a bad name. I've never made a habit of reading more of your hysteria than message view provides, but recently I've started praying your relentless shrieking causes you to overpost and have to go somewhere else for a week, only one nutbag less round here but a distinct improvement for the rest of us. Dear Salyavin, For me this post sets the standard for excellence in every way. And let me tell you why. First of all, you have decided to eschew any form of argument as to the basis of your judgment; but in this case, I believe you are justified in doing so, since, *in the almost perfect grip you have on reality*--in making this determination about this individual--you allow each reader to bypass having to wrestle with reason or argument, and simply participate in the extraordinary innocence and impartiality of your own subjectivity. Now I am, Salyavin, making a subtle point here; and I believe the understanding I have reached from reading your post is a new one for me. It never occurred to me that someone could just express how they felt about someone, and the quality and form of those feelings would do something more (and better) than reason or evidence could do. Your subjective reaction to this person, Salyavin, contains such force and authority that it becomes impossible--even were a reader to have liked this poster before reading what you have said here--to have any other opinion about this poster than the one you have told us is your opinion. I am anxious that you understand what I am saying here, Salyavin, for it is a principle of truth which has remained entirely inaccessible to me all my life. What is that principle? That there can be within a given human being such a pure and just *subjective* experience that that subjective experience *convinces* just in itself. I doubt there is anyone else I have known or read who can do what you did in this post. You see, Salyavin, you have done with your subjectivity what I believe could not be done through any other means. But this is only because of how *intrinsically* beautiful and compelling is your subjectivity--*at least in this instance*. Perhaps you are no saint in other contexts. But here you have instantiated a truth personally that, as I say, had never occurred to me as even a possibility: the articulation of strong and violent feeling about someone whose purpose
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: ... I think what I don't like is gratuitous negativity. Especially the kind that is mean and nasty towards someone else. Like the kind that seemingly pops up out of nowhere and functions merely to keep the negativity flowing. And ironically enough, often it happens here just when things have quieted down! DUH! A noble thought. Now let's see how you follow through on it. I've said what I had to say in my little Intervention riff. I've adopted the fictive voice of others and dared a certain someone to take a week off from dissing those she so habitually feels the need to demonize here on FFL. Sez Barry, who has been busy demonizing me all week and thinks he has a chance of converting Share--not realizing she underwent her conversion several weeks ago (and never had anything to be converted *from* anyway). snip From my side, I will try my best to neither read any- thing she writes, or respond to it. I shall also try to avoid mentioning her at all. His best is none too good. If he's tried this once, he's tried it scores of times, unsuccessfully. I suspect that Curtis will do the same, since that is his current M.O. anyway. He rarely gets involved until after the first brick has been thrown attempting to damage his career as an educator. Uh-oh, the Bullshit Meter just went on Overload. And it's set *very* high for Barry's posts. You'd think Curtis would speak up to correct Barry's misrepresentations, wouldn't you? But he won't, even knowing that the rest of the forum is well aware they're bullshit. Vaj is silent for his own reasons, many of which have to do with the renewed presence on this forum of a rather disturbed troll. As Barry knows, the rather disturbed troll was Vaj himself. Vaj is silent because the last we heard from him, Barry reported that he had told Barry something about Ann in private that turned out not to be true. He does not want to have to confront the fallout from his lie. So...just sayin'...what will happen from *your* side, since you've weighed in above? Will you call *others* on this forum if *they* try to restart the olde bitterness and grudges? Or is that something you only do when those whom you've been taught to assoc- iate with the Curtis-Barry-Vaj troika speak up? Let's see if Share will correct Barry's misrepresentations of her. I'll bet she won't either.
[FairfieldLife] Open Mike Thread (was Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein)
Dear Robin, Who me, not funny? I'm crushed. I was wearing a party hat. What else do I have to do to get your attention? A perceptive guy like you should have noticed how much I crave applause and here you are kissing Barry's butt. Thank God Ann threw me a life line of appreciation. Tinkerbell almost died because of guys like you. Do you think I'm just a bore? Well you don't know my little secret or what surprises I have in store. Bet you never thought I could be this way or know it's just a part I play. I'm Nina Pretty Ballerina Queen of the dancing floor. And don't you forget it. http://youtu.be/cwcrkMe5ZmA --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: Dear Barry, Finally I am in perfect agreement with you about something: that response to Raunchy's second satirizing of you. It didn't come off--and I recognized this immediately--but hoped you would be so stung and embarrassed and humiliated that it would destroy your objectivity, and you would think Raunchy had actually scored a hit. But she didn't, and she needed just the dressing-down you gave to her. I think this changes things for me somehow, Barry: Mind you, I think you took a chance responding as the critic to someone who made you the object of their satire. That takes guts--but most of all it takes a feeling for the truth, and by God, you sure showed me you had that, Barry. I know everyone recognizes this already; it is self-evident; but as soon as I began to read your post to Raunchy, I felt the effect of what you were saying was already blotting out what poor Raunchy had tried her hand at [I even wince now]--and I felt sorry for her. But one must not weep for those who are brought down by the truth. I only hope you took into consideration Raunchy's feelings--but in my estimation you did exactly this. I just hope this is clear to Raunchy herself, for I know how bad she feels about this now. Anyhow, Barry: Congratulations! You are one wise and discerning guy. I would not have had the cojones to do what you did--but then I lack not only your confidence, but the shockingly intricate self-knowledge you have. You knew yourself so much better than Raunchy did; and when you went to put Raunchy in her place--with the right dose of mercy and forbearance--I felt the command you have over yourself, and even over how others see you; and so when you wrote your post you made it possible for every reader (those who don't have a hate on about you) to realize that you were the best judge of whether Raunchy had succeeded--and of course she had not. But how do you expect her to know more about you than you do? You of all people who post here have the most ruthless and honest assessment of yourself at all times. I have always known this, Barry, and it rankles--oh, you don't know how it rankles. In any case, Barry, I am sure somewhere in her soul Raunchy is grateful for the lesson you have taught her: If you're going to do irony, Raunchy, get it right, or don't even try it. I felt it was enormously generous of you, Barry, to step in to adjudicate Raunchy--even though I shuddered at the seeming bizarreness of this act: the object of the satire pronouncing upon how successful it was. *But you did it, Barry*, and I love you for this--as I believe eventually Raunchy will too. Great guy you are, Barry. Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Raunchy, you remind me of the proper etiquette to be used at Comedy Clubs on Open Mike Night, so I will reply. When someone gets up on stage and tries to be funny, you applaud them at the end, even if they haven't been. You do this because it took guts to get up there and embarrass themselves, and they deserve encouragement. I'm sure even Robin Williams bombed a few times before he made it to Actual Funny. So good luck, and thank you for taking up my Creativity Challenge. My only advice is to keep working at it, and not to become an applause slut over Awoe's gushing... she is what we call in the biz an easy audience. As for the Woodstock condom, I wasn't there, but I do have a friend (a former TMer, now touring the world as a kind of non-guru guru) who not only was, he carried around in his wallet his original *tickets* to Woodstock. He used to use them to impress much younger women he was trying to hustle. His success with this ploy was on about the same level as yours with the condom ploy, so don't lose heart. If you keep working at it, you might someday become a guru yourself. :-) P.S. I haven't worn my Garcia ties in years, but I *do* actually have a couple of pairs of Garcia boxer shorts. Silk. Cool designs (better than the one below). Never really wear them except when entertaining ladies who prefer the boxer look. I'm more of a briefs kinda guy. If you actually have any comedy chops, you should be able
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
I have decided, Steve, there was no justification in my impersonation of Curtis whatsoever. It was a cheap trick, and originated in my malevolence, cruelty, and jealousy with respect to Curtis. Although I must say, I WOULD HAVE LOVED FOR CURTIS TO DO THE SAME TO ME. Because then we could test the truth of my idea of what irony is. Let me explain, Steve: If my impersonation of Curtis was true, it means that to the extent to which Curtis's customary response to Robin does not actually represent something that originates in an honest and fresh experience of *just what Robin specifically and particularly has said in a given post*, Robin is demonstrating that Curtis's response to Robin *does not pass through the reality of Curtis* at all. This is the effect of Robin taking the identity of Curtis: to show to the readers of FFL that Curtis's response to Robin--when it comes to matters of Robin's critique of Curtis's method of disputation--it is not born of an existentially meaningful experience. It is predetermined by a certain metaphysical reflex in Curtis, which refuses to assimilate any information or argument which would challenge Curtis's point of view. Don't you see, Steve? If I had represented Curtis's point of view, and that point of view was sincere and honestly felt, THEN WITHOUT ANY COMMENTARY NECESSARY ROBIN'S LITTLE EXERCISE WOULD HAVE FALLEN FLAT. If Robin could convincingly represent Curtis's point of view--and by doing so demonstrate its unitary and dogmatic predictability, devoid of real engagement with the reality of what Robin has said--then Robin has proven that *reality itself has judged Curtis's responses to Robin's point of view about Curtis to be non-interactive with the reality of the sincerity and honesty within which Robin puts forward his own point of view*. The necessity of Robin using the device of irony, then, Steve, is pointed up in the sterility and imperviousness of Curtis to the reality out of which he could determine what his beliefs really are. Robin took a big chance. If people were amused or arrested by seeing Robin say what Curtis would say, then it means Robin was successfully ridiculing something that needed to be ridiculed in Curtis. If Curtis's response to Robin was sincere, honest, heartfelt, intellectually rigorous, then WHAT POSSIBLY WOULD BE THE POINT OF ROBIN IMITATING THIS? It would seem a strange and peculiar act of Robin's--without justification. But Robin's imitation of Curtis went over big--even with Emily, and with you--although you hated it. *In principle*. This means *that reality supported Robin's motive and the execution of that motive in the very two posts he posted as Curtis*. What you did, Steve, was wrench yourself away from the actual *experience* you had, involuntarily and spontaneously, when you first read those two posts. This will never work. Your experience was traduced by your subsequent moral reaction to Robin's act. But you see, Steve, when irony works upon us, *we have no control over the effect it produces inside of us*. And why is this, Steve? Because irony, if it is effective, if it makes it, *requires the collaboration of Reality*. Don't you see this, Steve? If your judgment of my act was appropriate, it would mean when you originally read those two posts, your judgment would have been predominant, and the effect of the irony secondary. As it was, when you first read those posts, *you recognized the voice of Curtis*. This held your attention: it was quite a startling and riveting experience. But then Steve's ideas of what is right and wrong kicked in. And what happened then? Steve had to destroy any vestiges of his original experience: he could not interact with that experience, or make that experience a variable in his moral calculus. Steve is the guy who feels very sorry for those guys that Christ undid with his sense of something that goes beyond irony: Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
Hey Robin, thank you again for posting that. I thought I would copy my original response I made to you after you sent me your post offline earlier in the week. I sort of liked my response. Hope you don't mind. * Honestly Robin,I did have a little difficulty following this. For all I know you may have pegged Curtis perfectly. I only read the post once, and my objection was and is that maybe it's just not the best idea to take those liberties. But I am willing to acknowledge that you may have nailed his POV. I have to say, that I think the posts when you have undressed Judy have been the most insightful and economical you have written.I appreciate that you are attempting to make me aware of some of my biases and blind spots. I like to think of myself as someone who is willing to look at them straight on, but I may be fooling myself. I have to admit that I am a fan of Curtis' writing abilities.Of course I greatly enjoy reading your posts as well. Certainly I appreciate those that tend to be more concise. I guess I should read it (your post as Curtis) again. I do recall that when you wrote as Susan replying to Barry, that it was pretty funny. I don't know if it was deep, or if it was meant to be deep. The feeling I got was that it was meant to be funny, and I think you achieved that.Oh, BTW, I think my real name comes through on this. That is my preference for those I am comfortable with, but I hope you will keep that confidential.Thanks --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: I have decided, Steve, there was no justification in my impersonation of Curtis whatsoever. It was a cheap trick, and originated in my malevolence, cruelty, and jealousy with respect to Curtis. Although I must say, I WOULD HAVE LOVED FOR CURTIS TO DO THE SAME TO ME. Because then we could test the truth of my idea of what irony is. Let me explain, Steve: If my impersonation of Curtis was true, it means that to the extent to which Curtis's customary response to Robin does not actually represent something that originates in an honest and fresh experience of *just what Robin specifically and particularly has said in a given post*, Robin is demonstrating that Curtis's response to Robin *does not pass through the reality of Curtis* at all. This is the effect of Robin taking the identity of Curtis: to show to the readers of FFL that Curtis's response to Robin--when it comes to matters of Robin's critique of Curtis's method of disputation--it is not born of an existentially meaningful experience. It is predetermined by a certain metaphysical reflex in Curtis, which refuses to assimilate any information or argument which would challenge Curtis's point of view. Don't you see, Steve? If I had represented Curtis's point of view, and that point of view was sincere and honestly felt, THEN WITHOUT ANY COMMENTARY NECESSARY ROBIN'S LITTLE EXERCISE WOULD HAVE FALLEN FLAT. If Robin could convincingly represent Curtis's point of view--and by doing so demonstrate its unitary and dogmatic predictability, devoid of real engagement with the reality of what Robin has said--then Robin has proven that *reality itself has judged Curtis's responses to Robin's point of view about Curtis to be non-interactive with the reality of the sincerity and honesty within which Robin puts forward his own point of view*. The necessity of Robin using the device of irony, then, Steve, is pointed up in the sterility and imperviousness of Curtis to the reality out of which he could determine what his beliefs really are. Robin took a big chance. If people were amused or arrested by seeing Robin say what Curtis would say, then it means Robin was successfully ridiculing something that needed to be ridiculed in Curtis. If Curtis's response to Robin was sincere, honest, heartfelt, intellectually rigorous, then WHAT POSSIBLY WOULD BE THE POINT OF ROBIN IMITATING THIS? It would seem a strange and peculiar act of Robin's--without justification. But Robin's imitation of Curtis went over big--even with Emily, and with you--although you hated it. *In principle*. This means *that reality supported Robin's motive and the execution of that motive in the very two posts he posted as Curtis*. What you did, Steve, was wrench yourself away from the actual *experience* you had, involuntarily and spontaneously, when you first read those two posts. This will never work. Your experience was traduced by your subsequent moral reaction to Robin's act. But you see, Steve, when irony works upon us, *we have no control over the effect it produces inside of us*. And why is this, Steve? Because irony, if it is effective, if it makes it, *requires the collaboration of Reality*. Don't you see this, Steve? If your judgment of my act was appropriate, it would mean when you originally read those two posts, your judgment would have been predominant, and the effect of the irony secondary. As it was, when you first read those
[FairfieldLife] Open Mike Thread (was Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shCqzZzghWg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Raunchy, you remind me of the proper etiquette to be used at Comedy Clubs on Open Mike Night, so I will reply. When someone gets up on stage and tries to be funny, you applaud them at the end, even if they haven't been. You do this because it took guts to get up there and embarrass themselves, and they deserve encouragement. I'm sure even Robin Williams bombed a few times before he made it to Actual Funny. So good luck, and thank you for taking up my Creativity Challenge. My only advice is to keep working at it, and not to become an applause slut over Awoe's gushing... she is what we call in the biz an easy audience. As for the Woodstock condom, I wasn't there, but I do have a friend (a former TMer, now touring the world as a kind of non-guru guru) who not only was, he carried around in his wallet his original *tickets* to Woodstock. He used to use them to impress much younger women he was trying to hustle. His success with this ploy was on about the same level as yours with the condom ploy, so don't lose heart. If you keep working at it, you might someday become a guru yourself. :-) P.S. I haven't worn my Garcia ties in years, but I *do* actually have a couple of pairs of Garcia boxer shorts. Silk. Cool designs (better than the one below). Never really wear them except when entertaining ladies who prefer the boxer look. I'm more of a briefs kinda guy. If you actually have any comedy chops, you should be able to take that piece of information and run with it. Good luck... :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: At the risk of 'piling on' this little vignette was priceless. Probably because it rang so true. All you left out was some bimbo trying to climb onto his lap. Hold the applause, Ann. You're only encouraging me. I can't... no I mustn't...Help! Somebody STOP ME! Oh alright. Scene: Leiden, Holland, 2:00 am. Two Dutch grifters discuss their recent mark. Guy: Hey, what's in his wallet? Gal: ID, Barry Wright, two bucks and a condom...expiration date, August 18, 1969. Guy: Sonofabitch, the last time that old geezer got laid was at Woodstock! Gal: Thought so...probably explains the tie-dyed boxer shorts. Guy: Did you get those too? Gal: Yep, trophy for my easy mark collection. Guy: Two bucks? Hardly worth the trouble of letting him feel your ass. Gal: My ass, his shorts, win, win. Meanwhile, alone in a fleabag hotel, passed out cold, handcuffed to a chair and stripped naked except for a Jerry Garcia tie* gracefully covering his privates. Barry slowly regains consciousness, muttering, win, win...win, win. Barry: What a night! Can't wait to write about it. *Jerry Garcia tie: Barry's most prized possession.
[FairfieldLife] The chances of the self becoming a universal Self
We say that any two things however unlike are in something like. This is the one exception: when I compare my self, my being-myself, with anything else whatever, all things alike, all in the same degree, rebuff me with blank unlikeness; so that my knowledge of it, which is so intense, is from itself alone, they in no way help me to understand it. And even those things with which I in some sort identify myself, as my country or family, and those things which I own and call mine, as my clothes and so on, all presuppose the stricter sense of *self* and *me* and *mine* and are from that derivative... Nothing finite can exist of itself. For being finite it is limited and determined in time and space, as the mind is limited and determined to particular dates of time and place by the body. And apart from the body, it is determined. I say apart from the body, because it may be maintained that the mind has no bound from space or even from time, for it may exist after death and may have existed before birth. Nevertheless it is finite in its own being...and determined. Its faculties compared one with another and compared with those of other minds are determined; they might be more, they might be less, they might be otherwise; they are then determined and distinctive. It is plain it might have more perfection, more being. Nevertheless the being it has got has a great perfection, a great stress, and is more distinctive and higher selved, than anything else I see, except other such minds, in nature. Now to be determined and distinctive is a perfection, either self-bestowed or bestowed from without. In anything finite it cannot be self-bestowed; nothing finite can determine what itself shall, in a world of being, be. For to determine is a perfection, greater than and certainly never less than, the perfection of being determined. It is a function of a nature, even if it should be the whole function, the naturing, the selving of that nature. It always in nature's order is after the nature it is of. Nothing finite then can either begin to exist or exercise a function and determination before it has a nature to 'function' and determine, to selve and instress, with; how much less then when the very determination is what the determiner itself is to be and the selving what its self shall be like! And this is above all true of that inmost self of mine which has been said to be and to be felt to be, to taste, more distinctive than the taste of clover or alum, the smell of walnutleaf or hart'shorn, more distinctive, more selved, than all things else and needing in proportion a more exquisite determining, selfmaking, power... The universal mind being identified not only with me but also with all other minds cannot be the means of communicating what is individual in me to them nor in them to me. I have and ever other has...my own knowledge and powers, pleasures, pains, merit, guilt, shame, dangers, fortunes, fates: we are not chargeable for one another. But these things and above all my shame, my guilt, my fate are the very things in feeling, in tasting, which I most taste that selftaste which nothing in the world can match. The universal cannot taste this taste of self as I taste it, for it is not to it, let us say/ to him, that the guilt or shame, the fatal consequence, the fate, comes home; either not at all or not altogether. If not at all, then he is altogether outside of my self, my personality/ one may call it, my *me*. If not altogether, if for instance there is something done or willed which I am wholly chargeable with and answerable for and he only so far as I am a part of him, a function or selving of his, then only so far as he is answerable and chargeable... So then the universal mind is outside of my inmost self and not within it; nor does it share my state, my moral standing, or my fate. And for all that this universal being may be at work in mine it leaves me finite: *I* am selfexistent none the more for any part the selfexistent plays in me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: ... I think what I don't like is gratuitous negativity. Especially the kind that is mean and nasty towards someone else. Like the kind that seemingly pops up out of nowhere and functions merely to keep the negativity flowing. And ironically enough, often it happens here just when things have quieted down! DUH! A noble thought. Now let's see how you follow through on it. I've said what I had to say in my little Intervention riff. I've adopted the fictive voice of others and dared a certain someone to take a week off from dissing those she so habitually feels the need to demonize here on FFL. Sez Barry, who has been busy demonizing me all week and thinks he has a chance of converting Share--not realizing she underwent her conversion several weeks ago (and never had anything to be converted *from* anyway). snip From my side, I will try my best to neither read any- thing she writes, or respond to it. I shall also try to avoid mentioning her at all. His best is none too good. If he's tried this once, he's tried it scores of times, unsuccessfully. I suspect that Curtis will do the same, since that is his current M.O. anyway. He rarely gets involved until after the first brick has been thrown attempting to damage his career as an educator. Uh-oh, the Bullshit Meter just went on Overload. And it's set *very* high for Barry's posts. You'd think Curtis would speak up to correct Barry's misrepresentations, wouldn't you? But he won't, even knowing that the rest of the forum is well aware they're bullshit. Vaj is silent for his own reasons, many of which have to do with the renewed presence on this forum of a rather disturbed troll. As Barry knows, the rather disturbed troll was Vaj himself. Vaj is silent because the last we heard from him, Barry reported that he had told Barry something about Ann in private that turned out not to be true. He does not want to have to confront the fallout from his lie. So...just sayin'...what will happen from *your* side, since you've weighed in above? Will you call *others* on this forum if *they* try to restart the olde bitterness and grudges? Or is that something you only do when those whom you've been taught to assoc- iate with the Curtis-Barry-Vaj troika speak up? Let's see if Share will correct Barry's misrepresentations of her. I'll bet she won't either. There's no hiding from the demands of reality. Who would have thought that courage and integrity were required on a forum where miles of space and time can seem to separate us from each other? But what do you know, there's no hiding behind any curtain. Sooner or later Dorothy and her friends are going to catch a glimpse of what is really going on back there. And it may not be pretty.
[FairfieldLife] Open Mike Thread (was Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: Dear Robin, Who me, not funny? I'm crushed. I was wearing a party hat. What else do I have to do to get your attention? A perceptive guy like you should have noticed how much I crave applause and here you are kissing Barry's butt. Thank God Ann threw me a life line of appreciation. Tinkerbell almost died because of guys like you. Do you think I'm just a bore? Well you don't know my little secret or what surprises I have in store. Bet you never thought I could be this way or know it's just a part I play. I'm Nina Pretty Ballerina Queen of the dancing floor. And don't you forget it. http://youtu.be/cwcrkMe5ZmA Dear Raunchy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFvYXzNXW_cfeature=related --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Dear Barry, Finally I am in perfect agreement with you about something: that response to Raunchy's second satirizing of you. It didn't come off--and I recognized this immediately--but hoped you would be so stung and embarrassed and humiliated that it would destroy your objectivity, and you would think Raunchy had actually scored a hit. But she didn't, and she needed just the dressing-down you gave to her. I think this changes things for me somehow, Barry: Mind you, I think you took a chance responding as the critic to someone who made you the object of their satire. That takes guts--but most of all it takes a feeling for the truth, and by God, you sure showed me you had that, Barry. I know everyone recognizes this already; it is self-evident; but as soon as I began to read your post to Raunchy, I felt the effect of what you were saying was already blotting out what poor Raunchy had tried her hand at [I even wince now]--and I felt sorry for her. But one must not weep for those who are brought down by the truth. I only hope you took into consideration Raunchy's feelings--but in my estimation you did exactly this. I just hope this is clear to Raunchy herself, for I know how bad she feels about this now. Anyhow, Barry: Congratulations! You are one wise and discerning guy. I would not have had the cojones to do what you did--but then I lack not only your confidence, but the shockingly intricate self-knowledge you have. You knew yourself so much better than Raunchy did; and when you went to put Raunchy in her place--with the right dose of mercy and forbearance--I felt the command you have over yourself, and even over how others see you; and so when you wrote your post you made it possible for every reader (those who don't have a hate on about you) to realize that you were the best judge of whether Raunchy had succeeded--and of course she had not. But how do you expect her to know more about you than you do? You of all people who post here have the most ruthless and honest assessment of yourself at all times. I have always known this, Barry, and it rankles--oh, you don't know how it rankles. In any case, Barry, I am sure somewhere in her soul Raunchy is grateful for the lesson you have taught her: If you're going to do irony, Raunchy, get it right, or don't even try it. I felt it was enormously generous of you, Barry, to step in to adjudicate Raunchy--even though I shuddered at the seeming bizarreness of this act: the object of the satire pronouncing upon how successful it was. *But you did it, Barry*, and I love you for this--as I believe eventually Raunchy will too. Great guy you are, Barry. Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Raunchy, you remind me of the proper etiquette to be used at Comedy Clubs on Open Mike Night, so I will reply. When someone gets up on stage and tries to be funny, you applaud them at the end, even if they haven't been. You do this because it took guts to get up there and embarrass themselves, and they deserve encouragement. I'm sure even Robin Williams bombed a few times before he made it to Actual Funny. So good luck, and thank you for taking up my Creativity Challenge. My only advice is to keep working at it, and not to become an applause slut over Awoe's gushing... she is what we call in the biz an easy audience. As for the Woodstock condom, I wasn't there, but I do have a friend (a former TMer, now touring the world as a kind of non-guru guru) who not only was, he carried around in his wallet his original *tickets* to Woodstock. He used to use them to impress much younger women he was trying to hustle. His success with this ploy was on about the same level as yours with the condom ploy, so don't lose heart. If you keep working at it, you might someday become a guru yourself. :-) P.S. I haven't worn my Garcia ties in years, but I *do* actually have a couple of pairs of Garcia
[FairfieldLife] Open Mike Thread (was Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: Dear Robin, Who me, not funny? I'm crushed. I was wearing a party hat. What else do I have to do to get your attention? A perceptive guy like you should have noticed how much I crave applause and here you are kissing Barry's butt. Thank God Ann threw me a life line of appreciation. Tinkerbell almost died because of guys like you. Do you think I'm just a bore? Well you don't know my little secret or what surprises I have in store. Bet you never thought I could be this way or know it's just a part I play. I'm Nina Pretty Ballerina Queen of the dancing floor. And don't you forget it. http://youtu.be/cwcrkMe5ZmA RESPONSE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnsIxSEx3Yk --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Dear Barry, Finally I am in perfect agreement with you about something: that response to Raunchy's second satirizing of you. It didn't come off--and I recognized this immediately--but hoped you would be so stung and embarrassed and humiliated that it would destroy your objectivity, and you would think Raunchy had actually scored a hit. But she didn't, and she needed just the dressing-down you gave to her. I think this changes things for me somehow, Barry: Mind you, I think you took a chance responding as the critic to someone who made you the object of their satire. That takes guts--but most of all it takes a feeling for the truth, and by God, you sure showed me you had that, Barry. I know everyone recognizes this already; it is self-evident; but as soon as I began to read your post to Raunchy, I felt the effect of what you were saying was already blotting out what poor Raunchy had tried her hand at [I even wince now]--and I felt sorry for her. But one must not weep for those who are brought down by the truth. I only hope you took into consideration Raunchy's feelings--but in my estimation you did exactly this. I just hope this is clear to Raunchy herself, for I know how bad she feels about this now. Anyhow, Barry: Congratulations! You are one wise and discerning guy. I would not have had the cojones to do what you did--but then I lack not only your confidence, but the shockingly intricate self-knowledge you have. You knew yourself so much better than Raunchy did; and when you went to put Raunchy in her place--with the right dose of mercy and forbearance--I felt the command you have over yourself, and even over how others see you; and so when you wrote your post you made it possible for every reader (those who don't have a hate on about you) to realize that you were the best judge of whether Raunchy had succeeded--and of course she had not. But how do you expect her to know more about you than you do? You of all people who post here have the most ruthless and honest assessment of yourself at all times. I have always known this, Barry, and it rankles--oh, you don't know how it rankles. In any case, Barry, I am sure somewhere in her soul Raunchy is grateful for the lesson you have taught her: If you're going to do irony, Raunchy, get it right, or don't even try it. I felt it was enormously generous of you, Barry, to step in to adjudicate Raunchy--even though I shuddered at the seeming bizarreness of this act: the object of the satire pronouncing upon how successful it was. *But you did it, Barry*, and I love you for this--as I believe eventually Raunchy will too. Great guy you are, Barry. Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Raunchy, you remind me of the proper etiquette to be used at Comedy Clubs on Open Mike Night, so I will reply. When someone gets up on stage and tries to be funny, you applaud them at the end, even if they haven't been. You do this because it took guts to get up there and embarrass themselves, and they deserve encouragement. I'm sure even Robin Williams bombed a few times before he made it to Actual Funny. So good luck, and thank you for taking up my Creativity Challenge. My only advice is to keep working at it, and not to become an applause slut over Awoe's gushing... she is what we call in the biz an easy audience. As for the Woodstock condom, I wasn't there, but I do have a friend (a former TMer, now touring the world as a kind of non-guru guru) who not only was, he carried around in his wallet his original *tickets* to Woodstock. He used to use them to impress much younger women he was trying to hustle. His success with this ploy was on about the same level as yours with the condom ploy, so don't lose heart. If you keep working at it, you might someday become a guru yourself. :-) P.S. I haven't worn my Garcia ties in years, but I *do* actually have a couple of pairs of Garcia boxer shorts.
[FairfieldLife] Open Mike Thread (was Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: Dear Robin, Who me, not funny? I'm crushed. I was wearing a party hat. What else do I have to do to get your attention? A perceptive guy like you should have noticed how much I crave applause and here you are kissing Barry's butt. Thank God Ann threw me a life line of appreciation. Tinkerbell almost died because of guys like you. Do you think I'm just a bore? Well you don't know my little secret or what surprises I have in store. Bet you never thought I could be this way or know it's just a part I play. I'm Nina Pretty Ballerina Queen of the dancing floor. And don't you forget it. http://youtu.be/cwcrkMe5ZmA RESPONSE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARZDfcVOwnofeature=fvwrel --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Dear Barry, Finally I am in perfect agreement with you about something: that response to Raunchy's second satirizing of you. It didn't come off--and I recognized this immediately--but hoped you would be so stung and embarrassed and humiliated that it would destroy your objectivity, and you would think Raunchy had actually scored a hit. But she didn't, and she needed just the dressing-down you gave to her. I think this changes things for me somehow, Barry: Mind you, I think you took a chance responding as the critic to someone who made you the object of their satire. That takes guts--but most of all it takes a feeling for the truth, and by God, you sure showed me you had that, Barry. I know everyone recognizes this already; it is self-evident; but as soon as I began to read your post to Raunchy, I felt the effect of what you were saying was already blotting out what poor Raunchy had tried her hand at [I even wince now]--and I felt sorry for her. But one must not weep for those who are brought down by the truth. I only hope you took into consideration Raunchy's feelings--but in my estimation you did exactly this. I just hope this is clear to Raunchy herself, for I know how bad she feels about this now. Anyhow, Barry: Congratulations! You are one wise and discerning guy. I would not have had the cojones to do what you did--but then I lack not only your confidence, but the shockingly intricate self-knowledge you have. You knew yourself so much better than Raunchy did; and when you went to put Raunchy in her place--with the right dose of mercy and forbearance--I felt the command you have over yourself, and even over how others see you; and so when you wrote your post you made it possible for every reader (those who don't have a hate on about you) to realize that you were the best judge of whether Raunchy had succeeded--and of course she had not. But how do you expect her to know more about you than you do? You of all people who post here have the most ruthless and honest assessment of yourself at all times. I have always known this, Barry, and it rankles--oh, you don't know how it rankles. In any case, Barry, I am sure somewhere in her soul Raunchy is grateful for the lesson you have taught her: If you're going to do irony, Raunchy, get it right, or don't even try it. I felt it was enormously generous of you, Barry, to step in to adjudicate Raunchy--even though I shuddered at the seeming bizarreness of this act: the object of the satire pronouncing upon how successful it was. *But you did it, Barry*, and I love you for this--as I believe eventually Raunchy will too. Great guy you are, Barry. Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Raunchy, you remind me of the proper etiquette to be used at Comedy Clubs on Open Mike Night, so I will reply. When someone gets up on stage and tries to be funny, you applaud them at the end, even if they haven't been. You do this because it took guts to get up there and embarrass themselves, and they deserve encouragement. I'm sure even Robin Williams bombed a few times before he made it to Actual Funny. So good luck, and thank you for taking up my Creativity Challenge. My only advice is to keep working at it, and not to become an applause slut over Awoe's gushing... she is what we call in the biz an easy audience. As for the Woodstock condom, I wasn't there, but I do have a friend (a former TMer, now touring the world as a kind of non-guru guru) who not only was, he carried around in his wallet his original *tickets* to Woodstock. He used to use them to impress much younger women he was trying to hustle. His success with this ploy was on about the same level as yours with the condom ploy, so don't lose heart. If you keep working at it, you might someday become a guru yourself. :-) P.S. I haven't worn my Garcia ties in years, but I *do* actually have a couple of pairs of Garcia boxer
