[FairfieldLife] Re: An open letter to Robin Carlsen from Louis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNC3OciAF3wlist=PL29CE67288EB89339 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Thanks Louis, isn't he full of venom and malice, my old man? Yep - his first person ontology does need a big spanking, a dose of reality. Your letter - is indeed a letter from reality. On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM, maskedzebra maskedzebra@... wrote: ** Dear Robin, What is your game anyhow? For me, I sense the deepest motive in you comes from your having relinquished your claims to enlightenment, and now you are living your life through an almost predestinated sense of irony. As if, not being able to bring people under your power by your theatrical antics as the purported enlightened man, you now dig down deep into reality and find some vein of irony--which gives you the same sense of omnipotence. Robin, look: Irony for me is a dead-end. You employ it as the means to somehow save face. I think it is destructive, plain and simple. What justification do you have to bring it into almost every post--not to mention every video? Do you have some other move here, Robin? I can tell you: maybe it is amusing, even startling, at first; but after awhile--Are you ready for this, Robin?--it becomes just a big BORE. Why don't you get serious and answer your adversaries on the terms in which they argue? You are forever ducking out of the challenge intellectually that is there in someone opposing you--and giving you the credit for being an honest opponent. But no; Robin is not satisfied with conversation at the level of pure content: you--who knows why?--want to find some weakness in the other person, and you probe and probe for this, thinking your irony is striking them where they are most vulnerable. But it doesn't work, Robin. Or at least, if once it did have some traction, now it just is tedious and silly and obnoxious. I am telling you in all sincerity, Robin: grow up, get a life, treat people with something other than contempt and derision. Don't you have anyone in your life who loves you? I'll bet not. I feel already stranded out here criticizing you, Robin, BECAUSE INSTEAD OF LISTENING TO ME you are just anticipating how to mock me with your irony. Look, Robin: You have been funny *sometimes*, but I think I speak for almost everyone here when I say: *What a relief it was having you absent from FFL last week*. Now that you have returned it's like having some smart aleck in class who is always trying to be witty. Robin: It's over, baby. Or it should be. I would like you take up a challenge: Try to act within the bounds of normal civil discourse like everyone else does here. I believe if you would become reasonable, Robin, the toxicity level of FFL would reduce significantly. Now let me say it one more time, Robin: STFU. DON'T IRONIZE THIS. Just take it as advice from--WTF do you call it?--Yeah: REALITY. Your first person ontology (whatever BS that is) needs a spanking, Robin. Feel this letter as coming from truth, reality, the universe--whatever turns you on, Robbie Baby. But know this: I am serious, and there are so many of us who wish you would heed this message. Got that, Robbie Boy? There is a lot of hate in you, Robin, disguised in the form of irony. But I believe--and I think I can say there are many readers and posters on FFL who will agree with me--your approach to argument is ultimately motived by an unresolved hatred in your heart as a spin-off from this perverse thing you did in disavowing the truth of your enlightenment. Have you ever considered IT WASN'T EVEN TRUE IN THE FIRST PLACE? You don't act like someone who was ever enlightened, Robin. And know this: If you truly went into Unity YOU COULD NOT REVERSE THIS PROCESS. We all end up--many after many lifetimes, it is true--in Unity. It's no big deal, Robin. And besides, I know you never really were enlightened in the first place. I am getting exhausted, Robin: You just need to experience some humility. I shall pray for you. I would like to see some evidence in your next post that you have at least considered the truth of what I have told you here. I am sending this to you by private mail, and I am going to ask you to post it--IF YOU ARE BRAVE ENOUGH TO DO THIS. But not in my real name. I would ask you--if you are so big on honesty and integrity (overused word, by the way, Robin)--to simply sign this letter: Louis
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: An open letter to Robin Carlsen from Louis
LOL.. On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Robin Carlsen maskedze...@yahoo.comwrote: ** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNC3OciAF3wlist=PL29CE67288EB89339 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Thanks Louis, isn't he full of venom and malice, my old man? Yep - his first person ontology does need a big spanking, a dose of reality. Your letter - is indeed a letter from reality. On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM, maskedzebra maskedzebra@... wrote: ** Dear Robin, What is your game anyhow? For me, I sense the deepest motive in you comes from your having relinquished your claims to enlightenment, and now you are living your life through an almost predestinated sense of irony. As if, not being able to bring people under your power by your theatrical antics as the purported enlightened man, you now dig down deep into reality and find some vein of irony--which gives you the same sense of omnipotence. Robin, look: Irony for me is a dead-end. You employ it as the means to somehow save face. I think it is destructive, plain and simple. What justification do you have to bring it into almost every post--not to mention every video? Do you have some other move here, Robin? I can tell you: maybe it is amusing, even startling, at first; but after awhile--Are you ready for this, Robin?--it becomes just a big BORE. Why don't you get serious and answer your adversaries on the terms in which they argue? You are forever ducking out of the challenge intellectually that is there in someone opposing you--and giving you the credit for being an honest opponent. But no; Robin is not satisfied with conversation at the level of pure content: you--who knows why?--want to find some weakness in the other person, and you probe and probe for this, thinking your irony is striking them where they are most vulnerable. But it doesn't work, Robin. Or at least, if once it did have some traction, now it just is tedious and silly and obnoxious. I am telling you in all sincerity, Robin: grow up, get a life, treat people with something other than contempt and derision. Don't you have anyone in your life who loves you? I'll bet not. I feel already stranded out here criticizing you, Robin, BECAUSE INSTEAD OF LISTENING TO ME you are just anticipating how to mock me with your irony. Look, Robin: You have been funny *sometimes*, but I think I speak for almost everyone here when I say: *What a relief it was having you absent from FFL last week*. Now that you have returned it's like having some smart aleck in class who is always trying to be witty. Robin: It's over, baby. Or it should be. I would like you take up a challenge: Try to act within the bounds of normal civil discourse like everyone else does here. I believe if you would become reasonable, Robin, the toxicity level of FFL would reduce significantly. Now let me say it one more time, Robin: STFU. DON'T IRONIZE THIS. Just take it as advice from--WTF do you call it?--Yeah: REALITY. Your first person ontology (whatever BS that is) needs a spanking, Robin. Feel this letter as coming from truth, reality, the universe--whatever turns you on, Robbie Baby. But know this: I am serious, and there are so many of us who wish you would heed this message. Got that, Robbie Boy? There is a lot of hate in you, Robin, disguised in the form of irony. But I believe--and I think I can say there are many readers and posters on FFL who will agree with me--your approach to argument is ultimately motived by an unresolved hatred in your heart as a spin-off from this perverse thing you did in disavowing the truth of your enlightenment. Have you ever considered IT WASN'T EVEN TRUE IN THE FIRST PLACE? You don't act like someone who was ever enlightened, Robin. And know this: If you truly went into Unity YOU COULD NOT REVERSE THIS PROCESS. We all end up--many after many lifetimes, it is true--in Unity. It's no big deal, Robin. And besides, I know you never really were enlightened in the first place. I am getting exhausted, Robin: You just need to experience some humility. I shall pray for you. I would like to see some evidence in your next post that you have at least considered the truth of what I have told you here. I am sending this to you by private mail, and I am going to ask you to post it--IF YOU ARE BRAVE ENOUGH TO DO THIS. But not in my real name. I would ask you--if you are so big on honesty and integrity (overused word, by the way, Robin)--to simply sign this letter: Louis
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- replying to BW
Excellent analysis and ideas, Barry. And compassionate, too. YUou do see connections between things, kind of like a rabbi or a minister preparing a sermon. Next lifetime. LMAO..This has got to be the post of my FFL lifetime. King Baby Barry - the emotionally stunted, deranged, depraved one..the compassionate rabbi? The paranoid, delusional, narcissist..a compassionate minister? OMG..this is just too hilarious. It will take a while to recover from this :-) On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:06 PM, wayback71 waybac...@yahoo.com wrote: ** --- 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: Devas and Architecture
MMY said that he failed to realize the importance of vastu until many years after he started the TM organization. What, do you assume that he couldn't learn new things as he got older, but instead, was merely in it for the money? BTW, the cut you refer to is for the pandit projects as far as I know. Do you have concrete info that MMY's family (which part, btw: his brother is well over 100 (105?) if he is still alive and Garish is nearing 70 now I suspect) is getting a cut, or is this just an assumption? L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74 mjackson74@... wrote: Just to try to be very clear with you, I was and am saying that Maharishi did, and the Movement still does promote sthapatya veda as being one of the remedies to the worlds ills, that if we don't have the properly designed and aligned homes and other buildings we will be prey to all sorts of problems, and my point is that if that is true, why the hell didn't he mention it all those years ago to help us out and help create good vibes for world peace? The answer is of course that while this type of architecture may be nice and may be interesting, our health and well being and world peace are NOT enhanced by it, this is a bullshit lie that Maharishi deliberately told people to create another stream of revenue for himself and his hangers on from the pockets of starry eyed believers who thought and still think he could NEVER lie. His relatives are still very happy everytime someone buys one of those bullshit ridiculously priced vedic observatories, since they get a cut. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardatrwilliamsdotus richard@ wrote: 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Empty - You are physically repulsive, intellectually retarded, vulgar, insensitive, selfish, stupid, you have no taste, a lousy sense of humor and you smell. On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 4:37 PM, emptybill emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: ** It must be hard to face the truth. So many posters here view you as just a shrew. Not me of course . Rather, I believe you are a magnificent bodhisattva, bent upon liberating everyone in all possible universes ... even if they don't want it. This is the burden you have taken upon yourself 'cause you really love everyone ... no matter what. Magnificent. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: snip Me, I don't see how anybody can ever hope to get anywhere near the larger Truth if they have no concern for the smaller truths of everyday life, including on this forum. While you are very skillful at these smaller truths Judy, I think you do get caught up in them to your disadvantage. Of course you do, Xeno. I wouldn't expect otherwise.
[FairfieldLife] Oceans Of Bliss Poems From The Saints and Sages
Lovely poetry from Rabindranath Tagore http://sathyasaimemories.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/oceans-of-bliss-poems-from-sages-and-saints/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Hey laughingstock108, I don't like your jerk-off name, I don't like your jerk-off face, I don't like your jerk-off behavior and I don't like you...jerk-off. Do I make myself clear? On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 8:55 AM, laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: ** Hang in there Share...you have at least one more supporter out here who somewhat feels what you are trying to do. Susan was most certainly right when she indicated that FFL had become (and I'm summarizing here) a somewhat different creature than what it started as so many years ago. There's very little value in many of the comments made by certain posters. Everyone who even comes close to the 50 posts/week limit should look back at their posts from the past month or so and try to find those that offered something significant towards the opening sentence to the description of this group: Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere. We can learn from each other if what is being offered is worthy of our attention. Knowledge IS structured in consciousness...but I don't want to be anywhere near the state of consciousness required to understand what some of you are trying to say or do. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: About Judy's ways of not being truthful and to set the record straight, it was Robin not me who brought our conflict to FFL. And he did so twice. And I mentioned that the first time he did so. Yet you began the nitpicky piling on. Not Curtis, you. And you continued to do so. Even though you had not seen the initial private emails between me and Robin. For me this is a crucial point. You did not know all that had been said between me and Robin. You certainly did not ever understand my feelings in the matter. Nor did you ever attempt to understand them. This is also crucial. You continually piled on and nitpicked even though he brought the conflict to FFL without asking how I felt about that. A reasonable and compassionate person would have let me and Robin work it out on our own given these circumstances. Compassionate is obvious. Reasonable because is anyone here really qualified to help 2 people work out a conflict? If yes, I'm 110% sure it's not you. This mercifully short post is a good example of what I don't like about your posting, Judy. You pick one technical aspect, that one about one exchange. Which is probably technically correct in the sense that your nitpicky pilings on are not really exchanges. Yet you fail to mention aspects way more important: that it was Robin who brought the conflict twice onto FFL, not me; that you hadn't seen the initial private emails between me and Robin; that you didn't attempt to understand where I was coming from. These are your ways of not being truthful. From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 7:48 PM Subject: [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: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- replying to BW
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Excellent analysis and ideas, Barry. And compassionate, too. You do see connections between things, kind of like a rabbi or a minister preparing a sermon. Next lifetime. LMAO..This has got to be the post of my FFL lifetime. King Baby Barry - the emotionally stunted, deranged, depraved one.. the compassionate rabbi? The paranoid, delusional, narcissist.. a compassionate minister? OMG..this is just too hilarious. It will take a while to recover from this :-) I'm sure both you and the Judester will get over it. After all, it's just simple jealousy. :-) If either of you actually had anything original or even slightly interesting to post, people might say stuff like that about you, too. Just sayin'...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- replying to BW
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 12:54 AM, turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Excellent analysis and ideas, Barry. And compassionate, too. You do see connections between things, kind of like a rabbi or a minister preparing a sermon. Next lifetime. LMAO..This has got to be the post of my FFL lifetime. King Baby Barry - the emotionally stunted, deranged, depraved one.. the compassionate rabbi? The paranoid, delusional, narcissist.. a compassionate minister? OMG..this is just too hilarious. It will take a while to recover from this :-) I'm sure both you and the Judester will get over it. After all, it's just simple jealousy. :-) If either of you actually had anything original or even slightly interesting to post, people might say stuff like that about you, too. Just sayin'... _ You dirt eating piece of slime, you scum sucking pig, you son of a motherless goat !!!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- replying to BW
Doc sez, grain of truth to that, and also that what a sermon is known best for, is putting people to sleep. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Excellent analysis and ideas, Barry. And compassionate, too. You do see connections between things, kind of like a rabbi or a minister preparing a sermon. Next lifetime. LMAO..This has got to be the post of my FFL lifetime. King Baby Barry - the emotionally stunted, deranged, depraved one.. the compassionate rabbi? The paranoid, delusional, narcissist.. a compassionate minister? OMG..this is just too hilarious. It will take a while to recover from this :-) I'm sure both you and the Judester will get over it. After all, it's just simple jealousy. :-) If either of you actually had anything original or even slightly interesting to post, people might say stuff like that about you, too. Just sayin'...
[FairfieldLife] Update of Transcendence Winter Blues
Update of TM bestseller reveals important new benefits of the technique and another book of Dr. Norman Rosenthal Winter Blues Everything You Need to Know to Beat Seasonal Affective Disorder http://www.tm.org/blog/video/benefits-of-tm/ E N J O Y
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
(Sitting here with eyes tightly closed and fingers crossed) Baby Krishna...Baby Krishna...Baby Krishna...Baby Krishna...Baby Krishna... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Hey laughingstock108, I don't like your jerk-off name, I don't like your jerk-off face, I don't like your jerk-off behavior and I don't like you...jerk-off. Do I make myself clear? On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 8:55 AM, laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: ** Hang in there Share...you have at least one more supporter out here who somewhat feels what you are trying to do. Susan was most certainly right when she indicated that FFL had become (and I'm summarizing here) a somewhat different creature than what it started as so many years ago. There's very little value in many of the comments made by certain posters. Everyone who even comes close to the 50 posts/week limit should look back at their posts from the past month or so and try to find those that offered something significant towards the opening sentence to the description of this group: Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere. We can learn from each other if what is being offered is worthy of our attention. Knowledge IS structured in consciousness...but I don't want to be anywhere near the state of consciousness required to understand what some of you are trying to say or do. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: About Judy's ways of not being truthful and to set the record straight, it was Robin not me who brought our conflict to FFL.à And he did so twice.à And I mentioned that the first time he did so.à Yet you began the nitpicky piling on.à Not Curtis, you.à And you continued to do so.à Even though you had not seen the initial private emails between me and Robin.à For me this is a crucial point.à You did not know all that had been said between me and Robin.à You certainly did not ever understand my feelings in the matter.à Nor did you ever attempt to understand them.à This is also crucial.à You continually piled on and nitpicked even though he brought the conflict to FFL without asking how I felt about that.à A reasonable and compassionate person would have let me and Robin work it out on our own given these circumstances.à Compassionate is obvious.à Reasonable because is anyone here really qualified to help 2 people work out a conflict?à If yes, I'm 110% sure it's not you. This mercifully short post is a good example of what I don't like about your posting, Judy.à You pick one technical aspect, that one about one exchange.à Which is probably technically correct in the sense that your nitpicky pilings on are not really exchanges.à Yet you fail to mention aspects way more important:à that it was Robin who brought the conflict twice onto FFL, not me; that you hadn't seen the initial private emails between me and Robin; that you didn't attempt to understand where I was coming from. These are your ways of not being truthful. From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 7:48 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology à --- 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.à 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: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- replying to BW
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 12:54 AM, turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Excellent analysis and ideas, Barry. And compassionate, too. You do see connections between things, kind of like a rabbi or a minister preparing a sermon. Next lifetime. LMAO..This has got to be the post of my FFL lifetime. King Baby Barry - the emotionally stunted, deranged, depraved one.. the compassionate rabbi? The paranoid, delusional, narcissist.. a compassionate minister? OMG..this is just too hilarious. It will take a while to recover from this :-) I'm sure both you and the Judester will get over it. After all, it's just simple jealousy. :-) If either of you actually had anything original or even slightly interesting to post, people might say stuff like that about you, too. Just sayin'... _ You dirt eating piece of slime, you scum sucking pig, you son of a motherless goat !!! (God, I hope this works) Baby Krishna...Baby Krishna...Baby Krishna...Baby Krishna...Baby Krishna...
[FairfieldLife] Turq's Sunday Sermon -- Can animals tell time?
I know that this is a scientific -- or at the very least pseudo-scientific -- forum, so I shall attempt in this Sunday's sermon to answer this question scientifically. Well, sorta. The first peer-reviewed (I allowed one of my housemates to read this before I posted it) study I have to cite comes from my own personal experience, and is thus highly credible. I work at home, and at approximately 3pm every day, my two dogs come over to my desk, nose my legs to get my attention, and look up at me with that It's time for your walk if you feed us first we'll come with you look I've come to know so well. So I get up, feed them, and take them on their walk. The control group in this highly scientific experiment are the household's two cats, who live in a different part of the house away from the dogs, but similarly have a tendency to show up in the kitchen precisely at noon every day, clamoring for the can of Finicky Brand Gourmet Cat Pacifier Chow they get to share each day at that time. So my personal experience and belief is that both cats and dogs can tell time, or at the very least the amount of time that has passed since they were last fed. (This belief has not been at all shaken by evidence to the contrary, such as these dogs' tendency to try to eat scraps of food on the street, immediately after having been fed.) This scientific evidence presented, a recent research study conducted on rats at the University of Western Ontario seems to replicate the findings of my study. Well, sorta. The UWO (no relation to UFO) scientists designed an experiment in which rats were trained to visit different parts of a maze at different times of the day. Some parts of the maze contained food pellets that the rats consider acceptable in an OK, I'll eat that if you've got nothing better for me sort of way, but not quite in the same ballpark as the food left in other parts of the maze bits of tasty cheese. The rats prefer the cheese and react to it with an enthusiastic Oh yeah...gimme that...gimme that, and with almost as much gusto as the household cats prefer the gourmet brand of cat food over the brands that cost half as much. The researchers at UWO were looking for three different characteristics of the rats' behavior exactly when (time of day) they visited the parts of the maze containing the cheese, how long ago the cheese had last been placed there (number of rat minutes that had elapsed since the last cheese discovery), and when plus how long ago (whether they seemed to remember the time of day they last encountered cheese, with a remembered interval of time added to it, used to calculate when it would next appear). Interestingly enough, the only one of these three cues that the rats seemed to use successfully to time their visits to the Tasty Cheese Neighborhoods was how long ago the cheese had been found there on an earlier visit. The researchers concluded that unlike the nature of human memory, which involves retaining a memory of past events and a somewhat precise memory of when those events happened the rats just remember that a certain event happened. As researcher William Roberts put it, The rats remember whether they did something, such as hoarded food a few hours or five days ago. The more time that has passed, the weaker the memory may be ... they do not remember that the event occurred at a specific point in past time. Roberts believes that the rats are stuck in time, living in the present, unable to conceptually time travel back into the past or forward into the future in the ways that humans can. Experiments conducted on other animals, such as pigeons, monkeys, and fruitbats (OK, I made up the part about fruitbats...I just like saying fruitbats) confirm Roberts' theory that animals can't really conceive of the future. Given a choice between a small food reward immediately (here and now, in the present) as opposed to a much larger food reward in the future (that other thing...not right now, when it *matters*), they consistently go for Give me the treat you've got in your hand now. Right now. But this lack of an ability to foresee or plan for the future seems to be intuitively incorrect when you consider the example of squirrels hoarding food for the coming winter. Surely they must have a notion of the future, or they wouldn't be storing the food to be eaten later. Scientists who believe in the animals live only in the present theory have an explanation for this one, too. They performed experiments in which they stole the hoarded food from where the squirrels had stashed it (Bastids!), and the squirrels kept gathering food and hoarding it anyway. Similarly, the squirrels didn't stop gathering more food and hoarding it once they'd collected more than enough to see them through the winter. This led the researchers to believe that the gathering-hoarding behavior was purely instinctive, and not based on a conscious ability to plan for the future. True Unbelievers, the whole lot of them. I'm of
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- replying to BW
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 12:54 AM, turquoiseb no_reply@yahoogroups.comwrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Excellent analysis and ideas, Barry. And compassionate, too. You do see connections between things, kind of like a rabbi or a minister preparing a sermon. Next lifetime. LMAO..This has got to be the post of my FFL lifetime. King Baby Barry - the emotionally stunted, deranged, depraved one.. the compassionate rabbi? The paranoid, delusional, narcissist.. a compassionate minister? OMG..this is just too hilarious. It will take a while to recover from this :-) I'm sure both you and the Judester will get over it. After all, it's just simple jealousy. :-) If either of you actually had anything original or even slightly interesting to post, people might say stuff like that about you, too. Just sayin'... You dirt eating piece of slime, you scum sucking pig, you son of a motherless goat !!! (God, I hope this works) Baby Krishna...Baby Krishna...Baby Krishna... Baby Krishna...Baby Krishna... Hey, this is kinda cool, being surrounded by babes and all. I think when I grow up I'm going to learn to play the flute. I hear babes like that.
[FairfieldLife] It's not just TMers who get excommunicated for being critical
This article brings up for me the thorny question of what would happen if he became President and his most trusted adviser Eric Fehrnstrom (shown below as Batman to Romney's Robin) said to him, Mitt, I don't really think it's a good idea to nuke both Iran and the American Homeless the same day? Would he consider this advice as valid and useful, or would he call the bishops and have Fehrnstrom excommunicated? [featureimg] Mormons Want to Excommunicate Romney CriticAfter writing negative articles about the Republican candidate, the managing editor of MormonThink.com says he faces excommunication. Is the Church on a witch hunt? Jamie Reno reports. David Twede, 47, a scientist, novelist, and fifth-generation Mormon, is managing editor of MormonThink.com http://mormonthink.com/ , an online magazine produced largely by members of the Mormon Church that welcomes scholarly debate about the religion's history from both critics and true believers. A Mormon in good standing, Twede has never been disciplined by Latter Day Saints leadership. But it now appears his days as a Mormon may be numbered because of a series of articles he wrote this past week that were critical of Mitt Romney http://mormonthink.com/politics.htm . On Sunday, Twede says his bishop, stake president, and two church executives brought him into Florida Mormon church offices in Orlando and interrogated him for nearly an hour about his writings, telling him, Cease and desist, Brother Twede. Mormon leaders have scheduled an excommunication http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Disciplinary_Procedures for apostasy on Sept. 30. A spokesman for the church http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/06/17/mormon-church-scramble\ s-in-romney-spotlight.html told The Daily Beast that the church would not be commenting for this story. In an exclusive interview with The Daily Beast, Twede says that during the interrogation he felt attacked, cornered, and very anxious. The four church leaders verbally chastised him, he says, for hiding his identity on MormonThink and his personal blog in order to avoid discipline. Twede, who writes using only his first name, says they kept asking him why he didn't identify himself online if he had nothing to hide. I told them I hide my name precisely because of things like this, he says. I said, `Look how fast you got to me.' I know a lot of members don't want their life disturbed. In the Mormon church, if you're not part of the uniform group http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/06/10/david-frum-on-how-romn\ ey-s-religion-is-his-greatest-asset.html , you are ostracized. Twede asked church leaders how they came up with his name so fast after posting the articles. They wouldn't tell him, but he says he's since been told by a church insider that a contributor to the pro-Mormon Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research http://www.fairlds.org/ , many of whose members are professors at Brigham Young University, alerted church officials in Salt Lake City, who apparently informed his local ecclesiastical leaders. When they interrogated me, they denied that they were on a witch hunt, but they kept asking me, `Who are the other individuals you work with on MormonThink?' he says. They continued demanding that I tell them. But I didn't. Twede's situation was first publicly disclosed this week on an ex-Mormon online discussion site by Steve Benson http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/benson/ , the Pulitzer Prizewinning editorial cartoonist for The Arizona Republic and grandson of former secretary of agriculture and Mormon prophet Ezra Taft Benson. Benson, who left Mormonism in 1993, the same year he won the Pulitzer, is now a vocal critic of the church and is an active voice on the ex-Mormon sites. What you're seeing with David is not atypical of what the church has done in the past, where local leadership becomes focused on riding into battle under the flag `out damn spot' and ridding itself or perceived apostates, Benson tells The Daily Beast. I was under this kind of investigation when I left in '93. I didn't want to give them the satisfaction of an excommunication. I no longer wanted to be a member of that organization. In his role as managing editor of MormonThink, Twede wrote an article about Romney last month titled The God of Mitt Romney: Why Do Some Claim He's Not Christian? http://mormonthink.com/christian.htm Then last week he posted several stories about the political history of LDS and how the church may or may not influence Romney http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/06/10/david-frum-on-how-romn\ ey-s-religion-is-his-greatest-asset.html , as well as a few blog posts that were tongue-in-cheek takes on the church. And that was apparently all it took for church leaders to intervene. When they brought me into the office, they told me they were upset by the way I had portrayed myself, he says. They didn't like that I was writing a blog critical
[FairfieldLife] Abe Lincoln and the Duel at Ganryu Island
I love this story, and suspect I would've liked Abe Lincoln a lot. The Time Abraham Lincoln and a Political Rival Almost Dueled on an Island http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/139854 by Julia Davis http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/author/julia-davis/ - September 22, 2012 - 1:11 PMinShare [lincoln-shields-duel] Exactly 170 years ago today, the Mississippi River levee in Alton, Illinois, was crammed full of spectators awaiting the results of a highly anticipated duel a smackdown between Abraham Lincoln and political rival James Shields. Only one man could emerge victorious. Onlookers held their breath in suspense as they spotted a boat approaching with a blood-soaked body draped over the bow. It had all started where so many skirmishes do: the Illinois state legislature. Though at the time Lincoln was a Whig and Shields was a Democrat, the two politicians had an amicable relationship and worked together to address the state's enormous debt problem. The relationship cooled, however, when Shields became the State Auditor. He passed a number of controversial measures and even instituted a policy whereby the state stopped accepting its own paper money as payment of taxes and other debts. Lincoln expressed his disapproval in the most professional, statesman-like fashion he could think of: by anonymously lampooning Shields in print. He began composing letters to a Springfield paper deriding Shields' character as well as his policies. Poking fun at Shields wasn't hard to do. He was notoriously pompous, vain, and a tad eccentric. Opponents dubbed him an irresistible mark for satire. Putting his infamously sarcastic wit to work, Lincoln created two fictitious characters Jeff and Rebecca who were unable to pay their debts because the state no longer accepted paper money. He also poked fun at Shields' lack of romantic game. One letter, signed Rebecca, quoted Shields as saying, Dear girls, it is distressing, but I cannot marry you all . . . It is not my fault that I am so handsome and so interesting. Before sending his note off to the editor, Lincoln shared it with his soon-to-be-wife Mary Todd and her friend Julia Jayne. The two women contributed a few quips to Lincoln's letter and even began writing memos of their own. The letters soon became the talk of the town. Though Shields was generally well liked, people got a kick out of Lincoln's hilariously spot-on satire. Shields, however, didn't get the joke. Incensed, he contacted the paper's editor and demanded to know Rebecca's identity. The editor gave him Abe's name as per Lincoln's instructions. Upon learning the identity of his defamer, Shields decided to settle the matter by challenging Lincoln to a duel. Though Lincoln thought the whole thing was absurd, he knew that backing down from a duel was never the honorable thing to do. Duel Rules As the one who'd been challenged, Lincoln got to select the conditions of the duel. He had a grand old time conjuring up the most ridiculous set of circumstances possible. To begin with, he named the cavalry broadsword as the weapon of choice. (I didn't want the d-d fellow to kill me, which I think he would have done if we had selected pistols, he later explained.) Next, Lincoln decided that the duel should be held on an island across the Mississippi (dueling was illegal in Illinois). He also stipulated that the two men face off in the bottom of a 12-foot-deep pit divided by a wooden plank that neither man was allowed to cross. These conditions gave the 6'4 Lincoln a serious advantage over his 5'9 opponent. Lincoln was sure Shields would back down. Not the case. On September 22, 1842, Shields arrived at the duel site near the city of Alton, ready to face any challenger who might be foolish enough to face him. While the two men were gearing up to face off, one spectator noted how grave and serious Lincoln looked. I'd never seen him look so long before making a joke, and began to believe he was getting frightened. But all of a sudden, Lincoln reached up and casually sliced off a branch with his sword. Again, it was an effort to scare Shields into submission. But his opponent's impressive display of arm-span still didn't deter the scrappy Shields. The duel was about to commence when a few mutual friends arrived and intervened. Colonel John Jay Hardin helped the two reach a face-saving compromise, working it out with words instead of swords. Lincoln offered up a mea culpa and admitted that he'd authored the letters. Everyone standing on the levee was relieved (but probably a hair disappointed) to learn that the body on the boat returning from the island was really just a log in a red shirt a simple prank set up by a mutual friend. When the boat reached land, Lincoln and Shields stepped off together, chummily chatting away. Upon viewing spectators' horrified reactions, they both broke into fits of laughter at
[FairfieldLife] Re: Turq's Sunday Sermon -- Can animals tell time?
It would be more scientific to use, as barometers, things that didn't involve important bodily functions like eating and going for walks (presumably to assist in that necessary evacuation of the bladder and bowels) because both eating and pooping are fairly regularly occurring cycles during a 24 hour period. No matter what, the body will get hungry after a while and then there will be the need to eliminate the digested elements of that earlier eaten meal so it may not be that the animal knows it is time to do these things but the body simply tells it that it is hungry and then it has to go outside. If you feed your animals at the same time every day (which I do with both my horses and dogs) they will be hungry a certain amount of time after that. If they eat at 6 am and 6pm, like at my house with the dogs, they will have to go outside pretty much the same time to evacuate after that because the body is pretty smart in how it processes food and since they eat the same thing every meal the time it takes to digest it will be the same. On the other hand, in some ways I think animals have a pretty good sense of the time of day because I know mine are ready to get up at 6am because that is when my husband and I have gotten out of bed every day of our lives for the past 7 years. I think it is not based on intelligence however because I can automatically wake up at 6 pretty much 100% of the time without an alarm but that is more like body conditioning rather than being smart. Anyway, thanks for the sermon minister. When does the rabbi appear? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: I know that this is a scientific -- or at the very least pseudo-scientific -- forum, so I shall attempt in this Sunday's sermon to answer this question scientifically. Well, sorta. The first peer-reviewed (I allowed one of my housemates to read this before I posted it) study I have to cite comes from my own personal experience, and is thus highly credible. I work at home, and at approximately 3pm every day, my two dogs come over to my desk, nose my legs to get my attention, and look up at me with that It's time for your walk if you feed us first we'll come with you look I've come to know so well. So I get up, feed them, and take them on their walk. The control group in this highly scientific experiment are the household's two cats, who live in a different part of the house away from the dogs, but similarly have a tendency to show up in the kitchen precisely at noon every day, clamoring for the can of Finicky Brand Gourmet Cat Pacifier Chow they get to share each day at that time. So my personal experience and belief is that both cats and dogs can tell time, or at the very least the amount of time that has passed since they were last fed. (This belief has not been at all shaken by evidence to the contrary, such as these dogs' tendency to try to eat scraps of food on the street, immediately after having been fed.) This scientific evidence presented, a recent research study conducted on rats at the University of Western Ontario seems to replicate the findings of my study. Well, sorta. The UWO (no relation to UFO) scientists designed an experiment in which rats were trained to visit different parts of a maze at different times of the day. Some parts of the maze contained food pellets that the rats consider acceptable in an OK, I'll eat that if you've got nothing better for me sort of way, but not quite in the same ballpark as the food left in other parts of the maze bits of tasty cheese. The rats prefer the cheese and react to it with an enthusiastic Oh yeah...gimme that...gimme that, and with almost as much gusto as the household cats prefer the gourmet brand of cat food over the brands that cost half as much. The researchers at UWO were looking for three different characteristics of the rats' behavior exactly when (time of day) they visited the parts of the maze containing the cheese, how long ago the cheese had last been placed there (number of rat minutes that had elapsed since the last cheese discovery), and when plus how long ago (whether they seemed to remember the time of day they last encountered cheese, with a remembered interval of time added to it, used to calculate when it would next appear). Interestingly enough, the only one of these three cues that the rats seemed to use successfully to time their visits to the Tasty Cheese Neighborhoods was how long ago the cheese had been found there on an earlier visit. The researchers concluded that unlike the nature of human memory, which involves retaining a memory of past events and a somewhat precise memory of when those events happened the rats just remember that a certain event happened. As researcher William Roberts put it, The rats remember whether they did something, such as hoarded food a few hours or five days ago. The more time that has passed, the weaker
[FairfieldLife] Re: It's not just TMers who get excommunicated for being critical
turquoiseb: Mormons Want to Excommunicate Romney Critic After writing negative articles about the Republican candidate... So, in your mind the next U.S. election is all about what religion the candidate believes in. Our ambassador was targeted and murdered by Islamic terrorists in a pre-planned attact on 9/11 and he was not given U.S. State Department security, but you're worried about Mitt Romney's religion? Go figure. Althouse: http://tinyurl.com/9ganv66 This article brings up for me the thorny question of what would happen if he became President and his most trusted adviser Eric Fehrnstrom (shown below as Batman to Romney's Robin) said to him, Mitt, I don't really think it's a good idea to nuke both Iran and the American Homeless the same day? Would he consider this advice as valid and useful, or would he call the bishops and have Fehrnstrom excommunicated? [featureimg] Mormons Want to Excommunicate Romney CriticAfter writing negative articles about the Republican candidate, the managing editor of MormonThink.com says he faces excommunication. Is the Church on a witch hunt? Jamie Reno reports. David Twede, 47, a scientist, novelist, and fifth-generation Mormon, is managing editor of MormonThink.com http://mormonthink.com/ , an online magazine produced largely by members of the Mormon Church that welcomes scholarly debate about the religion's history from both critics and true believers. A Mormon in good standing, Twede has never been disciplined by Latter Day Saints leadership. But it now appears his days as a Mormon may be numbered because of a series of articles he wrote this past week that were critical of Mitt Romney http://mormonthink.com/politics.htm . On Sunday, Twede says his bishop, stake president, and two church executives brought him into Florida Mormon church offices in Orlando and interrogated him for nearly an hour about his writings, telling him, Cease and desist, Brother Twede. Mormon leaders have scheduled an excommunication http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Disciplinary_Procedures for apostasy on Sept. 30. A spokesman for the church http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/06/17/mormon-church-scramble\ s-in-romney-spotlight.html told The Daily Beast that the church would not be commenting for this story. In an exclusive interview with The Daily Beast, Twede says that during the interrogation he felt attacked, cornered, and very anxious. The four church leaders verbally chastised him, he says, for hiding his identity on MormonThink and his personal blog in order to avoid discipline. Twede, who writes using only his first name, says they kept asking him why he didn't identify himself online if he had nothing to hide. I told them I hide my name precisely because of things like this, he says. I said, `Look how fast you got to me.' I know a lot of members don't want their life disturbed. In the Mormon church, if you're not part of the uniform group http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/06/10/david-frum-on-how-romn\ ey-s-religion-is-his-greatest-asset.html , you are ostracized. Twede asked church leaders how they came up with his name so fast after posting the articles. They wouldn't tell him, but he says he's since been told by a church insider that a contributor to the pro-Mormon Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research http://www.fairlds.org/ , many of whose members are professors at Brigham Young University, alerted church officials in Salt Lake City, who apparently informed his local ecclesiastical leaders. When they interrogated me, they denied that they were on a witch hunt, but they kept asking me, `Who are the other individuals you work with on MormonThink?' he says. They continued demanding that I tell them. But I didn't. Twede's situation was first publicly disclosed this week on an ex-Mormon online discussion site by Steve Benson http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/benson/ , the Pulitzer Prizewinning editorial cartoonist for The Arizona Republic and grandson of former secretary of agriculture and Mormon prophet Ezra Taft Benson. Benson, who left Mormonism in 1993, the same year he won the Pulitzer, is now a vocal critic of the church and is an active voice on the ex-Mormon sites. What you're seeing with David is not atypical of what the church has done in the past, where local leadership becomes focused on riding into battle under the flag `out damn spot' and ridding itself or perceived apostates, Benson tells The Daily Beast. I was under this kind of investigation when I left in '93. I didn't want to give them the satisfaction of an excommunication. I no longer wanted to be a member of that organization. In his role as managing editor of MormonThink, Twede wrote an article about Romney last month titled The God of Mitt Romney: Why Do Some Claim He's Not Christian?
[FairfieldLife] Re: anaadi matparaM brahma or anaadimat paraM brahma??
emptybill: This does not mean that either Shankara or SBS were tantrika-s... It means that if SBS was an adherent of Sri Vidya, then that might account for the Karpatri Swami, SBS's desciple, being an adherent of Sri Vidya tantric sect. He was also the great expert of Shree Vidya and probably all the present day experts in Varanasi have somehow or the other obtained Shree vidya from him or his pupils. Hariharananda Saraswati: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Karpatri You have had this demonstrated to you repeatedly. Where, exactly where has it been demonstrated that SBS was not an adherent of Sri Vidya sect? 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 very Self itself, Atman, is also Brahman, the Absolute Reality. This Atman or Self has four aspects through which it operates. Work cited: 'Enlightenment Without God' Mandukhya Upanishad By Swami Rama Himalayan Institute Press, 1982 Other titles of interst: 'The Secret of the Three Cities' An Introduction to Hindu Sakta Tantrism By Douglas Renfrew Brooks University Of Chicago Press, 1998 'The Triadic Heart of Siva' Kaula Tantricism of Abhinavagupta in the Non-Dual Shaivism of Kashmir By Paul Eduardo Muller-Ortega State University of New York Press, 1989
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster. From: authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
You continually piled on and nitpicked... laughinggull108: Knowledge IS structured in consciousness... Based on what you wrote, this is 'nitpicking' to post that 'knowledge is structured in consciousnes', at least on FFL. LoL! 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. 320514 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320514 The three fundamental states of consciousness according to Kashmere Trika: jgrat - waking state svapna - dreaming suupti - dreamless sleep Besides these three there is another state which has no name (turya - the fourth) because it is indescribable. This fourth state is that of perfect fusion of pramatri, pramana and prameya, also known as superconsciouness, pervading the other three states and existing also outside them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trika http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trika 'Kashmir Shaivism, The Secret Supreme' by Swami Lakshman Jee, pag. 73 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Lakshman_Joo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Lakshman_Joo
[FairfieldLife] Woo Woo
Here's a photo I just took on my evening walk through the picturesque cemetery near my house. It's (I assume) Mother Mary, looking a bit worse from wear, the wood she is carved from having undergone some weathering over the years (or centuries). I'm betting, however, that she's still lookin' hotter than the guy whose grave she graces. The Woo Woo comes from the odd flash of light on the right side of the photo. I have been assured by a local psychic (whom I know to be trustworthy because I had to pay her) that the image on the right is the ghost of the guy whose grave I leaned across to take this photo. He's got a rep in this 'hood for being territorial. [http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8312/8015710696_80418b5efd.jpg] http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8312/8015710696_80418b5efd.jpg http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8312/8015710696_80418b5efd.jpg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Woo Woo
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Here's a photo I just took on my evening walk through the picturesque cemetery near my house. It's (I assume) Mother Mary, looking a bit worse from wear, the wood she is carved from having undergone some weathering over the years (or centuries). I'm betting, however, that she's still lookin' hotter than the guy whose grave she graces. The Woo Woo comes from the odd flash of light on the right side of the photo. I have been assured by a local psychic (whom I know to be trustworthy because I had to pay her) that the image on the right is the ghost of the guy whose grave I leaned across to take this photo. He's got a rep in this 'hood for being territorial. Surely the departed couldn't possibly have taken exception to the minister/rabbi gently leaning across his place of rest. It must just be a quirk of the sun playing havoc on the lens. But I liked the photo, I really like wandering through old European graveyards. [http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8312/8015710696_80418b5efd.jpg] http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8312/8015710696_80418b5efd.jpg http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8312/8015710696_80418b5efd.jpg
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. Here is the thing, dear Share, although you have obviously taken exception to the metaphor of the dormouse as pertaining to you, it was a rather charming, in an interesting way, image and not one to get overly excited about. (See my photo of a rather adorable dormouse). On the other hand, I know you can do better in your description of Judy so that it encompasses not only your feelings (which seem to be hurt) as well as a degree of truthfulness and therefore potency without the ugly-esh negativity. I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster. I think we may need a ruling from the judges on this one, as to whether the use of quote marks around your own words indicates an attempt to imply they're someone else's. That sounds like a fairly strong charge to level against someone without the opinion of an expert. Couldn't they just be italics? Is there an editor in the house? Oh wait...there was one, back on July 31, 2007: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Someday, Judy, *as* someone who corrects other people's writing for a living, you might figure out that a very common usage of quotation marks, in the absence of italics, is *as* italics, as a way of highlighting words and phrases. Bull, and you know it. Quote marks are *not* a common or even an accepted substitute for italics. What you and many others use is asterisks, as you just did above. Only the truly paranoid would see them as an attempt to quote *them* every time they're used. :-) Nope. You've been using quote marks around your own words in an attempt to imply they're someone else's as long as I've known you. It's just one of your many dishonest tricks. :-) From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   I could not find by search Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that in any post by you Share until you quoted it here; it first appeared in post #320794 by authfriend. The closest I could find you saying anything resembling this is post #320421 where you wrote: Sorry, Richard but IMO Barry's not schizo. Barry is simply like the rest of us, a mix and positive and negative. Judy too. And yes it's often perplexing to me. But I rarely find it helpful to pull out DSM IV labels (not sure that's the right number) to bolster one's argument. None of us are trained therapists, right? And it's not helpful when Turq does it either. Just in case someone was going to waste a post bringing that to my attention! From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. M: Perhaps a review process is in order for Share. She could send you her posts before posting them, and they could be evaluated for how much they do justice to her. I think there is more than a little Robin left in you Ann. (I hope that was just right.) Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. Here was your intent tell: Here is the thing, dear Share, You kinda know what's coming after that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. Here is the thing, dear Share, although you have obviously taken exception to the metaphor of the dormouse as pertaining to you, it was a rather charming, in an interesting way, image and not one to get overly excited about. (See my photo of a rather adorable dormouse). On the other hand, I know you can do better in your description of Judy so that it encompasses not only your feelings (which seem to be hurt) as well as a degree of truthfulness and therefore potency without the ugly-esh negativity. I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   You've got a pretty strong charge going on there, Share. Maybe it's something to reflect upon. It's quite clear to me Judy wasn't quoting anything you actually said. Her alternate approach to supplying subtext, that I've seen her use with Barry, might have been: Says Share, especially disliking the negativity of having her mistakes and falsehoods called to her attention. She really hates that. Seems to me fighting fairly means keeping the discussion out in the open. Private emails, or even the gist of them that leak into the public discussion, Sal's for example, is more likely to engender reality-obfuscating as well as mistrust and room to stretch or avoid the truth. I don't see how anybody can ever hope to get anywhere near the larger Truth if they have no concern for the smaller truths of everyday life, including on this forum. If we can't be honest with each other, how can we ever be honest with ourselves? ~J. Stein From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Me, I don't see how anybody can ever hope to get anywhere near the larger Truth if they have no concern for the smaller truths of everyday life, including on this forum. While you are very skillful at these smaller truths Judy, I think you do get caught up in them to your disadvantage. Of course you do, Xeno. I wouldn't expect otherwise. emptybill: It must be hard to face the truth... Barry wrote that he doesn't believe in a larger 'truth', so yeah why would he believe in any smaller truths? LoL! Barry believes in 'free will' and 'vijnana' does not mean conciousness. LoL! Yeah, the truth, Wright, Bill? The concept of free will plays a central role in Kashmir Shaivism. Known under the technical name of svatantrya it is the cause of the creation of the universe - a primordial force that stirs up the absolute and manifests the world inside the supreme consciousness of Siva. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_ShaivismKashmir The details of the beliefs vary in different texts, but the general principles are similar to those found in Kashmir Shaivism...The name srividya is also used to refer to a specific mantra used in this tradition having fifteen syllables. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shri_Vidya
[FairfieldLife] Re: Woo Woo
DD: very cool picture - I have not seen a graveyard statue before carved from wood. PS stop paying the psychic. The ghost's name is, Barry's hand covering the lens. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Here's a photo I just took on my evening walk through the picturesque cemetery near my house. It's (I assume) Mother Mary, looking a bit worse from wear, the wood she is carved from having undergone some weathering over the years (or centuries). I'm betting, however, that she's still lookin' hotter than the guy whose grave she graces. The Woo Woo comes from the odd flash of light on the right side of the photo. I have been assured by a local psychic (whom I know to be trustworthy because I had to pay her) that the image on the right is the ghost of the guy whose grave I leaned across to take this photo. He's got a rep in this 'hood for being territorial. [http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8312/8015710696_80418b5efd.jpg] http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8312/8015710696_80418b5efd.jpg http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8312/8015710696_80418b5efd.jpg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Devas and Architecture
mjackson74: Facing facts, mantras, both the type to be chanted and those that are used internally are a dime a dozen in India. I like all mine and the TM ones while useful are no better or worse than any others... In TM, you get only one single bija mantra, Mr. Jackson. But, where do the bija mantras come from? Bija 'mantras', by definition, have no semantic meaning - that's why they're called 'mantras' instead of being called 'words'. If the bijas were Sanskrit words, there would be no need for a definition of them, since their meaning would be obvious to anyone who could read a Sanskrit lexicon. So, let's review: In basic TM you get the single seed sound (bija) and later you get the fertilizer, and you get the simple instructions for the correct angle to dive. So, 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. It has already been established that MMY got his vastu ideas from ancient Hindu and Buddhist vastu principles of edifice architecture. 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
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. M: Perhaps a review process is in order for Share. She could send you her posts before posting them, and they could be evaluated for how much they do justice to her. I think there is more than a little Robin left in you Ann. (I hope that was just right.) Good one, Curtis. You got a twofer, a double play. You win the jackpot, a trip to Obfuscating Rehab for the irony impaired. Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. Here was your intent tell: Here is the thing, dear Share, You kinda know what's coming after that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. Here is the thing, dear Share, although you have obviously taken exception to the metaphor of the dormouse as pertaining to you, it was a rather charming, in an interesting way, image and not one to get overly excited about. (See my photo of a rather adorable dormouse). On the other hand, I know you can do better in your description of Judy so that it encompasses not only your feelings (which seem to be hurt) as well as a degree of truthfulness and therefore potency without the ugly-esh negativity. I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? I would be utterly flabbergasted if anyone here read what I put in quotes and thought I was quoting something you actually said, Share, it's so far from what anybody could conceive of your ever saying. It's too honest. That sentence in quotes represents my impression of why you really want any further discussion of what went on here in public to take place privately. It isn't that you want to spare the forum negativity; that's just the saintly mask you'd like to put on it. Rather, you want to spare *yourself* the discomfort of being forced to face up to your behavior in public. Call it the voice of your conscience, what your conscience would be telling you is your real motivation if you could hear it, if you were to take your fingers out of your ears. That's why I put it in quotes. The evidence is public: You have made factual mistakes and have told falsehoods, but you haven't owned up to them when they've been pointed out to you. Would you like me to list some of them? I'll be happy to do that if you want to challenge that assertion. Most of them are from what you've said in your discussions with me that I've already called you on, so they shouldn't come as a surprise. PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. You're both, Share. You aren't the only such dormouse on FFL; it wasn't you I had in mind when I wrote the phrase. But it fits. What happens is that when someone insists that the dormouse wake up and face reality, she becomes enraged and does everything she can to obfuscate the reality, including fighting dirty. I'll give you one example: You were already pissed off at me for having taken you to task for some other crap. Barry's dumb angry cunts post came up, and you suggested, oh-so- sweetly, that I should try forgiving and forgetting. But you knew, because you had been told, that it's not me who brings it up constantly, but Barry. All I do is defend myself against his misrepresentations. You thought you could shame me for perpetuating that controversy when you knew I wasn't responsible. That's what I call obfuscating reality and fighting dirty. There are plenty more examples, but that one is especially clear-cut. It's not entirely clear to me that you're even aware of what you're doing, though. I think for you the process of editing reality takes place so automatically and so quickly that the original reality gets overwritten, and you no longer have access to it. The version you've edited to suit yourself *becomes* the reality for you. But somewhere down deep, your psyche knows what you've done. And it drives you to do your damndest to avoid dealing with it in public. Do you engage in similar avoidance in private? I would guess you find it easier in private, because you're confronting only one person. In public, you never know who- all is going to pipe up and call you to account so everyone else becomes wise to your tactics. Your attempt to accuse me of obfuscation in the post I'm responding to, when you know damn well nobody would think I was actually quoting you, is the very most recent example.  BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: Good one, Curtis. You got a twofer, a double play. You win the jackpot, a trip to Obfuscating Rehab for the irony impaired. Does anyone else get the feeling that this word is being overused in a completely bogus way? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. M: Perhaps a review process is in order for Share. She could send you her posts before posting them, and they could be evaluated for how much they do justice to her. I think there is more than a little Robin left in you Ann. (I hope that was just right.) Good one, Curtis. You got a twofer, a double play. You win the jackpot, a trip to Obfuscating Rehab for the irony impaired. Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. Here was your intent tell: Here is the thing, dear Share, You kinda know what's coming after that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. Here is the thing, dear Share, although you have obviously taken exception to the metaphor of the dormouse as pertaining to you, it was a rather charming, in an interesting way, image and not one to get overly excited about. (See my photo of a rather adorable dormouse). On the other hand, I know you can do better in your description of Judy so that it encompasses not only your feelings (which seem to be hurt) as well as a degree of truthfulness and therefore potency without the ugly-esh negativity. I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster. I think we may need a ruling from the judges on this one, as to whether the use of quote marks around your own words indicates an attempt to imply they're someone else's. That sounds like a fairly strong charge to level against someone without the opinion of an expert. Couldn't they just be italics? Is there an editor in the house? Oh wait...there was one, back on July 31, 2007: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Someday, Judy, *as* someone who corrects other people's writing for a living, you might figure out that a very common usage of quotation marks, in the absence of italics, is *as* italics, as a way of highlighting words and phrases. Bull, and you know it. Quote marks are *not* a common or even an accepted substitute for italics. What you and many others use is asterisks, as you just did above. Only the truly paranoid would see them as an attempt to quote *them* every time they're used. :-) Well, now we know Barry must be thinking Share is truly paranoid. Actually this exchange was about a completely different type of situation, as Barry knows. If anybody wants me to explain further, I'll be happy to do so. Nope. You've been using quote marks around your own words in an attempt to imply they're someone else's as long as I've known you. It's just one of your many dishonest tricks. :-) From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: snip Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. It's dormouse, not doormouse (dor = sleep). And of course, as Curtis knows, the phrase wasn't used to describe Share (except by herself). Here was your intent tell: Intent tell, what a charming bit of psychobabble. NLP, I assume? Here is the thing, dear Share, You kinda know what's coming after that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. Here is the thing, dear Share, although you have obviously taken exception to the metaphor of the dormouse as pertaining to you, it was a rather charming, in an interesting way, image and not one to get overly excited about. (See my photo of a rather adorable dormouse). On the other hand, I know you can do better in your description of Judy so that it encompasses not only your feelings (which seem to be hurt) as well as a degree of truthfulness and therefore potency without the ugly-esh negativity. I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. It's dormouse, not doormouse (dor = sleep). Always appreciated. And of course, as Curtis knows, the phrase wasn't used to describe Share (except by herself). Actually I didn't, I just dropped in and must have gotten that wrong. If so I apologize to Judy if I was characterizing her as condescending for a term she herself didn't use. Here was your intent tell: Intent tell, what a charming bit of psychobabble. NLP, I assume? No, it is my own collage of the poker term as it applies to writing. It sounds so much edgier than foreshadowing. Here is the thing, dear Share, You kinda know what's coming after that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. Here is the thing, dear Share, although you have obviously taken exception to the metaphor of the dormouse as pertaining to you, it was a rather charming, in an interesting way, image and not one to get overly excited about. (See my photo of a rather adorable dormouse). On the other hand, I know you can do better in your description of Judy so that it encompasses not only your feelings (which seem to be hurt) as well as a degree of truthfulness and therefore potency without the ugly-esh negativity. I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Devas and Architecture
The idea is that he was enlightened and would have known all this wonderful stuff, not too big a stretch since he was supposedly a great expert on all things vedic. As to the monetary comment, I know for a fact from my own stint working for the Movement and I know also from others who worked for the Movement at higher levels of authority than me that the Movement has ALWAYS funneled money to the top, what we peons used to call International. As to the relatives, I was thinking of Maharishi's nephews, Anand Shrivastava and Ajay Prakash Shrivastava with whom Maharishi formed the Maharishi Group back in the late 1960's. The Maharishi Group is the umbrella organization for virtually all the other Movement organizations including Age of Enlightenment Publications, Maharishi Ayurveda Products Ltd., and even Maharishi University of Management. His nephews still run it. So yeah, his kin folk get a cut. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: MMY said that he failed to realize the importance of vastu until many years after he started the TM organization. What, do you assume that he couldn't learn new things as he got older, but instead, was merely in it for the money? BTW, the cut you refer to is for the pandit projects as far as I know. Do you have concrete info that MMY's family (which part, btw: his brother is well over 100 (105?) if he is still alive and Garish is nearing 70 now I suspect) is getting a cut, or is this just an assumption? L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74 mjackson74@ wrote: Just to try to be very clear with you, I was and am saying that Maharishi did, and the Movement still does promote sthapatya veda as being one of the remedies to the worlds ills, that if we don't have the properly designed and aligned homes and other buildings we will be prey to all sorts of problems, and my point is that if that is true, why the hell didn't he mention it all those years ago to help us out and help create good vibes for world peace? The answer is of course that while this type of architecture may be nice and may be interesting, our health and well being and world peace are NOT enhanced by it, this is a bullshit lie that Maharishi deliberately told people to create another stream of revenue for himself and his hangers on from the pockets of starry eyed believers who thought and still think he could NEVER lie. His relatives are still very happy everytime someone buys one of those bullshit ridiculously priced vedic observatories, since they get a cut. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardatrwilliamsdotus richard@ wrote: 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
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: ANN: I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. M: Perhaps a review process is in order for Share. She could send you her posts before posting them, and they could be evaluated for how much they do justice to her. I think there is more than a little Robin left in you Ann. (I hope that was just right.) Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. Here was your intent tell: Here is the thing, dear Share, You kinda know what's coming after that. RESPONSE: If any reader examines what Curtis has said here, there is a kind of hidden a priori psychology. And what is that a priori? That somehow the force and imperiousness of the personality of Curtis can be a substitute for any contact with the truth of the matter. Notice that Curtis perfectly deprives the impartial reader of any chance to subject this difference of point of view to a fair hearing *independent of the peremptory and despotic authority of Curtis*. Curtis takes on the entire burden of the proof of his argument here--in the absence of any possibility of having this matter adjudicated by a context within which Curtis himself exists. Curtis annexes the context of truth through sheer dint of will and personality. It is certainly a spectacular phenomenon to witness [Hold it, Curtis: I will have no respect for you whatsover *if you use the very mechanism I am describing here to evade facing the inevitability of my analysis*--So STFU--unless you are prepared to address my argument on its own terms]: Curtis lords it over everyone, and kills the possibility of a context which is opposed to Curtis getting a hearing. You see, Curtis is so scrupulously sensitive to the truth, that he knows how important it is to keep that truth from undermining or refuting him. So he just banishes it from existence and appropriates the context totally with the force of his personality. But of course all this is hidden from view. Look: There is some disagreement between this person (whom Curtis is addressing here) and Curtis. But instead of taking on the most generous and sincere motive which could lie behind the comments this person has made to Share Long, Curtis would judge them out of court categorically: as if to say: I have caught you in an utterly dishonest and manipulative form of behaviour, and you had better just own up. You are judged and sentenced; the execution awaits my discretion. I wish those readers at FFL who seek some form of contact with reality, with what is the case, will see that Curtis operates under a set of ruthless and intolerant rules. His judgment does not suffer from some subjectively experienced doubt when he makes his argument. But this is because he simply eliminates all of the reality which existed inside the context where the issue is being controverted, and substitutes his own context, which will not permit any appeal to a truth which Curtis has determined is a moral and intellectual inconvenience to him. Curtis has a secret ex cathedra way of writing. One does not notice it; one is influenced by the illusion that his confidence *must mean he is in contact with the truth*; but as it happens, in disputation at least, Curtis's confidence and authority is directly proportional to the truth which he is denying entrance into the discussion. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. Here is the thing, dear Share, although you have obviously taken exception to the metaphor of the dormouse as pertaining to you, it was a rather charming, in an interesting way, image and not one to get overly excited about. (See my photo of a rather adorable dormouse). On the other hand, I know you can do better in your description of Judy so that it encompasses not only your feelings (which seem to be hurt) as well as a degree of truthfulness and therefore potency without the ugly-esh negativity. I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. BTW, The
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. It's dormouse, not doormouse (dor = sleep). Always appreciated. And of course, as Curtis knows, the phrase wasn't used to describe Share (except by herself). Actually I didn't, I just dropped in and must have gotten that wrong. If so I apologize to Judy if I was characterizing her as condescending for a term she herself didn't use. Uh-huh. It was, of course (as I suspect Curtis *does* know), a phrase I used. But not (as I said) to describe Share. Curtis (I suspect) thought he could con readers into thinking it was. Here was your intent tell: Intent tell, what a charming bit of psychobabble. NLP, I assume? No, it is my own collage of the poker term as it applies to writing. It sounds so much edgier than foreshadowing.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   You've got a pretty strong charge going on there, Share. Maybe it's something to reflect upon. It's quite clear to me Judy wasn't quoting anything you actually said. Her alternate approach to supplying subtext, that I've seen her use with Barry, might have been: Says Share, especially disliking the negativity of having her mistakes and falsehoods called to her attention. She really hates that. What I normally do is put Translation: before the proposed subtext. In this case I was *adding* something to what Share had said (Especially when...) rather than supplying subtext for what she had said, so Translation: didn't apply. But I knew nobody would think it was something she herself had said, so I just left it in quotes. I should have known she'd try to obfuscate it. Seems to me fighting fairly means keeping the discussion out in the open. Private emails, or even the gist of them that leak into the public discussion, Sal's for example, is more likely to engender reality-obfuscating as well as mistrust and room to stretch or avoid the truth. I don't see how anybody can ever hope to get anywhere near the larger Truth if they have no concern for the smaller truths of everyday life, including on this forum. If we can't be honest with each other, how can we ever be honest with ourselves? ~J. Stein From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. It's dormouse, not doormouse (dor = sleep). Always appreciated. And of course, as Curtis knows, the phrase wasn't used to describe Share (except by herself). Actually I didn't, I just dropped in and must have gotten that wrong. If so I apologize to Judy if I was characterizing her as condescending for a term she herself didn't use. Here was your intent tell: Intent tell, what a charming bit of psychobabble. NLP, I assume? No, it is my own collage of the poker term as it applies to writing. It sounds so much edgier than foreshadowing. OK, since I was the one who composed the message to Share I think I am the expert here. I could have written the sentence beginning with the usual, Dear Share. The fact that I wrote those two words after a few opening words does not, for me, change my intent of the letter to Share. I don't want to hurt Share or to speak condescendingly to her (although I have admitted times when I do give her a nudge or two about her many spiritual pursuits and activities) but this was not the case in my post today. I truly wanted to impart to her exactly what I said. In a nutshell, she could be doing herself a disservice in her knee jerk reaction to the dormouse statement by taking the first angry, negative thing that comes to mind when retaliating to Judy. I believe Share to be someone who would prefer to think of herself as someone who does not fall into any easy traps of flinging abuse around when there are other more thoughtful, cogent means to get her feelings across. And Curtis, your post to me this morning revealed something, personally to me, that I had only so far witnessed from afar in your dealing with others here. I shall just leave that one hanging, take it as you will. Here is the thing, dear Share, You kinda know what's coming after that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. Here is the thing, dear Share, although you have obviously taken exception to the metaphor of the dormouse as pertaining to you, it was a rather charming, in an interesting way, image and not one to get overly excited about. (See my photo of a rather adorable dormouse). On the other hand, I know you can do better in your description of Judy so that it encompasses not only your feelings (which seem to be hurt) as well as a degree of truthfulness and therefore potency without the ugly-esh negativity. I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Good one, Curtis. You got a twofer, a double play. You win the jackpot, a trip to Obfuscating Rehab for the irony impaired. Does anyone else get the feeling that this word is being overused in a completely bogus way? Irony impaired can refer both to the inability to recognize irony when someone else uses it, and the inability to use it properly oneself. I suspect it's the second that raunchy has in mind here. (For reference, Robin has done an excellent job of exemplifying and/or explicating the term in a number of posts recently.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. M: Perhaps a review process is in order for Share. She could send you her posts before posting them, and they could be evaluated for how much they do justice to her. I think there is more than a little Robin left in you Ann. (I hope that was just right.) Good one, Curtis. You got a twofer, a double play. You win the jackpot, a trip to Obfuscating Rehab for the irony impaired. Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. Here was your intent tell: Here is the thing, dear Share, You kinda know what's coming after that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. Here is the thing, dear Share, although you have obviously taken exception to the metaphor of the dormouse as pertaining to you, it was a rather charming, in an interesting way, image and not one to get overly excited about. (See my photo of a rather adorable dormouse). On the other hand, I know you can do better in your description of Judy so that it encompasses not only your feelings (which seem to be hurt) as well as a degree of truthfulness and therefore potency without the ugly-esh negativity. I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Ravioli Sorry you have such self-loathing. Wouldn't you feel better with a completely new incarnation? Pray to Devi to spare you from yourself. I hear she's quite merciful. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Empty - You are physically repulsive, intellectually retarded, vulgar, insensitive, selfish, stupid, you have no taste, a lousy sense of humor and you smell. On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 4:37 PM, emptybill emptybill@... wrote: ** It must be hard to face the truth. So many posters here view you as just a shrew. Not me of course . Rather, I believe you are a magnificent bodhisattva, bent upon liberating everyone in all possible universes ... even if they don't want it. This is the burden you have taken upon yourself 'cause you really love everyone ... no matter what. Magnificent. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: snip Me, I don't see how anybody can ever hope to get anywhere near the larger Truth if they have no concern for the smaller truths of everyday life, including on this forum. While you are very skillful at these smaller truths Judy, I think you do get caught up in them to your disadvantage. Of course you do, Xeno. I wouldn't expect otherwise.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Now you are just making shit up. If I got it wrong sorry, if I didn't what is all this fuss about? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. It's dormouse, not doormouse (dor = sleep). Always appreciated. And of course, as Curtis knows, the phrase wasn't used to describe Share (except by herself). Actually I didn't, I just dropped in and must have gotten that wrong. If so I apologize to Judy if I was characterizing her as condescending for a term she herself didn't use. Uh-huh. It was, of course (as I suspect Curtis *does* know), a phrase I used. But not (as I said) to describe Share. Curtis (I suspect) thought he could con readers into thinking it was. Here was your intent tell: Intent tell, what a charming bit of psychobabble. NLP, I assume? No, it is my own collage of the poker term as it applies to writing. It sounds so much edgier than foreshadowing.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
The thing is dear Ann... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. It's dormouse, not doormouse (dor = sleep). Always appreciated. And of course, as Curtis knows, the phrase wasn't used to describe Share (except by herself). Actually I didn't, I just dropped in and must have gotten that wrong. If so I apologize to Judy if I was characterizing her as condescending for a term she herself didn't use. Here was your intent tell: Intent tell, what a charming bit of psychobabble. NLP, I assume? No, it is my own collage of the poker term as it applies to writing. It sounds so much edgier than foreshadowing. OK, since I was the one who composed the message to Share I think I am the expert here. I could have written the sentence beginning with the usual, Dear Share. The fact that I wrote those two words after a few opening words does not, for me, change my intent of the letter to Share. I don't want to hurt Share or to speak condescendingly to her (although I have admitted times when I do give her a nudge or two about her many spiritual pursuits and activities) but this was not the case in my post today. I truly wanted to impart to her exactly what I said. In a nutshell, she could be doing herself a disservice in her knee jerk reaction to the dormouse statement by taking the first angry, negative thing that comes to mind when retaliating to Judy. I believe Share to be someone who would prefer to think of herself as someone who does not fall into any easy traps of flinging abuse around when there are other more thoughtful, cogent means to get her feelings across. And Curtis, your post to me this morning revealed something, personally to me, that I had only so far witnessed from afar in your dealing with others here. I shall just leave that one hanging, take it as you will. Here is the thing, dear Share, You kinda know what's coming after that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. Here is the thing, dear Share, although you have obviously taken exception to the metaphor of the dormouse as pertaining to you, it was a rather charming, in an interesting way, image and not one to get overly excited about. (See my photo of a rather adorable dormouse). On the other hand, I know you can do better in your description of Judy so that it encompasses not only your feelings (which seem to be hurt) as well as a degree of truthfulness and therefore potency without the ugly-esh negativity. I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Turq's Sunday Sermon -- Can animals tell time?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: It would be more scientific to use, as barometers, things that didn't involve important bodily functions like eating and going for walks (presumably to assist in that necessary evacuation of the bladder and bowels) because both eating and pooping are fairly regularly occurring cycles during a 24 hour period. No matter what, the body will get hungry after a while and then there will be the need to eliminate the digested elements of that earlier eaten meal so it may not be that the animal knows it is time to do these things but the body simply tells it that it is hungry and then it has to go outside. If you feed your animals at the same time every day (which I do with both my horses and dogs) they will be hungry a certain amount of time after that. If they eat at 6 am and 6pm, like at my house with the dogs, they will have to go outside pretty much the same time to evacuate after that because the body is pretty smart in how it processes food and since they eat the same thing every meal the time it takes to digest it will be the same. On the other hand, in some ways I think animals have a pretty good sense of the time of day because I know mine are ready to get up at 6am because that is when my husband and I have gotten out of bed every day of our lives for the past 7 years. I think it is not based on intelligence however because I can automatically wake up at 6 pretty much 100% of the time without an alarm but that is more like body conditioning rather than being smart. There are also zillions of anecdotes about dogs (and even cats) waiting by the door when it gets close to the time for the owner to return. Also about dogs meeting the schoolbus to escort a child home. If the animal is fed immediately after the owner returns, I suppose you could ascribe the first to hunger, but it's harder to explain with the second. Anyway, thanks for the sermon minister. When does the rabbi appear? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: I know that this is a scientific -- or at the very least pseudo-scientific -- forum, so I shall attempt in this Sunday's sermon to answer this question scientifically. Well, sorta. The first peer-reviewed (I allowed one of my housemates to read this before I posted it) study I have to cite comes from my own personal experience, and is thus highly credible. I work at home, and at approximately 3pm every day, my two dogs come over to my desk, nose my legs to get my attention, and look up at me with that It's time for your walk if you feed us first we'll come with you look I've come to know so well. So I get up, feed them, and take them on their walk. The control group in this highly scientific experiment are the household's two cats, who live in a different part of the house away from the dogs, but similarly have a tendency to show up in the kitchen precisely at noon every day, clamoring for the can of Finicky Brand Gourmet Cat Pacifier Chow they get to share each day at that time. So my personal experience and belief is that both cats and dogs can tell time, or at the very least the amount of time that has passed since they were last fed. (This belief has not been at all shaken by evidence to the contrary, such as these dogs' tendency to try to eat scraps of food on the street, immediately after having been fed.) This scientific evidence presented, a recent research study conducted on rats at the University of Western Ontario seems to replicate the findings of my study. Well, sorta. The UWO (no relation to UFO) scientists designed an experiment in which rats were trained to visit different parts of a maze at different times of the day. Some parts of the maze contained food pellets that the rats consider acceptable in an OK, I'll eat that if you've got nothing better for me sort of way, but not quite in the same ballpark as the food left in other parts of the maze bits of tasty cheese. The rats prefer the cheese and react to it with an enthusiastic Oh yeah...gimme that...gimme that, and with almost as much gusto as the household cats prefer the gourmet brand of cat food over the brands that cost half as much. The researchers at UWO were looking for three different characteristics of the rats' behavior exactly when (time of day) they visited the parts of the maze containing the cheese, how long ago the cheese had last been placed there (number of rat minutes that had elapsed since the last cheese discovery), and when plus how long ago (whether they seemed to remember the time of day they last encountered cheese, with a remembered interval of time added to it, used to calculate when it would next appear). Interestingly enough, the only one of these three cues that the rats seemed to use successfully to time their visits to the Tasty
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Empty - is it, is that what your Devi says - to taunt women here? I never heard back from you since November you dumb MF'er. So anyway it's confirmed, this is indeed you, LOL...- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Npwvcw3ZnpQ On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 11:11 AM, emptybill emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: ** Ravioli Sorry you have such self-loathing. Wouldn't you feel better with a completely new incarnation? Pray to Devi to spare you from yourself. I hear she's quite merciful. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Empty - You are physically repulsive, intellectually retarded, vulgar, insensitive, selfish, stupid, you have no taste, a lousy sense of humor and you smell. On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 4:37 PM, emptybill emptybill@... wrote: ** It must be hard to face the truth. So many posters here view you as just a shrew. Not me of course . Rather, I believe you are a magnificent bodhisattva, bent upon liberating everyone in all possible universes ... even if they don't want it. This is the burden you have taken upon yourself 'cause you really love everyone ... no matter what. Magnificent. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: snip Me, I don't see how anybody can ever hope to get anywhere near the larger Truth if they have no concern for the smaller truths of everyday life, including on this forum. While you are very skillful at these smaller truths Judy, I think you do get caught up in them to your disadvantage. Of course you do, Xeno. I wouldn't expect otherwise.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Turq's Sunday Sermon -- Can animals tell time?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: It would be more scientific to use, as barometers, things that didn't involve important bodily functions like eating and going for walks (presumably to assist in that necessary evacuation of the bladder and bowels) because both eating and pooping are fairly regularly occurring cycles during a 24 hour period. No matter what, the body will get hungry after a while and then there will be the need to eliminate the digested elements of that earlier eaten meal so it may not be that the animal knows it is time to do these things but the body simply tells it that it is hungry and then it has to go outside. If you feed your animals at the same time every day (which I do with both my horses and dogs) they will be hungry a certain amount of time after that. If they eat at 6 am and 6pm, like at my house with the dogs, they will have to go outside pretty much the same time to evacuate after that because the body is pretty smart in how it processes food and since they eat the same thing every meal the time it takes to digest it will be the same. On the other hand, in some ways I think animals have a pretty good sense of the time of day because I know mine are ready to get up at 6am because that is when my husband and I have gotten out of bed every day of our lives for the past 7 years. I think it is not based on intelligence however because I can automatically wake up at 6 pretty much 100% of the time without an alarm but that is more like body conditioning rather than being smart. There are also zillions of anecdotes about dogs (and even cats) waiting by the door when it gets close to the time for the owner to return. Also about dogs meeting the schoolbus to escort a child home. If the animal is fed immediately after the owner returns, I suppose you could ascribe the first to hunger, but it's harder to explain with the second. My dog was intuitive about getting a bath. All I had to do was think about approaching her to put her in the shower and she would tuck her tail down and slink away. Whenever it was time to pick her up from my Mom's after work, Dolly would always ask to go outside so she could wait for me by the backyard gate. Dogs just know stuff. Loyal dog ran away from home to find his dead master's grave - and has stayed by its side for six years http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202509/Loyal-dog-ran-away-home-dead-masters-grave--stayed-years.html?ito=feeds-newsxml http://tinyurl.com/8fwhom3 Anyway, thanks for the sermon minister. When does the rabbi appear? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: I know that this is a scientific -- or at the very least pseudo-scientific -- forum, so I shall attempt in this Sunday's sermon to answer this question scientifically. Well, sorta. The first peer-reviewed (I allowed one of my housemates to read this before I posted it) study I have to cite comes from my own personal experience, and is thus highly credible. I work at home, and at approximately 3pm every day, my two dogs come over to my desk, nose my legs to get my attention, and look up at me with that It's time for your walk if you feed us first we'll come with you look I've come to know so well. So I get up, feed them, and take them on their walk. The control group in this highly scientific experiment are the household's two cats, who live in a different part of the house away from the dogs, but similarly have a tendency to show up in the kitchen precisely at noon every day, clamoring for the can of Finicky Brand Gourmet Cat Pacifier Chow they get to share each day at that time. So my personal experience and belief is that both cats and dogs can tell time, or at the very least the amount of time that has passed since they were last fed. (This belief has not been at all shaken by evidence to the contrary, such as these dogs' tendency to try to eat scraps of food on the street, immediately after having been fed.) This scientific evidence presented, a recent research study conducted on rats at the University of Western Ontario seems to replicate the findings of my study. Well, sorta. The UWO (no relation to UFO) scientists designed an experiment in which rats were trained to visit different parts of a maze at different times of the day. Some parts of the maze contained food pellets that the rats consider acceptable in an OK, I'll eat that if you've got nothing better for me sort of way, but not quite in the same ballpark as the food left in other parts of the maze bits of tasty cheese. The rats prefer the cheese and react to it with an enthusiastic Oh yeah...gimme that...gimme that, and with almost as much gusto as the
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Curtis baby - this is not working out. I think you should create another African American character and write a beautiful, touching piece to resurrect yourself as a secular, progressive. Oh wait, you did create a beautiful character - an autistic African-American boy - to resurrect yourself and that failed, oh boy what other character can beat John Paul, OMG you are screwed - never mind - sorry. Love ya - Ravi. On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 11:18 AM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote: ** Now you are just making shit up. If I got it wrong sorry, if I didn't what is all this fuss about? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. It's dormouse, not doormouse (dor = sleep). Always appreciated. And of course, as Curtis knows, the phrase wasn't used to describe Share (except by herself). Actually I didn't, I just dropped in and must have gotten that wrong. If so I apologize to Judy if I was characterizing her as condescending for a term she herself didn't use. Uh-huh. It was, of course (as I suspect Curtis *does* know), a phrase I used. But not (as I said) to describe Share. Curtis (I suspect) thought he could con readers into thinking it was. Here was your intent tell: Intent tell, what a charming bit of psychobabble. NLP, I assume? No, it is my own collage of the poker term as it applies to writing. It sounds so much edgier than foreshadowing.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Wake up Willy and smell the etymological cognates. Vi-jnana (vi = apart, separate, jña =to know) is cognate with Latin dis-cerne (dis = apart, cernere = perceive). Con-scious (con = with/together, scire = know) is a Latin loan-translation from Greek syn-eidos = with seeing). Vijñana therefore means distinguishing apart something from something else. In Vijñanavada epistemology it indicates the skandha of being aware or knowing. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams richard@... wrote: Me, I don't see how anybody can ever hope to get anywhere near the larger Truth if they have no concern for the smaller truths of everyday life, including on this forum. While you are very skillful at these smaller truths Judy, I think you do get caught up in them to your disadvantage. Of course you do, Xeno. I wouldn't expect otherwise. emptybill: It must be hard to face the truth... Barry wrote that he doesn't believe in a larger 'truth', so yeah why would he believe in any smaller truths? LoL! Barry believes in 'free will' and 'vijnana' does not mean conciousness. LoL! Yeah, the truth, Wright, Bill? The concept of free will plays a central role in Kashmir Shaivism. Known under the technical name of svatantrya it is the cause of the creation of the universe - a primordial force that stirs up the absolute and manifests the world inside the supreme consciousness of Siva. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_ShaivismKashmir The details of the beliefs vary in different texts, but the general principles are similar to those found in Kashmir Shaivism...The name srividya is also used to refer to a specific mantra used in this tradition having fifteen syllables. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shri_Vidya
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
raunchydog quoting Judy: I don't see how anybody can ever hope to get anywhere near the larger Truth if they have no concern for the smaller truths of everyday life, including on this forum. If we can't be honest with each other, how can we ever be honest with ourselves? ~J. Stein It sounds so good doesn't it. Who could argue with that in theory. But put into practice by Judy, it just doesn't play out that way does it. But she will continue, with her fifty posts a week, fighting every battle large and small. Okay, medium and small. Alright, alright. mostly all small. And winning each one. Okay, vanquishing each opponent. Alright, alright, annihilating any opposition with her superior logic and ability to site posts five years back. But that's our Judy.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: CURTIS: The thing is dear Ann... RESPONSE: One must assume, since this is all that Curtis has said to Ann, that this retort is sufficient to utterly destroy the substance and effect of what Ann has written to Curtis. It is not. Ann has written a response to Curtis which requires that Curtis enter into it. He refuses because his bloodhound instincts for the smell of truth have warned him: Do not go there. It is dangerous. So what does he do instead? He capsizes the context to make it seem as if, in this ironic turning of a phrase of Ann's (in her addressing Share Long), *he has entirely dealt with the context of what Ann has said to him*. But there is a catch to this that most FFL readers will miss (Raunchy not one of them): Had anyone other than Curtis responded to someone as Curtis has here, *that person would lack the force of personality and will to make this response stand as in any way adequate to the challenge presented by Ann*. But because it is Curtis who has written it, it has that Manly Halo Good-Guy-That-I-Am-Always strength inside of it--so, although ineffectual in the person of anyone else on FFL, with Curtis, it almost works. For at the very least, one has the illusory impression that Curtis has answered Ann. Which he has not. Do you see? This is a form of manipulation and deceit that is manifestly unfair to Ann and a form of insidious seduction of the reader. Consider this thought experiment: *Someone other than Curtis has written each one of the posts to Ann today* [that Curtis has in fact written]. Ann has responded as she has. Now consider that this X person (someone other than Curtis) responds to Ann's last post with this one sentence: The thing is dear Ann.. Think: How well would this go over? It would be a dying balloon. Almost embarrassing. [And note how Curtis has made of Ann's original approach to Share as if sneeringly condescending and foul--but it was not this inside Ann's heart: such is the power of Curtis's appropriation of the truth.] But Curtis has a mystique (most balanced intellect among all of us--Xeno) and a character which gives to his words some power they otherwise would not have. And this of course is the point of my earlier post: Curtis is fanatically determined not to let reality wrest control of the context. He will possess that context at all costs. And in this sense, in saying what he has said to Ann here, he gives the impression he has essentially had the last word. But has he? He has said nothing. He has systematically and sedulously and deceitfully made certain that the potency and thoughtfulness of Ann's post to Curtis is entirely robbed of its intrinsic merit. This, by force of personality and will. Curtis legendary status among certain posters and readers here enables him to escape from the demands of truth and honesty which are incumbent upon the rest of us. And my thesis can only be denied by Curtis *through the very same M.O. as I have described here*. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. It's dormouse, not doormouse (dor = sleep). Always appreciated. And of course, as Curtis knows, the phrase wasn't used to describe Share (except by herself). Actually I didn't, I just dropped in and must have gotten that wrong. If so I apologize to Judy if I was characterizing her as condescending for a term she herself didn't use. Here was your intent tell: Intent tell, what a charming bit of psychobabble. NLP, I assume? No, it is my own collage of the poker term as it applies to writing. It sounds so much edgier than foreshadowing. OK, since I was the one who composed the message to Share I think I am the expert here. I could have written the sentence beginning with the usual, Dear Share. The fact that I wrote those two words after a few opening words does not, for me, change my intent of the letter to Share. I don't want to hurt Share or to speak condescendingly to her (although I have admitted times when I do give her a nudge or two about her many spiritual pursuits and activities) but this was not the case in my post today. I truly wanted to impart to her exactly what I said. In a nutshell, she could be doing herself a disservice in her knee jerk reaction to the dormouse statement by taking the first angry, negative thing that comes to mind when retaliating to Judy. I believe Share to be someone who would
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
emptybill: In Vijñanavada epistemology it indicates the skandha of being aware or knowing... The term 'vijnana' in Yogacara Buddhism also means 'consciousness': http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Vijnanavada http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Vijnanavada The term 'vijnana' in Yogacara Buddhism means 'consciousness', one of the main features of which is the concept of the 'vijnapti-mitra' - a storehouse consciousness. These notions about consciousness come from the Lanakavatra Sutra, says Tola. According to Vasubnadhu, there are eight consciousnesses: the five sense-consciousnesses, mind (perception), manas (self-consciousness), and the storehouse- consciousness. Work cited: 'Being As Consciousness: Yogacara Philosophy of Buddhism' by Fernando Tola and Carmon Dragonetti pg xiii Vijnanavada Buddhism contributed two important emanationist ideas: the metaphysical idea of emanation from an original universal consciousness (the Alaya-vijnana)... Read more: http://www.kheper.net/topics/Buddhism/Vijnanavada.htm http://www.kheper.net/topics/Buddhism/Vijnanavada.htm Me, I don't see how anybody can ever hope to get anywhere near the larger Truth if they have no concern for the smaller truths of everyday life, including on this forum. While you are very skillful at these smaller truths Judy, I think you do get caught up in them to your disadvantage. Of course you do, Xeno. I wouldn't expect otherwise. It must be hard to face the truth... Barry wrote that he doesn't believe in a larger 'truth', so yeah why would he believe in any smaller truths? LoL! Barry believes in 'free will' and 'vijnana' does not mean conciousness. LoL! Yeah, the truth, Wright, Bill? The concept of free will plays a central role in Kashmir Shaivism. Known under the technical name of svatantrya it is the cause of the creation of the universe - a primordial force that stirs up the absolute and manifests the world inside the supreme consciousness of Siva. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_ShaivismKashmir http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_ShaivismKashmir The details of the beliefs vary in different texts, but the general principles are similar to those found in Kashmir Shaivism...The name srividya is also used to refer to a specific mantra used in this tradition having fifteen syllables. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shri_Vidya http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shri_Vidya
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   You've got a pretty strong charge going on there, Share. Maybe it's something to reflect upon. It's quite clear to me Judy wasn't quoting anything you actually said. Her alternate approach to supplying subtext, that I've seen her use with Barry, might have been: Says Share, especially disliking the negativity of having her mistakes and falsehoods called to her attention. She really hates that. What I normally do is put Translation: before the proposed subtext. In this case I was *adding* something to what Share had said (Especially when...) rather than supplying subtext for what she had said, so Translation: didn't apply. But I knew nobody would think it was something she herself had said, so I just left it in quotes. I should have known she'd try to obfuscate it. I'd forgotten the form Translation: for subtext: amplifying unspoken words, turning up the volume to clarify the message. IMO Share disliked the content of the quote quote. Rather than confront the issue, she called attention to the quotation marks, which is a safe bet for not owning up to anything you've called her on. Except that doesn't work out too well on a forum that provides little in the way of an escape hatch from yourself. The only way out is having enough courage and integrity to face the little gremlins in your psyche working real hard to keep you from knowing yourself...self and Self. FFLife is the perfect place to banish your gremlins and own your strengths and weaknesses. Where else can you get this much therapy for free? Over the years, we've come to know each other so well that the mirrors we hold up to each other, whether true or distorted are a unique blessing when used for self-reflection, a blessing some of us more or less embrace. Seems to me fighting fairly means keeping the discussion out in the open. Private emails, or even the gist of them that leak into the public discussion, Sal's for example, is more likely to engender reality-obfuscating as well as mistrust and room to stretch or avoid the truth. I don't see how anybody can ever hope to get anywhere near the larger Truth if they have no concern for the smaller truths of everyday life, including on this forum. If we can't be honest with each other, how can we ever be honest with ourselves? ~J. Stein From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Ravi Chivukula: Empty - is it, is that what your Devi says - to taunt women here? I never heard back from you since November you dumb MF'er... Some people just feel better when they have someone to talk to, Ravi. The obsessed, friendless, possibly sexually dysfunctional loser expat drifting through the world of newsgroups and message boards. The erstwhile participants driven to juvenile hazing rituals routinely go on to more even less important projects, like walking the dog past a cemetary. It's a rabbit hole game to establish the newsworthiness of trolling, when a bunch of spoiled, chat-room yakkers, try to surprise the Old Guys and Gals, with ...have you anything new to say? Go figure. Here, the fragility-of-childhood is prominent and the disappointments which come from not growing up are central. Adults who are torn in time, dislodged and displaced from the safety of family childhood, yet not ready, either, for the world of adulthood, parenting, or even voting. Here, the grotesque becomes human nature - with a talent rooted in envy - a scary vision of man alone, shut off in his room, cold, bareness, and vacancy, and inertia - the emotions of solitude are apparent and flourish in the online world.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Richard J. Williams rich...@rwilliams.uswrote: ** Ravi Chivukula: Empty - is it, is that what your Devi says - to taunt women here? I never heard back from you since November you dumb MF'er... Some people just feel better when they have someone to talk to, Ravi. Right..thanks Richard, poor emptybill, sob, sniffle, sniffle - I'm being too hard on him, poor bastard. So what if he doesn't have any skills to deal with real women and gets cursed by them, he has his fantasized Devi. It's all good - I'm sure he gets along well with his Devi, right empty? The obsessed, friendless, possibly sexually dysfunctional loser expat drifting through the world of newsgroups and message boards. The erstwhile participants driven to juvenile hazing rituals routinely go on to more even less important projects, like walking the dog past a cemetary. It's a rabbit hole game to establish the newsworthiness of trolling, when a bunch of spoiled, chat-room yakkers, try to surprise the Old Guys and Gals, with ...have you anything new to say? Go figure. Here, the fragility-of-childhood is prominent and the disappointments which come from not growing up are central. Adults who are torn in time, dislodged and displaced from the safety of family childhood, yet not ready, either, for the world of adulthood, parenting, or even voting. Here, the grotesque becomes human nature - with a talent rooted in envy - a scary vision of man alone, shut off in his room, cold, bareness, and vacancy, and inertia - the emotions of solitude are apparent and flourish in the online world.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
This is a keeper Curtis along with your other gem Don't you start now Emily. Man - why can't get these women just SHUT UP and be like the Sals and Susans - I feel for you 'bro. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: The thing is dear Ann... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. It's dormouse, not doormouse (dor = sleep). Always appreciated. And of course, as Curtis knows, the phrase wasn't used to describe Share (except by herself). Actually I didn't, I just dropped in and must have gotten that wrong. If so I apologize to Judy if I was characterizing her as condescending for a term she herself didn't use. Here was your intent tell: Intent tell, what a charming bit of psychobabble. NLP, I assume? No, it is my own collage of the poker term as it applies to writing. It sounds so much edgier than foreshadowing. OK, since I was the one who composed the message to Share I think I am the expert here. I could have written the sentence beginning with the usual, Dear Share. The fact that I wrote those two words after a few opening words does not, for me, change my intent of the letter to Share. I don't want to hurt Share or to speak condescendingly to her (although I have admitted times when I do give her a nudge or two about her many spiritual pursuits and activities) but this was not the case in my post today. I truly wanted to impart to her exactly what I said. In a nutshell, she could be doing herself a disservice in her knee jerk reaction to the dormouse statement by taking the first angry, negative thing that comes to mind when retaliating to Judy. I believe Share to be someone who would prefer to think of herself as someone who does not fall into any easy traps of flinging abuse around when there are other more thoughtful, cogent means to get her feelings across. And Curtis, your post to me this morning revealed something, personally to me, that I had only so far witnessed from afar in your dealing with others here. I shall just leave that one hanging, take it as you will. Here is the thing, dear Share, You kinda know what's coming after that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. Here is the thing, dear Share, although you have obviously taken exception to the metaphor of the dormouse as pertaining to you, it was a rather charming, in an interesting way, image and not one to get overly excited about. (See my photo of a rather adorable dormouse). On the other hand, I know you can do better in your description of Judy so that it encompasses not only your feelings (which seem to be hurt) as well as a degree of truthfulness and therefore potency without the ugly-esh negativity. I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: The thing is dear Ann... Yes? Tell me more. But if I am not to run out of posts by Monday night, at this rate I need to cover more ground here. I found your comment below something I would like to address, quickly: I think there is more than a little Robin left in you Ann. (And here this is a direct quote from you complete with quotation marks, let there be no mistake.) Now, I take this comment of yours to mean that what I wrote to Share reminds you of what Robin would have said. That is the only conclusion I can come to from your assessment. But here is the thing. Robin does not hold a patent on how he lives his life and how he in turn chooses to articulate that here in his interactions with others. You assume because I said what I said to Share that I have borrowed, incorporated, embodied Robin or, at least, his philosophy. However, you would be wrong. I will not speak for him but I will for myself when I say that the impulse and the belief behind that impulse is something that I have come to know is true in my own life. This is a discovery not a stolen idea, a borrowed life list of rules, a plagiarized page out of Robin's Book On Reality. It is something I have come to understand and believe. If it sounds familiar then how is this different from the fact that there are undoubtedly more than one or two people on this planet that can essentially perceive certain realities about life to be true? Do you forget, I have not been around Robin for 26 years? Do you imagine I keep copies of his old books at my bedside so I can stay clear and fresh on his former writings and beliefs? Do you think I wish to follow him once again as some beacon of realized knowingess? And perhaps more importantly, do you see me as some mimicing, mindless drone who has no original ideas of her own? Because if you do we really need to have that coffee in that cafe somewhere. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. It's dormouse, not doormouse (dor = sleep). Always appreciated. And of course, as Curtis knows, the phrase wasn't used to describe Share (except by herself). Actually I didn't, I just dropped in and must have gotten that wrong. If so I apologize to Judy if I was characterizing her as condescending for a term she herself didn't use. Here was your intent tell: Intent tell, what a charming bit of psychobabble. NLP, I assume? No, it is my own collage of the poker term as it applies to writing. It sounds so much edgier than foreshadowing. OK, since I was the one who composed the message to Share I think I am the expert here. I could have written the sentence beginning with the usual, Dear Share. The fact that I wrote those two words after a few opening words does not, for me, change my intent of the letter to Share. I don't want to hurt Share or to speak condescendingly to her (although I have admitted times when I do give her a nudge or two about her many spiritual pursuits and activities) but this was not the case in my post today. I truly wanted to impart to her exactly what I said. In a nutshell, she could be doing herself a disservice in her knee jerk reaction to the dormouse statement by taking the first angry, negative thing that comes to mind when retaliating to Judy. I believe Share to be someone who would prefer to think of herself as someone who does not fall into any easy traps of flinging abuse around when there are other more thoughtful, cogent means to get her feelings across. And Curtis, your post to me this morning revealed something, personally to me, that I had only so far witnessed from afar in your dealing with others here. I shall just leave that one hanging, take it as you will. Here is the thing, dear Share, You kinda know what's coming after that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Devas and Architecture
Nepotism is a tradition in India. The guy named in Gurudev's will was Gurudev's nephew, which makes the will more likely to be true, in my eyes. Regardless, what evidence do you have that MMY's nephews were taking more than the usual cut that relatives take in these situations in India? It's not much of a defense, but to expect a specific guy or guys to be somehow better than average just because they are related to MMY is a bit of a stretch. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74 mjackson74@... wrote: The idea is that he was enlightened and would have known all this wonderful stuff, not too big a stretch since he was supposedly a great expert on all things vedic. As to the monetary comment, I know for a fact from my own stint working for the Movement and I know also from others who worked for the Movement at higher levels of authority than me that the Movement has ALWAYS funneled money to the top, what we peons used to call International. As to the relatives, I was thinking of Maharishi's nephews, Anand Shrivastava and Ajay Prakash Shrivastava with whom Maharishi formed the Maharishi Group back in the late 1960's. The Maharishi Group is the umbrella organization for virtually all the other Movement organizations including Age of Enlightenment Publications, Maharishi Ayurveda Products Ltd., and even Maharishi University of Management. His nephews still run it. So yeah, his kin folk get a cut. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: MMY said that he failed to realize the importance of vastu until many years after he started the TM organization. What, do you assume that he couldn't learn new things as he got older, but instead, was merely in it for the money? BTW, the cut you refer to is for the pandit projects as far as I know. Do you have concrete info that MMY's family (which part, btw: his brother is well over 100 (105?) if he is still alive and Garish is nearing 70 now I suspect) is getting a cut, or is this just an assumption? L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74 mjackson74@ wrote: Just to try to be very clear with you, I was and am saying that Maharishi did, and the Movement still does promote sthapatya veda as being one of the remedies to the worlds ills, that if we don't have the properly designed and aligned homes and other buildings we will be prey to all sorts of problems, and my point is that if that is true, why the hell didn't he mention it all those years ago to help us out and help create good vibes for world peace? The answer is of course that while this type of architecture may be nice and may be interesting, our health and well being and world peace are NOT enhanced by it, this is a bullshit lie that Maharishi deliberately told people to create another stream of revenue for himself and his hangers on from the pockets of starry eyed believers who thought and still think he could NEVER lie. His relatives are still very happy everytime someone buys one of those bullshit ridiculously priced vedic observatories, since they get a cut. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardatrwilliamsdotus richard@ wrote: 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,
[FairfieldLife] The experience we are almost certain to have to go through
*Death is certain* and uncertain, certain to come, uncertain when and where. Did any man yet escape death?... It is *appointed* to me once to die, once at least...Once to die... It is appointed to man once to die and after this the judgment...The truth remains then, it is appointed to men to die, and we shall die. *And it is uncertain* when or where--not so *un*certain as it is certain that we shall die; a man sick to death has a strong likelihood that he will die, say, within a week and in that house or even in that bed; still there hangs over death a great, a harassing uncertainty. *When* shall each of us die?--I cannot tell, but *all within a century* (I say what no one doubts), some long hence, some soon, one perhaps this year. I press it no further: it is a great uncertainty. *And where?*--Some here no doubt, and some elsewhere; some in their beds, others suddenly in some unlikely place, where now they little think: this too is a great uncertainty. But one thing is certain and let that be...*We shall die in these bodies*. I see you living before me, with the mind's eye, brethren, I see your corpses: those same bodies that sit there before me are rows of corpses that will be. And I that speak to you, you hear and see me, you see me breathe and move: this breathing body is my corpse and I am living in my tomb. This is one thing certain of your place of death: you are there now, you sit within your corpses; look no further: there where you are you will die. What we want is so deep a sense of the certainty and uncertainty of death, to have death so before us, that we may dread to sin now and when we die die well. It is the greatest of earthly evils. It robs us of our all. Do you love sunshine, starlight, fresh air, flowers, fieldsports?--Despair then: you will see them no more; they will be above ground, you below; you will lose them all. Do you love townlife, homelife, the cheerful hearth, the sparkling fire, company, the social glass, laughter, frolic among friends?--Despair then: you will have no more of them for ever, the churchyards are full of such men as you are now, that feasted once and now worms feast on; the dark day is coming; slow or sudden, death is coming; the rottenness and dust and utterly to be forgotten. Do you dearly love wife or husband, child or friend?--Despair then: death shall part you, from your dearest, though they may hang round your bed yet you shall go into the dark unbefriended, alone. Do you love money?--Despair then: death shall make you drop it, death shall wring it from you; though your funeral were costly, yet poor shall you lie. Do you love fame in your day and to make yourself felt, to play your part somewhere in the world? do you take an interest in politics and watch how the world goes?--Despair then: the world will do without you and you must do without the world, for you shall be where you cannot stir hand or foot to make it worse or better. Do you love what is better than all these, to do God's work, to do good to others, to give alms, to pray, to make God's kingdom come? Make haste then, work while it is day, and despair of any other chance than this: *the night is coming*, says your mater, *when no man can work* and again *There is neither work nor reason nor wisdom nor knowledge in the grave where thou art hastening fast*. And again Ecclus. xiv 17. *Before thy death do justice, for there is no finding food in the grave*... On one ground or another, do you love life, dear life?--Despair, all of you: death is coming that shall rob you even of dear life. Is there no help?--No, none. If it were poverty we might escape it or not escaping it we could bear it; we should still have life. If it were shame, if it were the death of others--but no, we may lose health, wealth, fame, friend, peace of mind, and all that makes life dear and still keep, and glad to keep, dear life; and then besides, we need not lose them--death might be our first sickness, we might live all our lives well to do, honoured, with our best friends round us; but *life we must lose* and with life all the goods of life; other evils need not come, but death, *the worst of evils, must* come, and rob us of our only chance, rob us of our all. This is the first terror of death: it is the worst of earthly evils and robs us of our all, and it is the only evil certain to come. The next terror of death are *the pains of death*. Death mostly is the end of a fatal sickness and when is sickness, fatal sickness, without pain? And this pain is not as other pains, which either we surmount and get the better of or at least we can keep up with; but fatal sickness and its pains are for the dying man a losing battle, he bears them and is worse, he may have patience and they do not spare, bad they may be but they will be worse, things will come to the worse and then not mend, making the proverb a lie; the pains of fatal sickness are the pains of death;
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   You've got a pretty strong charge going on there, Share. Maybe it's something to reflect upon. It's quite clear to me Judy wasn't quoting anything you actually said. Her alternate approach to supplying subtext, that I've seen her use with Barry, might have been: Says Share, especially disliking the negativity of having her mistakes and falsehoods called to her attention. She really hates that. What I normally do is put Translation: before the proposed subtext. In this case I was *adding* something to what Share had said (Especially when...) rather than supplying subtext for what she had said, so Translation: didn't apply. But I knew nobody would think it was something she herself had said, so I just left it in quotes. I should have known she'd try to obfuscate it. I'd forgotten the form Translation: for subtext: amplifying unspoken words, turning up the volume to clarify the message. Right. It *is* somebody else's idea of the subtext, of course; there's no guarantee it's really what the first person has in mind (unless they cop to it). In this case, though, the notion of taking things private for the sake of sparing the forum negativity strikes me as a particularly transparent excuse. If she'd said, for example, because I just don't want to talk about it in public any more, that would at least have been honest, and I wouldn't have spoken up. Instead she tried to make it sound as though she were doing everybody else a favor out of consideration for *their* feelings. Ick. IMO Share disliked the content of the quote quote. Rather than confront the issue, she called attention to the quotation marks, which is a safe bet for not owning up to anything you've called her on. Right, that's what I think too. Same as when she got all outraged over my butting in, suggesting that it was the fact that I had done so at all that she thought was so reprehensible. But Curtis had also butted in, and she seems to have retained her high opinion of him. Thing is, he'd butted in on *her* side, against Robin, and I'd butted in on *Robin's* side. So clearly it was what I had said to her that got her so angry, not the fact that I had butted in. Except that doesn't work out too well on a forum that provides little in the way of an escape hatch from yourself. The only way out is having enough courage and integrity to face the little gremlins in your psyche working real hard to keep you from knowing yourself...self and Self. FFLife is the perfect place to banish your gremlins and own your strengths and weaknesses. Where else can you get this much therapy for free? Over the years, we've come to know each other so well that the mirrors we hold up to each other, whether true or distorted are a unique blessing when used for self-reflection, a blessing some of us more or less embrace. Beautifully said. Seems to me fighting fairly means keeping the discussion out in the open. Private emails, or even the gist of them that leak into the public discussion, Sal's for example, is more likely to engender reality-obfuscating as well as mistrust and room to stretch or avoid the truth. I don't see how anybody can ever hope to get anywhere near the larger Truth if they have no concern for the smaller truths of everyday life, including on this forum. If we can't be honest with each other, how can we ever be honest with ourselves? ~J. Stein From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity.
[FairfieldLife] Post Count
Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): Sat Sep 22 00:00:00 2012 End Date (UTC): Sat Sep 29 00:00:00 2012 168 messages as of (UTC) Mon Sep 24 00:02:45 2012 24 Robin Carlsen maskedze...@yahoo.com 20 authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com 19 awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.com 12 turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com 12 Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com 10 Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com 8 raunchydog raunchy...@yahoo.com 8 Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com 6 emptybill emptyb...@yahoo.com 6 curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com 6 Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net 6 Richard J. Williams rich...@rwilliams.us 5 seventhray1 lurkernomore20002...@yahoo.com 4 mjackson74 mjackso...@yahoo.com 4 maskedzebra maskedze...@yahoo.com 4 laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 2 sparaig lengli...@cox.net 2 merlin vedamer...@yahoo.de 2 feste37 fest...@yahoo.com 2 doctordumb...@rocketmail.com, UNEXPECTED_DATA_AFTER_ADDRESS@.SYNTAX-ERROR. 2 card cardemais...@yahoo.com 1 seekliberation seekliberat...@yahoo.com 1 richardatrwilliamsdotus rich...@rwilliams.us 1 anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com 1 martin.quickman martin.quick...@yahoo.co.uk Posters: 25 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] Buddhist Meditation: A Management Skill?
NPR Morning Edition - A handful of executive MBA programs around the country â from Harvard to Michigan's Ross School of Business â are teaching students Buddhist meditation techniques. It's not necessarily about teaching spirituality, but focus. There's no way to quantify whether learning how to be centered during a stressful business meeting is balancing the bottom lines at companies. But students say slowing down does help them be more effective. http://www.npr.org/2012/09/13/161050141/buddhist-meditation-a-management-skill Listen to the story: http://pd.npr.org/anon.npr-mp3/npr/me/2012/09/20120913_me_05.mp3
[FairfieldLife] Re: The experience we are almost certain to have to go through
Almost certain? A sermon. Well, it is Sunday http://www.deathclock.com/ [a rather old site, not recently updated; it may not work with recent web browsers] --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: *Death is certain* and uncertain, certain to come, uncertain when and where. Did any man yet escape death?... It is *appointed* to me once to die, once at least...Once to die... It is appointed to man once to die and after this the judgment...The truth remains then, it is appointed to men to die, and we shall die. *And it is uncertain* when or where--not so *un*certain as it is certain that we shall die; a man sick to death has a strong likelihood that he will die, say, within a week and in that house or even in that bed; still there hangs over death a great, a harassing uncertainty. *When* shall each of us die?--I cannot tell, but *all within a century* (I say what no one doubts), some long hence, some soon, one perhaps this year. I press it no further: it is a great uncertainty. *And where?*--Some here no doubt, and some elsewhere; some in their beds, others suddenly in some unlikely place, where now they little think: this too is a great uncertainty. But one thing is certain and let that be...*We shall die in these bodies*. I see you living before me, with the mind's eye, brethren, I see your corpses: those same bodies that sit there before me are rows of corpses that will be. And I that speak to you, you hear and see me, you see me breathe and move: this breathing body is my corpse and I am living in my tomb. This is one thing certain of your place of death: you are there now, you sit within your corpses; look no further: there where you are you will die. What we want is so deep a sense of the certainty and uncertainty of death, to have death so before us, that we may dread to sin now and when we die die well. It is the greatest of earthly evils. It robs us of our all. Do you love sunshine, starlight, fresh air, flowers, fieldsports?--Despair then: you will see them no more; they will be above ground, you below; you will lose them all. Do you love townlife, homelife, the cheerful hearth, the sparkling fire, company, the social glass, laughter, frolic among friends?--Despair then: you will have no more of them for ever, the churchyards are full of such men as you are now, that feasted once and now worms feast on; the dark day is coming; slow or sudden, death is coming; the rottenness and dust and utterly to be forgotten. Do you dearly love wife or husband, child or friend?--Despair then: death shall part you, from your dearest, though they may hang round your bed yet you shall go into the dark unbefriended, alone. Do you love money?--Despair then: death shall make you drop it, death shall wring it from you; though your funeral were costly, yet poor shall you lie. Do you love fame in your day and to make yourself felt, to play your part somewhere in the world? do you take an interest in politics and watch how the world goes?--Despair then: the world will do without you and you must do without the world, for you shall be where you cannot stir hand or foot to make it worse or better. Do you love what is better than all these, to do God's work, to do good to others, to give alms, to pray, to make God's kingdom come? Make haste then, work while it is day, and despair of any other chance than this: *the night is coming*, says your mater, *when no man can work* and again *There is neither work nor reason nor wisdom nor knowledge in the grave where thou art hastening fast*. And again Ecclus. xiv 17. *Before thy death do justice, for there is no finding food in the grave*... On one ground or another, do you love life, dear life?--Despair, all of you: death is coming that shall rob you even of dear life. Is there no help?--No, none. If it were poverty we might escape it or not escaping it we could bear it; we should still have life. If it were shame, if it were the death of others--but no, we may lose health, wealth, fame, friend, peace of mind, and all that makes life dear and still keep, and glad to keep, dear life; and then besides, we need not lose them--death might be our first sickness, we might live all our lives well to do, honoured, with our best friends round us; but *life we must lose* and with life all the goods of life; other evils need not come, but death, *the worst of evils, must* come, and rob us of our only chance, rob us of our all. This is the first terror of death: it is the worst of earthly evils and robs us of our all, and it is the only evil certain to come. The next terror of death are *the pains of death*. Death mostly is the end of a fatal sickness and when is sickness, fatal sickness, without pain? And this pain is not as other pains, which either we surmount and get the better of or at least we can keep up with; but
[FairfieldLife] Re: The experience we are almost certain to have to go through
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: *Death is certain* and uncertain, certain to come, uncertain when and where. Did any man yet escape death?... It is *appointed* to me once to die, once at least...Once to die... It is appointed to man once to die and after this the judgment...The truth remains then, it is appointed to men to die, and we shall die. *And it is uncertain* when or where--not so *un*certain as it is certain that we shall die; a man sick to death has a strong likelihood that he will die, say, within a week and in that house or even in that bed; still there hangs over death a great, a harassing uncertainty. *When* shall each of us die?--I cannot tell, but *all within a century* (I say what no one doubts), some long hence, some soon, one perhaps this year. I press it no further: it is a great uncertainty. *And where?*--Some here no doubt, and some elsewhere; some in their beds, others suddenly in some unlikely place, where now they little think: this too is a great uncertainty. But one thing is certain and let that be...*We shall die in these bodies*. I see you living before me, with the mind's eye, brethren, I see your corpses: those same bodies that sit there before me are rows of corpses that will be. And I that speak to you, you hear and see me, you see me breathe and move: this breathing body is my corpse and I am living in my tomb. This is one thing certain of your place of death: you are there now, you sit within your corpses; look no further: there where you are you will die. What we want is so deep a sense of the certainty and uncertainty of death, to have death so before us, that we may dread to sin now and when we die die well. It is the greatest of earthly evils. It robs us of our all. Do you love sunshine, starlight, fresh air, flowers, fieldsports?--Despair then: you will see them no more; they will be above ground, you below; you will lose them all. Do you love townlife, homelife, the cheerful hearth, the sparkling fire, company, the social glass, laughter, frolic among friends?--Despair then: you will have no more of them for ever, the churchyards are full of such men as you are now, that feasted once and now worms feast on; the dark day is coming; slow or sudden, death is coming; the rottenness and dust and utterly to be forgotten. Do you dearly love wife or husband, child or friend?--Despair then: death shall part you, from your dearest, though they may hang round your bed yet you shall go into the dark unbefriended, alone. Do you love money?--Despair then: death shall make you drop it, death shall wring it from you; though your funeral were costly, yet poor shall you lie. Do you love fame in your day and to make yourself felt, to play your part somewhere in the world? do you take an interest in politics and watch how the world goes?--Despair then: the world will do without you and you must do without the world, for you shall be where you cannot stir hand or foot to make it worse or better. Do you love what is better than all these, to do God's work, to do good to others, to give alms, to pray, to make God's kingdom come? Make haste then, work while it is day, and despair of any other chance than this: *the night is coming*, says your mater, *when no man can work* and again *There is neither work nor reason nor wisdom nor knowledge in the grave where thou art hastening fast*. And again Ecclus. xiv 17. *Before thy death do justice, for there is no finding food in the grave*... On one ground or another, do you love life, dear life?--Despair, all of you: death is coming that shall rob you even of dear life. Is there no help?--No, none. If it were poverty we might escape it or not escaping it we could bear it; we should still have life. If it were shame, if it were the death of others--but no, we may lose health, wealth, fame, friend, peace of mind, and all that makes life dear and still keep, and glad to keep, dear life; and then besides, we need not lose them--death might be our first sickness, we might live all our lives well to do, honoured, with our best friends round us; but *life we must lose* and with life all the goods of life; other evils need not come, but death, *the worst of evils, must* come, and rob us of our only chance, rob us of our all. This is the first terror of death: it is the worst of earthly evils and robs us of our all, and it is the only evil certain to come. The next terror of death are *the pains of death*. Death mostly is the end of a fatal sickness and when is sickness, fatal sickness, without pain? And this pain is not as other pains, which either we surmount and get the better of or at least we can keep up with; but fatal sickness and its pains are for the dying man a losing battle, he bears them and is worse, he may have patience and they do not spare, bad they may be
[FairfieldLife] Re: Devas and Architecture
Too laughable to even respond to. Like I said to the Vastu lover and yes it is a quote from Roger Zelazny's Lord of Light Occasionally, there may come a dreamer who is aware that he is dreaming. He may control something of the dream-stuff, bending it to his will, or he may awaken into greater self-knowledge. If he chooses the path of self-knowledge, his glory is great and he shall be for all ages like unto a star. If he chooses instead the way of the Tantras, combining Samsara and Nirvana, comprehending the world and continuing to live in it, this one is mighty among dreamers. To dwell within Samsara, however, is to be subject to the works of those who are mighty among dreamers. If they be mighty for good, it is a golden time. If they be mighty for ill, it is a time of darkness. The dream may turn to nightmare. But it doesn't matter, because all those who have invested their identity into Maharishi and his teachings can never entertain the notion that he was not enlightened because if they did, they would have to admit he was imperfect. To admit he was a liar and misused his power is to call into question their own identity. He gave the world a good meditation technique and if he had been true to his early words I believe he could have truly changed the world. But like so many meditation gurus, he came from the East and got eaten up by the West. But I don't believe anyone who still thinks he did no wrong will change their mind cuz of what I say. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: Nepotism is a tradition in India. The guy named in Gurudev's will was Gurudev's nephew, which makes the will more likely to be true, in my eyes. Regardless, what evidence do you have that MMY's nephews were taking more than the usual cut that relatives take in these situations in India? It's not much of a defense, but to expect a specific guy or guys to be somehow better than average just because they are related to MMY is a bit of a stretch. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74 mjackson74@ wrote: The idea is that he was enlightened and would have known all this wonderful stuff, not too big a stretch since he was supposedly a great expert on all things vedic. As to the monetary comment, I know for a fact from my own stint working for the Movement and I know also from others who worked for the Movement at higher levels of authority than me that the Movement has ALWAYS funneled money to the top, what we peons used to call International. As to the relatives, I was thinking of Maharishi's nephews, Anand Shrivastava and Ajay Prakash Shrivastava with whom Maharishi formed the Maharishi Group back in the late 1960's. The Maharishi Group is the umbrella organization for virtually all the other Movement organizations including Age of Enlightenment Publications, Maharishi Ayurveda Products Ltd., and even Maharishi University of Management. His nephews still run it. So yeah, his kin folk get a cut. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: MMY said that he failed to realize the importance of vastu until many years after he started the TM organization. What, do you assume that he couldn't learn new things as he got older, but instead, was merely in it for the money? BTW, the cut you refer to is for the pandit projects as far as I know. Do you have concrete info that MMY's family (which part, btw: his brother is well over 100 (105?) if he is still alive and Garish is nearing 70 now I suspect) is getting a cut, or is this just an assumption? L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74 mjackson74@ wrote: Just to try to be very clear with you, I was and am saying that Maharishi did, and the Movement still does promote sthapatya veda as being one of the remedies to the worlds ills, that if we don't have the properly designed and aligned homes and other buildings we will be prey to all sorts of problems, and my point is that if that is true, why the hell didn't he mention it all those years ago to help us out and help create good vibes for world peace? The answer is of course that while this type of architecture may be nice and may be interesting, our health and well being and world peace are NOT enhanced by it, this is a bullshit lie that Maharishi deliberately told people to create another stream of revenue for himself and his hangers on from the pockets of starry eyed believers who thought and still think he could NEVER lie. His relatives are still very happy everytime someone buys one of those bullshit ridiculously priced vedic observatories, since they get a cut. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardatrwilliamsdotus richard@ wrote:
[FairfieldLife] Re: The experience we are almost certain to have to go through
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: snip Whose woods these are I think I know. His house is in the village though; He will not see me stopping here To watch his woods fill up with snow. My little horse must think it queer To stop without a farmhouse near Between the woods and frozen lake The darkest evening of the year. He gives his harness bells a shake To ask if there is some mistake. The only other sound's the sweep Of easy wind and downy flake. The woods are lovely, dark and deep. But I have promises to keep, And miles to go before I sleep, And miles to go before I sleep. ~ Robert Frost http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azNtM8s9-C0feature=related
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Damn laughingoutloud108 - LOL..you know the secret, but why eyes closed and fingers crossed - you should have been brave and courageous. Anyway are you Vaj's long lost brother or something? On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 4:11 AM, laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: ** (Sitting here with eyes tightly closed and fingers crossed) Baby Krishna...Baby Krishna...Baby Krishna...Baby Krishna...Baby Krishna... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Hey laughingstock108, I don't like your jerk-off name, I don't like your jerk-off face, I don't like your jerk-off behavior and I don't like you...jerk-off. Do I make myself clear? On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 8:55 AM, laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: ** Hang in there Share...you have at least one more supporter out here who somewhat feels what you are trying to do. Susan was most certainly right when she indicated that FFL had become (and I'm summarizing here) a somewhat different creature than what it started as so many years ago. There's very little value in many of the comments made by certain posters. Everyone who even comes close to the 50 posts/week limit should look back at their posts from the past month or so and try to find those that offered something significant towards the opening sentence to the description of this group: Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere. We can learn from each other if what is being offered is worthy of our attention. Knowledge IS structured in consciousness...but I don't want to be anywhere near the state of consciousness required to understand what some of you are trying to say or do. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: About Judy's ways of not being truthful and to set the record straight, it was Robin not me who brought our conflict to FFL. And he did so twice. And I mentioned that the first time he did so. Yet you began the nitpicky piling on. Not Curtis, you. And you continued to do so. Even though you had not seen the initial private emails between me and Robin. For me this is a crucial point. You did not know all that had been said between me and Robin. You certainly did not ever understand my feelings in the matter. Nor did you ever attempt to understand them. This is also crucial. You continually piled on and nitpicked even though he brought the conflict to FFL without asking how I felt about that. A reasonable and compassionate person would have let me and Robin work it out on our own given these circumstances. Compassionate is obvious. Reasonable because is anyone here really qualified to help 2 people work out a conflict? If yes, I'm 110% sure it's not you. This mercifully short post is a good example of what I don't like about your posting, Judy. You pick one technical aspect, that one about one exchange. Which is probably technically correct in the sense that your nitpicky pilings on are not really exchanges. Yet you fail to mention aspects way more important: that it was Robin who brought the conflict twice onto FFL, not me; that you hadn't seen the initial private emails between me and Robin; that you didn't attempt to understand where I was coming from. These are your ways of not being truthful. From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 7:48 PM Subject: [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.
