[FairfieldLife] Re: British Father's letter to his children

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation"  
wrote:
>
> Below is some letter that was written from a British grandfather to his 
> children and grandchildren.  Although it is about life in Britain, it hits 
> home with what's going on right here in America too.
> 
> The letter reads:
> 
> Dear All Three
> 
> With last evening's crop of whinges and tidings of more rotten news for 
> which you seem to treat your mother like a cess-pit, I feel it is time to 
> come off my perch.
> 
> It is obvious that none of you has the faintest notion of the bitter 
> disappointment each of you has in your own way dished out to us. We are 
> seeing the miserable death throes of the fourth of your collective marriages 
> at the same time we see the advent of a fifth.
> 
> We are constantly regaled with chapter and verse of the happy, successful 
> lives of the families of our friends and relatives and being asked of news of 
> our own children and grandchildren. I wonder if you realise how we feel — we 
> have nothing to say which reflects any credit on you or us. We don't ask for 
> your sympathy or understanding — Mum and I have been used to taking our own 
> misfortunes on the chin, and making our own effort to bash our little paths 
> through life without being a burden to others. Having done our best — 
> probably misguidedly — to provide for our children, we naturally hoped to see 
> them in turn take up their own banners and provide happy and stable homes for 
> their own children.
> 
> Fulfilling careers based on your educations would have helped — but as 
> yet none of you is what I would confidently term properly self-supporting. 
> Which of you, with or without a spouse, can support your families, finance 
> your home and provide a pension for your old age? Each of you is well able to 
> earn a comfortable living and provide for your children, yet each of you has 
> contrived to avoid even moderate achievement. Far from your children being 
> able to rely on your provision, they are faced with needing to survive their 
> introduction to life with you as parents.
> 
> So we witness the introduction to this life of six beautiful children — 
> soon to be seven — none of whose parents have had the maturity and sound 
> judgment to make a reasonable fist at making essential threshold decisions. 
> None of these decisions were made with any pretence to ask for our advice.
> 
> In each case we have been expected to acquiesce with mostly hasty, but 
> always in our view, badly judged decisions. None of you has done yourself, or 
> given to us, the basic courtesy to ask us what we think while there was still 
> time finally to think things through. The predictable result has been a 
> decade of deep unhappiness over the fates of our grandchildren. If it wasn't 
> for them, Mum and I would not be too concerned, as each of you consciously, 
> and with eyes wide open, crashes from one screw-up to the next. It makes us 
> weak that so many of these events are copulation-driven, and then helplessly 
> to see these lovely little people being so woefully let down by you, their 
> parents.
> 
> I can now tell you that I for one, and I sense Mum feels the same, have 
> had enough of being forced to live through the never-ending bad dream of our 
> children's underachievement and domestic ineptitudes. I want to hear no more 
> from any of you until, if you feel inclined, you have a success or an 
> achievement or a REALISTIC plan for the support and happiness of your 
> children to tell me about. I don't want to see your mother burdened any more 
> with your miserable woes — it's not as if any of the advice she strives to 
> give you has ever been listened to with good grace — far less acted upon. So 
> I ask you to spare her further unhappiness. If you think I have been unfair 
> in what I have said, by all means try to persuade me to change my mind. But 
> you won't do it by simply whingeing and saying you don't like it. You'll have 
> to come up with meaty reasons to demolish my points and build a case for 
> yourself. If that isn't possible, or you simply can't be bothered, then I 
> rest my case.


They fuck you up, your mum and dad. This guy must have been a shit
parent to have three useless kids, I wonder at what point he'll
start wondering where he went wrong?

[FairfieldLife] British Father's letter to his children

[seekliberation]

Below is some letter that was written from a British grandfather to his 
children and grandchildren.  Although it is about life in Britain, it hits home 
with what's going on right here in America too.

The letter reads:

Dear All Three

With last evening's crop of whinges and tidings of more rotten news for 
which you seem to treat your mother like a cess-pit, I feel it is time to come 
off my perch.

It is obvious that none of you has the faintest notion of the bitter 
disappointment each of you has in your own way dished out to us. We are seeing 
the miserable death throes of the fourth of your collective marriages at the 
same time we see the advent of a fifth.

We are constantly regaled with chapter and verse of the happy, successful 
lives of the families of our friends and relatives and being asked of news of 
our own children and grandchildren. I wonder if you realise how we feel — we 
have nothing to say which reflects any credit on you or us. We don't ask for 
your sympathy or understanding — Mum and I have been used to taking our own 
misfortunes on the chin, and making our own effort to bash our little paths 
through life without being a burden to others. Having done our best — probably 
misguidedly — to provide for our children, we naturally hoped to see them in 
turn take up their own banners and provide happy and stable homes for their own 
children.

Fulfilling careers based on your educations would have helped — but as yet 
none of you is what I would confidently term properly self-supporting. Which of 
you, with or without a spouse, can support your families, finance your home and 
provide a pension for your old age? Each of you is well able to earn a 
comfortable living and provide for your children, yet each of you has contrived 
to avoid even moderate achievement. Far from your children being able to rely 
on your provision, they are faced with needing to survive their introduction to 
life with you as parents.

So we witness the introduction to this life of six beautiful children — 
soon to be seven — none of whose parents have had the maturity and sound 
judgment to make a reasonable fist at making essential threshold decisions. 
None of these decisions were made with any pretence to ask for our advice.

In each case we have been expected to acquiesce with mostly hasty, but 
always in our view, badly judged decisions. None of you has done yourself, or 
given to us, the basic courtesy to ask us what we think while there was still 
time finally to think things through. The predictable result has been a decade 
of deep unhappiness over the fates of our grandchildren. If it wasn't for them, 
Mum and I would not be too concerned, as each of you consciously, and with eyes 
wide open, crashes from one screw-up to the next. It makes us weak that so many 
of these events are copulation-driven, and then helplessly to see these lovely 
little people being so woefully let down by you, their parents.

I can now tell you that I for one, and I sense Mum feels the same, have had 
enough of being forced to live through the never-ending bad dream of our 
children's underachievement and domestic ineptitudes. I want to hear no more 
from any of you until, if you feel inclined, you have a success or an 
achievement or a REALISTIC plan for the support and happiness of your children 
to tell me about. I don't want to see your mother burdened any more with your 
miserable woes — it's not as if any of the advice she strives to give you has 
ever been listened to with good grace — far less acted upon. So I ask you to 
spare her further unhappiness. If you think I have been unfair in what I have 
said, by all means try to persuade me to change my mind. But you won't do it by 
simply whingeing and saying you don't like it. You'll have to come up with 
meaty reasons to demolish my points and build a case for yourself. If that 
isn't possible, or you simply can't be bothered, then I rest my case.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Xeno

[Emily Reyn]

Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.Steve, you have put me 
into a state of serious laughter with this one.  Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.  



 From: seventhray1 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 8:22 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Xeno
 

  

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
snip
Thank you, Steve. I am going to reread this on my death bed.
I hope it's not anytime soon!

> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" lurkernomore20002000@ 
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > This also strikes me as quite odd. To feel that I would need to
> > indicate, by name, those people who are apparantly in agreement with a
> > position I might have. As Xeno, said, as though this "makes the case"
> > for my position?
> > 
> > All it indicates, is that someone is so invested in a position, that
> > they must try to indicate public support for that position.
> > 
> > It ignores the fact that there is probably an equal or greater number of
> > people who feel differently, but just aren't obsessed with trying to
> > assert the "rightness" of their opinon.
> > 
> > But, in this case, Judy feels that it bolsters her position and thereby
> > allows her to claim yet another internet forum victory.
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > And how about Ann, raunchy, Emily, Alex, and Ravi? That's
> > > seven people who are apparently too different from you for
> > > you and them to understand each other--about half of the
> > > regulars who have had exchanges with you or have defended
> > > you. And that half haven't had any arguments with you to
> > > begin with, so there's no way to tell whether they would
> > > be able to understand you if they did.
> > 
> > 
> > snip
> > 
> > > Note again that it isn't just Share and me whose "views"
> > > diverge and whose "thinking styles are simply not compatible."
> > > It's Share versus Robin and Ann and raunchy and Emily and
> > > Alex and Ravi and me. Fatuous nonsense, Xeno.
> > >
> >
>

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Barry PS

[Emily Reyn]

Thank you Ann.  You are so on the mark as always; it's painful to read.  I 
crossed the line with Share here though, and Share, you have my sincerest 
apology.  You may take as many pot shots or real shots at me as necessary to 
restore balance and I will try hard to do my penance and stay in humility. Ann 
is right, I am a tough girl and I can take it (although I will cry.)  When I 
say to you "Remember, you are not a victim," I'm talking to myself Share.  
After all.(are we tired of this yet?) Robin is feeling the shame I'm in; 
damn him. He's going to be harder than I thought to take down.  Forgive 
me..."Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear 
no evil; for thou art with me, thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me."  



 From: awoelflebater 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 8:33 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Barry PS
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
>
> Actually, it's just a variation of the "I'm very mature; you are so fucked 
> up," argument that masquerades as compassion. It points the finger of blame 
> at the ingrate, who is then supposed to feel grateful for the "compassion" 
> shown to her. 

No, I don't thing so Feste. Granted, Emily's post was hard hitting but she is 
not trying pass it off as some compassionate love letter. Emily is frustrated 
with Share. Emily has spent a lot of time and energy on Share. Emily is 
interested in real communication and understanding between Share and herself. 
Emily does not appear to be some sadistic bully attempting to browbeat someone 
for the sake of watching someone squirm. Emily appears to have a deep 
experience of life, including the hard parts, so she is no fool. Emily is a 
woman. Emily appears willing to have her mind changed if Share would be 
willing, in turn, to offer up something that resembles real truthfulness or at 
least earnest searching. Only Emily can decide when she has had enough of 
getting nothing but subterfuge in return and it appears that might just be the 
case now.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
> >
> > I just have one word for this dear Emily...W..O..W 
> > 
> > To add more - how compassionate, how loving, how mature, how intelligent, a
> > brilliant analysis of Share and many others like her in similar situations.
> > Shame on the likes of Steve, Xeno, laughinggull, feste, Buck - hope they
> > can learn something from here.
> > 
> > On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:45 AM, emilymae.reyn wrote:
> > 
> > > Dear Sharester, I'm having trouble letting go. But, I promise I will after
> > > this post. *Really.* I will demonstrate the letting go action to you - 
> > > it's
> > > good practice for me. Before I go for now, I will say that I hope you 
> > > print
> > > out and show the last two posts re: wts that you wrote and I responded to,
> > > that you never got back to me on, to your pastoral counselor. If she tells
> > > you that "yes, you are right, you have maintained your integrity through
> > > the whole conversation and these people challenging you are just bullies
> > > and mean and unfairly abusive," you will know for sure that you are paying
> > > her for nothing.
> > >
> > > First of all, you didn't even give me the time of day to respond, and I
> > > put a lot of energy and effort into those posts to you - recognizing you 
> > > as
> > > a human being.
> > >
> > > Second, you might think about, in the privacy of your own prayer routine,
> > > thanking Ann, raunchy, Judy, Ravi, Robin, Ravi and I for processing all of
> > > your negative emotions over the last 6 months for you. For my part, I did
> > > this out of love and concern for you Share (yes, that irritating universal
> > > love of you as another human being.)
> > >
> > > This tactic of yours - launching passive attacks and then running away and
> > > asking those you launched spears at to do your dirty work is a good one,
> > > isn't it? Then, you feel better and can skip off to the Dome, presenting
> > > nothing to those you meet on the yellow brick road, but generosity,
> > > openness, and love. I bet you act as a source of knowledge to others',
> > > don't you.
> > >
> > > I bet you include a lot of information to them on food and supplements
> > > they should be taking. You outed yourself by mistake when you said you had
> > > had food issues all your life. Are you aware of what that means and how
> > > having issues with this most basic function in life (eating) can through
> > > time fully affect the construct of your thought process, and forever-more
> > > create a need to subconsciously protect yourself so you never have to deal
> > > with it and the self-preservation issues that come with it? I am sorry
> > > you've had to deal with this. It's a survival issue, I know. I don't have
> > > it, but in the past, I have been intimately involved with someone who has.
> > > Co

[FairfieldLife] Re: 3 ques to Judy Emily & anyone else interested

[awoelflebater]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> *State of FFL vs Share Long*
> *
> *
> *Dec 2nd, 2012*
> *
> *
> *Exhibit D*
> 
> The jurors dubbed the "3 Idiots" - feste, Buck, Steve continue to view this
> as another example of the innocence, sincerity of the defendant Share Long.
> 
> Juror#4 - Laughinggull insists on fair play much to the annoyance of
> everyone.
> 
> Juror#5 - Barry continues to be hostile and demeaning towards the defendant
> and may soon be dismissed because of contempt of court.
> 
> The other jurors dubbed the "wts seven" rightly see this as yet another
> pattern of the defendant's deceptive damsel-in-distress plea of innocence.

OK Ravi, I officially loved this.
> 
> 
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Share Long  wrote:
> 
> > **
> >
> >
> > 1.  Do you think that any benefits can come from Judy Share and Emily
> > continuing to communicate with each other?
> > 2.  If yes, what do you think are the benefits that can come of it?
> > 3.  What do you think would be a viable next step to move closer to those
> > benefits with a minimum of what's not beneficial?
> >
> > I began to think of these questions while driving to the Dome this
> > evening.  I have not discussed them with anyone.
> > I look forward to any answers especially to numbers 2 and 3.
> > In some ways I don't think the answer to number 1 matters.
> >
> > My answers:
> > 2.  I hope that more peace and enjoyment for those on FFL would come of it.
> > 3.  This post IS my viable next step!
> > 1.  I'm not sure.  But I'm open to the possibility of yes.
> >
> > I'm hoping for some fun answers too (-:
> > Thank you everyone for your time and thoughts and caring.
> >
> >  
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Barry PS

[awoelflebater]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
>
> Actually, it's just a variation of the "I'm very mature; you are so fucked 
> up," argument that masquerades as compassion. It points the finger of blame 
> at the ingrate, who is then supposed to feel grateful for the "compassion" 
> shown to her. 

No, I don't thing so Feste. Granted, Emily's post was hard hitting but she is 
not trying pass it off as some compassionate love letter. Emily is frustrated 
with Share. Emily has spent a lot of time and energy on Share. Emily is 
interested in real communication and understanding between Share and herself. 
Emily does not appear to be some sadistic bully attempting to browbeat someone 
for the sake of watching someone squirm. Emily appears to have a deep 
experience of life, including the hard parts, so she is no fool. Emily is a 
woman. Emily appears willing to have her mind changed if Share would be 
willing, in turn, to offer up something that resembles real truthfulness or at 
least earnest searching. Only Emily can decide when she has had enough of 
getting nothing but subterfuge in return and it appears that might just be the 
case now.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
> >
> > I just have one word for this dear Emily...W..O..W 
> > 
> > To add more - how compassionate, how loving, how mature, how intelligent, a
> > brilliant analysis of Share and many others like her in similar situations.
> > Shame on the likes of Steve, Xeno, laughinggull, feste, Buck - hope they
> > can learn something from here.
> > 
> > On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:45 AM, emilymae.reyn wrote:
> > 
> > > Dear Sharester, I'm having trouble letting go. But, I promise I will after
> > > this post. *Really.* I will demonstrate the letting go action to you - 
> > > it's
> > > good practice for me. Before I go for now, I will say that I hope you 
> > > print
> > > out and show the last two posts re: wts that you wrote and I responded to,
> > > that you never got back to me on, to your pastoral counselor. If she tells
> > > you that "yes, you are right, you have maintained your integrity through
> > > the whole conversation and these people challenging you are just bullies
> > > and mean and unfairly abusive," you will know for sure that you are paying
> > > her for nothing.
> > >
> > > First of all, you didn't even give me the time of day to respond, and I
> > > put a lot of energy and effort into those posts to you - recognizing you 
> > > as
> > > a human being.
> > >
> > > Second, you might think about, in the privacy of your own prayer routine,
> > > thanking Ann, raunchy, Judy, Ravi, Robin, Ravi and I for processing all of
> > > your negative emotions over the last 6 months for you. For my part, I did
> > > this out of love and concern for you Share (yes, that irritating universal
> > > love of you as another human being.)
> > >
> > > This tactic of yours - launching passive attacks and then running away and
> > > asking those you launched spears at to do your dirty work is a good one,
> > > isn't it? Then, you feel better and can skip off to the Dome, presenting
> > > nothing to those you meet on the yellow brick road, but generosity,
> > > openness, and love. I bet you act as a source of knowledge to others',
> > > don't you.
> > >
> > > I bet you include a lot of information to them on food and supplements
> > > they should be taking. You outed yourself by mistake when you said you had
> > > had food issues all your life. Are you aware of what that means and how
> > > having issues with this most basic function in life (eating) can through
> > > time fully affect the construct of your thought process, and forever-more
> > > create a need to subconsciously protect yourself so you never have to deal
> > > with it and the self-preservation issues that come with it? I am sorry
> > > you've had to deal with this. It's a survival issue, I know. I don't have
> > > it, but in the past, I have been intimately involved with someone who has.
> > > Comes with endless denial, I'm aware.
> > >
> > > The years of dedication to healing; the living in a healing community; the
> > > collection of people and healers and philosophies support the construct of
> > > denial you have built. You never have to get truly real Share or speak for
> > > yourself - you have learned the healing language and just have to invoke
> > > experts on your behalf over and over again. You can hide forever and act
> > > like an innocent victim, whenever anyone asks to be validated for their 
> > > own
> > > individual thought process that disagrees with yours - because you are
> > > right, because you have done nothing to apologize or make amends for,
> > > because there is something wrong with them and they need to experience
> > > "complete healing."
> > >
> > > I am sorry that you have had to go the this kind of extreme in your life
> > > to self-preserve. It is a testament of our instinct, as humans, to 
> > > s

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Xeno

[seventhray1]

It was a passionate, well written letter.  But in the end, it's really a
matter between Emily and Share, isn't it?*

* yea, yea, all the usual caveats of the a public forum etc.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" 
wrote:
>
> I think Steve has dealt with the substance of Emily's analysis and his
commentary here goes down much deeper into reality--and into
himself--than does Emily's post. This to me makes the case for Steve:
that what Emily went through to write her letter to Share entailed
hardly anything that touched her compared to where Steve went in himself
to write this. I feel I am eating humble pie now. You have just proven
my philosophy, Steve. And I already feel the shame for Emily.
Authfriend, she doesn't know what she is talking about. This post
represents something so beautiful to be reading this Sunday night. Thank
you, Steve. I am going to reread this on my death bed.
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"
lurkernomore20002000@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > This also strikes me as quite odd. To feel that I would need to
> > indicate, by name, those people who are apparantly in agreement with
a
> > position I might have. As Xeno, said, as though this "makes the
case"
> > for my position?
> >
> > All it indicates, is that someone is so invested in a position, that
> > they must try to indicate public support for that position.
> >
> > It ignores the fact that there is probably an equal or greater
number of
> > people who feel differently, but just aren't obsessed with trying to
> > assert the "rightness" of their opinon.
> >
> > But, in this case, Judy feels that it bolsters her position and
thereby
> > allows her to claim yet another internet forum victory.
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > And how about Ann, raunchy, Emily, Alex, and Ravi? That's
> > > seven people who are apparently too different from you for
> > > you and them to understand each other--about half of the
> > > regulars who have had exchanges with you or have defended
> > > you. And that half haven't had any arguments with you to
> > > begin with, so there's no way to tell whether they would
> > > be able to understand you if they did.
> >
> >
> > snip
> >
> > > Note again that it isn't just Share and me whose "views"
> > > diverge and whose "thinking styles are simply not compatible."
> > > It's Share versus Robin and Ann and raunchy and Emily and
> > > Alex and Ravi and me. Fatuous nonsense, Xeno.
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Xeno

[seventhray1]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" 
wrote:
snip

Thank you, Steve. I am going to reread this on my death bed.

I hope it's not anytime soon!


>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"
lurkernomore20002000@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > This also strikes me as quite odd. To feel that I would need to
> > indicate, by name, those people who are apparantly in agreement with
a
> > position I might have. As Xeno, said, as though this "makes the
case"
> > for my position?
> >
> > All it indicates, is that someone is so invested in a position, that
> > they must try to indicate public support for that position.
> >
> > It ignores the fact that there is probably an equal or greater
number of
> > people who feel differently, but just aren't obsessed with trying to
> > assert the "rightness" of their opinon.
> >
> > But, in this case, Judy feels that it bolsters her position and
thereby
> > allows her to claim yet another internet forum victory.
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > And how about Ann, raunchy, Emily, Alex, and Ravi? That's
> > > seven people who are apparently too different from you for
> > > you and them to understand each other--about half of the
> > > regulars who have had exchanges with you or have defended
> > > you. And that half haven't had any arguments with you to
> > > begin with, so there's no way to tell whether they would
> > > be able to understand you if they did.
> >
> >
> > snip
> >
> > > Note again that it isn't just Share and me whose "views"
> > > diverge and whose "thinking styles are simply not compatible."
> > > It's Share versus Robin and Ann and raunchy and Emily and
> > > Alex and Ravi and me. Fatuous nonsense, Xeno.
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Xeno

[seventhray1]

No matter.  I think this is what it boils down to:

You are site's largest contributor (by posting volume).

Obviously you have a lot invested here.  I would venture to say that for
most people, what they hope to derive from participation here is some
entertainment or relaxation value, and some greater insight into things.

But for you, at least much of the time, it is about the "win".  And I
suppose that is understandable, given the investment you make here on a
daily and weekly basis.

And the fact that no one else here is willing to go to the lenghts to
which you go to achieve this end, the prize is often  yours, by default.

I suspect this situation is not uncommon for internet forums.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"
lurkernomore20002000@ wrote:
> >
> > This also strikes me as quite odd. To feel that I would need to
> > indicate, by name, those people who are apparantly in agreement
> > with a position I might have. As Xeno, said, as though this
> > "makes the case" for my position?
>
> So cute that you snipped what I was responding to, Steve. I
> bet you actually thought I wouldn't put it back, didn't you?
>
> [Share wrote:]
> > I agree Xeno. I think Judy and I, and Robin and I also, are
> > simply too different to ever understand each other. I said
> > this to Robin after one of the several upsets. I've recently
> > realized it about me and Judy too. I think it's just the way
> > life sometimes is.
>
> My point is really not difficult to grasp in context, so
> I'm afraid I have to assume that both you and Xeno are
> intentionally misconstruing it.
>
>
>
> >
> > All it indicates, is that someone is so invested in a position, that
> > they must try to indicate public support for that position.
> >
> > It ignores the fact that there is probably an equal or greater
number of
> > people who feel differently, but just aren't obsessed with trying to
> > assert the "rightness" of their opinon.
> >
> > But, in this case, Judy feels that it bolsters her position and
thereby
> > allows her to claim yet another internet forum victory.
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > And how about Ann, raunchy, Emily, Alex, and Ravi? That's
> > > seven people who are apparently too different from you for
> > > you and them to understand each other--about half of the
> > > regulars who have had exchanges with you or have defended
> > > you. And that half haven't had any arguments with you to
> > > begin with, so there's no way to tell whether they would
> > > be able to understand you if they did.
> >
> >
> > snip
> >
> > > Note again that it isn't just Share and me whose "views"
> > > diverge and whose "thinking styles are simply not compatible."
> > > It's Share versus Robin and Ann and raunchy and Emily and
> > > Alex and Ravi and me. Fatuous nonsense, Xeno.
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Barry PS

[awoelflebater]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emilymae.reyn"  wrote:
>
> Dear Sharester, I'm having trouble letting go.  But, I promise I will after 
> this post.  *Really.*  I will demonstrate the letting go action to you - it's 
> good practice for me.  Before I go for now, I will say that I hope you print 
> out and show the last two posts re: wts that you wrote and I responded to, 
> that you never got back to me on, to your pastoral counselor.  If she tells 
> you that "yes, you are right, you have maintained your integrity through the 
> whole conversation and these people challenging you are just bullies and mean 
> and unfairly abusive," you will know for sure that you are paying her for 
> nothing.  
> 
> First of all, you didn't even give me the time of day to respond, and I put a 
> lot of energy and effort into those posts to you - recognizing you as a human 
> being.
> 
> Second, you might think about, in the privacy of your own prayer routine, 
> thanking Ann, raunchy, Judy, Ravi, Robin, Ravi and I for processing all of 
> your negative emotions over the last 6 months for you.  For my part, I did 
> this out of love and concern for you Share (yes, that irritating universal 
> love of you as another human being.)  
> 
> This tactic of yours - launching passive attacks and then running away and 
> asking those you launched spears at to do your dirty work is a good one, 
> isn't it?  Then, you feel better and can skip off to the Dome, presenting 
> nothing to those you meet on the yellow brick road, but generosity, openness, 
> and love.  I bet you act as a source of knowledge to others', don't you.  
> 
> I bet you include a lot of information to them on food and supplements they 
> should be taking.  You outed yourself by mistake when you said you had had 
> food issues all your life.  Are you aware of what that means and how having 
> issues with this most basic function in life (eating) can through time fully 
> affect the construct of your thought process, and forever-more create a need 
> to subconsciously protect yourself so you never have to deal with it and the 
> self-preservation issues that come with it? I am sorry you've had to deal 
> with this. It's a survival issue, I know.  I don't have it, but in the past, 
> I have been intimately involved with someone who has.  Comes with endless 
> denial, I'm aware. 
> 
> The years of dedication to healing; the living in a healing community; the 
> collection of people and healers and philosophies support the construct of 
> denial you have built.  You never have to get truly real Share or speak for 
> yourself - you have learned the healing language and just have to invoke 
> experts on your behalf over and over again.  You can hide forever and act 
> like an innocent victim, whenever anyone asks to be validated for their own 
> individual thought process that disagrees with yours - because you are right, 
> because you have done nothing to apologize or make amends for, because there 
> is something wrong with them and they need to experience "complete healing."  
> 
> I am sorry that you have had to go the this kind of extreme in your life to 
> self-preserve.  It is a testament of our instinct, as humans, to survive.  I 
> am sorry that, in all cases, you twist reality to fit your own worldview and 
> summarily dismiss and attack anyone and everything that won't conform to your 
> way of thinking. Too threatening isn't it.  You are missing out on so much 
> Share, but it's beyond me at this point to try and convince you of this.  I  
> do believe you are fully entrenched in your vision of yourself and your own 
> rock solid storyline - and you have built an enormous safety net of people 
> who see only what you show them - the bliss bubble of the positive 
> characteristics you want to be known for.  It's sad to watch.
> 
> You placing me in a cult, because you were too afraid to be honest and real, 
> is predictable; as was your refusal to address it.  Easier to just forever 
> claim you were "right" and relentlessly impose your reality on FFL with no 
> interest in supporting or discussing it.  Another example is continuing to 
> invoke the term "wishing complete healing" on people and FFL at large without 
> ever clearly examining what that means - how dare anyone challenge you on 
> this meaningless term. Right?  Also, on ousting Judy, Ann, and raunchy from 
> your readers' list and I'm guessing me, after this post, if you have the guts 
> to read it. So many other examples Share of your refusing to actually 
> interact with anyone who has tried, unless you are sure you can control the 
> outcome.  
> 
> But, you keep reading Barry, although he was a bit hard on you today, don't 
> you think?  Just return to the innocent little girl stance and use a "poo" 
> extension for himhe did take a large poo today on you didn't he?  
> 
> Just throw us all away Share and keep putting us all down - we challenged you 
> on your reality and you ar

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Xeno

[Robin Carlsen]

I think Steve has dealt with the substance of Emily's analysis and his 
commentary here goes down much deeper into reality--and into himself--than does 
Emily's post. This to me makes the case for Steve: that what Emily went through 
to write her letter to Share entailed hardly anything that touched her compared 
to where Steve went in himself to write this. I feel I am eating humble pie 
now. You have just proven my philosophy, Steve. And I already feel the shame 
for Emily. Authfriend, she doesn't know what she is talking about. This post 
represents something so beautiful to be reading this Sunday night. Thank you, 
Steve. I am going to reread this on my death bed.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  
wrote:
>
> 
> This also strikes me as quite odd.  To feel that I would need to
> indicate, by name, those people who are apparantly in agreement with a
> position I might have.  As Xeno, said, as though this "makes the case"
> for my position?
> 
> All it indicates, is that someone is so invested in a position, that
> they must try to indicate public support for that position.
> 
> It ignores the fact that there is probably an equal or greater number of
> people who feel differently, but just aren't obsessed with trying to
> assert the "rightness" of their opinon.
> 
> But, in this case, Judy feels that it bolsters her position and thereby
> allows her to claim yet another internet forum victory.
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> wrote:
> 
> > And how about Ann, raunchy, Emily, Alex, and Ravi? That's
> > seven people who are apparently too different from you for
> > you and them to understand each other--about half of the
> > regulars who have had exchanges with you or have defended
> > you. And that half haven't had any arguments with you to
> > begin with, so there's no way to tell whether they would
> > be able to understand you if they did.
> 
> 
> snip
> 
> > Note again that it isn't just Share and me whose "views"
> > diverge and whose "thinking styles are simply not compatible."
> > It's Share versus Robin and Ann and raunchy and Emily and
> > Alex and Ravi and me. Fatuous nonsense, Xeno.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Xeno

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  
wrote:
> 
> This also strikes me as quite odd.  To feel that I would need to
> indicate, by name, those people who are apparantly in agreement 
> with a position I might have.  As Xeno, said, as though this
> "makes the case" for my position?

So cute that you snipped what I was responding to, Steve. I
bet you actually thought I wouldn't put it back, didn't you?

[Share wrote:]
> I agree Xeno. I think Judy and I, and Robin and I also, are
> simply too different to ever understand each other. I said
> this to Robin after one of the several upsets. I've recently
> realized it about me and Judy too. I think it's just the way
> life sometimes is.

My point is really not difficult to grasp in context, so
I'm afraid I have to assume that both you and Xeno are
intentionally misconstruing it.



> 
> All it indicates, is that someone is so invested in a position, that
> they must try to indicate public support for that position.
> 
> It ignores the fact that there is probably an equal or greater number of
> people who feel differently, but just aren't obsessed with trying to
> assert the "rightness" of their opinon.
> 
> But, in this case, Judy feels that it bolsters her position and thereby
> allows her to claim yet another internet forum victory.
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> wrote:
> 
> > And how about Ann, raunchy, Emily, Alex, and Ravi? That's
> > seven people who are apparently too different from you for
> > you and them to understand each other--about half of the
> > regulars who have had exchanges with you or have defended
> > you. And that half haven't had any arguments with you to
> > begin with, so there's no way to tell whether they would
> > be able to understand you if they did.
> 
> 
> snip
> 
> > Note again that it isn't just Share and me whose "views"
> > diverge and whose "thinking styles are simply not compatible."
> > It's Share versus Robin and Ann and raunchy and Emily and
> > Alex and Ravi and me. Fatuous nonsense, Xeno.
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 3 ques to Judy Emily & anyone else interested

[Ravi Chivukula]

Dear Susan - now that you have, as usual, added nothing to the discussion
by your *it only happens once a month* meaningless post - LEAVE US ALONE
PLEASE. I'm sure you have other very important things to do like - walk the
dogs, feed the cats, yoga class, meditation, attend to family - so please
don't let this affect your mental health.

On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Susan  wrote:

> **
>
>
> Share, I think you should drop this topic and move on. Just my opinion,
> and of course if it means a great deal to you, fine.
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > 1.  Do you think that any benefits can come from Judy Share and Emily
> continuing to communicate with each other?
> > 2.  If yes, what do you think are the benefits that can come of it?
> > 3.  What do you think would be a viable next step to move closer to
> those benefits with a minimum of what's not beneficial?
> >
> > I began to think of these questions while driving to the Dome this
> evening.  I have not discussed them with anyone.
> > I look forward to any answers especially to numbers 2 and 3.
> >
> > In some ways I don't think the answer to number 1 matters.
> >
> > My answers:
> > 2.  I hope that more peace and enjoyment for those on FFL would come of
> it.
> > 3.  This post IS my viable next step!
> > 1.  I'm not sure.  But I'm open to the possibility of yes.
> >
> >
> > I'm hoping for some fun answers too (-:
> > Thank you everyone for your time and thoughts and caring.
> >
>
>  
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 3 ques to Judy Emily & anyone else interested

[Ravi Chivukula]

Oh come on LG, Life is good, I beg you - please don't spoil the fun. If you
were the ref you would refuse to blow the whistle unless the side who
scored a touchdown agreed to let the other one score a TD as well. It will
then be all tied games and everyone lifts the trophy.

I like your suggestions to the plot. I propose another change - I am sure
feste would want to be the defense attorney - a la Perry Mason and try to
protect Share - the damsel in distress.

P.S. FYI - Divine Vodka is my patented drink and Reality will never find me
immobile with any belief - I am always ever vulnerable so I can fluidly,
gracefully adapt to the ever shifting reality.


On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 6:31 PM, laughinggull108 wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> Ravi, I know you're having alot of fun with this because I've felt the
> same way when I think I'm on a roll. Then, reality comes crashing in and I
> suddenly realize what a fool I've made of myself. I can only take that
> Divine Vodka in small sips or not at all.
>
> Revealing how you view this as a trial with Share as the defendent rather
> than the plaintiff. Anyway, my thoughts for what they're worth: too much
> attention has been given to this already and I'm beginning to think certain
> people thrive on that attention (similar to getting drunk on Divine Vodka),
> so why don't we have the judge (who would that be...Judge Judy?) at the
> very least find replacements for jurors 1-5 (get what I'm saying jurors
> 1-5?) or at best, dismiss the case entirely (get what I'm saying
> defendent?) so that FFL can get on with what life is left in it.
> Whadayasay, huh?
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula 
> wrote:
> >
> > *State of FFL vs Share Long*
> > *
> > *
> > *Dec 2nd, 2012*
> > *
> > *
> > *Exhibit D*
>
> >
> > The jurors dubbed the "3 Idiots" - feste, Buck, Steve continue to view
> this
> > as another example of the innocence, sincerity of the defendant Share
> Long.
> >
> > Juror#4 - Laughinggull insists on fair play much to the annoyance of
> > everyone.
> >
> > Juror#5 - Barry continues to be hostile and demeaning towards the
> defendant
> > and may soon be dismissed because of contempt of court.
> >
> > The other jurors dubbed the "wts seven" rightly see this as yet another
> > pattern of the defendant's deceptive damsel-in-distress plea of
> innocence.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. Do you think that any benefits can come from Judy Share and Emily
> > > continuing to communicate with each other?
> > > 2. If yes, what do you think are the benefits that can come of it?
> > > 3. What do you think would be a viable next step to move closer to
> those
> > > benefits with a minimum of what's not beneficial?
> > >
> > > I began to think of these questions while driving to the Dome this
> > > evening. I have not discussed them with anyone.
> > > I look forward to any answers especially to numbers 2 and 3.
> > > In some ways I don't think the answer to number 1 matters.
> > >
> > > My answers:
> > > 2. I hope that more peace and enjoyment for those on FFL would come of
> it.
> > > 3. This post IS my viable next step!
> > > 1. I'm not sure. But I'm open to the possibility of yes.
> > >
> > > I'm hoping for some fun answers too (-:
> > > Thank you everyone for your time and thoughts and caring.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>  
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Xeno

[seventhray1]

This also strikes me as quite odd.  To feel that I would need to
indicate, by name, those people who are apparantly in agreement with a
position I might have.  As Xeno, said, as though this "makes the case"
for my position?

All it indicates, is that someone is so invested in a position, that
they must try to indicate public support for that position.

It ignores the fact that there is probably an equal or greater number of
people who feel differently, but just aren't obsessed with trying to
assert the "rightness" of their opinon.

But, in this case, Judy feels that it bolsters her position and thereby
allows her to claim yet another internet forum victory.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
wrote:

> And how about Ann, raunchy, Emily, Alex, and Ravi? That's
> seven people who are apparently too different from you for
> you and them to understand each other--about half of the
> regulars who have had exchanges with you or have defended
> you. And that half haven't had any arguments with you to
> begin with, so there's no way to tell whether they would
> be able to understand you if they did.


snip

> Note again that it isn't just Share and me whose "views"
> diverge and whose "thinking styles are simply not compatible."
> It's Share versus Robin and Ann and raunchy and Emily and
> Alex and Ravi and me. Fatuous nonsense, Xeno.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] More Opera

[Emily Reyn]

*FIGARO*, *FIGARO*, *FIGARO*THANK YOU EMPTYFULL.  I am now preparing to 
sing Robin's reply posts back to myself.  Susan, just fyi, my mental health 
will be fine and with regard to Share, I am back resting on the blue velvet 
chaise lounge.  Share, don't let anyone here affect your mental health.  It's 
not worth it.  Hang in there, afterall, it's the holiday season.  Lots to be 
thankful for.  



 From: emptybill 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 12:28 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] More Opera
 

  
Emily, 
Here's the famous aria Largo al factotumfrom Rossini's The Barber of Seville 
(Il Barbiere desiviglia). You'll understand why you'llnever see this on 
American Idol or Britain's Got talent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKDXr_fimQ8&feature=related
Enjoy


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Capitalism and Enlightenment?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=intellectual%20masterbation
> 
> Another way of saying that Voltaire, IMO, was bullshitting.
> And it's not that famous intellectuals didn't do it, but the
> uneducated take their words as gospel truth.

Are these people more or less educated than those who don't
know how to spell "masturbation"?

[FairfieldLife] Re: 3 ques to Judy Emily & anyone else interested

[Susan]

Share, I think you should drop this topic and move on.  Just my opinion, and of 
course if it means a great deal to you, fine.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> 1.  Do you think that any benefits can come from Judy Share and Emily 
> continuing to communicate with each other?
> 2.  If yes, what do you think are the benefits that can come of it?
> 3.  What do you think would be a viable next step to move closer to those 
> benefits with a minimum of what's not beneficial?
> 
> I began to think of these questions while driving to the Dome this evening.  
> I have not discussed them with anyone.
> I look forward to any answers especially to numbers 2 and 3.  
> 
> In some ways I don't think the answer to number 1 matters.
> 
> My answers:
> 2.  I hope that more peace and enjoyment for those on FFL would come of it.
> 3.  This post IS my viable next step!
> 1.  I'm not sure.  But I'm open to the possibility of yes.
> 
> 
> I'm hoping for some fun answers too (-:
> Thank you everyone for your time and thoughts and caring.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 3 ques to Judy Emily & anyone else interested

[Emily Reyn]

Oh dear, I mean, "raunchy, I still can't figure out whether I love you or Ann 
more."  What a way to diss you both.   



 From: Emily Reyn 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 3 ques to Judy Emily & anyone else interested
 

  
This is far too complicated Laughingatyou.  Ravi, very very funny - "wts seven" 
- ah ha ha ha.  I am sorry I am forced to withdraw from the case as I have a 
conflict of interest.  Thank you all for putting up with me.  I promise to 
start taking my holiday depressive antidote tomorrow.  I have no antibodies 
built up to handle the pghlem I am sneezing out.  Barry, it's all about ME - 
have you noticed that yet?  Oh yeah, you have.  raunchy, I still can figure out 
whether I love or Ann more. Maybe Judy can search the archives and establish 
the facts on that.  I am teasing her because I love her the most - except for 
Ravi.  And, I'm developing a real crush on Alex.  Now, Robin has posted, in his 
brilliance, something that will be sure to shut me up for a good long while.  
Tee Hee. 





 From: laughinggull108 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 6:31 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 3 ques to Judy Emily & anyone else interested
 

  


Ravi, I know you're having alot of fun with this because I've felt the same way 
when I think I'm on a roll. Then, reality comes crashing in and I suddenly 
realize what a fool I've made of myself. I can only take that Divine Vodka in 
small sips or not at all.

Revealing how you view this as a trial with Share as the defendent rather than 
the plaintiff. Anyway, my thoughts for what they're worth: too much attention 
has been given to this already and I'm beginning to think certain people thrive 
on that attention (similar to getting drunk on Divine Vodka), so why don't we 
have the judge (who would that be...Judge Judy?) at the very least find 
replacements for jurors 1-5 (get what I'm saying jurors 1-5?) or at best, 
dismiss the case entirely (get what I'm saying defendent?) so that FFL can get 
on with what life is left in it. Whadayasay, huh?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> *State of FFL vs Share Long*
> *
> *
> *Dec 2nd, 2012*
> *
> *
> *Exhibit D*
> 
> The jurors dubbed the "3 Idiots" - feste, Buck, Steve continue to view this
> as another example of the innocence, sincerity of the defendant Share Long.
> 
> Juror#4 - Laughinggull insists on fair play much to the annoyance of
> everyone.
> 
> Juror#5 - Barry continues to be hostile and demeaning towards the defendant
> and may soon be dismissed because of contempt of court.
> 
> The other jurors dubbed the "wts seven" rightly see this as yet another
> pattern of the defendant's deceptive damsel-in-distress plea of innocence.
> 
> 
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Share Long  wrote:
> 
> > **
> >
> >
> > 1.  Do you think that any benefits can come from Judy Share and Emily
> > continuing to communicate with each other?
> > 2.  If yes, what do you think are the benefits that can come of it?
> > 3.  What do you think would be a viable next step to move closer to those
> > benefits with a minimum of what's not beneficial?
> >
> > I began to think of these questions while driving to the Dome this
> > evening.  I have not discussed them with anyone.
> > I look forward to any answers especially to numbers 2 and 3.
> > In some ways I don't think the answer to number 1 matters.
> >
> > My answers:
> > 2.  I hope that more peace and enjoyment for those on FFL would come of it.
> > 3.  This post IS my viable next step!
> > 1.  I'm not sure.  But I'm open to the possibility of yes.
> >
> > I'm hoping for some fun answers too (-:
> > Thank you everyone for your time and thoughts and caring.
> >
> > 
> >
>




 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 3 ques to Judy Emily & anyone else interested

[Emily Reyn]

This is far too complicated Laughingatyou.  Ravi, very very funny - "wts seven" 
- ah ha ha ha.  I am sorry I am forced to withdraw from the case as I have a 
conflict of interest.  Thank you all for putting up with me.  I promise to 
start taking my holiday depressive antidote tomorrow.  I have no antibodies 
built up to handle the pghlem I am sneezing out.  Barry, it's all about ME - 
have you noticed that yet?  Oh yeah, you have.  raunchy, I still can figure out 
whether I love or Ann more. Maybe Judy can search the archives and establish 
the facts on that.  I am teasing her because I love her the most - except for 
Ravi.  And, I'm developing a real crush on Alex.  Now, Robin has posted, in his 
brilliance, something that will be sure to shut me up for a good long while.  
Tee Hee. 





 From: laughinggull108 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 6:31 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 3 ques to Judy Emily & anyone else interested
 

  


Ravi, I know you're having alot of fun with this because I've felt the same way 
when I think I'm on a roll. Then, reality comes crashing in and I suddenly 
realize what a fool I've made of myself. I can only take that Divine Vodka in 
small sips or not at all.

Revealing how you view this as a trial with Share as the defendent rather than 
the plaintiff. Anyway, my thoughts for what they're worth: too much attention 
has been given to this already and I'm beginning to think certain people thrive 
on that attention (similar to getting drunk on Divine Vodka), so why don't we 
have the judge (who would that be...Judge Judy?) at the very least find 
replacements for jurors 1-5 (get what I'm saying jurors 1-5?) or at best, 
dismiss the case entirely (get what I'm saying defendent?) so that FFL can get 
on with what life is left in it. Whadayasay, huh?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> *State of FFL vs Share Long*
> *
> *
> *Dec 2nd, 2012*
> *
> *
> *Exhibit D*
> 
> The jurors dubbed the "3 Idiots" - feste, Buck, Steve continue to view this
> as another example of the innocence, sincerity of the defendant Share Long.
> 
> Juror#4 - Laughinggull insists on fair play much to the annoyance of
> everyone.
> 
> Juror#5 - Barry continues to be hostile and demeaning towards the defendant
> and may soon be dismissed because of contempt of court.
> 
> The other jurors dubbed the "wts seven" rightly see this as yet another
> pattern of the defendant's deceptive damsel-in-distress plea of innocence.
> 
> 
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Share Long  wrote:
> 
> > **
> >
> >
> > 1.  Do you think that any benefits can come from Judy Share and Emily
> > continuing to communicate with each other?
> > 2.  If yes, what do you think are the benefits that can come of it?
> > 3.  What do you think would be a viable next step to move closer to those
> > benefits with a minimum of what's not beneficial?
> >
> > I began to think of these questions while driving to the Dome this
> > evening.  I have not discussed them with anyone.
> > I look forward to any answers especially to numbers 2 and 3.
> > In some ways I don't think the answer to number 1 matters.
> >
> > My answers:
> > 2.  I hope that more peace and enjoyment for those on FFL would come of it.
> > 3.  This post IS my viable next step!
> > 1.  I'm not sure.  But I'm open to the possibility of yes.
> >
> > I'm hoping for some fun answers too (-:
> > Thank you everyone for your time and thoughts and caring.
> >
> > 
> >
>


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 3 ques to Judy Emily & anyone else interested

[laughinggull108]

Ravi, I know you're having alot of fun with this because I've felt the same way 
when I think I'm on a roll. Then, reality comes crashing in and I suddenly 
realize what a fool I've made of myself. I can only take that Divine Vodka in 
small sips or not at all.

Revealing how you view this as a trial with Share as the defendent rather than 
the plaintiff. Anyway, my thoughts for what they're worth: too much attention 
has been given to this already and I'm beginning to think certain people thrive 
on that attention (similar to getting drunk on Divine Vodka), so why don't we 
have the judge (who would that be...Judge Judy?) at the very least find 
replacements for jurors 1-5 (get what I'm saying jurors 1-5?) or at best, 
dismiss the case entirely (get what I'm saying defendent?) so that FFL can get 
on with what life is left in it. Whadayasay, huh?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> *State of FFL vs Share Long*
> *
> *
> *Dec 2nd, 2012*
> *
> *
> *Exhibit D*
> 
> The jurors dubbed the "3 Idiots" - feste, Buck, Steve continue to view this
> as another example of the innocence, sincerity of the defendant Share Long.
> 
> Juror#4 - Laughinggull insists on fair play much to the annoyance of
> everyone.
> 
> Juror#5 - Barry continues to be hostile and demeaning towards the defendant
> and may soon be dismissed because of contempt of court.
> 
> The other jurors dubbed the "wts seven" rightly see this as yet another
> pattern of the defendant's deceptive damsel-in-distress plea of innocence.
> 
> 
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Share Long  wrote:
> 
> > **
> >
> >
> > 1.  Do you think that any benefits can come from Judy Share and Emily
> > continuing to communicate with each other?
> > 2.  If yes, what do you think are the benefits that can come of it?
> > 3.  What do you think would be a viable next step to move closer to those
> > benefits with a minimum of what's not beneficial?
> >
> > I began to think of these questions while driving to the Dome this
> > evening.  I have not discussed them with anyone.
> > I look forward to any answers especially to numbers 2 and 3.
> > In some ways I don't think the answer to number 1 matters.
> >
> > My answers:
> > 2.  I hope that more peace and enjoyment for those on FFL would come of it.
> > 3.  This post IS my viable next step!
> > 1.  I'm not sure.  But I'm open to the possibility of yes.
> >
> > I'm hoping for some fun answers too (-:
> > Thank you everyone for your time and thoughts and caring.
> >
> >  
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Barry PS

[Emily Reyn]

Agreed.  I was on the line, or perhaps well over it, of acting like an armchair 
psychologist - she made it too easy for me.  Ha - see the jibe at the end 
there.  Make me stop; please God, make me stop.  I'm about to be accused of 
stalking and will have to throw myself into an isolation tank.  Guess I'll go 
read what Robin has to say about existential sincerity.  Forgive, me and after 
all, it's the holiday season.  



 From: feste37 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 5:26 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Barry PS
 

  
I'm sorry I wrote so harshly about what you had written. I think you were 
sincerely expressing your feelings. But I do think it's risky to draw a lot of 
conclusions about what a person is really like based only on their posts to 
this forum. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> Wrong Feste - I have never claimed maturity as my strong point.  If I had it 
> together, I'd be making a bunch of money right now and saving quantities for 
> retirement, I assure you.  Not putting myself at future financial risk, 
> praying for my brain and being to get it togetherI bet Share isn't doing 
> that.  She is smarter than me in terms of knowing how to take care of her 
> material needs.  
> 
> I am not blaming - I am offering up my conclusions and observations and 
> understanding after 6 months of watching her posts cross the forum and 
> attempting to have many conversations with her.  I don't care how she feels 
> about what I wrote - I never said she was supposed to feel "grateful" (She 
> has no basis on which to understand such a statement from me, of all people. 
>  I have no credibility with her at all, in fact, she has established that 
> opinion many many times)  
> 
> I do have compassion for her, not pity, compassion - to the extent that I 
> have an understanding of what that means - she can take that or leave it.   
>  
> 
> My guess is...she'll take what you said and adopt it into her construct that 
> I am "after her" and never "hear" what I am trying to say.  It's too scary. 
>  Better to stay in denial, don't you think?  
> 
> 
> From: feste37 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 1:36 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Barry PS
> 
> 
>   
> Actually, it's just a variation of the "I'm very mature; you are so fucked 
> up," argument that masquerades as compassion. It points the finger of blame 
> at the ingrate, who is then supposed to feel grateful for the "compassion" 
> shown to her. 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
> >
> > I just have one word for this dear Emily...W..O..W 
> > 
> > To add more - how compassionate, how loving, how mature, how intelligent, a
> > brilliant analysis of Share and many others like her in similar situations.
> > Shame on the likes of Steve, Xeno, laughinggull, feste, Buck - hope they
> > can learn something from here.
> > 
> > On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:45 AM, emilymae.reyn wrote:
> > 
> > > Dear Sharester, I'm having trouble letting go. But, I promise I will after
> > > this post. *Really.* I will demonstrate the letting go action to you - 
> > > it's
> > > good practice for me. Before I go for now, I will say that I hope you 
> > > print
> > > out and show the last two posts re: wts that you wrote and I responded to,
> > > that you never got back to me on, to your pastoral counselor. If she tells
> > > you that "yes, you are right, you have maintained your integrity through
> > > the whole conversation and these people challenging you are just bullies
> > > and mean and unfairly abusive," you will know for sure that you are paying
> > > her for nothing.
> > >
> > > First of all, you didn't even give me the time of day to respond, and I
> > > put a lot of energy and effort into those posts to you - recognizing you 
> > > as
> > > a human being.
> > >
> > > Second, you might think about, in the privacy of your own prayer routine,
> > > thanking Ann, raunchy, Judy, Ravi, Robin, Ravi and I for processing all of
> > > your negative emotions over the last 6 months for you. For my part, I did
> > > this out of love and concern for you Share (yes, that irritating universal
> > > love of you as another human being.)
> > >
> > > This tactic of yours - launching passive attacks and then running away and
> > > asking those you launched spears at to do your dirty work is a good one,
> > > isn't it? Then, you feel better and can skip off to the Dome, presenting
> > > nothing to those you meet on the yellow brick road, but generosity,
> > > openness, and love. I bet you act as a source of knowledge to others',
> > > don't you.
> > >
> > > I bet you include a lot of information to them on food and supplements
> > > they should be taking. You outed yourself by mistake when you said you had
> > > had food issues all your life. Are you aware of what that means 

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Barry PS

[raunchydog]

Brilliant post, Emily, and absolutely *compassionate.* It's certainly not from 
lack of trying that Share doesn't value the insights you've attempted to give 
her concerning the dynamics of how and why she's gotten herself into such a 
pickle with so many people on FFLife. It's sad to watch.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emilymae.reyn"  wrote:
>
> Dear Sharester, I'm having trouble letting go.  But, I promise I will after 
> this post.  *Really.*  I will demonstrate the letting go action to you - it's 
> good practice for me.  Before I go for now, I will say that I hope you print 
> out and show the last two posts re: wts that you wrote and I responded to, 
> that you never got back to me on, to your pastoral counselor.  If she tells 
> you that "yes, you are right, you have maintained your integrity through the 
> whole conversation and these people challenging you are just bullies and mean 
> and unfairly abusive," you will know for sure that you are paying her for 
> nothing.  
> 
> First of all, you didn't even give me the time of day to respond, and I put a 
> lot of energy and effort into those posts to you - recognizing you as a human 
> being.
> 
> Second, you might think about, in the privacy of your own prayer routine, 
> thanking Ann, raunchy, Judy, Ravi, Robin, Ravi and I for processing all of 
> your negative emotions over the last 6 months for you.  For my part, I did 
> this out of love and concern for you Share (yes, that irritating universal 
> love of you as another human being.)  
> 
> This tactic of yours - launching passive attacks and then running away and 
> asking those you launched spears at to do your dirty work is a good one, 
> isn't it?  Then, you feel better and can skip off to the Dome, presenting 
> nothing to those you meet on the yellow brick road, but generosity, openness, 
> and love.  I bet you act as a source of knowledge to others', don't you.  
> 
> I bet you include a lot of information to them on food and supplements they 
> should be taking.  You outed yourself by mistake when you said you had had 
> food issues all your life.  Are you aware of what that means and how having 
> issues with this most basic function in life (eating) can through time fully 
> affect the construct of your thought process, and forever-more create a need 
> to subconsciously protect yourself so you never have to deal with it and the 
> self-preservation issues that come with it? I am sorry you've had to deal 
> with this. It's a survival issue, I know.  I don't have it, but in the past, 
> I have been intimately involved with someone who has.  Comes with endless 
> denial, I'm aware. 
> 
> The years of dedication to healing; the living in a healing community; the 
> collection of people and healers and philosophies support the construct of 
> denial you have built.  You never have to get truly real Share or speak for 
> yourself - you have learned the healing language and just have to invoke 
> experts on your behalf over and over again.  You can hide forever and act 
> like an innocent victim, whenever anyone asks to be validated for their own 
> individual thought process that disagrees with yours - because you are right, 
> because you have done nothing to apologize or make amends for, because there 
> is something wrong with them and they need to experience "complete healing."  
> 
> I am sorry that you have had to go the this kind of extreme in your life to 
> self-preserve.  It is a testament of our instinct, as humans, to survive.  I 
> am sorry that, in all cases, you twist reality to fit your own worldview and 
> summarily dismiss and attack anyone and everything that won't conform to your 
> way of thinking. Too threatening isn't it.  You are missing out on so much 
> Share, but it's beyond me at this point to try and convince you of this.  I  
> do believe you are fully entrenched in your vision of yourself and your own 
> rock solid storyline - and you have built an enormous safety net of people 
> who see only what you show them - the bliss bubble of the positive 
> characteristics you want to be known for.  It's sad to watch.
> 
> You placing me in a cult, because you were too afraid to be honest and real, 
> is predictable; as was your refusal to address it.  Easier to just forever 
> claim you were "right" and relentlessly impose your reality on FFL with no 
> interest in supporting or discussing it.  Another example is continuing to 
> invoke the term "wishing complete healing" on people and FFL at large without 
> ever clearly examining what that means - how dare anyone challenge you on 
> this meaningless term. Right?  Also, on ousting Judy, Ann, and raunchy from 
> your readers' list and I'm guessing me, after this post, if you have the guts 
> to read it. So many other examples Share of your refusing to actually 
> interact with anyone who has tried, unless you are sure you can control the 
> outcome.  
> 
> But, you keep reading Barry, although he was a b

Re: [FairfieldLife] 3 ques to Judy Emily & anyone else interested

[Emily Reyn]

Share, 

1) we aren't communicating with each other...we're communicating at each other. 
 If you want to respond to any post of mine, please do.  I will continue to 
respond to posts of yours that I choose to.  I am letting go of wanting you to 
discuss why you think I am part of a fantasy construct of yours entitled wts.  
I'm leaving the door open for you.  

2) the same benefits one receives from choosing to read any post here on FFL - 
or,  if you prefer, "I hope that more peace and enjoyment for those on FFL 
would come of it."

3) This post IS my viable next step!





 From: Share Long 
To: "fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 4:39 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] 3 ques to Judy Emily & anyone else interested
 

  
1.  Do you think that any benefits can come from Judy Share and Emily 
continuing to communicate with each other?
2.  If yes, what do you think are the benefits that can come of it?
3.  What do you think would be a viable next step to move closer to those 
benefits with a minimum of what's not beneficial?

I began to think of these questions while driving to the Dome this evening.  I 
have not discussed them with anyone.
I look forward to any answers especially to numbers 2 and 3.  

In some ways I don't think the answer to number 1 matters.

My answers:
2.  I hope that more peace and enjoyment for those on FFL would come of it.
3.  This post IS my viable next step!
1.  I'm not sure.  But I'm open to the possibility of yes.


I'm hoping for some fun answers too (-:
Thank you everyone for your time and thoughts and caring.

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] 3 ques to Judy Emily & anyone else interested

[Ravi Chivukula]

*State of FFL vs Share Long*
*
*
*Dec 2nd, 2012*
*
*
*Exhibit D*

The jurors dubbed the "3 Idiots" - feste, Buck, Steve continue to view this
as another example of the innocence, sincerity of the defendant Share Long.

Juror#4 - Laughinggull insists on fair play much to the annoyance of
everyone.

Juror#5 - Barry continues to be hostile and demeaning towards the defendant
and may soon be dismissed because of contempt of court.

The other jurors dubbed the "wts seven" rightly see this as yet another
pattern of the defendant's deceptive damsel-in-distress plea of innocence.


On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Share Long  wrote:

> **
>
>
> 1.  Do you think that any benefits can come from Judy Share and Emily
> continuing to communicate with each other?
> 2.  If yes, what do you think are the benefits that can come of it?
> 3.  What do you think would be a viable next step to move closer to those
> benefits with a minimum of what's not beneficial?
>
> I began to think of these questions while driving to the Dome this
> evening.  I have not discussed them with anyone.
> I look forward to any answers especially to numbers 2 and 3.
> In some ways I don't think the answer to number 1 matters.
>
> My answers:
> 2.  I hope that more peace and enjoyment for those on FFL would come of it.
> 3.  This post IS my viable next step!
> 1.  I'm not sure.  But I'm open to the possibility of yes.
>
> I'm hoping for some fun answers too (-:
> Thank you everyone for your time and thoughts and caring.
>
>  
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] 3 ques to Judy Emily & anyone else interested

[Ravi Chivukula]

*Exhibit D*

The jurors dubbed the "3 Idiots" - feste, Buck, Steve continue to view this
as another example of the innocence, sincerity of the defendant Share Long.

Juror#4 - Laughinggull insists on fair play much to the annoyance of
everyone.

Juror#5 - Barry continues to be hostile and demeaning towards the defendant
and may soon be dismissed because of contempt of court.

The other jurors dubbed the "wts seven" rightly see this as yet another
pattern of the defendant's deceptive damsel-in-distress plea of innocence.

On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Share Long  wrote:

> **
>
>
> 1.  Do you think that any benefits can come from Judy Share and Emily
> continuing to communicate with each other?
> 2.  If yes, what do you think are the benefits that can come of it?
> 3.  What do you think would be a viable next step to move closer to those
> benefits with a minimum of what's not beneficial?
>
> I began to think of these questions while driving to the Dome this
> evening.  I have not discussed them with anyone.
> I look forward to any answers especially to numbers 2 and 3.
> In some ways I don't think the answer to number 1 matters.
>
> My answers:
> 2.  I hope that more peace and enjoyment for those on FFL would come of it.
> 3.  This post IS my viable next step!
> 1.  I'm not sure.  But I'm open to the possibility of yes.
>
> I'm hoping for some fun answers too (-:
> Thank you everyone for your time and thoughts and caring.
>
>  
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: A physical basis of the ritum level -- fourth state of water

[mainstream20016]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> Think Chapter 8 SBAL -- when consciousness becomes conscious


>From Lesson #8 of the 33 video lesson Science of Creative Intelligence course 
>by MMY:
  "When existence becomes conscious, Intelligence becomes Intelligent".

Or something ;)

> 
> Which other forum?  BATGP?  
> 
> The research seems very professional.  To me this describes how there could 
> be a "purity" in human wetware that could be "contacted" by consciousness.  
> 
> Liquid crystal -- fourth state of water.  Amazing.
> 
> Edg
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Edg, I watched the first 12 minutes of it but couldn't get past the 
> > microspheres.  So I bunged it to my ex who LOVED it so much that he will 
> > be putting it on his high tech blog.  Well he said it was very cool.  
> > When I said he LOVED it that was me being a girl.  Anyway, he didn't think 
> > it was about ritam or the unified field.  He's still on that other forum 
> > you used to frequent in case you want to discuss further.    
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: Duveyoung 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 9:27 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A physical basis of the ritum level -- fourth 
> > state of water
> >  
> > 
> >   
> > Come on -- isn't anyone interested in the discovery of the primal source of 
> > ORDER in creation?
> > 
> > And this is actual science -- not Keith Wallace dinky stuff.  Heavy duty 
> > laboratory precision. 
> > 
> > Edg
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey, anyone even look at this yet?  This is NOT METAPHORICthis is 
> > > about the finest relative -- it's EXPLAINED.
> > > 
> > > BY A GOSH DURNED JIM DANDY ACTUAL REAL RESPECTED SCIENTIST.
> > > 
> > > It's long, but do even ten minutes and you're going to watch the whole 
> > > thing.
> > > 
> > > This is about the Unified Field.
> > > 
> > > This is about the actual mechanics of how light makes water orderly and 
> > > begins LIFE. 
> > > 
> > > This is about free energy.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Edg
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XVBEwn6iWOo
> > > > 
> > > > Maybe Being is OBVIOUS.
> > > > 
> > > > Maybe it's VISIBLE to the naked eye.
> > > > 
> > > > Spill a bit of water, and you've made A BATTERY.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm excited!
> > > > 
> > > > Edg
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Barry PS

[Emily Reyn]

  I hear what you're saying Emily and you are correct. You know how, 
after you post something, you feel it's not quite right but can't quite put 
your finger on
it? A poor attempt at humor on my part. Perhaps the same could apply to the use 
of the word "retarded"?

Laughingfreely - I totally know what you are saying - I feel that way about 
every post I post.  Now what is your question?  Is this the part of the post 
referenced below you are referring to?  Are you asking me about the word 
"retarded?"  Huh?  Are you calling me retarded?  

That's Ravi's word, not mine - he has a certain context for its use and I 
hadn't heard it in a long time before he used it here.  I've never used it in 
my life.  But, I have an autistic cousin, who was referred to as retarded his 
whole life.  I didn't know he was autistic until he was an adult.  He has a way 
better sense of direction than I do, that much I can tell you.  I have a 
"retarded" sense of direction, or as I like to say "I'm directionally 
challenged."  That's all I know about the word - it's a misnomer in mostly all 
cases of typical historical use.  

You are out-thinking me FullyLaughing.  I'm not as enlightened as you.  Look 
what a sober moniker I have compared to yours, for example.  





 From: laughinggull108 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 2:19 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Barry PS
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> I just have one word for this dear Emily...W..O..W 
> 
> To add more - how compassionate, how loving, how mature, how intelligent, a
> brilliant analysis of Share and many others like her in similar situations.
> Shame on the likes of Steve, Xeno, laughinggull, feste, Buck - hope they
> can learn something from here.

Ravi, I'm very ashamed, but not for the reasons you might suspect, and yes, I 
did indeed learn "something" from here (more was revealed than you might 
realize). And I'm hopeful that one day you might do the same.

Emily, I know you've had a very busy day, but any response to my last question 
at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327975. Thanks!

> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:45 AM, emilymae.reyn wrote:
> 




 

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Barry PS

[feste37]

I'm sorry I wrote so harshly about what you had written. I think you were 
sincerely expressing your feelings. But I do think it's risky to draw a lot of 
conclusions about what a person is really like based only on their posts to 
this forum. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> Wrong Feste - I have never claimed maturity as my strong point.  If I had it 
> together, I'd be making a bunch of money right now and saving quantities for 
> retirement, I assure you.  Not putting myself at future financial risk, 
> praying for my brain and being to get it togetherI bet Share isn't doing 
> that.  She is smarter than me in terms of knowing how to take care of her 
> material needs.  
> 
> I am not blaming - I am offering up my conclusions and observations and 
> understanding after 6 months of watching her posts cross the forum and 
> attempting to have many conversations with her.  I don't care how she feels 
> about what I wrote - I never said she was supposed to feel "grateful" (She 
> has no basis on which to understand such a statement from me, of all people. 
>  I have no credibility with her at all, in fact, she has established that 
> opinion many many times)  
> 
> I do have compassion for her, not pity, compassion - to the extent that I 
> have an understanding of what that means - she can take that or leave it.   
>  
> 
> My guess is...she'll take what you said and adopt it into her construct that 
> I am "after her" and never "hear" what I am trying to say.  It's too scary. 
>  Better to stay in denial, don't you think?  
> 
> 
> From: feste37 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 1:36 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Barry PS
>  
> 
>   
> Actually, it's just a variation of the "I'm very mature; you are so fucked 
> up," argument that masquerades as compassion. It points the finger of blame 
> at the ingrate, who is then supposed to feel grateful for the "compassion" 
> shown to her. 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
> >
> > I just have one word for this dear Emily...W..O..W 
> > 
> > To add more - how compassionate, how loving, how mature, how intelligent, a
> > brilliant analysis of Share and many others like her in similar situations.
> > Shame on the likes of Steve, Xeno, laughinggull, feste, Buck - hope they
> > can learn something from here.
> > 
> > On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:45 AM, emilymae.reyn wrote:
> > 
> > > Dear Sharester, I'm having trouble letting go. But, I promise I will after
> > > this post. *Really.* I will demonstrate the letting go action to you - 
> > > it's
> > > good practice for me. Before I go for now, I will say that I hope you 
> > > print
> > > out and show the last two posts re: wts that you wrote and I responded to,
> > > that you never got back to me on, to your pastoral counselor. If she tells
> > > you that "yes, you are right, you have maintained your integrity through
> > > the whole conversation and these people challenging you are just bullies
> > > and mean and unfairly abusive," you will know for sure that you are paying
> > > her for nothing.
> > >
> > > First of all, you didn't even give me the time of day to respond, and I
> > > put a lot of energy and effort into those posts to you - recognizing you 
> > > as
> > > a human being.
> > >
> > > Second, you might think about, in the privacy of your own prayer routine,
> > > thanking Ann, raunchy, Judy, Ravi, Robin, Ravi and I for processing all of
> > > your negative emotions over the last 6 months for you. For my part, I did
> > > this out of love and concern for you Share (yes, that irritating universal
> > > love of you as another human being.)
> > >
> > > This tactic of yours - launching passive attacks and then running away and
> > > asking those you launched spears at to do your dirty work is a good one,
> > > isn't it? Then, you feel better and can skip off to the Dome, presenting
> > > nothing to those you meet on the yellow brick road, but generosity,
> > > openness, and love. I bet you act as a source of knowledge to others',
> > > don't you.
> > >
> > > I bet you include a lot of information to them on food and supplements
> > > they should be taking. You outed yourself by mistake when you said you had
> > > had food issues all your life. Are you aware of what that means and how
> > > having issues with this most basic function in life (eating) can through
> > > time fully affect the construct of your thought process, and forever-more
> > > create a need to subconsciously protect yourself so you never have to deal
> > > with it and the self-preservation issues that come with it? I am sorry
> > > you've had to deal with this. It's a survival issue, I know. I don't have
> > > it, but in the past, I have been intimately involved with someone who has.
> > > Comes with endless denial, I'm aware.
> > >
> > > The years of dedication to healing; the living in a healing c

[FairfieldLife] Re: Meister Eckhart

[Buck]

Yup and there were mystics before and after this guy and in a line of them 
Fairfield is quite full of them now too.  It's not like he suddenly popped on 
the scene.  There is an interesting accounting of this European lineage of 
mysticism written in a history on the Amana Society in the first chapter titled 
mysticism.  Craig Pearson might find that chapter interesting as it categorizes 
kinds of spiritual practice of which TM would fall in to one.   

http://books.google.com/books?id=Y6naMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Shambaugh+Annals+Amana+Society&source=gbs_book_similarbooks#v=onepage&q&f=false



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merlin  wrote:
>
> Meister Eckhart
> 
> 1260 â€"  1327 • GERMANY
> 
> 
> Meister Eckhart was considered the most knowledgeable scholar of his 
> time and was one of the most popular and beloved preachers â€" people 
> flocked to hear his bold, fresh sermons. 
> 
> As the Dominican provincial superior for Saxony, he administered a 
> territory stretching from Holland across northern Germany through 
> Bohemia (the western part of the current Czech Republic), through which 
> he constantly traveled â€" and travel at that time was on foot, alone. ...
> 
> 
> PLS READ MORE ABOUT THIS AMAZING MAN >>>
> 
> 
> http://www.tm.org/blog/people/meister-eckhart/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=meister-eckhart
> 
> ***
>

[FairfieldLife] Robots for Mars Colonization

[John]

These robots can colonize Mars and perform work to terraform the planet.  When 
Mars is habitable, humans can be sent centuries later.

Sending humans there at this time would be too dangerous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_m56irWKeI

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Barry PS

[Emily Reyn]

Wrong Feste - I have never claimed maturity as my strong point.  If I had it 
together, I'd be making a bunch of money right now and saving quantities for 
retirement, I assure you.  Not putting myself at future financial risk, praying 
for my brain and being to get it togetherI bet Share isn't doing that.  She 
is smarter than me in terms of knowing how to take care of her material needs.  

I am not blaming - I am offering up my conclusions and observations and 
understanding after 6 months of watching her posts cross the forum and 
attempting to have many conversations with her.  I don't care how she feels 
about what I wrote - I never said she was supposed to feel "grateful" (She has 
no basis on which to understand such a statement from me, of all people.  I 
have no credibility with her at all, in fact, she has established that opinion 
many many times)  

I do have compassion for her, not pity, compassion - to the extent that I have 
an understanding of what that means - she can take that or leave it.    

My guess is...she'll take what you said and adopt it into her construct that I 
am "after her" and never "hear" what I am trying to say.  It's too scary.  
Better to stay in denial, don't you think?  


From: feste37 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 1:36 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Barry PS
 

  
Actually, it's just a variation of the "I'm very mature; you are so fucked up," 
argument that masquerades as compassion. It points the finger of blame at the 
ingrate, who is then supposed to feel grateful for the "compassion" shown to 
her. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> I just have one word for this dear Emily...W..O..W 
> 
> To add more - how compassionate, how loving, how mature, how intelligent, a
> brilliant analysis of Share and many others like her in similar situations.
> Shame on the likes of Steve, Xeno, laughinggull, feste, Buck - hope they
> can learn something from here.
> 
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:45 AM, emilymae.reyn wrote:
> 
> > Dear Sharester, I'm having trouble letting go. But, I promise I will after
> > this post. *Really.* I will demonstrate the letting go action to you - it's
> > good practice for me. Before I go for now, I will say that I hope you print
> > out and show the last two posts re: wts that you wrote and I responded to,
> > that you never got back to me on, to your pastoral counselor. If she tells
> > you that "yes, you are right, you have maintained your integrity through
> > the whole conversation and these people challenging you are just bullies
> > and mean and unfairly abusive," you will know for sure that you are paying
> > her for nothing.
> >
> > First of all, you didn't even give me the time of day to respond, and I
> > put a lot of energy and effort into those posts to you - recognizing you as
> > a human being.
> >
> > Second, you might think about, in the privacy of your own prayer routine,
> > thanking Ann, raunchy, Judy, Ravi, Robin, Ravi and I for processing all of
> > your negative emotions over the last 6 months for you. For my part, I did
> > this out of love and concern for you Share (yes, that irritating universal
> > love of you as another human being.)
> >
> > This tactic of yours - launching passive attacks and then running away and
> > asking those you launched spears at to do your dirty work is a good one,
> > isn't it? Then, you feel better and can skip off to the Dome, presenting
> > nothing to those you meet on the yellow brick road, but generosity,
> > openness, and love. I bet you act as a source of knowledge to others',
> > don't you.
> >
> > I bet you include a lot of information to them on food and supplements
> > they should be taking. You outed yourself by mistake when you said you had
> > had food issues all your life. Are you aware of what that means and how
> > having issues with this most basic function in life (eating) can through
> > time fully affect the construct of your thought process, and forever-more
> > create a need to subconsciously protect yourself so you never have to deal
> > with it and the self-preservation issues that come with it? I am sorry
> > you've had to deal with this. It's a survival issue, I know. I don't have
> > it, but in the past, I have been intimately involved with someone who has.
> > Comes with endless denial, I'm aware.
> >
> > The years of dedication to healing; the living in a healing community; the
> > collection of people and healers and philosophies support the construct of
> > denial you have built. You never have to get truly real Share or speak for
> > yourself - you have learned the healing language and just have to invoke
> > experts on your behalf over and over again. You can hide forever and act
> > like an innocent victim, whenever anyone asks to be validated for their own
> > individual thought process that disagrees with yours - because you are
> > right, because you have done

[FairfieldLife] Re: Wolf hunting

[Buck]

It's true.  Back early when the first transcending meditators came during the 
settlement period of Iowa, sheep and their wool was important to life then.  
Along with raising sheep on their pioneer homesteads in their meditating 
communities then came Wolf hunting by necessity.

"Sheep took an important place, as they had done so many times before, in 
educating men for higher duties.  As every family expected to keep sheep from 
whose fleeces the winter clothing was all made, and those tufted mittens were a 
joy to their possessor when he went fifteen or twenty miles to market or 
twenty-five to mill.

Hunting Wolves
The prairie wolves were so numerous that it became necessary to organize a band 
of wolf men for he protection of its sheep.  In the chase they became 
acquainted with the lay of the land for miles around, where the streams would 
be forded away from the traveled roads, etc., and with the horses that could 
finish the chase and not be lame the next day.  A small gray mare belonging to 
Nathan Kellum, second son of Samuel Kellum, proved to be one of these, and it 
entitled her to service later on when her master became conductor on the 
underground railroad as it was called.  One of the first things the Missourians 
(slave catchers) did was to go to the stables and hunt for lame or tired 
horses, believing they could tell whether they had been on duty during the 
night in this way."
 

http://www.icelandichorse.info/nathankellumsalemfugitiveslaveconductor.html

-Buck


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
>
> Nablussos,  our Wolves are every bit as big as your friend's wolves.  In fact 
> I bet our wolves could take yours.  Ours are wild, not kept caged dogs for 
> sport.  We got howling big well fed on deer meat 250 to 300 pound wolves in 
> the county up in the skunk river woods.  They'll sit out and sun themselves 
> at times.  You can watch them from a mile away and hear them otherwise as 
> wolves howling.  These are not coyote.  These are primeval wolves.  The 
> farmers up there all watch them with interest.  Try to get up close and they 
> never let you see them.  Transcendental in Nature.  You got to have effective 
> technique to see them or be lucky or with grace.  It's a good analogy don't 
> you think?
> -Buck in the Dome   
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Nablusoss, The earlier transcendental meditators to come to Iowa here 
> > > initially had to deal with wolves.  They settled in to small farm hamlets 
> > > in log cabins and built their log meditation halls through this part of 
> > > Iowa out in what was then unbroken prairie land.  Prairie wolves were a 
> > > reality then to deal with.
> > 
> > The prarie wolfs are smaller than those living in the woods and would 
> > probably be an easy match for my friend. One of his favotite sports are 
> > hunting other dogs until they surrender by laying on their backs, but never 
> > biting them. He's so huge that it sends Rotweilers and Pinchers running. 
> > Even huge purebred German shepherds sooner or later admit defeat in this 
> > way. 
> > 
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coursing
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] 3 ques to Judy Emily & anyone else interested

[Share Long]

1.  Do you think that any benefits can come from Judy Share and Emily 
continuing to communicate with each other?
2.  If yes, what do you think are the benefits that can come of it?
3.  What do you think would be a viable next step to move closer to those 
benefits with a minimum of what's not beneficial?

I began to think of these questions while driving to the Dome this evening.  I 
have not discussed them with anyone.
I look forward to any answers especially to numbers 2 and 3.  

In some ways I don't think the answer to number 1 matters.

My answers:
2.  I hope that more peace and enjoyment for those on FFL would come of it.
3.  This post IS my viable next step!
1.  I'm not sure.  But I'm open to the possibility of yes.


I'm hoping for some fun answers too (-:
Thank you everyone for your time and thoughts and caring.

[FairfieldLife] Re: India: Where Hitler is a hero and Gandhi is a coward and traitor

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> There is no war against the TM Movement - it is dying off on its own - Maha's 
> nephews pillaging the Indian assets of the TM Movement are proof enough of 
> that - plus the increasingly bizarre behavior and beliefs of the leaders - 
> "Duck boys, so you don't knock off those crowns!  This east facing window is 
> kinder low, but its the only safe way to git into that there house - we gotta 
> git to the meetin' to count up how much our cut of the yagya donations is 
> this month! I got me a gold Bently I gotta make the down payment on - le's 
> git to countin'!"


You need professional help.


> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: nablusoss1008 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 3:01 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: India: Where Hitler is a hero and Gandhi is a 
> coward and traitor
>  
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > That's a post from L.B. Shriver, back in the real
> > Old Days of FFL (2003), following up on a post from
> > Rick, relaying stories told to him by a Jewish TMer,
> > a former Purusha and International Staff member. 
> > Some of those stories -- for example German members
> > of Purusha wearing swastikas under their ties and
> > celebrating Hitler's birthday -- are gangbusters.
> > Real tabloid shit. 
> 
> That's true, and so what ? These fellows came from families that lost a huge 
> war. I would say your war against the TMO is also a long lost cause if that's 
> all you can come up with. 
> Now, take a walk with your laptop-dogs :-)
>

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat Dec 01 00:00:00 2012
End Date (UTC): Sat Dec 08 00:00:00 2012
287 messages as of (UTC) Sun Dec 02 23:42:21 2012

29 nablusoss1008 
27 emptybill 
21 authfriend 
20 Ravi Chivukula 
20 Emily Reyn 
17 seventhray1 
16 awoelflebater 
14 Bhairitu 
13 laughinggull108 
13 Share Long 
12 Michael Jackson 
10 turquoiseb 
10 raunchydog 
10 Buck 
10 Alex Stanley 
 8 Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
 7 John 
 6 "emilymae.reyn" 
 4 Duveyoung 
 3 mjackson74 
 3 card 
 3 Robin Carlsen 
 2 merlin 
 2 "Richard J. Williams" 
 1 sparaig 
 1 feste37 
 1 doctordumb...@rocketmail.com, UNEXPECTED_DATA_AFTER_ADDRESS@".SYNTAX-ERROR.
 1 Mike Dixon 
 1 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 1 Dick Mays 
 1 "martin.quickman" 

Posters: 31
Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
=
Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
Standard Time (Winter):
US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Capitalism and Enlightenment?

[Bhairitu]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=intellectual%20masterbation

Another way of saying that Voltaire, IMO, was bullshitting.  And it's 
not that famous intellectuals didn't do it, but the uneducated take 
their words as gospel truth.

On 12/02/2012 01:21 PM, emptybill wrote:
> Nice ... "intellectually masturbating" is the kind of comment
> exclaimed by those who can't think of anything else to say.
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>> Where did I reply to the quote of Voltaire's, empty?  Are you loosing
>> it?  Oh wait, you lost it a long time ago. :-D
>>
>> So okay I'll now reply and can see that Voltaire was intellectually
>> masturbating with that quote.  Only the ignorant take the words of
>> famous people as truth.
>>
>> On 12/02/2012 11:54 AM, emptybill wrote:
>>> When you live by neuro-template ideologies you offer
>>> just this kind of reply to a quote like Voltaire's.
>>>
>>> As the Guinness gents claim in the commercial ... "Brilliant!".
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote:
 On 12/02/2012 07:34 AM, card wrote:
> I certainly feel like being on thin ice with this,
> but IMO, capitalism / market economy and (saaMkhya-yogic, etc.)
>>> enlightenment are mutually incompatible... :o
 Right now capitalism is WAY out of whack.  We've got a tiny group
> of
 extremely rich people who think they own the world and can run it
> as
 they please.  It's like a small bunch of pirates have hijacked the
 world.  People won't stand up to them because they fear if they do
 everything will fall apart.  Probably better the world falls apart
>>> than
 to live under tyranny.

 This tiny group of pirates even have their fanboys as you can even
> see
 on FFL.  Those fanboys reinforce their ability to rape, pillage and
 plunder.  As for the enlightened I would say they have no
> interested
>>> in
 material gain so you are right capitalism and enlightenment are
 incompatible.

>>>
>
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hugh Hefner Gets Engaged Again

[John]

Share,

I don't have the birth data of the latest woman that Hefner is engaged to.  If 
you have the data, I can take a look at her chart.

JR



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Would LOVE to see those charts, that jyotish compatability (-:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: John 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2012 8:15 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Hugh Hefner Gets Engaged Again
>  
> 
>   
> He's either a fool or a commercial artist.  Come to think of it, he probably 
> asked her to sign a prenuptual agreement at first.  And she backed out.
> 
> http://www.inquisitr.com/421028/hugh-hefner-engaged-to-crystal-harris-again/
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Barry PS

[Ravi Chivukula]

Empty baby - Idiots like you lust for the raving ravishing riveting Ravi
Yogi - so what?

On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 3:02 PM, emptybill  wrote:

> **
>
>
> You just publicly masturbate to your fantasies.
> So what.
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
>  wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 2:19 PM, laughinggull108
> no_reply@yahoogroups.comwrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I just have one word for this dear Emily...W..O..W
> 
> > > >
> > > > To add more - how compassionate, how loving, how mature, how
> > > intelligent, a
> > > > brilliant analysis of Share and many others like her in similar
> > > situations.
> > > > Shame on the likes of Steve, Xeno, laughinggull, feste, Buck -
> hope they
> > > > can learn something from here.
> > >
> > > Ravi, I'm very ashamed, but not for the reasons you might suspect,
> and
> > > yes, I did indeed learn "something" from here (more was revealed
> than you
> > > might realize). And I'm hopeful that one day you might do the same.
> > >
> >
> > Oh wonderful laughinggull but please fucking spare the vague
> > generalizations you have directed against me, probably stemming from
> your
> > almost pathological need for fair-play I suppose. I have exhaustively,
> > extravagantly explored every nook and cranny of my shadow and never
> have
> > tried to project, fantasize on anything, anyone to make myself look
> better.
> > My struggles and journey are all pretty much public.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Emily, I know you've had a very busy day, but any response to my
> last
> > > question at:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327975. Thanks!
> > >
> > > > On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:45 AM, emilymae.reyn
> emilymae.reyn@wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>  
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Barry PS

[emptybill]

You just publicly masturbate to your fantasies.
So what.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
 wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 2:19 PM, laughinggull108
no_reply@yahoogroups.comwrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I just have one word for this dear Emily...W..O..W

> > >
> > > To add more - how compassionate, how loving, how mature, how
> > intelligent, a
> > > brilliant analysis of Share and many others like her in similar
> > situations.
> > > Shame on the likes of Steve, Xeno, laughinggull, feste, Buck -
hope they
> > > can learn something from here.
> >
> > Ravi, I'm very ashamed, but not for the reasons you might suspect,
and
> > yes, I did indeed learn "something" from here (more was revealed
than you
> > might realize). And I'm hopeful that one day you might do the same.
> >
>
> Oh wonderful laughinggull but please fucking spare the vague
> generalizations you have directed against me, probably stemming from
your
> almost pathological need for fair-play I suppose. I have exhaustively,
> extravagantly explored every nook and cranny of my shadow and never
have
> tried to project, fantasize on anything, anyone to make myself look
better.
> My struggles and journey are all pretty much public.
>
>
> >
> > Emily, I know you've had a very busy day, but any response to my
last
> > question at:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327975. Thanks!
> >
> > > On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:45 AM, emilymae.reyn
emilymae.reyn@wrote:
> > >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Barry PS

[Ravi Chivukula]

There's a great primal joy, masculine instincts involved in coming to the
aid of a damsel in distress - much harder to do the right thing. Nothing
surprising in your reaction. Share loves it too apparently based on her
reaction when I said I could take care of oxcart for her - she couldn't
detect the irony in my comments.

On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 1:36 PM, feste37  wrote:

> **
>
>
> Actually, it's just a variation of the "I'm very mature; you are so fucked
> up," argument that masquerades as compassion. It points the finger of blame
> at the ingrate, who is then supposed to feel grateful for the "compassion"
> shown to her.
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula 
> wrote:
> >
> > I just have one word for this dear Emily...W..O..W 
> >
> > To add more - how compassionate, how loving, how mature, how
> intelligent, a
> > brilliant analysis of Share and many others like her in similar
> situations.
> > Shame on the likes of Steve, Xeno, laughinggull, feste, Buck - hope they
> > can learn something from here.
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:45 AM, emilymae.reyn wrote:
>
> >
> > > Dear Sharester, I'm having trouble letting go. But, I promise I will
> after
> > > this post. *Really.* I will demonstrate the letting go action to you -
> it's
> > > good practice for me. Before I go for now, I will say that I hope you
> print
> > > out and show the last two posts re: wts that you wrote and I responded
> to,
> > > that you never got back to me on, to your pastoral counselor. If she
> tells
> > > you that "yes, you are right, you have maintained your integrity
> through
> > > the whole conversation and these people challenging you are just
> bullies
> > > and mean and unfairly abusive," you will know for sure that you are
> paying
> > > her for nothing.
> > >
> > > First of all, you didn't even give me the time of day to respond, and I
> > > put a lot of energy and effort into those posts to you - recognizing
> you as
> > > a human being.
> > >
> > > Second, you might think about, in the privacy of your own prayer
> routine,
> > > thanking Ann, raunchy, Judy, Ravi, Robin, Ravi and I for processing
> all of
> > > your negative emotions over the last 6 months for you. For my part, I
> did
> > > this out of love and concern for you Share (yes, that irritating
> universal
> > > love of you as another human being.)
> > >
> > > This tactic of yours - launching passive attacks and then running away
> and
> > > asking those you launched spears at to do your dirty work is a good
> one,
> > > isn't it? Then, you feel better and can skip off to the Dome,
> presenting
> > > nothing to those you meet on the yellow brick road, but generosity,
> > > openness, and love. I bet you act as a source of knowledge to others',
> > > don't you.
> > >
> > > I bet you include a lot of information to them on food and supplements
> > > they should be taking. You outed yourself by mistake when you said you
> had
> > > had food issues all your life. Are you aware of what that means and how
> > > having issues with this most basic function in life (eating) can
> through
> > > time fully affect the construct of your thought process, and
> forever-more
> > > create a need to subconsciously protect yourself so you never have to
> deal
> > > with it and the self-preservation issues that come with it? I am sorry
> > > you've had to deal with this. It's a survival issue, I know. I don't
> have
> > > it, but in the past, I have been intimately involved with someone who
> has.
> > > Comes with endless denial, I'm aware.
> > >
> > > The years of dedication to healing; the living in a healing community;
> the
> > > collection of people and healers and philosophies support the
> construct of
> > > denial you have built. You never have to get truly real Share or speak
> for
> > > yourself - you have learned the healing language and just have to
> invoke
> > > experts on your behalf over and over again. You can hide forever and
> act
> > > like an innocent victim, whenever anyone asks to be validated for
> their own
> > > individual thought process that disagrees with yours - because you are
> > > right, because you have done nothing to apologize or make amends for,
> > > because there is something wrong with them and they need to experience
> > > "complete healing."
> > >
> > > I am sorry that you have had to go the this kind of extreme in your
> life
> > > to self-preserve. It is a testament of our instinct, as humans, to
> survive.
> > > I am sorry that, in all cases, you twist reality to fit your own
> worldview
> > > and summarily dismiss and attack anyone and everything that won't
> conform
> > > to your way of thinking. Too threatening isn't it. You are missing out
> on
> > > so much Share, but it's beyond me at this point to try and convince
> you of
> > > this. I do believe you are fully entrenched in your vision of yourself
> and
> > > your own rock solid storyline - and you have built an enormous safety
> net
> > > 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Barry PS

[Ravi Chivukula]

On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 2:19 PM, laughinggull108 wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula 
> wrote:
> >
> > I just have one word for this dear Emily...W..O..W 
> >
> > To add more - how compassionate, how loving, how mature, how
> intelligent, a
> > brilliant analysis of Share and many others like her in similar
> situations.
> > Shame on the likes of Steve, Xeno, laughinggull, feste, Buck - hope they
> > can learn something from here.
>
> Ravi, I'm very ashamed, but not for the reasons you might suspect, and
> yes, I did indeed learn "something" from here (more was revealed than you
> might realize). And I'm hopeful that one day you might do the same.
>

Oh wonderful laughinggull but please fucking spare the vague
generalizations you have directed against me, probably stemming from your
almost pathological need for fair-play I suppose. I have exhaustively,
extravagantly explored every nook and cranny of my shadow and never have
tried to project, fantasize on anything, anyone to make myself look better.
My struggles and journey are all pretty much public.


>
> Emily, I know you've had a very busy day, but any response to my last
> question at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327975. Thanks!
>
> > On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:45 AM, emilymae.reyn wrote:
> >
>
> 
>
>  
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: When did the word "bitch" get to be a bad thing?

[emptybill]

Perhaps the film Brazil might even be more accurate.

  [Brazil Poster]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emilymae.reyn"
 wrote:
>
> Yep, love those workplace get togethers - I avoided as many of them as
> possible.  But, I hear you - workplaces can be a real drag and these
> kinds of methods do help to keep teams together.  I'm having trouble
> convincing myself to return, given that the end of my corporate
> experience looked like this link below.  I did oust 4 people in two
> years - a real feat, but I paid for it when the uppity ups got scared.
> All in the name of accountability and honesty.  I gotta stay out of
the
> drama - how am I doing?  I'm so scared to go back, but I am running
out
> of money finally.  O.K.  Now, I am leaving, really, believe me.  I
need
> to go meditate or walk the dog or put up lights or something.
>   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9goxeGdxi8&feature=related <
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9goxeGdxi8&feature=related>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > Emily,
> >
> > It wasn't about you or any specific person in particular. It is my
> > general observation about the recent displays here. However my
> > observations have been fecunded by many previous replications in
other
> > workplaces.
> >
> >
> > On the opposite side, when I worked at one job, I saw most of this
> > behavior totally upended by the "secret friend" method.
> >
> > Once a month, the ladies would pick lots and then buy a $10 gift for
> > their own selected person. This negated the propensity for berating
> > another person because they might be actually doing something for
you
> > with carefully considered benevolence.
> >
> > Don't know who got this insight but they deserve an award as a
> > "relational genius".
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emilymae.reyn"
> > emilymae.reyn@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Alright, I'll react.  Are you thinking of my honest attempt to
have
> a
> > conversation with poor, sweet, innocent, blameless, positive Share?
> Not
> > to worry, nothing I said had any effect on her at all - at least not
> > that she is willing to admit honestly.  People like her hold deep
> > hostility towards those that disagree with them or challenge their
> world
> > view or ask them to take responsibility for their actions - they
will
> > always accuse the other of "misinterpretation", "unfair attack", and
> > they know nothing of true forgiveness or compassion.  Share had no
> > problem whatsoever with watching me moan and cry; I gave her loads
> more
> > compassion than she gave me.  Now, Queen Share "deigns to sometimes
> read
> > me because I am funny now and again to her."  Another complete slam.
> > She refused to address me as a human being; I think she might be
worse
> > off than Barry even.  How's that last statement for a bare knuckles
> > approach?  Alright, I have to go before I lose my temper.  It is the
> > holiday season, after all.  (This is my recurring line to give
myself
> > whatever out ends up being necessary.  I am all about covering my
ass.
> > I don't bet on it ever though).
> > >
> > > You have a lovely day and thank you again for the beautiful
musical
> > posts yesterday.
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yep, lots of women like to fit their stone-hard
> > > > hands into nice soft gloves. However they seem
> > > > always ready to "take off the gloves" and apply
> > > > bare knuckles to lovely cheeks until the blood
> > > > soils the ground.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn

> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > OMG! Â I hate to say this after the pile of smelly dogshit
> > Barry
> > > > crapped today, but this response is pretty good. Â
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, laughingfully, I guess there is another way to look at
it,
> > but in
> > > > general I loathe the word "bitch" used as a personal put-down on
> > women,
> > > > although I'm desensitized to some degree after hearing the word
> here
> > so
> > > > many times used with varying degrees of energy and in varying
> > contexts.
> > > > Â
> > > > >
> > > > > There was once this kid who was calling my 5th grader this
name.
> > Â
> > > > She said "Mom, this is a name for a female dog." Â Like heck,
> it
> > was
> > > > a derogatory put down of her. I called him up personally and
> > explained
> > > > this to him (he knew, but feigned innocence). Â He was pretty
> > scared
> > > > and his parents don't like me. Â I'm a compassionate hard
ass;
> > that's
> > > > what I am. Â
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > >  From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 8:27 AM
> > > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: When did the word "bitch" get to
be
> a
> > bad
> > > > thing?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laug

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Barry PS

[laughinggull108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> I just have one word for this dear Emily...W..O..W 
> 
> To add more - how compassionate, how loving, how mature, how intelligent, a
> brilliant analysis of Share and many others like her in similar situations.
> Shame on the likes of Steve, Xeno, laughinggull, feste, Buck - hope they
> can learn something from here.

Ravi, I'm very ashamed, but not for the reasons you might suspect, and yes, I 
did indeed learn "something" from here (more was revealed than you might 
realize). And I'm hopeful that one day you might do the same.

Emily, I know you've had a very busy day, but any response to my last question 
at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327975. Thanks!
 
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:45 AM, emilymae.reyn wrote:
> 

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Barry PS

[feste37]

Actually, it's just a variation of the "I'm very mature; you are so fucked up," 
argument that masquerades as compassion. It points the finger of blame at the 
ingrate, who is then supposed to feel grateful for the "compassion" shown to 
her. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> I just have one word for this dear Emily...W..O..W 
> 
> To add more - how compassionate, how loving, how mature, how intelligent, a
> brilliant analysis of Share and many others like her in similar situations.
> Shame on the likes of Steve, Xeno, laughinggull, feste, Buck - hope they
> can learn something from here.
> 
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:45 AM, emilymae.reyn wrote:
> 
> > Dear Sharester, I'm having trouble letting go. But, I promise I will after
> > this post. *Really.* I will demonstrate the letting go action to you - it's
> > good practice for me. Before I go for now, I will say that I hope you print
> > out and show the last two posts re: wts that you wrote and I responded to,
> > that you never got back to me on, to your pastoral counselor. If she tells
> > you that "yes, you are right, you have maintained your integrity through
> > the whole conversation and these people challenging you are just bullies
> > and mean and unfairly abusive," you will know for sure that you are paying
> > her for nothing.
> >
> > First of all, you didn't even give me the time of day to respond, and I
> > put a lot of energy and effort into those posts to you - recognizing you as
> > a human being.
> >
> > Second, you might think about, in the privacy of your own prayer routine,
> > thanking Ann, raunchy, Judy, Ravi, Robin, Ravi and I for processing all of
> > your negative emotions over the last 6 months for you. For my part, I did
> > this out of love and concern for you Share (yes, that irritating universal
> > love of you as another human being.)
> >
> > This tactic of yours - launching passive attacks and then running away and
> > asking those you launched spears at to do your dirty work is a good one,
> > isn't it? Then, you feel better and can skip off to the Dome, presenting
> > nothing to those you meet on the yellow brick road, but generosity,
> > openness, and love. I bet you act as a source of knowledge to others',
> > don't you.
> >
> > I bet you include a lot of information to them on food and supplements
> > they should be taking. You outed yourself by mistake when you said you had
> > had food issues all your life. Are you aware of what that means and how
> > having issues with this most basic function in life (eating) can through
> > time fully affect the construct of your thought process, and forever-more
> > create a need to subconsciously protect yourself so you never have to deal
> > with it and the self-preservation issues that come with it? I am sorry
> > you've had to deal with this. It's a survival issue, I know. I don't have
> > it, but in the past, I have been intimately involved with someone who has.
> > Comes with endless denial, I'm aware.
> >
> > The years of dedication to healing; the living in a healing community; the
> > collection of people and healers and philosophies support the construct of
> > denial you have built. You never have to get truly real Share or speak for
> > yourself - you have learned the healing language and just have to invoke
> > experts on your behalf over and over again. You can hide forever and act
> > like an innocent victim, whenever anyone asks to be validated for their own
> > individual thought process that disagrees with yours - because you are
> > right, because you have done nothing to apologize or make amends for,
> > because there is something wrong with them and they need to experience
> > "complete healing."
> >
> > I am sorry that you have had to go the this kind of extreme in your life
> > to self-preserve. It is a testament of our instinct, as humans, to survive.
> > I am sorry that, in all cases, you twist reality to fit your own worldview
> > and summarily dismiss and attack anyone and everything that won't conform
> > to your way of thinking. Too threatening isn't it. You are missing out on
> > so much Share, but it's beyond me at this point to try and convince you of
> > this. I do believe you are fully entrenched in your vision of yourself and
> > your own rock solid storyline - and you have built an enormous safety net
> > of people who see only what you show them - the bliss bubble of the
> > positive characteristics you want to be known for. It's sad to watch.
> >
> > You placing me in a cult, because you were too afraid to be honest and
> > real, is predictable; as was your refusal to address it. Easier to just
> > forever claim you were "right" and relentlessly impose your reality on FFL
> > with no interest in supporting or discussing it. Another example is
> > continuing to invoke the term "wishing complete healing" on people and FFL
> > at large without ever clearly examining what that means - how dare anyon

[FairfieldLife] Re: Capitalism and Enlightenment?

[emptybill]

Nice ... "intellectually masturbating" is the kind of comment
exclaimed by those who can't think of anything else to say.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> Where did I reply to the quote of Voltaire's, empty?  Are you loosing
> it?  Oh wait, you lost it a long time ago. :-D
>
> So okay I'll now reply and can see that Voltaire was intellectually
> masturbating with that quote.  Only the ignorant take the words of
> famous people as truth.
>
> On 12/02/2012 11:54 AM, emptybill wrote:
> > When you live by neuro-template ideologies you offer
> > just this kind of reply to a quote like Voltaire's.
> >
> > As the Guinness gents claim in the commercial ... "Brilliant!".
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote:
> >> On 12/02/2012 07:34 AM, card wrote:
> >>> I certainly feel like being on thin ice with this,
> >>> but IMO, capitalism / market economy and (saaMkhya-yogic, etc.)
> > enlightenment are mutually incompatible... :o
> >>>
> >> Right now capitalism is WAY out of whack.  We've got a tiny group
of
> >> extremely rich people who think they own the world and can run it
as
> >> they please.  It's like a small bunch of pirates have hijacked the
> >> world.  People won't stand up to them because they fear if they do
> >> everything will fall apart.  Probably better the world falls apart
> > than
> >> to live under tyranny.
> >>
> >> This tiny group of pirates even have their fanboys as you can even
see
> >> on FFL.  Those fanboys reinforce their ability to rape, pillage and
> >> plunder.  As for the enlightened I would say they have no
interested
> > in
> >> material gain so you are right capitalism and enlightenment are
> >> incompatible.
> >>
> >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > Xeno, sorry, but you are SO far from understanding what
> > > the issues are with Share. Facile observations about
> > > general vs. specific thinking styles don't begin to cut
> > > it. Just for starters, there are (at last count) seven
> > > different people on FFL who have the same criticisms of
> > > her.
> > 
> > For starters, your starting argument is 'argumentum ad
> > numerum', a logical fallacy that makes the assumption that
> > because a number of people believe a certain proposition
> > to be true, it must be true.
> 
> Nope, wrong. [Unsupported statement, not an argument] Very sloppy reading on 
> your part. [Characterisation, not an argument] 
> Notice that
> I didn't mention the proposition you have in mind anywhere
> in what I wrote, much less claim it was true, much less
> that it was true because a number of people believe it. [True you did not say 
> the proposition directly (see comments below about tokenisation), nor did you 
> claim directly a truth value. But you presented it as the first step of a 
> rebuttal marshaling a mention of others with the same belief, which would 
> seem to be a psychological way of bolstering your point.


 You
> made all that up yourself on the basis of no evidence and
> read it in. IOW, it was you who made the unwarranted
> assumption.
> 
> Knowing all this, can you read what I wrote just a little
> more carefully and figure out what my point actually was?
> 
> Here's a hint: It directly addressed your assertion about
> different thinking styles as the reason for Share's and my
> disagreements.
>

1. You say I do not understand the issues with regard to Share. I don't care 
about your issues with Share. But I understand you and others have issues with 
Share.

2. You think thinking styles are not adequate to explain these issues. I 
maintain they have an important role to play in the way people interact and 
react. This was a general observation intended to convey another perspective 
irrespective of the specific issues, as everyone has modes of thought and 
reasoning that vary from person to person, and that might be a reason people 
disagree.

3. For starters (this is the part I addressed in mentioning 'ad numerum'), 
whatever the issues you and others have with Share, 7 people at last count, 
have according to your reckoning, have the same criticisms of Share, those 
issues, whatever they are. That those 7 people, no matter what the issues are, 
have that opinion does not make those criticisms of those issues true. 

Whether you directly mentioned the content of the criticisms or not does not 
matter, as you encapsulated them in the statement 

  'Just for starters, there are (at last count) 
   seven different people on FFL who have the 
   same criticisms of her.'

'Same criticisms' is a token that represents all those criticisms. It is not 
necessary to enumerate them, just as when we use the token 'United States' we 
do not need to enumerate all the individual states, how big they are, where 
they are, what their population is, and so forth.

Those criticisms en masse are part of the logical structure of your point. You 
say they are among the seven, the same criticisms. The 'Just for starters' 
statement and what follows is the proposition to which I objected. Within that 
is the token (*same criticisms*) representing all the other propositions that 
specifically would be the criticisms of Share. Thus, unwittingly perhaps, you 
included all your propositions regarding criticisms of Share in that sentence. 
It is not necessary for you or me to delineate them specifically, or for me to 
address them in any way.

Logic is about form, about structure, not content. To quote one of the men who 
demonstrated that mathematics and logic were the same, Bertrand Russell:

'Pure mathematics consists entirely of assertions to the effect that, if such 
and such a proposition is true of anything, then such and such another 
proposition is true of that thing. It is essential not to discuss whether the 
first proposition is really true, and not to mention what the anything is, of 
which it is supposed to be true ... If our hypothesis is about anything, and 
not about some one or more particular things, then our deductions constitute 
mathematics. Thus mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never 
know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true.

But we would know that if a particular number of people held a certain view, 
that alone would not be sufficient to render a verdict of true or false. But my 
objection to your statement was not in reference to what I wrote about styles 
of thinking. It had nothing to do, logically, with the content of the 
differences you and others have with Share. That is just added

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: India: Where Hitler is a hero and Gandhi is a coward and traitor

[Michael Jackson]

There is no war against the TM Movement - it is dying off on its own - Maha's 
nephews pillaging the Indian assets of the TM Movement are proof enough of that 
- plus the increasingly bizarre behavior and beliefs of the leaders - "Duck 
boys, so you don't knock off those crowns!  This east facing window is kinder 
low, but its the only safe way to git into that there house - we gotta git to 
the meetin' to count up how much our cut of the yagya donations is this month! 
I got me a gold Bently I gotta make the down payment on - le's git to countin'!"





 From: nablusoss1008 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 3:01 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: India: Where Hitler is a hero and Gandhi is a 
coward and traitor
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> That's a post from L.B. Shriver, back in the real
> Old Days of FFL (2003), following up on a post from
> Rick, relaying stories told to him by a Jewish TMer,
> a former Purusha and International Staff member. 
> Some of those stories -- for example German members
> of Purusha wearing swastikas under their ties and
> celebrating Hitler's birthday -- are gangbusters.
> Real tabloid shit. 

That's true, and so what ? These fellows came from families that lost a huge 
war. I would say your war against the TMO is also a long lost cause if that's 
all you can come up with. 
Now, take a walk with your laptop-dogs :-)


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: India: Where Hitler is a hero and Gandhi is a coward and traitor

[Michael Jackson]

I somehow missed that part of your post Barry - thanks for putting it up again 
- it answered my questions on the Hitler praise by Maha - it strikes me as 
pretty much what M always did - praising any group or country to their faces to 
curry favor with them - as to the callousness of the remarks he may have made 
and his praise of Hitler's achievements it is indicative of the fact that he 
didn't give much of a damn about people unless they were praising him and 
giving him money - given his obvious self admiration it does not surprise me in 
the least that he admired Hitler who was a hell of a practitioner of self 
aggrandizing





 From: turquoiseb 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 2:46 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: India: Where Hitler is a hero and Gandhi is a 
coward and traitor
 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> Like I said, I'm sure I'm not the only one who recalls the 
> brouhaha over this. I recalled further last night that it 
> had something to do with a list of "great men" that Maharishi 
> had compiled and it included Hitler. I'm surprised that Rick 
> or Turq don't recall this or maybe don't want to touch it 
> with a ten foot pole. 

Other than posting the original incendiary article 
about India, it's the latter. :-)

I do *not* remember any "brouhaha," any more than
occurred after any of his other crazy pronouncements.
The sheep just lapped it up and bleated pranams. 

But I definitely heard him more than once use the
phrase that Raja Emmanuel parroted in the DWTF movie,
"Hitler failed to achieve it [his lofty goals] for 
lack of the right technique" [meaning, of course, TM]. 
I heard Maharishi use variants of this phrase many
times. Where else do you think the Raja in question 
*got* it? It's not as if these people have a rep 
for being able to think on their own; they paid 
a million dollars each for a Burger King crown,
ferchrissakes. 

What I'm wondering about is why no one has dared
to touch the FFL post I also included a link to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/8815 

That's a post from L.B. Shriver, back in the real
Old Days of FFL (2003), following up on a post from
Rick, relaying stories told to him by a Jewish TMer,
a former Purusha and International Staff member. 
Some of those stories -- for example German members
of Purusha wearing swastikas under their ties and
celebrating Hitler's birthday -- are gangbusters.
Real tabloid shit. 

I thought that would be right up Current FFL's 
soap opera alley...


 

[FairfieldLife] More Opera

[emptybill]

Emily,

Here's the famous aria Largo al factotum from Rossini's The
Barber of Seville (Il Barbiere desiviglia). You'll understand why
you'llnever see this on American Idol or Britain's Got talent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKDXr_fimQ8&feature=related


Enjoy



  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Barry PS

[Ravi Chivukula]

I just have one word for this dear Emily...W..O..W 

To add more - how compassionate, how loving, how mature, how intelligent, a
brilliant analysis of Share and many others like her in similar situations.
Shame on the likes of Steve, Xeno, laughinggull, feste, Buck - hope they
can learn something from here.

On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:45 AM, emilymae.reyn wrote:

> Dear Sharester, I'm having trouble letting go. But, I promise I will after
> this post. *Really.* I will demonstrate the letting go action to you - it's
> good practice for me. Before I go for now, I will say that I hope you print
> out and show the last two posts re: wts that you wrote and I responded to,
> that you never got back to me on, to your pastoral counselor. If she tells
> you that "yes, you are right, you have maintained your integrity through
> the whole conversation and these people challenging you are just bullies
> and mean and unfairly abusive," you will know for sure that you are paying
> her for nothing.
>
> First of all, you didn't even give me the time of day to respond, and I
> put a lot of energy and effort into those posts to you - recognizing you as
> a human being.
>
> Second, you might think about, in the privacy of your own prayer routine,
> thanking Ann, raunchy, Judy, Ravi, Robin, Ravi and I for processing all of
> your negative emotions over the last 6 months for you. For my part, I did
> this out of love and concern for you Share (yes, that irritating universal
> love of you as another human being.)
>
> This tactic of yours - launching passive attacks and then running away and
> asking those you launched spears at to do your dirty work is a good one,
> isn't it? Then, you feel better and can skip off to the Dome, presenting
> nothing to those you meet on the yellow brick road, but generosity,
> openness, and love. I bet you act as a source of knowledge to others',
> don't you.
>
> I bet you include a lot of information to them on food and supplements
> they should be taking. You outed yourself by mistake when you said you had
> had food issues all your life. Are you aware of what that means and how
> having issues with this most basic function in life (eating) can through
> time fully affect the construct of your thought process, and forever-more
> create a need to subconsciously protect yourself so you never have to deal
> with it and the self-preservation issues that come with it? I am sorry
> you've had to deal with this. It's a survival issue, I know. I don't have
> it, but in the past, I have been intimately involved with someone who has.
> Comes with endless denial, I'm aware.
>
> The years of dedication to healing; the living in a healing community; the
> collection of people and healers and philosophies support the construct of
> denial you have built. You never have to get truly real Share or speak for
> yourself - you have learned the healing language and just have to invoke
> experts on your behalf over and over again. You can hide forever and act
> like an innocent victim, whenever anyone asks to be validated for their own
> individual thought process that disagrees with yours - because you are
> right, because you have done nothing to apologize or make amends for,
> because there is something wrong with them and they need to experience
> "complete healing."
>
> I am sorry that you have had to go the this kind of extreme in your life
> to self-preserve. It is a testament of our instinct, as humans, to survive.
> I am sorry that, in all cases, you twist reality to fit your own worldview
> and summarily dismiss and attack anyone and everything that won't conform
> to your way of thinking. Too threatening isn't it. You are missing out on
> so much Share, but it's beyond me at this point to try and convince you of
> this. I do believe you are fully entrenched in your vision of yourself and
> your own rock solid storyline - and you have built an enormous safety net
> of people who see only what you show them - the bliss bubble of the
> positive characteristics you want to be known for. It's sad to watch.
>
> You placing me in a cult, because you were too afraid to be honest and
> real, is predictable; as was your refusal to address it. Easier to just
> forever claim you were "right" and relentlessly impose your reality on FFL
> with no interest in supporting or discussing it. Another example is
> continuing to invoke the term "wishing complete healing" on people and FFL
> at large without ever clearly examining what that means - how dare anyone
> challenge you on this meaningless term. Right? Also, on ousting Judy, Ann,
> and raunchy from your readers' list and I'm guessing me, after this post,
> if you have the guts to read it. So many other examples Share of your
> refusing to actually interact with anyone who has tried, unless you are
> sure you can control the outcome.
>
> But, you keep reading Barry, although he was a bit hard on you today,
> don't you think? Just return to the innocent 

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Barry PS

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  
wrote:
>
> Share,
> You got yourself a bogey at six o'clock, and I don't think 
> it's ever going to go away.
> There is no tactic or maneuver you will be able engage to 
> get this bogey off your ass.
> I'm sorry.

I'm so happy someone said this first, so I wasn't the
first to do so. :-)

This mindset -- I have "rebutted" what you said about
me, so you *owe* me a response so that I can keep the
argument going -- is in my opinion the crux of what 
is wrong with FFL. 

This is the mindset -- and tactic -- employed by a 
number of people on this forum. It's almost as if they
have become conditioned to believe that because *they* 
want to have an argument that they can convince them-
selves they've "won," that *entitles* them to an 
argument in response. 

I don't think I have to delineate who specializes in
this mindset and tactic. Just think back to the last
conversations you remember degenerating into noise 
and argument here, and then remember who it was who
reacted...uh...badly when the other person wished
to withdraw from the argument? 

I think this mindset is fucked up. I wish that the
people who employ it would grow the fuck up. 

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
> > >
> > > As for caring what someone thinks of me, there are many
> > > posters on FFL whose opinion, including of me, I care
> > > about. This is also why I reply, especially to Judy's
> > > accusations.
> >
> > Note that Share has not replied to my rebuttal of her
> > accusations against me.
> >
> > > 
> > >  From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 3:08 AM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
>  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> wrote:
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > You began misinterpreting me on Sept 9 post 319521 and have
> > > > > > continued to do so up to the present.
> > > >
> > > > > No, no, Share, generalizations are not acceptable. They're one
> > > > > of your many ways of avoiding accountability for what you say.
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > There are those who see forests and those who see trees. Share
> > > > seems to be a generalist, a caretaker of forests. You are far
> > > > more specific, taking care of individual trees. I do not think
> > > > you two will ever connect. There is something to say for each
> > > > of these views, but such a divergence between them will never
> > > > line up as an argument. Your thinking styles are simply not
> > > > compatible. She cannot understand you, and you cannot understand
> > > > her, though I suspect you feel you have Share pegged, and she
> > > > feels she has you pegged. This is an opinion, not a fact. If
> > > > it were a fact, it would be hopeless to continue, unless
> > > > bickering is the gold standard for social congress.
> > >
> > > That's a compassionate way of seeing things, but I see
> > > them a little differently. For one thing, I think that
> > > Share and Judy (and the rest of the pile-on persecutors
> > > of her) are remarkably ALIKE, in that they all 1) have
> > > large egos that constantly require stroking, 2) have a
> > > near-constant need to attract attention, and 3) have
> > > a near-desperate compulsion to "get in the last word"
> > > or "win" arguments that don't matter to anyone else in
> > > the world *but* their large egos.
> > >
> > > The fact that Share CARES what any of these bitches
> > > think of her makes her a perfect victim for their
> > > assaults, and from her side SHE keeps restarting the
> > > arguments and thus *making* herself the victim every
> > > time it dies down, because that gets her attention.
> > >
> > > I think it's all a little tacky, and too much like a
> > > bitchy high school girl clique ( and I include both
> > > Robin and Ravi as "girls" :-) to watch any of it. It's
> > > all too predictable at this point, and too Drama Queens
> > > On Parade to bother with.
> > >
> > > Share could stop it at any point by just *letting* the
> > > cliquebitches have the last word and moving on to more
> > > sane topics. Then when they tried to restart it again,
> > > just ignore them again. But she doesn't, because IMO
> > > 1) she's hungry to be the focus of attention and have
> > > everything be "all about her," and 2) SHE'S JUST
> > > LIKE THE WOMEN PILING ONTO HER.
> > >
> > > All I can say is that by now my "Next" finger is almost
> > > worn out from zipping past anything that ANY of them say,
> > > and I suspect other people's are, too. I just wish the
> > > whole lot of them would grow up.
> > >
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Capitalism and Enlightenment?

[Bhairitu]

Where did I reply to the quote of Voltaire's, empty?  Are you loosing 
it?  Oh wait, you lost it a long time ago. :-D

So okay I'll now reply and can see that Voltaire was intellectually 
masturbating with that quote.  Only the ignorant take the words of 
famous people as truth.

On 12/02/2012 11:54 AM, emptybill wrote:
> When you live by neuro-template ideologies you offer
> just this kind of reply to a quote like Voltaire's.
>
> As the Guinness gents claim in the commercial ... "Brilliant!".
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>> On 12/02/2012 07:34 AM, card wrote:
>>> I certainly feel like being on thin ice with this,
>>> but IMO, capitalism / market economy and (saaMkhya-yogic, etc.)
> enlightenment are mutually incompatible... :o
>>>
>> Right now capitalism is WAY out of whack.  We've got a tiny group of
>> extremely rich people who think they own the world and can run it as
>> they please.  It's like a small bunch of pirates have hijacked the
>> world.  People won't stand up to them because they fear if they do
>> everything will fall apart.  Probably better the world falls apart
> than
>> to live under tyranny.
>>
>> This tiny group of pirates even have their fanboys as you can even see
>> on FFL.  Those fanboys reinforce their ability to rape, pillage and
>> plunder.  As for the enlightened I would say they have no interested
> in
>> material gain so you are right capitalism and enlightenment are
>> incompatible.
>>
>
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: When did the word "bitch" get to be a bad thing?

[emilymae.reyn]

Whoops, that's four people in five years, I'm not a miracle worker after all.  

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emilymae.reyn"  wrote:
>
> Yep, love those workplace get togethers - I avoided as many of them as
> possible.  But, I hear you - workplaces can be a real drag and these
> kinds of methods do help to keep teams together.  I'm having trouble
> convincing myself to return, given that the end of my corporate
> experience looked like this link below.  I did oust 4 people in two
> years - a real feat, but I paid for it when the uppity ups got scared. 
> All in the name of accountability and honesty.  I gotta stay out of the
> drama - how am I doing?  I'm so scared to go back, but I am running out
> of money finally.  O.K.  Now, I am leaving, really, believe me.  I need
> to go meditate or walk the dog or put up lights or something.
>   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9goxeGdxi8&feature=related <
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9goxeGdxi8&feature=related>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
> >
> >
> > Emily,
> >
> > It wasn't about you or any specific person in particular. It is my
> > general observation about the recent displays here. However my
> > observations have been fecunded by many previous replications in other
> > workplaces.
> >
> >
> > On the opposite side, when I worked at one job, I saw most of this
> > behavior totally upended by the "secret friend" method.
> >
> > Once a month, the ladies would pick lots and then buy a $10 gift for
> > their own selected person. This negated the propensity for berating
> > another person because they might be actually doing something for you
> > with carefully considered benevolence.
> >
> > Don't know who got this insight but they deserve an award as a
> > "relational genius".
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emilymae.reyn"
> > emilymae.reyn@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Alright, I'll react.  Are you thinking of my honest attempt to have
> a
> > conversation with poor, sweet, innocent, blameless, positive Share? 
> Not
> > to worry, nothing I said had any effect on her at all - at least not
> > that she is willing to admit honestly.  People like her hold deep
> > hostility towards those that disagree with them or challenge their
> world
> > view or ask them to take responsibility for their actions - they will
> > always accuse the other of "misinterpretation", "unfair attack", and
> > they know nothing of true forgiveness or compassion.  Share had no
> > problem whatsoever with watching me moan and cry; I gave her loads
> more
> > compassion than she gave me.  Now, Queen Share "deigns to sometimes
> read
> > me because I am funny now and again to her."  Another complete slam.
> > She refused to address me as a human being; I think she might be worse
> > off than Barry even.  How's that last statement for a bare knuckles
> > approach?  Alright, I have to go before I lose my temper.  It is the
> > holiday season, after all.  (This is my recurring line to give myself
> > whatever out ends up being necessary.  I am all about covering my ass.
> > I don't bet on it ever though).
> > >
> > > You have a lovely day and thank you again for the beautiful musical
> > posts yesterday.
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yep, lots of women like to fit their stone-hard
> > > > hands into nice soft gloves. However they seem
> > > > always ready to "take off the gloves" and apply
> > > > bare knuckles to lovely cheeks until the blood
> > > > soils the ground.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > OMG! Â I hate to say this after the pile of smelly dogshit
> > Barry
> > > > crapped today, but this response is pretty good. Â
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, laughingfully, I guess there is another way to look at it,
> > but in
> > > > general I loathe the word "bitch" used as a personal put-down on
> > women,
> > > > although I'm desensitized to some degree after hearing the word
> here
> > so
> > > > many times used with varying degrees of energy and in varying
> > contexts.
> > > > Â
> > > > >
> > > > > There was once this kid who was calling my 5th grader this name.
> > Â
> > > > She said "Mom, this is a name for a female dog." Â Like heck,
> it
> > was
> > > > a derogatory put down of her. I called him up personally and
> > explained
> > > > this to him (he knew, but feigned innocence). Â He was pretty
> > scared
> > > > and his parents don't like me. Â I'm a compassionate hard ass;
> > that's
> > > > what I am. Â
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > >  From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 8:27 AM
> > > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: When did the word "bitch" get to be
> a
> > bad
> > > > thing?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Barry PS

[seventhray1]

Share,
You got yourself a bogey at six o'clock, and I don't think it's ever
going to go away.
There is no tactic or maneuver you will be able engage to get this bogey
off your ass.
I'm sorry.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
> >
> > As for caring what someone thinks of me, there are many
> > posters on FFL whose opinion, including of me, I care
> > about. This is also why I reply, especially to Judy's
> > accusations.
>
> Note that Share has not replied to my rebuttal of her
> accusations against me.
>
>
>
>
> > 
> >  From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 3:08 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy
> >
> >
> > Â
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
 wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
wrote:
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long 
wrote:
> > >
> > > > > You began misinterpreting me on Sept 9 post 319521 and have
> > > > > continued to do so up to the present.
> > >
> > > > No, no, Share, generalizations are not acceptable. They're one
> > > > of your many ways of avoiding accountability for what you say.
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > There are those who see forests and those who see trees. Share
> > > seems to be a generalist, a caretaker of forests. You are far
> > > more specific, taking care of individual trees. I do not think
> > > you two will ever connect. There is something to say for each
> > > of these views, but such a divergence between them will never
> > > line up as an argument. Your thinking styles are simply not
> > > compatible. She cannot understand you, and you cannot understand
> > > her, though I suspect you feel you have Share pegged, and she
> > > feels she has you pegged. This is an opinion, not a fact. If
> > > it were a fact, it would be hopeless to continue, unless
> > > bickering is the gold standard for social congress.
> >
> > That's a compassionate way of seeing things, but I see
> > them a little differently. For one thing, I think that
> > Share and Judy (and the rest of the pile-on persecutors
> > of her) are remarkably ALIKE, in that they all 1) have
> > large egos that constantly require stroking, 2) have a
> > near-constant need to attract attention, and 3) have
> > a near-desperate compulsion to "get in the last word"
> > or "win" arguments that don't matter to anyone else in
> > the world *but* their large egos.
> >
> > The fact that Share CARES what any of these bitches
> > think of her makes her a perfect victim for their
> > assaults, and from her side SHE keeps restarting the
> > arguments and thus *making* herself the victim every
> > time it dies down, because that gets her attention.
> >
> > I think it's all a little tacky, and too much like a
> > bitchy high school girl clique ( and I include both
> > Robin and Ravi as "girls" :-) to watch any of it. It's
> > all too predictable at this point, and too Drama Queens
> > On Parade to bother with.
> >
> > Share could stop it at any point by just *letting* the
> > cliquebitches have the last word and moving on to more
> > sane topics. Then when they tried to restart it again,
> > just ignore them again. But she doesn't, because IMO
> > 1) she's hungry to be the focus of attention and have
> > everything be "all about her," and 2) SHE'S JUST
> > LIKE THE WOMEN PILING ONTO HER.
> >
> > All I can say is that by now my "Next" finger is almost
> > worn out from zipping past anything that ANY of them say,
> > and I suspect other people's are, too. I just wish the
> > whole lot of them would grow up.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: India: Where Hitler is a hero and Gandhi is a coward and traitor

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> That's a post from L.B. Shriver, back in the real
> Old Days of FFL (2003), following up on a post from
> Rick, relaying stories told to him by a Jewish TMer,
> a former Purusha and International Staff member. 
> Some of those stories -- for example German members
> of Purusha wearing swastikas under their ties and
> celebrating Hitler's birthday -- are gangbusters.
> Real tabloid shit. 


That's true, and so what ? These fellows came from families that lost a huge 
war. I would say your war against the TMO is also a long lost cause if that's 
all you can come up with. 
Now, take a walk with your laptop-dogs :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: When did the word "bitch" get to be a bad thing?

[emilymae.reyn]

Yep, love those workplace get togethers - I avoided as many of them as
possible.  But, I hear you - workplaces can be a real drag and these
kinds of methods do help to keep teams together.  I'm having trouble
convincing myself to return, given that the end of my corporate
experience looked like this link below.  I did oust 4 people in two
years - a real feat, but I paid for it when the uppity ups got scared. 
All in the name of accountability and honesty.  I gotta stay out of the
drama - how am I doing?  I'm so scared to go back, but I am running out
of money finally.  O.K.  Now, I am leaving, really, believe me.  I need
to go meditate or walk the dog or put up lights or something.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9goxeGdxi8&feature=related <
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9goxeGdxi8&feature=related>





--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
>
>
> Emily,
>
> It wasn't about you or any specific person in particular. It is my
> general observation about the recent displays here. However my
> observations have been fecunded by many previous replications in other
> workplaces.
>
>
> On the opposite side, when I worked at one job, I saw most of this
> behavior totally upended by the "secret friend" method.
>
> Once a month, the ladies would pick lots and then buy a $10 gift for
> their own selected person. This negated the propensity for berating
> another person because they might be actually doing something for you
> with carefully considered benevolence.
>
> Don't know who got this insight but they deserve an award as a
> "relational genius".
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emilymae.reyn"
> emilymae.reyn@ wrote:
> >
> > Alright, I'll react.  Are you thinking of my honest attempt to have
a
> conversation with poor, sweet, innocent, blameless, positive Share? 
Not
> to worry, nothing I said had any effect on her at all - at least not
> that she is willing to admit honestly.  People like her hold deep
> hostility towards those that disagree with them or challenge their
world
> view or ask them to take responsibility for their actions - they will
> always accuse the other of "misinterpretation", "unfair attack", and
> they know nothing of true forgiveness or compassion.  Share had no
> problem whatsoever with watching me moan and cry; I gave her loads
more
> compassion than she gave me.  Now, Queen Share "deigns to sometimes
read
> me because I am funny now and again to her."  Another complete slam.
> She refused to address me as a human being; I think she might be worse
> off than Barry even.  How's that last statement for a bare knuckles
> approach?  Alright, I have to go before I lose my temper.  It is the
> holiday season, after all.  (This is my recurring line to give myself
> whatever out ends up being necessary.  I am all about covering my ass.
> I don't bet on it ever though).
> >
> > You have a lovely day and thank you again for the beautiful musical
> posts yesterday.
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Yep, lots of women like to fit their stone-hard
> > > hands into nice soft gloves. However they seem
> > > always ready to "take off the gloves" and apply
> > > bare knuckles to lovely cheeks until the blood
> > > soils the ground.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > OMG! Â I hate to say this after the pile of smelly dogshit
> Barry
> > > crapped today, but this response is pretty good. Â
> > > >
> > > > Yes, laughingfully, I guess there is another way to look at it,
> but in
> > > general I loathe the word "bitch" used as a personal put-down on
> women,
> > > although I'm desensitized to some degree after hearing the word
here
> so
> > > many times used with varying degrees of energy and in varying
> contexts.
> > > Â
> > > >
> > > > There was once this kid who was calling my 5th grader this name.
> Â
> > > She said "Mom, this is a name for a female dog." Â Like heck,
it
> was
> > > a derogatory put down of her. I called him up personally and
> explained
> > > this to him (he knew, but feigned innocence). Â He was pretty
> scared
> > > and his parents don't like me. Â I'm a compassionate hard ass;
> that's
> > > what I am. Â
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >  From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com
> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 8:27 AM
> > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: When did the word "bitch" get to be
a
> bad
> > > thing?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Since the above word has been used recently in several
> > > > > exchanges, I got to thinking (yes, I do that from time
> > > > > to time), hence the title or question above. After all,
> > > > > a bitch is simply a female dog who lives her life naturally,
> > > > > accepts and gives unconditional love and affection, and is
> > > >

[FairfieldLife] Re: Capitalism and Enlightenment?

[emptybill]

When you live by neuro-template ideologies you offer
just this kind of reply to a quote like Voltaire's.

As the Guinness gents claim in the commercial ... "Brilliant!".


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> On 12/02/2012 07:34 AM, card wrote:
> > I certainly feel like being on thin ice with this,
> > but IMO, capitalism / market economy and (saaMkhya-yogic, etc.)
enlightenment are mutually incompatible... :o
> >
> >
>
> Right now capitalism is WAY out of whack.  We've got a tiny group of
> extremely rich people who think they own the world and can run it as
> they please.  It's like a small bunch of pirates have hijacked the
> world.  People won't stand up to them because they fear if they do
> everything will fall apart.  Probably better the world falls apart
than
> to live under tyranny.
>
> This tiny group of pirates even have their fanboys as you can even see
> on FFL.  Those fanboys reinforce their ability to rape, pillage and
> plunder.  As for the enlightened I would say they have no interested
in
> material gain so you are right capitalism and enlightenment are
> incompatible.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: India: Where Hitler is a hero and Gandhi is a coward and traitor

[Bhairitu]

On 12/02/2012 11:12 AM, nablusoss1008 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>> On 12/02/2012 09:28 AM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote:
>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
  wrote:

> If you don't like the idea, and have no evidence to the contrary, you 
> just cannot know whether he said it or not, so you cannot then say it is 
> true, or false.
 Now listen; I lived with Germans and in Germany for decades, with Germans 
 that was with Maharishi from the 60's to his death, many of whom are from 
 highranking nazi families. I know Count Blucher. Never once did they brag 
 about Maharishi being sypathetic to Hitler. Don't you find that a little 
 puzzeling to say the least ?

 Sorry mate, you're amongst the ones putting out rumours therefore you're 
 the one who is supposed to cough up the evidence in this smearing. I 
 thought you were into law, where did you get your degree anyway ?

>>> I was told that since World War II, German education has rather put a 
>>> damper on praise of Hitler. I was told that some time ago by a governor, 
>>> who I believe is still very active in the movement. Because we do not have 
>>> access to the tape library, and have to rely only on either rumour, or gut 
>>> feeling, neither one of us can come to a truthful conclusion, though some 
>>> others here might have some recollections of what MMY said. I certainly do 
>>> not think MMY would have been sympathetic to what Hitler *ultimately* did. 
>>> But Hitler envisioned vast architecturally designed cities kind of like 
>>> MMY. He was an effective orator, and he got Germany back on its feet. What 
>>> ultimately happened though was a disaster for Germany. But a lot of 
>>> positive things came out of the impetus of Hitler in attempting to conquer 
>>> Europe, such as jet aircraft, and the space program. The world is not black 
>>> and white, it is all connected in sometimes strange and sometimes 
>>> disturbing ways. Maharishi, if he did have good words for Hitler, would 
>>> have praised Hitler's positive qualities, not the one's that doomed him and 
>>> his German people.
>>>
>>>
>> Like I said, I'm sure I'm not the only one who recalls the brouhaha over
>> this.  I recalled further last night that it had something to do with a
>> list of "great men" that Maharishi had compiled and it included Hitler.
>
> Wonderful, looking forward to see that original list. Make sure it's a real 
> one, not something that "might have been" for which you are about to become 
> famous here.
>
>
>
>   And if I find a TMO publication with it
>> I'll scan it in and post it but I'm sure that the TMO would demand a
>> take down.
> Don't worry about that, just produce the list or have your name tarnished for 
> slander. Oh I forgot, it already is.

Line on water, Nabby, line on water.

[FairfieldLife] Re: India: Where Hitler is a hero and Gandhi is a coward and traitor

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> Like I said, I'm sure I'm not the only one who recalls the 
> brouhaha over this. I recalled further last night that it 
> had something to do with a list of "great men" that Maharishi 
> had compiled and it included Hitler. I'm surprised that Rick 
> or Turq don't recall this or maybe don't want to touch it 
> with a ten foot pole.  

Other than posting the original incendiary article 
about India, it's the latter. :-)

I do *not* remember any "brouhaha," any more than
occurred after any of his other crazy pronouncements.
The sheep just lapped it up and bleated pranams. 

But I definitely heard him more than once use the
phrase that Raja Emmanuel parroted in the DWTF movie,
"Hitler failed to achieve it [his lofty goals] for 
lack of the right technique" [meaning, of course, TM]. 
I heard Maharishi use variants of this phrase many
times. Where else do you think the Raja in question 
*got* it? It's not as if these people have a rep 
for being able to think on their own; they paid 
a million dollars each for a Burger King crown,
ferchrissakes. 

What I'm wondering about is why no one has dared
to touch the FFL post I also included a link to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/8815 

That's a post from L.B. Shriver, back in the real
Old Days of FFL (2003), following up on a post from
Rick, relaying stories told to him by a Jewish TMer,
a former Purusha and International Staff member. 
Some of those stories -- for example German members
of Purusha wearing swastikas under their ties and
celebrating Hitler's birthday -- are gangbusters.
Real tabloid shit. 

I thought that would be right up Current FFL's 
soap opera alley...

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Barry PS

[emilymae.reyn]

Dear Sharester, I'm having trouble letting go.  But, I promise I will after 
this post.  *Really.*  I will demonstrate the letting go action to you - it's 
good practice for me.  Before I go for now, I will say that I hope you print 
out and show the last two posts re: wts that you wrote and I responded to, that 
you never got back to me on, to your pastoral counselor.  If she tells you that 
"yes, you are right, you have maintained your integrity through the whole 
conversation and these people challenging you are just bullies and mean and 
unfairly abusive," you will know for sure that you are paying her for nothing.  

First of all, you didn't even give me the time of day to respond, and I put a 
lot of energy and effort into those posts to you - recognizing you as a human 
being.

Second, you might think about, in the privacy of your own prayer routine, 
thanking Ann, raunchy, Judy, Ravi, Robin, Ravi and I for processing all of your 
negative emotions over the last 6 months for you.  For my part, I did this out 
of love and concern for you Share (yes, that irritating universal love of you 
as another human being.)  

This tactic of yours - launching passive attacks and then running away and 
asking those you launched spears at to do your dirty work is a good one, isn't 
it?  Then, you feel better and can skip off to the Dome, presenting nothing to 
those you meet on the yellow brick road, but generosity, openness, and love.  I 
bet you act as a source of knowledge to others', don't you.  

I bet you include a lot of information to them on food and supplements they 
should be taking.  You outed yourself by mistake when you said you had had food 
issues all your life.  Are you aware of what that means and how having issues 
with this most basic function in life (eating) can through time fully affect 
the construct of your thought process, and forever-more create a need to 
subconsciously protect yourself so you never have to deal with it and the 
self-preservation issues that come with it? I am sorry you've had to deal with 
this. It's a survival issue, I know.  I don't have it, but in the past, I have 
been intimately involved with someone who has.  Comes with endless denial, I'm 
aware. 

The years of dedication to healing; the living in a healing community; the 
collection of people and healers and philosophies support the construct of 
denial you have built.  You never have to get truly real Share or speak for 
yourself - you have learned the healing language and just have to invoke 
experts on your behalf over and over again.  You can hide forever and act like 
an innocent victim, whenever anyone asks to be validated for their own 
individual thought process that disagrees with yours - because you are right, 
because you have done nothing to apologize or make amends for, because there is 
something wrong with them and they need to experience "complete healing."  

I am sorry that you have had to go the this kind of extreme in your life to 
self-preserve.  It is a testament of our instinct, as humans, to survive.  I am 
sorry that, in all cases, you twist reality to fit your own worldview and 
summarily dismiss and attack anyone and everything that won't conform to your 
way of thinking. Too threatening isn't it.  You are missing out on so much 
Share, but it's beyond me at this point to try and convince you of this.  I  do 
believe you are fully entrenched in your vision of yourself and your own rock 
solid storyline - and you have built an enormous safety net of people who see 
only what you show them - the bliss bubble of the positive characteristics you 
want to be known for.  It's sad to watch.

You placing me in a cult, because you were too afraid to be honest and real, is 
predictable; as was your refusal to address it.  Easier to just forever claim 
you were "right" and relentlessly impose your reality on FFL with no interest 
in supporting or discussing it.  Another example is continuing to invoke the 
term "wishing complete healing" on people and FFL at large without ever clearly 
examining what that means - how dare anyone challenge you on this meaningless 
term. Right?  Also, on ousting Judy, Ann, and raunchy from your readers' list 
and I'm guessing me, after this post, if you have the guts to read it. So many 
other examples Share of your refusing to actually interact with anyone who has 
tried, unless you are sure you can control the outcome.  

But, you keep reading Barry, although he was a bit hard on you today, don't you 
think?  Just return to the innocent little girl stance and use a "poo" 
extension for himhe did take a large poo today on you didn't he?  

Just throw us all away Share and keep putting us all down - we challenged you 
on your reality and you are so shame-based deep down, that it is simply 
unacceptable.  You must retain your vision of yourself at all costs, right?  I 
am sorry you are so shame-based.  Of course it isn't your fault - you didn't 
deserve whateve

[FairfieldLife] Re: When did the word "bitch" get to be a bad thing?

[emptybill]

Emily,

It wasn't about you or any specific person in particular. It is my
general observation about the recent displays here. However my
observations have been fecunded by many previous replications in other
workplaces.


On the opposite side, when I worked at one job, I saw most of this
behavior totally upended by the "secret friend" method.

Once a month, the ladies would pick lots and then buy a $10 gift for
their own selected person. This negated the propensity for berating
another person because they might be actually doing something for you
with carefully considered benevolence.

Don't know who got this insight but they deserve an award as a
"relational genius".



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emilymae.reyn"
 wrote:
>
> Alright, I'll react.  Are you thinking of my honest attempt to have a
conversation with poor, sweet, innocent, blameless, positive Share?  Not
to worry, nothing I said had any effect on her at all - at least not
that she is willing to admit honestly.  People like her hold deep
hostility towards those that disagree with them or challenge their world
view or ask them to take responsibility for their actions - they will
always accuse the other of "misinterpretation", "unfair attack", and
they know nothing of true forgiveness or compassion.  Share had no
problem whatsoever with watching me moan and cry; I gave her loads more
compassion than she gave me.  Now, Queen Share "deigns to sometimes read
me because I am funny now and again to her."  Another complete slam. 
She refused to address me as a human being; I think she might be worse
off than Barry even.  How's that last statement for a bare knuckles
approach?  Alright, I have to go before I lose my temper.  It is the
holiday season, after all.  (This is my recurring line to give myself
whatever out ends up being necessary.  I am all about covering my ass. 
I don't bet on it ever though).
>
> You have a lovely day and thank you again for the beautiful musical
posts yesterday.
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> >
> > Yep, lots of women like to fit their stone-hard
> > hands into nice soft gloves. However they seem
> > always ready to "take off the gloves" and apply
> > bare knuckles to lovely cheeks until the blood
> > soils the ground.
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > OMG! Â I hate to say this after the pile of smelly dogshit
Barry
> > crapped today, but this response is pretty good. Â
> > >
> > > Yes, laughingfully, I guess there is another way to look at it,
but in
> > general I loathe the word "bitch" used as a personal put-down on
women,
> > although I'm desensitized to some degree after hearing the word here
so
> > many times used with varying degrees of energy and in varying
contexts.
> > Â
> > >
> > > There was once this kid who was calling my 5th grader this name.
Â
> > She said "Mom, this is a name for a female dog." Â Like heck, it
was
> > a derogatory put down of her. I called him up personally and
explained
> > this to him (he knew, but feigned innocence). Â He was pretty
scared
> > and his parents don't like me. Â I'm a compassionate hard ass;
that's
> > what I am. Â
> > >
> > > 
> > >  From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 8:27 AM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: When did the word "bitch" get to be a
bad
> > thing?
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Since the above word has been used recently in several
> > > > exchanges, I got to thinking (yes, I do that from time
> > > > to time), hence the title or question above. After all,
> > > > a bitch is simply a female dog who lives her life naturally,
> > > > accepts and gives unconditional love and affection, and is
> > > > fiercely protective of her young. And what's wrong with that?
> > > > You bitches should be proud to be called bitches!
> > > >
> > > > BTW, what is male dog called? (Wait for it, wait for it...)
> > > > A barry? (Sorry Barry, but I know that you can handle this
> > > > with your usual aplomb and self-deprecating humor...or I
> > > > hope you can.)
> > >
> > > When are you people going to stop hounding me? I'm
> > > not going to terrier myself up about it, but woofn't
> > > it be nice to pull the pug on this early? You kennel
> > > all move on now. Muzzle toff!
> > >
> > > :-)
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: India: Where Hitler is a hero and Gandhi is a coward and traitor

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> On 12/02/2012 09:28 AM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >>> If you don't like the idea, and have no evidence to the contrary, you 
> >>> just cannot know whether he said it or not, so you cannot then say it is 
> >>> true, or false.
> >>
> >> Now listen; I lived with Germans and in Germany for decades, with Germans 
> >> that was with Maharishi from the 60's to his death, many of whom are from 
> >> highranking nazi families. I know Count Blucher. Never once did they brag 
> >> about Maharishi being sypathetic to Hitler. Don't you find that a little 
> >> puzzeling to say the least ?
> >>
> >> Sorry mate, you're amongst the ones putting out rumours therefore you're 
> >> the one who is supposed to cough up the evidence in this smearing. I 
> >> thought you were into law, where did you get your degree anyway ?
> >>
> > I was told that since World War II, German education has rather put a 
> > damper on praise of Hitler. I was told that some time ago by a governor, 
> > who I believe is still very active in the movement. Because we do not have 
> > access to the tape library, and have to rely only on either rumour, or gut 
> > feeling, neither one of us can come to a truthful conclusion, though some 
> > others here might have some recollections of what MMY said. I certainly do 
> > not think MMY would have been sympathetic to what Hitler *ultimately* did. 
> > But Hitler envisioned vast architecturally designed cities kind of like 
> > MMY. He was an effective orator, and he got Germany back on its feet. What 
> > ultimately happened though was a disaster for Germany. But a lot of 
> > positive things came out of the impetus of Hitler in attempting to conquer 
> > Europe, such as jet aircraft, and the space program. The world is not black 
> > and white, it is all connected in sometimes strange and sometimes 
> > disturbing ways. Maharishi, if he did have good words for Hitler, would 
> > have praised Hitler's positive qualities, not the one's that doomed him and 
> > his German people.
> >
> >
> 
> Like I said, I'm sure I'm not the only one who recalls the brouhaha over 
> this.  I recalled further last night that it had something to do with a 
> list of "great men" that Maharishi had compiled and it included Hitler.


Wonderful, looking forward to see that original list. Make sure it's a real 
one, not something that "might have been" for which you are about to become 
famous here.


  
 And if I find a TMO publication with it 
> I'll scan it in and post it but I'm sure that the TMO would demand a 
> take down.

Don't worry about that, just produce the list or have your name tarnished for 
slander. Oh I forgot, it already is.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: India: Where Hitler is a hero and Gandhi is a coward and traitor

[Bhairitu]

On 12/02/2012 09:28 AM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>>
>>
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> If you don't like the idea, and have no evidence to the contrary, you just 
>>> cannot know whether he said it or not, so you cannot then say it is true, 
>>> or false.
>>
>> Now listen; I lived with Germans and in Germany for decades, with Germans 
>> that was with Maharishi from the 60's to his death, many of whom are from 
>> highranking nazi families. I know Count Blucher. Never once did they brag 
>> about Maharishi being sypathetic to Hitler. Don't you find that a little 
>> puzzeling to say the least ?
>>
>> Sorry mate, you're amongst the ones putting out rumours therefore you're the 
>> one who is supposed to cough up the evidence in this smearing. I thought you 
>> were into law, where did you get your degree anyway ?
>>
> I was told that since World War II, German education has rather put a damper 
> on praise of Hitler. I was told that some time ago by a governor, who I 
> believe is still very active in the movement. Because we do not have access 
> to the tape library, and have to rely only on either rumour, or gut feeling, 
> neither one of us can come to a truthful conclusion, though some others here 
> might have some recollections of what MMY said. I certainly do not think MMY 
> would have been sympathetic to what Hitler *ultimately* did. But Hitler 
> envisioned vast architecturally designed cities kind of like MMY. He was an 
> effective orator, and he got Germany back on its feet. What ultimately 
> happened though was a disaster for Germany. But a lot of positive things came 
> out of the impetus of Hitler in attempting to conquer Europe, such as jet 
> aircraft, and the space program. The world is not black and white, it is all 
> connected in sometimes strange and sometimes disturbing ways. Maharishi, if 
> he did have good words for Hitler, would have praised Hitler's positive 
> qualities, not the one's that doomed him and his German people.
>
>

Like I said, I'm sure I'm not the only one who recalls the brouhaha over 
this.  I recalled further last night that it had something to do with a 
list of "great men" that Maharishi had compiled and it included Hitler.  
I'm surprised that Rick or Turq don't recall this or maybe don't want to 
touch it with a ten foot pole.  And if I find a TMO publication with it 
I'll scan it in and post it but I'm sure that the TMO would demand a 
take down.  Back then as I said it was much a topic of discussion at TM 
center meetings and I'm not sure the list may have made it into an MIU 
publication.

Look this is just an "Indian" thing which is what the original article 
that Turq posted pointed out.  Apparently MMY was unaware that the 
attitude about Hitler was quite different in the west than in India.  
Regarding Gandhi, my tantric guru told me he was not as popular in India 
and people in the west perceive.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Billionaires Club

[Michael Jackson]

I like seeking more than one source of info





 From: nablusoss1008 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 1:28 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Billionaires Club
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mjackson74"  wrote:
>
> I have heard that MMY said in the 1990's that the TM folks should only be 
> teaching TM to the wealthy of the world. Does anyone know when and under what 
> circumstances he said that and exactly what he said?

Why bother with coplicated questions mjackson74 ? If you really wanted to know 
all you had to do was to channel Guru Dev.


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2

[Richard J. Williams]

laughinggull108:
> Judy, 
>
So, it's all about Judy.

> I *almost* wrote a fragment-by-fragment response to your 
> fragment-by-fragment counter arguments to everything I'd 
> offered (in what I called the "right spirit") in response 
> to RD's questions. I say *almost* because I caught myself 
> before getting hopelessly lost in the blackhole...
>
You're already falling way down a rabbit hole. LoL!

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: India: Where Hitler is a hero and Gandhi is a coward and traitor

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > > If you don't like the idea, and have no evidence to the contrary, you 
> > > just cannot know whether he said it or not, so you cannot then say it is 
> > > true, or false.
> > 
> > 
> > Now listen; I lived with Germans and in Germany for decades, with Germans 
> > that was with Maharishi from the 60's to his death, many of whom are from 
> > highranking nazi families. I know Count Blucher. Never once did they brag 
> > about Maharishi being sypathetic to Hitler. Don't you find that a little 
> > puzzeling to say the least ?
> > 
> > Sorry mate, you're amongst the ones putting out rumours therefore you're 
> > the one who is supposed to cough up the evidence in this smearing. I 
> > thought you were into law, where did you get your degree anyway ?
> >
> I was told that since World War II, German education has rather put a damper 
> on praise of Hitler. I was told that some time ago by a governor, who I 
> believe is still very active in the movement. 


And ? What was your point again ? Oh, I forgot, you don't have one.

Are you not even aware that the Germans are prohibited to sing the full version 
of the National anthem becuase the americans who occupied the Western Germany 
made it illegal ? The americans instilled one singel quality into the germans 
after WWII; GUILT. 
As if every german is resposible for the horrors of Hitler. Apart from that the 
germans have done well without the "help" of the amis (as they are called 
there), thank you very much.

Because we do not have access to the tape library, and have to rely only on 
either rumour,

You certainly do...

 or gut feeling, neither one of us can come to a truthful conclusion, though 
some others here might have some recollections of what MMY said. 

Here we go again. The bairithu-fellow, after making his sickening remarks tried 
the same "explanation": "might have been".

I certainly do not think MMY would have been sympathetic to what Hitler 
*ultimately* did.

Then why do you bring up this nonsense ?

 But Hitler envisioned vast architecturally designed cities kind of like MMY. 
He was an effective orator, and he got Germany back on its feet. What 
ultimately happened though was a disaster for Germany. But a lot of positive 
things came out of the impetus of Hitler in attempting to conquer Europe, such 
as jet aircraft, and the space program. The world is not black and white, it is 
all connected in sometimes strange and sometimes disturbing ways. Maharishi, if 
he did have good words for Hitler, would have praised Hitler's positive 
qualities, not the one's that doomed him and his German people.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Billionaires Club

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mjackson74"  wrote:
>
> I have heard that MMY said in the 1990's that the TM folks should only be 
> teaching TM to the wealthy of the world. Does anyone know when and under what 
> circumstances he said that and exactly what he said?

Why bother with coplicated questions mjackson74 ? If you really wanted to know 
all you had to do was to channel Guru Dev.

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2

[laughinggull108]

Judy, I *almost* wrote a fragment-by-fragment response to your 
fragment-by-fragment counter arguments to everything I'd offered (in what I 
called the "right spirit") in response to RD's questions. I say *almost* 
because I caught myself before getting hopelessly lost in the blackhole, then I 
cancelled the beginnings of my counters to your counters ad nauseum infinitum. 
The reason I did this is because the two of us can go no further in this 
particular discussion because you just cannot (or will not) "hear" what I'm 
"saying". For someone who prides herself in her editing skills (and I'm sure 
you're very good at what you do), it is your *comprehension* skills that are 
lacking. It's like a "wall of Judy truth" exists, and unlike the Berlin Wall, 
just won't come down. Did anything I wrote make any sense whatsoever to you? 
There is nothing further to be gained by me in this discussion so I'm bowing 
out in what I hope is a graceful manner, but not before getting a few digs in. 
And BTW, I *do* think things through, and I *do* use my brain. You might not 
believe it, but I put alot of thought and time into most of my responses and 
they really come from a good place inside me (well, that is, until I post 
something stupid like "When did the word 'bitch' get to be a bad thing?").

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
> 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" 
> > wrote:
> 
> > > > > Is wts Share's fantasy?
> > 
> > I'm thinking one might refer to FFL having *similarities*
> > to WTS (hence lowercase letters used) particularly if that
> > person feels like she's being "confronted" on an internet
> > forum very much like what happened in the WTS cult.
> 
> That isn't what she means by it. See here:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/325721
> 
> People are "confronted" all the time on Internet forums.
> FFL is no different than most others in that regard.
> 
> 
> > And I'm probably right in saying that the *relentlessness* of
> > the questions and opinions coming from *many* directions within
> > hours, if not minutes, of each other are two similarities that
> > might make any intelligent person feel that way.
> 
> That's absurd. "Timing" is not significant on that small
> a scale. It's not the case that we are all sitting in front
> of our computers reading and responding on FFL 24 hours a
> day. People have different schedules and pop in at
> different times. Posts closely adjacent to one another in
> time are almost always a matter of coincidence.
> 
> Plus which, of course, the same thing happens on many if
> not most other Internet forums; FFL is by no means unique
> in that regard.
> 
> You really are not thinking things through here, laughinggull.
> 
> It's simply not the case that because a significant number
> of FFL members have nearly identical negative opinions of
> her, it must be because Robin is trying to create a cult 
> for himself on FFL.
> 
> 
> > > > > Did Share accuse Judy of psychological rape?
> > 
> > At http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327671
> > ,
> > she writes: "Here's Judy at her wts best.  Doing the
> > psychological rape thing of attributing to me thoughts and
> > feelings I've not had.  Then presenting her ideas as The Truth.
> > Then lacking in compassion..."
> 
> For the record, Share does *exactly the same things*.
> 
> > Notice she goes on to define what psychological rape means to
> > her therefore if what Judy is doing falls within that
> > definition, then to Share, Judy is "doing the psychological
> > rape thing."
> 
> So let's see, if I define terrorism as calling someone a
> jerk, and you call me a jerk, does that mean it's reasonable
> for me to call you a terrorist?
> 
> JESUS, laughinggull, USE YOUR BRAIN. "Psychological rape" is
> a term that, like "wts," Share uses to insult people she
> doesn't like. The terms have no validity of their own.
> 
> > I like Xeno's take on this at the end of
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327694
> >  
> > when he writes: "When someone talks of psychological rape,
> > this does not necessarily mean they have a victim mentality,
> > they might only mean they feel the attempt has been made.
> > Share seems to be taking the stance that she is not going to
> > put up with it, even if the attempt is made."
> 
> You will probably eventually learn that Xeno's version of
> what people have said on FFL is often not accurate. Here is
> Share's first use of the term:
> 
> "Just for the record, this is exactly why I got so upset
> initially with Robin about the Russian flash mob post. Being 
> psychologically raped didn't feel good then just as it
> doesn't feel good now."
> 
> So not just an "attempt" at psychological rape. She is
> claiming she *was* p

[FairfieldLife] Billionaires Club

[mjackson74]

I have heard that MMY said in the 1990's that the TM folks should only be 
teaching TM to the wealthy of the world. Does anyone know when and under what 
circumstances he said that and exactly what he said?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Capitalism and Enlightenment?

[Bhairitu]

On 12/02/2012 07:34 AM, card wrote:
> I certainly feel like being on thin ice with this,
> but IMO, capitalism / market economy and (saaMkhya-yogic, etc.) enlightenment 
> are mutually incompatible... :o
>
>

Right now capitalism is WAY out of whack.  We've got a tiny group of 
extremely rich people who think they own the world and can run it as 
they please.  It's like a small bunch of pirates have hijacked the 
world.  People won't stand up to them because they fear if they do 
everything will fall apart.  Probably better the world falls apart than 
to live under tyranny.

This tiny group of pirates even have their fanboys as you can even see 
on FFL.  Those fanboys reinforce their ability to rape, pillage and 
plunder.  As for the enlightened I would say they have no interested in 
material gain so you are right capitalism and enlightenment are 
incompatible.

[FairfieldLife] Re: When did the word "bitch" get to be a bad thing?

[emilymae.reyn]

Alright, I'll react.  Are you thinking of my honest attempt to have a 
conversation with poor, sweet, innocent, blameless, positive Share?  Not to 
worry, nothing I said had any effect on her at all - at least not that she is 
willing to admit honestly.  People like her hold deep hostility towards those 
that disagree with them or challenge their world view or ask them to take 
responsibility for their actions - they will always accuse the other of 
"misinterpretation", "unfair attack", and they know nothing of true forgiveness 
or compassion.  Share had no problem whatsoever with watching me moan and cry; 
I gave her loads more compassion than she gave me.  Now, Queen Share "deigns to 
sometimes read me because I am funny now and again to her."  Another complete 
slam.  She refused to address me as a human being; I think she might be worse 
off than Barry even.  How's that last statement for a bare knuckles approach?  
Alright, I have to go before I lose my temper.  It is the holiday season, after 
all.  (This is my recurring line to give myself whatever out ends up being 
necessary.  I am all about covering my ass.  I don't bet on it ever though).

You have a lovely day and thank you again for the beautiful musical posts 
yesterday.  

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
>
> Yep, lots of women like to fit their stone-hard
> hands into nice soft gloves. However they seem
> always ready to "take off the gloves" and apply
> bare knuckles to lovely cheeks until the blood
> soils the ground.
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn 
> wrote:
> >
> > OMG! Â I hate to say this after the pile of smelly dogshit Barry
> crapped today, but this response is pretty good. Â
> >
> > Yes, laughingfully, I guess there is another way to look at it, but in
> general I loathe the word "bitch" used as a personal put-down on women,
> although I'm desensitized to some degree after hearing the word here so
> many times used with varying degrees of energy and in varying contexts.
> Â
> >
> > There was once this kid who was calling my 5th grader this name. Â
> She said "Mom, this is a name for a female dog." Â Like heck, it was
> a derogatory put down of her. I called him up personally and explained
> this to him (he knew, but feigned innocence). Â He was pretty scared
> and his parents don't like me. Â I'm a compassionate hard ass; that's
> what I am. Â
> >
> > 
> >  From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 8:27 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: When did the word "bitch" get to be a bad
> thing?
> >
> >
> > Â
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Since the above word has been used recently in several
> > > exchanges, I got to thinking (yes, I do that from time
> > > to time), hence the title or question above. After all,
> > > a bitch is simply a female dog who lives her life naturally,
> > > accepts and gives unconditional love and affection, and is
> > > fiercely protective of her young. And what's wrong with that?
> > > You bitches should be proud to be called bitches!
> > >
> > > BTW, what is male dog called? (Wait for it, wait for it...)
> > > A barry? (Sorry Barry, but I know that you can handle this
> > > with your usual aplomb and self-deprecating humor...or I
> > > hope you can.)
> >
> > When are you people going to stop hounding me? I'm
> > not going to terrier myself up about it, but woofn't
> > it be nice to pull the pug on this early? You kennel
> > all move on now. Muzzle toff!
> >
> > :-)
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> wrote:
> 
> > Xeno, sorry, but you are SO far from understanding what
> > the issues are with Share. Facile observations about
> > general vs. specific thinking styles don't begin to cut
> > it. Just for starters, there are (at last count) seven
> > different people on FFL who have the same criticisms of
> > her.
> 
> For starters, your starting argument is 'argumentum ad
> numerum', a logical fallacy that makes the assumption that
> because a number of people believe a certain proposition
> to be true, it must be true.

Nope, wrong. Very sloppy reading on your part. Notice that
I didn't mention the proposition you have in mind anywhere
in what I wrote, much less claim it was true, much less
that it was true because a number of people believe it. You
made all that up yourself on the basis of no evidence and
read it in. IOW, it was you who made the unwarranted
assumption.

Knowing all this, can you read what I wrote just a little
more carefully and figure out what my point actually was?

Here's a hint: It directly addressed your assertion about
different thinking styles as the reason for Share's and my
disagreements.

[FairfieldLife] Re: India: Where Hitler is a hero and Gandhi is a coward and traitor

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"  
> wrote:
> 
> > If you don't like the idea, and have no evidence to the contrary, you just 
> > cannot know whether he said it or not, so you cannot then say it is true, 
> > or false.
> 
> 
> Now listen; I lived with Germans and in Germany for decades, with Germans 
> that was with Maharishi from the 60's to his death, many of whom are from 
> highranking nazi families. I know Count Blucher. Never once did they brag 
> about Maharishi being sypathetic to Hitler. Don't you find that a little 
> puzzeling to say the least ?
> 
> Sorry mate, you're amongst the ones putting out rumours therefore you're the 
> one who is supposed to cough up the evidence in this smearing. I thought you 
> were into law, where did you get your degree anyway ?
>
I was told that since World War II, German education has rather put a damper on 
praise of Hitler. I was told that some time ago by a governor, who I believe is 
still very active in the movement. Because we do not have access to the tape 
library, and have to rely only on either rumour, or gut feeling, neither one of 
us can come to a truthful conclusion, though some others here might have some 
recollections of what MMY said. I certainly do not think MMY would have been 
sympathetic to what Hitler *ultimately* did. But Hitler envisioned vast 
architecturally designed cities kind of like MMY. He was an effective orator, 
and he got Germany back on its feet. What ultimately happened though was a 
disaster for Germany. But a lot of positive things came out of the impetus of 
Hitler in attempting to conquer Europe, such as jet aircraft, and the space 
program. The world is not black and white, it is all connected in sometimes 
strange and sometimes disturbing ways. Maharishi, if he did have good words for 
Hitler, would have praised Hitler's positive qualities, not the one's that 
doomed him and his German people.

[FairfieldLife] Re: When did the word "bitch" get to be a bad thing?

[emptybill]

Yep, lots of women like to fit their stone-hard
hands into nice soft gloves. However they seem
always ready to "take off the gloves" and apply
bare knuckles to lovely cheeks until the blood
soils the ground.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn 
wrote:
>
> OMG! Â I hate to say this after the pile of smelly dogshit Barry
crapped today, but this response is pretty good. Â
>
> Yes, laughingfully, I guess there is another way to look at it, but in
general I loathe the word "bitch" used as a personal put-down on women,
although I'm desensitized to some degree after hearing the word here so
many times used with varying degrees of energy and in varying contexts.
Â
>
> There was once this kid who was calling my 5th grader this name. Â
She said "Mom, this is a name for a female dog." Â Like heck, it was
a derogatory put down of her. I called him up personally and explained
this to him (he knew, but feigned innocence). Â He was pretty scared
and his parents don't like me. Â I'm a compassionate hard ass; that's
what I am. Â
>
> 
>  From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 8:27 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: When did the word "bitch" get to be a bad
thing?
>
>
> Â
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> > Since the above word has been used recently in several
> > exchanges, I got to thinking (yes, I do that from time
> > to time), hence the title or question above. After all,
> > a bitch is simply a female dog who lives her life naturally,
> > accepts and gives unconditional love and affection, and is
> > fiercely protective of her young. And what's wrong with that?
> > You bitches should be proud to be called bitches!
> >
> > BTW, what is male dog called? (Wait for it, wait for it...)
> > A barry? (Sorry Barry, but I know that you can handle this
> > with your usual aplomb and self-deprecating humor...or I
> > hope you can.)
>
> When are you people going to stop hounding me? I'm
> not going to terrier myself up about it, but woofn't
> it be nice to pull the pug on this early? You kennel
> all move on now. Muzzle toff!
>
> :-)
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy

[Emily Reyn]

This is interesting Xeno.  I'd absolutely place you more firmly in the first 
column if I had a choice, not the second.  I think I'm so well-rounded that I 
can move between both columns depending on the situation :).  Share stated 
clearly when she got here that she had a "love of words and logic."  I've 
always remembered this, because her posts have shown that the opposite is true, 
here, at least - and yes, in the second column, minus number 12.  Don't want to 
post out too early this week, so am off to attend to the  house today.  



 From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 9:11 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy
 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:

> Xeno, sorry, but you are SO far from understanding what
> the issues are with Share. Facile observations about
> general vs. specific thinking styles don't begin to cut
> it. Just for starters, there are (at last count) seven
> different people on FFL who have the same criticisms of
> her.
> 

For starters, your starting argument is 'argumentum ad numerum', a logical 
fallacy that makes the assumption that because a number of people believe a 
certain proposition to be true, it must be true. Now your proposition may be 
true, but not because of your argument here.

Thinking styles of those here on FFL may be more a factor than you are 
currently surmising. Here is a sample from a current theory. I find it 
interesting because, since I started meditation, I think my style has shifted  
from the more analytic style to the more experiential style. While people do 
not fall directly into just one column or the other here, this is instructive 
in thinking how we process information can affect our interactions with others. 
I would tend to put you 'generally' in the first column, and Share, and myself 
in the second column. It is something to think about when experiencing 
differences of opinion with others.
CHARACTERISTICS OF EXPERIENTIAL 
AND RATIONAL THINKING STYLES IN 
COGNITIVE-EXPERIENTIAL SELF-THEORY 
(CEST)

(ADAPTED FROM SEYMOUR EPSTEIN 2003)
(This is a two-pronged process model of perception. 'Human irrationality has 
consistently been a major area of focus in cognitive research. CEST argues that 
by gaining and understanding of our rational and experiential systems, and how 
they interact, we can gain insight into how these primarily adaptive systems, 
can in some cases lead to maladaptive behaviour.')

 
Rational 
Thinking 
Style
Experiential 
Thinking 
Style
1Analytic Holistic 
2Intentional, effortful Automatic, effortless 
3Logical: reason oriented (what is rational or sensible) Emotional/affective: 
pleasure-pain oriented (what feels good) 
4Logical, cause and effect, connections Associative connections 
5Behavior mediated by conscious appraisal of events Behavior mediated by 
"vibes" from past events 
6Encodes reality in abstract symbols, words, and numbers Encodes reality in 
concrete images, metaphors, and narratives 
7Slower processing; oriented toward delayed action More rapid processing; 
oriented toward immediate action 
8Changes more rapidly and easily; changes with strength of argument and new 
evidence Slower and more resistant to change: change with repetitive or intense 
experience 
9More highly differentiated; dimensional thinking Less differentiated; broad 
generalization gradient;   context-specific processing; 
categorical and stereotypical  thinking 
10More highly integrated; context-general principles Less integrated; 
disociative, organized in part by emotional complexes; context-specific 
processing 
11Experienced actively and consciously; we are in control of our
thoughts Experienced passively and preconsciously; we are seized by our 
emotions 
12Requires justification via logic and evidence Self-evidently valid; 
"experiencing is believing" 
13
More process oriented More outcome oriented 
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
wrote:

> Xeno, sorry, but you are SO far from understanding what
> the issues are with Share. Facile observations about
> general vs. specific thinking styles don't begin to cut
> it. Just for starters, there are (at last count) seven
> different people on FFL who have the same criticisms of
> her.
>

For starters, your starting argument is 'argumentum ad numerum', a
logical fallacy that makes the assumption that because a number of
people believe a certain proposition to be true, it must be true. Now
your proposition may be true, but not because of your argument here.


Thinking styles of those here on FFL may be more a factor than you are
currently surmising. Here is a sample from a current theory. I find it
interesting because, since I started meditation, I think my style has
shifted  from the more analytic style to the more experiential style.
While people do not fall directly into just one column or the other
here, this is instructive in thinking how we process information can
affect our interactions with others. I would tend to put you 'generally'
in the first column, and Share, and myself in the second column. It is
something to think about when experiencing differences of opinion with
others.

CHARACTERISTICS OF EXPERIENTIAL
AND RATIONAL THINKING STYLES IN
COGNITIVE-EXPERIENTIAL SELF-THEORY
(CEST)


(ADAPTED FROM SEYMOUR EPSTEIN 2003)

(This is a two-pronged process model of perception. 'Human irrationality
has consistently been a major area of focus in cognitive research. CEST
argues that by gaining and understanding of our rational and
experiential systems, and how they interact, we can gain insight into
how these primarily adaptive systems, can in some cases lead to
maladaptive behaviour.')




Rational
Thinking
Style

Experiential
Thinking
Style

1

Analytic

Holistic

2

Intentional, effortful

Automatic, effortless

3

Logical: reason oriented (what is rational or sensible)

Emotional/affective: pleasure-pain oriented (what feels good)

4

Logical, cause and effect, connections

Associative connections

5

Behavior mediated by conscious appraisal of events

Behavior mediated by "vibes" from past events

6

Encodes reality in abstract symbols, words, and numbers

Encodes reality in concrete images, metaphors, and narratives

7

Slower processing; oriented toward delayed action

More rapid processing; oriented toward immediate action

8

Changes more rapidly and easily; changes with strength of argument and
new evidence

Slower and more resistant to change: change with repetitive or intense
experience

9

More highly differentiated; dimensional thinking

Less differentiated; broad generalization gradient;   context-specific
processing; categorical and stereotypical   thinking

10

More highly integrated; context-general principles

Less integrated; disociative, organized in part by emotional complexes;
context-specific processing

11

Experienced actively and consciously; we are in control of our  
thoughts

Experienced passively and preconsciously; we are seized by our emotions

12

Requires justification via logic and evidence

Self-evidently valid; "experiencing is believing"

13




More process oriented

More outcome oriented

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: When did the word "bitch" get to be a bad thing?

[Emily Reyn]

Ha.  Makes sense.  Probably why I like the word "Fuck!" and then also, although 
I try not to use it here on the spiritual forum, "Gawww Dammm It."  My 
father used these terms liberally growing up as a matter of course, when he 
went out to mow the lawn, for example.  He's all about creating drama.  



 From: turquoiseb 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 9:05 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: When did the word "bitch" get to be a bad thing?
 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> Yes, laughingfully, I guess there is another way to look at 
> it, but in general I loathe the word "bitch" used as a personal 
> put-down on women, although I'm desensitized to some degree 
> after hearing the word here so many times used with varying 
> degrees of energy and in varying contexts. 

>From research I stumbled on today:

Your brain has both motor and premotor areas, both of which 
have some control over speech and writing. A part of the 
brain called Wernicke's area handles the recognition of and 
processing of spoken words. The prefrontal cortex handles 
things like personality and determining what is appropriate 
social behavior. In most people, the left hemisphere of 
their brains is in charge of language, while the right 
hemisphere is in charge of the emotional content of language. 
Processing language is known as one of the "higher" brain 
functions, while processing emotion is considered one of 
the "lower" or more primal and instinctual brain functions. 

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans of the 
brain have revealed that swearing tends to affect the "lower" 
regions. Strong language gets "tagged" emotionally as we grow 
up, because our parents or teachers or peers react more 
strongly to certain words than others. If they react 
negatively to these words, that emotion gets stored in our 
brains along with any meanings of the words. So instead of 
processing "swear words" as a series of sounds or phonemes 
(as we do other words), the brain stores these "emotionally 
charged" words as whole units. As a result, the brain does 
not need the left hemisphere's help when processing them. 
Instead it relies on the limbic system (which controls memory, 
emotion, and behavior), and the basal ganglia (which controls 
motor functions and impulse control) to process the "swear 
words." 

In a very real sense, therefore, swearing is a motor activity 
with a strong emotional content. This is one reason that most 
people remember swear words four times better than they do 
other words.


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: When did the word "bitch" get to be a bad thing?

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> Yes, laughingfully, I guess there is another way to look at 
> it, but in general I loathe the word "bitch" used as a personal 
> put-down on women, although I'm desensitized to some degree 
> after hearing the word here so many times used with varying 
> degrees of energy and in varying contexts. 

>From research I stumbled on today:

Your brain has both motor and premotor areas, both of which 
have some control over speech and writing. A part of the 
brain called Wernicke's area handles the recognition of and 
processing of spoken words. The prefrontal cortex handles 
things like personality and determining what is appropriate 
social behavior. In most people, the left hemisphere of 
their brains is in charge of language, while the right 
hemisphere is in charge of the emotional content of language. 
Processing language is known as one of the "higher" brain 
functions, while processing emotion is considered one of 
the "lower" or more primal and instinctual brain functions. 

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans of the 
brain have revealed that swearing tends to affect the "lower" 
regions. Strong language gets "tagged" emotionally as we grow 
up, because our parents or teachers or peers react more 
strongly to certain words than others. If they react 
negatively to these words, that emotion gets stored in our 
brains along with any meanings of the words. So instead of 
processing "swear words" as a series of sounds or phonemes 
(as we do other words), the brain stores these "emotionally 
charged" words as whole units. As a result, the brain does 
not need the left hemisphere's help when processing them. 
Instead it relies on the limbic system (which controls memory, 
emotion, and behavior), and the basal ganglia (which controls 
motor functions and impulse control) to process the "swear 
words." 

In a very real sense, therefore, swearing is a motor activity 
with a strong emotional content. This is one reason that most 
people remember swear words four times better than they do 
other words.

Re: [FairfieldLife] (Fairfield Meditation) Reducing Tension in the Middle East

[Michael Jackson]

If TM and its ancillary programs are as powerful as you say, and if MMY was 
enlightened, how could it fade away?





 From: Buck 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 9:21 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] (Fairfield Meditation) Reducing Tension in the Middle 
East
 

  
A couple months ago I attended an academic conference with about a hundred 
scholars who study our kind of group.  They were unaware of Fairfield.  In 
conversing with these scholars over several days time it was as if 'TM' had 
dropped off the planet.  These were tenured professors, department chairs, 
directors of collections who teach at real universities from all over the 
country.  Basically zip understanding of TM let alone Fairfield.  TM seemingly 
disappeared from culture from the 1980's and on and suffers still from that 
amnesia of inertia.  It got to the point even in Fairfield where the Dome 
numbers had dropped in the y-2000's to just a couple hundred people meditating 
together.  Nearly died out except for the resuscitation of  the urgency of the 
invincible America meditation program (2006) and the last ditch efforts of some 
few people (Bob Wynne) in Vedic City to actually bring pundits to Fairfield  
http://www.vediccity.net/welcome.html
It is an amazing thing going on in Fairfield.  It is real interesting to be in 
the middle of communicating that to people outside in the world. 
-Buck in the Dome

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> It is interesting, that most people out in the world, even educated people, 
> have no idea what is going on here let alone the gravity of it.  We should 
> all be unperturbed by their general old-age ignorance of it though and 
> rigorously just attend to our meditations.  Great is our method and science 
> of peace here.  The New Jerusalem is coming,
> -Buck
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Buck, forget emailing.  Have him visit FF for Dec 7 Art Walk.  As George 
> > somebody, former Redskins coach said, the future is now.
> > 
> > 
> > Your brave enthusiasm and still makes me smile just about every day (-:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: Buck 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2012 11:51 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Reducing Tension in the Middle East
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Buckyball
> > > > 
> > > > "A perennial philosophy of all major cultural traditions that there
> > > > exists a transcendental field at the most fundamental level of natural
> > > > law ..."
> > > > 
> > > > If this is true then it is not "transcendental" but rather a supporting
> > > > ground.
> > > > In other words, it is prakriti/pradhâna/avyakta (an unmanifest).
> > > > It is nature, but not transcendent.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Bill, Yep I know what you mean, that's my experience too.  As I was 
> > > editing that piece I chose to stick with the western language and stay 
> > > away from the Vedic so as not to confuse the ignorant lurker here.
> > > Going with the 'Transcendental' field was good enough for the release 
> > > posted here.  Best Regards, -Buck 
> > >
> > 
> > I went to a lecture at the U. of Ia. in Iowa City the other nite given by a 
> > visiting classicist professor and went out to dinner with him after.  In 
> > discussing Fairfield he broke from what we were saying at a point and 
> > declared he could not understand what Utopia could possibly be.  That he 
> > lives in the past and present but could not understand what I was saying 
> > about a future Utopia this way.  It was not the time to say anything more 
> > but we are e-mailing.  It is a challenging thing to communicate. 
> > -Buck
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > A perennial philosophy of all major cultural traditions that there
> > > > exists a transcendental field at the most fundamental level of natural
> > > > law, which can be directly accessed as the silent transcendental level
> > > > of the human mind.  Hundreds of studies have shown that experience of
> > > > transcendental consciousness breaks the chain of conditioned reflexes
> > > > coming on from past behavior, as seen in reduced addictive behaviors of
> > > > all kinds, decreased prison recidivism, and reduced behavioral problems
> > > > in inner-city children.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now there is hope because a proven technology of consciousness to
> > > > create peace is available. This novel approach establishes a filter of
> > > > coherence and order in collective consciousness in the present, which is
> > > > capable of transforming the flow of negativity from the past into a more
> > > > harmonious future.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Meditation is certa

[FairfieldLife] Raj Talks About Food Policy Councils on Current TV

[nablusoss1008]

How do communities overcome local food issues like food deserts and big-box 
grocery stores?
http://tinyurl.com/cgdeswa

[FairfieldLife] Re: When did the word "bitch" get to be a bad thing?

[laughinggull108]

I hear what you're saying Emily and you are correct. You know how, after you 
post something, you feel it's not quite right but can't quite put your finger 
on it? A poor attempt at humor on my part. Perhaps the same could apply to the 
use of the word "retarded"?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> OMG!  I hate to say this after the pile of smelly dogshit Barry crapped 
> today, but this response is pretty good.  
> 
> Yes, laughingfully, I guess there is another way to look at it, but in 
> general I loathe the word "bitch" used as a personal put-down on women, 
> although I'm desensitized to some degree after hearing the word here so many 
> times used with varying degrees of energy and in varying contexts.  
> 
> There was once this kid who was calling my 5th grader this name.  She said 
> "Mom, this is a name for a female dog."  Like heck, it was a derogatory put 
> down of her. I called him up personally and explained this to him (he knew, 
> but feigned innocence).  He was pretty scared and his parents don't like me. 
>  I'm a compassionate hard ass; that's what I am.  
> 
> 
>  From: turquoiseb 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 8:27 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: When did the word "bitch" get to be a bad thing?
>  
> 
>   
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
> >
> > Since the above word has been used recently in several 
> > exchanges, I got to thinking (yes, I do that from time 
> > to time), hence the title or question above. After all, 
> > a bitch is simply a female dog who lives her life naturally, 
> > accepts and gives unconditional love and affection, and is 
> > fiercely protective of her young. And what's wrong with that? 
> > You bitches should be proud to be called bitches!
> > 
> > BTW, what is male dog called? (Wait for it, wait for it...) 
> > A barry? (Sorry Barry, but I know that you can handle this 
> > with your usual aplomb and self-deprecating humor...or I 
> > hope you can.)
> 
> When are you people going to stop hounding me? I'm 
> not going to terrier myself up about it, but woofn't
> it be nice to pull the pug on this early? You kennel
> all move on now. Muzzle toff!
> 
> :-)
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: When did the word "bitch" get to be a bad thing?

[Emily Reyn]

OMG!  I hate to say this after the pile of smelly dogshit Barry crapped today, 
but this response is pretty good.  

Yes, laughingfully, I guess there is another way to look at it, but in general 
I loathe the word "bitch" used as a personal put-down on women, although I'm 
desensitized to some degree after hearing the word here so many times used with 
varying degrees of energy and in varying contexts.  

There was once this kid who was calling my 5th grader this name.  She said 
"Mom, this is a name for a female dog."  Like heck, it was a derogatory put 
down of her. I called him up personally and explained this to him (he knew, but 
feigned innocence).  He was pretty scared and his parents don't like me.  I'm a 
compassionate hard ass; that's what I am.  


 From: turquoiseb 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 8:27 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: When did the word "bitch" get to be a bad thing?
 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
>
> Since the above word has been used recently in several 
> exchanges, I got to thinking (yes, I do that from time 
> to time), hence the title or question above. After all, 
> a bitch is simply a female dog who lives her life naturally, 
> accepts and gives unconditional love and affection, and is 
> fiercely protective of her young. And what's wrong with that? 
> You bitches should be proud to be called bitches!
> 
> BTW, what is male dog called? (Wait for it, wait for it...) 
> A barry? (Sorry Barry, but I know that you can handle this 
> with your usual aplomb and self-deprecating humor...or I 
> hope you can.)

When are you people going to stop hounding me? I'm 
not going to terrier myself up about it, but woofn't
it be nice to pull the pug on this early? You kennel
all move on now. Muzzle toff!

:-)


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reducing Tension in the Middle East

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> It is interesting, that most people out in the world, even educated people, 
> have no idea what is going on here let alone the gravity of it.  We should 
> all be unperturbed by their general old-age ignorance of it though and 
> rigorously just attend to our meditations.  Great is our method and science 
> of peace here.  The New Jerusalem is coming,
> -Buck


That's right. 

"Nairobi will be the new Jerusalem"
- Maharishi

[FairfieldLife] Re: A physical basis of the ritum level -- fourth state of water

[Duveyoung]

Think Chapter 8 SBAL -- when consciousness becomes conscious -- sure seems to 
be what happens when light shines on water.

Which other forum?  BATGP?  

The research seems very professional.  To me this describes how there could be 
a "purity" in human wetware that could be "contacted" by consciousness.  

Liquid crystal -- fourth state of water.  Amazing.

Edg

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Edg, I watched the first 12 minutes of it but couldn't get past the 
> microspheres.  So I bunged it to my ex who LOVED it so much that he will be 
> putting it on his high tech blog.  Well he said it was very cool.  When I 
> said he LOVED it that was me being a girl.  Anyway, he didn't think it was 
> about ritam or the unified field.  He's still on that other forum you used 
> to frequent in case you want to discuss further.    
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: Duveyoung 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 9:27 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A physical basis of the ritum level -- fourth 
> state of water
>  
> 
>   
> Come on -- isn't anyone interested in the discovery of the primal source of 
> ORDER in creation?
> 
> And this is actual science -- not Keith Wallace dinky stuff.  Heavy duty 
> laboratory precision. 
> 
> Edg
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> >
> > Hey, anyone even look at this yet?  This is NOT METAPHORICthis is about 
> > the finest relative -- it's EXPLAINED.
> > 
> > BY A GOSH DURNED JIM DANDY ACTUAL REAL RESPECTED SCIENTIST.
> > 
> > It's long, but do even ten minutes and you're going to watch the whole 
> > thing.
> > 
> > This is about the Unified Field.
> > 
> > This is about the actual mechanics of how light makes water orderly and 
> > begins LIFE. 
> > 
> > This is about free energy.
> > 
> > 
> > Edg
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XVBEwn6iWOo
> > > 
> > > Maybe Being is OBVIOUS.
> > > 
> > > Maybe it's VISIBLE to the naked eye.
> > > 
> > > Spill a bit of water, and you've made A BATTERY.
> > > 
> > > I'm excited!
> > > 
> > > Edg
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Meister Eckhart

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merlin  wrote:
>
> Meister Eckhart
> 
> 1260 â€"  1327 • GERMANY
> 

Someone really needs to name their kid Meister Eckhart Tolle Booth.

[FairfieldLife] Re: When did the word "bitch" get to be a bad thing?

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
>
> Since the above word has been used recently in several 
> exchanges, I got to thinking (yes, I do that from time 
> to time), hence the title or question above. After all, 
> a bitch is simply a female dog who lives her life naturally, 
> accepts and gives unconditional love and affection, and is 
> fiercely protective of her young. And what's wrong with that? 
> You bitches should be proud to be called bitches!
> 
> BTW, what is male dog called? (Wait for it, wait for it...) 
> A barry? (Sorry Barry, but I know that you can handle this 
> with your usual aplomb and self-deprecating humor...or I 
> hope you can.)

When are you people going to stop hounding me? I'm 
not going to terrier myself up about it, but woofn't
it be nice to pull the pug on this early? You kennel
all move on now. Muzzle toff!

:-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Masters, Angels and Stuff

[Share Long]

ah empty you made me laugh out loud with this one.  Also liked the Voltaire 
quote.  But not sure what you mean by quote below to Buck:  

If this is true then it is not "transcendental" but rather a supporting ground. 
In other words, it is prakriti/pradhâna/avyakta (an unmanifest).
It is nature, but not transcendent.

I think Prakriti has both an unmanifest and manifest aspect.  Is that what 
you're saying?  




 From: emptybill 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 9:52 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Masters, Angels and Stuff
 

  
Heh, I tried channeling a few
times. 

I started channeling grand master Hoo Hung Choo.
He was all fluffy and stuff so I thought - 
"No money to be made with this drivel."

I changed strategy and decide that God would be
a better talker - you know, all those high-minded ideas.
I figured folks would love it and pay plenty.

It was slow at first but deeply silent. 
Then like a Shruti bounding
out of the Infinite, 
in extraordinary brilliance and blazing luminosity
the transcendent VOICE began - and I quote ...

"You stupid idiot. Shut the fuck up!"

At first I thought, "That can't be right - it must be
internal interference or one of Robin's demons." 

So I meditated and then did the heart sutra and the intuition 
sutra. After residing in silent lucidity I opened up again.

This time it was a real revelation ...
"Are you inwardly deaf? Thou art indeed an idiot!"

So I decided to give it up. 
Truth is too harsh for
delicate hearts such as mine.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> channeling is a useful learning mechanism - just don't get into it too much, 
> because it is only an interim step. So tuck it away in your tool belt, and 
> keep on truckin'
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mjackson74" mjackson74@ wrote:
> >
> > So here are my thoughts on Ascended Masters, angels, Archangels and avatars 
> > here on earth.
> > 
> > When I was at the tail end of my time at MIU, a former TM teacher named Bob 
> > Fickes came to Fairfield and was teaching channeling classes and doing 
> > private readings. Feeling it might be of some value, I had a reading and 
> > most of it was over my head, being oriented in a very esoteric fashion.
> > 
> > It was my first introduction to channeling. Through one thing and another, 
> > I decided to try channeling myself – at first nothing
 happened then I had an experience with the Archangel Raphael – the energy was 
unbelievably blissful, and I continued to "channel" just to feel the energy and 
for no other reason. 
> > 
> > After a couple friends found out I was channeling they asked me to do 
> > readings for them. At first I refused, then I gave in. One thing led to 
> > another and I felt that, the energy being what it was deep and blissful 
> > most of the time, and the information coming through seemed pretty credible 
> > on a personal level, that it was my calling to channel the Ascended 
> > Masters, angels and Archangels.
> > 
> > I never, in 25 years of channeling made very much money at it, but I did it 
> > anyway. So after 25 years of channeling, here are my thoughts and beliefs 
> > on these matters.
> > 
> > In terms of Energy, I have enjoyed much of the experiences I have had. 
> > Feedback from those who have come to me for readings have been mostly
 positive. Having done sessions for friends, I have seen that sometimes the 
information is strikingly accurate, and sometimes not accurate at all. 
> > 
> > A lot of time the channel will excuse this by saying that as the karmic 
> > energy or circumstances change and as we make different choices, the events 
> > that may manifest will change accordingly. I won't argue with that, it may 
> > be true. 
> > 
> > There is also the phenomenon of mixing, meaning that the mind and ego of 
> > the channel mixes some of its own beliefs into the energy of the Masters as 
> > it comes through as information and that alters the particulars of the 
> > information.
> > 
> > On a personal note over the years I found that I still liked the experience 
> > of channeling for the energy. It was a way of experiencing a really 
> > expanded Divine Essence. 
> > 
> > And the real effect for the person or people (in the case of a group
 channeling) was to re-connect them more to their own Divine Self more fully 
through the Energy connection of what we call the Ascended Masters, angels and 
Archangels. 
> > 
> > This may be one of the reasons that I never made that much money because I 
> > foind over the years that people seem to be drawn to those channels that 
> > channel lots and lots of information.
> > 
> > There are all kinds of channels. Some like myself channel a wide variety of 
> > Beings of Light – Mother Mary, Kwan Yin, Jesus, Buddha, the various 
> > Archangels like Michael and Raphael, various angels, Krishna and Shiva and 
> > so on. 
> > 
> > Some seem to specialize and just channel 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Meister Eckhart

[emptybill]

You forgot to add that Eckhart was a Medieval Neoplatonist
in theology and was excommunicated by the pope himself.

Mere trifles, huh?


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merlin  wrote:
>
> Meister Eckhart
>
> 1260 â€"  1327 • GERMANY
>
>
> Meister Eckhart was considered the most knowledgeable scholar of his
> time and was one of the most popular and beloved preachers â€"
people
> flocked to hear his bold, fresh sermons.
>
> As the Dominican provincial superior for Saxony, he administered a
> territory stretching from Holland across northern Germany through
> Bohemia (the western part of the current Czech Republic), through
which
> he constantly traveled â€" and travel at that time was on foot,
alone. ...
>
>
> PLS READ MORE ABOUT THIS AMAZING MAN >>>
>
>
>
http://www.tm.org/blog/people/meister-eckhart/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium\
=rss&utm_campaign=meister-eckhart
>
> ***
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Capitalism and Enlightenment?

[emptybill]

In Voltaire's Letters on England, Voltaire responds to Blaise
Pascal's pronouncement that,

"We are born unjust, for each of us is out for himself. That is
against all order. We should work for the general good, and the tendency
towards self-interest is the beginning of all disorder, in warfare,
government, economy, etc."

Voltaire replies:

"That is perfectly in order. It is as impossible for a society to be
formed and be durable without self-interest as it would be to produce
children without carnal desire or to think of eating without appetite,
etc. It is love of self that encourages love of others, it is through
our mutual needs that we are useful to the human race. That is the
foundation of all commerce, the eternal link between men. Without it not
a single art would have been invented, no society of ten people
formed."



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "card"  wrote:
>
>
> I certainly feel like being on thin ice with this,
> but IMO, capitalism / market economy and (saaMkhya-yogic, etc.)
enlightenment are mutually incompatible... :o
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A physical basis of the ritum level -- fourth state of water

[Share Long]

Edg, I watched the first 12 minutes of it but couldn't get past the 
microspheres.  So I bunged it to my ex who LOVED it so much that he will be 
putting it on his high tech blog.  Well he said it was very cool.  When I said 
he LOVED it that was me being a girl.  Anyway, he didn't think it was about 
ritam or the unified field.  He's still on that other forum you used to 
frequent in case you want to discuss further.    




 From: Duveyoung 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 9:27 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A physical basis of the ritum level -- fourth 
state of water
 

  
Come on -- isn't anyone interested in the discovery of the primal source of 
ORDER in creation?

And this is actual science -- not Keith Wallace dinky stuff.  Heavy duty 
laboratory precision. 

Edg

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> Hey, anyone even look at this yet?  This is NOT METAPHORICthis is about 
> the finest relative -- it's EXPLAINED.
> 
> BY A GOSH DURNED JIM DANDY ACTUAL REAL RESPECTED SCIENTIST.
> 
> It's long, but do even ten minutes and you're going to watch the whole thing.
> 
> This is about the Unified Field.
> 
> This is about the actual mechanics of how light makes water orderly and 
> begins LIFE. 
> 
> This is about free energy.
> 
> 
> Edg
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XVBEwn6iWOo
> > 
> > Maybe Being is OBVIOUS.
> > 
> > Maybe it's VISIBLE to the naked eye.
> > 
> > Spill a bit of water, and you've made A BATTERY.
> > 
> > I'm excited!
> > 
> > Edg
> >
>


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Wolf hunting

[Buck]

Nablussos,  our Wolves are every bit as big as your friend's wolves.  In fact I 
bet our wolves could take yours.  Ours are wild, not kept caged dogs for sport. 
 We got howling big well fed on deer meat 250 to 300 pound wolves in the county 
up in the skunk river woods.  They'll sit out and sun themselves at times.  You 
can watch them from a mile away and hear them otherwise as wolves howling.  
These are not coyote.  These are primeval wolves.  The farmers up there all 
watch them with interest.  Try to get up close and they never let you see them. 
 Transcendental in Nature.  You got to have effective technique to see them or 
be lucky or with grace.  It's a good analogy don't you think?
-Buck in the Dome   

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> >
> > Nablusoss, The earlier transcendental meditators to come to Iowa here 
> > initially had to deal with wolves.  They settled in to small farm hamlets 
> > in log cabins and built their log meditation halls through this part of 
> > Iowa out in what was then unbroken prairie land.  Prairie wolves were a 
> > reality then to deal with.
> 
> The prarie wolfs are smaller than those living in the woods and would 
> probably be an easy match for my friend. One of his favotite sports are 
> hunting other dogs until they surrender by laying on their backs, but never 
> biting them. He's so huge that it sends Rotweilers and Pinchers running. Even 
> huge purebred German shepherds sooner or later admit defeat in this way. 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coursing
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Masters, Angels and Stuff

[laughinggull108]

(gasping for breath)...stop, stop, oh please, stop...I'm dying here!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
>
> 
> Heh, I tried channeling a few times.
> 
> I started channeling grand master Hoo Hung Choo.
> He was all fluffy and stuff so I thought -
> "No money to be made with this drivel."
> 
> I changed strategy and decide that God would be
> a better talker - you know, all those high-minded ideas.
> I figured folks would love it and pay plenty.
> 
> It was slow at first but deeply silent.
> 
> Then like a Shruti bounding out of the Infinite,
> in extraordinary brilliance and blazing luminosity
> the transcendent VOICE began - and I quote ...
> 
> "You stupid idiot. Shut the fuck up!"
> 
> At first I thought, "That can't be right - it must be
> internal interference or one of Robin's demons."
> 
> So I meditated and then did the heart sutra and the intuition
> sutra. After residing in silent lucidity I opened up again.
> 
> This time it was a real revelation ...
> "Are you inwardly deaf? Thou art indeed an idiot!"
> 
> So I decided to give it up.
> 
> Truth is too harsh for delicate hearts such as mine.
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ 
> wrote:
> >
> > channeling is a useful learning mechanism - just don't get into it too
> much, because it is only an interim step. So tuck it away in your tool
> belt, and keep on truckin'
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mjackson74" mjackson74@ wrote:
> > >
> > > So here are my thoughts on Ascended Masters, angels, Archangels and
> avatars here on earth.
> > >
> > > When I was at the tail end of my time at MIU, a former TM teacher
> named Bob Fickes came to Fairfield and was teaching channeling classes
> and doing private readings. Feeling it might be of some value, I had a
> reading and most of it was over my head, being oriented in a very
> esoteric fashion.
> > >
> > > It was my first introduction to channeling. Through one thing and
> another, I decided to try channeling myself – at first nothing
> happened then I had an experience with the Archangel Raphael – the
> energy was unbelievably blissful, and I continued to "channel" just to
> feel the energy and for no other reason.
> > >
> > > After a couple friends found out I was channeling they asked me to
> do readings for them. At first I refused, then I gave in. One thing led
> to another and I felt that, the energy being what it was deep and
> blissful most of the time, and the information coming through seemed
> pretty credible on a personal level, that it was my calling to channel
> the Ascended Masters, angels and Archangels.
> > >
> > > I never, in 25 years of channeling made very much money at it, but I
> did it anyway. So after 25 years of channeling, here are my thoughts and
> beliefs on these matters.
> > >
> > > In terms of Energy, I have enjoyed much of the experiences I have
> had. Feedback from those who have come to me for readings have been
> mostly positive. Having done sessions for friends, I have seen that
> sometimes the information is strikingly accurate, and sometimes not
> accurate at all.
> > >
> > > A lot of time the channel will excuse this by saying that as the
> karmic energy or circumstances change and as we make different choices,
> the events that may manifest will change accordingly. I won't argue with
> that, it may be true.
> > >
> > > There is also the phenomenon of mixing, meaning that the mind and
> ego of the channel mixes some of its own beliefs into the energy of the
> Masters as it comes through as information and that alters the
> particulars of the information.
> > >
> > > On a personal note over the years I found that I still liked the
> experience of channeling for the energy. It was a way of experiencing a
> really expanded Divine Essence.
> > >
> > > And the real effect for the person or people (in the case of a group
> channeling) was to re-connect them more to their own Divine Self more
> fully through the Energy connection of what we call the Ascended
> Masters, angels and Archangels.
> > >
> > > This may be one of the reasons that I never made that much money
> because I foind over the years that people seem to be drawn to those
> channels that channel lots and lots of information.
> > >
> > > There are all kinds of channels. Some like myself channel a wide
> variety of Beings of Light – Mother Mary, Kwan Yin, Jesus, Buddha,
> the various Archangels like Michael and Raphael, various angels, Krishna
> and Shiva and so on.
> > >
> > > Some seem to specialize and just channel one or two Beings like a
> channel for the Archangel Michael or Maitreya – yep there have been
> those who channel Maitreya.
> > >
> > > When I started channeling there weren't that many people who were
> doing it, but the number of channels has exploded – there are all
> kinds of channels these days and most of them channel lots and lots of
> information. Some of it seems trivial like the channels to tell us about
> the yetis and 

[FairfieldLife] Re: When did the word "bitch" get to be a bad thing?

[laughinggull108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
>
> Since the above word has been used recently in several exchanges, I got to 
> thinking (yes, I do that from time to time), hence the title or question 
> above. After all, a bitch is simply a female dog who lives her life 
> naturally, accepts and gives unconditional love and affection, and is 
> fiercely protective of her young. And what's wrong with that? You bitches 
> should be proud to be called bitches!
> 
> BTW, what is male dog called? (Wait for it, wait for it...) A barry? (Sorry 
> Barry, but I know that you can handle this with your usual aplomb and 
> self-deprecating humor...or I hope you can.)
>

(...or I hope you can or else I guess you could say, I'll be in the "doghouse"?)

http://instantrimshot.com/classic/?sound=rimshot

Emilina, you may now refer to me as the laughingfully punster.

[FairfieldLife] When did the word "bitch" get to be a bad thing?

[laughinggull108]

Since the above word has been used recently in several exchanges, I got to 
thinking (yes, I do that from time to time), hence the title or question above. 
After all, a bitch is simply a female dog who lives her life naturally, accepts 
and gives unconditional love and affection, and is fiercely protective of her 
young. And what's wrong with that? You bitches should be proud to be called 
bitches!

BTW, what is male dog called? (Wait for it, wait for it...) A barry? (Sorry 
Barry, but I know that you can handle this with your usual aplomb and 
self-deprecating humor...or I hope you can.)

[FairfieldLife] Capitalism and Enlightenment?

[card]

I certainly feel like being on thin ice with this,
but IMO, capitalism / market economy and (saaMkhya-yogic, etc.) enlightenment 
are mutually incompatible... :o

[FairfieldLife] Re: A physical basis of the ritum level -- fourth state of water

[Duveyoung]

Come on -- isn't anyone interested in the discovery of the primal source of 
ORDER in creation?

And this is actual science -- not Keith Wallace dinky stuff.  Heavy duty 
laboratory precision. 

Edg

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> Hey, anyone even look at this yet?  This is NOT METAPHORICthis is about 
> the finest relative -- it's EXPLAINED.
> 
> BY A GOSH DURNED JIM DANDY ACTUAL REAL RESPECTED SCIENTIST.
> 
> It's long, but do even ten minutes and you're going to watch the whole thing.
> 
> This is about the Unified Field.
> 
> This is about the actual mechanics of how light makes water orderly and 
> begins LIFE.  
> 
> This is about free energy.
> 
> 
> Edg
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XVBEwn6iWOo
> > 
> > Maybe Being is OBVIOUS.
> > 
> > Maybe it's VISIBLE to the naked eye.
> > 
> > Spill a bit of water, and you've made A BATTERY.
> > 
> > I'm excited!
> > 
> > Edg
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>

> > but I see
> > them a little differently. For one thing, I think that
> > Share and Judy (and the rest of the pile-on persecutors
> > of her) are remarkably ALIKE, in that they all 1) have
> > large egos that constantly require stroking, 2) have a 
> > near-constant need to attract attention, and 3) have
> > a near-desperate compulsion to "get in the last word"
> > or "win" arguments that don't matter to anyone else in
> > the world *but* their large egos. 
> 
> I just know Barry has a small notebook of catch phrases
> that he opens up and uses all the time.

Whether they apply or not. It doesn't matter if they don't;
the idea is to use the catch phrases to put down the folks
he doesn't like, not to make sensible observations.

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Xeno

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:

> And how about Ann, raunchy, Emily, Alex, and Ravi? That's
> seven people who are apparently too different from you for
> you and them to understand each other--about half of the
> regulars who have had exchanges with you or have defended
> you. And that half haven't had any arguments with you to
> begin with, so there's no way to tell whether they would
> be able to understand you if they did.

Yeesh. Let's try this again:

And how about Ann, raunchy, Emily, Alex, and Ravi? That's
seven people who are apparently too different from you for
you and them to understand each other--about half of the
regulars who have had exchanges with you. The half who have
defended you haven't had any arguments with you to begin
with, so there's no way to tell whether they would be able
to understand you if they did.

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Barry PS

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> As for caring what someone thinks of me, there are many
> posters on FFL whose opinion, including of me, I care
> about. This is also why I reply, especially to Judy's
> accusations.

Note that Share has not replied to my rebuttal of her
accusations against me.




> 
>  From: turquoiseb 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 3:08 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy
>  
> 
>   
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > 
> > > > You began misinterpreting me on Sept 9 post 319521 and have 
> > > > continued to do so up to the present.
> > 
> > > No, no, Share, generalizations are not acceptable. They're one 
> > > of your many ways of avoiding accountability for what you say.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > There are those who see forests and those who see trees. Share 
> > seems to be a generalist, a caretaker of forests. You are far 
> > more specific, taking care of individual trees. I do not think 
> > you two will ever connect. There is something to say for each 
> > of these views, but such a divergence between them will never 
> > line up as an argument. Your thinking styles are simply not 
> > compatible. She cannot understand you, and you cannot understand 
> > her, though I suspect you feel you have Share pegged, and she 
> > feels she has you pegged. This is an opinion, not a fact. If 
> > it were a fact, it would be hopeless to continue, unless 
> > bickering is the gold standard for social congress.
> 
> That's a compassionate way of seeing things, but I see
> them a little differently. For one thing, I think that
> Share and Judy (and the rest of the pile-on persecutors
> of her) are remarkably ALIKE, in that they all 1) have
> large egos that constantly require stroking, 2) have a 
> near-constant need to attract attention, and 3) have
> a near-desperate compulsion to "get in the last word"
> or "win" arguments that don't matter to anyone else in
> the world *but* their large egos. 
> 
> The fact that Share CARES what any of these bitches
> think of her makes her a perfect victim for their 
> assaults, and from her side SHE keeps restarting the
> arguments and thus *making* herself the victim every
> time it dies down, because that gets her attention. 
> 
> I think it's all a little tacky, and too much like a 
> bitchy high school girl clique ( and I include both 
> Robin and Ravi as "girls" :-) to watch any of it. It's
> all too predictable at this point, and too Drama Queens
> On Parade to bother with. 
> 
> Share could stop it at any point by just *letting* the 
> cliquebitches have the last word and moving on to more 
> sane topics. Then when they tried to restart it again,
> just ignore them again. But she doesn't, because IMO 
> 1) she's hungry to be the focus of attention and have 
> everything be "all about her," and 2) SHE'S JUST 
> LIKE THE WOMEN PILING ONTO HER. 
> 
> All I can say is that by now my "Next" finger is almost
> worn out from zipping past anything that ANY of them say,
> and I suspect other people's are, too. I just wish the
> whole lot of them would grow up.
>