[FairfieldLife] RE: Did I get this right?

[cardemaister]

Test your voltage:
 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjpCKZ7cEoY 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjpCKZ7cEoY
 

 13:00 -> 
 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
wrote:
 >
 > At some point started to feel he's partly making stuff up just
 > to sell the book(?).
 >
 > Am I the last to know he's a TM-teacher??
 
 
 Gee. A TM teacher who is into conspiracy theories and Woo Woo
 who makes stuff up just to sell...uh...whatever he's selling. Who'd
 have ever thunk it? :-)
 
 
 > ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, 
 > cardemaister@ wrote:
 >
 > JFK may have been k*lled because he intended to reveal the thruth(?)
 about ET's??
 >
 > Ditto with MM??
 >
 > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwJLh---t8E 
 > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwJLh---t8E
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwJLh---t8E 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwJLh---t8E
 > 
 

[FairfieldLife] RE: Autisim + TM = game-changer for the TM organization AND for people with autism?

[LEnglish5]

first link should be: Resting state EEG abnormalities in autism spectrum 
disorders (full text, pdf file) 
http://www.jneurodevdisorders.com/content/pdf/1866-1955-5-24.pdf
 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 I watched that autism "webinar" that was put on by the David Lynch and Joey 
Lowenstein foundations, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhK6PVp2AjI 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhK6PVp2AjI. and it was nice, but I heard a lot 
of people claiming, as usual, that TM was no different than any other form of 
meditation, was too expensive, and that the webinar was merely an infomertial, 
etc. 

 So, I did a scholar.google.com search, and came across a new research review 
on the EEG of autism.
 

 Not to put too fine a point on it, but, after checking further, on just about 
every measure I could find, TM's effects on normal people reverses what you 
find in an autistic person --brainwave power, brain activity, brain 
connections-- they all appear to be exactly the opposite from what is typical 
for an autistic person.
 

 Also, mindfulness and concentration meditation techniques show measures that 
are similar to what autistic people already show, which implies they are NOT 
good for autistic people to practice.
 

 If research on autistic people doing TM shows the same kinds of changes that 
normal people show when they do TM, this implies that TM is a direct treatment 
for autism, not just an anti-stress technique that might be good for autistic 
people to practice.
 

 

 Here's my original reddit.com message I put up, which includes the links to 
the various studies that I use to justify what I say above:
 

 A recent review of all studies on EEG and autism showed that the main pattern 
of EEG found in people with ASD actually resembles the changes that take place 
DURING mindfulness and concentration practices. This suggests that such 
practices are completely inappropriate for individuals with autism.
 

 [Resting state EEG abnormalities in autism spectrum disorders (full text, pdf 
file)]ttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3058935/pdf/nihms210802.pdf
 

 

 Mindfulness and concentration-based meditation practices tend to show higher 
levels of Gamma EEG or higher levels of theta EEG while showing lower levels of 
Alpha EEG
 

 [Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending: 
Categories to organize meditations from Vedic, Buddhist and Chinese traditions 
-Table 1 (full text, pdf 
file)]http://drfredtravis.com/downloads/Travis_preprint.pdf 
http://drfredtravis.com/downloads/Travis_preprint.pdf
 

 

  while Transcendental Meditation tends to show higher levels of Alpha EEG 
power and lower power levels in other EEG frequency bands.
 

 [A self-referential default brain state: patterns of coherence, power, and 
eLORETA sources during eyes-closed rest and Transcendental Meditation 
practice]http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10339-009-0343-2 
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10339-009-0343-2
 

 

 

 The first study above also mentions that people with Autism Spectrum Disorder 
show a markedly reduced level of long-distance connectivity in the brain. 
Recently published research on many forms of meditation _other than_ TM also 
found that most forms of meditation reduce the level of long-distance 
connectivity in the brain, making their effect similar to that which is 
considered abnormal when found in patients with ASD:
 

 [Reduced functional connectivity between cortical sources in five meditation 
traditions detected with lagged coherence using EEG tomography (full text, pdf 
file)]http://www.amaye.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/med-connectivity-EEG-tomog.pdf
 http://www.amaye.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/med-connectivity-EEG-tomog.pdf
 

 The above researchers were recently given a live demo of how fast and how 
effectively TM establishes long-distance connectivity in the brain, and are 
conducting their study again, this time using TM practitioners, so that they 
can compare the results. Based on published research on EEG, researchers on TM 
expect that this new study will show that TM has exactly the opposite effect 
from other forms of meditation with respect to long-distance connectivity.
 

 

 

 Research on ASD and the resting network of the brain –the so-called “default 
mode network”– has found that there is a marked abnormality in how the DMN 
functions in patients with ASD, especially the connectivity to and activity of, 
the medial Prefrontal Cortex:
 

 [Abnormal functional connectivity of default mode sub-networks in autism 
spectrum disorder patients (full text, pdf 
file)]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3058935/pdf/nihms210802.pdf 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3058935/pdf/nihms210802.pdf
 

 This turns out to be exactly the same area mostly like to show reduced 
activity and connectivity due to the practice of mindfulness and concentrative 
practices:
 

 [Attending to the present: mindfulness medi

[FairfieldLife] RE: Autisim + TM = game-changer for the TM organization AND for people with autism?

[LEnglish5]

Bless you yahoo groups. Here's the link to the Autism + EEG paper: 
http://www.jneurodevdisorders.com/content/pdf/1866-1955-5-24.pdf 
 

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

 I watched that autism "webinar" that was put on by the David Lynch and Joey 
Lowenstein foundations, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhK6PVp2AjI 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhK6PVp2AjI. and it was nice, but I heard a lot 
of people claiming, as usual, that TM was no different than any other form of 
meditation, was too expensive, and that the webinar was merely an infomertial, 
etc. 

 So, I did a scholar.google.com search, and came across a new research review 
on the EEG of autism.
 

 Not to put too fine a point on it, but, after checking further, on just about 
every measure I could find, TM's effects on normal people reverses what you 
find in an autistic person --brainwave power, brain activity, brain 
connections-- they all appear to be exactly the opposite from what is typical 
for an autistic person.
 

 Also, mindfulness and concentration meditation techniques show measures that 
are similar to what autistic people already show, which implies they are NOT 
good for autistic people to practice.
 

 If research on autistic people doing TM shows the same kinds of changes that 
normal people show when they do TM, this implies that TM is a direct treatment 
for autism, not just an anti-stress technique that might be good for autistic 
people to practice.
 

 

 Here's my original reddit.com message I put up, which includes the links to 
the various studies that I use to justify what I say above:
 

 A recent review of all studies on EEG and autism showed that the main pattern 
of EEG found in people with ASD actually resembles the changes that take place 
DURING mindfulness and concentration practices. This suggests that such 
practices are completely inappropriate for individuals with autism.
 

 [Resting state EEG abnormalities in autism spectrum disorders (full text, pdf 
file)]ttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3058935/pdf/nihms210802.pdf
 

 

 Mindfulness and concentration-based meditation practices tend to show higher 
levels of Gamma EEG or higher levels of theta EEG while showing lower levels of 
Alpha EEG
 

 [Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending: 
Categories to organize meditations from Vedic, Buddhist and Chinese traditions 
-Table 1 (full text, pdf 
file)]http://drfredtravis.com/downloads/Travis_preprint.pdf 
http://drfredtravis.com/downloads/Travis_preprint.pdf
 

 

  while Transcendental Meditation tends to show higher levels of Alpha EEG 
power and lower power levels in other EEG frequency bands.
 

 [A self-referential default brain state: patterns of coherence, power, and 
eLORETA sources during eyes-closed rest and Transcendental Meditation 
practice]http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10339-009-0343-2 
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10339-009-0343-2
 

 

 

 The first study above also mentions that people with Autism Spectrum Disorder 
show a markedly reduced level of long-distance connectivity in the brain. 
Recently published research on many forms of meditation _other than_ TM also 
found that most forms of meditation reduce the level of long-distance 
connectivity in the brain, making their effect similar to that which is 
considered abnormal when found in patients with ASD:
 

 [Reduced functional connectivity between cortical sources in five meditation 
traditions detected with lagged coherence using EEG tomography (full text, pdf 
file)]http://www.amaye.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/med-connectivity-EEG-tomog.pdf
 http://www.amaye.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/med-connectivity-EEG-tomog.pdf
 

 The above researchers were recently given a live demo of how fast and how 
effectively TM establishes long-distance connectivity in the brain, and are 
conducting their study again, this time using TM practitioners, so that they 
can compare the results. Based on published research on EEG, researchers on TM 
expect that this new study will show that TM has exactly the opposite effect 
from other forms of meditation with respect to long-distance connectivity.
 

 

 

 Research on ASD and the resting network of the brain –the so-called “default 
mode network”– has found that there is a marked abnormality in how the DMN 
functions in patients with ASD, especially the connectivity to and activity of, 
the medial Prefrontal Cortex:
 

 [Abnormal functional connectivity of default mode sub-networks in autism 
spectrum disorder patients (full text, pdf 
file)]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3058935/pdf/nihms210802.pdf 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3058935/pdf/nihms210802.pdf
 

 This turns out to be exactly the same area mostly like to show reduced 
activity and connectivity due to the practice of mindfulness and concentrative 
practices:
 

 [Attending to the present: mindfulness meditation reveals distinct neural 
modes 

[FairfieldLife] Autisim + TM = game-changer for the TM organization AND for people with autism?

[LEnglish5]

I watched that autism "webinar" that was put on by the David Lynch and Joey 
Lowenstein foundations, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhK6PVp2AjI 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhK6PVp2AjI. and it was nice, but I heard a lot 
of people claiming, as usual, that TM was no different than any other form of 
meditation, was too expensive, and that the webinar was merely an infomertial, 
etc. 
 

 So, I did a scholar.google.com search, and came across a new research review 
on the EEG of autism.
 

 Not to put too fine a point on it, but, after checking further, on just about 
every measure I could find, TM's effects on normal people reverses what you 
find in an autistic person --brainwave power, brain activity, brain 
connections-- they all appear to be exactly the opposite from what is typical 
for an autistic person.
 

 Also, mindfulness and concentration meditation techniques show measures that 
are similar to what autistic people already show, which implies they are NOT 
good for autistic people to practice.
 

 If research on autistic people doing TM shows the same kinds of changes that 
normal people show when they do TM, this implies that TM is a direct treatment 
for autism, not just an anti-stress technique that might be good for autistic 
people to practice.
 

 

 Here's my original reddit.com message I put up, which includes the links to 
the various studies that I use to justify what I say above:
 

 A recent review of all studies on EEG and autism showed that the main pattern 
of EEG found in people with ASD actually resembles the changes that take place 
DURING mindfulness and concentration practices. This suggests that such 
practices are completely inappropriate for individuals with autism.
 

 [Resting state EEG abnormalities in autism spectrum disorders (full text, pdf 
file)]ttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3058935/pdf/nihms210802.pdf
 

 

 Mindfulness and concentration-based meditation practices tend to show higher 
levels of Gamma EEG or higher levels of theta EEG while showing lower levels of 
Alpha EEG
 

 [Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending: 
Categories to organize meditations from Vedic, Buddhist and Chinese traditions 
-Table 1 (full text, pdf 
file)]http://drfredtravis.com/downloads/Travis_preprint.pdf 
http://drfredtravis.com/downloads/Travis_preprint.pdf
 

 

  while Transcendental Meditation tends to show higher levels of Alpha EEG 
power and lower power levels in other EEG frequency bands.
 

 [A self-referential default brain state: patterns of coherence, power, and 
eLORETA sources during eyes-closed rest and Transcendental Meditation 
practice]http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10339-009-0343-2 
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10339-009-0343-2
 

 

 

 The first study above also mentions that people with Autism Spectrum Disorder 
show a markedly reduced level of long-distance connectivity in the brain. 
Recently published research on many forms of meditation _other than_ TM also 
found that most forms of meditation reduce the level of long-distance 
connectivity in the brain, making their effect similar to that which is 
considered abnormal when found in patients with ASD:
 

 [Reduced functional connectivity between cortical sources in five meditation 
traditions detected with lagged coherence using EEG tomography (full text, pdf 
file)]http://www.amaye.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/med-connectivity-EEG-tomog.pdf
 http://www.amaye.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/med-connectivity-EEG-tomog.pdf
 

 The above researchers were recently given a live demo of how fast and how 
effectively TM establishes long-distance connectivity in the brain, and are 
conducting their study again, this time using TM practitioners, so that they 
can compare the results. Based on published research on EEG, researchers on TM 
expect that this new study will show that TM has exactly the opposite effect 
from other forms of meditation with respect to long-distance connectivity.
 

 

 

 Research on ASD and the resting network of the brain –the so-called “default 
mode network”– has found that there is a marked abnormality in how the DMN 
functions in patients with ASD, especially the connectivity to and activity of, 
the medial Prefrontal Cortex:
 

 [Abnormal functional connectivity of default mode sub-networks in autism 
spectrum disorder patients (full text, pdf 
file)]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3058935/pdf/nihms210802.pdf 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3058935/pdf/nihms210802.pdf
 

 This turns out to be exactly the same area mostly like to show reduced 
activity and connectivity due to the practice of mindfulness and concentrative 
practices:
 

 [Attending to the present: mindfulness meditation reveals distinct neural 
modes of self-reference]http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/2/4/313.abstract 
http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/2/4/313.abstract
 

 [Impact of meditation training on the default m

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[authfriend]

BTW, Feste, this exchange with you turned out to be an example of what I meant 
when I said I often take the nastiness quotient down a level in my responses. 
If you read over the whole thing, you'll see that's just what I've done. I 
didn't do it consciously; as I said, it's instinctive.
 

I wrote:

 We'll probably have to agree to disagree, but it seems to me disloyal to not 
let a friend know when you feel they've messed up badly. (I'm not suggesting 
constant niggling criticism about little stuff, idiosyncrasies and so on.)
 

 

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

 Loyalty toward friends seems to me a better approach than criticizing them. 
It's got nothing to do with fear. 

 

 You are probably right about the recent banning of that poster. You are not 
abusive in the way that he was. You do it in your own style. I actually like 
you, authfriend, but your vendetta against Share leaves a bad taste in the 
mouth and I think you should tone it down. 

 

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

 You don't criticize your friends? Even if they deserve it? Interesting. Why 
not? Are you afraid if you do, they'll no longer be your friends? Because I'd 
say it's not much of a friendship that can't survive honest criticism.
 

 I'm not going to go into a long defense, but your description below of both my 
and Share's behavior is significantly inaccurate. (If I were to take Share's 
line, I'd point out that as a friend of Share, you're biased, and therefore I 
don't consider anything you have to say about this to be worthwhile.)
 

 Also, the banning of indifferent_netizen is not a precedent for banning me. In 
the first place, we don't know why he was banned; Rick didn't tell us. I'm 
guessing it was for threatening to out emptybill, something I have never done 
to anyone. In the second place, I have never spoken to anyone on this forum 
anything like the way indiff spoke to emptybill--or the way emptybilll spoke to 
indiff, for that matter.
 

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

 To be honest, I didn't care for that post of Share's, but Share is my friend 
and I do not criticize my friends. 

 

 You have been pursuing a vendetta against Share for more than a year now, I 
would guess. She has dealt with you mostly in a civil fashion and has even 
tried to engage you in friendly conversation. But your hostility and abuse has 
been relentless. Were I the moderator of this forum, I would issue you with a 
warning to stop the repeated abuse of one member or face expulsion. Then if you 
did not comply I would remove you from this forum. There is already a precedent 
for that with the poster who was recently banned. 

 

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

 You know, I don't choose my words at random. I never said my description 
applied to all my posts; I never said none of my posts were nasty or vicious. I 
stand by what I did say, however.
 

 I've never pretended to be saintly, but I do not, in fact, "love to be mean, 
nasty, and vicious." I do find it very hard not to be when dealing with an 
individual like Share. 
 

 Just out of curiosity, what do you think about Share's attack on Ann, 
comparing her to a Nazi and disparaging her appearance because Ann wrote a 
funny parody of one of Share's posts? Let's see how honest you are.
 

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

 
 Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient of [her] opponent's 
posts down a level":

 

 Share snarled:
 Share pleaded:
 Share babbled:
 Share spewed:
 Share blubbered:
 Share bleated:
 

 All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what you do, authfriend? 
You are always babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about how honest you are 
and how dishonest your opponents are, but why can't you just admit that you 
love to be mean, nasty, and vicious? You get pleasure out of it, which is why 
you do it on this forum day after day, week after week, month after month, year 
after year. It satisfies something inside you, although what that might be, 
only you know.  

 

 

  
 

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

 I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other guy--and/or his or her 
supporters--often experiences my posts to be much more "nasty and vicious" than 
they actually are. I'm frequently surprised when I reread my own posts from 
some epic argument to realize how restrained they were and how I instinctively 
took the nasty/vicious quotient of my opponent's posts down a level with each 
response rather than escalating it.
 

 I think the perception of "nasty and vicious" is directly proportional to how 
accurate my criticisms are. I'm sure you won't agree, but that's why I say 
you'd have a hard time backing up your accusation. You're remembering your 
emotional response rather than the tone of my posts themselves.
 

 

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

 Of course you think that, because you seem unaware of how you come across on 
t

RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[awoelflebater]

Yes, it was an interesting delving into the human condition yesterday and what 
a whirlwind of activity. One person is caught with their underpants down, one 
person is banned, another decides Paris is no longer in the cards, still 
another and another dig deep and unearth a couple of gems. And the Doc is 
waiting for his platinum MGC card. Of course, it is a fictitious scam - there 
is no club but it makes some feel better about it all if they can somehow put a 
label on something in order to make sense of it. And to think, some here don't 
see this as "spiritual". I guess they still haven't figured out humanity and 
all of their to-ings and fro-ings can not be categorized under something so 
limited and unimaginative as "spiritual". This is as "spiritual" as it gets 
folks.
 

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

 Ann, did I tell you I love you today? And, as it goes, "boots are made for 
walkin'."  As of tomorrow in my house, it is officially holiday season with the 
older daughter coming home. She has 4 movies she wants to see:  Gravity; Much 
Ado About Nothing; The Butler; and Catching Fire. Sounds like a good plan to 
me.  
 

 To prepare for the fun family get-togethers on the horizon, it's almost time 
to start playing Opera.
 

 Being the sensitive person I am, I am recovering from yesterday's marathon 
explaining the basic rules of engagement to Share with this 6-hour Mozart 
compilation.  Best regards to FFL, as always, Em

 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2LM3ZlcDnk  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2LM3ZlcDnk 
 

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

  
 

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

 Willytex drawled:
 
 What is the world coming to when you can't even make fun of someone's face or 
boots or where they were born? Emily seems like a nice girl, she's just running 
with the wrong pack. Go figure.
 

 How many does it take to make a "pack"? And don't let that Emily fool ya', 
she's the baddest of the lot. She just knows how to make it look like she's a 
nice guy. She's actually the ringleader and she's gonna be wearing those boots 
very, very soon.
 
 
 On 11/21/2013 6:05 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote:
 
   Well,  I must admit, I've been quite impressed by Judy's one word accurate 
descriptions of the tone of Share's posts.  Judy has the maturity to take 
responsibility for her language; Share doesn't.  Simple.  Can you imagine how 
poor Share would have behaved if someone went after her appearance and 
particularly if it was Judy, Ann or me?  It's a cowardly thing to do and she 
can spin it any way she wants; she's a bullshit artist.  And, that's all from 
me today.   
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
 
 Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient of [her] opponent's 
posts down a level":
 
 
 
 Share snarled:
 Share pleaded:
 Share babbled:
 Share spewed:
 Share blubbered:
 Share bleated:
 
 
 All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what you do, authfriend? 
You are always babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about how honest you are 
and how dishonest your opponents are, but why can't you just admit that you 
love to be mean, nasty, and vicious? You get pleasure out of it, which is why 
you do it on this forum day after day, week after week, month after month, year 
after year. It satisfies something inside you, although what that might be, 
only you know.  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
 I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other guy--and/or his or her 
supporters--often experiences my posts to be much more "nasty and vicious" than 
they actually are. I'm frequently surprised when I reread my own posts from 
some epic argument to realize how restrained they were and how I instinctively 
took the nasty/vicious quotient of my opponent's posts down a level with each 
response rather than escalating it.
 
 
 I think the perception of "nasty and vicious" is directly proportional to how 
accurate my criticisms are. I'm sure you won't agree, but that's why I say 
you'd have a hard time backing up your accusation. You're remembering your 
emotional response rather than the tone of my posts themselves.
 
 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
 Of course you think that, because you seem unaware of how you come across on 
this forum. 
 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
 I think you'd have a real hard time backing that up in my case, feste. But a 
no-brainer that Barry would be at the top of the list.
 
 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
 With all this recent talk about "vicious" an

[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Message from Ravi

[awoelflebater]

 
 

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

 This is why you all should morn Ravi's dismissal from FFL and celebrate his 
unique style of blessing everyone with his personal attention. 

 

 Remember Bill - I don't associate with trailer trash like you. I have nothing 
but contempt, disgust and hostility for dishonest, unintelligent like you. You 
couldn't withstand the heat of my confrontation.
 
Don't flatter yourself - you and your family, your whole bigoted, 
unintelligent, insensitive trailer trash generations are beneath my status, my 
dignity, my intelligence, the sensitivity, beauty and awesomeness of my 
personal consciousness.
 

 And don't be so desperate. Emily's a personal friend of mine and she knows me 
very well, and she's laughing behind your back - Don't embarrass and humiliate 
yourself.
 

 Have some dignity, hope you find your conscience.


 It is my compassion and kindness I have entertained a person like you for this 
long.


May the Universe have mercy on your pitiful, dishonest soul.
 

 So what is this, a current private email Ravi just sent you?
 

 

 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 

This is in response to emptybill's accusations that I have harassed her wife.


 This is nothing but a vicious, malicious lie. I have stretched the limits to 
confront, shock and humiliate emptybill but to suggest I ever contacted his 
wife is hilarious. Emptybill had accidentally emailed me last year and we have 
had private conversations, I have all emails with me and they were all cordial 
and I even wished him luck after he talked about his marriage after a 10 year 
live-in relationship. I'm really shocked at emptybill's dishonesty and I have 
warned him and the moderators to disallow these kinds of malicious lies.
 

 Ravi.



 

RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[awoelflebater]

 
 

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

 Now this is really funny! Ann posts a unkind remark to Buck who is pointing 
out that unkind posters are not welcome on Yahoo.
 
 You can't make this stuff up. LoL!
 

 You and Share were positively made for each other.
 
 On 11/21/2013 7:56 PM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote:
 

 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:dhamiltony2k5@... wrote:
 
 Dear Fairfield Life and guest Yahoo-Groups Moderators;
 
 
 
 Yahoo! guideline says: “Don't be unkind. Exploitative or degrading comments 
are not welcome in Groups. Also not welcome are belligerence, insults, slurs, 
profanity or ranting.”
 
 
 That's cool Buck but I would like to know if your prosthelytizing qualifies as 
"ranting". Now join the lineup for confession, it starts behind the last pew 
there.
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 wrote:
 
 Rick, Keep a close watch out on the mean-girls club too. They could take us 
all down in unkindness.
 -Buck 
 
 
  mailto:rick@... wrote: I don’t have time to keep a close watch out 
on anything on FFL, but if someone gets too outrageous and someone brings it to 
my attention, I usually say to wait and see if they simmer down, and if they 
don’t, I do something about it. 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:rick@... wrote: 
 From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf OfBuck@...
 Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 11:55 AM
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: A story of 
devotion
 
 
  
  
 Yes, to protect the very existence of our FFL community group we should close 
the membership at least of 'indifferent_netizen'/ or whoever that is here, 
before Yahoo catches up with us as a group for tolerating these kinds of unkind 
posts. There is a very real and present danger to the whole FFL group letting 
this writer and some of these other people write their hateful unkind abusive 
speech here.  It is time. 
 Already done.
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 wrote:
 
 
 Thanks Rick. You did the right thing to protect us all.
 -Buck
 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 wrote:
 “Yahoo Groups, in its sole discretion, may terminate or remove any content, 
Group or your Yahoo ID immediately and without notice if (a) Yahoo believes 
that you have acted inconsistently with the spirit or the letter of the Yahoo 
Terms of Service or the Yahoo Groups Guidelines, or (b) Yahoo believes you have 
violated or tried to violate the rights of others. Please help us keep Yahoo 
Groups an enjoyable and positive experience. If you see a Group or content that 
violates our rules, please let us know.”  
 
 
 
 Yes. This here is about the survival of our FFL list. 
 
 
 
 Dear FFL, now more clearly than even before it is getting to be time to avert 
the danger of ultimate termination to our FFL group community before it becomes 
too late. Shutting the Fairfieldlife forum down has been tried by subversion 
like this before. We must act to protect ourselves. I call upon the moderation 
of this community to close the membership of this hooligan 
'indifferent_netizen' masquerading such hateful thought on the pages of our FFL.
 -Buck 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Church of England Paves Way for Women Bishops in 2014

[authfriend]

The problem for the Catholic Church would be that the sacraments central to the 
religion and required for salvation couldn't be administered by priestesses. 
Whatever ceremonies and practices they might devise would be extraneous, 
extra-salvational, as it were.
 

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

 Re "women cannot be priests":
 

 Can I propose an alternative approach? What's wrong with women being 
*priestesses*?! That was the honourable title they were given in the pagan 
world of antiquity.
 

 It strikes me that the Christian churches are so male-oriented that trying to 
include female priests and bishops is really to try and include women who 
happen to imitate more or less successfully their male colleagues. Is that 
really desirable or feasible in an institution that for millennia has been 
dominated by a male ethos? Isn't it asking women to essentially conform to male 
values?
 

 But, on the other hand, do we really want to exclude women from having a 
central role in our religious life?
 

 Is their a solution to this dilemma? What about this: the Christian churches 
continue in having only male priests and bishops - and exclude women. That fits 
naturally with their historical story and avoids embarrassing admissions that 
they've been wrong for 2,000 years!
 

 But how about this: women develop their own religious ceremonies and practices 
outside the Christian dispensation but alongside the male bias of Christian 
churches and thus run in parallel - not as opponents but as adding a 
complementary aspect. I have in mind someone like Olivia Robertson, (who died 
last week!). She was an author, artist, co-founder and high priestess of the 
Fellowship of Isis, an international spiritual organisation devoted to 
promoting awareness of the feminine aspect of the divine. The Fellowship of 
Isis has thousands of members worldwide. Take  a peek here:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1PFYQOn4DI 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1PFYQOn4DI

 

 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Religion will stand for nothing if its foundational principles are that gay 
people are not permitted to marry, or that women cannot be priests, or other 
small-minded obsessions with sex and gender.
 

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

 Little sheep that have lost their way, is all! Pretty soon Religion will stand 
for nothing.
 

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

 Actually, more and more religionists are supporting gay marriage, exactly 
because they believe that to be against it would be contrary to the moral and 
ethical foundations of their religion.
 

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

 Most Religions have lost contact with their essential source of knowledge, 
that is, pure intelligence, or Being as Consciousness.  As such, they are like 
ships with a damaged rudder, better than nothing but not very effective.
 

 Slowly, as ethical humanism takes over decaying Religion, the ethical and 
moral foundations of Religions will all be knocked slowly away (note gay 
marriage) by the intellectual elite who happen to be atheists.
 

 Life, without a guide, will disintegrate until a revival of knowledge and 
experience and *Religious Science*  replace moral relativism and ethical 
humanism.
 

 True knowledge of the true principles of living can never be totally lost...
 

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

  Ann,
 

 I believe the Catholic Church considers the role of women to be motherhood and 
not as patriarchs of the church.  The Church may change its stance depending on 
how well the female bishops in the other denominations are perceived by the 
general public.  Also, the Church may change depending on the quality of men 
that enter the seminary to become priests.
 

 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Probably not as long as men are running the show. 
 

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

 This appears to be the trend among Protestant Christian churches.  But one 
wonders if the Catholic Church would ever accept women as priests. 

 
http://news.yahoo.com/church-england-paves-way-women-bishops-2014-142619228.html
 
http://news.yahoo.com/church-england-paves-way-women-bishops-2014-142619228.html




 









 

[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: More Wacky News: Charles Manson is Getting Married

[jr_esq]

 S3,
 

 The fiancee would have a devious mind if Manson had any money left outside of 
prison.  She would be a fool, if she knew he was penniless.
 

 Whatever the case may be,  Manson has a knack for attracting women even when 
he is incarcerated.  One of these days, I'll have to analyze his jyotish chart 
to see why this is the case.
 

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

 I understand that former Manson Family members are some of the richest 
prisoners in the US system, owing to their notoriety. It doesn't do them any 
good as they can't access the (ill-gotten) gains while they are incarcerated. 
And no way is Charlie ever going to be released. 
 

 But if he were to marry "Star" she would presumably inherit his wealth when he 
kicks the bucket. Nice one - especially as Manson is likely only to have a few 
years of life left in him (he's 79). 
 

 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 The fiancee believes the marriage will happen.  But Manson states it's all a 
lie for media attention.  It appears that Manson knows how to get the attention 
in spite of serving a life sentence in prison. 

 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/21/charles-manson-married-star-25-_n_4317253.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp0592#slide=more326422
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/21/charles-manson-married-star-25-_n_4317253.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp0592#slide=more326422


 

RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[authfriend]

Oh, God, I love it. Share gets her tits caught in her very own wringer.
 

 She accuses me of being disloyal by not warning indiff he was messing up, 
then, thinking she's catching me in a lie, cites a post documenting that I did 
warn him he risked being thrown out, way back toward the beginning of his visit 
here. (And if she wanted to look further she'd find that my first couple of 
posts to him also warned him about not getting folks' backs up.)
 

 After I'd warned him, I stopped paying attention to his exchanges with empty 
and didn't post to him again until the one Share cites. Following that he made 
another couple of dozen posts before Rick threw him out, mostly back-and-forth 
with empty. I didn't pay any attention to those either.
 

 So Share, I await your apology. I'm sure you'll do the right thing. Good luck 
prying your tits loose.
 

 (guffaw)
 

 

 Share messes up badly:

 > Judy claims she wasn't paying attention to indiff's exchange with emptybill. 
 > Yet see post 
 > #363507 excerpted below. So much for Judy's continuing claim to honesty.
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:


 For the record, indiff, I didn't say you were So-and-so, I said you sounded 
like So-and-so. And then when you threatened to out emptybill, I mentioned that 
this guy So-and-so had been thrown off the forum for outing somebody.
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Let me clarify this issue again since even Judy seems to have gotten confused 
here.
 

 I'm using an pseudonym for a reason, to clearly post anonymously. You may 
recognize my energy, my writing style but you are not supposed to reveal my 
first name or any other details.
 

 But this dumb retarded motherfucker emptybill seems to have lot of trouble 
understanding it. He spouts and spews scriptures but lacks the normal maturity 
and intelligence of an adult and I have always given him a free pass in the 
past since I understand his disability. He thinks he can indulge in dishonesty 
like referring me as a troll, telling me that one cannot discuss Amma here, 
that I have been kicked off other forums and some other retarded bullshit.

 On Thursday, November 21, 2013 9:08 PM, "authfriend@..."  
wrote:
 
   I wasn't paying any attention to his exchange with emptybill..As you know, 
I've jumped on him other times when I thought he was out of line.
 

 As to my opinion of you, as you also know, that was formed well before you 
disgraced yourself with Robin.
 

 So you can take your dishonest, nasty, mean, hypocritical little thoughts and 
shove them where the sun don't shine.
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 So Judy, were you being disloyal recently when you didn't let indiff know that 
he was messing up badly? Or you didn't think he was messing up badly? 

 

 IMO the disparity between how you treated him and how you treated me clearly 
indicates that you are prejudiced against me and not the upholder of truth and 
reality that you continually present yourself as. 

 

 My guess is you are still against me because of the situation between me and 
RWC that began Sept 2012.
 That's your choice. But when I think you are being prejudicial, I will say so.

 

 

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

 We'll probably have to agree to disagree, but it seems to me disloyal to not 
let a friend know when you feel they've messed up badly. (I'm not suggesting 
constant niggling criticism about little stuff, idiosyncrasies and so on.)
 

 Feste wrote:

 Loyalty toward friends seems to me a better approach than criticizing them. 
It's got nothing to do with fear. 

 

 You are probably right about the recent banning of that poster. You are not 
abusive in the way that he was. You do it in your own style. I actually like 
you, authfriend, but your vendetta against Share leaves a bad taste in the 
mouth and I think you should tone it down. 

 

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

 You don't criticize your friends? Even if they deserve it? Interesting. Why 
not? Are you afraid if you do, they'll no longer be your friends? Because I'd 
say it's not much of a friendship that can't survive honest criticism.
 

 I'm not going to go into a long defense, but your description below of both my 
and Share's behavior is significantly inaccurate. (If I were to take Share's 
line, I'd point out that as a friend of Share, you're biased, and therefore I 
don't consider anything you have to say about this to be worthwhile.)
 

 Also, the banning of indifferent_netizen is not a precedent for banning me. In 
the first place, we don't know why he was banned; Rick didn't tell us. I'm 
guessing it was for threatening to out emptybill, something I have never done 
to anyone. In the second place, I have never spoken to anyone on this forum 
anything like the way indiff spoke to emptybill--or the way emptybilll spoke to 
indiff, for that matter.
 

 Feste wrote: 
 To be honest, I didn't care for that post of Share's, but Share is my friend

[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Church of England Paves Way for Women Bishops in 2014

[jr_esq]

 S3,
 

 The Catholic Church already has a special place for the Blessed Virgin Mary.  
She is considered the Mother of God.  And she was assumed to Heaven body and 
soul.
 

 So, why bother with Isis who was a pagan goddess of myth?
 

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

 Re "women cannot be priests":
 

 Can I propose an alternative approach? What's wrong with women being 
*priestesses*?! That was the honourable title they were given in the pagan 
world of antiquity.
 

 It strikes me that the Christian churches are so male-oriented that trying to 
include female priests and bishops is really to try and include women who 
happen to imitate more or less successfully their male colleagues. Is that 
really desirable or feasible in an institution that for millennia has been 
dominated by a male ethos? Isn't it asking women to essentially conform to male 
values?
 

 But, on the other hand, do we really want to exclude women from having a 
central role in our religious life?
 

 Is their a solution to this dilemma? What about this: the Christian churches 
continue in having only male priests and bishops - and exclude women. That fits 
naturally with their historical story and avoids embarrassing admissions that 
they've been wrong for 2,000 years!
 

 But how about this: women develop their own religious ceremonies and practices 
outside the Christian dispensation but alongside the male bias of Christian 
churches and thus run in parallel - not as opponents but as adding a 
complementary aspect. I have in mind someone like Olivia Robertson, (who died 
last week!). She was an author, artist, co-founder and high priestess of the 
Fellowship of Isis, an international spiritual organisation devoted to 
promoting awareness of the feminine aspect of the divine. The Fellowship of 
Isis has thousands of members worldwide. Take  a peek here:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1PFYQOn4DI 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1PFYQOn4DI

 

 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Religion will stand for nothing if its foundational principles are that gay 
people are not permitted to marry, or that women cannot be priests, or other 
small-minded obsessions with sex and gender.
 

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

 Little sheep that have lost their way, is all! Pretty soon Religion will stand 
for nothing.
 

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

 Actually, more and more religionists are supporting gay marriage, exactly 
because they believe that to be against it would be contrary to the moral and 
ethical foundations of their religion.
 

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

 Most Religions have lost contact with their essential source of knowledge, 
that is, pure intelligence, or Being as Consciousness.  As such, they are like 
ships with a damaged rudder, better than nothing but not very effective.
 

 Slowly, as ethical humanism takes over decaying Religion, the ethical and 
moral foundations of Religions will all be knocked slowly away (note gay 
marriage) by the intellectual elite who happen to be atheists.
 

 Life, without a guide, will disintegrate until a revival of knowledge and 
experience and *Religious Science*  replace moral relativism and ethical 
humanism.
 

 True knowledge of the true principles of living can never be totally lost...
 

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

  Ann,
 

 I believe the Catholic Church considers the role of women to be motherhood and 
not as patriarchs of the church.  The Church may change its stance depending on 
how well the female bishops in the other denominations are perceived by the 
general public.  Also, the Church may change depending on the quality of men 
that enter the seminary to become priests.
 

 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Probably not as long as men are running the show. 
 

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

 This appears to be the trend among Protestant Christian churches.  But one 
wonders if the Catholic Church would ever accept women as priests. 

 
http://news.yahoo.com/church-england-paves-way-women-bishops-2014-142619228.html
 
http://news.yahoo.com/church-england-paves-way-women-bishops-2014-142619228.html




 









 

[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Message from Ravi

[emilymaenot]

Yes, I know Ravi.  No, Emptybill, I am *not* laughing behind your back.  I 
don't do that; I'd laugh to your face and it would be in the spirit of the 
absurdity of life, which is where I am these days, make no mistake.   
 

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

 This is why you all should morn Ravi's dismissal from FFL and celebrate his 
unique style of blessing everyone with his personal attention. 

 

 Remember Bill - I don't associate with trailer trash like you. I have nothing 
but contempt, disgust and hostility for dishonest, unintelligent like you. You 
couldn't withstand the heat of my confrontation.
 
Don't flatter yourself - you and your family, your whole bigoted, 
unintelligent, insensitive trailer trash generations are beneath my status, my 
dignity, my intelligence, the sensitivity, beauty and awesomeness of my 
personal consciousness.
 

 And don't be so desperate. Emily's a personal friend of mine and she knows me 
very well, and she's laughing behind your back - Don't embarrass and humiliate 
yourself.
 

 Have some dignity, hope you find your conscience.


 It is my compassion and kindness I have entertained a person like you for this 
long.


May the Universe have mercy on your pitiful, dishonest soul.
 

 

 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 

This is in response to emptybill's accusations that I have harassed her wife.


 This is nothing but a vicious, malicious lie. I have stretched the limits to 
confront, shock and humiliate emptybill but to suggest I ever contacted his 
wife is hilarious. Emptybill had accidentally emailed me last year and we have 
had private conversations, I have all emails with me and they were all cordial 
and I even wished him luck after he talked about his marriage after a 10 year 
live-in relationship. I'm really shocked at emptybill's dishonesty and I have 
warned him and the moderators to disallow these kinds of malicious lies.
 

 Ravi.



 

[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: Message from Ravi

[emilymaenot]

P.S.  Ravi, if you are reading this, please don't speak for me.  I speak for 
myself.  Take care.  Thank you.  Emily.  
 

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

 Emptybill:  This is a second send,  as the first isn't showing up and I might 
have forgotten to hit send.
 

 Yes, I know Ravi and he is a friend of mine, but of course, I don't control 
Ravi's behavior anymore than I control anyone else's on this forum. He is 
responsible for himself. I am *not* laughing behind your back; I don't even 
know you well enough to do such a thing or know what I would do it about. I 
have had very few exchanges with you. I remember that you posted opera last 
year and that was a treat.  I do laugh a lot, but mostly at the absurdity of 
life and relationships and to the degree that FFL plays into both those things, 
I have laughed myself silly many, many times.  It's been very healing for me.  
Emily
 

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

 This is why you all should morn Ravi's dismissal from FFL and celebrate his 
unique style of blessing everyone with his personal attention. 

 

 Remember Bill - I don't associate with trailer trash like you. I have nothing 
but contempt, disgust and hostility for dishonest, unintelligent like you. You 
couldn't withstand the heat of my confrontation.
 
Don't flatter yourself - you and your family, your whole bigoted, 
unintelligent, insensitive trailer trash generations are beneath my status, my 
dignity, my intelligence, the sensitivity, beauty and awesomeness of my 
personal consciousness.
 

 And don't be so desperate. Emily's a personal friend of mine and she knows me 
very well, and she's laughing behind your back - Don't embarrass and humiliate 
yourself.
 

 Have some dignity, hope you find your conscience.


 It is my compassion and kindness I have entertained a person like you for this 
long.


May the Universe have mercy on your pitiful, dishonest soul.
 

 

 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 

This is in response to emptybill's accusations that I have harassed her wife.


 This is nothing but a vicious, malicious lie. I have stretched the limits to 
confront, shock and humiliate emptybill but to suggest I ever contacted his 
wife is hilarious. Emptybill had accidentally emailed me last year and we have 
had private conversations, I have all emails with me and they were all cordial 
and I even wished him luck after he talked about his marriage after a 10 year 
live-in relationship. I'm really shocked at emptybill's dishonesty and I have 
warned him and the moderators to disallow these kinds of malicious lies.
 

 Ravi.



 

[FairfieldLife] RE: More Wacky News: Charles Manson is Getting Married

[s3raphita]

I understand that former Manson Family members are some of the richest 
prisoners in the US system, owing to their notoriety. It doesn't do them any 
good as they can't access the (ill-gotten) gains while they are incarcerated. 
And no way is Charlie ever going to be released. 
 

 But if he were to marry "Star" she would presumably inherit his wealth when he 
kicks the bucket. Nice one - especially as Manson is likely only to have a few 
years of life left in him (he's 79). 
 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 The fiancee believes the marriage will happen.  But Manson states it's all a 
lie for media attention.  It appears that Manson knows how to get the attention 
in spite of serving a life sentence in prison. 

 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/21/charles-manson-married-star-25-_n_4317253.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp0592#slide=more326422
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/21/charles-manson-married-star-25-_n_4317253.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp0592#slide=more326422


 

[FairfieldLife] RE: Church of England Paves Way for Women Bishops in 2014

[s3raphita]

Re "women cannot be priests":
 

 Can I propose an alternative approach? What's wrong with women being 
*priestesses*?! That was the honourable title they were given in the pagan 
world of antiquity.
 

 It strikes me that the Christian churches are so male-oriented that trying to 
include female priests and bishops is really to try and include women who 
happen to imitate more or less successfully their male colleagues. Is that 
really desirable or feasible in an institution that for millennia has been 
dominated by a male ethos? Isn't it asking women to essentially conform to male 
values?
 

 But, on the other hand, do we really want to exclude women from having a 
central role in our religious life?
 

 Is their a solution to this dilemma? What about this: the Christian churches 
continue in having only male priests and bishops - and exclude women. That fits 
naturally with their historical story and avoids embarrassing admissions that 
they've been wrong for 2,000 years!
 

 But how about this: women develop their own religious ceremonies and practices 
outside the Christian dispensation but alongside the male bias of Christian 
churches and thus run in parallel - not as opponents but as adding a 
complementary aspect. I have in mind someone like Olivia Robertson, (who died 
last week!). She was an author, artist, co-founder and high priestess of the 
Fellowship of Isis, an international spiritual organisation devoted to 
promoting awareness of the feminine aspect of the divine. The Fellowship of 
Isis has thousands of members worldwide. Take  a peek here:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1PFYQOn4DI 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1PFYQOn4DI

 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Religion will stand for nothing if its foundational principles are that gay 
people are not permitted to marry, or that women cannot be priests, or other 
small-minded obsessions with sex and gender.
 

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

 Little sheep that have lost their way, is all! Pretty soon Religion will stand 
for nothing.
 

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

 Actually, more and more religionists are supporting gay marriage, exactly 
because they believe that to be against it would be contrary to the moral and 
ethical foundations of their religion.
 

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

 Most Religions have lost contact with their essential source of knowledge, 
that is, pure intelligence, or Being as Consciousness.  As such, they are like 
ships with a damaged rudder, better than nothing but not very effective.
 

 Slowly, as ethical humanism takes over decaying Religion, the ethical and 
moral foundations of Religions will all be knocked slowly away (note gay 
marriage) by the intellectual elite who happen to be atheists.
 

 Life, without a guide, will disintegrate until a revival of knowledge and 
experience and *Religious Science*  replace moral relativism and ethical 
humanism.
 

 True knowledge of the true principles of living can never be totally lost...
 

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

  Ann,
 

 I believe the Catholic Church considers the role of women to be motherhood and 
not as patriarchs of the church.  The Church may change its stance depending on 
how well the female bishops in the other denominations are perceived by the 
general public.  Also, the Church may change depending on the quality of men 
that enter the seminary to become priests.
 

 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Probably not as long as men are running the show. 
 

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

 This appears to be the trend among Protestant Christian churches.  But one 
wonders if the Catholic Church would ever accept women as priests. 

 
http://news.yahoo.com/church-england-paves-way-women-bishops-2014-142619228.html
 
http://news.yahoo.com/church-england-paves-way-women-bishops-2014-142619228.html




 









 

[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Message from Ravi

[emilymaenot]

Emptybill:  This is a second send,  as the first isn't showing up and I might 
have forgotten to hit send.
 

 Yes, I know Ravi and he is a friend of mine, but of course, I don't control 
Ravi's behavior anymore than I control anyone else's on this forum. He is 
responsible for himself. I am *not* laughing behind your back; I don't even 
know you well enough to do such a thing or know what I would do it about. I 
have had very few exchanges with you. I remember that you posted opera last 
year and that was a treat.  I do laugh a lot, but mostly at the absurdity of 
life and relationships and to the degree that FFL plays into both those things, 
I have laughed myself silly many, many times.  It's been very healing for me.  
Emily
 

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

 This is why you all should morn Ravi's dismissal from FFL and celebrate his 
unique style of blessing everyone with his personal attention. 

 

 Remember Bill - I don't associate with trailer trash like you. I have nothing 
but contempt, disgust and hostility for dishonest, unintelligent like you. You 
couldn't withstand the heat of my confrontation.
 
Don't flatter yourself - you and your family, your whole bigoted, 
unintelligent, insensitive trailer trash generations are beneath my status, my 
dignity, my intelligence, the sensitivity, beauty and awesomeness of my 
personal consciousness.
 

 And don't be so desperate. Emily's a personal friend of mine and she knows me 
very well, and she's laughing behind your back - Don't embarrass and humiliate 
yourself.
 

 Have some dignity, hope you find your conscience.


 It is my compassion and kindness I have entertained a person like you for this 
long.


May the Universe have mercy on your pitiful, dishonest soul.
 

 

 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 

This is in response to emptybill's accusations that I have harassed her wife.


 This is nothing but a vicious, malicious lie. I have stretched the limits to 
confront, shock and humiliate emptybill but to suggest I ever contacted his 
wife is hilarious. Emptybill had accidentally emailed me last year and we have 
had private conversations, I have all emails with me and they were all cordial 
and I even wished him luck after he talked about his marriage after a 10 year 
live-in relationship. I'm really shocked at emptybill's dishonesty and I have 
warned him and the moderators to disallow these kinds of malicious lies.
 

 Ravi.



 

Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[Share Long]

Judy claims she wasn't paying attention to indiff's exchange with emptybill. 
Yet see post #363507 excerpted below. So much for Judy's continuing claim to 
honesty.


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


For the record, indiff, I didn't say you were So-and-so, I said you sounded 
like So-and-so. And then when you threatened to out emptybill, I mentioned 
that this guy So-and-so had been thrown off the forum for outing 
somebody.



---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
>
>
>Let me clarify this issue again since even Judy seems to have gotten confused 
>here.
>
>
>I'm using an pseudonym for a reason, to clearly post anonymously. You may 
recognize my energy, my writing style but you are not supposed to reveal my 
first name or any other details.
>
>
>But this dumb retarded motherfucker emptybill seems to have lot of trouble 
understanding it. He spouts and spews scriptures but lacks the normal 
maturity and intelligence of an adult and I have always given him a free pass 
in the past since I understand his disability. He thinks he can 
indulge in dishonesty like referring me as a troll, telling me that one 
cannot discuss Amma here, that I have been kicked off other forums and 
some other retarded bullshit.



On Thursday, November 21, 2013 9:08 PM, "authfri...@yahoo.com" 
 wrote:
 
  
I wasn't paying any attention to his exchange with emptybill..As you know, I've 
jumped on him other times when I thought he was out of line.

As to my opinion of you, as you also know, that was formed well before you 
disgraced yourself with Robin.

So you can take your dishonest, nasty, mean, hypocritical little thoughts and 
shove them where the sun don't shine.


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


So Judy, were you being disloyal recently when you didn't let indiff know that 
he was messing up badly? Or you didn't think he was messing up badly? 


IMO the disparity between how you treated him and how you treated me clearly 
indicates that you are prejudiced against me and not the upholder of truth and 
reality that you continually present yourself as. 


My guess is you are still against me because of the situation between me and 
RWC that began Sept 2012.
That's your choice. But when I think you are being prejudicial, I will say so.





---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
>
>
>We'll probably have to agree to disagree, but it seems to me disloyal to not 
>let a friend know when you feel they've messed up badly. (I'm not suggesting 
>constant niggling criticism about little stuff, idiosyncrasies and so on.)
>
>
>
>
>
>---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
>>
>>
>>Loyalty toward friends seems to me a better approach than criticizing them. 
>>It's got nothing to do with fear. 
>>
>>
>>
>>You are probably right about the recent banning of that poster. You are not 
>>abusive in the way that he was. You do it in your own style. I actually like 
>>you, authfriend, but your vendetta against Share leaves a bad taste in the 
>>mouth and I think you should tone it down. 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>You don't criticize your friends? Even if they deserve it? Interesting. Why 
>>>not? Are you afraid if you do, they'll no longer be your friends? Because 
>>>I'd say it's not much of a friendship that can't survive honest criticism.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm not going to go into a long defense, but your description below of both 
>>>my and Share's behavior is significantly inaccurate. (If I were to take 
>>>Share's line, I'd point out that as a friend of Share, you're biased, and 
>>>therefore I don't consider anything you have to say about this to be 
>>>worthwhile.)
>>>
>>>
>>>Also, the banning of indifferent_netizen is not a precedent for banning me. 
>>>In the first place, we don't know why he was banned; Rick didn't tell us. 
>>>I'm guessing it was for threatening to out emptybill, something I have never 
>>>done to anyone. In the second place, I have never spoken to anyone on this 
>>>forum anything like the way indiff spoke to emptybill--or the way emptybilll 
>>>spoke to indiff, for that matter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:


To be honest, I didn't care for that post of Share's, but Share is my 
friend and I do not criticize my friends. 



You have been pursuing a vendetta against Share for more than a year now, I 
would guess. She has dealt with you mostly in a civil fashion and has even 
tried to engage you in friendly conversation. But your hostility and abuse 
has been relentless. Were I the moderator of this forum, I would issue you 
with a warning to stop the repeated abuse of one member or face expulsion. 
Then if you did not comply I would remove you from this forum. There is 
already a precedent for that with the poster who was recently banned. 




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
>
>
>You know, I don't choose my wo

[FairfieldLife] RE: Message from Ravi

[emptybill]

Try reading before you comment Professor Troll. 

 

 This was a special message from the other Troll. 

 It must sound quite familiar to you. 

 

 Keep alert though out it all. When the sun comes up in the morning, we all 
know that the Trolls that seem so menacing at night will be recognized to be 
out-crops of stone and moss. 

 

 Don't look into the mirror, though 'cause you might just see rock-hard truth 
of it all. 

 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Now this is really, really funny! A guy gets banned from the group for posting 
offensive material, so he gets the moderator to post for him, and then the 
offended  guy talks back, quoting the banned guy. LoL!
 
 On 11/21/2013 8:31 PM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote:
 
   This is why you all should morn Ravi's dismissal from FFL and celebrate his 
unique style of blessing everyone with his personal attention. 
 
 
 
 Remember Bill - I don't associate with trailer trash like you. I have nothing 
but contempt, disgust and hostility for dishonest, unintelligent like you. You 
couldn't withstand the heat of my confrontation.
 
 Don't flatter yourself - you and your family, your whole bigoted, 
unintelligent, insensitive trailer trash generations are beneath my status, my 
dignity, my intelligence, the sensitivity, beauty and awesomeness of my 
personal consciousness.
 
 
 And don't be so desperate. Emily's a personal friend of mine and she knows me 
very well, and she's laughing behind your back - Don't embarrass and humiliate 
yourself.
 
 
 Have some dignity, hope you find your conscience.
 
 
 It is my compassion and kindness I have entertained a person like you for this 
long.
 
 
 May the Universe have mercy on your pitiful, dishonest soul.
 
 
 
 
 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:j_alexander_stanley@... wrote:
 
 
 
 This is in response to emptybill's accusations that I have harassed her wife.
 
 
 This is nothing but a vicious, malicious lie. I have stretched the limits to 
confront, shock and humiliate emptybill but to suggest I ever contacted his 
wife is hilarious. Emptybill had accidentally emailed me last year and we have 
had private conversations, I have all emails with me and they were all cordial 
and I even wished him luck after he talked about his marriage after a 10 year 
live-in relationship. I'm really shocked at emptybill's dishonesty and I have 
warned him and the moderators to disallow these kinds of malicious lies.
 
 
 Ravi.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[authfriend]

I wasn't paying any attention to his exchange with emptybill..As you know, I've 
jumped on him other times when I thought he was out of line.
 

 As to my opinion of you, as you also know, that was formed well before you 
disgraced yourself with Robin.
 

 So you can take your dishonest, nasty, mean, hypocritical little thoughts and 
shove them where the sun don't shine.
 

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

 So Judy, were you being disloyal recently when you didn't let indiff know that 
he was messing up badly? Or you didn't think he was messing up badly? 

 

 IMO the disparity between how you treated him and how you treated me clearly 
indicates that you are prejudiced against me and not the upholder of truth and 
reality that you continually present yourself as. 

 

 My guess is you are still against me because of the situation between me and 
RWC that began Sept 2012.
 That's your choice. But when I think you are being prejudicial, I will say so.

 

 

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

 We'll probably have to agree to disagree, but it seems to me disloyal to not 
let a friend know when you feel they've messed up badly. (I'm not suggesting 
constant niggling criticism about little stuff, idiosyncrasies and so on.)
 

 

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

 Loyalty toward friends seems to me a better approach than criticizing them. 
It's got nothing to do with fear. 

 

 You are probably right about the recent banning of that poster. You are not 
abusive in the way that he was. You do it in your own style. I actually like 
you, authfriend, but your vendetta against Share leaves a bad taste in the 
mouth and I think you should tone it down. 

 

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

 You don't criticize your friends? Even if they deserve it? Interesting. Why 
not? Are you afraid if you do, they'll no longer be your friends? Because I'd 
say it's not much of a friendship that can't survive honest criticism.
 

 I'm not going to go into a long defense, but your description below of both my 
and Share's behavior is significantly inaccurate. (If I were to take Share's 
line, I'd point out that as a friend of Share, you're biased, and therefore I 
don't consider anything you have to say about this to be worthwhile.)
 

 Also, the banning of indifferent_netizen is not a precedent for banning me. In 
the first place, we don't know why he was banned; Rick didn't tell us. I'm 
guessing it was for threatening to out emptybill, something I have never done 
to anyone. In the second place, I have never spoken to anyone on this forum 
anything like the way indiff spoke to emptybill--or the way emptybilll spoke to 
indiff, for that matter.
 

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

 To be honest, I didn't care for that post of Share's, but Share is my friend 
and I do not criticize my friends. 

 

 You have been pursuing a vendetta against Share for more than a year now, I 
would guess. She has dealt with you mostly in a civil fashion and has even 
tried to engage you in friendly conversation. But your hostility and abuse has 
been relentless. Were I the moderator of this forum, I would issue you with a 
warning to stop the repeated abuse of one member or face expulsion. Then if you 
did not comply I would remove you from this forum. There is already a precedent 
for that with the poster who was recently banned. 

 

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

 You know, I don't choose my words at random. I never said my description 
applied to all my posts; I never said none of my posts were nasty or vicious. I 
stand by what I did say, however.
 

 I've never pretended to be saintly, but I do not, in fact, "love to be mean, 
nasty, and vicious." I do find it very hard not to be when dealing with an 
individual like Share. 
 

 Just out of curiosity, what do you think about Share's attack on Ann, 
comparing her to a Nazi and disparaging her appearance because Ann wrote a 
funny parody of one of Share's posts? Let's see how honest you are.
 

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

 
 Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient of [her] opponent's 
posts down a level":

 

 Share snarled:
 Share pleaded:
 Share babbled:
 Share spewed:
 Share blubbered:
 Share bleated:
 

 All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what you do, authfriend? 
You are always babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about how honest you are 
and how dishonest your opponents are, but why can't you just admit that you 
love to be mean, nasty, and vicious? You get pleasure out of it, which is why 
you do it on this forum day after day, week after week, month after month, year 
after year. It satisfies something inside you, although what that might be, 
only you know.  

 

 

  
 

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

 I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other guy--and/or his or her 
supporters--often experiences my posts to be much more "

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[sharelong60]

So Judy, were you being disloyal recently when you didn't let indiff know that 
he was messing up badly? Or you didn't think he was messing up badly? 

 

 IMO the disparity between how you treated him and how you treated me clearly 
indicates that you are prejudiced against me and not the upholder of truth and 
reality that you continually present yourself as. 

 

 My guess is you are still against me because of the situation between me and 
RWC that began Sept 2012.
 That's your choice. But when I think you are being prejudicial, I will say so.

 

 

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

 We'll probably have to agree to disagree, but it seems to me disloyal to not 
let a friend know when you feel they've messed up badly. (I'm not suggesting 
constant niggling criticism about little stuff, idiosyncrasies and so on.)
 

 

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

 Loyalty toward friends seems to me a better approach than criticizing them. 
It's got nothing to do with fear. 

 

 You are probably right about the recent banning of that poster. You are not 
abusive in the way that he was. You do it in your own style. I actually like 
you, authfriend, but your vendetta against Share leaves a bad taste in the 
mouth and I think you should tone it down. 

 

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

 You don't criticize your friends? Even if they deserve it? Interesting. Why 
not? Are you afraid if you do, they'll no longer be your friends? Because I'd 
say it's not much of a friendship that can't survive honest criticism.
 

 I'm not going to go into a long defense, but your description below of both my 
and Share's behavior is significantly inaccurate. (If I were to take Share's 
line, I'd point out that as a friend of Share, you're biased, and therefore I 
don't consider anything you have to say about this to be worthwhile.)
 

 Also, the banning of indifferent_netizen is not a precedent for banning me. In 
the first place, we don't know why he was banned; Rick didn't tell us. I'm 
guessing it was for threatening to out emptybill, something I have never done 
to anyone. In the second place, I have never spoken to anyone on this forum 
anything like the way indiff spoke to emptybill--or the way emptybilll spoke to 
indiff, for that matter.
 

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

 To be honest, I didn't care for that post of Share's, but Share is my friend 
and I do not criticize my friends. 

 

 You have been pursuing a vendetta against Share for more than a year now, I 
would guess. She has dealt with you mostly in a civil fashion and has even 
tried to engage you in friendly conversation. But your hostility and abuse has 
been relentless. Were I the moderator of this forum, I would issue you with a 
warning to stop the repeated abuse of one member or face expulsion. Then if you 
did not comply I would remove you from this forum. There is already a precedent 
for that with the poster who was recently banned. 

 

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

 You know, I don't choose my words at random. I never said my description 
applied to all my posts; I never said none of my posts were nasty or vicious. I 
stand by what I did say, however.
 

 I've never pretended to be saintly, but I do not, in fact, "love to be mean, 
nasty, and vicious." I do find it very hard not to be when dealing with an 
individual like Share. 
 

 Just out of curiosity, what do you think about Share's attack on Ann, 
comparing her to a Nazi and disparaging her appearance because Ann wrote a 
funny parody of one of Share's posts? Let's see how honest you are.
 

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

 
 Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient of [her] opponent's 
posts down a level":

 

 Share snarled:
 Share pleaded:
 Share babbled:
 Share spewed:
 Share blubbered:
 Share bleated:
 

 All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what you do, authfriend? 
You are always babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about how honest you are 
and how dishonest your opponents are, but why can't you just admit that you 
love to be mean, nasty, and vicious? You get pleasure out of it, which is why 
you do it on this forum day after day, week after week, month after month, year 
after year. It satisfies something inside you, although what that might be, 
only you know.  

 

 

  
 

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

 I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other guy--and/or his or her 
supporters--often experiences my posts to be much more "nasty and vicious" than 
they actually are. I'm frequently surprised when I reread my own posts from 
some epic argument to realize how restrained they were and how I instinctively 
took the nasty/vicious quotient of my opponent's posts down a level with each 
response rather than escalating it.
 

 I think the perception of "nasty and vicious" is directly proportional to how 
accurate my criticisms are. I'm sure you won'

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Message from Ravi

[Richard J. Williams]

Now this is really, really funny! A guy gets banned from the group for 
posting offensive material, so he gets the moderator to post for him, 
and then the offended  guy talks back, quoting the banned guy. LoL!


On 11/21/2013 8:31 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote:


This is why you all should morn Ravi's dismissal from FFL and 
celebrate his unique style of blessing everyone with his personal 
attention.



Remember Bill - I don't associate with trailer trash like you. I have 
nothing but contempt, disgust and hostility for dishonest, 
unintelligent like you. You couldn't withstand the heat of my 
confrontation.


Don't flatter yourself - you and your family, your whole bigoted, 
unintelligent, insensitive trailer trash generations are beneath my 
status, my dignity, my intelligence, the sensitivity, beauty and 
awesomeness of my personal consciousness.


And don't be so desperate. Emily's a personal friend of mine and she 
knows me very well, and she's laughing behind your back - Don't 
embarrass and humiliate yourself.


Have some dignity, hope you find your conscience.

It is my compassion and kindness I have entertained a person like you 
for this long.


May the Universe have mercy on your pitiful, dishonest soul.




---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:



This is in response to emptybill's accusations that I have harassed 
her wife.


This is nothing but a vicious, malicious lie. I have stretched the 
limits to confront, shock and humiliate emptybill but to suggest I 
ever contacted his wife is hilarious. Emptybill had accidentally 
emailed me last year and we have had private conversations, I have all 
emails with me and they were all cordial and I even wished him luck 
after he talked about his marriage after a 10 year live-in 
relationship. I'm really shocked at emptybill's dishonesty and I have 
warned him and the moderators to disallow these kinds of malicious lies.


Ravi.

RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[emilymaenot]

Ann, did I tell you I love you today? And, as it goes, "boots are made for 
walkin'."  As of tomorrow in my house, it is officially holiday season with the 
older daughter coming home. She has 4 movies she wants to see:  Gravity; Much 
Ado About Nothing; The Butler; and Catching Fire. Sounds like a good plan to 
me.  
 

 To prepare for the fun family get-togethers on the horizon, it's almost time 
to start playing Opera.
 

 Being the sensitive person I am, I am recovering from yesterday's marathon 
explaining the basic rules of engagement to Share with this 6-hour Mozart 
compilation.  Best regards to FFL, as always, Em

 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2LM3ZlcDnk  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2LM3ZlcDnk 
 

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

  
 

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

 Willytex drawled:
 
 What is the world coming to when you can't even make fun of someone's face or 
boots or where they were born? Emily seems like a nice girl, she's just running 
with the wrong pack. Go figure.
 

 How many does it take to make a "pack"? And don't let that Emily fool ya', 
she's the baddest of the lot. She just knows how to make it look like she's a 
nice guy. She's actually the ringleader and she's gonna be wearing those boots 
very, very soon.
 
 
 On 11/21/2013 6:05 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote:
 
   Well,  I must admit, I've been quite impressed by Judy's one word accurate 
descriptions of the tone of Share's posts.  Judy has the maturity to take 
responsibility for her language; Share doesn't.  Simple.  Can you imagine how 
poor Share would have behaved if someone went after her appearance and 
particularly if it was Judy, Ann or me?  It's a cowardly thing to do and she 
can spin it any way she wants; she's a bullshit artist.  And, that's all from 
me today.   
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
 
 Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient of [her] opponent's 
posts down a level":
 
 
 
 Share snarled:
 Share pleaded:
 Share babbled:
 Share spewed:
 Share blubbered:
 Share bleated:
 
 
 All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what you do, authfriend? 
You are always babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about how honest you are 
and how dishonest your opponents are, but why can't you just admit that you 
love to be mean, nasty, and vicious? You get pleasure out of it, which is why 
you do it on this forum day after day, week after week, month after month, year 
after year. It satisfies something inside you, although what that might be, 
only you know.  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
 I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other guy--and/or his or her 
supporters--often experiences my posts to be much more "nasty and vicious" than 
they actually are. I'm frequently surprised when I reread my own posts from 
some epic argument to realize how restrained they were and how I instinctively 
took the nasty/vicious quotient of my opponent's posts down a level with each 
response rather than escalating it.
 
 
 I think the perception of "nasty and vicious" is directly proportional to how 
accurate my criticisms are. I'm sure you won't agree, but that's why I say 
you'd have a hard time backing up your accusation. You're remembering your 
emotional response rather than the tone of my posts themselves.
 
 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
 Of course you think that, because you seem unaware of how you come across on 
this forum. 
 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
 I think you'd have a real hard time backing that up in my case, feste. But a 
no-brainer that Barry would be at the top of the list.
 
 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
 With all this recent talk about "vicious" and "nasty" posts, if one were to 
take a year's worth of FFL posts and list by poster all the posts that might 
reasonably be considered either vicious or nasty, there would be two posters at 
the top of the list, way ahead of any others. These would of course be 
authfriend and turquoise b. Share would be well down on the list. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[FairfieldLife] RE: Message from Ravi

[emptybill]

This is why you all should morn Ravi's dismissal from FFL and celebrate his 
unique style of blessing everyone with his personal attention. 

 

 Remember Bill - I don't associate with trailer trash like you. I have nothing 
but contempt, disgust and hostility for dishonest, unintelligent like you. You 
couldn't withstand the heat of my confrontation.
 
Don't flatter yourself - you and your family, your whole bigoted, 
unintelligent, insensitive trailer trash generations are beneath my status, my 
dignity, my intelligence, the sensitivity, beauty and awesomeness of my 
personal consciousness.
 

 And don't be so desperate. Emily's a personal friend of mine and she knows me 
very well, and she's laughing behind your back - Don't embarrass and humiliate 
yourself.
 

 Have some dignity, hope you find your conscience.


 It is my compassion and kindness I have entertained a person like you for this 
long.


May the Universe have mercy on your pitiful, dishonest soul.
 

 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 

This is in response to emptybill's accusations that I have harassed her wife.


 This is nothing but a vicious, malicious lie. I have stretched the limits to 
confront, shock and humiliate emptybill but to suggest I ever contacted his 
wife is hilarious. Emptybill had accidentally emailed me last year and we have 
had private conversations, I have all emails with me and they were all cordial 
and I even wished him luck after he talked about his marriage after a 10 year 
live-in relationship. I'm really shocked at emptybill's dishonesty and I have 
warned him and the moderators to disallow these kinds of malicious lies.
 

 Ravi.



 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[Share Long]

feste, thanks for your honesty about not liking what I wrote about Ann. It 
means a lot to me. Richard, thanks for giving me more than a few good laughs 
this evening. Oh, and also for that long post about Mary Magdeline and the 
Cathars, fascinating knowledge.





On Thursday, November 21, 2013 8:14 PM, Richard J. Williams 
 wrote:
 
  
Now this is really funny! Ann posts a unkind remark to Buck who is pointing out 
that unkind posters are not welcome on Yahoo.

You can't make this stuff up. LoL!

On 11/21/2013 7:56 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote:

  
> 
>
>
>---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
>
>
>Dear Fairfield Life and guest Yahoo-Groups Moderators;
>
>
>
>Yahoo! guideline says: “Don't be unkind. Exploitative or degrading comments 
>are not welcome in Groups. Also not welcome are belligerence, insults, slurs, 
>profanity or ranting.”
>
>
>That's cool Buck but I would like to know if your prosthelytizing qualifies as 
>"ranting". Now join the lineup for confession, it starts behind the last pew 
>there.
>
>
>
>---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
>>
>>
>>Rick, Keep a close watch out on the mean-girls club too. They could take us 
>>all down in unkindness.
>>-Buck 
>>
>>
>> wrote:I don’t have time to keep a close watch out on anything on 
>>FFL, but if someone gets too outrageous and someone brings it to my 
>>attention, I usually say to wait and see if they simmer down, and if they 
>>don’t, I do something about it. 
>>
>>---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote: 
>>From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On 
>>Behalf OfBuck@...
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 11:55 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: A story of 
devotion
 
 
Yes, to protect the very existence of our FFL community group we should 
close the membership at least of 'indifferent_netizen'/ or whoever that is 
here, before Yahoo catches up with us as a group for tolerating these kinds 
of unkind posts. There is a very real and present danger to the whole FFL 
group letting this writer and some of these other people write their 
hateful unkind abusive speech here.  It is time. 
Already done.


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


Thanks Rick. You did the right thing to protect us all.
-Buck


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
“Yahoo Groups, in its sole discretion, may terminate or remove any content, 
Group or your Yahoo ID immediately and without notice if (a) Yahoo believes 
that you have acted inconsistently with the spirit or the letter of the 
Yahoo Terms of Service or the Yahoo Groups Guidelines, or (b) Yahoo 
believes you have violated or tried to violate the rights of others. Please 
help us keep Yahoo Groups an enjoyable and positive experience. If you see 
a Group or content that violates our rules, please let us know.”  



Yes. This here is about the survival of our FFL list. 



Dear FFL, now more clearly than even before it is getting to be time to 
avert the danger of ultimate termination to our FFL group community before 
it becomes too late. Shutting the Fairfieldlife forum down has been tried 
by subversion like this before. We must act to protect ourselves. I call 
upon the moderation of this community to close the membership of this 
hooligan 'indifferent_netizen' masquerading such hateful thought on the 
pages of our FFL.
-Buck 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[Richard J. Williams]

Now this is really funny! Ann posts a unkind remark to Buck who is 
pointing out that unkind posters are not welcome on Yahoo.


You can't make this stuff up. LoL!

On 11/21/2013 7:56 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote:




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

/*Dear Fairfield Life and guest Yahoo-Groups Moderators;*/



*Yahoo! guideline says*: “/*Don't be unkind*//./ Exploitative or 
degrading comments are not welcome in Groups. Also not welcome are 
belligerence, insults, slurs, profanity or ranting.”



That's cool Buck but I would like to know if your prosthelytizing 
qualifies as "ranting". Now join the lineup for confession, it starts 
behind the last pew there.




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

*Rick, Keep a close watch out on the mean-girls club too. They
could take us all down in unkindness.*

*-Buck*


 wrote:I don’t have time to keep a close watch out on
anything on FFL, but if someone gets too outrageous and someone
brings it to my attention, I usually say to wait and see if they
simmer down, and if they don’t, I do something about it.


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

*From:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf OfBuck*@...
*Sent:* Wednesday, November 20, 2013 11:55 AM
*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Subject:* [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE:
RE: RE: A story of devotion

Yes, to protect the very existence of our FFL community
group we should close the membership at least of
'indifferent_netizen'/ or whoever that is here, before
Yahoo catches up with us as a group for tolerating these
kinds of unkind posts. There is a very real and present
danger to the whole FFL group letting this writer and some
of these other people write their hateful unkind abusive
speech here.  It is time.

Already done.


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

*Thanks Rick. You did the right thing to protect us all.*

*-Buck*



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

“*Yahoo Groups, in its sole discretion, may terminate or
remove any content, Group or your Yahoo ID immediately and
without notice if (a) Yahoo believes that you have acted
inconsistently with the spirit or the letter of the Yahoo
Terms of Service or the Yahoo Groups Guidelines, or (b)
Yahoo believes you have violated or tried to violate the
rights of others. Please help us keep Yahoo Groups an
enjoyable and positive experience. If you see a Group or
content that violates our rules, please let us know.” *



Yes. This here is about the survival of our FFL list.



Dear FFL, now more clearly than even before it is getting
to be time to avert the danger of ultimate termination to
our FFL group community before it becomes too late.
Shutting the Fairfieldlife forum down has been tried by
subversion like this before. We must act to protect
ourselves. I call upon the moderation of this community to
close the membership of this hooligan
'indifferent_netizen' masquerading such hateful thought on
the pages of our FFL.

-Buck

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[Richard J. Williams]

Now this is funny! In a thread about "hooliganism" Barry2 wants to 
insinuate that I'm a meth dealer.


Where is Rick or Alex when we need them? Go figure.

On 11/21/2013 7:52 PM, Bhairitu wrote:


But everyone here already knows your real name is Walter White.

On 11/21/2013 05:47 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote:


Now this is really funny! Old Uncle Tantra once got so upset at me 
for posting a joke about Rama that he posted my real name on the 
internet, not realizing that I'd already posted with my real name a 
few days before, and not a peep out of Judy.  Go figure.

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[Richard J. Williams]

If you were the moderator, Buck, you'd have to send out warnings about 
every hour or two. LoL!


Do you mean like calling somebody a "whack-off" and posting adult 
material to the forum?


http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/362414

On 11/21/2013 7:26 PM, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote:


/*Dear Fairfield Life and guest Yahoo-Groups Moderators;*/



*Yahoo! guideline says*: “/*Don't be unkind*//./ Exploitative or 
degrading comments are not welcome in Groups. Also not welcome are 
belligerence, insults, slurs, profanity or ranting.”




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

*Rick, Keep a close watch out on the mean-girls club too. They could 
take us all down in unkindness.*


*-Buck*


 wrote:I don’t have time to keep a close watch out on 
anything on FFL, but if someone gets too outrageous and someone brings 
it to my attention, I usually say to wait and see if they simmer down, 
and if they don’t, I do something about it.



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

*From:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf OfBuck*@...
*Sent:* Wednesday, November 20, 2013 11:55 AM
*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Subject:* [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE:
RE: A story of devotion

Yes, to protect the very existence of our FFL community group
we should close the membership at least of
'indifferent_netizen'/ or whoever that is here, before Yahoo
catches up with us as a group for tolerating these kinds of
unkind posts. There is a very real and present danger to the
whole FFL group letting this writer and some of these other
people write their hateful unkind abusive speech here.  It is
time.

Already done.


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

*Thanks Rick. You did the right thing to protect us all.*

*-Buck*



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

“*Yahoo Groups, in its sole discretion, may terminate or
remove any content, Group or your Yahoo ID immediately and
without notice if (a) Yahoo believes that you have acted
inconsistently with the spirit or the letter of the Yahoo
Terms of Service or the Yahoo Groups Guidelines, or (b) Yahoo
believes you have violated or tried to violate the rights of
others. Please help us keep Yahoo Groups an enjoyable and
positive experience. If you see a Group or content that
violates our rules, please let us know.” *



Yes. This here is about the survival of our FFL list.



Dear FFL, now more clearly than even before it is getting to
be time to avert the danger of ultimate termination to our FFL
group community before it becomes too late. Shutting the
Fairfieldlife forum down has been tried by subversion like
this before. We must act to protect ourselves. I call upon the
moderation of this community to close the membership of this
hooligan 'indifferent_netizen' masquerading such hateful
thought on the pages of our FFL.

-Buck

[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[awoelflebater]

 
 

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

 Dear Fairfield Life and guest Yahoo-Groups Moderators;
 

 
 Yahoo! guideline says: “Don't be unkind. Exploitative or degrading comments 
are not welcome in Groups. Also not welcome are belligerence, insults, slurs, 
profanity or ranting.”
 

 That's cool Buck but I would like to know if your prosthelytizing qualifies as 
"ranting". Now join the lineup for confession, it starts behind the last pew 
there.
 

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

 Rick, Keep a close watch out on the mean-girls club too. They could take us 
all down in unkindness.
 -Buck 
 

  wrote: I don’t have time to keep a close watch out on anything on 
FFL, but if someone gets too outrageous and someone brings it to my attention, 
I usually say to wait and see if they simmer down, and if they don’t, I do 
something about it. 
 
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote: 
 From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf OfBuck@...
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 11:55 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: A story of 
devotion


  
  
 Yes, to protect the very existence of our FFL community group we should close 
the membership at least of 'indifferent_netizen'/ or whoever that is here, 
before Yahoo catches up with us as a group for tolerating these kinds of unkind 
posts. There is a very real and present danger to the whole FFL group letting 
this writer and some of these other people write their hateful unkind abusive 
speech here.  It is time. 
 Already done.
 

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


 Thanks Rick. You did the right thing to protect us all.
 -Buck

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 wrote:
 “Yahoo Groups, in its sole discretion, may terminate or remove any content, 
Group or your Yahoo ID immediately and without notice if (a) Yahoo believes 
that you have acted inconsistently with the spirit or the letter of the Yahoo 
Terms of Service or the Yahoo Groups Guidelines, or (b) Yahoo believes you have 
violated or tried to violate the rights of others. Please help us keep Yahoo 
Groups an enjoyable and positive experience. If you see a Group or content that 
violates our rules, please let us know.”  
 


 Yes. This here is about the survival of our FFL list. 
 


 Dear FFL, now more clearly than even before it is getting to be time to avert 
the danger of ultimate termination to our FFL group community before it becomes 
too late. Shutting the Fairfieldlife forum down has been tried by subversion 
like this before. We must act to protect ourselves. I call upon the moderation 
of this community to close the membership of this hooligan 
'indifferent_netizen' masquerading such hateful thought on the pages of our FFL.
 -Buck 
  












 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[Bhairitu]

But everyone here already knows your real name is Walter White.

On 11/21/2013 05:47 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote:


Now this is really funny! Old Uncle Tantra once got so upset at me for 
posting a joke about Rama that he posted my real name on the internet, 
not realizing that I'd already posted with my real name a few days 
before, and not a peep out of Judy.  Go figure.

RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[awoelflebater]

 
 

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

 Willytex drawled:
 
 What is the world coming to when you can't even make fun of someone's face or 
boots or where they were born? Emily seems like a nice girl, she's just running 
with the wrong pack. Go figure.
 

 How many does it take to make a "pack"? And don't let that Emily fool ya', 
she's the baddest of the lot. She just knows how to make it look like she's a 
nice guy. She's actually the ringleader and she's gonna be wearing those boots 
very, very soon.
 
 
 On 11/21/2013 6:05 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote:
 
   Well,  I must admit, I've been quite impressed by Judy's one word accurate 
descriptions of the tone of Share's posts.  Judy has the maturity to take 
responsibility for her language; Share doesn't.  Simple.  Can you imagine how 
poor Share would have behaved if someone went after her appearance and 
particularly if it was Judy, Ann or me?  It's a cowardly thing to do and she 
can spin it any way she wants; she's a bullshit artist.  And, that's all from 
me today.   
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
 
 Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient of [her] opponent's 
posts down a level":
 
 
 
 Share snarled:
 Share pleaded:
 Share babbled:
 Share spewed:
 Share blubbered:
 Share bleated:
 
 
 All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what you do, authfriend? 
You are always babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about how honest you are 
and how dishonest your opponents are, but why can't you just admit that you 
love to be mean, nasty, and vicious? You get pleasure out of it, which is why 
you do it on this forum day after day, week after week, month after month, year 
after year. It satisfies something inside you, although what that might be, 
only you know.  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
 I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other guy--and/or his or her 
supporters--often experiences my posts to be much more "nasty and vicious" than 
they actually are. I'm frequently surprised when I reread my own posts from 
some epic argument to realize how restrained they were and how I instinctively 
took the nasty/vicious quotient of my opponent's posts down a level with each 
response rather than escalating it.
 
 
 I think the perception of "nasty and vicious" is directly proportional to how 
accurate my criticisms are. I'm sure you won't agree, but that's why I say 
you'd have a hard time backing up your accusation. You're remembering your 
emotional response rather than the tone of my posts themselves.
 
 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
 Of course you think that, because you seem unaware of how you come across on 
this forum. 
 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
 I think you'd have a real hard time backing that up in my case, feste. But a 
no-brainer that Barry would be at the top of the list.
 
 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
 With all this recent talk about "vicious" and "nasty" posts, if one were to 
take a year's worth of FFL posts and list by poster all the posts that might 
reasonably be considered either vicious or nasty, there would be two posters at 
the top of the list, way ahead of any others. These would of course be 
authfriend and turquoise b. Share would be well down on the list. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[Richard J. Williams]

Alright, let's give Judy some slack - she's not as bad as that banned 
poster, but she really got low and mean with Share, for no good reason 
that I could see. You'd think Judy was an editor or something the way 
she carries on about Share. The sad thing is, she took Ann and Emily 
down with her - she's a bad influence. Never mind that she hates my 
guts. LoL!


On 11/21/2013 7:04 PM, feste37 wrote:


Loyalty toward friends seems to me a better approach than criticizing 
them. It's got nothing to do with fear.



You are probably right about the recent banning of that poster. You 
are not abusive in the way that he was. You do it in your own style. I 
actually like you, authfriend, but your vendetta against Share leaves 
a bad taste in the mouth and I think you should tone it down.




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

*You don't criticize your friends? Even if they deserve it? 
Interesting. Why not? Are you afraid if you do, they'll no longer be 
your friends? Because I'd say it's not much of a friendship that can't 
survive honest criticism.*


*
*

*I'm not going to go into a long defense, but your description below 
of both my and Share's behavior is significantly inaccurate. (If I 
were to take Share's line, I'd point out that as a friend of Share, 
you're biased, and therefore I don't consider anything you have to say 
about this to be worthwhile.)*


*
*

*Also, the banning of indifferent_netizen is not a precedent for 
banning me. In the first place, we don't know why he was banned; Rick 
didn't tell us. I'm guessing it was for threatening to out emptybill, 
something I have never done to anyone. In the second place, I have 
never spoken to /anyone/ on this forum anything like the way indiff 
spoke to emptybill--or the way emptybilll spoke to indiff, for that 
matter.*




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

To be honest, I didn't care for that post of Share's, but Share is
my friend and I do not criticize my friends.


You have been pursuing a vendetta against Share for more than a
year now, I would guess. She has dealt with you mostly in a civil
fashion and has even tried to engage you in friendly conversation.
But your hostility and abuse has been relentless. Were I the
moderator of this forum, I would issue you with a warning to stop
the repeated abuse of one member or face expulsion. Then if you
did not comply I would remove you from this forum. There is
already a precedent for that with the poster who was recently banned.



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

You know, I don't choose my words at random. I never said my
description applied to /all/ my posts; I never said none of my
posts were nasty or vicious. I stand by what I /did/ say, however.


I've never pretended to be saintly, but I do not, in fact,
"love to be mean, nasty, and vicious." I do find it very hard
not to be when dealing with an individual like Share.


Just out of curiosity, what do /you/ think about Share's
attack on Ann, comparing her to a Nazi and disparaging her
appearance because Ann wrote a funny parody of one of Share's
posts? Let's see how honest /you/ are.



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

*Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient
of [her] opponent's posts down a level":
*

*
*

*Share snarled:*

*Share pleaded:*

*Share babbled:*

*Share spewed:*

*Share blubbered:*

*Share bleated:*


*All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what
you do, authfriend? You are always
babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about how honest you
are and how dishonest your opponents are, but why can't
you just admit that you love to be mean, nasty, and
vicious? You get pleasure out of it, which is why you do
it on this forum day after day, week after week, month
after month, year after year. It satisfies something
inside you, although what that might be, only you know.
*

***
*

*
*



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

I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other
guy--and/or his or her supporters--often experiences
my posts to be much more "nasty and vicious" than they
actually are. I'm frequently surprised when I reread
my own posts from some epic argument to realize how
restrained they were and how I instinctively took the
nasty/vicious quotient of my opponent's posts down a
level with each response rather than escalating it.


  

[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[dhamiltony2k5]

Dear Fairfield Life and guest Yahoo-Groups Moderators;
 

 
 Yahoo! guideline says: “Don't be unkind. Exploitative or degrading comments 
are not welcome in Groups. Also not welcome are belligerence, insults, slurs, 
profanity or ranting.” 
 

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

 Rick, Keep a close watch out on the mean-girls club too. They could take us 
all down in unkindness.
 -Buck 
 

  wrote: I don’t have time to keep a close watch out on anything on 
FFL, but if someone gets too outrageous and someone brings it to my attention, 
I usually say to wait and see if they simmer down, and if they don’t, I do 
something about it. 
 
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote: 
 From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf OfBuck@...
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 11:55 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: A story of 
devotion


  
  
 Yes, to protect the very existence of our FFL community group we should close 
the membership at least of 'indifferent_netizen'/ or whoever that is here, 
before Yahoo catches up with us as a group for tolerating these kinds of unkind 
posts. There is a very real and present danger to the whole FFL group letting 
this writer and some of these other people write their hateful unkind abusive 
speech here.  It is time. 
 Already done.
 

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


 Thanks Rick. You did the right thing to protect us all.
 -Buck

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 wrote:
 “Yahoo Groups, in its sole discretion, may terminate or remove any content, 
Group or your Yahoo ID immediately and without notice if (a) Yahoo believes 
that you have acted inconsistently with the spirit or the letter of the Yahoo 
Terms of Service or the Yahoo Groups Guidelines, or (b) Yahoo believes you have 
violated or tried to violate the rights of others. Please help us keep Yahoo 
Groups an enjoyable and positive experience. If you see a Group or content that 
violates our rules, please let us know.”  
 


 Yes. This here is about the survival of our FFL list. 
 


 Dear FFL, now more clearly than even before it is getting to be time to avert 
the danger of ultimate termination to our FFL group community before it becomes 
too late. Shutting the Fairfieldlife forum down has been tried by subversion 
like this before. We must act to protect ourselves. I call upon the moderation 
of this community to close the membership of this hooligan 
'indifferent_netizen' masquerading such hateful thought on the pages of our FFL.
 -Buck 
  












 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[Richard J. Williams]

Spinning spinning spinning, spinning like a spinning top, spinning, 
spinning!


Mitch Ryder & The Detroit Wheels - Jenny Take A Ride / C C Rider
http://youtu.be/TrOvQ9JAf3g

On 11/21/2013 6:50 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:


*You don't criticize your friends? Even if they deserve it? 
Interesting. Why not? Are you afraid if you do, they'll no longer be 
your friends? Because I'd say it's not much of a friendship that can't 
survive honest criticism.*


*
*

*I'm not going to go into a long defense, but your description below 
of both my and Share's behavior is significantly inaccurate. (If I 
were to take Share's line, I'd point out that as a friend of Share, 
you're biased, and therefore I don't consider anything you have to say 
about this to be worthwhile.)*


*
*

*Also, the banning of indifferent_netizen is not a precedent for 
banning me. In the first place, we don't know why he was banned; Rick 
didn't tell us. I'm guessing it was for threatening to out emptybill, 
something I have never done to anyone. In the second place, I have 
never spoken to /anyone/ on this forum anything like the way indiff 
spoke to emptybill--or the way emptybilll spoke to indiff, for that 
matter.*




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

To be honest, I didn't care for that post of Share's, but Share is my 
friend and I do not criticize my friends.



You have been pursuing a vendetta against Share for more than a year 
now, I would guess. She has dealt with you mostly in a civil fashion 
and has even tried to engage you in friendly conversation. But your 
hostility and abuse has been relentless. Were I the moderator of this 
forum, I would issue you with a warning to stop the repeated abuse of 
one member or face expulsion. Then if you did not comply I would 
remove you from this forum. There is already a precedent for that with 
the poster who was recently banned.




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

You know, I don't choose my words at random. I never said my
description applied to /all/ my posts; I never said none of my
posts were nasty or vicious. I stand by what I /did/ say, however.


I've never pretended to be saintly, but I do not, in fact, "love
to be mean, nasty, and vicious." I do find it very hard not to be
when dealing with an individual like Share.


Just out of curiosity, what do /you/ think about Share's attack on
Ann, comparing her to a Nazi and disparaging her appearance
because Ann wrote a funny parody of one of Share's posts? Let's
see how honest /you/ are.



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

*Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient of
[her] opponent's posts down a level":
*

*
*

*Share snarled:*

*Share pleaded:*

*Share babbled:*

*Share spewed:*

*Share blubbered:*

*Share bleated:*


*All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what you
do, authfriend? You are always
babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about how honest you are
and how dishonest your opponents are, but why can't you just
admit that you love to be mean, nasty, and vicious? You get
pleasure out of it, which is why you do it on this forum day
after day, week after week, month after month, year after
year. It satisfies something inside you, although what that
might be, only you know.
*

***
*

*
*



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

I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other
guy--and/or his or her supporters--often experiences my
posts to be much more "nasty and vicious" than they
actually are. I'm frequently surprised when I reread my
own posts from some epic argument to realize how
restrained they were and how I instinctively took the
nasty/vicious quotient of my opponent's posts down a level
with each response rather than escalating it.


I think the perception of "nasty and vicious" is directly
proportional to how accurate my criticisms are. I'm sure
you won't agree, but that's why I say you'd have a hard
time backing up your accusation. You're remembering your
emotional response rather than the tone of my posts
themselves.




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

Of course you think that, because you seem unaware of
how you come across on this forum.



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

I think you'd have a real hard time backing that
up in my case, feste. But a no-brainer that Barry
would be at the top of the list.

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[authfriend]

We'll probably have to agree to disagree, but it seems to me disloyal to not 
let a friend know when you feel they've messed up badly. (I'm not suggesting 
constant niggling criticism about little stuff, idiosyncrasies and so on.)
 

 

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

 Loyalty toward friends seems to me a better approach than criticizing them. 
It's got nothing to do with fear. 

 

 You are probably right about the recent banning of that poster. You are not 
abusive in the way that he was. You do it in your own style. I actually like 
you, authfriend, but your vendetta against Share leaves a bad taste in the 
mouth and I think you should tone it down. 

 

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

 You don't criticize your friends? Even if they deserve it? Interesting. Why 
not? Are you afraid if you do, they'll no longer be your friends? Because I'd 
say it's not much of a friendship that can't survive honest criticism.
 

 I'm not going to go into a long defense, but your description below of both my 
and Share's behavior is significantly inaccurate. (If I were to take Share's 
line, I'd point out that as a friend of Share, you're biased, and therefore I 
don't consider anything you have to say about this to be worthwhile.)
 

 Also, the banning of indifferent_netizen is not a precedent for banning me. In 
the first place, we don't know why he was banned; Rick didn't tell us. I'm 
guessing it was for threatening to out emptybill, something I have never done 
to anyone. In the second place, I have never spoken to anyone on this forum 
anything like the way indiff spoke to emptybill--or the way emptybilll spoke to 
indiff, for that matter.
 

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

 To be honest, I didn't care for that post of Share's, but Share is my friend 
and I do not criticize my friends. 

 

 You have been pursuing a vendetta against Share for more than a year now, I 
would guess. She has dealt with you mostly in a civil fashion and has even 
tried to engage you in friendly conversation. But your hostility and abuse has 
been relentless. Were I the moderator of this forum, I would issue you with a 
warning to stop the repeated abuse of one member or face expulsion. Then if you 
did not comply I would remove you from this forum. There is already a precedent 
for that with the poster who was recently banned. 

 

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

 You know, I don't choose my words at random. I never said my description 
applied to all my posts; I never said none of my posts were nasty or vicious. I 
stand by what I did say, however.
 

 I've never pretended to be saintly, but I do not, in fact, "love to be mean, 
nasty, and vicious." I do find it very hard not to be when dealing with an 
individual like Share. 
 

 Just out of curiosity, what do you think about Share's attack on Ann, 
comparing her to a Nazi and disparaging her appearance because Ann wrote a 
funny parody of one of Share's posts? Let's see how honest you are.
 

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

 
 Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient of [her] opponent's 
posts down a level":

 

 Share snarled:
 Share pleaded:
 Share babbled:
 Share spewed:
 Share blubbered:
 Share bleated:
 

 All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what you do, authfriend? 
You are always babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about how honest you are 
and how dishonest your opponents are, but why can't you just admit that you 
love to be mean, nasty, and vicious? You get pleasure out of it, which is why 
you do it on this forum day after day, week after week, month after month, year 
after year. It satisfies something inside you, although what that might be, 
only you know.  

 

 

  
 

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

 I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other guy--and/or his or her 
supporters--often experiences my posts to be much more "nasty and vicious" than 
they actually are. I'm frequently surprised when I reread my own posts from 
some epic argument to realize how restrained they were and how I instinctively 
took the nasty/vicious quotient of my opponent's posts down a level with each 
response rather than escalating it.
 

 I think the perception of "nasty and vicious" is directly proportional to how 
accurate my criticisms are. I'm sure you won't agree, but that's why I say 
you'd have a hard time backing up your accusation. You're remembering your 
emotional response rather than the tone of my posts themselves.
 

 

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

 Of course you think that, because you seem unaware of how you come across on 
this forum. 

 

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

 I think you'd have a real hard time backing that up in my case, feste. But a 
no-brainer that Barry would be at the top of the list.
 

 

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

 With all this recent talk about "vicious" and "nasty" 

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[feste37]

Loyalty toward friends seems to me a better approach than criticizing them. 
It's got nothing to do with fear. 

 

 You are probably right about the recent banning of that poster. You are not 
abusive in the way that he was. You do it in your own style. I actually like 
you, authfriend, but your vendetta against Share leaves a bad taste in the 
mouth and I think you should tone it down. 

 

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

 You don't criticize your friends? Even if they deserve it? Interesting. Why 
not? Are you afraid if you do, they'll no longer be your friends? Because I'd 
say it's not much of a friendship that can't survive honest criticism.
 

 I'm not going to go into a long defense, but your description below of both my 
and Share's behavior is significantly inaccurate. (If I were to take Share's 
line, I'd point out that as a friend of Share, you're biased, and therefore I 
don't consider anything you have to say about this to be worthwhile.)
 

 Also, the banning of indifferent_netizen is not a precedent for banning me. In 
the first place, we don't know why he was banned; Rick didn't tell us. I'm 
guessing it was for threatening to out emptybill, something I have never done 
to anyone. In the second place, I have never spoken to anyone on this forum 
anything like the way indiff spoke to emptybill--or the way emptybilll spoke to 
indiff, for that matter.
 

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

 To be honest, I didn't care for that post of Share's, but Share is my friend 
and I do not criticize my friends. 

 

 You have been pursuing a vendetta against Share for more than a year now, I 
would guess. She has dealt with you mostly in a civil fashion and has even 
tried to engage you in friendly conversation. But your hostility and abuse has 
been relentless. Were I the moderator of this forum, I would issue you with a 
warning to stop the repeated abuse of one member or face expulsion. Then if you 
did not comply I would remove you from this forum. There is already a precedent 
for that with the poster who was recently banned. 

 

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

 You know, I don't choose my words at random. I never said my description 
applied to all my posts; I never said none of my posts were nasty or vicious. I 
stand by what I did say, however.
 

 I've never pretended to be saintly, but I do not, in fact, "love to be mean, 
nasty, and vicious." I do find it very hard not to be when dealing with an 
individual like Share. 
 

 Just out of curiosity, what do you think about Share's attack on Ann, 
comparing her to a Nazi and disparaging her appearance because Ann wrote a 
funny parody of one of Share's posts? Let's see how honest you are.
 

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

 
 Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient of [her] opponent's 
posts down a level":

 

 Share snarled:
 Share pleaded:
 Share babbled:
 Share spewed:
 Share blubbered:
 Share bleated:
 

 All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what you do, authfriend? 
You are always babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about how honest you are 
and how dishonest your opponents are, but why can't you just admit that you 
love to be mean, nasty, and vicious? You get pleasure out of it, which is why 
you do it on this forum day after day, week after week, month after month, year 
after year. It satisfies something inside you, although what that might be, 
only you know.  

 

 

  
 

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

 I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other guy--and/or his or her 
supporters--often experiences my posts to be much more "nasty and vicious" than 
they actually are. I'm frequently surprised when I reread my own posts from 
some epic argument to realize how restrained they were and how I instinctively 
took the nasty/vicious quotient of my opponent's posts down a level with each 
response rather than escalating it.
 

 I think the perception of "nasty and vicious" is directly proportional to how 
accurate my criticisms are. I'm sure you won't agree, but that's why I say 
you'd have a hard time backing up your accusation. You're remembering your 
emotional response rather than the tone of my posts themselves.
 

 

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

 Of course you think that, because you seem unaware of how you come across on 
this forum. 

 

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

 I think you'd have a real hard time backing that up in my case, feste. But a 
no-brainer that Barry would be at the top of the list.
 

 

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

 With all this recent talk about "vicious" and "nasty" posts, if one were to 
take a year's worth of FFL posts and list by poster all the posts that might 
reasonably be considered either vicious or nasty, there would be two posters at 
the top of the list, way ahead of any others. These would of course be 
authfriend and turquoise b. Sha

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[Richard J. Williams]

*Willytex drawled:**
**
**What is the world coming to when you can't even make fun of someone's 
face or boots or where they were born? Emily seems like a nice girl, 
she's just running with the wrong pack. Go figure.*



On 11/21/2013 6:05 PM, emilymae...@yahoo.com wrote:


Well,  I must admit, I've been quite impressed by Judy's one word 
accurate descriptions of the tone of Share's posts.  Judy has the 
maturity to take responsibility for her language; Share doesn't. 
 Simple.  Can you imagine how poor Share would have behaved if someone 
went after her appearance and particularly if it was Judy, Ann or me? 
 It's a cowardly thing to do and she can spin it any way she wants; 
she's a bullshit artist.  And, that's all from me today.




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

*Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient of [her] 
opponent's posts down a level":

*

*
*

*Share snarled:*

*Share pleaded:*

*Share babbled:*

*Share spewed:*

*Share blubbered:*

*Share bleated:*


*All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what you do, 
authfriend? You are always babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about 
how honest you are and how dishonest your opponents are, but why can't 
you just admit that you love to be mean, nasty, and vicious? You get 
pleasure out of it, which is why you do it on this forum day after 
day, week after week, month after month, year after year. It satisfies 
something inside you, although what that might be, only you know.

*

***
*

*
*



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

I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other guy--and/or
his or her supporters--often experiences my posts to be much more
"nasty and vicious" than they actually are. I'm frequently
surprised when I reread my own posts from some epic argument to
realize how restrained they were and how I instinctively took the
nasty/vicious quotient of my opponent's posts down a level with
each response rather than escalating it.


I think the perception of "nasty and vicious" is directly
proportional to how accurate my criticisms are. I'm sure you won't
agree, but that's why I say you'd have a hard time backing up your
accusation. You're remembering your emotional response rather than
the tone of my posts themselves.




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

Of course you think that, because you seem unaware of how you
come across on this forum.



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

I think you'd have a real hard time backing that up in my
case, feste. But a no-brainer that Barry would be at the
top of the list.




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

With all this recent talk about "vicious" and "nasty"
posts, if one were to take a year's worth of FFL posts
and list by poster all the posts that might reasonably
be considered either vicious or nasty, there would be
two posters at the top of the list, way ahead of any
others. These would of course be authfriend and
turquoise b. Share would be well down on the list.

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[authfriend]

You don't criticize your friends? Even if they deserve it? Interesting. Why 
not? Are you afraid if you do, they'll no longer be your friends? Because I'd 
say it's not much of a friendship that can't survive honest criticism.
 

 I'm not going to go into a long defense, but your description below of both my 
and Share's behavior is significantly inaccurate. (If I were to take Share's 
line, I'd point out that as a friend of Share, you're biased, and therefore I 
don't consider anything you have to say about this to be worthwhile.)
 

 Also, the banning of indifferent_netizen is not a precedent for banning me. In 
the first place, we don't know why he was banned; Rick didn't tell us. I'm 
guessing it was for threatening to out emptybill, something I have never done 
to anyone. In the second place, I have never spoken to anyone on this forum 
anything like the way indiff spoke to emptybill--or the way emptybilll spoke to 
indiff, for that matter.
 

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

 To be honest, I didn't care for that post of Share's, but Share is my friend 
and I do not criticize my friends. 

 

 You have been pursuing a vendetta against Share for more than a year now, I 
would guess. She has dealt with you mostly in a civil fashion and has even 
tried to engage you in friendly conversation. But your hostility and abuse has 
been relentless. Were I the moderator of this forum, I would issue you with a 
warning to stop the repeated abuse of one member or face expulsion. Then if you 
did not comply I would remove you from this forum. There is already a precedent 
for that with the poster who was recently banned. 

 

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

 You know, I don't choose my words at random. I never said my description 
applied to all my posts; I never said none of my posts were nasty or vicious. I 
stand by what I did say, however.
 

 I've never pretended to be saintly, but I do not, in fact, "love to be mean, 
nasty, and vicious." I do find it very hard not to be when dealing with an 
individual like Share. 
 

 Just out of curiosity, what do you think about Share's attack on Ann, 
comparing her to a Nazi and disparaging her appearance because Ann wrote a 
funny parody of one of Share's posts? Let's see how honest you are.
 

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

 
 Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient of [her] opponent's 
posts down a level":

 

 Share snarled:
 Share pleaded:
 Share babbled:
 Share spewed:
 Share blubbered:
 Share bleated:
 

 All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what you do, authfriend? 
You are always babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about how honest you are 
and how dishonest your opponents are, but why can't you just admit that you 
love to be mean, nasty, and vicious? You get pleasure out of it, which is why 
you do it on this forum day after day, week after week, month after month, year 
after year. It satisfies something inside you, although what that might be, 
only you know.  

 

 

  
 

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

 I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other guy--and/or his or her 
supporters--often experiences my posts to be much more "nasty and vicious" than 
they actually are. I'm frequently surprised when I reread my own posts from 
some epic argument to realize how restrained they were and how I instinctively 
took the nasty/vicious quotient of my opponent's posts down a level with each 
response rather than escalating it.
 

 I think the perception of "nasty and vicious" is directly proportional to how 
accurate my criticisms are. I'm sure you won't agree, but that's why I say 
you'd have a hard time backing up your accusation. You're remembering your 
emotional response rather than the tone of my posts themselves.
 

 

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

 Of course you think that, because you seem unaware of how you come across on 
this forum. 

 

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

 I think you'd have a real hard time backing that up in my case, feste. But a 
no-brainer that Barry would be at the top of the list.
 

 

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

 With all this recent talk about "vicious" and "nasty" posts, if one were to 
take a year's worth of FFL posts and list by poster all the posts that might 
reasonably be considered either vicious or nasty, there would be two posters at 
the top of the list, way ahead of any others. These would of course be 
authfriend and turquoise b. Share would be well down on the list. 

 













 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[Richard J. Williams]

Judy is working late in her home office. LoL!

On 11/21/2013 5:59 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:


This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here takes 
Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know.




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

Guilty as charged: a very, very mean, nasty and vicious girl caught 
lying again and again; picking on a nice girl and posting from her 
home office trying to drum up some editing business! Is there anyone 
on the forum who will defend the vicious Judy? Barry? LoL!


On 11/21/2013 4:41 PM, feste37 wrote:

*Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient of [her] 
opponent's posts down a level":

*

*
*

*Share snarled:*

*Share pleaded:*

*Share babbled:*

*Share spewed:*

*Share blubbered:*

*Share bleated:*


*All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what you do, 
authfriend? You are always babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about 
how honest you are and how dishonest your opponents are, but why 
can't you just admit that you love to be mean, nasty, and vicious? 
You get pleasure out of it, which is why you do it on this forum day 
after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. It 
satisfies something inside you, although what that might be, only you 
know.

*

***
*

*
*



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


I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other guy--and/or his 
or her supporters--often experiences my posts to be much more "nasty 
and vicious" than they actually are. I'm frequently surprised when I 
reread my own posts from some epic argument to realize how restrained 
they were and how I instinctively took the nasty/vicious quotient of 
my opponent's posts down a level with each response rather than 
escalating it.



I think the perception of "nasty and vicious" is directly 
proportional to how accurate my criticisms are. I'm sure you won't 
agree, but that's why I say you'd have a hard time backing up your 
accusation. You're remembering your emotional response rather than 
the tone of my posts themselves.





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

Of course you think that, because you seem unaware of how you
come across on this forum.



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

I think you'd have a real hard time backing that up in my
case, feste. But a no-brainer that Barry would be at the top
of the list.




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
,

 wrote:

With all this recent talk about "vicious" and "nasty"
posts, if one were to take a year's worth of FFL posts
and list by poster all the posts that might reasonably be
considered either vicious or nasty, there would be two
posters at the top of the list, way ahead of any others.
These would of course be authfriend and turquoise b.
Share would be well down on the list.

[FairfieldLife] More Wacky News: Charles Manson is Getting Married

[jr_esq]

The fiancee believes the marriage will happen.  But Manson states it's all a 
lie for media attention.  It appears that Manson knows how to get the attention 
in spite of serving a life sentence in prison. 
 

 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/21/charles-manson-married-star-25-_n_4317253.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp0592#slide=more326422
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/21/charles-manson-married-star-25-_n_4317253.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp0592#slide=more326422

[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Church of England Paves Way for Women Bishops in 2014

[authfriend]

Religion will stand for nothing if its foundational principles are that gay 
people are not permitted to marry, or that women cannot be priests, or other 
small-minded obsessions with sex and gender.
 

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

 Little sheep that have lost their way, is all! Pretty soon Religion will stand 
for nothing.
 

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

 Actually, more and more religionists are supporting gay marriage, exactly 
because they believe that to be against it would be contrary to the moral and 
ethical foundations of their religion.
 

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

 Most Religions have lost contact with their essential source of knowledge, 
that is, pure intelligence, or Being as Consciousness.  As such, they are like 
ships with a damaged rudder, better than nothing but not very effective.
 

 Slowly, as ethical humanism takes over decaying Religion, the ethical and 
moral foundations of Religions will all be knocked slowly away (note gay 
marriage) by the intellectual elite who happen to be atheists.
 

 Life, without a guide, will disintegrate until a revival of knowledge and 
experience and *Religious Science*  replace moral relativism and ethical 
humanism.
 

 True knowledge of the true principles of living can never be totally lost...
 

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

  Ann,
 

 I believe the Catholic Church considers the role of women to be motherhood and 
not as patriarchs of the church.  The Church may change its stance depending on 
how well the female bishops in the other denominations are perceived by the 
general public.  Also, the Church may change depending on the quality of men 
that enter the seminary to become priests.
 

 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Probably not as long as men are running the show. 
 

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

 This appears to be the trend among Protestant Christian churches.  But one 
wonders if the Catholic Church would ever accept women as priests. 

 
http://news.yahoo.com/church-england-paves-way-women-bishops-2014-142619228.html
 
http://news.yahoo.com/church-england-paves-way-women-bishops-2014-142619228.html




 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[Richard J. Williams]

Spin. Spin the top, Judy. Blame it all on Share.

Share's comment was justified because Ann wanted to shoot me and posted 
many racist statements about where I live and where I was born. Good 
work, Share!


On the other hand, Judy sounds like a coward, picking on Share all the 
time, instead of policing this group not to post racist statements. It 
may come a surprise to Share to realize that many of the FFL informants 
are prejudiced and really hateful. Go figure.


On 11/21/2013 5:04 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:


You know, I don't choose my words at random. I never said my 
description applied to /all/ my posts; I never said none of my posts 
were nasty or vicious. I stand by what I /did/ say, however.



I've never pretended to be saintly, but I do not, in fact, "love to be 
mean, nasty, and vicious." I do find it very hard not to be when 
dealing with an individual like Share.



Just out of curiosity, what do /you/ think about Share's attack on 
Ann, comparing her to a Nazi and disparaging her appearance because 
Ann wrote a funny parody of one of Share's posts? Let's see how honest 
/you/ are.




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

*Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient of [her] 
opponent's posts down a level":

*

*
*

*Share snarled:*

*Share pleaded:*

*Share babbled:*

*Share spewed:*

*Share blubbered:*

*Share bleated:*


*All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what you do, 
authfriend? You are always babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about 
how honest you are and how dishonest your opponents are, but why can't 
you just admit that you love to be mean, nasty, and vicious? You get 
pleasure out of it, which is why you do it on this forum day after 
day, week after week, month after month, year after year. It satisfies 
something inside you, although what that might be, only you know.

*

***
*

*
*



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

I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other guy--and/or
his or her supporters--often experiences my posts to be much more
"nasty and vicious" than they actually are. I'm frequently
surprised when I reread my own posts from some epic argument to
realize how restrained they were and how I instinctively took the
nasty/vicious quotient of my opponent's posts down a level with
each response rather than escalating it.


I think the perception of "nasty and vicious" is directly
proportional to how accurate my criticisms are. I'm sure you won't
agree, but that's why I say you'd have a hard time backing up your
accusation. You're remembering your emotional response rather than
the tone of my posts themselves.




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

Of course you think that, because you seem unaware of how you
come across on this forum.



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

I think you'd have a real hard time backing that up in my
case, feste. But a no-brainer that Barry would be at the
top of the list.




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

With all this recent talk about "vicious" and "nasty"
posts, if one were to take a year's worth of FFL posts
and list by poster all the posts that might reasonably
be considered either vicious or nasty, there would be
two posters at the top of the list, way ahead of any
others. These would of course be authfriend and
turquoise b. Share would be well down on the list.

[FairfieldLife] Message from Ravi

[j_alexander_stanley]

This is in response to emptybill's accusations that I have harassed her wife.


 This is nothing but a vicious, malicious lie. I have stretched the limits to 
confront, shock and humiliate emptybill but to suggest I ever contacted his 
wife is hilarious. Emptybill had accidentally emailed me last year and we have 
had private conversations, I have all emails with me and they were all cordial 
and I even wished him luck after he talked about his marriage after a 10 year 
live-in relationship. I'm really shocked at emptybill's dishonesty and I have 
warned him and the moderators to disallow these kinds of malicious lies.
 

 Ravi.

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[feste37]

To be honest, I didn't care for that post of Share's, but Share is my friend 
and I do not criticize my friends. 

 

 You have been pursuing a vendetta against Share for more than a year now, I 
would guess. She has dealt with you mostly in a civil fashion and has even 
tried to engage you in friendly conversation. But your hostility and abuse has 
been relentless. Were I the moderator of this forum, I would issue you with a 
warning to stop the repeated abuse of one member or face expulsion. Then if you 
did not comply I would remove you from this forum. There is already a precedent 
for that with the poster who was recently banned. 

 

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

 You know, I don't choose my words at random. I never said my description 
applied to all my posts; I never said none of my posts were nasty or vicious. I 
stand by what I did say, however.
 

 I've never pretended to be saintly, but I do not, in fact, "love to be mean, 
nasty, and vicious." I do find it very hard not to be when dealing with an 
individual like Share. 
 

 Just out of curiosity, what do you think about Share's attack on Ann, 
comparing her to a Nazi and disparaging her appearance because Ann wrote a 
funny parody of one of Share's posts? Let's see how honest you are.
 

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

 
 Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient of [her] opponent's 
posts down a level":

 

 Share snarled:
 Share pleaded:
 Share babbled:
 Share spewed:
 Share blubbered:
 Share bleated:
 

 All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what you do, authfriend? 
You are always babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about how honest you are 
and how dishonest your opponents are, but why can't you just admit that you 
love to be mean, nasty, and vicious? You get pleasure out of it, which is why 
you do it on this forum day after day, week after week, month after month, year 
after year. It satisfies something inside you, although what that might be, 
only you know.  

 

 

  
 

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

 I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other guy--and/or his or her 
supporters--often experiences my posts to be much more "nasty and vicious" than 
they actually are. I'm frequently surprised when I reread my own posts from 
some epic argument to realize how restrained they were and how I instinctively 
took the nasty/vicious quotient of my opponent's posts down a level with each 
response rather than escalating it.
 

 I think the perception of "nasty and vicious" is directly proportional to how 
accurate my criticisms are. I'm sure you won't agree, but that's why I say 
you'd have a hard time backing up your accusation. You're remembering your 
emotional response rather than the tone of my posts themselves.
 

 

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

 Of course you think that, because you seem unaware of how you come across on 
this forum. 

 

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

 I think you'd have a real hard time backing that up in my case, feste. But a 
no-brainer that Barry would be at the top of the list.
 

 

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

 With all this recent talk about "vicious" and "nasty" posts, if one were to 
take a year's worth of FFL posts and list by poster all the posts that might 
reasonably be considered either vicious or nasty, there would be two posters at 
the top of the list, way ahead of any others. These would of course be 
authfriend and turquoise b. Share would be well down on the list. 

 













 

[FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 22-Nov-13 00:15:02 UTC

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): 11/16/13 00:00:00
End Date (UTC): 11/23/13 00:00:00
755 messages as of (UTC) 11/22/13 00:05:32

 99 authfriend
 81 Share Long 
 67 indifferent_netizen 
 61 Richard J. Williams 
 58 TurquoiseB 
 55 awoelflebater
 53 emilymaenot
 39 dhamiltony2k5
 32 s3raphita
 31 Bhairitu 
 23 Richard Williams 
 19 emptybill
 17 doctordumbass
 15 sharelong60
 14 jr_esq
 13 cardemaister
 12 anartaxius
 10 Michael Jackson 
  7 wgm4u 
  6 nablusoss1008 
  6 Rick Archer 
  6 Mike Dixon 
  5 salyavin808 
  5 feste37 
  3 yifuxero
  3 slouisedavis
  3 punditster
  3 Dick Mays 
  1 wleed3 
  1 waspaligap 
  1 merudanda 
  1 martin.quickman
  1 mail_uzer 
  1 j_alexander_stanley
  1 eileenweed
  1 William Leed 
  1 Toby Walker 
Posters: 37
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: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[emilymaenot]

Well,  I must admit, I've been quite impressed by Judy's one word accurate 
descriptions of the tone of Share's posts.  Judy has the maturity to take 
responsibility for her language; Share doesn't.  Simple.  Can you imagine how 
poor Share would have behaved if someone went after her appearance and 
particularly if it was Judy, Ann or me?  It's a cowardly thing to do and she 
can spin it any way she wants; she's a bullshit artist.  And, that's all from 
me today.   
 

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

 
 Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient of [her] opponent's 
posts down a level":

 

 Share snarled:
 Share pleaded:
 Share babbled:
 Share spewed:
 Share blubbered:
 Share bleated:
 

 All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what you do, authfriend? 
You are always babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about how honest you are 
and how dishonest your opponents are, but why can't you just admit that you 
love to be mean, nasty, and vicious? You get pleasure out of it, which is why 
you do it on this forum day after day, week after week, month after month, year 
after year. It satisfies something inside you, although what that might be, 
only you know.  

 

 

  
 

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

 I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other guy--and/or his or her 
supporters--often experiences my posts to be much more "nasty and vicious" than 
they actually are. I'm frequently surprised when I reread my own posts from 
some epic argument to realize how restrained they were and how I instinctively 
took the nasty/vicious quotient of my opponent's posts down a level with each 
response rather than escalating it.
 

 I think the perception of "nasty and vicious" is directly proportional to how 
accurate my criticisms are. I'm sure you won't agree, but that's why I say 
you'd have a hard time backing up your accusation. You're remembering your 
emotional response rather than the tone of my posts themselves.
 

 

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

 Of course you think that, because you seem unaware of how you come across on 
this forum. 

 

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

 I think you'd have a real hard time backing that up in my case, feste. But a 
no-brainer that Barry would be at the top of the list.
 

 

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

 With all this recent talk about "vicious" and "nasty" posts, if one were to 
take a year's worth of FFL posts and list by poster all the posts that might 
reasonably be considered either vicious or nasty, there would be two posters at 
the top of the list, way ahead of any others. These would of course be 
authfriend and turquoise b. Share would be well down on the list. 

 













 

RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[authfriend]

This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here takes Richard 
seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know. 
 

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

 Guilty as charged: a very, very mean, nasty and vicious girl caught lying 
again and again; picking on a nice girl and posting from her home office trying 
to drum up some editing business! Is there anyone on the forum who will defend 
the vicious Judy? Barry? LoL!
 
 On 11/21/2013 4:41 PM, feste37 wrote:
 
   
 Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient of [her] opponent's 
posts down a level":
 
 
 
 Share snarled:
 Share pleaded:
 Share babbled:
 Share spewed:
 Share blubbered:
 Share bleated:
 
 
 All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what you do, authfriend? 
You are always babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about how honest you are 
and how dishonest your opponents are, but why can't you just admit that you 
love to be mean, nasty, and vicious? You get pleasure out of it, which is why 
you do it on this forum day after day, week after week, month after month, year 
after year. It satisfies something inside you, although what that might be, 
only you know.  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
 I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other guy--and/or his or her 
supporters--often experiences my posts to be much more "nasty and vicious" than 
they actually are. I'm frequently surprised when I reread my own posts from 
some epic argument to realize how restrained they were and how I instinctively 
took the nasty/vicious quotient of my opponent's posts down a level with each 
response rather than escalating it.
 
 
 I think the perception of "nasty and vicious" is directly proportional to how 
accurate my criticisms are. I'm sure you won't agree, but that's why I say 
you'd have a hard time backing up your accusation. You're remembering your 
emotional response rather than the tone of my posts themselves.
 
 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
 Of course you think that, because you seem unaware of how you come across on 
this forum. 
 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
 I think you'd have a real hard time backing that up in my case, feste. But a 
no-brainer that Barry would be at the top of the list.
 
 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
 With all this recent talk about "vicious" and "nasty" posts, if one were to 
take a year's worth of FFL posts and list by poster all the posts that might 
reasonably be considered either vicious or nasty, there would be two posters at 
the top of the list, way ahead of any others. These would of course be 
authfriend and turquoise b. Share would be well down on the list. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: Church of England Paves Way for Women Bishops in 2014

[wgm4u]

Little sheep that have lost their way, is all! Pretty soon Religion will stand 
for nothing.
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:


 Actually, more and more religionists are supporting gay marriage, exactly 
because they believe that to be against it would be contrary to the moral and 
ethical foundations of their religion.
 

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

 Most Religions have lost contact with their essential source of knowledge, 
that is, pure intelligence, or Being as Consciousness.  As such, they are like 
ships with a damaged rudder, better than nothing but not very effective.
 

 Slowly, as ethical humanism takes over decaying Religion, the ethical and 
moral foundations of Religions will all be knocked slowly away (note gay 
marriage) by the intellectual elite who happen to be atheists.
 

 Life, without a guide, will disintegrate until a revival of knowledge and 
experience and *Religious Science*  replace moral relativism and ethical 
humanism.
 

 True knowledge of the true principles of living can never be totally lost...
 

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

  Ann,
 

 I believe the Catholic Church considers the role of women to be motherhood and 
not as patriarchs of the church.  The Church may change its stance depending on 
how well the female bishops in the other denominations are perceived by the 
general public.  Also, the Church may change depending on the quality of men 
that enter the seminary to become priests.
 

 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Probably not as long as men are running the show. 
 

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

 This appears to be the trend among Protestant Christian churches.  But one 
wonders if the Catholic Church would ever accept women as priests. 

 
http://news.yahoo.com/church-england-paves-way-women-bishops-2014-142619228.html
 
http://news.yahoo.com/church-england-paves-way-women-bishops-2014-142619228.html




 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[Richard J. Williams]

Guilty as charged: a very, very mean, nasty and vicious girl caught 
lying again and again; picking on a nice girl and posting from her home 
office trying to drum up some editing business! Is there anyone on the 
forum who will defend the vicious Judy? Barry? LoL!


On 11/21/2013 4:41 PM, feste37 wrote:


*Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient of [her] 
opponent's posts down a level":

*

*
*

*Share snarled:*

*Share pleaded:*

*Share babbled:*

*Share spewed:*

*Share blubbered:*

*Share bleated:*


*All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what you do, 
authfriend? You are always babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about 
how honest you are and how dishonest your opponents are, but why can't 
you just admit that you love to be mean, nasty, and vicious? You get 
pleasure out of it, which is why you do it on this forum day after 
day, week after week, month after month, year after year. It satisfies 
something inside you, although what that might be, only you know.

*

***
*

*
*



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

I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other guy--and/or his 
or her supporters--often experiences my posts to be much more "nasty 
and vicious" than they actually are. I'm frequently surprised when I 
reread my own posts from some epic argument to realize how restrained 
they were and how I instinctively took the nasty/vicious quotient of 
my opponent's posts down a level with each response rather than 
escalating it.



I think the perception of "nasty and vicious" is directly proportional 
to how accurate my criticisms are. I'm sure you won't agree, but 
that's why I say you'd have a hard time backing up your accusation. 
You're remembering your emotional response rather than the tone of my 
posts themselves.





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

Of course you think that, because you seem unaware of how you come
across on this forum.



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

I think you'd have a real hard time backing that up in my
case, feste. But a no-brainer that Barry would be at the top
of the list.




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

With all this recent talk about "vicious" and "nasty"
posts, if one were to take a year's worth of FFL posts and
list by poster all the posts that might reasonably be
considered either vicious or nasty, there would be two
posters at the top of the list, way ahead of any others.
These would of course be authfriend and turquoise b. Share
would be well down on the list.

RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Mean Girls -- the research

[awoelflebater]

 

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

 Let the record stand: Judy is one mean girl working out of her home office! 
LoL!

Don't you have some vastu house to build or quinoa salad to pick up at Whole 
Foods or something? It must be nice to sit all day in front of a computer doing 
nothing.
 
 On 11/21/2013 12:18 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
   Has Barry been forging my email again?? I'll skin him alive. I guess he's 
trying to scrounge a bit of income now that he's left his job.
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
 Are you *sure* there is no such thing as the MGC? Because if that's the case, 
I just wired my thousand dollar 'Platinum' initiation fee to someone, who I 
thought was you, in Nigeria. You even attached those pics from your "camera 
safari" - The giraffes, and the chimp wearing a fez. You said you'd be back 
stateside soon, and my scroll, and ceremonial ring would be arriving shortly. 
What's going on??
  
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
 Share snarled:
 
 > Judy, imo MGC did Avoidance Dance recently WRT indiff's language. Where was 
 > their 
 > outrage 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 then?!
 
 
 In the first place, there's no such thing as "MGC." That's a fantasy of 
Barry's. In the
 second place, what the hell does "indiff's language" (whatever that refers to) 
have to
 do with our exchanges? This is just more avoidance on your part, trying to 
change the
 subject.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: Church of England Paves Way for Women Bishops in 2014

[authfriend]

Actually, more and more religionists are supporting gay marriage, exactly 
because they believe that to be against it would be contrary to the moral and 
ethical foundations of their religion.
 

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

 Most Religions have lost contact with their essential source of knowledge, 
that is, pure intelligence, or Being as Consciousness.  As such, they are like 
ships with a damaged rudder, better than nothing but not very effective.
 

 Slowly, as ethical humanism takes over decaying Religion, the ethical and 
moral foundations of Religions will all be knocked slowly away (note gay 
marriage) by the intellectual elite who happen to be atheists.
 

 Life, without a guide, will disintegrate until a revival of knowledge and 
experience and *Religious Science*  replace moral relativism and ethical 
humanism.
 

 True knowledge of the true principles of living can never be totally lost...
 

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

  Ann,
 

 I believe the Catholic Church considers the role of women to be motherhood and 
not as patriarchs of the church.  The Church may change its stance depending on 
how well the female bishops in the other denominations are perceived by the 
general public.  Also, the Church may change depending on the quality of men 
that enter the seminary to become priests.
 

 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Probably not as long as men are running the show. 
 

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

 This appears to be the trend among Protestant Christian churches.  But one 
wonders if the Catholic Church would ever accept women as priests. 

 
http://news.yahoo.com/church-england-paves-way-women-bishops-2014-142619228.html
 
http://news.yahoo.com/church-england-paves-way-women-bishops-2014-142619228.html




 

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[authfriend]

You know, I don't choose my words at random. I never said my description 
applied to all my posts; I never said none of my posts were nasty or vicious. I 
stand by what I did say, however.
 

 I've never pretended to be saintly, but I do not, in fact, "love to be mean, 
nasty, and vicious." I do find it very hard not to be when dealing with an 
individual like Share. 
 

 Just out of curiosity, what do you think about Share's attack on Ann, 
comparing her to a Nazi and disparaging her appearance because Ann wrote a 
funny parody of one of Share's posts? Let's see how honest you are.
 

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

 
 Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient of [her] opponent's 
posts down a level":

 

 Share snarled:
 Share pleaded:
 Share babbled:
 Share spewed:
 Share blubbered:
 Share bleated:
 

 All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what you do, authfriend? 
You are always babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about how honest you are 
and how dishonest your opponents are, but why can't you just admit that you 
love to be mean, nasty, and vicious? You get pleasure out of it, which is why 
you do it on this forum day after day, week after week, month after month, year 
after year. It satisfies something inside you, although what that might be, 
only you know.  

 

 

  
 

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

 I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other guy--and/or his or her 
supporters--often experiences my posts to be much more "nasty and vicious" than 
they actually are. I'm frequently surprised when I reread my own posts from 
some epic argument to realize how restrained they were and how I instinctively 
took the nasty/vicious quotient of my opponent's posts down a level with each 
response rather than escalating it.
 

 I think the perception of "nasty and vicious" is directly proportional to how 
accurate my criticisms are. I'm sure you won't agree, but that's why I say 
you'd have a hard time backing up your accusation. You're remembering your 
emotional response rather than the tone of my posts themselves.
 

 

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

 Of course you think that, because you seem unaware of how you come across on 
this forum. 

 

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

 I think you'd have a real hard time backing that up in my case, feste. But a 
no-brainer that Barry would be at the top of the list.
 

 

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

 With all this recent talk about "vicious" and "nasty" posts, if one were to 
take a year's worth of FFL posts and list by poster all the posts that might 
reasonably be considered either vicious or nasty, there would be two posters at 
the top of the list, way ahead of any others. These would of course be 
authfriend and turquoise b. Share would be well down on the list. 

 













 

[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Church of England Paves Way for Women Bishops in 2014

[wgm4u]

Most Religions have lost contact with their essential source of knowledge, that 
is, pure intelligence, or Being as Consciousness.  As such, they are like ships 
with a damaged rudder, better than nothing but not very effective.
 

 Slowly, as ethical humanism takes over decaying Religion, the ethical and 
moral foundations of Religions will all be knocked slowly away (note gay 
marriage) by the intellectual elite who happen to be atheists.
 

 Life, without a guide, will disintegrate until a revival of knowledge and 
experience and *Religious Science*  replace moral relativism and ethical 
humanism.
 

 True knowledge of the true principles of living can never be totally lost...
 

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

  Ann,
 

 I believe the Catholic Church considers the role of women to be motherhood and 
not as patriarchs of the church.  The Church may change its stance depending on 
how well the female bishops in the other denominations are perceived by the 
general public.  Also, the Church may change depending on the quality of men 
that enter the seminary to become priests.
 

 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Probably not as long as men are running the show. 
 

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

 This appears to be the trend among Protestant Christian churches.  But one 
wonders if the Catholic Church would ever accept women as priests. 

 
http://news.yahoo.com/church-england-paves-way-women-bishops-2014-142619228.html
 
http://news.yahoo.com/church-england-paves-way-women-bishops-2014-142619228.html




 

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[feste37]

 Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient of [her] opponent's 
posts down a level":

 

 Share snarled:
 Share pleaded:
 Share babbled:
 Share spewed:
 Share blubbered:
 Share bleated:
 

 All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what you do, authfriend? 
You are always babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about how honest you are 
and how dishonest your opponents are, but why can't you just admit that you 
love to be mean, nasty, and vicious? You get pleasure out of it, which is why 
you do it on this forum day after day, week after week, month after month, year 
after year. It satisfies something inside you, although what that might be, 
only you know.  

 

 

  
 

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

 I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other guy--and/or his or her 
supporters--often experiences my posts to be much more "nasty and vicious" than 
they actually are. I'm frequently surprised when I reread my own posts from 
some epic argument to realize how restrained they were and how I instinctively 
took the nasty/vicious quotient of my opponent's posts down a level with each 
response rather than escalating it.
 

 I think the perception of "nasty and vicious" is directly proportional to how 
accurate my criticisms are. I'm sure you won't agree, but that's why I say 
you'd have a hard time backing up your accusation. You're remembering your 
emotional response rather than the tone of my posts themselves.
 

 

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

 Of course you think that, because you seem unaware of how you come across on 
this forum. 

 

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

 I think you'd have a real hard time backing that up in my case, feste. But a 
no-brainer that Barry would be at the top of the list.
 

 

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

 With all this recent talk about "vicious" and "nasty" posts, if one were to 
take a year's worth of FFL posts and list by poster all the posts that might 
reasonably be considered either vicious or nasty, there would be two posters at 
the top of the list, way ahead of any others. These would of course be 
authfriend and turquoise b. Share would be well down on the list. 

 













 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did I get this right?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
>
>  At some point started to feel he's partly making stuff up just
>  to sell the book(?).
>
>  Am I the last to know he's a TM-teacher??


Gee. A TM teacher who is into conspiracy theories and Woo Woo
who makes stuff up just to sell...uh...whatever he's selling. Who'd
have ever thunk it?   :-)


> ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister@ wrote:
>
>  JFK may have been k*lled because he intended to reveal the thruth(?)
about ET's??
>
>  Ditto with MM??
>
>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwJLh---t8E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwJLh---t8E
>

[FairfieldLife] RE: Did I get this right?

[cardemaister]

 At some point started to feel he's partly making stuff up just
 to sell the book(?). 
 

 Am I the last to know he's a TM-teacher??
 

  

 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 JFK may have been k*lled because he intended to reveal the thruth(?) about 
ET's??
 

 Ditto with MM??
 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwJLh---t8E 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwJLh---t8E


 

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[authfriend]

I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other guy--and/or his or her 
supporters--often experiences my posts to be much more "nasty and vicious" than 
they actually are. I'm frequently surprised when I reread my own posts from 
some epic argument to realize how restrained they were and how I instinctively 
took the nasty/vicious quotient of my opponent's posts down a level with each 
response rather than escalating it.
 

 I think the perception of "nasty and vicious" is directly proportional to how 
accurate my criticisms are. I'm sure you won't agree, but that's why I say 
you'd have a hard time backing up your accusation. You're remembering your 
emotional response rather than the tone of my posts themselves.
 

 

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

 Of course you think that, because you seem unaware of how you come across on 
this forum. 

 

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

 I think you'd have a real hard time backing that up in my case, feste. But a 
no-brainer that Barry would be at the top of the list.
 

 

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

 With all this recent talk about "vicious" and "nasty" posts, if one were to 
take a year's worth of FFL posts and list by poster all the posts that might 
reasonably be considered either vicious or nasty, there would be two posters at 
the top of the list, way ahead of any others. These would of course be 
authfriend and turquoise b. Share would be well down on the list. 

 

[FairfieldLife] Free Man In Paris V4.01: slightly warmer, in many ways

[TurquoiseB]

Same cafe, vastly different mindset. It's still chilly and rainy out,
but as usual it's warm and cozy on the terrace of this cafe. But tonight
there is live music. I simply could not have designed one of my Last
Nights In Paris better if I had tried to do so.

Just inside the cafe proper, and visible from where I'm sitting through
the glass doors, is a three-piece jazz band doing remarkably good Django
Reinhart and the Hot Band Of Paris numbers. Not quite the same
instrumentation -- this group consists of two guitarists and one guy on
sax -- but they still rock.

So I'm about to kick back and enjoy the music, but then the guy next to
me strikes up a conversation, and I can tell instantly that it's going
to be a Good Conversation, so I stop writing what I was writing and pay
attention. Turns out his name is Ben, and he's French, but not
originally from Paris. He points out that when he tells Parisians where
he's from, they look down on him and tune him out. I'm American, and
don't know his home town from shit, so we get along just swimmingly.

And we proceed to have just the Best Parisian Cafe Conversation Ever. It
just fuckin' SOARS, from music to culture to philosophy to Road Trips to
ennuie and how to combat it, to what one does for a living and how
little that matters, to women. And when it comes to women, working as I
do on an integrated development environment for creating iPhone (and
other mobiles) apps, I get to kick back and watch Ben conduct this
long-distance budding romance via texting on his iPhone with a comely
young woman who came into the snowboarding shop where he works and who
has taken the trouble to track down his phone number so she can text
him. This is right-out-of-a-movie stuff; I am just *dying* of laughter
(not the derisive kind) watching all of these texts go down.

She, in her brazen behavior of Texting Him First, has completely
rendered Ben senseless, and smitten. I watch, from my
at-least-thirty-years-older-than-Ben-and-his-new-beloved's point of
view, as a romance really starts, and just enjoy. It's just magic.

Then, appreciating my appreciation, Ben (a regular here) goes out of his
way to introduce me to the only woman in the cafe he's seen me eyeing.
Later, he admits that he did this because he saw her eyeing me back, and
motioning for him to introduce us. She is tall and slim, her name is
Blondine, and from my completely objective, unbiased-in-any-way, and
near-to-Ritam-quality-accurate point of view, kinda a knockout.

We get along well, but then the alarm sounds on *my* iPhone, and I have
to leave to attend one of the last remote phone meetings of my career in
Paris as a consultant to IBM. I would've gladly blown off the meeting,
but it's the one at which I have to contribute my consultant's view of
what's right with the project I've been working on and what's not, so I
really can't blow it off. I owe them the truth. That's what they're
really paying me for.

But you can certainly bet that I'll be here again next week when I
return. Maybe Blondine will be here, maybe she won't. But either way,
I'll be enjoying a night out in a great cafe in Paris, so it's not as if
it'll be a real bummer either way. Cafes are what you make of them.

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Mean Girls -- the research

[Richard J. Williams]

Let the record stand: Judy is one mean girl working out of her home 
office! LoL!


On 11/21/2013 12:18 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:


*Has Barry been forging my email again?? I'll skin him alive. I guess 
he's trying to scrounge a bit of income now that he's left his job.*




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

Are you *sure* there is no such thing as the MGC? Because if that's 
the case, I just wired my thousand dollar 'Platinum' initiation fee to 
someone, who I thought was you, in Nigeria. You even attached those 
pics from your "camera safari" - The giraffes, and the chimp wearing a 
fez. You said you'd be back stateside soon, and my scroll, and 
ceremonial ring would be arriving shortly. What's going on??




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

Share snarled:


> Judy, imo MGC did Avoidance Dance recently WRT indiff's language. 
Where was their
> outrage

then?!

In the first place, there's no such thing as "MGC." That's a
fantasy of Barry's. In the
second place, what the hell does "indiff's language" (whatever
that refers to) have to
do with our exchanges? This is just more avoidance on your part,
trying to change the
subject.

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[Richard J. Williams]

Rick -Judy is a MEAN GIRL and her club has mean girls in it and they are 
picking on Share. Now it's official.


On 11/21/2013 12:35 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:


*There is no such thing as the "Mean Girls Club." That's an invention 
of Barry's designed to put down his critics. Do you really want to 
argue that Barry is not far guiltier of "unkindness" than anyone else 
here?*


*
*

*Get real, Buck.*



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

*Rick, Keep a close watch out on the mean-girls club too. They could 
take us all down in unkindness.*


*-Buck*



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

*Thanks Rick. You did the right thing to protect us all.*

*-Buck*


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

*From:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf OfBuck*@...
*Sent:* Wednesday, November 20, 2013 11:55 AM
*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Subject:* [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE:
RE: A story of devotion

Yes, to protect the very existence of our FFL community group
we should close the membership at least of
'indifferent_netizen'/ or whoever that is here, before Yahoo
catches up with us as a group for tolerating these kinds of
unkind posts. There is a very real and present danger to the
whole FFL group letting this writer and some of these other
people write their hateful unkind abusive speech here.  It is
time.

Already done.



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

“*Yahoo Groups, in its sole discretion, may terminate or
remove any content, Group or your Yahoo ID immediately and
without notice if (a) Yahoo believes that you have acted
inconsistently with the spirit or the letter of the Yahoo
Terms of Service or the Yahoo Groups Guidelines, or (b) Yahoo
believes you have violated or tried to violate the rights of
others. Please help us keep Yahoo Groups an enjoyable and
positive experience. If you see a Group or content that
violates our rules, please let us know.” *



Yes. This here is about the survival of our FFL list.



Dear FFL, now more clearly than even before it is getting to
be time to avert the danger of ultimate termination to our FFL
group community before it becomes too late. Shutting the
Fairfieldlife forum down has been tried by subversion like
this before. We must act to protect ourselves. I call upon the
moderation of this community to close the membership of this
hooligan 'indifferent_netizen' masquerading such hateful
thought on the pages of our FFL.

-Buck

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Re: Church of England Paves Way for Women Bishops in 2014

[Richard J. Williams]

Barry claimed he read over 200 books on the Cathars but not a single 
book on the Gnostics. Go figure.


Cathars are derived from Bogumils; Bogomils are derived from Paulicans; 
Paulicans from Manicheans; Manicheans from Gnostics. Thus the Cathars 
are derived from Gnostics.


Barry apparently isn't aware of the Languedocian legend of the 'Queen of 
the South', (Reine du Midi), a title a countess of Toulosue, the 
'Protectrix', identified with the Syrian goddess Anath who in turn is 
closely linked with Isis and the bird-footed Lilith.


Yet another legend current in France is the Meridiana to whom was 
conveyed the secrets of alchemy to Gerbert d'Auriliac. The name 
Meridiana is derived from 'Mary-Diana' thus linking the Magdalene 
legends in the South of France. Lagudedoc was also home to the Knights 
Templers in Europe.


Stoyanov thinks that the one single local Langudocian notion in 
Catharism was the theology of the belief that Mary Magdalene was the 
concubine of Jesus - knowledge that was reserved for the inner circle of 
Cathars: "The teaching of Mary Magdalene as the 'wife or 'concubine' of 
Christ appears moreover, an original Cathar tradition which doesn not 
have any counterpart in Bogomil doctrines".


It is also worth noting that the date of the massacre at Beziers, 22 
July 1209, was St Mary Magdalene's Day or the Feast Day of Mary 
Magdalene. You'll probably also want to make a note of the fact that 
forty years previously the local lord Raymond Trencavel was slain inside 
the Church of Mary Magdalene at Beziers.


The early Gnostic Gospels have no hesitation describing the relationship 
between Mary Magdalene and Jesus. It's unlikely that the townsfolk would 
have access to the Gnostic Gospel, so how do we account for the presence 
of Magdalene legends at Beziers, Maxim, and Provencal? It must have been 
a powerful legend to cause the entire Inquisition to be formulated just 
to root them out. Catharism was the State religion of Languedoc.


Work cited:

'The Hidden Tradition in Europe: The Secret History of Medieval 
Christian Heresy'

by Yuri Stoyanov
Arkana, 1995
p. 222-223

Read more:

'The Templars and the Assassins'
by James Wasserman
Destiny, 2001

On 11/21/2013 2:10 PM, jr_...@yahoo.com wrote:


 Barry,


According to Wikipedia, the Cathars were practicing a religion that 
was not part of the Roman Catholic doctrine.  In those days, religious 
differences were settled by war.



I'm curious to know if there are still secret sects who practice 
Catharism in southern France or elsewhere in Europe today.  Writers, 
like Dan Brown, could probably sell many books about this subject.




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

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


>
> Share,
>
> I believe it would take another Vatican Council to consider the

question of priesthood for women. This council will only happen if the
entire church leadership perceives that women can fill the priestly
duties that are needed in the parishes. If the supply of quality men
who want to be priests dwindles, the church leaders will have to
consider accepting women as priests.

I will merely interject an interesting (at least to me) point of
history. The Albigensian Crusade, more aptly named The Systematic
Extermination Of A Competing Christian Sect We're Going To Call
'Heretics' Because It Sounds Better Than 'We're Afraid Of Them', is
blamed by the majority of historians on the Cathars' rejection of
certain fundamental ideas of Roman dogma. They believed -- and practiced
-- 'heresy'. A more real reason is that the Cathar religion was growing
by leaps and bounds in the areas of Europe in which it had arisen, at a
time when many people were leaving the Roman Church and its coffers were
dwindling. Can't have that. So they called the Cathars 'heretics' and
eliminated the competition.

But one of the minor points of dogma that probably frightened the Roman
Church the most was that the Cathars exemplified almost total parity
between men and women. Women were allowed to hold property in their own
names, in the 1200s, in what is now the south of France. That didn't
happen officially in what is now France until De Gaulle.

Worse, the Cathar priesthood was open equally to men and women. There
were equal numbers of men and women priests. Really, really, really
can't have that. Just sayin'...


> ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com
, sharelong60@ wrote:
>
> John, it's about time! As for the Catholic Church, I wonder who
would

protest more, the clergy in power or the conservative laity, including
nuns.

>
> ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
, jr_esq@ wrote:
>
> This appears to be the trend among Protestant Christian churches.

But one wonders if the Catholic Church would ever accept women as
priests.

>
>

http://news.yahoo.com/church

[FairfieldLife] RE: Church of England Paves Way for Women Bishops in 2014

[awoelflebater]

Probably not as long as men are running the show. 
 

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

 This appears to be the trend among Protestant Christian churches.  But one 
wonders if the Catholic Church would ever accept women as priests. 

 
http://news.yahoo.com/church-england-paves-way-women-bishops-2014-142619228.html
 
http://news.yahoo.com/church-england-paves-way-women-bishops-2014-142619228.html

[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Born again?

[authfriend]

Salyavin wrote:
  
 > "Um, I don't really think that's a "message" such believers have gotten." 
 > Yeah, of course it's a 
 > message,
 

 I didn't say it wasn't a message. I'm saying I don't think it's universally 
perceived as an imperative by those who believe in "life in the great beyond." 
Religious apologists, for example, more often insist that religion and science 
are "nonoverlapping magisteria," as Stephen Jay Gould put it; it's impossible 
in principle to make religion fit in with physics because they're entirely 
separate domains.
 

 

 

 > TV is full of physicists these days all explaining the nature of the 
 > fundament, stands to reason 
 > that you have to fit stuff in to the accepted paradigm. Otherwise they 
 > wouldn't bother.
 >
 > But then I didn't post the other two links from the Daily Mail this week 
 > about spiritual things 
 > with a highlighted panel about how it [might] fit in with quantum physics.
 

 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Um, I don't really think that's a "message" such believers have gotten. Some 
do like to try to hook up paranormal stuff to physics, others don't think it 
makes much sense. I mean, this guy is just making a fairly standard dualist 
claim about mind and matter--mind and brain--being separate (brain being the 
receiver, mind the signal). Maybe he explains it in more detail in the book, 
but in this article he just seems to be saying, you know, "Mind and brain are 
separate because quantum physics."
 

 I also don't think the Daily Mail did a very good job of making his cases 
sound convincing. Pretty messy. But, yes, fun to read.
 

 

 

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

 Another book on reincarnation for those who are interested in the possibility. 
 

 The article drew my eye because of a claim that quantum physics may hold the 
key - but I don't see how from the article here but it's good that the people 
with beliefs of life in the great beyond have got the message that whatever 
ideas they have they are going to *have* to fit in with physics.
 

 Funny how the Daily Mail seems to be on a spiritual trip these days, doesn't 
seem to suit them somehow. All good fun as far as I'm concerned...
 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2509769/New-book-reveals-children-believe-reincarnated.html
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2509769/New-book-reveals-children-believe-reincarnated.html


 

[FairfieldLife] The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[dhamiltony2k5]

Thanks Rick. You did the right thing to protect us all.
 -Buck

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

  
 From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf OfBuck@...
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 11:55 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: A story of 
devotion


  
  
 Yes, to protect the very existence of our FFL community group we should close 
the membership at least of 'indifferent_netizen'/ or whoever that is here, 
before Yahoo catches up with us as a group for tolerating these kinds of unkind 
posts. There is a very real and present danger to the whole FFL group letting 
this writer and some of these other people write their hateful unkind abusive 
speech here.  It is time. 
 Already done.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 wrote:
 “Yahoo Groups, in its sole discretion, may terminate or remove any content, 
Group or your Yahoo ID immediately and without notice if (a) Yahoo believes 
that you have acted inconsistently with the spirit or the letter of the Yahoo 
Terms of Service or the Yahoo Groups Guidelines, or (b) Yahoo believes you have 
violated or tried to violate the rights of others. Please help us keep Yahoo 
Groups an enjoyable and positive experience. If you see a Group or content that 
violates our rules, please let us know.”  
 


 Yes. This here is about the survival of our FFL list. 
 


 Dear FFL, now more clearly than even before it is getting to be time to avert 
the danger of ultimate termination to our FFL group community before it becomes 
too late. Shutting the Fairfieldlife forum down has been tried by subversion 
like this before. We must act to protect ourselves. I call upon the moderation 
of this community to close the membership of this hooligan 
'indifferent_netizen' masquerading such hateful thought on the pages of our FFL.
 -Buck 
  

[FairfieldLife] On Now: MUM's Fred Travis interviewed by Dr. Sherrill Sellman on her program What Women Should Know

[Dick Mays]

From: Ken Chawkin 
Subject: MUM's Fred Travis will be interviewed by Dr. Sherrill Sellman this 
afternoon.
Date: November 21, 2013 2:29:28 PM CST
To: Friends News Group 1 

Dr. Sherrill Sellman Interviews Fred Travis, PhD, on her program, What Women 
Should Know, broadcast on the Progressive Radio Network http://prn.fm today, 
3-4pm CT. 

Topics include: 

1. How do meditation practices affect thinking and behavior?
2. What are different categories of meditation?
3. Do all meditations have the same affects?
4. How has meditation been used to address the problem of PTSD?
5. Can meditation be useful in schools?
6. What is the relation of brain changes during meditation and successful 
people?
Fred Travis, Ph.D., is the Director of MUM's Center for Brain, Consciousness 
and Cognition.
Visit his website for more information: drfredtravis.com
He is the Dean o the Graduate School, and Chair of the Maharishi Vedic Science 
Department.
Listen live today. If you miss it, I will send out the link after it's been 
archived. 

Should make for an interesting show. 

Ken

RE: Re: Re: RE: RE: Re: RE: RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Mean Girls -- the research

[emilymaenot]

Re: "I do not initiate attack."  Share has re-written reality in order to 
justify her post to you yesterday which wasn't even close to an "in kind" 
response.  Then, she chooses to defend her reality re-write like it represents 
"truth" so she doesn't have to accept responsibility for her own behavior and 
motivations.  Of course, I can't see her "figment of imagination" in her own 
mind. Share, try and be kind today.  Standing up for yourself involves 
accepting your own behavior first and having the guts to own it, not fighting a 
battle to preserve your self-created delusions.
  
 

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

 Heck! It might even help global warming! But what about horses?!
 

 
 
 On Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:19 AM, "awoelflebater@..." 
 wrote:
 

 

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

 Judy, imo MGC did Avoidance Dance recently WRT indiff's language. Where was 
their outrage then?! It's still about RWC for them imo and that's why they 
exempt their buddies from their protestations, moral posturings, etc. and focus 
on me. Going by what others here have said, you are the queen of grudge holding 
and as such your words have little value from my perspective. Same for Ann and 
Emily when they're in that prejudiced and or nasty mode.

And to answer the MGC posts from last night: one of your most vicious tactics 
imo is to poison a fun exchange I'm having with another poster. Which usually 
happens when I've been ignoring you all. IMO this is what Ann did, despite all 
of her clever and or politically correct utterances and your moral posturing. 
And I don't feel like a victim at all. I feel like someone who has stood up 
appropriately for herself. 

From the beginning of all this, you initiate attack, Judy and I defend myself 
as I see fit. I do not initiate attack and that is, I think an important 
difference. One that you will more likely neither see nor admit.
 

 Will this help?

 
 

 

 
 

 
 
 On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 10:45 PM, "emilymaenot@..."  
wrote:
 
   Ann, I love you. You and Judy are in a tie for the best post of year - song 
wise. 
 

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

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBd93pJRJ54 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBd93pJRJ54 
 

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

 Are you saying that Ann's picture of herself at the beach was vicious?  Or are 
you saying her parody was vicious?  I understand that you truly believe that 
Ann was after you, personally, on a public forum with public posting and you 
thought you were responding "in-kind." Share, you are doing the classic 
re-write of reality here to try and not take responsibility for yourself.  I 
don't think you can help this. Take me on next, Share.  Come on, I dare you - 
stop going after just Judy and Ann.  I feel left out.  And remember, If you 
like it, I love it.  
 

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

 Emily, imo, Ann viciously poisoned a fun exchange that I was having with 
Richard, a tactic used often by MGC, not only when I ignore you all, but imo 
precisely because I'm enjoying exchanges with other posters. It's one of the 
most vicious things that you all do and I will continue to respond in kind. 
btw, turq once said something mean about Judy's looks.
 

 

 
 
 On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 6:32 PM, "emilymaenot@..."  
wrote:
 
   And look, you are still at it Share...reaching for anything to distract 
yourself from the fact that you wrote a mean and malicious post. I can't even 
think of anyone else who has stooped so low as to attack someone's personal 
visage, except you.  Face it Share. Your post was trying to hit below the belt 
and create hurt. Sad, but true.  No biggie, just the "bad" part of the "blend 
of good and bad" (and I paraphrase what you say there) that human beings are, 
right?  No reason to apologize.  
 

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

 imo, RWC is the #1 big reason you all keep attacking me. Expecially you, Judy, 
the number 1 grudge holder maybe on the internet if what others say is true. 
Since that seems to be what's needed to be Queen Bee, I'm happy to let you keep 
that job. As for Emily, why exclude Obbajee and Susan? Except that my exchanges 
with them disproves what Emily initially said about me.
 

 From the beginning I've acknowledged that I have flaws. But Judy, when you 
don't like someone, it's as if you put on black glasses and see the person only 
through them. Worse, you either don't see that you've got the glasses on, or 
you won't admit that you do.

 

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

 Unlike you, Emily has integrity. So when you claimed that you liked Obbajeeba 
and Susan, she took you at your word and amended what she said about you to 
exclude them. And after she'd done that to accommodate your claim, you accused 
her of saying Obbajeeba and Susan weren't "strong and beautiful" and demanded 
to know how she accounted for your claim not to be thr

[FairfieldLife] RE: Al Gore debates Global Warming

[awoelflebater]

Is that giant dome you attend every day heated or  does it have air 
conditioning or fans? Is your giant tractor fuelled by pig piss? Just askin'... 
 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Yep, no question it is hotter and drier in Fairfield. Folks will certainly 
repent the glutton of their fossil-fueled air-conditioned days whence we get 
drought years back to back and a real drought sets in for 60 or 90 days across 
the mid-crop growing stage from seedling to pollination. You'll all repent then 
you sinners and become believers in the obvious that carbon dioxide is the 
element that regulates our atmospheric climate. About the only thing you'll be 
able to do with famine then is meditate your last skinny breath on earth. Git 
real. It is all about lifestyle, materialism and the lack of people spending 
enough time in meditation everyday. 
 -Buck in the Dome 
 

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

 Dare Rick watch it?
 

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

 Thanks. The trailer was actually pretty lame but looking at the Wiki entry for 
the movie it sounds a film I'd want to seek out. . 
 

 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 

 Agreed...you might like this movie "Pandora's Promise", it really brings 
environmentalism up to date.
 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDw3ET3zqxk 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDw3ET3zqxk
 

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

 I've got an open mind. But I see that Al Gore's house (maybe he has more than 
one) is powered with a geothermal system as well as 33-solar panels. If energy 
prices rise he's sitting pretty. (And he's filthy rich anyway.) What about 
those at the bottom of the social pile? Green taxes could mean many of the 
elderly poor dying of hypothermia. 
 

 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Watch, if you have an open mind.
  
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU

 



 





 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[Richard J. Williams]

It's a river in Egypt?

Judy is without doubt the most vicious character to have ever posted to 
FFL, with Turq coming in a close second. You are not the first person to 
comment on this. Everyone makes fun of each other on FFL, that's part of 
the territory, but nobody seems to want to dialog with Judy anymore 
except for a few mean girls. Go figure.


My question is: Why was Buck the only informant to complain about the 
guy that just got booted?


On 11/21/2013 2:35 PM, feste37 wrote:


Of course you think that, because you seem unaware of how you come 
across on this forum.




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

I think you'd have a real hard time backing that up in my case, feste. 
But a no-brainer that Barry would be at the top of the list.





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

With all this recent talk about "vicious" and "nasty" posts, if
one were to take a year's worth of FFL posts and list by poster
all the posts that might reasonably be considered either vicious
or nasty, there would be two posters at the top of the list, way
ahead of any others. These would of course be authfriend and
turquoise b. Share would be well down on the list.



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

*From:*FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of
*dhamiltony2k5@...
*Sent:* Thursday, November 21, 2013 12:28 PM
*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Subject:* [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of
Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

*Rick, Keep a close watch out on the mean-girls club too. They
could take us all down in unkindness.*

*-Buck*

I don’t have time to keep a close watch out on anything on
FFL, but if someone gets too outrageous and someone brings it
to my attention, I usually say to wait and see if they simmer
down, and if they don’t, I do something about it.

[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Re: Church of England Paves Way for Women Bishops in 2014

[jr_esq]

Here's the Wikipedia article about the Cathars:
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathars

 

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

  Barry, 
 

 According to Wikipedia, the Cathars were practicing a religion that was not 
part of the Roman Catholic doctrine.  In those days, religious differences were 
settled by war.
 

 I'm curious to know if there are still secret sects who practice Catharism in 
southern France or elsewhere in Europe today.  Writers, like Dan Brown, could 
probably sell many books about this subject.
 

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
wrote:
 >
 > Share,
 >
 > I believe it would take another Vatican Council to consider the
 question of priesthood for women. This council will only happen if the
 entire church leadership perceives that women can fill the priestly
 duties that are needed in the parishes. If the supply of quality men
 who want to be priests dwindles, the church leaders will have to
 consider accepting women as priests.
 
 I will merely interject an interesting (at least to me) point of
 history. The Albigensian Crusade, more aptly named The Systematic
 Extermination Of A Competing Christian Sect We're Going To Call
 'Heretics' Because It Sounds Better Than 'We're Afraid Of Them', is
 blamed by the majority of historians on the Cathars' rejection of
 certain fundamental ideas of Roman dogma. They believed -- and practiced
 -- 'heresy'. A more real reason is that the Cathar religion was growing
 by leaps and bounds in the areas of Europe in which it had arisen, at a
 time when many people were leaving the Roman Church and its coffers were
 dwindling. Can't have that. So they called the Cathars 'heretics' and
 eliminated the competition.
 
 But one of the minor points of dogma that probably frightened the Roman
 Church the most was that the Cathars exemplified almost total parity
 between men and women. Women were allowed to hold property in their own
 names, in the 1200s, in what is now the south of France. That didn't
 happen officially in what is now France until De Gaulle.
 
 Worse, the Cathar priesthood was open equally to men and women. There
 were equal numbers of men and women priests. Really, really, really
 can't have that. Just sayin'...
 
 
 > ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, 
 > sharelong60@ wrote:
 >
 > John, it's about time! As for the Catholic Church, I wonder who would
 protest more, the clergy in power or the conservative laity, including
 nuns.
 >
 > ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 > jr_esq@ wrote:
 >
 > This appears to be the trend among Protestant Christian churches. 
 But one wonders if the Catholic Church would ever accept women as
 priests.
 >
 > 
 http://news.yahoo.com/church-england-paves-way-women-bishops-2014-142619\ 
http://news.yahoo.com/church-england-paves-way-women-bishops-2014-142619\
 228.html
 > 

Re: [FairfieldLife] ATT: Bhairitu

[Richard J. Williams]

Let's see if this adds up: Lee Harvey Oswald left his rifle in the 
building after the shooting and was still carrying the pistol he shot 
Officer Tippet with when Oswald was arrested. Three shots can be heard 
on the Zapruder film. Does that add up to anything?


On 11/21/2013 11:02 AM, Bhairitu wrote:


Thanks.  Of course I am very familiar with a lot of this stuff.  I was 
suspicious of the JFK assassination from day one.  Things just didn't 
add up.   BTW, the easier way to read the article is to go back to 
it's main page where one can select the different sections.


On 11/20/2013 02:44 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:


You might enjoy looking through this: New York magazine this week has 
a neat feature, a "Conspiracy Theory Compendium." It's not about 
debunking *or* promoting the theories of the last 50 years, just 
listing them and giving a bit of background. Some of the entries are 
long; others are only a paragraph or two. And there's an interview 
with Alex Jones at the end.



The compendium starts here; at the bottom of each item is a link to 
the next one. This is a very long one:



http://nymag.com/news/features/conspiracy-theories/jfk-murder/

Re: [FairfieldLife] ATT: Bhairitu

[Bhairitu]

Thanks.  Of course I am very familiar with a lot of this stuff.  I was 
suspicious of the JFK assassination from day one.  Things just didn't 
add up.   BTW, the easier way to read the article is to go back to it's 
main page where one can select the different sections.


On 11/20/2013 02:44 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:


You might enjoy looking through this: New York magazine this week has 
a neat feature, a "Conspiracy Theory Compendium." It's not about 
debunking *or* promoting the theories of the last 50 years, just 
listing them and giving a bit of background. Some of the entries are 
long; others are only a paragraph or two. And there's an interview 
with Alex Jones at the end.



The compendium starts here; at the bottom of each item is a link to 
the next one. This is a very long one:



http://nymag.com/news/features/conspiracy-theories/jfk-murder/

RE: RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[authfriend]

I think you'd have a real hard time backing that up in my case, feste. But a 
no-brainer that Barry would be at the top of the list.
 

 

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

 With all this recent talk about "vicious" and "nasty" posts, if one were to 
take a year's worth of FFL posts and list by poster all the posts that might 
reasonably be considered either vicious or nasty, there would be two posters at 
the top of the list, way ahead of any others. These would of course be 
authfriend and turquoise b. Share would be well down on the list. 

 

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

  
 From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf Of dhamiltony2k5@...
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 12:28 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on 
Fairfield Life.


  
   
 Rick, Keep a close watch out on the mean-girls club too. They could take us 
all down in unkindness.
 -Buck 
 I don’t have time to keep a close watch out on anything on FFL, but if someone 
gets too outrageous and someone brings it to my attention, I usually say to 
wait and see if they simmer down, and if they don’t, I do something about it.

RE: RE: RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[feste37]

Of course you think that, because you seem unaware of how you come across on 
this forum. 

 

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

 I think you'd have a real hard time backing that up in my case, feste. But a 
no-brainer that Barry would be at the top of the list.
 

 

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

 With all this recent talk about "vicious" and "nasty" posts, if one were to 
take a year's worth of FFL posts and list by poster all the posts that might 
reasonably be considered either vicious or nasty, there would be two posters at 
the top of the list, way ahead of any others. These would of course be 
authfriend and turquoise b. Share would be well down on the list. 

 

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

  
 From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf Of dhamiltony2k5@...
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 12:28 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on 
Fairfield Life.


  
   
 Rick, Keep a close watch out on the mean-girls club too. They could take us 
all down in unkindness.
 -Buck 
 I don’t have time to keep a close watch out on anything on FFL, but if someone 
gets too outrageous and someone brings it to my attention, I usually say to 
wait and see if they simmer down, and if they don’t, I do something about it.

[FairfieldLife] RE: Re: Church of England Paves Way for Women Bishops in 2014

[jr_esq]

 Barry, 
 

 According to Wikipedia, the Cathars were practicing a religion that was not 
part of the Roman Catholic doctrine.  In those days, religious differences were 
settled by war.
 

 I'm curious to know if there are still secret sects who practice Catharism in 
southern France or elsewhere in Europe today.  Writers, like Dan Brown, could 
probably sell many books about this subject.
 

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
wrote:
 >
 > Share,
 >
 > I believe it would take another Vatican Council to consider the
 question of priesthood for women. This council will only happen if the
 entire church leadership perceives that women can fill the priestly
 duties that are needed in the parishes. If the supply of quality men
 who want to be priests dwindles, the church leaders will have to
 consider accepting women as priests.
 
 I will merely interject an interesting (at least to me) point of
 history. The Albigensian Crusade, more aptly named The Systematic
 Extermination Of A Competing Christian Sect We're Going To Call
 'Heretics' Because It Sounds Better Than 'We're Afraid Of Them', is
 blamed by the majority of historians on the Cathars' rejection of
 certain fundamental ideas of Roman dogma. They believed -- and practiced
 -- 'heresy'. A more real reason is that the Cathar religion was growing
 by leaps and bounds in the areas of Europe in which it had arisen, at a
 time when many people were leaving the Roman Church and its coffers were
 dwindling. Can't have that. So they called the Cathars 'heretics' and
 eliminated the competition.
 
 But one of the minor points of dogma that probably frightened the Roman
 Church the most was that the Cathars exemplified almost total parity
 between men and women. Women were allowed to hold property in their own
 names, in the 1200s, in what is now the south of France. That didn't
 happen officially in what is now France until De Gaulle.
 
 Worse, the Cathar priesthood was open equally to men and women. There
 were equal numbers of men and women priests. Really, really, really
 can't have that. Just sayin'...
 
 
 > ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, 
 > sharelong60@ wrote:
 >
 > John, it's about time! As for the Catholic Church, I wonder who would
 protest more, the clergy in power or the conservative laity, including
 nuns.
 >
 > ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 > jr_esq@ wrote:
 >
 > This appears to be the trend among Protestant Christian churches. 
 But one wonders if the Catholic Church would ever accept women as
 priests.
 >
 > 
 http://news.yahoo.com/church-england-paves-way-women-bishops-2014-142619\ 
http://news.yahoo.com/church-england-paves-way-women-bishops-2014-142619\
 228.html
 > 

Re: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[Share Long]

Thanks, feste, hope you're well and happy. BTW, this year I'm going east to 
celebrate both Thanksgiving and my Mom's birthday with my family. May you have 
wonderful holidays...





On Thursday, November 21, 2013 1:21 PM, feste37  
wrote:
 
  
With all this recent talk about "vicious" and "nasty" posts, if one were to 
take a year's worth of FFL posts and list by poster all the posts that might 
reasonably be considered either vicious or nasty, there would be two posters at 
the top of the list, way ahead of any others. These would of course be 
authfriend and turquoise b. Share would be well down on the list. 



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


 
From:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf Of dhamiltony2k5@...
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 12:28 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on 
Fairfield Life.
 
  
Rick, Keep a close watch out on the mean-girls club too. They could take us all 
down in unkindness.
-Buck 
I don’t have time to keep a close watch out on anything on FFL, but if someone 
gets too outrageous and someone brings it to my attention, I usually say to 
wait and see if they simmer down, and if they don’t, I do something about it.

RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[feste37]

With all this recent talk about "vicious" and "nasty" posts, if one were to 
take a year's worth of FFL posts and list by poster all the posts that might 
reasonably be considered either vicious or nasty, there would be two posters at 
the top of the list, way ahead of any others. These would of course be 
authfriend and turquoise b. Share would be well down on the list. 

 

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

  
 From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf Of dhamiltony2k5@...
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 12:28 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on 
Fairfield Life.


  
   
 Rick, Keep a close watch out on the mean-girls club too. They could take us 
all down in unkindness.
 -Buck 
 I don’t have time to keep a close watch out on anything on FFL, but if someone 
gets too outrageous and someone brings it to my attention, I usually say to 
wait and see if they simmer down, and if they don’t, I do something about it.

Re: [FairfieldLife] ATT: Bhairitu

[Bhairitu]

Alex Jones has a UStream live broadcast from Dealey Plaza right now.
http://www.infowars.com/dallas-police-ban-free-speech-in-dealey-plaza-threaten-arrests/


On 11/21/2013 09:38 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:


Oh, so am I. It was just fun to see it all together like that, one 
conspiracy theory after another. I thought they did a pretty good job 
of presenting them neutrally, although every once in a while you could 
spot just a wee bit of tongue tucked in cheek.




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

Thanks. Of course I am very familiar with a lot of this stuff.  I was 
suspicious of the JFK assassination from day one.  Things just didn't 
add up.   BTW, the easier way to read the article is to go back to 
it's main page where one can select the different sections.


On 11/20/2013 02:44 PM, authfriend@...  wrote:

You might enjoy looking through this: New York magazine this week has 
a neat feature, a "Conspiracy Theory Compendium." It's not about 
debunking *or* promoting the theories of the last 50 years, just 
listing them and giving a bit of background. Some of the entries are 
long; others are only a paragraph or two. And there's an interview 
with Alex Jones at the end.



The compendium starts here; at the bottom of each item is a link to 
the next one. This is a very long one:



http://nymag.com/news/features/conspiracy-theories/jfk-murder/

RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Mean Girls -- the research

[authfriend]

And DO NOT, whatever you do, get in the way of Share's Avoidance Dance. 
 

 Share pleaded:

 > Richard, forget dialog! How about a nice photo of the salad bar at Whole 
 > Foods? Make sure 
 > it includes the various quinoa salads, thank you (-:
 

 On Thursday, November 21, 2013 9:00 AM, Richard J. Williams  
wrote:
 
   
 Is it alright with you gals if I have a dialog with Share - for just about one 
or two minutes? Thanks in advance.
 
 On 11/20/2013 4:05 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
   HAHAHAHAHA! Yes, pretend not to understand and ask Richard. That'll really 
help.
 
 
 Do you think you can make yourself look just a little bit more ridiculous, 
Share?
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:sharelong60@... wrote:
 
 I did not write those words to Emily so I don't know why she put them in 
quotes. Richard, do you know what Judy is getting at?
 
 
 
 
 On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 3:48 PM, "authfriend@..." 
mailto:authfriend@...  mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
   As I said: Share isn't really this stupid. She just pretends to be this 
stupid. 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:sharelong60@... wrote:
 
 > Where I come from, Emily's quotation marks means that she's quoting me. 
 > Except I did not 
 > write those words to her, directly nor via the forum.
 
 
 
 
 On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 3:08 PM, "authfriend@..." 
mailto:authfriend@...  mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
   Just for the record, Share isn't this stupid. She pretends to be this stupid.
 
 Share babbled:
 
 > Just for the record, I don't know why Emily put those words in quotes 
 > because I did not 
 > write these words to her.
 
 
 
 
 On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 2:07 PM, "emilymaenot@..." 
mailto:emilymaenot@...  mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote:
 
   "Emily, step away from the computer. Take that little dog on a walk. 
Sincerely, Share."   Thank you Share, I'll do that. The sun is shining today 
and I am in a good mood. Sincerely, Emily.
 










































 
 
 
 

RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Al Gore debates Global Warming

[dhamiltony2k5]

Well, as a substantial resolution we should all be investing in energy 
efficient sustainable group meditation meeting homes for quiet-time meditations 
where people live, go to school, or work. Pay people to do a full two hour 
meditation program twice a day during the workday. We could achieve upwards of 
50 percent reduction in emission of climate change greenhouse gases. Somehow we 
have to get back to much simpler standards of living for the benefit of all 
living beings. We need to attack rampant materialism somewhere. It should start 
with instituting quiet-time meditation for everyone. -Buck 
 

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

 Maybe you forgot to mention all the animal flatulence out back in your barn? 
 
 "Livestock also produces more than 100 other polluting gases, including more 
than two-thirds of the world's emissions of ammonia, one of the main causes of 
acid rain."
 
 http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/ 
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-co2-from-cars-427843.html
 
 On 11/21/2013 8:51 AM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote:
 
   Is that giant dome you attend every day heated or  does it have air 
conditioning or fans? Is your giant tractor fuelled by pig piss? Just askin'... 
 
 
 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:dhamiltony2k5@... wrote:
 
 Yep, no question it is hotter and drier in Fairfield. Folks will certainly 
repent the glutton of their fossil-fueled air-conditioned days whence we get 
drought years back to back and a real drought sets in for 60 or 90 days across 
the mid-crop growing stage from seedling to pollination. You'll all repent then 
you sinners and become believers in the obvious that carbon dioxide is the 
element that regulates our atmospheric climate. About the only thing you'll be 
able to do with famine then is meditate your last skinny breath on earth. Git 
real. It is all about lifestyle, materialism and the lack of people spending 
enough time in meditation everyday. 
 -Buck in the Dome 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
 Dare Rick watch it?
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:s3raphita@... wrote:
 
 Thanks. The trailer was actually pretty lame but looking at the Wiki entry for 
the movie it sounds a film I'd want to seek out. . 
 
 
 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
 
 
 Agreed...you might like this movie "Pandora's Promise", it really brings 
environmentalism up to date.
 
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDw3ET3zqxk 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDw3ET3zqxk
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:s3raphita@... wrote:
 
 I've got an open mind. But I see that Al Gore's house (maybe he has more than 
one) is powered with a geothermal system as well as 33-solar panels. If energy 
prices rise he's sitting pretty. (And he's filthy rich anyway.) What about 
those at the bottom of the social pile? Green taxes could mean many of the 
elderly poor dying of hypothermia. 
 
 
 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
 Watch, if you have an open mind.
  
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Mean Girls -- the research

[awoelflebater]

 
 

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

 And DO NOT, whatever you do, get in the way of Share's Avoidance Dance. 
 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CowekQq6kY8

 

 

 

 Share pleaded:

 > Richard, forget dialog! How about a nice photo of the salad bar at Whole 
 > Foods? Make sure 
 > it includes the various quinoa salads, thank you (-:
 

 

 On Thursday, November 21, 2013 9:00 AM, Richard J. Williams  
wrote:
 
   
 Is it alright with you gals if I have a dialog with Share - for just about one 
or two minutes? Thanks in advance.
 
 On 11/20/2013 4:05 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
   HAHAHAHAHA! Yes, pretend not to understand and ask Richard. That'll really 
help.
 
 
 Do you think you can make yourself look just a little bit more ridiculous, 
Share?
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:sharelong60@... wrote:
 
 I did not write those words to Emily so I don't know why she put them in 
quotes. Richard, do you know what Judy is getting at?
 
 
 
 
 On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 3:48 PM, "authfriend@..." 
mailto:authfriend@...  mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
   As I said: Share isn't really this stupid. She just pretends to be this 
stupid. 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:sharelong60@... wrote:
 
 > Where I come from, Emily's quotation marks means that she's quoting me. 
 > Except I did not 
 > write those words to her, directly nor via the forum.
 
 
 
 
 On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 3:08 PM, "authfriend@..." 
mailto:authfriend@...  mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
   Just for the record, Share isn't this stupid. She pretends to be this stupid.
 
 Share babbled:
 
 > Just for the record, I don't know why Emily put those words in quotes 
 > because I did not 
 > write these words to her.
 
 
 
 
 On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 2:07 PM, "emilymaenot@..." 
mailto:emilymaenot@...  mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote:
 
   "Emily, step away from the computer. Take that little dog on a walk. 
Sincerely, Share."   Thank you Share, I'll do that. The sun is shining today 
and I am in a good mood. Sincerely, Emily.
 










































 
 
 
 


 

[FairfieldLife] RE: Church of England Paves Way for Women Bishops in 2014

[sharelong60]

John, it's about time! As for the Catholic Church, I wonder who would protest 
more, the clergy in power or the conservative laity, including nuns. 

 

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

 This appears to be the trend among Protestant Christian churches.  But one 
wonders if the Catholic Church would ever accept women as priests. 

 
http://news.yahoo.com/church-england-paves-way-women-bishops-2014-142619228.html
 
http://news.yahoo.com/church-england-paves-way-women-bishops-2014-142619228.html

RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Al Gore debates Global Warming

[Rick Archer]

 

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf Of wgm4u
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 2:44 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Al Gore debates Global Warming

 

  

Dare Rick watch it?

I’ve got it in my DVR and have begun watching it.



---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com  , 
mailto:s3raphita@...> > wrote:

Thanks. The trailer was actually pretty lame but looking at the Wiki entry for 
the movie it sounds a film I'd want to seek out. . 

 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com  , 
mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com> > wrote:

 

Agreed...you might like this movie "Pandora's Promise", it really brings 
environmentalism up to date.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDw3ET3zqxk

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com  , 
mailto:s3raphita@...> > wrote:

I've got an open mind. But I see that Al Gore's house (maybe he has more than 
one) is powered with a geothermal system as well as 33-solar panels. If energy 
prices rise he's sitting pretty. (And he's filthy rich anyway.) What about 
those at the bottom of the social pile? Green taxes could mean many of the 
elderly poor dying of hypothermia. 

 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com  , 
mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com> > wrote:

Watch, if you have an open mind.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU

[FairfieldLife] Church of England Paves Way for Women Bishops in 2014

[jr_esq]

This appears to be the trend among Protestant Christian churches.  But one 
wonders if the Catholic Church would ever accept women as priests. 
 

 
http://news.yahoo.com/church-england-paves-way-women-bishops-2014-142619228.html
 
http://news.yahoo.com/church-england-paves-way-women-bishops-2014-142619228.html

RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Al Gore debates Global Warming

[awoelflebater]

I have a better idea: start by becoming a vegetarian if what Richard says is to 
be believed (and I believe it). If one is going to meditate perhaps we should 
do so in a house that does not require heat or air conditioning. That would 
mean moving to a more temperate climate. Do you eat meat Buck? Do you drive a 
car or tractor? Do you heat your home? Do you consume anything not made within 
5 miles of where you live? Do you ever travel to faraway places to see 
"saints"? I'd like to be able to say your simplistic and elegant "solution" of 
meditating for two hours a day was going to solve all this but, alas, I fear 
you may have missed the proverbial mark.
 

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

 Well, as a substantial resolution we should all be investing in energy 
efficient sustainable group meditation meeting homes for quiet-time meditations 
where people live, go to school, or work. Pay people to do a full two hour 
meditation program twice a day during the workday. We could achieve upwards of 
50 percent reduction in emission of climate change greenhouse gases. Somehow we 
have to get back to much simpler standards of living for the benefit of all 
living beings. We need to attack rampant materialism somewhere. It should start 
with instituting quiet-time meditation for everyone. -Buck 
 

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

 Maybe you forgot to mention all the animal flatulence out back in your barn? 
 
 "Livestock also produces more than 100 other polluting gases, including more 
than two-thirds of the world's emissions of ammonia, one of the main causes of 
acid rain."
 
 http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/ 
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-co2-from-cars-427843.html
 
 On 11/21/2013 8:51 AM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote:
 
   Is that giant dome you attend every day heated or  does it have air 
conditioning or fans? Is your giant tractor fuelled by pig piss? Just askin'... 
 
 
 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:dhamiltony2k5@... wrote:
 
 Yep, no question it is hotter and drier in Fairfield. Folks will certainly 
repent the glutton of their fossil-fueled air-conditioned days whence we get 
drought years back to back and a real drought sets in for 60 or 90 days across 
the mid-crop growing stage from seedling to pollination. You'll all repent then 
you sinners and become believers in the obvious that carbon dioxide is the 
element that regulates our atmospheric climate. About the only thing you'll be 
able to do with famine then is meditate your last skinny breath on earth. Git 
real. It is all about lifestyle, materialism and the lack of people spending 
enough time in meditation everyday. 
 -Buck in the Dome 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
 Dare Rick watch it?
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:s3raphita@... wrote:
 
 Thanks. The trailer was actually pretty lame but looking at the Wiki entry for 
the movie it sounds a film I'd want to seek out. . 
 
 
 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
 
 
 Agreed...you might like this movie "Pandora's Promise", it really brings 
environmentalism up to date.
 
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDw3ET3zqxk 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDw3ET3zqxk
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:s3raphita@... wrote:
 
 I've got an open mind. But I see that Al Gore's house (maybe he has more than 
one) is powered with a geothermal system as well as 33-solar panels. If energy 
prices rise he's sitting pretty. (And he's filthy rich anyway.) What about 
those at the bottom of the social pile? Green taxes could mean many of the 
elderly poor dying of hypothermia. 
 
 
 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
 Watch, if you have an open mind.
  
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Church of England Paves Way for Women Bishops in 2014

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
>
> Share,
>
>  I believe it would take another Vatican Council to consider the
question of priesthood for women.  This council will only happen if the
entire church leadership perceives that women can fill the priestly
duties that are needed in the parishes.  If the supply of quality men
who want to be priests dwindles, the church leaders will have to
consider accepting women as priests.

I will merely interject an interesting (at least to me) point of
history. The Albigensian Crusade, more aptly named The Systematic
Extermination Of A Competing Christian Sect We're Going To Call
'Heretics' Because It Sounds Better Than 'We're Afraid Of Them', is
blamed by the majority of historians on the Cathars' rejection of
certain fundamental ideas of Roman dogma. They believed -- and practiced
-- 'heresy'. A more real reason is that the Cathar religion was growing
by leaps and bounds in the areas of Europe in which it had arisen, at a
time when many people were leaving the Roman Church and its coffers were
dwindling. Can't have that. So they called the Cathars 'heretics' and
eliminated the competition.

But one of the minor points of dogma that probably frightened the Roman
Church the most was that the Cathars exemplified almost total parity
between men and women. Women were allowed to hold property in their own
names, in the 1200s, in what is now the south of France. That didn't
happen officially in what is now France until De Gaulle.

Worse, the Cathar priesthood was open equally to men and women. There
were equal numbers of men and women priests. Really, really, really
can't have that. Just sayin'...


> ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@ wrote:
>
>  John, it's about time! As for the Catholic Church, I wonder who would
protest more, the clergy in power or the conservative laity, including
nuns.
>
>  ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@ wrote:
>
>  This appears to be the trend among Protestant Christian churches. 
But one wonders if the Catholic Church would ever accept women as
priests.
>
> 
http://news.yahoo.com/church-england-paves-way-women-bishops-2014-142619\
228.html
>

RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] ATT: Bhairitu

[authfriend]

Oh, so am I. It was just fun to see it all together like that, one conspiracy 
theory after another. I thought they did a pretty good job of presenting them 
neutrally, although every once in a while you could spot just a wee bit of 
tongue tucked in cheek. 
 

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

 Thanks.  Of course I am very familiar with a lot of this stuff.  I was 
suspicious of the JFK assassination from day one.  Things just didn't add up.   
BTW, the easier way to read the article is to go back to it's main page where 
one can select the different sections.
 
 On 11/20/2013 02:44 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
   You might enjoy looking through this: New York magazine this week has a neat 
feature, a "Conspiracy Theory Compendium." It's not about debunking *or* 
promoting the theories of the last 50 years, just listing them and giving a bit 
of background. Some of the entries are long; others are only a paragraph or 
two. And there's an interview with Alex Jones at the end.
 
 
 The compendium starts here; at the bottom of each item is a link to the next 
one. This is a very long one:
 
 
 http://nymag.com/news/features/conspiracy-theories/jfk-murder/ 
http://nymag.com/news/features/conspiracy-theories/jfk-murder/
 
 
 
 
 
 

Re: RE: RE: Re: RE: RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Mean Girls -- the research

[Share Long]

Judy, imo MGC did Avoidance Dance recently WRT indiff's language. Where was 
their outrage then?! It's still about RWC for them imo and that's why they 
exempt their buddies from their protestations, moral posturings, etc. and focus 
on me. Going by what others here have said, you are the queen of grudge holding 
and as such your words have little value from my perspective. Same for Ann and 
Emily when they're in that prejudiced and or nasty mode.

And to answer the MGC posts from last night: one of your most vicious tactics
 imo is to poison a fun exchange I'm having with another poster. Which usually 
happens when I've been ignoring you all. IMO this is what Ann did, despite all 
of her clever and or politically correct utterances and your moral posturing. 
And I don't feel like a victim at all. I feel like someone who has stood up 
appropriately for herself. 

>From the beginning of all this, you initiate attack, Judy and I defend myself 
>as I see fit. I do not initiate attack and that is, I think an important 
>difference. One that you will more likely neither see nor admit.





On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 10:45 PM, "emilymae...@yahoo.com" 
 wrote:
 
  
Ann, I love you. You and Judy are in a tie for the best post of year - song 
wise. 


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


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBd93pJRJ54 



---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
>
>
>Are you saying that Ann's picture of herself at the beach was vicious?  Or are 
>you saying her parody was vicious?  I understand that you truly believe that 
>Ann was after you, personally, on a public forum with public posting and you 
>thought you were responding "in-kind." Share, you are doing the classic 
>re-write of reality here to try and not take responsibility for yourself.  I 
>don't think you can help this. Take me on next, Share.  Come on, I dare you - 
>stop going after just Judy and Ann.  I feel left out.  And remember, If you 
>like it, I love it.  
>
>
>
>---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
>>
>>
>>Emily, imo, Ann viciously poisoned a fun exchange that I was having with 
>>Richard, a tactic used often by MGC, not only when I ignore you all, but imo 
>>precisely because I'm enjoying exchanges with other posters. It's one of the 
>>most vicious things that you all do and I will continue to respond in kind. 
>>btw, turq once said something mean about Judy's looks.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 6:32 PM, "emilymaenot@..."  
>>wrote:
>> 
>>  
>>And look, you are still at it Share...reaching for anything to distract 
>>yourself from the fact that you wrote a mean and malicious post. I can't even 
>>think of anyone else who has stooped so low as to attack someone's personal 
>>visage, except you.  Face it Share. Your post was trying to hit below the 
>>belt and create hurt. Sad, but true.  No biggie, just the "bad" part of the 
>>"blend of good and bad" (and I paraphrase what you say there) that human 
>>beings are, right?  No reason to apologize.  
>>
>>
>>---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 wrote:
>>
>>
>>imo, RWC is the #1 big reason you all keep attacking me. Expecially you, 
>>Judy, the number 1 grudge holder maybe on the internet if what others say is 
>>true. Since that seems to be what's needed to be Queen Bee, I'm happy to let 
>>you keep that job. As for Emily, why exclude Obbajee and Susan? Except that 
>>my exchanges with them disproves what Emily initially said about me.
>>
>>
>>From the beginning I've acknowledged that I have flaws. But Judy, when you 
>>don't like someone, it's as if you put on black glasses and see the person 
>>only through them. Worse, you either don't see that you've got the glasses 
>>on, or you won't admit that you do.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:


Unlike you, Emily has integrity. So when you claimed that you liked 
Obbajeeba and Susan, she took you at your word and amended what she said 
about you to exclude them. And after she'd done that to accommodate your 
claim, you accused her of saying Obbajeeba and Susan weren't "strong and 
beautiful" and demanded to know how she accounted for your claim not to be 
threatened by them--when she'd just got done accounting for it.


It's all right here in black and white, Share, but you simply can't 
acknowledge the facts.


One of the big reasons we keep going after you, Share, is because of your 
inability to be straightforward when there's any kind of conflict--one more 
unmistakeable sign that your saintly pose is just that, a pose, not the 
real Share. You twist and obfuscate and conceal and confound and create 
massive muddles to protect yourself from having to deal with reality.


And the reality is, as Emily so aptly points out, that your posts are not 
"cute," you are not the Queen Bee of FFL that you'd like to see yourself as.

RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[Rick Archer]

 

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf Of dhamiltony...@yahoo.com
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 12:28 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on 
Fairfield Life.

 

  

Rick, Keep a close watch out on the mean-girls club too. They could take us all 
down in unkindness.

-Buck 

I don’t have time to keep a close watch out on anything on FFL, but if someone 
gets too outrageous and someone brings it to my attention, I usually say to 
wait and see if they simmer down, and if they don’t, I do something about it.

[FairfieldLife] RE: Re: Free Man In Paris, V4.0

[doctordumbass]

Despite being in Paris, It sounds like a rough schedule. Glad you will have 
more time at home. Enjoy that space between contracts! 

 

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
doctordumbass@... wrote:
 >
 > Good for you! Enjoy your next step - Best thing I ever did was stop
 working on someone else's schedule. I get more done, too. All the best -
 
 Thanks to you and Bhairitu for getting it. There are priorities in life,
 and at this point Other People's Schedules And Rules don't rank very
 high on my list of them. :-)
 
 It's not as if I'll be "retiring." There's still lots of work to do,
 editing and writing medical articles for my family's company, and the
 technopimp who is running my contract with IBM (they stopped being able
 to work directly with contractors) says he has a few at-home gigs to
 present me for. He's not fond of their rules, either, especially as it
 applies to several contractors who work through him who (like me)
 already have a long history of being able to work remotely, and for
 *their* company. So he understands my decision as well.
 
 Whatever I wind up working on, it'll be more pleasant because I'll be
 able to do it from my own desk, while taking the occasional break to
 walk the dog and play with Maya. As nice as Paris is, the having to pack
 up, spend hours on the train getting here and then more hours commuting
 across the city to get to work are just making the gig non-viable.
 
 The only thing I'll miss is the occasional wide-band "broadcast" of hype
 for their newest Next Big Thing. The latest -- for a Cloud Cognitive
 Computing technology called Watson -- was like watching evangelists for
 the Church of Skynet. :-)
 
 
 > ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 > turquoiseb@ wrote:
 >
 > I am a fortunate frood. I am sitting in a charming sidewalk cafe in
 the
 > Butte aux Cailles, sipping an acceptable beer, and getting paid to do
 > it. Sorta. I'm getting paid to be in Paris, by my client, for whom I
 > write tech stuff by day. And I have no reason to complain. The Airbnb
 > apartment I'm staying in for this two-week period is the nicest I've
 > ever found, the quartier is very lively and interesting, and the day
 > work for my client is going well. By night I get to haunt the cafes.
 >
 > So why did I give notice last week, and tell my client that I'm
 leaving
 > at the end of my current contract?
 >
 > The short answer is, "It's time."
 >
 > There are many answers, of course, and because I'm me, and because
 this
 > is a cool writing cafe, with a cozy-warm outdoor terrace even in the
 > chilly weather, I'll rap about some of them. Be warned.
 >
 > * It's time. This is an opportune time for me to bow out of the
 project
 > I'm working on, because one software release cycle has just finished,
 > and the next is longer so they'll have ample time to find a
 replacement
 > tech writer. I do not bear the company any ill will, and would gladly
 > continue to work for them if I could do so from home. Unfortunately,
 > they have BBBRs (Big Bureaucratic Business Rules) that prohibit them
 > from allowing contractors to work from home.
 >
 > * It's time. The gig, although it's been fascinating and lucrative,
 has
 > been wearing on me a bit physically. All the travel, the lugging of
 > suitcases around, and all that have begun to wear on me such that I'm
 > losing my appreciation of this great city. Can't have that.
 >
 > * It's time. As much as I love Paris, I've been finding lately that I
 > love Leiden more. So I'd like to spend more time there.
 >
 > * It's time. I have other things I'd prefer to write about than the
 > product my current client is paying me to write about.
 >
 > * It's time. And, interestingly enough, *about* time. Now that I've
 > given my notice, I know that I only have a limited number of days
 left
 > in Paris on my client's nickel. I think this will inspire me to
 > appreciate them more, and take them less for granted.
 >
 > So the long answer seems to be the same as the short answer. "It's
 > time."
 > 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Al Gore debates Global Warming

[Richard J. Williams]

Maybe you forgot to mention all the animal flatulence out back in your 
barn?


"Livestock also produces more than 100 other polluting gases, including 
more than two-thirds of the world's emissions of ammonia, one of the 
main causes of acid rain."


http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/ 



On 11/21/2013 8:51 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote:


Is that giant dome you attend every day heated or  does it have air 
conditioning or fans? Is your giant tractor fuelled by pig piss? Just 
askin'...




---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

*Yep, no question it is hotter and drier in Fairfield. Folks will 
certainly repent the glutton of their fossil-fueled air-conditioned 
days whence we get drought years back to back and a real drought sets 
in for 60 or 90 days across the mid-crop growing stage from seedling 
to pollination. You'll all repent then you sinners and become 
believers in the obvious that carbon dioxide is the element that 
regulates our atmospheric climate. About the only thing you'll be able 
to do with famine then is meditate your last skinny breath on earth. 
Git real. It is all about lifestyle, materialism and the lack of 
people spending enough time in meditation everyday. *


*-Buck in the Dome*



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

Dare Rick watch it?



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

Thanks. The trailer was actually pretty lame but looking at
the Wiki entry for the movie it sounds a film I'd want to seek
out. .



---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,
 wrote:


Agreed...you might like this movie "Pandora's Promise", it
really brings environmentalism up to date.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDw3ET3zqxk


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

I've got an open mind. But I see that Al Gore's house
(maybe he has more than one) is powered with a geothermal
system as well as 33-solar panels. If energy prices rise
he's sitting pretty. (And he's filthy rich anyway.) What
about those at the bottom of the social pile? Green taxes
could mean many of the elderly poor dying of hypothermia.



---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,
 wrote:

Watch, if you have an open mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU

[FairfieldLife] RE: Church of England Paves Way for Women Bishops in 2014

[jr_esq]

Share,
 

 I believe it would take another Vatican Council to consider the question of 
priesthood for women.  This council will only happen if the entire church 
leadership perceives that women can fill the priestly duties that are needed in 
the parishes.  If the supply of quality men who want to be priests dwindles, 
the church leaders will have to consider accepting women as priests.
 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 John, it's about time! As for the Catholic Church, I wonder who would protest 
more, the clergy in power or the conservative laity, including nuns. 

 

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

 This appears to be the trend among Protestant Christian churches.  But one 
wonders if the Catholic Church would ever accept women as priests. 

 
http://news.yahoo.com/church-england-paves-way-women-bishops-2014-142619228.html
 
http://news.yahoo.com/church-england-paves-way-women-bishops-2014-142619228.html




 

[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[authfriend]

There is no such thing as the "Mean Girls Club." That's an invention of Barry's 
designed to put down his critics. Do you really want to argue that Barry is not 
far guiltier of "unkindness" than anyone else here?
 

 Get real, Buck.
 

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

 Rick, Keep a close watch out on the mean-girls club too. They could take us 
all down in unkindness.
 -Buck 
 

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

 Thanks Rick. You did the right thing to protect us all.
 -Buck

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

  
 From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf OfBuck@...
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 11:55 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: A story of 
devotion


  
  
 Yes, to protect the very existence of our FFL community group we should close 
the membership at least of 'indifferent_netizen'/ or whoever that is here, 
before Yahoo catches up with us as a group for tolerating these kinds of unkind 
posts. There is a very real and present danger to the whole FFL group letting 
this writer and some of these other people write their hateful unkind abusive 
speech here.  It is time. 
 Already done.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 wrote:
 “Yahoo Groups, in its sole discretion, may terminate or remove any content, 
Group or your Yahoo ID immediately and without notice if (a) Yahoo believes 
that you have acted inconsistently with the spirit or the letter of the Yahoo 
Terms of Service or the Yahoo Groups Guidelines, or (b) Yahoo believes you have 
violated or tried to violate the rights of others. Please help us keep Yahoo 
Groups an enjoyable and positive experience. If you see a Group or content that 
violates our rules, please let us know.”  
 


 Yes. This here is about the survival of our FFL list. 
 


 Dear FFL, now more clearly than even before it is getting to be time to avert 
the danger of ultimate termination to our FFL group community before it becomes 
too late. Shutting the Fairfieldlife forum down has been tried by subversion 
like this before. We must act to protect ourselves. I call upon the moderation 
of this community to close the membership of this hooligan 
'indifferent_netizen' masquerading such hateful thought on the pages of our FFL.
 -Buck 
  












 

RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Al Gore debates Global Warming

[dhamiltony2k5]

Yes, all of this will have to change in a brave new world of climate change 
coming. 
 

 
 We will all need to sacrifice. Look, we need not just some incremental change 
in some efficiency but it is time for revolutionary lifestyle change based on 
large thinking and science. I feel we should immediately and institute 
quiet-time meditations in all schools everywhere. Start with the children as 
students. Then also in all public workplaces. -Buck
  
 

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

 I have a better idea: start by becoming a vegetarian if what Richard says is 
to be believed (and I believe it). If one is going to meditate perhaps we 
should do so in a house that does not require heat or air conditioning. That 
would mean moving to a more temperate climate. Do you eat meat Buck? Do you 
drive a car or tractor? Do you heat your home? Do you consume anything not made 
within 5 miles of where you live? Do you ever travel to faraway places to see 
"saints"? I'd like to be able to say your simplistic and elegant "solution" of 
meditating for two hours a day was going to solve all this but, alas, I fear 
you may have missed the proverbial mark.
 

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

 Well, as a substantial resolution we should all be investing in energy 
efficient sustainable group meditation meeting homes for quiet-time meditations 
where people live, go to school, or work. Pay people to do a full two hour 
meditation program twice a day during the workday. We could achieve upwards of 
50 percent reduction in emission of climate change greenhouse gases. Somehow we 
have to get back to much simpler standards of living for the benefit of all 
living beings. We need to attack rampant materialism somewhere. It should start 
with instituting quiet-time meditation for everyone. -Buck 
 

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

 Maybe you forgot to mention all the animal flatulence out back in your barn? 
 
 "Livestock also produces more than 100 other polluting gases, including more 
than two-thirds of the world's emissions of ammonia, one of the main causes of 
acid rain."
 
 http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/ 
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-co2-from-cars-427843.html
 
 On 11/21/2013 8:51 AM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote:
 
   Is that giant dome you attend every day heated or  does it have air 
conditioning or fans? Is your giant tractor fuelled by pig piss? Just askin'... 
 
 
 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:dhamiltony2k5@... wrote:
 
 Yep, no question it is hotter and drier in Fairfield. Folks will certainly 
repent the glutton of their fossil-fueled air-conditioned days whence we get 
drought years back to back and a real drought sets in for 60 or 90 days across 
the mid-crop growing stage from seedling to pollination. You'll all repent then 
you sinners and become believers in the obvious that carbon dioxide is the 
element that regulates our atmospheric climate. About the only thing you'll be 
able to do with famine then is meditate your last skinny breath on earth. Git 
real. It is all about lifestyle, materialism and the lack of people spending 
enough time in meditation everyday. 
 -Buck in the Dome 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
 Dare Rick watch it?
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:s3raphita@... wrote:
 
 Thanks. The trailer was actually pretty lame but looking at the Wiki entry for 
the movie it sounds a film I'd want to seek out. . 
 
 
 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
 
 
 Agreed...you might like this movie "Pandora's Promise", it really brings 
environmentalism up to date.
 
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDw3ET3zqxk 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDw3ET3zqxk
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:s3raphita@... wrote:
 
 I've got an open mind. But I see that Al Gore's house (maybe he has more than 
one) is powered with a geothermal system as well as 33-solar panels. If energy 
prices rise he's sitting pretty. (And he's filthy rich anyway.) What about 
those at the bottom of the social pile? Green taxes could mean many of the 
elderly poor dying of hypothermia. 
 
 
 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
 Watch, if you have an open mind.
  
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

[dhamiltony2k5]

Rick, Keep a close watch out on the mean-girls club too. They could take us all 
down in unkindness.
 -Buck 
 

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

 Thanks Rick. You did the right thing to protect us all.
 -Buck

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

  
 From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf OfBuck@...
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 11:55 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: A story of 
devotion


  
  
 Yes, to protect the very existence of our FFL community group we should close 
the membership at least of 'indifferent_netizen'/ or whoever that is here, 
before Yahoo catches up with us as a group for tolerating these kinds of unkind 
posts. There is a very real and present danger to the whole FFL group letting 
this writer and some of these other people write their hateful unkind abusive 
speech here.  It is time. 
 Already done.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 wrote:
 “Yahoo Groups, in its sole discretion, may terminate or remove any content, 
Group or your Yahoo ID immediately and without notice if (a) Yahoo believes 
that you have acted inconsistently with the spirit or the letter of the Yahoo 
Terms of Service or the Yahoo Groups Guidelines, or (b) Yahoo believes you have 
violated or tried to violate the rights of others. Please help us keep Yahoo 
Groups an enjoyable and positive experience. If you see a Group or content that 
violates our rules, please let us know.”  
 


 Yes. This here is about the survival of our FFL list. 
 


 Dear FFL, now more clearly than even before it is getting to be time to avert 
the danger of ultimate termination to our FFL group community before it becomes 
too late. Shutting the Fairfieldlife forum down has been tried by subversion 
like this before. We must act to protect ourselves. I call upon the moderation 
of this community to close the membership of this hooligan 
'indifferent_netizen' masquerading such hateful thought on the pages of our FFL.
 -Buck 
  












 

[FairfieldLife] RE: Church of England Paves Way for Women Bishops in 2014

[jr_esq]

 Ann,
 

 I believe the Catholic Church considers the role of women to be motherhood and 
not as patriarchs of the church.  The Church may change its stance depending on 
how well the female bishops in the other denominations are perceived by the 
general public.  Also, the Church may change depending on the quality of men 
that enter the seminary to become priests.
 

---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Probably not as long as men are running the show. 
 

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

 This appears to be the trend among Protestant Christian churches.  But one 
wonders if the Catholic Church would ever accept women as priests. 

 
http://news.yahoo.com/church-england-paves-way-women-bishops-2014-142619228.html
 
http://news.yahoo.com/church-england-paves-way-women-bishops-2014-142619228.html




 

[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Born again?

[feste37]

Bear in mind that the New York Times has a pay wall -- 10 free articles and 
then you have to pay (although I have found that easy to get around without 
paying). I like the Daily Mail, and it is free. 
  
 

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

 Off topic, but I was surprised to see that the Daily Mail has overtaken the 
The New York Times to become the world's most visited newspaper website. The 
biggest increase in readers has been in the USA. 
 

 It's not so much that the Mail's site is so fantastic (though it is 
user-friendly) but more that American on-line editions are so bland. In fact, 
American newspapers are pretty boring IMHO - which is quite surprising given 
that America is a world leader in TV news. American newspapers are too sober 
and too old-fashioned in their layout. Yes, you have tabloid trash like The 
Enquirer (which are fun) but there's a lack of striking design and engaging 
reporting in the serious papers. 
 

 Long, long ago I used to read The Christian Science Monitor which was quite 
good and highly respected (despite its title!). Don't know if it has lost the 
plot in recent years.
 

 Just saying.
 

 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Um, I don't really think that's a "message" such believers have gotten. Some 
do like to try to hook up paranormal stuff to physics, others don't think it 
makes much sense. I mean, this guy is just making a fairly standard dualist 
claim about mind and matter--mind and brain--being separate (brain being the 
receiver, mind the signal). Maybe he explains it in more detail in the book, 
but in this article he just seems to be saying, you know, "Mind and brain are 
separate because quantum physics."
 

 I also don't think the Daily Mail did a very good job of making his cases 
sound convincing. Pretty messy. But, yes, fun to read.
 

 

 

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

 Another book on reincarnation for those who are interested in the possibility. 
 

 The article drew my eye because of a claim that quantum physics may hold the 
key - but I don't see how from the article here but it's good that the people 
with beliefs of life in the great beyond have got the message that whatever 
ideas they have they are going to *have* to fit in with physics.
 

 Funny how the Daily Mail seems to be on a spiritual trip these days, doesn't 
seem to suit them somehow. All good fun as far as I'm concerned...
 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2509769/New-book-reveals-children-believe-reincarnated.html
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2509769/New-book-reveals-children-believe-reincarnated.html


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: Al Gore debates Global Warming

[Richard J. Williams]

Maybe you forgot to mention the bovine flatulence in Iowa and farming in 
general, which produces more CO2 that auto emissions. And, don't forget 
sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. Face it, Buck, you're screwed on the 
farm. Thanks a lot, Pal! LoL!


"Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that 
cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of 
transport put together."


http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions 




On 11/21/2013 6:19 AM, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote:


*Yep, no question it is hotter and drier in Fairfield. Folks will 
certainly repent the glutton of their fossil-fueled air-conditioned 
days whence we get drought years back to back and a real drought sets 
in for 60 or 90 days across the mid-crop growing stage from seedling 
to pollination. You'll all repent then you sinners and become 
believers in the obvious that carbon dioxide is the element that 
regulates our atmospheric climate. About the only thing you'll be able 
to do with famine then is meditate your last skinny breath on earth. 
Git real. It is all about lifestyle, materialism and the lack of 
people spending enough time in meditation everyday. *


*-Buck in the Dome*



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

Dare Rick watch it?



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

Thanks. The trailer was actually pretty lame but looking at the
Wiki entry for the movie it sounds a film I'd want to seek out. .



---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,
 wrote:


Agreed...you might like this movie "Pandora's Promise", it
really brings environmentalism up to date.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDw3ET3zqxk


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

I've got an open mind. But I see that Al Gore's house (maybe
he has more than one) is powered with a geothermal system as
well as 33-solar panels. If energy prices rise he's sitting
pretty. (And he's filthy rich anyway.) What about those at the
bottom of the social pile? Green taxes could mean many of the
elderly poor dying of hypothermia.



---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,
 wrote:

Watch, if you have an open mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU

RE: RE: RE: Re: RE: RE: Re: RE: RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Mean Girls -- the research

[authfriend]

Has Barry been forging my email again?? I'll skin him alive. I guess he's 
trying to scrounge a bit of income now that he's left his job.
 

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

 Are you *sure* there is no such thing as the MGC? Because if that's the case, 
I just wired my thousand dollar 'Platinum' initiation fee to someone, who I 
thought was you, in Nigeria. You even attached those pics from your "camera 
safari" - The giraffes, and the chimp wearing a fez. You said you'd be back 
stateside soon, and my scroll, and ceremonial ring would be arriving shortly. 
What's going on??
  
 

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

 Share snarled:
 
 > Judy, imo MGC did Avoidance Dance recently WRT indiff's language. Where was 
 > their 
 > outrage 
















 then?!
 

 In the first place, there's no such thing as "MGC." That's a fantasy of 
Barry's. In the
 second place, what the hell does "indiff's language" (whatever that refers to) 
have to
 do with our exchanges? This is just more avoidance on your part, trying to 
change the
 subject.
 
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free Man In Paris, V4.0

[Bhairitu]

On 11/20/2013 11:31 PM, TurquoiseB wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote:
>
> Good for you! Enjoy your next step - Best thing I ever did was stop
working on someone else's schedule. I get more done, too. All the best -

Thanks to you and Bhairitu for getting it. There are priorities in life,
and at this point Other People's Schedules And Rules don't rank very
high on my list of them. :-)



Problem I have doing contracting is they are always wanting me to do 
something that is not my venue instead of something that uses my 
strengths.  Biggest part of contracting is managing their expectations.




It's not as if I'll be "retiring." There's still lots of work to do,
editing and writing medical articles for my family's company, and the
technopimp who is running my contract with IBM (they stopped being able
to work directly with contractors) says he has a few at-home gigs to
present me for. He's not fond of their rules, either, especially as it
applies to several contractors who work through him who (like me)
already have a long history of being able to work remotely, and for
*their* company. So he understands my decision as well.

Whatever I wind up working on, it'll be more pleasant because I'll be
able to do it from my own desk, while taking the occasional break to
walk the dog and play with Maya. As nice as Paris is, the having to pack
up, spend hours on the train getting here and then more hours commuting
across the city to get to work are just making the gig non-viable.

The only thing I'll miss is the occasional wide-band "broadcast" of hype
for their newest Next Big Thing. The latest -- for a Cloud Cognitive
Computing technology called Watson -- was like watching evangelists for
the Church of Skynet. :-)



Rule the tech industry needs to learn: "just because you CAN do it 
doesn't mean you SHOULD."

[FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: Al Gore debates Global Warming

[dhamiltony2k5]

Yep, no question it is hotter and drier in Fairfield. Folks will certainly 
repent the glutton of their fossil-fueled air-conditioned days whence we get 
drought years back to back and a real drought sets in for 60 or 90 days across 
the mid-crop growing stage from seedling to pollination. You'll all repent then 
you sinners and become believers in the obvious that carbon dioxide is the 
element that regulates our atmospheric climate. About the only thing you'll be 
able to do with famine then is meditate your last skinny breath on earth. Git 
real. It is all about lifestyle, materialism and the lack of people spending 
enough time in meditation everyday. 
 -Buck in the Dome 
 

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

 Dare Rick watch it?
 

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

 Thanks. The trailer was actually pretty lame but looking at the Wiki entry for 
the movie it sounds a film I'd want to seek out. . 
 

 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 

 Agreed...you might like this movie "Pandora's Promise", it really brings 
environmentalism up to date.
 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDw3ET3zqxk 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDw3ET3zqxk
 

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

 I've got an open mind. But I see that Al Gore's house (maybe he has more than 
one) is powered with a geothermal system as well as 33-solar panels. If energy 
prices rise he's sitting pretty. (And he's filthy rich anyway.) What about 
those at the bottom of the social pile? Green taxes could mean many of the 
elderly poor dying of hypothermia. 
 

 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Watch, if you have an open mind.
  
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU