Re: [FairfieldLife] Does PC trump satire?
Ask Jerry Seinfeld. On 06/13/2015 03:48 PM, Duveyoung wrote: I have posted a lot of personal attacks on folks I have decided were trolls, but I thought I was doing so with creativity. For instance, that list of about ten insults aimed at Willy that I wrote were quite creative despite their being vitriolic and MEANT to sting. Were they creative enough to be called satire or were they mere mud slinging? Can't I actually justify wanting to sting someone in response to their attacks on me? Why does PC trump my right as an artist to express my disdain in any manner that is not physically destructive of the property of others? If the emotional responses of others is considered to be their property that can be damaged by a well aimed blurb, then I think we have a problem, Houston. Whose emotions? I am not responsible for my brothers' feelings. No one is -- except themselves -- maybe. Just maybe. Karma is unfathomable -- does anyone argue with that concept? If I am the arbiter of what is truth, what is smarm, what is hate speech etc., then let me tells ya -- I am ABSOLUTELY OFFENDED BY ALMOST EVERYTHING POSTED HERE. See? I cannot be allowed to impose my value-set upon anyone, because I might be, what? cruel, stupid, heartless, silly or a combo of all these traits? If this were an ashram, then an agreed upon set of values would be the core of that community. Here at FFL, perhaps that was once a hope, but long gone 'tis. So, if this isn't an ashram, but YET STILL we now have an, as if, Values of Damocles hanging above our heads -- a moderation of UNKNOWABLE, not merely unknown, potency, are we not now set up for a huge fight here if someone gets dumped because someone else was too sensitive instead of real-world tough? Just to be clearsince Doug h! as been appointed, I personally have been ATTACKED by several posters -- done with very subtle innuendo etc., but there it is -- PLAIN AS DAY. The intended message is: you are a disposable mind. See? Not your logic needs some correction, but the insinuation is you will never have anything to offer here that would be of any interest to me, and why are you taking up my mind-time by posting your crap here you fucking worm -- or something like that. THAT'S THE FEELING LEVELsome small insinuation is all it takes..consult Willy on this...he is a master at pimping people with truth. And that's the truth.not a jab at Willy's ribs with a sharpened elbow. And I'll make all this really silly: I hereby affirm my hereinabove mentioned list of insults for Willy is my work, and I would publish it again tomorrow if I had not already written it. I meant it. I don't like Willy, and I've got many reasons, and I don't hear Doug inviting me to present my case to him for why Willy should be dumped just on the history of his posting alone. I meant it. Does that mean I have as if posted it again because I brought it to the fore even though I did not repost it? Have I meta-sinned? Ask Godel!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Does PC trump satire?
Heh, poor Jerry's bitchin' that he can't tell a joke that is in the least insensitive on college campuses. What we need in today's world is the next incarnation of Moliere. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : Ask Jerry Seinfeld. On 06/13/2015 03:48 PM, Duveyoung wrote: I have posted a lot of personal attacks on folks I have decided were trolls, but I thought I was doing so with creativity. For instance, that list of about ten insults aimed at Willy that I wrote were quite creative despite their being vitriolic and MEANT to sting. Were they creative enough to be called satire or were they mere mud slinging? Can't I actually justify wanting to sting someone in response to their attacks on me? Why does PC trump my right as an artist to express my disdain in any manner that is not physically destructive of the property of others? If the emotional responses of others is considered to be their property that can be damaged by a well aimed blurb, then I think we have a problem, Houston. Whose emotions? I am not responsible for my brothers' feelings. No one is -- except themselves -- maybe. Just maybe. Karma is unfathomable -- does anyone argue with that concept? If I am the arbiter of what is truth, what is smarm, what is hate speech etc., then let me tells ya -- I am ABSOLUTELY OFFENDED BY ALMOST EVERYTHING POSTED HERE. See? I cannot be allowed to impose my value-set upon anyone, because I might be, what? cruel, stupid, heartless, silly or a combo of all these traits? If this were an ashram, then an agreed upon set of values would be the core of that community. Here at FFL, perhaps that was once a hope, but long gone 'tis. So, if this isn't an ashram, but YET STILL we now have an, as if, Values of Damocles hanging above our heads -- a moderation of UNKNOWABLE, not merely unknown, potency, are we not now set up for a huge fight here if someone gets dumped because someone else was too sensitive instead of real-world tough? Just to be clearsince Doug h! as been appointed, I personally have been ATTACKED by several posters -- done with very subtle innuendo etc., but there it is -- PLAIN AS DAY. The intended message is: you are a disposable mind. See? Not your logic needs some correction, but the insinuation is you will never have anything to offer here that would be of any interest to me, and why are you taking up my mind-time by posting your crap here you fucking worm -- or something like that. THAT'S THE FEELING LEVELsome small insinuation is all it takes..consult Willy on this...he is a master at pimping people with truth. And that's the truth.not a jab at Willy's ribs with a sharpened elbow. And I'll make all this really silly: I hereby affirm my hereinabove mentioned list of insults for Willy is my work, and I would publish it again tomorrow if I had not already written it. I meant it. I don't like Willy, and I've got many reasons, and I don't hear Doug inviting me to present my case to him for why Willy should be dumped just on the history of his posting alone. I meant it. Does that mean I have as if posted it again because I brought it to the fore even though I did not repost it? Have I meta-sinned? Ask Godel!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Smartest Person
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Snip I think the term enlightenment is misunderstood. People think of it as something one acquires by doing certain things. But because it is about what we intrinsically are, this cannot be revealed by doing anything, because that value is already there. It is a tautology. We are what we are. Techniques are for the removal of psychological garbage. Me: I am not sure the word refers to anything more than a cluster of beliefs about someone's perspective on life. Although I have experienced fundamental shifts of my internal experience, I am not convinced that they represent anything close to how it gets hyped. It may not be realization of any reality other than something our brains can do if you think about things in a certain way or cultivate the altered states of consciousness from excessive meditation practice. I am not convinced that we all have psychological garbage that we need to remove. What some might view as garbage, I might view as a critical aspect of what makes me an individual. 'Enlightenment' is always about belief. It seems to me people respond to the prospects in which this term is embedded in different ways. Some belief is always involved. Some become true believers in whatever system they have adopted and they stay stuck in that system. Others simply drift away at some point, it did not pan out for them. Others follow the idea rather intently until at some point it simply evaporates, and one is left with what one started on the journey with. The term is only real to the true believer. To the dissatisfied person, perhaps a bad taste is left for the failure of the term to come to any distinct conclusion for them. For those for whom the pursuit has evaporated, there is the satisfaction that one never again need pursue that dream because somehow that trip of deception was built into the universe. These three different endpoints will never align in a discussion as far as I can tell. If an empty glass represents what we are, then all the stuff that prevents us seeing the empty glass is like water in the glass. Nobody really wants an empty glass, so they look elsewhere. A glass of clear water captures the attention more than an empty glass. The technique of enlightenment is like this: The glass with the water just sits still. The water slowly evaporates. When all the water has evaporated, voilà, the empty glass appears. Throughout all this, the glass did not change, nothing was gained as far as what we are, but the process we subjected ourselves to, shifted the perceptions. For those with mental impairments, this is a simple-minded analogy, not a truth; it might work for some, not others. Pursued to extreme, analogies break down. Me: Proof by analogy aside, I am not sure anyone has made a case for the need for such a concept concerning people who claim to be in such a state where they experience whatever. Enlightenment is one of those words like God where the belief system it is embedded in needs to be evaluated together with the term. It is highly context dependent. I am interested in the belief systems that surround such terms to the extent that it helps me understand how people participate in shaping their conceptions of reality. So far, for me, I think it refers to a lot of mental states and perspectives that require a boatload of assumptions to be presupposed to exist. Even to evaluate one's mental state through such parameters is a filter choice on perception. I am not against someone believing this about themselves per se (must be Judy's influence) but I do object to any claim that these states somehow reveal the reality of life. To my profound disappointment Sam Harris seems to have absorbed this assumption also. Not sure how to respond to this. I found Harris' recent book interesting, but discovered he was really unable to disconnect from Buddhist philosophy. From my current point of view, 'enlightenment' has to do with undermining the tendency for the mind to believe things, and has nothing to do with states of mind in the sense that one kind of state represents 'enlightenment'. It has more to do with raw sensory experience, to the extent that a human nervous system can be free of filters (as raw experience is also filtered by the nervous system outside of our thinking processes). Maybe something like the interpretive filters of the thinking process step aside as it were, they do not come into play the way they did before even though one can still think and reason; perhaps the mind recognises an arbitrariness in applying thought to describing experience, in making up a story about what happened, what came down, and no longer assigns the term 'reality' to that story. In other words, raw experience, as raw as it is possible to be for us, becomes the primary sense of what we would call real, and the stories and ideas we attach to those
[FairfieldLife] Iowa Supreme Court affirms right to be drunk on front porch
Dear Dear MJ, how many couches you got on your front porch down in South Carolina? This ruling won't affect me however, I don;t got a porch. We got a yagya fire platform just out to the East but separate from the household and I got only the Fairfield, Iowa regulation east facing boot room enterance according to vastu and feng shui. Though, if pressed I could stand and talk to government civil enforcement representatives from my boot room's screen door with some jurisprudence safety regardless. Or, if caught out on the farm by surprise I could hold up outside in my pickup and talk from my truck's window regardless of being stone sober and otherwise enlightened. -JaiGuruYou Iowa Supreme Court affirms right to be drunk on front porch - Fairfield Ledger http://fairfield-ia.villagesoup.com/p/iowa-supreme-court-affirms-right-to-be-drunk-on-front-porch/1361305 http://fairfield-ia.villagesoup.com/p/iowa-supreme-court-affirms-right-to-be-drunk-on-front-porch/1361305 Iowa Supreme Court affirms right to be drunk on front po... http://fairfield-ia.villagesoup.com/p/iowa-supreme-court-affirms-right-to-be-drunk-on-front-porch/1361305 DES MOINES (AP) — The Iowa Supreme Court has affirmed the right to be drunk on your front porch. View on fairfield-ia.villagesou... http://fairfield-ia.villagesoup.com/p/iowa-supreme-court-affirms-right-to-be-drunk-on-front-porch/1361305 Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Does PC trump satire?
I am not responsible for my brothers' feelings.
Love it!!!
From: Duveyoung no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 6:48 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Does PC trump satire?
I have posted a lot of personal attacks on folks I have decided were
trolls, but I thought I was doing so with creativity.
For instance, that list of about ten insults aimed at Willy that I wrote were
quite creative despite their being vitriolic and MEANT to sting. Were they
creative enough to be called satire or were they mere mud slinging? Can't I
actually justify wanting to sting someone in response to their attacks on me?
Why does PC trump my right as an artist to express my disdain in any manner
that is not physically destructive of the property of others? If the
emotional responses of others is considered to be their property that can be
damaged by a well aimed blurb, then I think we have a problem, Houston.
Whose emotions?
I am not responsible for my brothers' feelings.
No one is -- except themselves -- maybe. Just maybe. Karma is unfathomable --
does anyone argue with that concept?
If I am the arbiter of what is truth, what is smarm, what is hate speech etc.,
then let me tells ya -- I am ABSOLUTELY OFFENDED BY ALMOST EVERYTHING POSTED
HERE.
See? I cannot be allowed to impose my value-set upon anyone, because I might
be, what? cruel, stupid, heartless, silly or a combo of all these traits?
If this were an ashram, then an agreed upon set of values would be the core of
that community. Here at FFL, perhaps that was once a hope, but long gone 'tis.
So, if this isn't an ashram, but YET STILL we now have an, as if, Values of
Damocles hanging above our heads -- a moderation of UNKNOWABLE, not merely
unknown, potency, are we not now set up for a huge fight here if someone gets
dumped because someone else was too sensitive instead of real-world tough?
Just to be clearsince Doug has been appointed, I personally have been
ATTACKED by several posters -- done with very subtle innuendo etc., but there
it is -- PLAIN AS DAY. The intended message is: you are a disposable mind.
See? Not your logic needs some correction, but the insinuation is you will
never have anything to offer here that would be of any interest to me, and why
are you taking up my mind-time by posting your crap here you fucking worm --
or something like that.
THAT'S THE FEELING LEVELsome small insinuation is all it takes..consult
Willy on this...he is a master at pimping people with truth. And that's the
truth.not a jab at Willy's ribs with a sharpened elbow.
And I'll make all this really silly: I hereby affirm my hereinabove mentioned
list of insults for Willy is my work, and I would publish it again tomorrow if
I had not already written it. I meant it. I don't like Willy, and I've got
many reasons, and I don't hear Doug inviting me to present my case to him for
why Willy should be dumped just on the history of his posting alone.
I meant it.
Does that mean I have as if posted it again because I brought it to the fore
even though I did not repost it?
Have I meta-sinned?
Ask Godel!
#yiv8944607393 #yiv8944607393 -- #yiv8944607393ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv8944607393
#yiv8944607393ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv8944607393
#yiv8944607393ygrp-mkp #yiv8944607393hd
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}#yiv8944607393 #yiv8944607393ygrp-mkp #yiv8944607393ads
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv8944607393 #yiv8944607393ygrp-mkp .yiv8944607393ad
{padding:0 0;}#yiv8944607393 #yiv8944607393ygrp-mkp .yiv8944607393ad p
{margin:0;}#yiv8944607393 #yiv8944607393ygrp-mkp .yiv8944607393ad a
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv8944607393 #yiv8944607393ygrp-sponsor
#yiv8944607393ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv8944607393
#yiv8944607393ygrp-sponsor #yiv8944607393ygrp-lc #yiv8944607393hd {margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv8944607393
#yiv8944607393ygrp-sponsor #yiv8944607393ygrp-lc .yiv8944607393ad
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv8944607393 #yiv8944607393actions
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv8944607393
#yiv8944607393activity
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv8944607393
#yiv8944607393activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv8944607393
#yiv8944607393activity span:first-child
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv8944607393 #yiv8944607393activity span a
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv8944607393 #yiv8944607393activity span
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv8944607393 #yiv8944607393activity span
.yiv8944607393underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8944607393
.yiv8944607393attach
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}#yiv8944607393 .yiv8944607393attach div a
[FairfieldLife] Buck's true name
Buck Rogers (1939) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032290/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032290/ Buck Rogers (1939) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032290/ Directed by Ford Beebe, Saul A. Goodkind. With Buster Crabbe, Constance Moore, Jackie Moran, Jack Mulhall. A pilot and his young passeng... View on www.imdb.com http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032290/ Preview by Yahoo Obviously, Buck's true name is Buster Crabbe. Everybody knows that!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
Thanks Judy, I had not seen that and it does answer some of my concerns about Rick's intentions as well as supports your view that it is OK to use Doug's real name officially. Much appreciated. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I think this excess of caution from you and others, frankly, is just another way to express resistance to the new moderation regime, by making it seem far more onerous than it has any likelihood of turning out to be. Me: I don't see the connection. You don't? Huh. I should think it would be obvious. The worse it's projected to be, the greater the justification for opposing it. You are welcome to any interpretation you want to believe but my reasons were as stated. J: Doug will get bounced as moderator by Rick if he overdoes things, and he knows it. Me: When he let Richard back on I realized that I am on my own here and I have no trust in the system to protect my interests here. What is considered as overdoing is highly subjective. See the quotes from Rick's posts below. I don't think there's much reason to expect him to go along with oppressive moderation given his past history, both with FFL and with the movement. J: What Rick wants is for the horrific personal abuse to stop. Me: I don't know what evidence you have to support this statement either in its main point or your personal added spin. My guess is that Rick got sick of his bugging him about it and just wanted it to stop which I suspect is the same way Richard got back on within a month of being banned. Again, see the quotes below. It wasn't just Doug. (And I wasn't one of those who contacted him, just for the record.) J: Doug has various tools at his disposal short of banishment, including warnings and setting an individual's posts to come to him for approval before posting. Let's all relax and see what happens rather than expecting the worst and protesting it in advance. Me: I find the idea that he is the judge of any of my posts repugnant but I accept your last sentence as a bit of wisdom that applies. Quotes from Rick's posts here: Almost daily, various people urge me to moderate FFL or get someone to do it. With BatGap and my other responsibilities, I don’t have the time. I believe in very minimal moderation, at least for FFL. I think the “anything goes” nature of it has contributed to its success and longevity. But I think we are obligated to at least abide by Yahoo’s guidelines. Theoretically, frequent violation of those guidelines could get the group shut down. Doug Hamilton has volunteered to moderate and to limit his moderation to ensuring adherence to Yahoo’s guidelines and no more. He will not moderate with his puritanical Buck alter-ego. I know some will bristle at what they perceive as a restriction of their freedom of speech, but different types of speech are appropriate in different contexts, and again, in the context of a Yahoo group, we are obligated to abide by Yahoo’s guidelines. So I’m going to try this and see how it goes. If Doug abuses his authority and/or fails to moderate fairly and objectively, I will revoke his moderator status. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/416427 I give little attention to FFL because I’m so busy with other things. But I’ve gotten so many complaints recently that I may appoint a moderator soon, and will announce it when I do. I don’t believe in censorship, but I also don’t believe in enabling abusive behavior. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/416362 J: As to Doug's last name in the header of his posts, to see it, do this: Click Reply to any of his posts, then click the downward arrows to the left of the Subject line, then click the downward arrow to the right of the TO: line. Click any of the email addresses shown to send your message to that address. E.g., the one that says dhamilton2K5@... will put that address in the TO: field and thus send him a personal email. Me: I accept your point for you but still don't trust it for me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : I didn't snip it as a statement about your posting it Judy. I am just exercising and abundance of caution in these changing times where I don't expect the benefit of any doubt. I looked back at a few of Buck's posts and didn't see his name so until he directly says it is OK to me I am trying to avoid it in any thread I am posting on. I agree with your point but I don't believe you would ever be a target of the new regime while I might be. It is a bit sensitive for me because a poster here began a campaign to post my full name by quoting any post where it occurred. I believe that you are expressing the spirit of
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
No, you have not got it right, period. My hypothesis is your asking about how I was parsing levels of intelligence was simply to extend this discussion interminably, a per your previous custom. My bringing up the subject of 'the stupidest person on FFL' was simply a device to bring up issues related to potential censorship, for if named, 'the stupidest person on FFL' would be an insult, though perhaps the stupidest person, were there one, might not be aware it would be an insult or even unkind if they were truly stupid enough. Others though, might claim it was an insult, and this might bring down the moderator's boom on whoever pointed the finger using a name. I am sure you are clever enough to realise that, eventually. '2. Don't be unkind. Exploitative or degrading comments are not welcome in Groups. Also not welcome are belligerence, insults, slurs, profanity or ranting. If you wouldn't say it in public or with a group of friends, don't post it.' Doug is fond of this guideline. Just about everyone here in the past has violated this guideline, including you, including me, including Barry, and even our moderator. So my bringing up the 'stupidest' and 'smartest' person really has little or nothing to do with IQ, however it might be measured or assumed. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : OIC. So you're just guessing as to IQ scores when you talk about the stupidest person and the smartest person on FFL. Have I got it right now? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : OIC. So you're just guessing as to IQ scores when you talk about the stupidest person and the smartest person on FFL. Have I got it right now?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
CDB, I am glad you are back and I hope I can lend you as well as some others who would return some protection of trust and safety here to write more freely. The railroading of you by invasion of privacy was one of the more infamous times of abuse on FFL. That personalized invasion of your privacy was a low point on FFL that was way against Rick's original intentions for the site and clearly against what are now the yahoo-groups guidelines. Yours was proly not the moment of decline but the list had evidently jumped a shark before with an influx of personal antagonisms which have since developed into some literary forms of perfection in a hyper personalization of the ad hominem meme here to hurt people. Folks are now making a lot of assumptions about my feelings about content. I had long interviews with Rick about this in coming in to the job of FFL CEO. However, my coming in to the FFL CEO [Chief Enforcement Officer] of yahoo's groups-guidelines is not about content but is about the personalization of unkindness that has become cultural on FFL, like the unkindness you experienced. Generally going forward now, folks should expect that their posts will be summarily deleted where unkindness crosses in to violation of the yahoo-groups guidelines. The guidelines are really quite simple and the many sophist-icated and several of our professional writers here can take the time for self-restraint before they may push their send button to FFL. Writing more generally, soon I am going to start following Rick's lead on this and start to delete posts or more made to the list without warning where the invective in writing is personalized. Yes it is fine to comment, deal with and thoughtfully consider content but if folks are having arguments that are personal they should just take themselves offline and spare FFL. Going forward, personalized name-calling that is degrading, disrespectful or humiliating will quickly be seen to become abuse on FFL. Read through the yahoo-groups guidelines and reflect. Where it is at all evident just expect to be moderated one way or another by any of the moderators without explanation. Generally, I do not expect to spend much time editing at all on this or discussing this, particularly with trolls at all. Take the time to read over the yahoo-groups guidelines and write accordingly. Error well on the side of kindness and you will be well within the yahoo-groups guidelines and fine. I appreciate and understand that some lot of folks here spend a lot of their life energy and time composing things to post on FFL. Going forward now, self-regulate yourselves according to the yahoo guidelines error-ing well on the side of kindness and save yourself your time invested in writing. Having to delete posts is a terrible waste of your time and my time as well to have to do it. CDB, I am glad you are back. -JaiGuruYou P.S., The Yahoo-groups Guidelines: https://policies.yahoo.com/us/en/yahoo/guidelines/groups/index.htm https://policies.yahoo.com/us/en/yahoo/guidelines/groups/index.htm # Jumping the shark is an idiom created by Jon Hein that was used to describe the moment in the evolution of a television show when it begins a decline in quality, signaled by a particular scene, episode, or aspect of a show ..and is seen by viewers to be the point at which the show strayed irreparably from its original premise. ..The usage of jump the shark has subsequently broadened beyond television, indicating the moment when a brand, design, franchise or creative effort's evolution declines. # ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote : Thanks Judy, I had not seen that and it does answer some of my concerns about Rick's intentions as well as supports your view that it is OK to use Doug's real name officially. Much appreciated. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I think this excess of caution from you and others, frankly, is just another way to express resistance to the new moderation regime, by making it seem far more onerous than it has any likelihood of turning out to be. Me: I don't see the connection. You don't? Huh. I should think it would be obvious. The worse it's projected to be, the greater the justification for opposing it. You are welcome to any interpretation you want to believe but my reasons were as stated. J: Doug will get bounced as moderator by Rick if he overdoes things, and he knows it. Me: When he let Richard back on I realized that I am on my own here and I have no trust in the system to protect my interests here. What is considered as overdoing is highly subjective. See the quotes from Rick's posts below. I don't think there's much reason to expect him to go along with oppressive
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I think this excess of caution from you and others, frankly, is just another way to express resistance to the new moderation regime, by making it seem far more onerous than it has any likelihood of turning out to be. Me: I don't see the connection. You don't? Huh. I should think it would be obvious. The worse it's projected to be, the greater the justification for opposing it. You are welcome to any interpretation you want to believe but my reasons were as stated. J: Doug will get bounced as moderator by Rick if he overdoes things, and he knows it. Me: When he let Richard back on I realized that I am on my own here and I have no trust in the system to protect my interests here. What is considered as overdoing is highly subjective. See the quotes from Rick's posts below. I don't think there's much reason to expect him to go along with oppressive moderation given his past history, both with FFL and with the movement. J: What Rick wants is for the horrific personal abuse to stop. Me: I don't know what evidence you have to support this statement either in its main point or your personal added spin. My guess is that Rick got sick of his bugging him about it and just wanted it to stop which I suspect is the same way Richard got back on within a month of being banned. Again, see the quotes below. It wasn't just Doug. (And I wasn't one of those who contacted him, just for the record.) J: Doug has various tools at his disposal short of banishment, including warnings and setting an individual's posts to come to him for approval before posting. Let's all relax and see what happens rather than expecting the worst and protesting it in advance. Me: I find the idea that he is the judge of any of my posts repugnant but I accept your last sentence as a bit of wisdom that applies. Quotes from Rick's posts here: Almost daily, various people urge me to moderate FFL or get someone to do it. With BatGap and my other responsibilities, I don’t have the time. I believe in very minimal moderation, at least for FFL. I think the “anything goes” nature of it has contributed to its success and longevity. But I think we are obligated to at least abide by Yahoo’s guidelines. Theoretically, frequent violation of those guidelines could get the group shut down. Doug Hamilton has volunteered to moderate and to limit his moderation to ensuring adherence to Yahoo’s guidelines and no more. He will not moderate with his puritanical Buck alter-ego. I know some will bristle at what they perceive as a restriction of their freedom of speech, but different types of speech are appropriate in different contexts, and again, in the context of a Yahoo group, we are obligated to abide by Yahoo’s guidelines. So I’m going to try this and see how it goes. If Doug abuses his authority and/or fails to moderate fairly and objectively, I will revoke his moderator status. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/416427 I give little attention to FFL because I’m so busy with other things. But I’ve gotten so many complaints recently that I may appoint a moderator soon, and will announce it when I do. I don’t believe in censorship, but I also don’t believe in enabling abusive behavior. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/416362 J: As to Doug's last name in the header of his posts, to see it, do this: Click Reply to any of his posts, then click the downward arrows to the left of the Subject line, then click the downward arrow to the right of the TO: line. Click any of the email addresses shown to send your message to that address. E.g., the one that says dhamilton2K5@... will put that address in the TO: field and thus send him a personal email. Me: I accept your point for you but still don't trust it for me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : I didn't snip it as a statement about your posting it Judy. I am just exercising and abundance of caution in these changing times where I don't expect the benefit of any doubt. I looked back at a few of Buck's posts and didn't see his name so until he directly says it is OK to me I am trying to avoid it in any thread I am posting on. I agree with your point but I don't believe you would ever be a target of the new regime while I might be. It is a bit sensitive for me because a poster here began a campaign to post my full name by quoting any post where it occurred. I believe that you are expressing the spirit of the law, but sometimes it is the spirit that is weak while the flesh is enthusiastically willing! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Regarding your snippage below, Rick's policy has always been that the use of real names is
[FairfieldLife] Roy Orbison - Crying
Orbison was one of David Lynch's favorites. In Dreams was featured in Blue Velvet (don't know the singer's name). Here's Crying, 1965: Roy Orbison - Crying (Monument Concert 1965) http://www.tinyurl.com/nqb9p6q http://www.tinyurl.com/nqb9p6q Roy Orbison - Crying (Monument Concert 1965) http://www.tinyurl.com/nqb9p6q Music video by Roy Orbison performing Roy Orbison - Crying (Monument Concert 1965). (C) 2011 Sony Music Entertainment View on www.tinyurl.com http://www.tinyurl.com/nqb9p6q Preview by Yahoo
[FairfieldLife] Post Count Sun 14-Jun-15 00:15:02 UTC
Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): 06/13/15 00:00:00 End Date (UTC): 06/20/15 00:00:00 73 messages as of (UTC) 06/14/15 00:04:36 13 authfriend 10 curtisdeltablues 7 steve.sundur 7 anartaxius 6 richard 6 Bhairitu noozguru 4 emptybill 4 dhamiltony2k5 4 Michael Jackson mjackson74 2 yifuxero 2 wleed3 WLeed3 2 Duveyoung 1 laughinggull108 1 jr_esq 1 jason_green2 1 hepa7 1 email4you mikemail4you 1 Mike Dixon mdixon.6569 Posters: 18 Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times = Daylight Saving Time (Summer): US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM Standard Time (Winter): US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Does PC trump satire?
/Is it something I said? LoL!/ Quoting Duveyoung no_re...@yahoogroups.com: I have posted a lot of personal attacks on folks I have decided were trolls, but I thought I was doing so with creativity. For instance, that list of about ten insults aimed at Willy that I wrote were quite creative despite their being vitriolic and MEANT to sting. Were they creative enough to be called satire or were they mere mud slinging? Can't I actually justify wanting to sting someone in response to their attacks on me? Why does PC trump my right as an artist to express my disdain in any manner that is not physically destructive of the property of others? If the emotional responses of others is considered to be their property that can be damaged by a well aimed blurb, then I think we have a problem, Houston. Whose emotions? I am not responsible for my brothers' feelings. No one is -- except themselves -- maybe. Just maybe. Karma is unfathomable -- does anyone argue with that concept? If I am the arbiter of what is truth, what is smarm, what is hate speech etc., then let me tells ya -- I am ABSOLUTELY OFFENDED BY ALMOST EVERYTHING POSTED HERE. See? I cannot be allowed to impose my value-set upon anyone, because I might be, what? cruel, stupid, heartless, silly or a combo of all these traits? If this were an ashram, then an agreed upon set of values would be the core of that community. Here at FFL, perhaps that was once a hope, but long gone 'tis. So, if this isn't an ashram, but YET STILL we now have an, as if, Values of Damocles hanging above our heads -- a moderation of UNKNOWABLE, not merely unknown, potency, are we not now set up for a huge fight here if someone gets dumped because someone else was too sensitive instead of real-world tough? Just to be clearsince Doug has been appointed, I personally have been ATTACKED by several posters -- done with very subtle innuendo etc., but there it is -- PLAIN AS DAY. The intended message is: you are a disposable mind. See? Not your logic needs some correction, but the insinuation is you will never have anything to offer here that would be of any interest to me, and why are you taking up my mind-time by posting your crap here you fucking worm -- or something like that. THAT'S THE FEELING LEVELsome small insinuation is all it takes..consult Willy on this...he is a master at pimping people with truth. And that's the truth.not a jab at Willy's ribs with a sharpened elbow. And I'll make all this really silly: I hereby affirm my hereinabove mentioned list of insults for Willy is my work, and I would publish it again tomorrow if I had not already written it. I meant it. I don't like Willy, and I've got many reasons, and I don't hear Doug inviting me to present my case to him for why Willy should be dumped just on the history of his posting alone. I meant it. Does that mean I have as if posted it again because I brought it to the fore even though I did not repost it? Have I meta-sinned? Ask Godel! Links: -- [1] https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/416793;_ylc=X3oDMTJyOWJrNnRrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM5MjAxOTYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDc3MDc2BG1zZ0lkAzQxNjc5MwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzE0MzQyMzU2OTg-?act=replymessageNum=416793 [2] mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20Does%20PC%20trump%20satire%3F [3] mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20Does%20PC%20trump%20satire%3F [4] https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/newtopic;_ylc=X3oDMTJlaTNxMDNuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM5MjAxOTYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDc3MDc2BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTQzNDIzNTY5OA-- [5] https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/topics/416793;_ylc=X3oDMTM4YWQxZnNsBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM5MjAxOTYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDc3MDc2BG1zZ0lkAzQxNjc5MwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzE0MzQyMzU2OTgEdHBjSWQDNDE2Nzkz [6] https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJlaDNzNmtzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM5MjAxOTYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDc3MDc2BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTQzNDIzNTY5OA-- [7] https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/members/all;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZmVjNTVvBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM5MjAxOTYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDc3MDc2BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzE0MzQyMzU2OTg- [8] https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJkdGNvcmpvBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzM5MjAxOTYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDc3MDc2BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxNDM0MjM1Njk4 [9] https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html [10] mailto:fairfieldlife-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe [11] https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Vivaldi: Gloria in Excelsis Deo
Vivaldi - Gloria: 1. Gloria in excelsis Deo - Trevor Pinnock - The English Concert https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQx2TWgxX14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQx2TWgxX14 Vivaldi - Gloria: 1. Gloria in excelsis Deo - Trevor Pin... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQx2TWgxX14 Trevor Pinnock conducted The English Concert playing Vivaldi's Gloria. Enjoy! 1. Gloria in excelsis Deo View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQx2TWgxX14 Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Your hypothesis is once again way off base. You've picked up that canard from Barry, but it's never been true. What I was attempting to point out is that the whole notion of the stupidest (or smartest) person on FFL is, well, just stupid. I did not pick it up from Barry. It is a memory from adolescence, or even earlier, thinking about people that way. It provided the nexus for a post. Glad you are not thinking of being the brightest or dimmest light. But we have not discussed saintliness or pure evil yet.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Sheriff Joe
IMO, the judge probably thought Sheriff Joe's method was cruel and unjust punishment for the prisoners. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WLeed3@... wrote : What part of Con lay may it violate exactly In a message dated 06/13/15 14:08:34 Eastern Daylight Time, FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com writes: It appears that Sheriff Joe got some of his methods from the Nazi prison camps. While it's a good idea to keep the prisoners busy to earn their keep, the enforcement of this idea may be violating constitutional law. As such, the judge ruled against the treatment of prisoners this way. Perhaps, the alternative treatment is to have a voluntary option for prisoners to do some work and to get out of their cells. But I don't know how the ACLU would react to this. If it doesn't violate any laws, then it should be done. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mdixon.6569@... wrote : Texas used to have a self sustaining prison system. No tax payer dollars needed. They grew their own food... all of it. Grew their own cotton which they made their own cloths, sheets and bedding from. Cattle provided meat and leather for shoes and belts that the prisoners made. They harvested their own timber and milled it. Made their own bricks. Surplus was sold on the market for things they couldn't make and all laborers were prisoners. Prisoners were too tired at the end of the day to cause trouble.Of course Judge William Wayne Justice ended this system saying you can't force prisoners to work thus making the tax payer foot the bill and put prisoners on *vacation*.. From: dhamiltony2k5@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 5:15 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Sheriff Joe The sheriff seems an intrepid social scientist conducting studies in asocial moderation. It will be interesting to observe what the data shows in the end. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WLeed3@... wrote : Subject: Fwd: Sheriff Joe SHERIFF JOE IS AT IT AGAIN ! You may remember Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona, who painted the jail cells pink and made the inmates wear pink prison garb. Well. SHERIFF JOE IS AT IT AGAIN ! Oh, there's MUCH more to know about Sheriff Joe ! Maricopa County was spending approx. $18 million dollars a year on stray animals, like cats and dogs. Sheriff Joe offered to take thedepartment over, and the County Supervisors said okay. The animal shelters are now allstaffed and operated by prisoners. They feed andcare for the strays. Every animal in his care is taken out and walked twice daily. He now has prisoners who are experts in animal nutrition and behavior. They give great classes for anyone who'd like to adopt an animal. He has literally taken stray dogs off the street, given them to the care of prisoners, and had them place in dog shows. The best part? His budget for the entire department is now under $3 million. Teresa and I adopted a Weimaraner from a Maricopa County shelter two years ago. He was neutered and current on all shots, in great health, and even had a microchip inserted the day we got him. Cost us $78. The prisoners get the benefit of about$0.28 an hour for working, but most would workfor free, just to be out of their cells for theday. Most of his budget is for utilities,building maintenance, etc. He pays the prisoners out of the fees collected for adopted animals.I have long wondered when the rest ofthe country would take a look at the way he runsthe jail system and copy some of his ideas. He has a huge farm, donated to the county yearsago, where inmates can work, and they grow mostof their own fresh vegetables andfood, doingall the work and harvesting by hand. Hehas a pretty good sized hog farm, which provides meat andfertilizer. It fertilizes the Christmas tree nursery, where prisoners work, and youcan buy a living Chris tmas tree for $6 - $8 forthe holidays and plant it later. We have sixtrees in our yard from the prison. Yup, he was re-elected last year with 83% of the vote. Now he's in trouble with the ACLUagain. He painted all his buses and vehicleswith a mural that has a special hotline phone number painted on it, where you can call and reportsuspected illegal aliens. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement wasn't doing enough in hiseyes, so he had 40 deputies trained specificallyfor enforcing immigration laws, started up hishotline, and bought 4 new buses just for hauling folks back to the border. He's kind of a'Git-R-Dun' kind of Sheriff.Sheriff JoeArpaio (in Arizona) who created the 'Tent City Jail': ** He has jail meals down to 40 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them. ** He stopped smoking and porno magazines inthe jail. ** Took away their weights. ** Cut off
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : No, you have not got it right, period. My hypothesis is your asking about how I was parsing levels of intelligence was simply to extend this discussion interminably, a per your previous custom. My bringing up the subject of 'the stupidest person on FFL' was simply a device to bring up issues related to potential censorship, for if named, 'the stupidest person on FFL' would be an insult, though perhaps the stupidest person, were there one, might not be aware it would be an insult or even unkind if they were truly stupid enough. Others though, might claim it was an insult, and this might bring down the moderator's boom on whoever pointed the finger using a name. I am sure you are clever enough to realise that, eventually. It's a lot more convoluted than I had imagined, that's for sure. Not to mention unrealistic, in that no one on FFL is *that* stupid. Your hypothesis is once again way off base. You've picked up that canard from Barry, but it's never been true. What I was attempting to point out is that the whole notion of the stupidest (or smartest) person on FFL is, well, just stupid. '2. Don't be unkind. Exploitative or degrading comments are not welcome in Groups. Also not welcome are belligerence, insults, slurs, profanity or ranting. If you wouldn't say it in public or with a group of friends, don't post it.' Doug is fond of this guideline. Just about everyone here in the past has violated this guideline, including you, including me, including Barry, and even our moderator. So my bringing up the 'stupidest' and 'smartest' person really has little or nothing to do with IQ, however it might be measured or assumed. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : OIC. So you're just guessing as to IQ scores when you talk about the stupidest person and the smartest person on FFL. Have I got it right now? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : OIC. So you're just guessing as to IQ scores when you talk about the stupidest person and the smartest person on FFL. Have I got it right now?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
I meant your extend this discussion interminably, a [sic] per your previous custom hypothesis. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Your hypothesis is once again way off base. You've picked up that canard from Barry, but it's never been true. What I was attempting to point out is that the whole notion of the stupidest (or smartest) person on FFL is, well, just stupid. I did not pick it up from Barry. It is a memory from adolescence, or even earlier, thinking about people that way. It provided the nexus for a post. Glad you are not thinking of being the brightest or dimmest light. But we have not discussed saintliness or pure evil yet.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Smartest Person
Re the comment: I do object to any claim that these states somehow reveal the reality of life. To my profound disappointment Sam Harris seems to have absorbed this assumption also.: If I understand what you are saying here I think that you read a different book of Sam Harris's than I did! Harris's point is surely that, as invaluable as meditation and altered states of consciousness are, it is a mistake to take subjective experience as evidence for how the world really is. (I happen to disagree with Harris - all experience is ultimately subjective and at the end of the day it's only experience that guides our view of life.) Although I get the gist of this argumentation that enlightenment is a misleading concept I always think to myself that surely if I was suddenly able to experience my life in a similar way to that of the Buddha after sitting under the Bodhi tree surely I would respond to life's events in a radically different way to that in which I do now. Ignoring philosophical niceties, isn't that what we mean by enlightenment? And if so, isn't it a useful term to have available? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Snip I think the term enlightenment is misunderstood. People think of it as something one acquires by doing certain things. But because it is about what we intrinsically are, this cannot be revealed by doing anything, because that value is already there. It is a tautology. We are what we are. Techniques are for the removal of psychological garbage. Me: I am not sure the word refers to anything more than a cluster of beliefs about someone's perspective on life. Although I have experienced fundamental shifts of my internal experience, I am not convinced that they represent anything close to how it gets hyped. It may not be realization of any reality other than something our brains can do if you think about things in a certain way or cultivate the altered states of consciousness from excessive meditation practice. I am not convinced that we all have psychological garbage that we need to remove. What some might view as garbage, I might view as a critical aspect of what makes me an individual. 'Enlightenment' is always about belief. It seems to me people respond to the prospects in which this term is embedded in different ways. Some belief is always involved. Some become true believers in whatever system they have adopted and they stay stuck in that system. Others simply drift away at some point, it did not pan out for them. Others follow the idea rather intently until at some point it simply evaporates, and one is left with what one started on the journey with. The term is only real to the true believer. To the dissatisfied person, perhaps a bad taste is left for the failure of the term to come to any distinct conclusion for them. For those for whom the pursuit has evaporated, there is the satisfaction that one never again need pursue that dream because somehow that trip of deception was built into the universe. These three different endpoints will never align in a discussion as far as I can tell. If an empty glass represents what we are, then all the stuff that prevents us seeing the empty glass is like water in the glass. Nobody really wants an empty glass, so they look elsewhere. A glass of clear water captures the attention more than an empty glass. The technique of enlightenment is like this: The glass with the water just sits still. The water slowly evaporates. When all the water has evaporated, voilà, the empty glass appears. Throughout all this, the glass did not change, nothing was gained as far as what we are, but the process we subjected ourselves to, shifted the perceptions. For those with mental impairments, this is a simple-minded analogy, not a truth; it might work for some, not others. Pursued to extreme, analogies break down. Me: Proof by analogy aside, I am not sure anyone has made a case for the need for such a concept concerning people who claim to be in such a state where they experience whatever. Enlightenment is one of those words like God where the belief system it is embedded in needs to be evaluated together with the term. It is highly context dependent. I am interested in the belief systems that surround such terms to the extent that it helps me understand how people participate in shaping their conceptions of reality. So far, for me, I think it refers to a lot of mental states and perspectives that require a boatload of assumptions to be presupposed to exist. Even to evaluate one's mental state through such parameters is a filter choice on perception. I am not against someone believing this about themselves per se (must be Judy's influence) but I do object to any claim that these states somehow reveal the reality of life. To my profound disappointment Sam Harris
Re: [FairfieldLife] You can solve a problem with force, or with intent and simple gestures
/He came out of the Himalyas . So, if he looks like a yogi and he talks like a yogi, then we assume that he probably is a yogi of some sort./ Quoting emptyb...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com: It is a cult. What the f ... is wrong with you? Acts like a cult. Teaches like a cult. Coheres like a cult. You then imply ... is it really a cult? WTF ... Brainwashed? Links: -- [1] https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/416736;_ylc=X3oDMTJyOHVibWg4BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM5MjAxOTYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDc3MDc2BG1zZ0lkAzQxNjczNgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzE0MzQxNjMyNDQ-?act=replymessageNum=416736 [2] mailto:emptyb...@yahoo.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5BFairfieldLife%5D%20You%20can%20solve%20a%20problem%20with%20force%2C%20or%20with%20intent%20and%20simple%20gestures [3] mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5BFairfieldLife%5D%20You%20can%20solve%20a%20problem%20with%20force%2C%20or%20with%20intent%20and%20simple%20gestures [4] https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/newtopic;_ylc=X3oDMTJlcjMzNTl2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM5MjAxOTYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDc3MDc2BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTQzNDE2MzI0NA-- [5] https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/topics/416702;_ylc=X3oDMTM4cmlhdWg4BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM5MjAxOTYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDc3MDc2BG1zZ0lkAzQxNjczNgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzE0MzQxNjMyNDQEdHBjSWQDNDE2NzAy [6] https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZm85amxwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM5MjAxOTYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDc3MDc2BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTQzNDE2MzI0NA-- [7] https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/members/all;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNDhjOHBkBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM5MjAxOTYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDc3MDc2BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzE0MzQxNjMyNDQ- [8] https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJkaWllcGo5BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzM5MjAxOTYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDc3MDc2BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxNDM0MTYzMjQ0 [9] https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html [10] mailto:fairfieldlife-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe [11] https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as determined by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. That should be sufficient. Can you give me a recent example where I asked someone to define a term? I don't recall doing this 'frequently' but also my memory is not particularly good at this stage in my life. If you cannot do that we can consider this post trolling. If you first establish the fact, then you can wonder why, and perhaps I will give an answer. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms, you have not been willing to define stupidest (and now smartest) that you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and it certainly was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a group is always the brightest star in the heavens.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : I must say that I've observed the same tendency in xeno. He has often asked me (in a rather pointed way) to define some terms I use, to which I happily oblige his request. But when I make the same request of him, the response goes silent. Please give me the list of the things I have ignored. I do ignore things when I am focused on some other feature of a post. I will try to accommodate my oversight. What I have done, is just to lower the expectations I have of my interactions with Xeno. It is a shame really, but I think it is the price one pays if one wants to keep up a dialog. I would say it reduces that dialog to not much of anything, but at least I have some kind of iron in the fire, even if that iron never gets very hot. (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms, you have not been willing to define stupidest (and now smartest) that you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and it certainly was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a group is always the brightest star in the heavens.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
/He should probably define the term nspiritual and the cult word acronym TM as well./ Quoting authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com: I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms, you have not been willing to define stupidest (and now smartest) that you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and it certainly was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a group is always the brightest star in the heavens. Links: -- [1] https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/416735;_ylc=X3oDMTJycG9uNjFvBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM5MjAxOTYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDc3MDc2BG1zZ0lkAzQxNjczNQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzE0MzQxNjMwNjc-?act=replymessageNum=416735 [2] mailto:authfri...@yahoo.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5BFairfieldLife%5D%20Re%3A%20Moderating%20The%20Peep%20Show [3] mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5BFairfieldLife%5D%20Re%3A%20Moderating%20The%20Peep%20Show [4] https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/newtopic;_ylc=X3oDMTJldmxobTUyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM5MjAxOTYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDc3MDc2BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTQzNDE2MzA2Nw-- [5] https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/topics/416073;_ylc=X3oDMTM4N3JxMnVpBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM5MjAxOTYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDc3MDc2BG1zZ0lkAzQxNjczNQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzE0MzQxNjMwNjcEdHBjSWQDNDE2MDcz [6] https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJlOTc3bG9tBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM5MjAxOTYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDc3MDc2BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTQzNDE2MzA2Nw-- [7] https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/members/all;_ylc=X3oDMTJma2x0ajM4BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM5MjAxOTYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDc3MDc2BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzE0MzQxNjMwNjc- [8] https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJkOGhzOXA4BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzM5MjAxOTYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDc3MDc2BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxNDM0MTYzMDY3 [9] https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html [10] mailto:fairfieldlife-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe [11] https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Sheriff Joe
Texas used to have a self sustaining prison system. No tax payer dollars needed. They grew their own food... all of it. Grew their own cotton which they made their own cloths, sheets and bedding from. Cattle provided meat and leather for shoes and belts that the prisoners made. They harvested their own timber and milled it. Made their own bricks. Surplus was sold on the market for things they couldn't make and all laborers were prisoners. Prisoners were too tired at the end of the day to cause trouble.Of course Judge William Wayne Justice ended this system saying you can't force prisoners to work thus making the tax payer foot the bill and put prisoners on *vacation*.. From: dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 5:15 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Sheriff Joe Thesheriff seems an intrepid social scientist conducting studies inasocial moderation. It will be interesting to observe what the datashows in the end. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wle...@aol.com wrote : Subject: Fwd: Sheriff Joe SHERIFF JOE IS AT IT AGAIN ! You may remember Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona, who painted the jail cells pink and made the inmates wear pink prison garb. Well. SHERIFF JOE IS AT IT AGAIN ! Oh, there's MUCH more to know about Sheriff Joe ! Maricopa County was spending approx. $18 million dollars a year on stray animals, like cats and dogs. Sheriff Joe offered to take thedepartment over, and the County Supervisors said okay. The animal shelters are now allstaffed and operated by prisoners. They feed andcare for the strays. Every animal in his care is taken out and walked twice daily. He now has prisoners who are experts in animal nutrition and behavior. They give great classes for anyone who'd like to adopt an animal. He has literally taken stray dogs off the street, given them to the care of prisoners, and had them place in dog shows. The best part? His budget for the entire department is now under $3 million. Teresa and I adopted a Weimaraner from a Maricopa County shelter two years ago. He was neutered and current on all shots, in great health, and even had a microchip inserted the day we got him. Cost us $78. The prisoners get the benefit of about$0.28 an hour for working, but most would workfor free, just to be out of their cells for theday. Most of his budget is for utilities,building maintenance, etc. He pays the prisoners out of the fees collected for adopted animals. I have long wondered when the rest ofthe country would take a look at the way he runsthe jail system and copy some of his ideas. He has a huge farm, donated to the county yearsago, where inmates can work, and they grow mostof their own fresh vegetables andfood, doingall the work and harvesting by hand. Hehas a pretty good sized hog farm, which provides meat andfertilizer. It fertilizes the Christmas tree nursery, where prisoners work, and youcan buy a living Chris tmas tree for $6 - $8 forthe holidays and plant it later. We have sixtrees in our yard from the prison. Yup, he was re-elected last year with 83% of the vote. Now he's in trouble with the ACLUagain. He painted all his buses and vehicleswith a mural that has a special hotline phone number painted on it, where you can call and reportsuspected illegal aliens. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement wasn't doing enough in hiseyes, so he had 40 deputies trained specificallyfor enforcing immigration laws, started up hishotline, and bought 4 new buses just for hauling folks back to the border. He's kind of a'Git-R-Dun' kind of Sheriff. Sheriff JoeArpaio (in Arizona) who created the 'Tent City Jail': ** He has jail meals down to 40 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them. ** He stopped smoking and porno magazines inthe jail. ** Took away their weights. ** Cut off all but 'G' movies. ** He started chain gangs so the inmates could do free work on county and city projects. ** Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn't get sued for discrimination. ** He took awaycable TV until he found out there was a federalcourt order that required cable TV for jails, so he hooked up the cable TVagain.BUT only let in the Disney channel and the Weather channel. ** When asked why the weather channel, he replied, So they will know how hot it'sgonna be while they are working on my chain gangs. ** He cut off coffee since ithas zero nutritional value. ** When theinmates complained, he told them, This isn't The Ritz/Carlton.. If you don't like it, don't come back. More On The Arizona Sheriff: With temperatures being even hotter than usual in Phoenix (116 degrees just set a new record), the Associated Press reports: About 2,000 inmates livingin a
[FairfieldLife] Re: Attn, emptybill do us a favor (You can solve a problem with force, or with intent and simple gestures)
Could you please click on the Show message history tab at the bottom before writing your replies. Is this too much to ask? emptybill or emptybull or emptybug or whatever you are. I wonder if you read your own posts on the forum? --- emptybill@... wrote : It is a cult. What the f ... is wrong with you? Acts like a cult. Teaches like a cult. Coheres like a cult. You then imply ... is it really a cult? WTF ... Brainwashed?
[FairfieldLife] Confusion
Imagine my surprise... So my question is, who exactly is the person Rick put in charge of protecting and enforcing the civility here, the faux persona Buck or the actual person behind the schtick? And whose personal sensibilities are we to avoid (what Rauncy used to refer to as) the peal clutching reaction to things people write here? Am I supposed to write as if the strict movement fundamentalist Buck might be offended as part of his act, or am I supposed to imagine what the real person behind the put-on might think about what I write? And who is that guy anyway since I have read so much more from the mask creature. Can I perhaps use the same artifice to express feelings I have, for example castigating any person who would suggest that perhaps this easily offended person should just grow a pair and stop trying to control what other people express here? Would I be protected if I said that I am vehemently opposed to anyone who might suggest that perhaps this whole ruse was just an attempt by a person who doesn't have the ability to generate meaningful content here to exert power over people with creative ability? Would a post heading of Why I believe that Maharishi was wrong about everything be grounds for me being expelled for hurting the tender feelings of people with weak intellectual boundaries? (Would the suggestion that some posters here HAVE weak intellectual boundaries be enough to bring the Church Lady down on my ass? Could referring to the persona Buck as the Church Lady be seen as hurting tender feelings or would it just fit into his Movement schtick and be exempt from his mighty power? So many questions... FFL was one of the most wonderful writing resources in my life. It encouraged me to write enough to express all the changing perspectives I had on the movement through a long period of time. And although to some, my views might be seen as not going through an evolution, I can assure you they did. Not about fundamentals like whether Maharishi's model of development of consciousness has merit, but in how I relate to people who still maintain what I view as a fantasy equivalent to the Christian concept of being saved, getting enlightened. There was even a period after Maharishi died where I experimented with TM again to give it another consideration from my perspective today, on its own without the belief hype. And although I concluded that as enjoyable as the experience is, it does not serve a value for my life today, I loved taking that trip down Mantra-Memory Lane. FFL became unsafe for me to post on a while back when people decided that going after my personal life would be the best way to stop me from voicing my opinions here. It worked and they won. I accept that. But before I accept that the whole place has jumped the shark with regard to freedom of expression for everyone I want to say this: I am completely against anyone who would flip the bird to this self-appointed feeling-level policing of FFL. If anyone suggested that this is an example of a fragile ego gone wild and allowed to fulfill his fantasy of being in charge of what other people express, as well as being a complete pain in the ass to even have to think of what this person's idiotically tiny perspective might be about what I write... I would report this person to the moderator right away to protect the tender feelings of what (and again I oppose this view completely so try to keep up) might be charitably referred to F'n crybabies whose beliefs are so unsupportable and fanciful that they cannot accept any challenge.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as determined by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. That should be sufficient. And you propose to determine this measurement for FFL members (especially for those no longer posting here) how? I have no proposal to do this nor have I ever intended to do so. Can you give me a recent example where I asked someone to define a term? I don't recall doing this 'frequently' but also my memory is not particularly good at this stage in my life. If you cannot do that we can consider this post trolling. (Is this the royal or the editorial we?) Now that you've defined what you mean by stupidest and smartest, the question of why you haven't been willing to define them previously is obviously moot. But Steve's similar recollection should be sufficient to confirm mine, so let's just chalk up your inability to recall any such demands to your failing memory. Yes let's do that, but apparently you have no recollection either. If you first establish the fact, then you can wonder why, and perhaps I will give an answer. Actually I can wonder why regardless of whether the fact is first established. (Note that my wondering was not in the form of a question to you in any case. Perhaps the trolling is yours rather than mine here.) Not likely. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms, you have not been willing to define stupidest (and now smartest) that you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and it certainly was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a group is always the brightest star in the heavens.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as determined by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. That should be sufficient. And you propose to determine this measurement for FFL members (especially for those no longer posting here) how? Can you give me a recent example where I asked someone to define a term? I don't recall doing this 'frequently' but also my memory is not particularly good at this stage in my life. If you cannot do that we can consider this post trolling. (Is this the royal or the editorial we?) Now that you've defined what you mean by stupidest and smartest, the question of why you haven't been willing to define them previously is obviously moot. But Steve's similar recollection should be sufficient to confirm mine, so let's just chalk up your inability to recall any such demands to your failing memory. If you first establish the fact, then you can wonder why, and perhaps I will give an answer. Actually I can wonder why regardless of whether the fact is first established. (Note that my wondering was not in the form of a question to you in any case. Perhaps the trolling is yours rather than mine here.) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms, you have not been willing to define stupidest (and now smartest) that you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and it certainly was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a group is always the brightest star in the heavens.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Judy at her finest!!
From: authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :
Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as determined by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scale. That should be sufficient.
And you propose to determine this measurement for FFL members (especially for
those no longer posting here) how?
Can you give me a recent example where I asked someone to define a term? I
don't recall doing this 'frequently' but also my memory is not particularly
good at this stage in my life. If you cannot do that we can consider this post
trolling.
(Is this the royal or the editorial we?) Now that you've defined what you
mean by stupidest and smartest, the question of why you haven't been
willing to define them previously is obviously moot. But Steve's similar
recollection should be sufficient to confirm mine, so let's just chalk up your
inability to recall any such demands to your failing memory.
If you first establish the fact, then you can wonder why, and perhaps I will
give an answer.
Actually I can wonder why regardless of whether the fact is first established.
(Note that my wondering was not in the form of a question to you in any case.
Perhaps the trolling is yours rather than mine here.)
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms,
you have not been willing to define stupidest (and now smartest) that
you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :
I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the
potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as
it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to
avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more
intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that
is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a
symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a
personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted
in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and it certainly
was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a
group is always the brightest star in the heavens.
#yiv8824668158 #yiv8824668158 -- #yiv8824668158ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv8824668158
#yiv8824668158ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv8824668158
#yiv8824668158ygrp-mkp #yiv8824668158hd
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}#yiv8824668158 #yiv8824668158ygrp-mkp #yiv8824668158ads
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv8824668158 #yiv8824668158ygrp-mkp .yiv8824668158ad
{padding:0 0;}#yiv8824668158 #yiv8824668158ygrp-mkp .yiv8824668158ad p
{margin:0;}#yiv8824668158 #yiv8824668158ygrp-mkp .yiv8824668158ad a
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv8824668158 #yiv8824668158ygrp-sponsor
#yiv8824668158ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv8824668158
#yiv8824668158ygrp-sponsor #yiv8824668158ygrp-lc #yiv8824668158hd {margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv8824668158
#yiv8824668158ygrp-sponsor #yiv8824668158ygrp-lc .yiv8824668158ad
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv8824668158 #yiv8824668158actions
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv8824668158
#yiv8824668158activity
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv8824668158
#yiv8824668158activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv8824668158
#yiv8824668158activity span:first-child
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv8824668158 #yiv8824668158activity span a
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv8824668158 #yiv8824668158activity span
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv8824668158 #yiv8824668158activity span
.yiv8824668158underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8824668158
.yiv8824668158attach
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}#yiv8824668158 .yiv8824668158attach div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv8824668158 .yiv8824668158attach img
{border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv8824668158 .yiv8824668158attach label
{display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv8824668158 .yiv8824668158attach label a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv8824668158 blockquote {margin:0 0 0
4px;}#yiv8824668158 .yiv8824668158bold
{font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}#yiv8824668158
.yiv8824668158bold a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv8824668158 dd.yiv8824668158last
p a {font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv8824668158 dd.yiv8824668158last p
span
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Peep Show
LOL. Cheers! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Thanks Xeno...I'll try to post more often. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and it certainly was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a group is always the brightest star in the heavens. Attachment in the spiritual sense just means the awareness is not identified with the attachment, the mind only is. So the self/awareness can be free, and some attachments may remain. Maharishi got attached to people. This is not the 'level' on which attachment/identification in the spiritual sense occurs.
[FairfieldLife] Government and Business Leaders Learn About TM
http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/2583565 Press Release: Google Zeitgeist: Government and Business Leaders Learn About Transcendental Meditation... This press release was orginally distributed by ReleaseWire Brighton, UK -- (ReleaseWire) -- 06/12/2015 -- Top government, business and thought leaders recently had the opportunity to learn all about Transcendental Meditation and it's wide ranging benefits when chairman of the David Lynch foundation, Bob Roth, took to the stage at Google's Zeitgeist event to talk about his experiences teaching TM. READ MORE http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/2583565
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : FWIW, Buck hasn't been around for quite some time now. The person appointed to moderate FFL (i.e., to ensure posts do not violate the Yahoo Guidelines) is Doug Hamilton. That should answer at least some of your questions. Thank you Judy. It may not shed light on the previously hidden person is who is going to be interpreting the vague guidelines in specific cases, but that helps a bit. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Imagine my surprise... So my question is, who exactly is the person Rick put in charge of protecting and enforcing the civility here, the faux persona Buck or the actual person behind the schtick? And whose personal sensibilities are we to avoid (what Rauncy used to refer to as) the peal clutching reaction to things people write here? Am I supposed to write as if the strict movement fundamentalist Buck might be offended as part of his act, or am I supposed to imagine what the real person behind the put-on might think about what I write? And who is that guy anyway since I have read so much more from the mask creature. Can I perhaps use the same artifice to express feelings I have, for example castigating any person who would suggest that perhaps this easily offended person should just grow a pair and stop trying to control what other people express here? Would I be protected if I said that I am vehemently opposed to anyone who might suggest that perhaps this whole ruse was just an attempt by a person who doesn't have the ability to generate meaningful content here to exert power over people with creative ability? Would a post heading of Why I believe that Maharishi was wrong about everything be grounds for me being expelled for hurting the tender feelings of people with weak intellectual boundaries? (Would the suggestion that some posters here HAVE weak intellectual boundaries be enough to bring the Church Lady down on my ass? Could referring to the persona Buck as the Church Lady be seen as hurting tender feelings or would it just fit into his Movement schtick and be exempt from his mighty power? So many questions... FFL was one of the most wonderful writing resources in my life. It encouraged me to write enough to express all the changing perspectives I had on the movement through a long period of time. And although to some, my views might be seen as not going through an evolution, I can assure you they did. Not about fundamentals like whether Maharishi's model of development of consciousness has merit, but in how I relate to people who still maintain what I view as a fantasy equivalent to the Christian concept of being saved, getting enlightened. There was even a period after Maharishi died where I experimented with TM again to give it another consideration from my perspective today, on its own without the belief hype. And although I concluded that as enjoyable as the experience is, it does not serve a value for my life today, I loved taking that trip down Mantra-Memory Lane. FFL became unsafe for me to post on a while back when people decided that going after my personal life would be the best way to stop me from voicing my opinions here. It worked and they won. I accept that. But before I accept that the whole place has jumped the shark with regard to freedom of expression for everyone I want to say this: I am completely against anyone who would flip the bird to this self-appointed feeling-level policing of FFL. If anyone suggested that this is an example of a fragile ego gone wild and allowed to fulfill his fantasy of being in charge of what other people express, as well as being a complete pain in the ass to even have to think of what this person's idiotically tiny perspective might be about what I write... I would report this person to the moderator right away to protect the tender feelings of what (and again I oppose this view completely so try to keep up) might be charitably referred to F'n crybabies whose beliefs are so unsupportable and fanciful that they cannot accept any challenge.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
P.S.: You may also want to think about justifying the use of the Wechsler IQ scale (assuming it can be determined for each FFL member) for evaluation of members, given the questions that have been raised about its utility (e.g., to base a concept of intelligence on IQ test scores alone is to ignore many important aspects of mental ability). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as determined by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. That should be sufficient. And you propose to determine this measurement for FFL members (especially for those no longer posting here) how? Can you give me a recent example where I asked someone to define a term? I don't recall doing this 'frequently' but also my memory is not particularly good at this stage in my life. If you cannot do that we can consider this post trolling. (Is this the royal or the editorial we?) Now that you've defined what you mean by stupidest and smartest, the question of why you haven't been willing to define them previously is obviously moot. But Steve's similar recollection should be sufficient to confirm mine, so let's just chalk up your inability to recall any such demands to your failing memory. If you first establish the fact, then you can wonder why, and perhaps I will give an answer. Actually I can wonder why regardless of whether the fact is first established. (Note that my wondering was not in the form of a question to you in any case. Perhaps the trolling is yours rather than mine here.) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms, you have not been willing to define stupidest (and now smartest) that you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and it certainly was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a group is always the brightest star in the heavens.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Peep Show
Thanks Xeno...I'll try to post more often. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and it certainly was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a group is always the brightest star in the heavens. Attachment in the spiritual sense just means the awareness is not identified with the attachment, the mind only is. So the self/awareness can be free, and some attachments may remain. Maharishi got attached to people. This is not the 'level' on which attachment/identification in the spiritual sense occurs.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Thanks, I think... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : Judy at her finest!! From: authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 11:32 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as determined by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. That should be sufficient. And you propose to determine this measurement for FFL members (especially for those no longer posting here) how? Can you give me a recent example where I asked someone to define a term? I don't recall doing this 'frequently' but also my memory is not particularly good at this stage in my life. If you cannot do that we can consider this post trolling. (Is this the royal or the editorial we?) Now that you've defined what you mean by stupidest and smartest, the question of why you haven't been willing to define them previously is obviously moot. But Steve's similar recollection should be sufficient to confirm mine, so let's just chalk up your inability to recall any such demands to your failing memory. If you first establish the fact, then you can wonder why, and perhaps I will give an answer. Actually I can wonder why regardless of whether the fact is first established. (Note that my wondering was not in the form of a question to you in any case. Perhaps the trolling is yours rather than mine here.) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms, you have not been willing to define stupidest (and now smartest) that you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and it certainly was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a group is always the brightest star in the heavens.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
FWIW, Buck hasn't been around for quite some time now. The person appointed to moderate FFL (i.e., to ensure posts do not violate the Yahoo Guidelines) is Doug Hamilton. That should answer at least some of your questions. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Imagine my surprise... So my question is, who exactly is the person Rick put in charge of protecting and enforcing the civility here, the faux persona Buck or the actual person behind the schtick? And whose personal sensibilities are we to avoid (what Rauncy used to refer to as) the peal clutching reaction to things people write here? Am I supposed to write as if the strict movement fundamentalist Buck might be offended as part of his act, or am I supposed to imagine what the real person behind the put-on might think about what I write? And who is that guy anyway since I have read so much more from the mask creature. Can I perhaps use the same artifice to express feelings I have, for example castigating any person who would suggest that perhaps this easily offended person should just grow a pair and stop trying to control what other people express here? Would I be protected if I said that I am vehemently opposed to anyone who might suggest that perhaps this whole ruse was just an attempt by a person who doesn't have the ability to generate meaningful content here to exert power over people with creative ability? Would a post heading of Why I believe that Maharishi was wrong about everything be grounds for me being expelled for hurting the tender feelings of people with weak intellectual boundaries? (Would the suggestion that some posters here HAVE weak intellectual boundaries be enough to bring the Church Lady down on my ass? Could referring to the persona Buck as the Church Lady be seen as hurting tender feelings or would it just fit into his Movement schtick and be exempt from his mighty power? So many questions... FFL was one of the most wonderful writing resources in my life. It encouraged me to write enough to express all the changing perspectives I had on the movement through a long period of time. And although to some, my views might be seen as not going through an evolution, I can assure you they did. Not about fundamentals like whether Maharishi's model of development of consciousness has merit, but in how I relate to people who still maintain what I view as a fantasy equivalent to the Christian concept of being saved, getting enlightened. There was even a period after Maharishi died where I experimented with TM again to give it another consideration from my perspective today, on its own without the belief hype. And although I concluded that as enjoyable as the experience is, it does not serve a value for my life today, I loved taking that trip down Mantra-Memory Lane. FFL became unsafe for me to post on a while back when people decided that going after my personal life would be the best way to stop me from voicing my opinions here. It worked and they won. I accept that. But before I accept that the whole place has jumped the shark with regard to freedom of expression for everyone I want to say this: I am completely against anyone who would flip the bird to this self-appointed feeling-level policing of FFL. If anyone suggested that this is an example of a fragile ego gone wild and allowed to fulfill his fantasy of being in charge of what other people express, as well as being a complete pain in the ass to even have to think of what this person's idiotically tiny perspective might be about what I write... I would report this person to the moderator right away to protect the tender feelings of what (and again I oppose this view completely so try to keep up) might be charitably referred to F'n crybabies whose beliefs are so unsupportable and fanciful that they cannot accept any challenge.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Confusion
Bucky is a fine feller.
I like him, him being a salt of the earth farmer there in Fairfield who raises
sheep amongst other things.
Buck be all right with you sayin' Marshy was a wrong, but Buck don't like me
sayin' Marshy was a liar, cheat and con artist.
He also took umbrage at various times over my calling Marshy the Old Goat and
lying son of a bitch.
I probably used more powerful curse words, but I can't remember them now.
Either a sign of advancing age or too much long term TMSP.
You can read all about Buck in the book Transcendental Meditation in America by
Joe Weber. Here you can read details on how Buck in the Dome got booted out of
the Dome on more than one occasion.
From: curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 1:28 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Confusion
Imagine my surprise...
So my question is, who exactly is the person Rick put in charge of protecting
and enforcing the civility here, the faux persona Buck or the actual person
behind the schtick?
And whose personal sensibilities are we to avoid (what Rauncy used to refer to
as) the peal clutching reaction to things people write here?
Am I supposed to write as if the strict movement fundamentalist Buck might be
offended as part of his act, or am I supposed to imagine what the real person
behind the put-on might think about what I write? And who is that guy anyway
since I have read so much more from the mask creature.
Can I perhaps use the same artifice to express feelings I have, for example
castigating any person who would suggest that perhaps this easily offended
person should just grow a pair and stop trying to control what other people
express here? Would I be protected if I said that I am vehemently opposed to
anyone who might suggest that perhaps this whole ruse was just an attempt by a
person who doesn't have the ability to generate meaningful content here to
exert power over people with creative ability?
Would a post heading of Why I believe that Maharishi was wrong about
everything be grounds for me being expelled for hurting the tender feelings of
people with weak intellectual boundaries? (Would the suggestion that some
posters here HAVE weak intellectual boundaries be enough to bring the Church
Lady down on my ass? Could referring to the persona Buck as the Church Lady
be seen as hurting tender feelings or would it just fit into his Movement
schtick and be exempt from his mighty power?
So many questions...
FFL was one of the most wonderful writing resources in my life. It encouraged
me to write enough to express all the changing perspectives I had on the
movement through a long period of time. And although to some, my views might be
seen as not going through an evolution, I can assure you they did. Not about
fundamentals like whether Maharishi's model of development of consciousness has
merit, but in how I relate to people who still maintain what I view as a
fantasy equivalent to the Christian concept of being saved, getting
enlightened. There was even a period after Maharishi died where I
experimented with TM again to give it another consideration from my perspective
today, on its own without the belief hype. And although I concluded that as
enjoyable as the experience is, it does not serve a value for my life today, I
loved taking that trip down Mantra-Memory Lane.
FFL became unsafe for me to post on a while back when people decided that going
after my personal life would be the best way to stop me from voicing my
opinions here. It worked and they won. I accept that. But before I accept that
the whole place has jumped the shark with regard to freedom of expression for
everyone I want to say this:
I am completely against anyone who would flip the bird to this self-appointed
feeling-level policing of FFL. If anyone suggested that this is an example of a
fragile ego gone wild and allowed to fulfill his fantasy of being in charge of
what other people express, as well as being a complete pain in the ass to even
have to think of what this person's idiotically tiny perspective might be about
what I write...
I would report this person to the moderator right away to protect the tender
feelings of what (and again I oppose this view completely so try to keep up)
might be charitably referred to F'n crybabies whose beliefs are so
unsupportable and fanciful that they cannot accept any challenge.
#yiv7243777546 #yiv7243777546 -- #yiv7243777546ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv7243777546
#yiv7243777546ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv7243777546
#yiv7243777546ygrp-mkp #yiv7243777546hd
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}#yiv7243777546 #yiv7243777546ygrp-mkp #yiv7243777546ads
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv7243777546 #yiv7243777546ygrp-mkp .yiv7243777546ad
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
Uh oh!
Seem like Buck himself used to say that revealing someone's real name on FFL is
agin the rules!
Look like I might not be the first causality of Buck's ascendency to the
moderator's throne after all.
From: authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 1:44 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
FWIW, Buck hasn't been around for quite some time now. The person
appointed to moderate FFL (i.e., to ensure posts do not violate the Yahoo
Guidelines) is Doug Hamilton.
That should answer at least some of your questions.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :
Imagine my surprise...
So my question is, who exactly is the person Rick put in charge of protecting
and enforcing the civility here, the faux persona Buck or the actual person
behind the schtick?
And whose personal sensibilities are we to avoid (what Rauncy used to refer to
as) the peal clutching reaction to things people write here?
Am I supposed to write as if the strict movement fundamentalist Buck might be
offended as part of his act, or am I supposed to imagine what the real person
behind the put-on might think about what I write? And who is that guy anyway
since I have read so much more from the mask creature.
Can I perhaps use the same artifice to express feelings I have, for example
castigating any person who would suggest that perhaps this easily offended
person should just grow a pair and stop trying to control what other people
express here? Would I be protected if I said that I am vehemently opposed to
anyone who might suggest that perhaps this whole ruse was just an attempt by a
person who doesn't have the ability to generate meaningful content here to
exert power over people with creative ability?
Would a post heading of Why I believe that Maharishi was wrong about
everything be grounds for me being expelled for hurting the tender feelings of
people with weak intellectual boundaries? (Would the suggestion that some
posters here HAVE weak intellectual boundaries be enough to bring the Church
Lady down on my ass? Could referring to the persona Buck as the Church Lady
be seen as hurting tender feelings or would it just fit into his Movement
schtick and be exempt from his mighty power?
So many questions...
FFL was one of the most wonderful writing resources in my life. It encouraged
me to write enough to express all the changing perspectives I had on the
movement through a long period of time. And although to some, my views might be
seen as not going through an evolution, I can assure you they did. Not about
fundamentals like whether Maharishi's model of development of consciousness has
merit, but in how I relate to people who still maintain what I view as a
fantasy equivalent to the Christian concept of being saved, getting
enlightened. There was even a period after Maharishi died where I
experimented with TM again to give it another consideration from my perspective
today, on its own without the belief hype. And although I concluded that as
enjoyable as the experience is, it does not serve a value for my life today, I
loved taking that trip down Mantra-Memory Lane.
FFL became unsafe for me to post on a while back when people decided that going
after my personal life would be the best way to stop me from voicing my
opinions here. It worked and they won. I accept that. But before I accept that
the whole place has jumped the shark with regard to freedom of expression for
everyone I want to say this:
I am completely against anyone who would flip the bird to this self-appointed
feeling-level policing of FFL. If anyone suggested that this is an example of a
fragile ego gone wild and allowed to fulfill his fantasy of being in charge of
what other people express, as well as being a complete pain in the ass to even
have to think of what this person's idiotically tiny perspective might be about
what I write...
I would report this person to the moderator right away to protect the tender
feelings of what (and again I oppose this view completely so try to keep up)
might be charitably referred to F'n crybabies whose beliefs are so
unsupportable and fanciful that they cannot accept any challenge.
#yiv2006706685 #yiv2006706685 -- #yiv2006706685ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv2006706685
#yiv2006706685ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv2006706685
#yiv2006706685ygrp-mkp #yiv2006706685hd
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}#yiv2006706685 #yiv2006706685ygrp-mkp #yiv2006706685ads
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv2006706685 #yiv2006706685ygrp-mkp .yiv2006706685ad
{padding:0 0;}#yiv2006706685 #yiv2006706685ygrp-mkp .yiv2006706685ad p
{margin:0;}#yiv2006706685 #yiv2006706685ygrp-mkp .yiv2006706685ad a
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv2006706685
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Sheriff Joe
The sheriff seems an intrepid social scientist conducting studies in asocial moderation. It will be interesting to observe what the data shows in the end. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wle...@aol.com wrote : Subject: Fwd: Sheriff Joe SHERIFF JOE IS AT IT AGAIN ! You may remember Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona, who painted the jail cells pink and made the inmates wear pink prison garb. Well. SHERIFF JOE IS AT IT AGAIN ! Oh, there's MUCH more to know about Sheriff Joe ! Maricopa County was spending approx. $18 million dollars a year on stray animals, like cats and dogs. Sheriff Joe offered to take thedepartment over, and the County Supervisors said okay. The animal shelters are now allstaffed and operated by prisoners. They feed andcare for the strays. Every animal in his care is taken out and walked twice daily. He now has prisoners who are experts in animal nutrition and behavior. They give great classes for anyone who'd like to adopt an animal. He has literally taken stray dogs off the street, given them to the care of prisoners, and had them place in dog shows. The best part? His budget for the entire department is now under $3 million. Teresa and I adopted a Weimaraner from a Maricopa County shelter two years ago. He was neutered and current on all shots, in great health, and even had a microchip inserted the day we got him. Cost us $78. The prisoners get the benefit of about$0.28 an hour for working, but most would workfor free, just to be out of their cells for theday. Most of his budget is for utilities,building maintenance, etc. He pays the prisoners out of the fees collected for adopted animals. I have long wondered when the rest ofthe country would take a look at the way he runsthe jail system and copy some of his ideas. He has a huge farm, donated to the county yearsago, where inmates can work, and they grow mostof their own fresh vegetables andfood, doingall the work and harvesting by hand. Hehas a pretty good sized hog farm, which provides meat andfertilizer. It fertilizes the Christmas tree nursery, where prisoners work, and youcan buy a living Chris tmas tree for $6 - $8 forthe holidays and plant it later. We have sixtrees in our yard from the prison. Yup, he was re-elected last year with 83% of the vote. Now he's in trouble with the ACLUagain. He painted all his buses and vehicleswith a mural that has a special hotline phone number painted on it, where you can call and reportsuspected illegal aliens. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement wasn't doing enough in hiseyes, so he had 40 deputies trained specificallyfor enforcing immigration laws, started up hishotline, and bought 4 new buses just for hauling folks back to the border. He's kind of a'Git-R-Dun' kind of Sheriff. Sheriff JoeArpaio (in Arizona) who created the 'Tent City Jail': ** He has jail meals down to 40 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them. ** He stopped smoking and porno magazines inthe jail. ** Took away their weights. ** Cut off all but 'G' movies. ** He started chain gangs so the inmates could do free work on county and city projects. ** Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn't get sued for discrimination. ** He took awaycable TV until he found out there was a federalcourt order that required cable TV for jails, so he hooked up the cable TVagain.BUT only let in the Disney channel and the Weather channel. ** When asked why the weather channel, he replied, So they will know how hot it'sgonna be while they are working on my chain gangs. ** He cut off coffee since ithas zero nutritional value. ** When theinmates complained, he told them, This isn't The Ritz/Carlton.. If you don't like it, don't come back. More On The Arizona Sheriff: With temperatures being even hotter than usual in Phoenix (116 degrees just set a new record), the Associated Press reports: About 2,000 inmates livingin a barbed-wire-surrounded tent encampment at the Maricopa County jail have been given permission to strip down to their government-issued pink boxer shorts.On Wednesday, hundreds of men wearing boxers were either curled up on their bunk bedsor chatted in the tents, which reached 138 degrees inside the week before. Manywere also swathed in wet, pink towels as sweatcollected on their chests and dripped down totheir PINK SOCKS. It feels like we arein a furnace, said James Zanzot, an inmate whohas lived in the TENTS for 1 year. It's inhumane. Joe Arpaio, the tough-guy sheriff who created the tent city and long agostarted making his prisoners wear pink and eatbologna sandwiches, is not one bit sympathetic. He said Wednesday that he told all of the inmates, It's 120 degrees in Iraq and
[FairfieldLife] Re: Yahoo Groups-Guidelines, Civility, Cohesion, and FFL
Old loss of group, connection, and brotherhood.. 415559Re: Yahoo Groups-Guidelines, Civility, Cohesion, and FFL https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/414799 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/415559 Yes, in their long loss of group, connection and brotherhood of what evidently was formative in their lives one can empathize by this social-psychological perspective with some of our old TM'ers frequenting FFL and their behaviors. Folks who once had formative community in TM but are now out away from their heady days of old as they evidently use FFL in means to find what was a lost powerful connection and brotherhood in life. It is sad and pitiable when you look at it this way. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote : Yep, and evidently like larger civil society often needs to pull together to protect itself and everyone from lawlessness and asocial criminal gangs it is a lot like Rick needs to be present at times here protecting and enforcing the civility of the larger open forum of FFL as a communal yahoo-group. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richard@... wrote : “You came into this world with nothing and you’ll leave this world with nothing.” - Don Draper ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : The loss of TM as group, not unlike where in a group 'connection' in a level of 'Brotherhood', there is a mutual agreement that one will put the welfare and safety of the group above your own in a level of 'Brotherhood', putting the welfare of the group above your own.. At a time there was that in TM, as by example like portrayed in some classics like the Iliad, in WWII for some, for some young Marines bonding in Afghanistan or in Fallujah coming in to a bond in a small group of trust who they may come to love more than themselves. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Some leaving from that level of a communal brotherhood then, separated going out and coming back in to society as an individual without a ready bond of group one may not know who to trust. One can imagine the psychological distress for some people when they leave something like this level of connection within group that they loved for a time. It can be an exercise for some depending on personal resources. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Coping then with a loss of a level of communal 'brotherhood' for those being turned out in larger society like happened at a time with some old TM'ers, then places like yahoo-groups tries in form to offer a resting place for folks to come together within accepting groups guidelines. Some people evidently do groups better than others, how then to bring diverse peoples back in to a larger civil group context though? The yahoo-groups guidelines as a template are a thoughtful attempt at the exercise of group civility and cohesion. Evidently in coming in to cohesion it takes both a personal and group constitution in self-control, and hence a discipline and moderation by the individual and the group to be of benefit to the individual or the group. ---In FairfieldLife@, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : This Reverse Archery guy writing here must be a cousin of Rick Archer's, he seems pretty reasonable. Turqb is proly not all bad as a person. One can kind of understand some of these old TM'ers here in frequenting FFL the way they do yet looking for community as they once had. That communal something, that brotherhood that they had during their formative heady days of youth whence TM was coming in to its own back in the 60's and 70's. Those were powerful times in camaraderie, something that some people may not ascend to have in their lives like that at all. There are few environments or careers that produce or give that level of feeling of purpose and communal connectedness. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : A lot of old TM'ers like several here on FFL as they formatively 'came of age' it was back in the heady days of TM in the 60's and 70's. At a time that may have been one of those more powerful times of community for some in their whole lives. Some people in their early lives may never really have a cultivated experience of community, of navigating a healthy bonded group experience, like army brats that get moved frequently around in their youth may miss out on this in those formative years. TM for some may well have been that most powerful experience of group community, of brotherhood in anything. Seeing this or making note of it I feel makes sympathetic characters of several people you see in TM or here on FFL. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, reverse_archery@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
[FairfieldLife] Art, in the Light of Consciousness
In Fairfield,Iowa Today: An Artistic Tour of Italy in the Light of Consciousness. 11am at the Public Library.. Fairfield Celebrates All Things Italian all day Saturday, June 13th. MUM graduate Dick DeAngelis (Class of '79) directs Fairfield's day-long celebration of the cultural integrity of Italy culminating in the 10th “All Things Italian” Street Festival - June 13, 5 to 10 pm. at the Fairfield Town Square - Rain or Shine. The festival is known for its lasagna dinners using local Radiance Dairy organic ricotta cheese and its authentic Italian desserts including over 1,600 freshly-filled Italian cannoli. This year, performances are highlighted by an amazing comic stunt juggler as well as modern Italian folk musicians, dance demonstrations, and street chalk artists. Pre-festival presentations throughout the day will be highlighted by a talk at the Fairfield Public Library at 11 am by MUM Associate Professor of Humanities Matthew Beaufort entitled An Artistic Tour of Italy in the Light of Consciousness. For schedule of events and updates: www.facebook.com/ allthingsitalianfestival http://www.facebook.com/allthingsitalianfestival or contact Dick DeAngelis, Society of Fairfield (Iowa) Italian Americans (641) 919-4277; di...@deangelis.net mailto:di...@deangelis.net
[FairfieldLife] Hackers
We are in the best of hands. Officials: Second hack exposed military and intel data http://news.yahoo.com/union-says-federal-workers-fell-victim-hackers-071851098--politics.html http://news.yahoo.com/union-says-federal-workers-fell-victim-hackers-071851098--politics.html Officials: Second hack exposed military and intel data http://news.yahoo.com/union-says-federal-workers-fell-victim-hackers-071851098--politics.html WASHINGTON (AP) — Hackers linked to China have gained access to the sensitive background information submitted by intelligence and military personnel for ... View on news.yahoo.com http://news.yahoo.com/union-says-federal-workers-fell-victim-hackers-071851098--politics.html Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Sheriff Joe
What part of Con lay may it violate exactly In a message dated 06/13/15 14:08:34 Eastern Daylight Time, FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com writes: It appears that Sheriff Joe got some of his methods from the Nazi prison camps. While it's a good idea to keep the prisoners busy to earn their keep, the enforcement of this idea may be violating constitutional law. As such, the judge ruled against the treatment of prisoners this way. Perhaps, the alternative treatment is to have a voluntary option for prisoners to do some work and to get out of their cells. But I don't know how the ACLU would react to this. If it doesn't violate any laws, then it should be done. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mdixon.6569@... wrote : Texas used to have a self sustaining prison system. No tax payer dollars needed. They grew their own food... all of it. Grew their own cotton which they made their own cloths, sheets and bedding from. Cattle provided meat and leather for shoes and belts that the prisoners made. They harvested their own timber and milled it. Made their own bricks. Surplus was sold on the market for things they couldn't make and all laborers were prisoners. Prisoners were too tired at the end of the day to cause trouble.Of course Judge William Wayne Justice ended this system saying you can't force prisoners to work thus making the tax payer foot the bill and put prisoners on *vacation*.. From: dhamiltony2k5@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 5:15 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Sheriff Joe The sheriff seems an intrepid social scientist conducting studies in asocial moderation. It will be interesting to observe what the data shows in the end. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WLeed3@... wrote : Subject: Fwd: Sheriff Joe SHERIFF JOE IS AT IT AGAIN ! You may remember Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona, who painted the jail cells pink and made the inmates wear pink prison garb. Well. SHERIFF JOE IS AT IT AGAIN ! Oh, there's MUCH more to know about Sheriff Joe ! Maricopa County was spending approx. $18 million dollars a year on stray animals, like cats and dogs. Sheriff Joe offered to take thedepartment over, and the County Supervisors said okay. The animal shelters are now allstaffed and operated by prisoners. They feed andcare for the strays. Every animal in his care is taken out and walked twice daily. He now has prisoners who are experts in animal nutrition and behavior. They give great classes for anyone who'd like to adopt an animal. He has literally taken stray dogs off the street, given them to the care of prisoners, and had them place in dog shows. The best part? His budget for the entire department is now under $3 million. Teresa and I adopted a Weimaraner from a Maricopa County shelter two years ago. He was neutered and current on all shots, in great health, and even had a microchip inserted the day we got him. Cost us $78. The prisoners get the benefit of about$0.28 an hour for working, but most would workfor free, just to be out of their cells for theday. Most of his budget is for utilities,building maintenance, etc. He pays the prisoners out of the fees collected for adopted animals. I have long wondered when the rest ofthe country would take a look at the way he runsthe jail system and copy some of his ideas. He has a huge farm, donated to the county yearsago, where inmates can work, and they grow mostof their own fresh vegetables andfood, doingall the work and harvesting by hand. Hehas a pretty good sized hog farm, which provides meat andfertilizer. It fertilizes the Christmas tree nursery, where prisoners work, and youcan buy a living Chris tmas tree for $6 - $8 forthe holidays and plant it later. We have sixtrees in our yard from the prison. Yup, he was re-elected last year with 83% of the vote. Now he's in trouble with the ACLUagain. He painted all his buses and vehicleswith a mural that has a special hotline phone number painted on it, where you can call and reportsuspected illegal aliens. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement wasn't doing enough in hiseyes, so he had 40 deputies trained specificallyfor enforcing immigration laws, started up hishotline, and bought 4 new buses just for hauling folks back to the border. He's kind of a'Git-R-Dun' kind of Sheriff. Sheriff JoeArpaio (in Arizona) who created the 'Tent City Jail': ** He has jail meals down to 40 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them. ** He stopped smoking and porno magazines inthe jail. ** Took away their weights. ** Cut off all but 'G' movies. ** He started chain gangs so the inmates could do free work on county and city projects. ** Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn't get sued for discrimination. ** He took
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
Sorta of busy today, but I will try o find some time to do so. It often takes the form of asking your opinion about something, and getting a reply that is so riddled with qualifications that it become meaningless, IMO. Okay, one example, and I hope I'm not violating the guidelines. You indicated that Barry would fare fine with the new guidelines. I disagreed. I felt it would be pretty easy to determine if this would be the case, or not. I figured it would be pretty easy to make an evaluations on this. I believe your response was, We can never be sure of what a person's intentions are So, my take away from this is that there is probably little, if anything, on which you are likely to take a firm stand, at least as far as Barry is concerned. So, I adjust my expectations accordingly. No biggie, really. You just...adjust your expectations accordingly. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : I must say that I've observed the same tendency in xeno. He has often asked me (in a rather pointed way) to define some terms I use, to which I happily oblige his request. But when I make the same request of him, the response goes silent. Please give me the list of the things I have ignored. I do ignore things when I am focused on some other feature of a post. I will try to accommodate my oversight. What I have done, is just to lower the expectations I have of my interactions with Xeno. It is a shame really, but I think it is the price one pays if one wants to keep up a dialog. I would say it reduces that dialog to not much of anything, but at least I have some kind of iron in the fire, even if that iron never gets very hot. (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms, you have not been willing to define stupidest (and now smartest) that you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and it certainly was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a group is always the brightest star in the heavens.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
And here I thought your criteria was whether someone could write a graduate level academic essay as a post. You must have grown up in an academic environment. And the TMO wouldn't have helped because they seemed to be able to publish something that could be explained in a paragraph or two if it could be several pages long instead. :-D On 06/13/2015 06:09 AM, anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as determined by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. That should be sufficient. Can you give me a recent example where I asked someone to define a term? I don't recall doing this 'frequently' but also my memory is not particularly good at this stage in my life. If you cannot do that we can consider this post trolling. If you first establish the fact, then you can wonder why, and perhaps I will give an answer. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms, you have not been willing to define stupidest (and now smartest) that you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and ! it certainly was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a group is always the brightest star in the heavens.
[FairfieldLife] Smartest Person
I do believe the smartest person on FFL may have made a post. Music to my ears.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Sheriff Joe
It appears that Sheriff Joe got some of his methods from the Nazi prison camps. While it's a good idea to keep the prisoners busy to earn their keep, the enforcement of this idea may be violating constitutional law. As such, the judge ruled against the treatment of prisoners this way. Perhaps, the alternative treatment is to have a voluntary option for prisoners to do some work and to get out of their cells. But I don't know how the ACLU would react to this. If it doesn't violate any laws, then it should be done. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mdixon.6569@... wrote : Texas used to have a self sustaining prison system. No tax payer dollars needed. They grew their own food... all of it. Grew their own cotton which they made their own cloths, sheets and bedding from. Cattle provided meat and leather for shoes and belts that the prisoners made. They harvested their own timber and milled it. Made their own bricks. Surplus was sold on the market for things they couldn't make and all laborers were prisoners. Prisoners were too tired at the end of the day to cause trouble.Of course Judge William Wayne Justice ended this system saying you can't force prisoners to work thus making the tax payer foot the bill and put prisoners on *vacation*.. From: dhamiltony2k5@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 5:15 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Sheriff Joe The sheriff seems an intrepid social scientist conducting studies in asocial moderation. It will be interesting to observe what the data shows in the end. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WLeed3@... wrote : Subject: Fwd: Sheriff Joe SHERIFF JOE IS AT IT AGAIN ! You may remember Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona, who painted the jail cells pink and made the inmates wear pink prison garb. Well. SHERIFF JOE IS AT IT AGAIN ! Oh, there's MUCH more to know about Sheriff Joe ! Maricopa County was spending approx. $18 million dollars a year on stray animals, like cats and dogs. Sheriff Joe offered to take thedepartment over, and the County Supervisors said okay. The animal shelters are now allstaffed and operated by prisoners. They feed andcare for the strays. Every animal in his care is taken out and walked twice daily. He now has prisoners who are experts in animal nutrition and behavior. They give great classes for anyone who'd like to adopt an animal. He has literally taken stray dogs off the street, given them to the care of prisoners, and had them place in dog shows. The best part? His budget for the entire department is now under $3 million. Teresa and I adopted a Weimaraner from a Maricopa County shelter two years ago. He was neutered and current on all shots, in great health, and even had a microchip inserted the day we got him. Cost us $78. The prisoners get the benefit of about$0.28 an hour for working, but most would workfor free, just to be out of their cells for theday. Most of his budget is for utilities,building maintenance, etc. He pays the prisoners out of the fees collected for adopted animals.I have long wondered when the rest ofthe country would take a look at the way he runsthe jail system and copy some of his ideas. He has a huge farm, donated to the county yearsago, where inmates can work, and they grow mostof their own fresh vegetables andfood, doingall the work and harvesting by hand. Hehas a pretty good sized hog farm, which provides meat andfertilizer. It fertilizes the Christmas tree nursery, where prisoners work, and youcan buy a living Chris tmas tree for $6 - $8 forthe holidays and plant it later. We have sixtrees in our yard from the prison. Yup, he was re-elected last year with 83% of the vote. Now he's in trouble with the ACLUagain. He painted all his buses and vehicleswith a mural that has a special hotline phone number painted on it, where you can call and reportsuspected illegal aliens. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement wasn't doing enough in hiseyes, so he had 40 deputies trained specificallyfor enforcing immigration laws, started up hishotline, and bought 4 new buses just for hauling folks back to the border. He's kind of a'Git-R-Dun' kind of Sheriff.Sheriff JoeArpaio (in Arizona) who created the 'Tent City Jail': ** He has jail meals down to 40 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them. ** He stopped smoking and porno magazines inthe jail. ** Took away their weights. ** Cut off all but 'G' movies. ** He started chain gangs so the inmates could do free work on county and city projects. ** Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn't get sued for discrimination. ** He took awaycable TV until he found out there was a federalcourt order that required cable TV for
[FairfieldLife] Re: Live From Austin
Stevie Ray Vaughan - Pride and Joy (take 2) 12/13/83 https://youtu.be/gn7B4cjW6CA?list=PLJlXSF1C1lT8Gt4J92sUnFw1LsW27QkCv https://youtu.be/gn7B4cjW6CA?list=PLJlXSF1C1lT8Gt4J92sUnFw1LsW27QkCv Stevie Ray Vaughan - Pride and Joy (take 2) 12/13/83 https://youtu.be/gn7B4cjW6CA?list=PLJlXSF1C1lT8Gt4J92sUnFw1LsW27QkCv KLRU Studios, Austin TX, Austin City Limits (unedited) View on youtu.be https://youtu.be/gn7B4cjW6CA?list=PLJlXSF1C1lT8Gt4J92sUnFw1LsW27QkCv Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richard@... wrote : Stevie Ray Vaughan Corssfire Live From Austin Texas 1080P https://youtu.be/7oK40sPa3SU https://youtu.be/7oK40sPa3SU Stevie Ray Vaughan Corssfire Live From Austin Texas 108... https://youtu.be/7oK40sPa3SU From the DVD Live From Austin Texas These video uploads are completely nonprofit, no copyright infringement intended. The intention is rather to enc... View on youtu.be https://youtu.be/7oK40sPa3SU Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richard@... wrote : Stevie Ray Vaughan Voodoo Child Live From Austin Texas 1080P https://youtu.be/xu7icMXf-pI https://youtu.be/xu7icMXf-pI Stevie Ray Vaughan Voodoo Child Live From Austin Tex... https://youtu.be/xu7icMXf-pI From the DVD Live From Austin Texas These video uploads are completely nonprofit, no copyright infringement intended. The intention is rather to enc... View on youtu.be https://youtu.be/xu7icMXf-pI Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richard@... wrote : Asleep At The Wheel Live- Miles and Miles of Texas Get Your Kicks on Route 66 https://youtu.be/fTh-4Ss07AE https://youtu.be/fTh-4Ss07AE Asleep At The Wheel Live- Miles and Miles of Texas ... https://youtu.be/fTh-4Ss07AE To purchase this DVD, please go to this link: http://www.amazon.com/Kings-Texas-Swing-W-Dvd/dp/B000LRZ07U/ref=sr_1_3?ie=U... View on youtu.be https://youtu.be/fTh-4Ss07AE Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richard@... wrote : Willie Nelson - Blue Eyes Crying In The Rain (Live From Austin TX) https://youtu.be/H7vaYOIKWYY https://youtu.be/H7vaYOIKWYY Willie Nelson - Blue Eyes Crying In The Rain (Live Fr... https://youtu.be/H7vaYOIKWYY Blue Eyes Crying In The Rain from Willie Nelson's Live From Austin Texas performance. Buy it today on Amazon http://amzn.to/1dL5tyz or iTunes http:/... View on youtu.be https://youtu.be/H7vaYOIKWYY Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richard@... wrote : Stevie Ray Vaughan and The Fabulous Thunderbirds - Tough Enough (Live) https://youtu.be/Z4yxxg5WDkQ https://youtu.be/Z4yxxg5WDkQ Stevie Ray Vaughan and The Fabulous Thunderbirds - T... https://youtu.be/Z4yxxg5WDkQ This feature is not available right now. Please try again later. View on youtu.be https://youtu.be/Z4yxxg5WDkQ Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richard@... wrote : Eric Clapton/Jimmy Vaughan/Robert Cray-Six Strings Down http://youtu.be/U-S4TDGoOqA http://youtu.be/U-S4TDGoOqA Eric Clapton/Jimmy Vaughan/Robert Cray-Six St... http://youtu.be/U-S4TDGoOqA Rock On View on youtu.be http://youtu.be/U-S4TDGoOqA Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richard@... wrote : The dB's - That Time Is Gone - 3/15/2012 - Outdoor Stage On Sixth https://youtu.be/PSpE-LYcD1g https://youtu.be/PSpE-LYcD1g The dB's - That Time Is Gone - 3/15/2012 - Outdoor S... https://youtu.be/PSpE-LYcD1g The dB's - That Time Is Gone Recorded Live: 3/15/2012 - Outdoor Stage On Sixth (Austin,TX) Subscribe to Paste on YouTube: http://goo.gl/AU2nKB Visit P... View on youtu.be https://youtu.be/PSpE-LYcD1g Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richard@... wrote : John Fogerty (Live 2004): The Old Man down the Road http://youtu.be/4Lf0pQoRgFQ http://youtu.be/4Lf0pQoRgFQ
[FairfieldLife] Re: Smartest Person
Snip I think the term enlightenment is misunderstood. People think of it as something one acquires by doing certain things. But because it is about what we intrinsically are, this cannot be revealed by doing anything, because that value is already there. It is a tautology. We are what we are. Techniques are for the removal of psychological garbage. Me: I am not sure the word refers to anything more than a cluster of beliefs about someone's perspective on life. Although I have experienced fundamental shifts of my internal experience, I am not convinced that they represent anything close to how it gets hyped. It may not be realization of any reality other than something our brains can do if you think about things in a certain way or cultivate the altered states of consciousness from excessive meditation practice. I am not convinced that we all have psychological garbage that we need to remove. What some might view as garbage, I might view as a critical aspect of what makes me an individual. If an empty glass represents what we are, then all the stuff that prevents us seeing the empty glass is like water in the glass. Nobody really wants an empty glass, so they look elsewhere. A glass of clear water captures the attention more than an empty glass. The technique of enlightenment is like this: The glass with the water just sits still. The water slowly evaporates. When all the water has evaporated, voilà, the empty glass appears. Throughout all this, the glass did not change, nothing was gained as far as what we are, but the process we subjected ourselves to, shifted the perceptions. For those with mental impairments, this is a simple-minded analogy, not a truth; it might work for some, not others. Pursued to extreme, analogies break down. Me: Proof by analogy aside, I am not sure anyone has made a case for the need for such a concept concerning people who claim to be in such a state where they experience whatever. Enlightenment is one of those words like God where the belief system it is embedded in needs to be evaluated together with the term. It is highly context dependent. I am interested in the belief systems that surround such terms to the extent that it helps me understand how people participate in shaping their conceptions of reality. So far, for me, I think it refers to a lot of mental states and perspectives that require a boatload of assumptions to be presupposed to exist. Even to evaluate one's mental state through such parameters is a filter choice on perception. I am not against someone believing this about themselves per se (must be Judy's influence) but I do object to any claim that these states somehow reveal the reality of life. To my profound disappointment Sam Harris seems to have absorbed this assumption also. But then I am the first to say that whatever enlightenment is, I am pretty sure I am not in it. So there is that. There may be a bit of Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns in play and I would never know it!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
No, I am not going to think about it. I probably would not score all that high anyway. Too bad there isn't an inventory for antagonism. I bet you would get a very high score on that. You are really back in form. The long vacation from here must have restored something that was depleted. Or perhaps whatever else you were doing came to an end. That is of course total speculation. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : P.S.: You may also want to think about justifying the use of the Wechsler IQ scale (assuming it can be determined for each FFL member) for evaluation of members, given the questions that have been raised about its utility (e.g., to base a concept of intelligence on IQ test scores alone is to ignore many important aspects of mental ability). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as determined by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. That should be sufficient. And you propose to determine this measurement for FFL members (especially for those no longer posting here) how? Can you give me a recent example where I asked someone to define a term? I don't recall doing this 'frequently' but also my memory is not particularly good at this stage in my life. If you cannot do that we can consider this post trolling. (Is this the royal or the editorial we?) Now that you've defined what you mean by stupidest and smartest, the question of why you haven't been willing to define them previously is obviously moot. But Steve's similar recollection should be sufficient to confirm mine, so let's just chalk up your inability to recall any such demands to your failing memory. If you first establish the fact, then you can wonder why, and perhaps I will give an answer. Actually I can wonder why regardless of whether the fact is first established. (Note that my wondering was not in the form of a question to you in any case. Perhaps the trolling is yours rather than mine here.) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms, you have not been willing to define stupidest (and now smartest) that you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and it certainly was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a group is always the brightest star in the heavens.
[FairfieldLife] Fwd: New poll out of Ohio. William, please help.
WOW!---BeginMessage--- -- Forwarded message -- From: randhpau...@gmail.com rand.p...@randpaul2016.com Date: Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 10:52 AM Subject: New poll out of Ohio. William, please help. To: William Leed wle...@gmail.com William, The contrast could not be clearer. Hillary Clinton is launching her campaign for Barack Obama's third term. I'm running for President to defeat the Washington Machine. So it's no surprise a new poll out of Ohio shows me leading her in that key swing state. *Will you help me spread the message I am the Republican best positioned to defeat Hillary Clinton to the voters in the key early primary and caucus states by making a generous contribution of $100 today http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/28395172:27253660955:m:1:630355058:22E8F0BEEFBB3ED0C1F949D4ECB2B627:r* ? With your help, I hope to give the American people a clear choice in 2016. I stand for a return to Constitutional principles. I stand for an end to the Big Government status-quo in Washington. And I believe Hillary Clinton's record speaks for itself. The lack of security at our consulate in Benghazi. Private servers to conceal her emails as Secretary of State. Millions of dollars in foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation. The years of scandal and insider connections Hillary Clinton drags with her into this campaign represent everything the American people are FED UP with. That's why a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll showed her favorability ratings tanking. But not just any Republican can capitalize on her sinking poll numbers. William, the only other candidate who fared worse was the Republican establishment's hand-picked electable choice! The American people are searching for a President who will defeat the Washington Machine, not prop it up. My ten-and-a-half-hour filibuster to force President Obama's illegal NSA spying to expire proved I'm 100% committed to this fight. The next steps in my plan include: REPEALING ObamaCare 100%; SLASHING taxes for every American to get our economy moving and put the federal government on a diet; TACKLING our out-of-control $18 trillion debt by passing a Balanced Budget Amendment; MAKING Congress read the bills they scheme to ram into law; ENDING the reign of career politicians with term limits. Defeating the Washington Machine isn't just a campaign slogan. I've proven I'm serious and I earned the scars to prove it. That's why polls in states Republicans must win like Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio and Pennsylvania show me leading Hillary Clinton in head-to-head matchups. But I need your help to spread this message to the voters in the key early states that I am the Republican best positioned to defeat Hillary Clinton. William, Hillary is going to enter this campaign armed with a $2 BILLION attack machine to tear down her opponent. And if our party nominates another electable establishment choice, we will throw away our best chance to stop her from winning Barack Obama's third term. *So make your generous contribtuion of $25, $50, or even $100 right away and help spread the message the latest poll showing me leading Hillary Clinton in Ohio proves I am the Republican best positioned to defeat her http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/28395172:27253660955:m:1:630355058:22E8F0BEEFBB3ED0C1F949D4ECB2B627:r* . In Liberty, Rand Paul http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/28395172:27253660955:m:1:630355058:22E8F0BEEFBB3ED0C1F949D4ECB2B627:r http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/28395173:27253660955:m:1:630355058:22E8F0BEEFBB3ED0C1F949D4ECB2B627:r http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/28395174:27253660955:m:1:630355058:22E8F0BEEFBB3ED0C1F949D4ECB2B627:r http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/28395175:27253660955:m:1:630355058:22E8F0BEEFBB3ED0C1F949D4ECB2B627:r Paid for by Rand Paul for President This message was intended for: wle...@gmail.com You were added to the system April 30, 2014. For more information click here http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/p/iWm5yyz1Na. Update your preferences http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/p/oWm5yyz1Na Unsubscribe http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/p/oWm5yyz1Na | Unsubscribe via email unsub-27253660955-echo3-a6b3da8e614ad1abbbdb469568814...@emailsendr.net?Subject=Unsubscribebody=Please%20remove%20me%20from%20further%20mailings http://www.paramountcommunication.com ---End Message---
[FairfieldLife] Smartest Person
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Imagine my surprise... So my question is, who exactly is the person Rick put in charge of protecting and enforcing the civility here, the faux persona Buck or the actual person behind the schtick? And whose personal sensibilities are we to avoid (what Rauncy used to refer to as) the peal clutching reaction to things people write here? Am I supposed to write as if the strict movement fundamentalist Buck might be offended as part of his act, or am I supposed to imagine what the real person behind the put-on might think about what I write? And who is that guy anyway since I have read so much more from the mask creature. Can I perhaps use the same artifice to express feelings I have, for example castigating any person who would suggest that perhaps this easily offended person should just grow a pair and stop trying to control what other people express here? Would I be protected if I said that I am vehemently opposed to anyone who might suggest that perhaps this whole ruse was just an attempt by a person who doesn't have the ability to generate meaningful content here to exert power over people with creative ability? Would a post heading of Why I believe that Maharishi was wrong about everything be grounds for me being expelled for hurting the tender feelings of people with weak intellectual boundaries? (Would the suggestion that some posters here HAVE weak intellectual boundaries be enough to bring the Church Lady down on my ass? Could referring to the persona Buck as the Church Lady be seen as hurting tender feelings or would it just fit into his Movement schtick and be exempt from his mighty power? So many questions... FFL was one of the most wonderful writing resources in my life. It encouraged me to write enough to express all the changing perspectives I had on the movement through a long period of time. And although to some, my views might be seen as not going through an evolution, I can assure you they did. Not about fundamentals like whether Maharishi's model of development of consciousness has merit, but in how I relate to people who still maintain what I view as a fantasy equivalent to the Christian concept of being saved, getting enlightened. There was even a period after Maharishi died where I experimented with TM again to give it another consideration from my perspective today, on its own without the belief hype. And although I concluded that as enjoyable as the experience is, it does not serve a value for my life today, I loved taking that trip down Mantra-Memory Lane. FFL became unsafe for me to post on a while back when people decided that going after my personal life would be the best way to stop me from voicing my opinions here. It worked and they won. I accept that. But before I accept that the whole place has jumped the shark with regard to freedom of expression for everyone I want to say this: I am completely against anyone who would flip the bird to this self-appointed feeling-level policing of FFL. If anyone suggested that this is an example of a fragile ego gone wild and allowed to fulfill his fantasy of being in charge of what other people express, as well as being a complete pain in the ass to even have to think of what this person's idiotically tiny perspective might be about what I write... I would report this person to the moderator right away to protect the tender feelings of what (and again I oppose this view completely so try to keep up) might be charitably referred to F'n crybabies whose beliefs are so unsupportable and fanciful that they cannot accept any challenge. I think the term enlightenment is misunderstood. People think of it as something one acquires by doing certain things. But because it is about what we intrinsically are, this cannot be revealed by doing anything, because that value is already there. It is a tautology. We are what we are. Techniques are for the removal of psychological garbage. If an empty glass represents what we are, then all the stuff that prevents us seeing the empty glass is like water in the glass. Nobody really wants an empty glass, so they look elsewhere. A glass of clear water captures the attention more than an empty glass. The technique of enlightenment is like this: The glass with the water just sits still. The water slowly evaporates. When all the water has evaporated, voilà, the empty glass appears. Throughout all this, the glass did not change, nothing was gained as far as what we are, but the process we subjected ourselves to, shifted the perceptions. For those with mental impairments, this is a simple-minded analogy, not a truth; it might work for some, not others. Pursued to extreme, analogies break down.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Confusion
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : You can read all about Buck in the book Transcendental Meditation in America by Joe Weber. Here you can read details on how Buck in the Dome got booted out of the Dome on more than one occasion. Me: I suffered through the whining when it was all going down. I tended to sympathize with the movement on this issue believe it or not. It is their party and they can apply the rules that support their fantasies in their own little group if they want. When I was in TM I was mostly a rule follower and that suited me just fine, till it didn't. With the exposure of the inner world of TM on the Internet, most of my objections to their cult behavior have become moot. If a person can't Google them before joining, they deserve to end up believing that butt bouncing creates world peace as far as I am concerned. My objections pre web concerned their deceptive recruitment practices by training teachers to hide their true beliefs so people couldn't properly evaluate what they were getting into. They still run that game but the free access to their beliefs takes away the problem. Buck wanted it both ways. He wanted to be able to follow his own rules as well as be accepted by a group that played by their own rules. The TM mindset is fragile and it kind of has to keep people from doing too much exploration to keep its belief system intact. Since I consider all spiritual systems to be an arbitrary imposition on an wide range of possible subjective experience, and because our conceptions are constantly shaping our perceptions, TM has to enforce cult thinking restrictions to keep the fantasy together. Group think is key and strict vocabulary control is essential to keep it from unraveling. This is how they can control the perspective on ineffable experiences to keep a person interpreting them in their way, vocabulary and thought-phrase control. I mean...I would be totally against anyone who made those outrageous statements above because they might be interpreted as hurting someone's finest feeling level, and if I saw anyone writing something like that I would report it to a moderator of adult's conversations online so he could give them a time out before nappy time. Bucky is a fine feller. I like him, him being a salt of the earth farmer there in Fairfield who raises sheep amongst other things. Buck be all right with you sayin' Marshy was a wrong, but Buck don't like me sayin' Marshy was a liar, cheat and con artist. He also took umbrage at various times over my calling Marshy the Old Goat and lying son of a bitch. I probably used more powerful curse words, but I can't remember them now. Either a sign of advancing age or too much long term TMSP. You can read all about Buck in the book Transcendental Meditation in America by Joe Weber. Here you can read details on how Buck in the Dome got booted out of the Dome on more than one occasion. From: curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 1:28 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Confusion Imagine my surprise... So my question is, who exactly is the person Rick put in charge of protecting and enforcing the civility here, the faux persona Buck or the actual person behind the schtick? And whose personal sensibilities are we to avoid (what Rauncy used to refer to as) the peal clutching reaction to things people write here? Am I supposed to write as if the strict movement fundamentalist Buck might be offended as part of his act, or am I supposed to imagine what the real person behind the put-on might think about what I write? And who is that guy anyway since I have read so much more from the mask creature. Can I perhaps use the same artifice to express feelings I have, for example castigating any person who would suggest that perhaps this easily offended person should just grow a pair and stop trying to control what other people express here? Would I be protected if I said that I am vehemently opposed to anyone who might suggest that perhaps this whole ruse was just an attempt by a person who doesn't have the ability to generate meaningful content here to exert power over people with creative ability? Would a post heading of Why I believe that Maharishi was wrong about everything be grounds for me being expelled for hurting the tender feelings of people with weak intellectual boundaries? (Would the suggestion that some posters here HAVE weak intellectual boundaries be enough to bring the Church Lady down on my ass? Could referring to the persona Buck as the Church Lady be seen as hurting tender feelings or would it just fit into his Movement schtick and be exempt from his mighty power? So many questions... FFL was one of the most wonderful writing resources in my life. It encouraged me to write enough to express all the changing
Re: [FairfieldLife] Confusion
I think this was Rick's experiment in letting the inmates run the asylum. He also probably figured Buck would fail and which would end his pestering Rick to be moderator all the time.:-D On 06/13/2015 10:28 AM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Imagine my surprise... So my question is, who exactly is the person Rick put in charge of protecting and enforcing the civility here, the faux persona Buck or the actual person behind the schtick? And whose personal sensibilities are we to avoid (what Rauncy used to refer to as) the peal clutching reaction to things people write here? Am I supposed to write as if the strict movement fundamentalist Buck might be offended as part of his act, or am I supposed to imagine what the real person behind the put-on might think about what I write? And who is that guy anyway since I have read so much more from the mask creature. Can I perhaps use the same artifice to express feelings I have, for example castigating any person who would suggest that perhaps this easily offended person should just grow a pair and stop trying to control what other people express here? Would I be protected if I said that I am vehemently opposed to anyone who might suggest that perhaps this whole ruse was just an attempt by a person who doesn't have the ability to generate meaningful content here to exert power over people with creative ability? Would a post heading of Why I believe that Maharishi was wrong about everything be grounds for me being expelled for hurting the tender feelings of people with weak intellectual boundaries? (Would the suggestion that some posters here HAVE weak intellectual boundaries be enough to bring the Church Lady down on my ass? Could referring to the persona Buck as the Church Lady be seen as hurting tender feelings or would it just fit into his Movement schtick and be exempt from his mighty power? So many questions... FFL was one of the most wonderful writing resources in my life. It encouraged me to write enough to express all the changing perspectives I had on the movement through a long period of time. And although to some, my vi! ews might be seen as not going through an evolution, I can assure you they did. Not about fundamentals like whether Maharishi's model of development of consciousness has merit, but in how I relate to people who still maintain what I view as a fantasy equivalent to the Christian concept of being saved, getting enlightened. There was even a period after Maharishi died where I experimented with TM again to give it another consideration from my perspective today, on its own without the belief hype. And although I concluded that as enjoyable as the experience is, it does not serve a value for my life today, I loved taking that trip down Mantra-Memory Lane. FFL became unsafe for me to post on a while back when people decided that going after my personal life would be the best way to stop me from voicing my opinions here. It worked and they won. I accept that. But before I accept that the whole place has jumped the shark with regard to freedom of expression for everyone I want to say this: I am completely against anyone who would flip the bird to this self-appointed feeling-level policing of FFL. If anyone suggested that this is an example of a fragile ego gone wild and allowed to fulfill his fantasy of being in charge of what other people express, as well as being a complete pain in the ass to even have to think of what this person's idiotically tiny perspective might be about what I write... I would report this person to the moderator right away to protect the tender feelings of what (and again I oppose this view completely so try to keep up) might be charitably referred to F'n crybabies whose beliefs are so unsupportable and fanciful that they cannot accept any challenge.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : My recollection is that Doug was here, as Doug, for quite awhile after you joined us before becoming Buck. Maybe someone else remembers the chronology more clearly. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Me: Yes that is true. I believe all through the I can't get a badge because I wont follow the rules period he posted as his own name. I think you always felt more confident about your ability to distinguish the personalities and viewpoints than I am. I didn't have too many discussions with him then so I don't have a clear idea of what his real viewpoint is. Once he went Buck that ended any possibility for me. After he expressed a desire to only be referred to as his new name I just accepted that Bruce had become Caitlyn and figured it was none of my business how the personalities were related. FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : FWIW, Buck hasn't been around for quite some time now. The person appointed to moderate FFL (i.e., to ensure posts do not violate the Yahoo Guidelines) is snip name That should answer at least some of your questions. Thank you Judy. It may not shed light on the previously hidden person is who is going to be interpreting the vague guidelines in specific cases, but that helps a bit. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Imagine my surprise... So my question is, who exactly is the person Rick put in charge of protecting and enforcing the civility here, the faux persona Buck or the actual person behind the schtick? And whose personal sensibilities are we to avoid (what Rauncy used to refer to as) the peal clutching reaction to things people write here? Am I supposed to write as if the strict movement fundamentalist Buck might be offended as part of his act, or am I supposed to imagine what the real person behind the put-on might think about what I write? And who is that guy anyway since I have read so much more from the mask creature. Can I perhaps use the same artifice to express feelings I have, for example castigating any person who would suggest that perhaps this easily offended person should just grow a pair and stop trying to control what other people express here? Would I be protected if I said that I am vehemently opposed to anyone who might suggest that perhaps this whole ruse was just an attempt by a person who doesn't have the ability to generate meaningful content here to exert power over people with creative ability? Would a post heading of Why I believe that Maharishi was wrong about everything be grounds for me being expelled for hurting the tender feelings of people with weak intellectual boundaries? (Would the suggestion that some posters here HAVE weak intellectual boundaries be enough to bring the Church Lady down on my ass? Could referring to the persona Buck as the Church Lady be seen as hurting tender feelings or would it just fit into his Movement schtick and be exempt from his mighty power? So many questions... FFL was one of the most wonderful writing resources in my life. It encouraged me to write enough to express all the changing perspectives I had on the movement through a long period of time. And although to some, my views might be seen as not going through an evolution, I can assure you they did. Not about fundamentals like whether Maharishi's model of development of consciousness has merit, but in how I relate to people who still maintain what I view as a fantasy equivalent to the Christian concept of being saved, getting enlightened. There was even a period after Maharishi died where I experimented with TM again to give it another consideration from my perspective today, on its own without the belief hype. And although I concluded that as enjoyable as the experience is, it does not serve a value for my life today, I loved taking that trip down Mantra-Memory Lane. FFL became unsafe for me to post on a while back when people decided that going after my personal life would be the best way to stop me from voicing my opinions here. It worked and they won. I accept that. But before I accept that the whole place has jumped the shark with regard to freedom of expression for everyone I want to say this: I am completely against anyone who would flip the bird to this self-appointed feeling-level policing of FFL. If anyone suggested that this is an example of a fragile ego gone wild and allowed to fulfill his fantasy of being in charge of what other people express, as well as being a complete pain in the ass to even have to think of what this person's idiotically tiny perspective might be about what I write... I would report this person to the moderator right away to protect the tender feelings of what (and again I oppose this view completely so try to keep up) might be charitably referred to F'n crybabies whose beliefs are so
Re: [FairfieldLife] The US - Mexico Border
I would argue that what we are seeing now in the US with it's growing inequality is the Romanization of the US. There is too much concentration of wealth a stealth austerity program in place. People who are wary of centralized government need to be wary of centralized corporate powers too. They are land baron and plantation owners of this process of Romanization. On 06/13/2015 02:15 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: by John L. Hancock http://www.breitbart.com/author/john-l-hancock/12 Jun 20150 http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/12/the-border-between-the-u-s-and-mexico-is-more-than-just-a-line-on-the-map/#disqus_thread It is one of the few places on earth where nothing but a line on a map separates the third world from the first. A line that allows some to live in abundance while condemning others to a life sentence of squalor. A line that separates the land where the dreams can come true from one where dreams are the exclusive domain of a wealthy few. A line that marks the transition from a nation that is recognized for its economic and political stability to one that is just as notorious for its economic and political instability. That line is the border between the United States and Mexico. But it is more than a line separating two countries. It is a boundary separating two philosophies that can trace their origins back to the Roman Empire and the Germanic tribes that resisted their autocratic rule. The Saxon tribes that resisted Roman subjugation had a very different political culture. Their leader was often elected and his authority was limited by a body of elders. The king was considered the first among equals and he served his people rather that the other way around. Thus, he was subject to the same laws as the common man and although taxation existed, especially in times of war, there were limits on the power of the king to impose taxes. Individuals had rights and judicial punishment was decided by a body of peers. Most importantly, freemen owned property in their own right and the government had very little influence on the economic activity of his people. This form of government would make its way to England and by the time of Columbus would make the values of the English people very distinct to that of continental Europe. England would develop a /classical liberal/ style of government based principles of limited government, individual rights, private property, and free-market economics. While Romanized Spain was conducting its Inquisition, enslaving the native populations of the New World, and exploiting its people, England was waging a war, both internally and externally, against arbitrary rule. This struggle for individual freedom would result in documents such as the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights of 1689. These documents, which could never be produced in Romanized Spain, became the foundation of freedom in the United States and Canada. Thus, making them as free and prosperous as England herself. This was no surprise to Alexis de Tocqueville, who observed nearly two centuries ago that colonies inherited their political culture from their colonial masters. And while North America inherited liberty from their English masters, the Spanish colonies were bequeathed Roman authoritarianism. As we have seen throughout the history of Latin America, local despotism immediately replaced that of their former masters. Politics of the /cuadillo, /or strongman, became the dominant form of government with little Caesars having unlimited power over their people. The people themselves were nothing more than chattel to be exploited by the elites. As one Mexican adage puts it, “Mexico is a ranch and the president is the owner.” Such a political culture could not produce a Washington, a Jefferson, or an Adams. It could only give birth to despots such as Santa Ana, Iturbide, and Porfirio Diaz in Mexico and, more recently, Castro in Cuba and Chavez in Venezuela. Nor could it allow the economic freedom that has produced the prosperity enjoyed by their northern neighbors. The result being that peasantry, which the English colonies never had, is still present throughout Latin America. This is why there is so much disparity between the Saxonized United States and Canada and their Romanized neighbors to the south. One side unleashes the potential of the individual, creating freedom and prosperity for the society as a whole. The other sees the common man as nothing more than a subject, there to serve the needs of the elite controlled state. One becomes a flourishing modern democracy with a vibrant financial system, while the other remains stagnant with a peasant-style economy. A Mexican anecdote tells the tale of a girl who was visiting her cousins north of the border for the first time. As they drove around sightseeing, her cousins explained that it was all once
Re: [FairfieldLife] Confusion
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : snip. With the exposure of the inner world of TM on the Internet, most of my objections to their cult behavior have become moot. If a person can't Google them before joining, they deserve to end up believing that butt bouncing creates world peace as far as I am concerned. My objections pre web concerned their deceptive recruitment practices by training teachers to hide their true beliefs so people couldn't properly evaluate what they were getting into. They still run that game but the free access to their beliefs takes away the problem. I think this is the perspective most of us have here, and is, I would say, a balanced perspective. But, in some quarters here, I think this perspective would get you labeled as a cult apologist, or true believer, since you are not demeaning those who have a live and let live attitude, or have found some way to feel comfortable participating in the movement. The spiritual game has always been a caveat emptor affair, and I think this site, at it's best can challenge beliefs without finding a way, or need, to ridicule opinions to the contrary. What do you think?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
I didn't snip it as a statement about your posting it Judy. I am just exercising and abundance of caution in these changing times where I don't expect the benefit of any doubt. I looked back at a few of Buck's posts and didn't see his name so until he directly says it is OK to me I am trying to avoid it in any thread I am posting on. I agree with your point but I don't believe you would ever be a target of the new regime while I might be. It is a bit sensitive for me because a poster here began a campaign to post my full name by quoting any post where it occurred. I believe that you are expressing the spirit of the law, but sometimes it is the spirit that is weak while the flesh is enthusiastically willing! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Regarding your snippage below, Rick's policy has always been that the use of real names is prohibited only if the person wishes to remain anonymous. Doug uses his real first name to sign his posts, and his last name is in the header of his posts, so there was no need to snip it. Mine isn't in the header (it used to be pre-Neo and was on alt.m.t), and I don't sign my posts, but I've never objected to my real name being used; I prefer it to my authfriend handle, in fact. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : My recollection is that Doug was here, as Doug, for quite awhile after you joined us before becoming Buck. Maybe someone else remembers the chronology more clearly. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Me: Yes that is true. I believe all through the I can't get a badge because I wont follow the rules period he posted as his own name. I think you always felt more confident about your ability to distinguish the personalities and viewpoints than I am. I didn't have too many discussions with him then so I don't have a clear idea of what his real viewpoint is. Once he went Buck that ended any possibility for me. After he expressed a desire to only be referred to as his new name I just accepted that Bruce had become Caitlyn and figured it was none of my business how the personalities were related. FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : FWIW, Buck hasn't been around for quite some time now. The person appointed to moderate FFL (i.e., to ensure posts do not violate the Yahoo Guidelines) is snip name That should answer at least some of your questions. Thank you Judy. It may not shed light on the previously hidden person is who is going to be interpreting the vague guidelines in specific cases, but that helps a bit. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Imagine my surprise... So my question is, who exactly is the person Rick put in charge of protecting and enforcing the civility here, the faux persona Buck or the actual person behind the schtick? And whose personal sensibilities are we to avoid (what Rauncy used to refer to as) the peal clutching reaction to things people write here? Am I supposed to write as if the strict movement fundamentalist Buck might be offended as part of his act, or am I supposed to imagine what the real person behind the put-on might think about what I write? And who is that guy anyway since I have read so much more from the mask creature. Can I perhaps use the same artifice to express feelings I have, for example castigating any person who would suggest that perhaps this easily offended person should just grow a pair and stop trying to control what other people express here? Would I be protected if I said that I am vehemently opposed to anyone who might suggest that perhaps this whole ruse was just an attempt by a person who doesn't have the ability to generate meaningful content here to exert power over people with creative ability? Would a post heading of Why I believe that Maharishi was wrong about everything be grounds for me being expelled for hurting the tender feelings of people with weak intellectual boundaries? (Would the suggestion that some posters here HAVE weak intellectual boundaries be enough to bring the Church Lady down on my ass? Could referring to the persona Buck as the Church Lady be seen as hurting tender feelings or would it just fit into his Movement schtick and be exempt from his mighty power? So many questions... FFL was one of the most wonderful writing resources in my life. It encouraged me to write enough to express all the changing perspectives I had on the movement through a long period of time. And although to some, my views might be seen as not going through an evolution, I can assure you they did. Not about fundamentals like whether Maharishi's model of development of consciousness has merit, but in how I relate to people who still maintain what I view as a fantasy equivalent to the Christian concept of being saved, getting
[FairfieldLife] Re: Smartest Person
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Me: I am not sure the word refers to anything more than a cluster of beliefs about someone's perspective on life. Although I have experienced fundamental shifts of my internal experience, I am not convinced that they represent anything close to how it gets hyped. It may not be realization of any reality other than something our brains can do if you think about things in a certain way or cultivate the altered states of consciousness from excessive meditation practice. I am not convinced that we all have psychological garbage that we need to remove. What some might view as garbage, I might view as a critical aspect of what makes me an individual. While this sounds good as an intellectual construct, or argument, what I have found is that my experience of what we might call developing spirituality has developed over 40 years, and has really only gained momentum in the last five to eight years, when I pretty much ceased the practice of TM, and, (long ago) ceased any connection with the organization. There is also a physical component associated with certain experiences, which makes me inclined to believe that there is no mood making, or power of suggestion involved. But, I am not trying to sell anything, but at the same time, I feel pretty fortunate about it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
WR, to this whole thread, It's so annoying, all this clever disguising of intentions, and innuendo. And yes, to try to rate someone here on their IQ? I mean, wouldn't that be a candidate for stupidest idea? Just sayin' ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : OIC. So you're just guessing as to IQ scores when you talk about the stupidest person and the smartest person on FFL. Have I got it right now? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as determined by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. That should be sufficient. And you propose to determine this measurement for FFL members (especially for those no longer posting here) how? I have no proposal to do this nor have I ever intended to do so. Can you give me a recent example where I asked someone to define a term? I don't recall doing this 'frequently' but also my memory is not particularly good at this stage in my life. If you cannot do that we can consider this post trolling. (Is this the royal or the editorial we?) Now that you've defined what you mean by stupidest and smartest, the question of why you haven't been willing to define them previously is obviously moot. But Steve's similar recollection should be sufficient to confirm mine, so let's just chalk up your inability to recall any such demands to your failing memory. Yes let's do that, but apparently you have no recollection either. If you first establish the fact, then you can wonder why, and perhaps I will give an answer. Actually I can wonder why regardless of whether the fact is first established. (Note that my wondering was not in the form of a question to you in any case. Perhaps the trolling is yours rather than mine here.) Not likely. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms, you have not been willing to define stupidest (and now smartest) that you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and it certainly was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a group is always the brightest star in the heavens.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Confusion
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : The spiritual game has always been a caveat emptor affair, and I think this site, at it's best can challenge beliefs without finding a way, or need, to ridicule opinions to the contrary. What do you think? Me: I appreciate your asking Steve. I have found in my years of posting here that many people with strongly held spiritual beliefs lack an ability to discuss them as ideas without getting personal if they meet with disagreement. I have had enough personal attacks coming off my criticism of the movement and Maharishi here to know this about some people here. Since I don't really know many people here personally I have been most interested in the ideas themselves. I know people hold many views for a variety of physiological needs (myself included) and I have personally held what I now consider to be the wackiest ideas I have come across and believed them with all my heart. The target I have for much of my satirical writing here is much more my former self than anyone else posting. Losing my spiritual beliefs came with a bonus that I lost my identification with ideas including ones I currently hold. I know too much about my ability to bullshit myself to buy too far in. That doesn't mean that I don't sincerely hold beliefs, I do. But if someone posted that Atheism is stupid because in the right state of consciousness his living presence is obvious, I don't automatically go to then you are a poopy pants. I first reference when I believed that and then might go after the evidence that supports either idea and what I perceive as flaws in the statement. I haven't had much luck in keeping those discussions on track without the ad hominem onslaught but I also remember when I felt that way about my ideas. There is nothing I have gotten here that I couldn't match in my own history in the movement. I learned it from the master! How about you? That seems to be how you roll here to me concerning spiritual perspectives. You seem able to discuss them as ideas separate from the person. That has always been my experience in our discussions. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : snip. With the exposure of the inner world of TM on the Internet, most of my objections to their cult behavior have become moot. If a person can't Google them before joining, they deserve to end up believing that butt bouncing creates world peace as far as I am concerned. My objections pre web concerned their deceptive recruitment practices by training teachers to hide their true beliefs so people couldn't properly evaluate what they were getting into. They still run that game but the free access to their beliefs takes away the problem. I think this is the perspective most of us have here, and is, I would say, a balanced perspective. But, in some quarters here, I think this perspective would get you labeled as a cult apologist, or true believer, since you are not demeaning those who have a live and let live attitude, or have found some way to feel comfortable participating in the movement. The spiritual game has always been a caveat emptor affair, and I think this site, at it's best can challenge beliefs without finding a way, or need, to ridicule opinions to the contrary. What do you think?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Smartest Person
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Me: I am not sure the word refers to anything more than a cluster of beliefs about someone's perspective on life. Although I have experienced fundamental shifts of my internal experience, I am not convinced that they represent anything close to how it gets hyped. It may not be realization of any reality other than something our brains can do if you think about things in a certain way or cultivate the altered states of consciousness from excessive meditation practice. I am not convinced that we all have psychological garbage that we need to remove. What some might view as garbage, I might view as a critical aspect of what makes me an individual. While this sounds good as an intellectual construct, or argument, what I have found is that my experience of what we might call developing spirituality has developed over 40 years, and has really only gained momentum in the last five to eight years, when I pretty much ceased the practice of TM, and, (long ago) ceased any connection with the organization. There is also a physical component associated with certain experiences, which makes me inclined to believe that there is no mood making, or power of suggestion involved. But, I am not trying to sell anything, but at the same time, I feel pretty fortunate about it. Me: Psychology supports such descriptions of mental changes as we grow older. I am not sure exactly what you are talking about but if we compared notes we might find more similarities than differences concerning how our mental state has changed as we age and naturally become more self realized through living. I am in the best mental state of my life right now and if I had a spiritual filter I could wax poetic about my current state. But since I chalk it up to growing older I don't have anything to crow about! I probably have missed the mark on what you are referring to but you would have to go in to more detail.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
My recollection is that Doug was here, as Doug, for quite awhile after you joined us before becoming Buck. Maybe someone else remembers the chronology more clearly. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : FWIW, Buck hasn't been around for quite some time now. The person appointed to moderate FFL (i.e., to ensure posts do not violate the Yahoo Guidelines) is Doug Hamilton. That should answer at least some of your questions. Thank you Judy. It may not shed light on the previously hidden person is who is going to be interpreting the vague guidelines in specific cases, but that helps a bit. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Imagine my surprise... So my question is, who exactly is the person Rick put in charge of protecting and enforcing the civility here, the faux persona Buck or the actual person behind the schtick? And whose personal sensibilities are we to avoid (what Rauncy used to refer to as) the peal clutching reaction to things people write here? Am I supposed to write as if the strict movement fundamentalist Buck might be offended as part of his act, or am I supposed to imagine what the real person behind the put-on might think about what I write? And who is that guy anyway since I have read so much more from the mask creature. Can I perhaps use the same artifice to express feelings I have, for example castigating any person who would suggest that perhaps this easily offended person should just grow a pair and stop trying to control what other people express here? Would I be protected if I said that I am vehemently opposed to anyone who might suggest that perhaps this whole ruse was just an attempt by a person who doesn't have the ability to generate meaningful content here to exert power over people with creative ability? Would a post heading of Why I believe that Maharishi was wrong about everything be grounds for me being expelled for hurting the tender feelings of people with weak intellectual boundaries? (Would the suggestion that some posters here HAVE weak intellectual boundaries be enough to bring the Church Lady down on my ass? Could referring to the persona Buck as the Church Lady be seen as hurting tender feelings or would it just fit into his Movement schtick and be exempt from his mighty power? So many questions... FFL was one of the most wonderful writing resources in my life. It encouraged me to write enough to express all the changing perspectives I had on the movement through a long period of time. And although to some, my views might be seen as not going through an evolution, I can assure you they did. Not about fundamentals like whether Maharishi's model of development of consciousness has merit, but in how I relate to people who still maintain what I view as a fantasy equivalent to the Christian concept of being saved, getting enlightened. There was even a period after Maharishi died where I experimented with TM again to give it another consideration from my perspective today, on its own without the belief hype. And although I concluded that as enjoyable as the experience is, it does not serve a value for my life today, I loved taking that trip down Mantra-Memory Lane. FFL became unsafe for me to post on a while back when people decided that going after my personal life would be the best way to stop me from voicing my opinions here. It worked and they won. I accept that. But before I accept that the whole place has jumped the shark with regard to freedom of expression for everyone I want to say this: I am completely against anyone who would flip the bird to this self-appointed feeling-level policing of FFL. If anyone suggested that this is an example of a fragile ego gone wild and allowed to fulfill his fantasy of being in charge of what other people express, as well as being a complete pain in the ass to even have to think of what this person's idiotically tiny perspective might be about what I write... I would report this person to the moderator right away to protect the tender feelings of what (and again I oppose this view completely so try to keep up) might be charitably referred to F'n crybabies whose beliefs are so unsupportable and fanciful that they cannot accept any challenge.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
Revealing someone's real name if they prefer to remain anonymous is against the rules. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : Uh oh! Seem like Buck himself used to say that revealing someone's real name on FFL is agin the rules! Look like I might not be the first causality of Buck's ascendency to the moderator's throne after all. From: authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 1:44 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion FWIW, Buck hasn't been around for quite some time now. The person appointed to moderate FFL (i.e., to ensure posts do not violate the Yahoo Guidelines) is Doug Hamilton.
[FairfieldLife] Hot winds!
Romani (gypsy) Markus Allan sings Hot winds (coomat toolet), from Aki Kaurismaki's Drifting clouds: Markus Allan - Kuumat tuulet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awTFdMhqmUw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awTFdMhqmUw Markus Allan - Kuumat tuulet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awTFdMhqmUw Aus Aki Kaurismäki's Kauas pilvet karkaavat/Drifting Clouds/Wolken ziehen vorüber (1996) View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awTFdMhqmUw Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
OIC. So you're just guessing as to IQ scores when you talk about the stupidest person and the smartest person on FFL. Have I got it right now? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as determined by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. That should be sufficient. And you propose to determine this measurement for FFL members (especially for those no longer posting here) how? I have no proposal to do this nor have I ever intended to do so. Can you give me a recent example where I asked someone to define a term? I don't recall doing this 'frequently' but also my memory is not particularly good at this stage in my life. If you cannot do that we can consider this post trolling. (Is this the royal or the editorial we?) Now that you've defined what you mean by stupidest and smartest, the question of why you haven't been willing to define them previously is obviously moot. But Steve's similar recollection should be sufficient to confirm mine, so let's just chalk up your inability to recall any such demands to your failing memory. Yes let's do that, but apparently you have no recollection either. If you first establish the fact, then you can wonder why, and perhaps I will give an answer. Actually I can wonder why regardless of whether the fact is first established. (Note that my wondering was not in the form of a question to you in any case. Perhaps the trolling is yours rather than mine here.) Not likely. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms, you have not been willing to define stupidest (and now smartest) that you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and it certainly was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a group is always the brightest star in the heavens.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show
I'm sorry you were antagonized by my asking about your thought processes concerning your new smartest/stupidest kick. It didn't occur to me that you would consider it intrusive. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : No, I am not going to think about it. I probably would not score all that high anyway. Too bad there isn't an inventory for antagonism. I bet you would get a very high score on that. You are really back in form. The long vacation from here must have restored something that was depleted. Or perhaps whatever else you were doing came to an end. That is of course total speculation. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : P.S.: You may also want to think about justifying the use of the Wechsler IQ scale (assuming it can be determined for each FFL member) for evaluation of members, given the questions that have been raised about its utility (e.g., to base a concept of intelligence on IQ test scores alone is to ignore many important aspects of mental ability). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as determined by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. That should be sufficient. And you propose to determine this measurement for FFL members (especially for those no longer posting here) how? Can you give me a recent example where I asked someone to define a term? I don't recall doing this 'frequently' but also my memory is not particularly good at this stage in my life. If you cannot do that we can consider this post trolling. (Is this the royal or the editorial we?) Now that you've defined what you mean by stupidest and smartest, the question of why you haven't been willing to define them previously is obviously moot. But Steve's similar recollection should be sufficient to confirm mine, so let's just chalk up your inability to recall any such demands to your failing memory. If you first establish the fact, then you can wonder why, and perhaps I will give an answer. Actually I can wonder why regardless of whether the fact is first established. (Note that my wondering was not in the form of a question to you in any case. Perhaps the trolling is yours rather than mine here.) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms, you have not been willing to define stupidest (and now smartest) that you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and it certainly was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a group is always the brightest star in the heavens.
[FairfieldLife] The US - Mexico Border
by John L. Hancock http://www.breitbart.com/author/john-l-hancock/12 Jun 20150 http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/12/the-border-between-the-u-s-and-mexico-is-more-than-just-a-line-on-the-map/#disqus_thread It is one of the few places on earth where nothing but a line on a map separates the third world from the first. A line that allows some to live in abundance while condemning others to a life sentence of squalor. A line that separates the land where the dreams can come true from one where dreams are the exclusive domain of a wealthy few. A line that marks the transition from a nation that is recognized for its economic and political stability to one that is just as notorious for its economic and political instability. That line is the border between the United States and Mexico. But it is more than a line separating two countries. It is a boundary separating two philosophies that can trace their origins back to the Roman Empire and the Germanic tribes that resisted their autocratic rule. The Saxon tribes that resisted Roman subjugation had a very different political culture. Their leader was often elected and his authority was limited by a body of elders. The king was considered the first among equals and he served his people rather that the other way around. Thus, he was subject to the same laws as the common man and although taxation existed, especially in times of war, there were limits on the power of the king to impose taxes. Individuals had rights and judicial punishment was decided by a body of peers. Most importantly, freemen owned property in their own right and the government had very little influence on the economic activity of his people. This form of government would make its way to England and by the time of Columbus would make the values of the English people very distinct to that of continental Europe. England would develop a classical liberal style of government based principles of limited government, individual rights, private property, and free-market economics. While Romanized Spain was conducting its Inquisition, enslaving the native populations of the New World, and exploiting its people, England was waging a war, both internally and externally, against arbitrary rule. This struggle for individual freedom would result in documents such as the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights of 1689. These documents, which could never be produced in Romanized Spain, became the foundation of freedom in the United States and Canada. Thus, making them as free and prosperous as England herself. This was no surprise to Alexis de Tocqueville, who observed nearly two centuries ago that colonies inherited their political culture from their colonial masters. And while North America inherited liberty from their English masters, the Spanish colonies were bequeathed Roman authoritarianism. As we have seen throughout the history of Latin America, local despotism immediately replaced that of their former masters. Politics of the cuadillo, or strongman, became the dominant form of government with little Caesars having unlimited power over their people. The people themselves were nothing more than chattel to be exploited by the elites. As one Mexican adage puts it, “Mexico is a ranch and the president is the owner.” Such a political culture could not produce a Washington, a Jefferson, or an Adams. It could only give birth to despots such as Santa Ana, Iturbide, and Porfirio Diaz in Mexico and, more recently, Castro in Cuba and Chavez in Venezuela. Nor could it allow the economic freedom that has produced the prosperity enjoyed by their northern neighbors. The result being that peasantry, which the English colonies never had, is still present throughout Latin America. This is why there is so much disparity between the Saxonized United States and Canada and their Romanized neighbors to the south. One side unleashes the potential of the individual, creating freedom and prosperity for the society as a whole. The other sees the common man as nothing more than a subject, there to serve the needs of the elite controlled state. One becomes a flourishing modern democracy with a vibrant financial system, while the other remains stagnant with a peasant-style economy. A Mexican anecdote tells the tale of a girl who was visiting her cousins north of the border for the first time. As they drove around sightseeing, her cousins explained that it was all once part of Mexico but that the Americans took it. The girl, upon looking at the affluence, sorrowfully remarked, “And they took the best part, too”. Unfortunately, that is how most people see the differences between the two nations; never understanding the root causes for the economic inequality that exists between the United States and Mexico can be found in their political cultures. John L. Hancock is a fellow of the American Freedom Alliance
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
Regarding your snippage below, Rick's policy has always been that the use of real names is prohibited only if the person wishes to remain anonymous. Doug uses his real first name to sign his posts, and his last name is in the header of his posts, so there was no need to snip it. Mine isn't in the header (it used to be pre-Neo and was on alt.m.t), and I don't sign my posts, but I've never objected to my real name being used; I prefer it to my authfriend handle, in fact. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : My recollection is that Doug was here, as Doug, for quite awhile after you joined us before becoming Buck. Maybe someone else remembers the chronology more clearly. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Me: Yes that is true. I believe all through the I can't get a badge because I wont follow the rules period he posted as his own name. I think you always felt more confident about your ability to distinguish the personalities and viewpoints than I am. I didn't have too many discussions with him then so I don't have a clear idea of what his real viewpoint is. Once he went Buck that ended any possibility for me. After he expressed a desire to only be referred to as his new name I just accepted that Bruce had become Caitlyn and figured it was none of my business how the personalities were related. FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : FWIW, Buck hasn't been around for quite some time now. The person appointed to moderate FFL (i.e., to ensure posts do not violate the Yahoo Guidelines) is snip name That should answer at least some of your questions. Thank you Judy. It may not shed light on the previously hidden person is who is going to be interpreting the vague guidelines in specific cases, but that helps a bit. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Imagine my surprise... So my question is, who exactly is the person Rick put in charge of protecting and enforcing the civility here, the faux persona Buck or the actual person behind the schtick? And whose personal sensibilities are we to avoid (what Rauncy used to refer to as) the peal clutching reaction to things people write here? Am I supposed to write as if the strict movement fundamentalist Buck might be offended as part of his act, or am I supposed to imagine what the real person behind the put-on might think about what I write? And who is that guy anyway since I have read so much more from the mask creature. Can I perhaps use the same artifice to express feelings I have, for example castigating any person who would suggest that perhaps this easily offended person should just grow a pair and stop trying to control what other people express here? Would I be protected if I said that I am vehemently opposed to anyone who might suggest that perhaps this whole ruse was just an attempt by a person who doesn't have the ability to generate meaningful content here to exert power over people with creative ability? Would a post heading of Why I believe that Maharishi was wrong about everything be grounds for me being expelled for hurting the tender feelings of people with weak intellectual boundaries? (Would the suggestion that some posters here HAVE weak intellectual boundaries be enough to bring the Church Lady down on my ass? Could referring to the persona Buck as the Church Lady be seen as hurting tender feelings or would it just fit into his Movement schtick and be exempt from his mighty power? So many questions... FFL was one of the most wonderful writing resources in my life. It encouraged me to write enough to express all the changing perspectives I had on the movement through a long period of time. And although to some, my views might be seen as not going through an evolution, I can assure you they did. Not about fundamentals like whether Maharishi's model of development of consciousness has merit, but in how I relate to people who still maintain what I view as a fantasy equivalent to the Christian concept of being saved, getting enlightened. There was even a period after Maharishi died where I experimented with TM again to give it another consideration from my perspective today, on its own without the belief hype. And although I concluded that as enjoyable as the experience is, it does not serve a value for my life today, I loved taking that trip down Mantra-Memory Lane. FFL became unsafe for me to post on a while back when people decided that going after my personal life would be the best way to stop me from voicing my opinions here. It worked and they won. I accept that. But before I accept that the whole place has jumped the shark with regard to freedom of expression for everyone I want to say this: I am completely against anyone who would flip the bird to this self-appointed feeling-level policing
Re: [FairfieldLife] Confusion
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : snip How about you? That seems to be how you roll here to me concerning spiritual perspectives. You seem able to discuss them as ideas separate from the person. That has always been my experience in our discussions. Well, as you said once, to paraphrase, each day is new day and why not reply in the spirit in which the discussion is started, or the question is asked. There's no benefit in holding a grudge, if possible. And as I said a few weeks ago, some of the best insights I have gotten here have come from Barry, Xeno and Jim. And Judy once said something that totally nailed an aspect of my personality that I had not been fully aware of. Good stuff! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : snip. With the exposure of the inner world of TM on the Internet, most of my objections to their cult behavior have become moot. If a person can't Google them before joining, they deserve to end up believing that butt bouncing creates world peace as far as I am concerned. My objections pre web concerned their deceptive recruitment practices by training teachers to hide their true beliefs so people couldn't properly evaluate what they were getting into. They still run that game but the free access to their beliefs takes away the problem. I think this is the perspective most of us have here, and is, I would say, a balanced perspective. But, in some quarters here, I think this perspective would get you labeled as a cult apologist, or true believer, since you are not demeaning those who have a live and let live attitude, or have found some way to feel comfortable participating in the movement. The spiritual game has always been a caveat emptor affair, and I think this site, at it's best can challenge beliefs without finding a way, or need, to ridicule opinions to the contrary. What do you think?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
I think this excess of caution from you and others, frankly, is just another way to express resistance to the new moderation regime, by making it seem far more onerous than it has any likelihood of turning out to be. Doug will get bounced as moderator by Rick if he overdoes things, and he knows it. What Rick wants is for the horrific personal abuse to stop. Doug has various tools at his disposal short of banishment, including warnings and setting an individual's posts to come to him for approval before posting. Let's all relax and see what happens rather than expecting the worst and protesting it in advance. As to Doug's last name in the header of his posts, to see it, do this: Click Reply to any of his posts, then click the downward arrows to the left of the Subject line, then click the downward arrow to the right of the TO: line. Click any of the email addresses shown to send your message to that address. E.g., the one that says dhamilton2K5@... will put that address in the TO: field and thus send him a personal email. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : I didn't snip it as a statement about your posting it Judy. I am just exercising and abundance of caution in these changing times where I don't expect the benefit of any doubt. I looked back at a few of Buck's posts and didn't see his name so until he directly says it is OK to me I am trying to avoid it in any thread I am posting on. I agree with your point but I don't believe you would ever be a target of the new regime while I might be. It is a bit sensitive for me because a poster here began a campaign to post my full name by quoting any post where it occurred. I believe that you are expressing the spirit of the law, but sometimes it is the spirit that is weak while the flesh is enthusiastically willing! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Regarding your snippage below, Rick's policy has always been that the use of real names is prohibited only if the person wishes to remain anonymous. Doug uses his real first name to sign his posts, and his last name is in the header of his posts, so there was no need to snip it. Mine isn't in the header (it used to be pre-Neo and was on alt.m.t), and I don't sign my posts, but I've never objected to my real name being used; I prefer it to my authfriend handle, in fact. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : My recollection is that Doug was here, as Doug, for quite awhile after you joined us before becoming Buck. Maybe someone else remembers the chronology more clearly. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Me: Yes that is true. I believe all through the I can't get a badge because I wont follow the rules period he posted as his own name. I think you always felt more confident about your ability to distinguish the personalities and viewpoints than I am. I didn't have too many discussions with him then so I don't have a clear idea of what his real viewpoint is. Once he went Buck that ended any possibility for me. After he expressed a desire to only be referred to as his new name I just accepted that Bruce had become Caitlyn and figured it was none of my business how the personalities were related. FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : FWIW, Buck hasn't been around for quite some time now. The person appointed to moderate FFL (i.e., to ensure posts do not violate the Yahoo Guidelines) is snip name That should answer at least some of your questions. Thank you Judy. It may not shed light on the previously hidden person is who is going to be interpreting the vague guidelines in specific cases, but that helps a bit. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Imagine my surprise... So my question is, who exactly is the person Rick put in charge of protecting and enforcing the civility here, the faux persona Buck or the actual person behind the schtick? And whose personal sensibilities are we to avoid (what Rauncy used to refer to as) the peal clutching reaction to things people write here? Am I supposed to write as if the strict movement fundamentalist Buck might be offended as part of his act, or am I supposed to imagine what the real person behind the put-on might think about what I write? And who is that guy anyway since I have read so much more from the mask creature. Can I perhaps use the same artifice to express feelings I have, for example castigating any person who would suggest that perhaps this easily offended person should just grow a pair and stop trying to control what other people express here? Would I be protected if I said that I am vehemently opposed to anyone who might suggest that perhaps this whole ruse was just an attempt by a person who doesn't have the ability to generate meaningful
[FairfieldLife] Re: Smartest Person
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : snip Me: Psychology supports such descriptions of mental changes as we grow older. I am not sure exactly what you are talking about but if we compared notes we might find more similarities than differences concerning how our mental state has changed as we age and naturally become more self realized through living. I am in the best mental state of my life right now and if I had a spiritual filter I could wax poetic about my current state. But since I chalk it up to growing older I don't have anything to crow about! sure, it could be just that. I don't really know, or care. but, I know I like it, and I find it, well, profound. But beyond that, don't know. But, I suspect, and I don't mean this in an arrogant way, that there are some components of it that I think distinguish it from that of the average bear maturing process. And, of course, there is always the real world as a tool for verification. I've always maintained that spiritual growth should find a beneficial counterpart in our more mundane endeavors. I probably have missed the mark on what you are referring to but you would have to go in to more detail.
Re: [FairfieldLife] The US - Mexico Border
Exactly correct. Can you say Demon.crats? Can you say Republi.scams? Can you say Imperâtor Rêgnum? Can you say All-Consuming Statism? Already there are people actively campaigning to let illegals vote. So get ready.to have your sovereignty challenged. Obamatrade is the initial step forward toward that goal. FYI ... we are not a nation of immigrants! We are a nation of U.S. citizens. For now. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : I would argue that what we are seeing now in the US with it's growing inequality is the Romanization of the US. There is too much concentration of wealth a stealth austerity program in place. People who are wary of centralized government need to be wary of centralized corporate powers too. They are land baron and plantation owners of this process of Romanization. On 06/13/2015 02:15 PM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: by John L. Hancock12 Jun 20150 http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/12/the-border-between-the-u-s-and-mexico-is-more-than-just-a-line-on-the-map/#disqus_thread It is one of the few places on earth where nothing but a line on a map separates the third world from the first. A line that allows some to live in abundance while condemning others to a life sentence of squalor. A line that separates the land where the dreams can come true from one where dreams are the exclusive domain of a wealthy few. A line that marks the transition from a nation that is recognized for its economic and political stability to one that is just as notorious for its economic and political instability. That line is the border between the United States and Mexico. But it is more than a line separating two countries. It is a boundary separating two philosophies that can trace their origins back to the Roman Empire and the Germanic tribes that resisted their autocratic rule. The Saxon tribes that resisted Roman subjugation had a very different political culture. Their leader was often elected and his authority was limited by a body of elders. The king was considered the first among equals and he served his people rather that the other way around. Thus, he was subject to the same laws as the common man and although taxation existed, especially in times of war, there were limits on the power of the king to impose taxes. Individuals had rights and judicial punishment was decided by a body of peers. Most importantly, freemen owned property in their own right and the government had very little influence on the economic activity of his people. This form of government would make its way to England and by the time of Columbus would make the values of the English people very distinct to that of continental Europe. England would develop a classical liberal style of government based principles of limited government, individual rights, private property, and free-market economics. While Romanized Spain was conducting its Inquisition, enslaving the native populations of the New World, and exploiting its people, England was waging a war, both internally and externally, against arbitrary rule. This struggle for individual freedom would result in documents such as the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights of 1689. These documents, which could never be produced in Romanized Spain, became the foundation of freedom in the United States and Canada. Thus, making them as free and prosperous as England herself. This was no surprise to Alexis de Tocqueville, who observed nearly two centuries ago that colonies inherited their political culture from their colonial masters. And while North America inherited liberty from their English masters, the Spanish colonies were bequeathed Roman authoritarianism. As we have seen throughout the history of Latin America, local despotism immediately replaced that of their former masters. Politics of the cuadillo, or strongman, became the dominant form of government with little Caesars having unlimited power over their people. The people themselves were nothing more than chattel to be exploited by the elites. As one Mexican adage puts it, “Mexico is a ranch and the president is the owner.” Such a political culture could not produce a Washington, a Jefferson, or an Adams. It could only give birth to despots such as Santa Ana, Iturbide, and Porfirio Diaz in Mexico and, more recently, Castro in Cuba and Chavez in Venezuela. Nor could it allow the economic freedom that has produced the prosperity enjoyed by their northern neighbors. The result being that peasantry, which the English colonies never had, is still present throughout Latin America. This is why there is so much disparity between the Saxonized United States and Canada and their Romanized neighbors to the south. One side unleashes the potential of the individual, creating freedom and prosperity for the society as a whole. The other sees the common man as nothing more
[FairfieldLife] Does PC trump satire?
I have posted a lot of personal attacks on folks I have decided were trolls, but I thought I was doing so with creativity. For instance, that list of about ten insults aimed at Willy that I wrote were quite creative despite their being vitriolic and MEANT to sting. Were they creative enough to be called satire or were they mere mud slinging? Can't I actually justify wanting to sting someone in response to their attacks on me? Why does PC trump my right as an artist to express my disdain in any manner that is not physically destructive of the property of others? If the emotional responses of others is considered to be their property that can be damaged by a well aimed blurb, then I think we have a problem, Houston. Whose emotions? I am not responsible for my brothers' feelings. No one is -- except themselves -- maybe. Just maybe. Karma is unfathomable -- does anyone argue with that concept? If I am the arbiter of what is truth, what is smarm, what is hate speech etc., then let me tells ya -- I am ABSOLUTELY OFFENDED BY ALMOST EVERYTHING POSTED HERE. See? I cannot be allowed to impose my value-set upon anyone, because I might be, what? cruel, stupid, heartless, silly or a combo of all these traits? If this were an ashram, then an agreed upon set of values would be the core of that community. Here at FFL, perhaps that was once a hope, but long gone 'tis. So, if this isn't an ashram, but YET STILL we now have an, as if, Values of Damocles hanging above our heads -- a moderation of UNKNOWABLE, not merely unknown, potency, are we not now set up for a huge fight here if someone gets dumped because someone else was too sensitive instead of real-world tough? Just to be clearsince Doug has been appointed, I personally have been ATTACKED by several posters -- done with very subtle innuendo etc., but there it is -- PLAIN AS DAY. The intended message is: you are a disposable mind. See? Not your logic needs some correction, but the insinuation is you will never have anything to offer here that would be of any interest to me, and why are you taking up my mind-time by posting your crap here you fucking worm -- or something like that. THAT'S THE FEELING LEVELsome small insinuation is all it takes..consult Willy on this...he is a master at pimping people with truth. And that's the truth.not a jab at Willy's ribs with a sharpened elbow. And I'll make all this really silly: I hereby affirm my hereinabove mentioned list of insults for Willy is my work, and I would publish it again tomorrow if I had not already written it. I meant it. I don't like Willy, and I've got many reasons, and I don't hear Doug inviting me to present my case to him for why Willy should be dumped just on the history of his posting alone. I meant it. Does that mean I have as if posted it again because I brought it to the fore even though I did not repost it? Have I meta-sinned? Ask Godel!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Confusion
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I think this excess of caution from you and others, frankly, is just another way to express resistance to the new moderation regime, by making it seem far more onerous than it has any likelihood of turning out to be. Me: I don't see the connection. You are welcome to any interpretation you want to believe but my reasons were as stated. J: Doug will get bounced as moderator by Rick if he overdoes things, and he knows it. Me: When he let Richard back on I realized that I am on my own here and I have no trust in the system to protect my interests here. What is considered as overdoing is highly subjective. J: What Rick wants is for the horrific personal abuse to stop. Me: I don't know what evidence you have to support this statement either in its main point or your personal added spin. My guess is that Rick got sick of his bugging him about it and just wanted it to stop which I suspect is the same way Richard got back on within a month of being banned. J: Doug has various tools at his disposal short of banishment, including warnings and setting an individual's posts to come to him for approval before posting. Let's all relax and see what happens rather than expecting the worst and protesting it in advance. Me: I find the idea that he is the judge of any of my posts repugnant but I accept your last sentence as a bit of wisdom that applies. J: As to Doug's last name in the header of his posts, to see it, do this: Click Reply to any of his posts, then click the downward arrows to the left of the Subject line, then click the downward arrow to the right of the TO: line. Click any of the email addresses shown to send your message to that address. E.g., the one that says dhamilton2K5@... will put that address in the TO: field and thus send him a personal email. Me: I accept your point for you but still don't trust it for me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : I didn't snip it as a statement about your posting it Judy. I am just exercising and abundance of caution in these changing times where I don't expect the benefit of any doubt. I looked back at a few of Buck's posts and didn't see his name so until he directly says it is OK to me I am trying to avoid it in any thread I am posting on. I agree with your point but I don't believe you would ever be a target of the new regime while I might be. It is a bit sensitive for me because a poster here began a campaign to post my full name by quoting any post where it occurred. I believe that you are expressing the spirit of the law, but sometimes it is the spirit that is weak while the flesh is enthusiastically willing! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Regarding your snippage below, Rick's policy has always been that the use of real names is prohibited only if the person wishes to remain anonymous. Doug uses his real first name to sign his posts, and his last name is in the header of his posts, so there was no need to snip it. Mine isn't in the header (it used to be pre-Neo and was on alt.m.t), and I don't sign my posts, but I've never objected to my real name being used; I prefer it to my authfriend handle, in fact. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : My recollection is that Doug was here, as Doug, for quite awhile after you joined us before becoming Buck. Maybe someone else remembers the chronology more clearly. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Me: Yes that is true. I believe all through the I can't get a badge because I wont follow the rules period he posted as his own name. I think you always felt more confident about your ability to distinguish the personalities and viewpoints than I am. I didn't have too many discussions with him then so I don't have a clear idea of what his real viewpoint is. Once he went Buck that ended any possibility for me. After he expressed a desire to only be referred to as his new name I just accepted that Bruce had become Caitlyn and figured it was none of my business how the personalities were related. FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : FWIW, Buck hasn't been around for quite some time now. The person appointed to moderate FFL (i.e., to ensure posts do not violate the Yahoo Guidelines) is snip name That should answer at least some of your questions. Thank you Judy. It may not shed light on the previously hidden person is who is going to be interpreting the vague guidelines in specific cases, but that helps a bit. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Imagine my surprise... So my question is, who exactly is the person Rick put in charge of protecting and enforcing the civility here, the faux persona Buck or the actual person behind
