RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Reformed Buddhists

2014-05-08 Thread authfriend
Just to be picky, I don't believe in it can mean either I don't believe it 
exists or I'm opposed to it. If you're opposed to abortion, you might well 
say, I don't believe in abortion. 

 Anyway, what I heard that he said was Reincarnation is for the ignorant, 
which is better than either.
 

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

 From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf Of LEnglish5@...
Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2014 1:12 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Reformed Buddhists
  
  
 Reincarnation? I don't believe in it -Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
 He didn’t say that. He said he was “opposed” to it. Get the distinction? Means 
he believes in it, but wants people to get liberated so they won’t reincarnate.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... wrote :
 Hey, I laughed, too...  :-)

 
  




 








RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Reformed Buddhists

2014-05-08 Thread authfriend
In case anybody was confused, I was not suggesting that Reincarnation is for 
the ignorant was the only way he said it. 

 
 

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

 I have heard he said it many different ways. 

 (snip)
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 Just to be picky, I don't believe in it can mean either I don't believe it 
exists or I'm opposed to it. If you're opposed to abortion, you might well 
say, I don't believe in abortion. 

 Anyway, what I heard that he said was Reincarnation is for the ignorant, 
which is better than either.
  




 











 


RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Reformed Buddhists

2014-05-08 Thread authfriend
I think by ignorant he meant not enlightened, not off the wheel. One of his 
better bons mots. 

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

 Makes sense - the process is not uniquely human, just that we can apprehend 
it, and become aware of it, during our time as humans. So there must come a 
time when it is no longer *necessary* to continue to come back here, or 
anywhere else, though quite possibly a choice remains, even then, to take any 
form at all, anywhere we choose to. 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 In case anybody was confused, I was not suggesting that Reincarnation is for 
the ignorant was the only way he said it. 

 
 

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

 I have heard he said it many different ways. 

 (snip)
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 Just to be picky, I don't believe in it can mean either I don't believe it 
exists or I'm opposed to it. If you're opposed to abortion, you might well 
say, I don't believe in abortion. 

 Anyway, what I heard that he said was Reincarnation is for the ignorant, 
which is better than either.
  




 











 






RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Reformed Buddhists

2014-05-08 Thread authfriend
Yes, the first part. I doubt he had coming back by choice post-ignorance in 
mind, though. Or at least it wasn't implied by that quip. 

 Welcome back, by the way.
 

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

 This stuff is confusing - I meant that someone who is ignorant [of his basic 
nature] will continue, by necessity, to reincarnate, after which the ignorance 
is dispelled, incarnation may possibly continue to be an option. Is that what 
you meant??
 

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

 I think by ignorant he meant not enlightened, not off the wheel. One of 
his better bons mots. 

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

 Makes sense - the process is not uniquely human, just that we can apprehend 
it, and become aware of it, during our time as humans. So there must come a 
time when it is no longer *necessary* to continue to come back here, or 
anywhere else, though quite possibly a choice remains, even then, to take any 
form at all, anywhere we choose to. 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 In case anybody was confused, I was not suggesting that Reincarnation is for 
the ignorant was the only way he said it. 

 
 

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

 I have heard he said it many different ways. 

 (snip)
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 Just to be picky, I don't believe in it can mean either I don't believe it 
exists or I'm opposed to it. If you're opposed to abortion, you might well 
say, I don't believe in abortion. 

 Anyway, what I heard that he said was Reincarnation is for the ignorant, 
which is better than either.
  




 











 











Re: [FairfieldLife] calm the situation in Ukraine-you can help!

2014-05-08 Thread authfriend
Jews do NOT have to register in the Ukraine. I already told you that. Why are 
you repeating it? 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote :

 and you are ignoring the violence inthe Ukraine, the fact that Jews now have 
to register and all that??? 
 
 On Fri, 5/9/14, srijau@... mailto:srijau@... srijau@... mailto:srijau@... 
wrote:
 
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] calm the situation in Ukraine-you can help!
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Friday, May 9, 2014, 12:16 AM
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 also Citizen Sidha groups program start very
 recently near Moscow with over 70!
 Invincible
 Ukraine 
 Invincible
 Ukraine Creating
 Coherence and Harmony in the Collective Consciousness of
 Ukraine for Peace and Unity in the Nation 
 
 
 
 
 View on www.invincible-ukraine.org
 





Re: [FairfieldLife] [FairfieldLife] Great oppurtunity for rethinking Repentance Spiritually

2014-05-07 Thread authfriend
Comments below...
 

 The flipside, of course, is why you care?
 

 I met you online what, 15-20 years ago? You weren't as anti-TM as you appear 
to be now, even though you made clear that you no longer practiced it.
 

 What changed?

Nothing changed, because I wasn't anti-TM then, and am not now. I am anti 
cult thinking and anti bullshit and anti fraud. To me, TM fits into all of 
those categories. Believing that someone is against you because he is not a 
fan of something you identify with is just paranoia and self-importance in my 
book.
 

 Lawson didn't say you were against HIM, he said you were against TM. Now who's 
paranoid and self-important?
 

 I still hang at FFL because I'm interested in the cult mentality and I get to 
see so much of it here.
 

 Bullshit. You still hang here because it gives you an excuse to attack 
people and show your contempt for them. That's what you live for.
 











[FairfieldLife] Re: Downright humility-inspiring

2014-05-06 Thread authfriend
Weird, I was just having the same kinds of thoughts a few minutes ago while 
reading a piece in the NYTimes titled Cosmic Connections in the Deep Sea 
about the author's experience diving. It mentions the issue only in passing, 
but it triggered a Wait a minnit sort of response.
 

 It occurred to me that it seems equally unlikely that we are an utterly 
insignificant accident in a tiny corner of the unimaginably vast universe, or 
that we are, in fact, the reason the universe was created in the first place.
 

 I've always accepted that the former is the case, so finding myself 
entertaining the latter for even just a few seconds--on that equally unlikely 
basis--was disorienting.
 

 I certainly didn't change my mind. But I have no idea what to make of that 
momentary flash.
 

 

 

 The other day, on the radio, they had a piece about something you changed 
your mind about.  And they interviewed a guy, I forget who he was, who said he 
changed his mind about whether we, as humans, are really as insignificant in 
the cosmic scheme of things as is sometimes said to be the case.
 

 It just happened to be something I had been thinking about as well.
 

 Maybe we're not.
 

 His point was that, in at least our little corner of the universe, immense as 
it is, we can seem to raise anyone else.
 

 Anyway, it doesn't mean it needs to translate into some egotistical notion 
about our importance.  It's just an observation.
 

 Pretty ugly graphic, I'd have to say though.
 

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

 For those who feel the need to post every so often about how important TMers 
are, or how important the butt-bouncers of Fairfield are, or even how important 
to the universe human beings on planet Earth are, here's a graphic to put 
things into somewhat more accurate perspective. It's a visualization of every 
human being on the planet -- all 7.2 billion of us -- piled up in the Grand 
Canyon. The video below the photo explains things -- literally -- a bit more...

 

 
 

 How Many Things Are There? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6eOcd06kdk

 
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6eOcd06kdk
 
 How Many Things Are There? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6eOcd06kdk

 
 View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6eOcd06kdk
 Preview by Yahoo
 

 









Re: [FairfieldLife] Downright humility-inspiring

2014-05-06 Thread authfriend
And others, of course, own their own computers and set their own work 
schedules. I don't recall ever having seen you mention them.
 
 
 For a very select few, all they have to do is get up early in the morning, 
brew some coffee in the kitchen, and then walk down the hall to their home 
office and use the company computer on company time for their social 
networking. Sweet!
 

 



Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Downright humility-inspiring

2014-05-06 Thread authfriend
Of course, as far as Barry is concerned, all those who don't agree with him 
that human beings are insignificant have been and always will be fanatics whom 
history will remember as tyrants and killers. 

 

 From: Share Long sharelong60@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2014 2:07 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Downright humility-inspiring
 
 
   hey Steve and turq, this just came to me: we can think that we're not a big 
influence in the universe. But act as if we are a beneficial influence (-:

You can act as if you are a banana for all I care. But that doesn't make you 
one. :-)

Historically, those humans throughout history who have most vocally called 
themselves spiritual or religious have also been the ones who perpetrated 
most of the wars and instances of genocide -- from the Crusades to the 
Inquisition to modern Jihads. It seems to me that it Really Doesn't Matter how 
they thought of themselves and the influence they believed they had on the 
world was -- the only thing that matters is what actually happened. I somehow 
don't think that the heretic being burned at the stake by someone whose face is 
the very picture of blissful religious fervor is gonna feel quite the same way 
that the fanatic does.

But in the end it all comes down to preference, as far as I can tell. There are 
humans who seem to feel better about themselves based on feelings they have 
about their supposed importance, and there are those who feel better about 
themselves when keeping in mind their essential unimportance. I prefer not to 
hang with the former. History has a tendency to remember them as tyrants and 
killers, not as beneficial. 
 List of major religious wars
 Lowest estimate Highest estimate Event Location Religions involved 3,000,000 
11,500,000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war#cite_note-11 Thirty 
Years' War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War Holy Roman Empire 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire Protestants and Catholics 
2,000,000 4,000,000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war#cite_note-12 
French Wars of Religion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Wars_of_Religion 
France http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France Protestants and Catholics 1,000,000 
3,000,000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war#cite_note-13 Nigerian 
Civil War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_Civil_War Nigeria 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria Islam and Christian 1,000,000 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war#cite_note-14 2,000,000 Second 
Sudanese Civil War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sudanese_Civil_War Sudan 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan Islam and Christian 1,000,000 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war#cite_note-15 3,000,000 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war#cite_note-16 Crusades 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades Holy Land, Europe Islam and Christian 
130,000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war#cite_note-17 250,000 
Lebanese Civil War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War Lebanon 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon Sunni, Shiite and Christian

On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 6:25 AM, steve.sundur@... steve.sundur@... wrote:
 
   The other day, on the radio, they had a piece about something you changed 
your mind about.  And they interviewed a guy, I forget who he was, who said he 
changed his mind about whether we, as humans, are really as insignificant in 
the cosmic scheme of things as is sometimes said to be the case.
 

 It just happened to be something I had been thinking about as well.
 

 Maybe we're not.
 

 His point was that, in at least our little corner of the universe, immense as 
it is, we can seem to raise anyone else.
 

 Anyway, it doesn't mean it needs to translate into some egotistical notion 
about our importance.  It's just an observation.
 

 Pretty ugly graphic, I'd have to say though.
 

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

 For those who feel the need to post every so often about how important TMers 
are, or how important the butt-bouncers of Fairfield are, or even how important 
to the universe human beings on planet Earth are, here's a graphic to put 
things into somewhat more accurate perspective. It's a visualization of every 
human being on the planet -- all 7.2 billion of us -- piled up in the Grand 
Canyon. The video below the photo explains things -- literally -- a bit more...

 

 
 

 How Many Things Are There? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6eOcd06kdk

 
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6eOcd06kdk
 
 How Many Things Are There? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6eOcd06kdk

 
 View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6eOcd06kdk
 Preview by Yahoo
 

 







 


 












 



 















[FairfieldLife] Re: Downright humility-inspiring

2014-05-06 Thread authfriend
Maybe so, but that wasn't my point and has nothing to do with my point. 

 

 

 The point is, these fanatics are also lunatics. 
Most of these god-men are also mad-men.


--- authfriend@... wrote :

 Of course, as far as Barry is concerned, all those who don't agree with him 
that human beings are insignificant, have been and always will be fanatics whom 
history will remember as tyrants and killers. 
 

 From: Share Long sharelong60@...

   hey Steve and turq, this just came to me: we can think that we're not a big 
influence in the universe. But act as if we are a beneficial influence (-:

You can act as if you are a banana for all I care. But that doesn't make you 
one. :-)

Historically, those humans throughout history who have most vocally called 
themselves spiritual or religious have also been the ones who perpetrated 
most of the wars and instances of genocide -- from the Crusades to the 
Inquisition to modern Jihads. It seems to me that it Really Doesn't Matter how 
they thought of themselves and the influence they believed they had on the 
world was -- the only thing that matters is what actually happened. I somehow 
don't think that the heretic being burned at the stake by someone whose face is 
the very picture of blissful religious fervor is gonna feel quite the same way 
that the fanatic does.

But in the end it all comes down to preference, as far as I can tell. There are 
humans who seem to feel better about themselves based on feelings they have 
about their supposed importance, and there are those who feel better about 
themselves when keeping in mind their essential unimportance. I prefer not to 
hang with the former. History has a tendency to remember them as tyrants and 
killers, not as beneficial. 
 List of major religious wars
 Lowest estimate Highest estimate Event Location Religions involved 3,000,000 
11,500,000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war#cite_note-11 Thirty 
Years' War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War Holy Roman Empire 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire Protestants and Catholics 
2,000,000 4,000,000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war#cite_note-12 
French Wars of Religion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Wars_of_Religion 
France http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France Protestants and Catholics 1,000,000 
3,000,000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war#cite_note-13 Nigerian 
Civil War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_Civil_War Nigeria 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria Islam and Christian 1,000,000 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war#cite_note-14 2,000,000 Second 
Sudanese Civil War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sudanese_Civil_War Sudan 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan Islam and Christian 1,000,000 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war#cite_note-15 3,000,000 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war#cite_note-16 Crusades 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades Holy Land, Europe Islam and Christian 
130,000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war#cite_note-17 250,000 
Lebanese Civil War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War Lebanon 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon Sunni, Shiite and Christian

On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 6:25 AM, steve.sundur@... steve.sundur@... wrote:
 
   The other day, on the radio, they had a piece about something you changed 
your mind about.  And they interviewed a guy, I forget who he was, who said he 
changed his mind about whether we, as humans, are really as insignificant in 
the cosmic scheme of things as is sometimes said to be the case.
 

 It just happened to be something I had been thinking about as well.
 

 Maybe we're not.
 

 His point was that, in at least our little corner of the universe, immense as 
it is, we can seem to raise anyone else.
 

 Anyway, it doesn't mean it needs to translate into some egotistical notion 
about our importance.  It's just an observation.
 

 Pretty ugly graphic, I'd have to say though.
 

--- turquoiseb@... wrote :

 For those who feel the need to post every so often about how important TMers 
are, or how important the butt-bouncers of Fairfield are, or even how important 
to the universe human beings on planet Earth are, here's a graphic to put 
things into somewhat more accurate perspective. It's a visualization of every 
human being on the planet -- all 7.2 billion of us -- piled up in the Grand 
Canyon. The video below the photo explains things -- literally -- a bit more...

 

 
 

 How Many Things Are There? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6eOcd06kdk

 
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6eOcd06kdk
 
 How Many Things Are There? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6eOcd06kdk

 
 View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6eOcd06kdk
 Preview by Yahoo
 

 







 


 












 



 















  





[FairfieldLife] Re: Raising Net Neutrality from the Dead

2014-05-06 Thread authfriend
GET OFF IT, BUCK. You know who raunchy is; you know it isn't spam; and you 
know we're free to post anything here that others may find of interest, and 
that most certainly includes net neutrality  Stop trying to intimidate would-be 
posters who don't know any better into thinking they can only post spiritual 
stuff. 



 Is this drive-by Spam?  What exactly does this have to do with the Spiritual 
Regeneration and FairfieldLife? -Buck
 

 

 raunchydog@... wrote :
 
 Email to Tom.Wheeler@... supporting net neutrality by Sandy Dockendorff:
 I sent an email to the FCC chairman expressing my concern about losing net 
neutrality.  I have to give him kudos for responding - though I am not naive 
enough to think he sent a personal response... or that he had anything to do 
with sending the response. I AM concerned that this means that there are very 
few people actually contacting the FCC about this issue.

There is very little that is more sacred to a robust democratic society than 
the free exchange of ideas and information. In the US today, our broadcast and 
print news media is owned by a mere handful of people. This, in and of itself, 
is wrong. Please do not compound that error by giving another handful of people 
the means by which to stifle communications and creativity through control of 
the internet.
 
 Strong voices for good are not always well funded and those who need to hear 
words of encouragement and knowledge most are seldom those with the means to 
pay to find them. Public schools and libraries are underfunded in much of the 
country and these are the access points for many people who do not have any 
other means to access the internet. Putting content behind corporate pay-walls 
will further erode the ability of these institutions to meet the needs of those 
people.
 
 In rural areas where we continue to fight to provide even the most basic 
access to the internet, allowing corporate entities to provide faster access to 
those who can pay more means many of those who cannot pay more simply cannot 
access content at all.
 
 This is not a free market issue. Further, the FCC is not supposed to be an 
advocate for corporate entities, but for the people of our country. There is 
nothing good to be gained by taking this action. It will not increase jobs, it 
will not increase access to information so people might create their own jobs, 
it will not promote economic growth. All it will do is decrease access to 
internet content for a great deal of our population, decrease competition, 
siphon more money from the poorer to the richer, and one more foundation of our 
democratic society will have been demolished.
 
 How to bring net neutrality back from the dead by Cannonfire:
 Contact the Commissioners via E-mail
 Chairman Tom Wheeler: Tom.Wheeler@...
 Commissioner Mignon Clyburn: Mignon.Clyburn@...
 Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel: Jessica.Rosenworcel@...
 Commissioner Ajit Pai: Ajit.Pai@...
 Commissioner Michael O’Rielly: Mike.O’Rielly@...
 To call and contact commissioner’s offices, call 1-888-225-5322.
 In addition, call your elected representatives. Tell them if net neutrality is 
ended, you will hold them accountable by withholding your vote. Both parties 
hope to control the senate after the mid-term elections, so you have more power 
than usual to let them know they are losing your vote if they fail to take 
action to stop the FCC proposal. The number for Congress is 202-224-3121.
 There's also a petition. 
http://www.popularresistance.org/internet-for-the-wealthy/ 
http://www.popularresistance.org/internet-for-the-wealthy/
 








Re: [FairfieldLife] Wise President Putin

2014-05-06 Thread authfriend
If it says Spring Water or Artesian Water on the label, then it's required 
to be spring or artesian water, not tap water. There are many reasons to avoid 
bottled water, but not being able to tell whether it's tap water isn't one of 
them (assuming you can read). 

  I love, love, love, love bottled water.
 
 According to what I've read, it's mostly tap water. So, what do you do 
 with the empty bottles? Apparently it takes 1000 years to break down the 
 plastic. Go figure.
http://www.avast.com http://www.avast.com



Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Raising Net Neutrality from the Dead

2014-05-06 Thread authfriend
Well, now, that would be a great big fat lie, wouldn't it? And everyone here 
knows it. 

 

 

 He very well might. But if you've noticed, he's not the only person telling 
others what they can post and what they can't and trying to intimidate them, is 
he? The person berating him in this post is doing the same thing, and has done 
it more than any other person on this forum.  
 From: Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2014 8:12 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Raising Net Neutrality from the Dead
 
 
   Sounds like Buck might condone censorship of some kind.
 
 On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 10:55 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote:
 
   GET OFF IT, BUCK. You know who raunchy is; you know it isn't spam; and you 
know we're free to post anything here that others may find of interest, and 
that most certainly includes net neutrality  Stop trying to intimidate would-be 
posters who don't know any better into thinking they can only post spiritual 
stuff.
 



 Is this drive-by Spam?  What exactly does this have to do with the Spiritual 
Regeneration and FairfieldLife? -Buck
 

 

 raunchydog@... wrote :
 
 Email to Tom.Wheeler@... supporting net neutrality by Sandy Dockendorff:

 

































[FairfieldLife] Re: Spam, Spammers and Spamming the FFL list

2014-05-06 Thread authfriend
You're full of it, Buck. You don't even seem to know what spam is. FFLers post 
things like it all the time here, on a range of different subjects. Net 
neutrality is a big issue for folks who use the Internet; it's not as if it had 
never been mentioned or discussed here before. Ask Bhairitu. 

 And as I said, you know who raunchydog is--she isn't some stranger who busted 
in here trying to advertise a product or service. You just felt like throwing 
your weight around without any good reason.
 

 

 

 

 

 Sure seems like it was dropped in here like some spam to dilute out the flow 
of the interest of this list here. Yes, on FairfieldLIfe most any topic goes 
related to the interest of seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation 
everywhere. This post coming without any attempt at context related to 
Fairfieldlife clearly did not seem to relate to anything here, just like spam.
 

 On Fairfieldlife we often discuss the trials and tribulations of the TM 
Movement. Discussions also draw from diverse teachers such as Ammachi, Eckhart 
Tolle, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Byron Katie, Dalai Lama, Jesus Christ, Buddha, 
Ramana Maharshi, Shankara, etc. Yes we all have delete keys, however towards 
the higher levels of our subject integrity on this Fairfieldlife list we do 
keep moderators on hand to guard and protect us as a community from spammers.
 

 We all should be on guard to report spam like that post to the Moderation here 
to keep track of.
 Thank you for your concern,
 -Buck
 

 authfriend writes:

 GET OFF IT, BUCK. You know who raunchy is; you know it isn't spam; and you 
know we're free to post anything here that others may find of interest, and 
that most certainly includes net neutrality  Stop trying to intimidate would-be 
posters who don't know any better into thinking they can only post spiritual 
stuff. 



 Is this drive-by Spam?  What exactly does this have to do with the Spiritual 
Regeneration and FairfieldLife? -Buck
 

 

 raunchydog@... wrote :
 
 Email to Tom.Wheeler@... supporting net neutrality by Sandy Dockendorff:













[FairfieldLife] Re: Spam, Spammers and Spamming the FFL list

2014-05-06 Thread authfriend
This wasn't spam, and raunchydog is not a spammer. Alex gets rid of actual 
spammers in short order. You're just being a jerk. 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote :

 Not all groups need to be open to everyone. Not every person needs to belong 
to every group. Groups have a right to protect themselves for the benefit of 
their membership. As we come together in this community group it is fine that 
we do not let spammers on to FFL as a moderation policy.
 Sincerely, -Buck
 

 Sure seems like it was dropped in here like some spam to dilute out the flow 
of the interest of this list here. Yes, on FairfieldLIfe most any topic goes 
related to the interest of seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation 
everywhere. This post coming without any attempt at context related to 
Fairfieldlife clearly did not seem to relate to anything here, just like spam.
 

 On Fairfieldlife we often discuss the trials and tribulations of the TM 
Movement. Discussions also draw from diverse teachers such as Ammachi, Eckhart 
Tolle, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Byron Katie, Dalai Lama, Jesus Christ, Buddha, 
Ramana Maharshi, Shankara, etc. Yes we all have delete keys, however towards 
the higher levels of our subject integrity on this Fairfieldlife list we do 
keep moderators on hand to guard and protect us as a community from spammers.
 

 We all should be on guard to report spam like that post to the Moderation here 
to keep track of.
 Thank you for your concern,
 -Buck
 

 authfriend writes:

 GET OFF IT, BUCK. You know who raunchy is; you know it isn't spam; and you 
know we're free to post anything here that others may find of interest, and 
that most certainly includes net neutrality  Stop trying to intimidate would-be 
posters who don't know any better into thinking they can only post spiritual 
stuff. 



 Is this drive-by Spam?  What exactly does this have to do with the Spiritual 
Regeneration and FairfieldLife? -Buck
 

 

 raunchydog@... wrote :
 
 Email to Tom.Wheeler@... supporting net neutrality by Sandy Dockendorff:














[FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris

2014-05-05 Thread authfriend
Jason, don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs. 



 

 

 

 

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

 
 
--- authfriend@... wrote :


I still think you're painting with too broad a brush when you use the 
term society. Some elements of society take the position you describe, 
but others do not.

  --- curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

   C: Seems like a reasonable objection. 
 

J: And the negative reaction to criticism from atheists has a great deal 
to do with its hostility quotient. Simple disagreement doesn't tend to 
provoke the same response as And you're stupid to believe this.

   C: Since Madalyn O'hair for whom this was true, I haven't seen this 
  argument from any of the modern atheists. Which books have you read from 
  them? I have seen them say that certain ideas like a 5,000 year old earth 
  are stupid, but that is only because it really is.

  --- authfriend@... wrote :

 

   Indeed. But what does that make the person who believes it?

   Given the barrage of death threats and ad hominem attacks that vocal 
  atheist face, I think you might be holding them to a higher standard than 
  you are the religious side. Check out some of the debates with religious 
  people with Sam Harris. You will see much of his time spent deflecting 
  personal attacks during a supposed discussion of ideas. I think you are 
  putting the blame for this on the atheist as if they somehow deserve this 
  abuse. I have seen numerous debates where this is not the case that the 
  atheist started the personal attacks. I have even experienced it here on 
  FFL in discussions. Who fires the first shot is perhaps a debatable point 
  but in any case being stupid is not an atheist talking point about a god 
  belief. It is that it is an idea with poor reasons supporting it.

   Personally I don't believe people who believe in some god are stupid since 
  I have met people I consider smarter than I am who do. But whenever I have 
  had a discussion with them about it I have found their acknowledgement that 
   they have chosen to take a leap of faith and acknowledge that this choice 
  is beyond reason. I respect that.
 

   But many if not most atheists don't--they think it's stupid to make a 
  choice beyond reason.

   I do not respect people who deny evolutionary science or try to get 
  theological perspectives on creation into science curriculums in schools. 


J:Plus which, some of the most vocal atheists these days are also often 
quite ignorant about what religious belief entails. Not making the 
effort to acquaint oneself with what one is criticizing is perceived to 
be a function of intolerance, and rightly so, IMHO. Rather than 
facilitating full open discussion, it tends to slam the door on it. 
Those who most prominently speak for atheism need to get their act 
together, as far as I'm concerned (and speaking as a nonreligionist).

   C: One of the problems I learned from our Feser discussions is that 
  atheists don't care about obscure ontological arguments about a god since 
  it is the epistemological jumps that cause all the problems.
 

  The question is whether the atheists understand the ontological arguments 
  well enough to dismiss their significance. The arguments are philosophical, 
  of course, not empirical, which changes the role of epistemology in 
  evaluating their validity. And Feser repeatedly makes the point that some of 
  the most important terms and concepts of the Thomist arguments have been 
  misunderstood by modern theologians and philosophers (e.g., the distinction 
  between act and potency).
 

 As I pointed out, it is rare to find someone who does not include Aquinas in 
their classical version of god and this brings in the aspect of agency and 
interaction of god with the world and particularity with specific 
communications with mankind through certain books. That is the issue that 
concerns atheists.
 
  --- authfriend@... wrote :


   A lot of this and the paragraph that follows depends on what you mean by 
  interaction, communications, personal agenda, etc.--specifically, the 
  degree of anthropomorphism involved. The God of classical theism is the 
  ultimate abstraction. According to Aquinas, describing God in human terms, 
  like those I just quoted, can never be anything more than analogical.
 

   The distinction between God as a being and God as Beingness Itself is 
  crucial. It absolutely rules out the white bearded dude (as well as the 
  one God less attempt at rebuttal). And as I noted, it changes the role of 
  epistemology.



I think, I did mention to you once that the classical theism 
is basicaly an abstract philosophical position, and the 
position of most religions are 'personalistic theism'.

You didn't agree with me then.

This is what classical theism basicaly argues for,

1) The Causalitical argument (first cause principle, prime 
mover)1,
 
2

[FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris

2014-05-05 Thread authfriend
Jason, I'm sorry you feel like a piglet. But I was obviously not trying to draw 
you into an argument but rather suggesting you butt out. You didn't add 
anything helpful; most of what you said was irrelevant to what Curtis and I 
were discussing; some of it repeated what I've been saying as if you thought I 
wasn't aware of it; and some of it was just plain wrong. (Also, look up the 
difference between refute and rebut. Curtis and Xeno and scientists haven't 
refuted classical theism; what they've done is try to rebut it.) 

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

 
 

 --- authfriend@... wrote :

 Jason, don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs. 
 
Listen Grandma, I always felt all these years, that Barry is 
the only person who is rude, cantankerous, to pull people 
into argument loops.

You seem to be guilty of the same.

Everytime I try to reach out to you and connect, you make me 
feel like a piglet.

As Xeno pointed out, your style of arguing is a bit 
polemical and sophistic.  

All that I did is differentiate the position of classial 
theism from the position of semitic religions.



--- authfriend@... wrote :
I still think you're painting with too broad a brush when you use the 
term society. Some elements of society take the position you describe, 
but others do not.

  --- curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

   C: Seems like a reasonable objection. 
 

J: And the negative reaction to criticism from atheists has a great deal 
to do with its hostility quotient. Simple disagreement doesn't tend to 
provoke the same response as And you're stupid to believe this.

   C: Since Madalyn O'hair for whom this was true, I haven't seen this 
  argument from any of the modern atheists. Which books have you read from 
  them? I have seen them say that certain ideas like a 5,000 year old earth 
  are stupid, but that is only because it really is.

  --- authfriend@... wrote :

 

   Indeed. But what does that make the person who believes it?

   Given the barrage of death threats and ad hominem attacks that vocal 
  atheist face, I think you might be holding them to a higher standard than 
  you are the religious side. Check out some of the debates with religious 
  people with Sam Harris. You will see much of his time spent deflecting 
  personal attacks during a supposed discussion of ideas. I think you are 
  putting the blame for this on the atheist as if they somehow deserve this 
  abuse. I have seen numerous debates where this is not the case that the 
  atheist started the personal attacks. I have even experienced it here on 
  FFL in discussions. Who fires the first shot is perhaps a debatable point 
  but in any case being stupid is not an atheist talking point about a god 
  belief. It is that it is an idea with poor reasons supporting it.

   Personally I don't believe people who believe in some god are stupid since 
  I have met people I consider smarter than I am who do. But whenever I have 
  had a discussion with them about it I have found their acknowledgement that 
   they have chosen to take a leap of faith and acknowledge that this choice 
  is beyond reason. I respect that.
 

   But many if not most atheists don't--they think it's stupid to make a 
  choice beyond reason.

   I do not respect people who deny evolutionary science or try to get 
  theological perspectives on creation into science curriculums in schools. 


J:Plus which, some of the most vocal atheists these days are also often 
quite ignorant about what religious belief entails. Not making the 
effort to acquaint oneself with what one is criticizing is perceived to 
be a function of intolerance, and rightly so, IMHO. Rather than 
facilitating full open discussion, it tends to slam the door on it. 
Those who most prominently speak for atheism need to get their act 
together, as far as I'm concerned (and speaking as a nonreligionist).

   C: One of the problems I learned from our Feser discussions is that 
  atheists don't care about obscure ontological arguments about a god since 
  it is the epistemological jumps that cause all the problems.
 

  The question is whether the atheists understand the ontological arguments 
  well enough to dismiss their significance. The arguments are philosophical, 
  of course, not empirical, which changes the role of epistemology in 
  evaluating their validity. And Feser repeatedly makes the point that some of 
  the most important terms and concepts of the Thomist arguments have been 
  misunderstood by modern theologians and philosophers (e.g., the distinction 
  between act and potency).
 

   As I pointed out, it is rare to find someone who does not include Aquinas 
   in their classical version of god and this brings in the aspect of agency 
   and interaction of god with the world and particularity with specific 
   communications with mankind through certain books. That is the issue that 
   concerns

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris

2014-05-05 Thread authfriend
Click Show message history, dumbass. That's what it's for. 

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

 On 5/5/2014 7:19 AM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote:

 Jason, don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs. 
 Would it be too much of a problem to indicate what it is you're responding to? 
Thanks.
 

 This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus 
http://www.avast.com/ protection is active.
 
 



Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: One last set of thoughts for Curtis

2014-05-04 Thread authfriend
Comments below...

Because the thing is, humans, at a fundamental level, cannot prefer or value 
more highly, what they even unconsciously hold as detrimental. 

Nonsense. People do this all the time, continue behaviors that they consciously 
*know* are detrimental to them. Their position within an imaginary hierarchy 
has no relationship to whether they continue those behaviors or not. 

People can be very good at rationalizing behaviors they enjoy but know are 
detrimental. (Has nothing to do with the person's position within an imaginary 
hierarchy.) 

My guess is that having preferences or hierarchies is hard wired into us for 
survival value.
 
I disagree. I see nothing wrong with preference or believing in hierarchies, 
but I definitely don't see them as the same thing. Despite your attempt at what 
you thought was a clever remark earlier, having a preference does NOT imply 
believing in a hierarchy.
 

 It was a perceptive observation, not an attempt at a clever remark. And 
having a preference does imply having a hierarchy of personal values. Many of 
these are shared; some aren't.
 

 Many shared values are consonant with survival and reproduction. Whether 
that's because evolution built them into us is another question. And we may 
well have values that have nothing to do with survival of the fittest. So I 
don't think it's either/or.















Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: One last set of thoughts for Curtis

2014-05-04 Thread authfriend

 

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

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

 
My guess is that having preferences or hierarchies is hard wired into us for 
survival value.
 
I disagree. I see nothing wrong with preference or believing in hierarchies, 
but I definitely don't see them as the same thing. Despite your attempt at what 
you thought was a clever remark earlier, having a preference does NOT imply 
believing in a hierarchy.
 

 It was a perceptive observation, not an attempt at a clever remark. And 
having a preference does imply having a hierarchy of personal values. 


I disagree. Assuming you already like both flavors equally, you are offered 
either vanilla or chocolate ice cream. Does your choice at that meal imply that 
you feel the one you chose was higher or more valuable, of just that you 
had a preference for one of them that day?
 

 On that day, which flavor you choose has a higher value to you than the one 
you don't choose. Duh.
 
Rhetorical question. No need to reply. I was just amused that neither you nor 
Share can conceive of having a preference without the presence of some kind of 
hierarchy. I would suggest that this is pretty limited thinking. But if it 
makes you unhappy, stick with it.  :-)
 

 Actually it has to do with how one defines one's terms. If you find using your 
own idiosyncratic definitions of greater value than sticking to standard ones, 
that's your...uh...preference. Generally speaking, though, using standard 
definitions facilitates both thinking and communication.
















 





Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: One last set of thoughts for Curtis

2014-05-04 Thread authfriend
To demean points of view he disagrees with is high on Barry's list of personal 
values. 

 Er, I mean, preferences...
 

 

 

 Rhetorical question. No need to reply. I was just amused that neither you nor 
Share can conceive of having a preference without the presence of some kind of 
hierarchy. I would suggest that this is pretty limited thinking. But if it 
makes you unhappy, stick with it.  :-)
 

 Comment requiring no response:
 

 What I find odd, is that the person who just a day ago complained about 
someone coming in and spoiling a pleasant conversation is doing the same thing 
here.
 

 The only purpose of this last paragraph is to try to demean someone elses 
point of view.  
 

 At least, that's the way I see it.  Sorta like you can't disagree without a 
gratuitous personal dig.
















 







Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris

2014-05-04 Thread authfriend
Comments below...
 

 Bingo. One of the things that I don't think a number of theists or 
quasi-theists or theists-in-denial-that-they're-theists
 

 Oh, you forgot to list the nontheists, like moi.
 

  don't get on this forum is that what they call atheists barging into an 
otherwise pleasant conversation about God is that this barging in often comes 
after a few rounds of them hurling the word atheist around as if they were 
saying Nigger! or Spawn of Satan or rakshasa.
 

 Sometimes, certainly not always. And in any case, much if not all of the 
theists' annoyance is a function of the BEHAVIOR of the atheists, not the fact 
that they're atheists.
 

 They actually don't *get* that they look down on atheists as much as they do, 
and that this fact pervades their speech/writing.
 

 Not me. Atheists are A-OK with me as long as they're relatively respectful of 
and courteous toward theists, and take the trouble to understand the theists' 
positions.





IMO, giving them a little taste of their own medicine at that point is 
well-deserved.  :-)

 



















Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Wise President Putin

2014-05-04 Thread authfriend
The Jewish registration story turns out to have been what amounts to a hoax, 
Michael. A flyer with the announcement that Jews must register was distributed 
in one town in the Ukraine by three masked gunmen, but nobody has been able to 
determine where it originated--certainly not from Putin. In any case, Jews are 
not being required to register, so you can cross that off your list of 
grievances.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote :

 If you a stupid enough or insane enough to believe that the banning of GMO's 
is proof of the ME when Putin is invading another country and requiring Jews to 
register as Jews then you need to go check into your local state mental 
hospital.
 
 On Sun, 5/4/14, steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@... steve.sundur@... 
mailto:steve.sundur@... wrote:
 
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Wise President Putin
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Sunday, May 4, 2014, 1:57 PM
 
 
 
 
 Ok Michael,
 you wanted proof, there you have it!  The ME in spades.  I
 did meditate twice this week, and I think that may have
 pushed us over the edge.
 And hey, I am not discounting, for a second, not for a second, the
 beneficial effect of Shikantaza meditation, which of course
 is a Japanese translation
 of a Chinese term
 for zazen introduced by Rujing, a monk of
 theCaodong school of Zen
 Buddhism. In Japan, it is associated
 with the Soto school.
 
 Sōtō Zen or the Sōtō
 school (曹洞宗 Sōtō-shū?) is
 the largest of the three traditional
 sects of Zen in
 Japanese
 Buddhism (the others being Rinzai and Ōbaku). It
 emphasizes Shikantaza, meditation with no
 objects, anchors,
 or content.
 The meditator strives to be aware of the stream
 of thoughts, allowing them to arise and
 pass away without
 interference.
 No, I am giving equal credit to
 both.
 Does this call for a
 Pappy's Van Winkle for celebration?
 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
 no_re...@yahoogroups.com mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
 
 
 It’s
 Official – Russia Completely Bans GMOs
 thank you President Putin and Prime
 Minister Medvedev. Jai Maharishi! Jai Raja Fagan! Jai
 Maharaja! Jai Guru Deva! 





[FairfieldLife] Re: One for those few who can admit to having been Deadheads...

2014-05-04 Thread authfriend
And Barry, of course, is Oh-So-Superior to us poor benighted less-than-human 
losers who missed it. 

 No hierarchy there, nope nope nope.
 

 

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

 ...or human.
 

 These are a few moments of one of the unsung heroes of the Grateful Dead 
finally being recognized for what he brought to their mystique. If you weren't 
ever there, don't even bother to read further...you won't get it, because you 
missed it entirely. For those of you who were, hopefully this should serve as a 
reminder of what one person who devotes himself to his art can actually *do* 
with his life. Will anyone remember *your* songs when you're dead? If the 
answer is No, the fault is only yours. 

 

 If you ever understood the Grateful Dead, you will understand the feeling 
behind this awards presentation. If you never did, well what do you matter?  :-)
 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDw5LFiwoK4 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDw5LFiwoK4
 

 If you can't last through the full nine minutes, chances are you missed the 
entire period of time this presentation celebrates, and will have missed it for 
all time. Your loss, OH so literally. 

 

 






Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris

2014-05-04 Thread authfriend

 

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

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

 I still think you're painting with too broad a brush when you use the term 
society. Some elements of society take the position you describe, but others 
do not.

C: Seems like a reasonable objection. 
 

 J: And the negative reaction to criticism from atheists has a great deal to do 
with its hostility quotient. Simple disagreement doesn't tend to provoke the 
same response as And you're stupid to believe this.

C: Since Madalyn O'hair for whom this was true, I haven't seen this argument 
from any of the modern atheists. Which books have you read from them? I have 
seen them say that certain ideas like a 5,000 year old earth are stupid, but 
that is only because it really is.
 

 Indeed. But what does that make the person who believes it?

Given the barrage of death threats and ad hominem attacks that vocal atheist 
face, I think you might be holding them to a higher standard than you are the 
religious side. Check out some of the debates with religious people with Sam 
Harris. You will see much of his time spent deflecting personal attacks during 
a supposed discussion of ideas. I think you are putting the blame for this on 
the atheist as if they somehow deserve this abuse. I have seen numerous debates 
where this is not the case that the atheist started the personal attacks. I 
have even experienced it here on FFL in discussions. Who fires the first shot 
is perhaps a debatable point but in any case being stupid is not an atheist 
talking point about a god belief. It is that it is an idea with poor reasons 
supporting it.

Personally I don't believe people who believe in some god are stupid since I 
have met people I consider smarter than I am who do. But whenever I have had a 
discussion with them about it I have found their acknowledgement that  they 
have chosen to take a leap of faith and acknowledge that this choice is beyond 
reason. I respect that.
 

 But many if not most atheists don't--they think it's stupid to make a choice 
beyond reason.

I do not respect people who deny evolutionary science or try to get theological 
perspectives on creation into science curriculums in schools. 


 J:Plus which, some of the most vocal atheists these days are also often quite 
ignorant about what religious belief entails. Not making the effort to acquaint 
oneself with what one is criticizing is perceived to be a function of 
intolerance, and rightly so, IMHO. Rather than facilitating full open 
discussion, it tends to slam the door on it. Those who most prominently speak 
for atheism need to get their act together, as far as I'm concerned (and 
speaking as a nonreligionist).

C: One of the problems I learned from our Feser discussions is that atheists 
don't care about obscure ontological arguments about a god since it is the 
epistemological jumps that cause all the problems.
 

 The question is whether the atheists understand the ontological arguments well 
enough to dismiss their significance. The arguments are philosophical, of 
course, not empirical, which changes the role of epistemology in evaluating 
their validity. And Feser repeatedly makes the point that some of the most 
important terms and concepts of the Thomist arguments have been misunderstood 
by modern theologians and philosophers (e.g., the distinction between act and 
potency).
 

 As I pointed out, it is rare to find someone who does not include Aquinas in 
their classical version of god and this brings in the aspect of agency and 
interaction of god with the world and particularity with specific 
communications with mankind through certain books. That is the issue that 
concerns atheists.
 

 A lot of this and the paragraph that follows depends on what you mean by 
interaction, communications, personal agenda, etc.--specifically, the 
degree of anthropomorphism involved. The God of classical theism is the 
ultimate abstraction. According to Aquinas, describing God in human terms, like 
those I just quoted, can never be anything more than analogical.
 

 The distinction between God as a being and God as Beingness Itself is crucial. 
It absolutely rules out the white bearded dude (as well as the one God less 
attempt at rebuttal). And as I noted, it changes the role of epistemology.

And once that jump has been made, the epistemological difference between an 
abstract spirit god who can still guide the hand of the writers (and 
translators) of the Bible and a fully decked out white bearded dude are 
insignificant. I know religious people make a big fuss about these distinctions 
and it rankles them to see what they think of as a more sophisticated version 
lumped in with versions they feel above intellectually. But once communication 
with a being with a personal agenda and ability to communicate that agenda to 
mankind specifically is claimed, these cherished distinctions  are all a moot 
point

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris

2014-05-03 Thread authfriend
Curtis, you way overstate the case. In this country, at least, there's oodles 
of criticism of biblical ideas, including ideas at the heart of Christian 
belief. Ever heard of the Jesus Seminar? And a currently popular book, How 
Jesus Became God, maintains that the idea of Jesus as God developed very much 
after the fact, that it was never anything Jesus said about himself. Those are 
just two examples of many. 

 And I doubt you're going to find a whole lot of people who advocate slavery 
because the Bible does.
 

 Sure, there's always pushback, but to suggest that it's enough to suppress all 
criticism and challenge is just not supported by the facts.
 
 

 


 

 The other thing religion adds to the human tendency to power grab is to 
deflect criticism about the ideas they are spreading because it is shielded by 
the don't criticize religious ideas directly ban. Harris agrees with your 
analysis of the extremists but he places the blame on the moderates for 
shielding them behind the odd way we treat religious ideas. If they came out 
and said that this part of the Koran is wrong, or if Christians did this with 
the Bible we could have a discussion of ideas like we do with everything else 
in human knowledge. But both of these books are shielded from direct criticism 
by the idea that they are different from all other human produced literature 
containing ideas. There are scripture and God's hand was in their production. 
And the weird thing is that each religion only accepts their own god book as 
authoritative, not the other guy's. But they still protect the other guy's 
divine right of non criticism so that people wont challenge the absurd claim 
they are making about their own god book. Harris is against this collusion of 
ignorance. 

If you take out a section of the Bible that advocates slavery and say, this is 
stupid and wrong you will be accused of being religiously intolerant rather 
than just pointing out a stupid and wrong idea some man wrote. This is the 
battle Harris is picking, not the ultimate cynicism about the leader's 
motivations.


 








[FairfieldLife] Re: One last set of thoughts for Curtis

2014-05-03 Thread authfriend
Actually, this distinction is pretty elementary with regard to neuroscientific 
studies; it really isn't something that has just never occurred to the 
researchers. Libet's studies, for example, looked directly at the apparent time 
lag between decisions made on the unconscious level and when they came to the 
subjects' conscious awareness. That's what his research was designed to measure.
 

 And aside from the fact that there are umpty examples of actions taken 
consciously to alter unconscious processes, determinism per se would simply 
assume the decision to engage in those actions was itself determined. IOW, that 
one takes such actions in no way validates free will as far as determinists are 
concerned. (BTW, determinism is a metaphysical idea, not a scientific one. It 
can't be tested or measured. The emerging scientific notion is that free will 
is an illusion created by the brain; has nothing to do with fate or God's 
will.)
 

 I think that the neuroscientists might be confusing the distinction between 
*conscious* decision-making and *unconscious* decision-making when trying to 
prove their contention that we have no free will. *Both* forms of 
decision-making are present at all times. 

 






Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris

2014-05-03 Thread authfriend
I still think you're painting with too broad a brush when you use the term 
society. Some elements of society take the position you describe, but others 
do not. 

 And the negative reaction to criticism from atheists has a great deal to do 
with its hostility quotient. Simple disagreement doesn't tend to provoke the 
same response as And you're stupid to believe this.
 

 Plus which, some of the most vocal atheists these days are also often quite 
ignorant about what religious belief entails. Not making the effort to acquaint 
oneself with what one is criticizing is perceived to be a function of 
intolerance, and rightly so, IMHO. Rather than facilitating full open 
discussion, it tends to slam the door on it. Those who most prominently speak 
for atheism need to get their act together, as far as I'm concerned (and 
speaking as a nonreligionist).
 

 

 

 

 

 Curtis, you way overstate the case. In this country, at least, there's oodles 
of criticism of biblical ideas, including ideas at the heart of Christian 
belief. Ever heard of the Jesus Seminar? And a currently popular book, How 
Jesus Became God, maintains that the idea of Jesus as God developed very much 
after the fact, that it was never anything Jesus said about himself. Those are 
just two examples of many.
 

 And I doubt you're going to find a whole lot of people who advocate slavery 
because the Bible does.
 

 Sure, there's always pushback, but to suggest that it's enough to suppress all 
criticism and challenge is just not supported by the facts.

C: Your POV seems just as valid. It also marks out the difference in a society 
between our liberal democracy with the dominant religion being a more modern 
reformed one compared to Islamic dominant societies. So point taken. There is 
plenty of direct criticism about things in the Bible in our country.

But this is not the point of critique Harris is launching. Religious ideas and 
scripture are still held as a special class of human knowledge no matter where 
you fall on the spectrum between your point and mine. In no other area is the 
idea of a hands off criticizing the ideas directly tied to a concept of 
religious tolerance.  

Lets take racism directly. If you say anything racist , even if you tie it to 
the Bible you get condemned by the majority of society. But if you attack the 
Bible as being a man made piece of literature full of outdated nonsense the 
same society will attack you for being intolerant of religion and a bigot.  
Watching how society has reacted to atheists through time illustrates my point. 
 So these ideas are still held in a protected class of ideas where full open 
discussion is not only discouraged, it is shamed as being similar to racism. 
(It happens to atheists all the time.)

Now we may not find a lot of people who advocate slavery because the Bible does 
but how many people want to deny gay rights because of the Bible?

So I am not disagreeing with your objection as wrong, It is just not how I am 
seeing it as we both value the propositions of truth as we see it in each 
others statements.

 
 

 


 

 The other thing religion adds to the human tendency to power grab is to 
deflect criticism about the ideas they are spreading because it is shielded by 
the don't criticize religious ideas directly ban. Harris agrees with your 
analysis of the extremists but he places the blame on the moderates for 
shielding them behind the odd way we treat religious ideas. If they came out 
and said that this part of the Koran is wrong, or if Christians did this with 
the Bible we could have a discussion of ideas like we do with everything else 
in human knowledge. But both of these books are shielded from direct criticism 
by the idea that they are different from all other human produced literature 
containing ideas. There are scripture and God's hand was in their production. 
And the weird thing is that each religion only accepts their own god book as 
authoritative, not the other guy's. But they still protect the other guy's 
divine right of non criticism so that people wont challenge the absurd claim 
they are making about their own god book. Harris is against this collusion of 
ignorance. 

If you take out a section of the Bible that advocates slavery and say, this is 
stupid and wrong you will be accused of being religiously intolerant rather 
than just pointing out a stupid and wrong idea some man wrote. This is the 
battle Harris is picking, not the ultimate cynicism about the leader's 
motivations.


 












Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Re-Facilitating a Future and the New TM Movement:

2014-05-03 Thread authfriend
Not to mention, we have no idea what the relative percentages are of TMers who 
commit suicide versus those in the general population. For all we know, the 
percentage of TMers could be smaller. Certainly suicidal TMers tend to draw 
more attention because it's so contrary to what TM promises. But does that 
mistakenly foster the idea that there are more of them than in the general 
population? 

 Also, as Ann suggests, it would be important to look closely at TMers who end 
up in a bad way (or dead) to see whether they were headed in that direction 
before ever starting TM. There are just too many unknowns to suggest that TM 
practice in and of itself is the cause.
 

 

 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote :

 How is this dropping names? I was giving you info on what Shikantaza is since 
you mocked it as being some kind of designer meditation - it has been around 
as part of Buddhist practice for centuries. I think you are taking pot shots at 
it just because I like it and you don't care for me since I am honest about 
what a liar and huckster Marshy was, what a liar and huckster the TMO leaders 
are and how much damage TM, TMSP and TM mentality can cause and HAS caused 
under certain circumstances. The suicides, attempted suicides, people admitted 
to mental institutions and more are no joke. Talk to Kyle Cleveland sometime - 
he was born and raised in the Movement, is all over the Net as a very vocal 
critic of TM and Marshy. Ask him about his experiences sometime and see how you 
feel afterwards.
 

 I still say if you have hundreds of thousands of people doing something there 
are bound to be those who end up murdering people, dying, committing or 
attempting to commit suicide, winning the lottery or publishing a book. It has 
to do with statistics and probability. To try and pin mental illness or 
psychiatric breakdown primarily on the fact that someone rounded or started TM 
is a bit iffy. I've talked about this before with regard to those who go 
overboard on something. Do they go overboard (join Mother Divine, round 
non-stop for 6 months etc.) because they are obsessive or unbalanced to begin 
with or do they become unbalanced because they do too much of one thing? I am 
pretty sure if someone were to practice little old TM twice a day for 20 mins 
and ended up going stark ravers, they were bonkers to begin with.
 
 








Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Re-Facilitating a Future and the New TM Movement:

2014-05-02 Thread authfriend
I hope you're not alluding to me, Curtis, because if you are, this would be a 
seriously misleading way of putting it. Verging on deceptive, in fact.  

 

 A previous poster was also a big fan of trying to hold me accountable for 
Barry's perspective.  What is with you guys? Can't keep yer eye on the ball in 
a discussion? You got a case of the Rama tourettes Richard or some wicked 
Barry-centric ADD. Either way take that shit up with him if you want. We can do 
better than run that tape loop together here can't we? I am only sleeping in 
the bed I make for myself here. 









Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Re-Facilitating a Future and the New TM Movement:

2014-05-02 Thread authfriend
Right. You just regularly barge into such discussions, announcing that there is 
no God and that anyone who believes there is is worse than a fool.
 

 

 

 Although I fully understand that some people get off on debating the existence 
of God and things like that, *nothing bores me more* these days, and thus I 
find that I rarely go there.
  
 


















































































Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris

2014-05-02 Thread authfriend
Nobody ever disputed this point with Barry, including those who believe in 
determinism. He could never quite understand how someone could believe in 
determinism and yet continue to act as if they had free will without serious 
cognitive dissonance. He was unable to grasp that believers in determinism 
fully accepted that they had no other choice and did not perceive this to be in 
conflict with that belief. (Basically, Barry didn't, and likely still doesn't, 
comprehend what the belief entails.) 

 

 

 I suspect it is the pragmatic POV that most appeals to Barry on this topic but 
I could be wrong. In either case we all must act as if we have free will, we 
have no other choice! 








Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Re-Facilitating a Future and the New TM Movement:

2014-05-02 Thread authfriend
Uh, duh. 

 Barry has said such a thing, many times. My point was that while he 
professes to a hands-off approach to the issue, claiming to be bored by it, 
in fact he is driven to make frequent pronouncements of his perspective 
whenever it's discussed.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote :

 Christopher Hitchens would agree with him if Barry were to say such a thing. 
 
 On Fri, 5/2/14, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... authfriend@... 
mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Re-Facilitating a Future and the New TM 
Movement:
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Friday, May 2, 2014, 1:14 PM

 Right. You just regularly barge into
 such discussions, announcing that there is no God and that
 anyone who believes there is is worse than a
 fool.
 
 
 Although
 I fully understand that some people get off on debating the
 existence of God and things like that, *nothing bores me
 more* these days, and thus I find that I rarely go
 there. 





[FairfieldLife] Re: Harris is a practicing transcending MEDITATOR afterall

2014-05-02 Thread authfriend
What happened here??
 

- 

 Harris:
Given the degree to which religion still inspires human conflict, and impedes 
genuine inquiry, I believe that merely being a self-described “Buddhist” is to 
be complicit in the world’s violence and ignorance to an unacceptable degree. 
- See more at: 
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/killing-the-buddha/#sthash.Hbqbm55C.dpuf
 
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/killing-the-buddha/#sthash.Hbqbm55C.dpuf


Again Harris;

As students of the Buddha, we should dispense with Buddhism. - See more at: 
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/killing-the-buddha/ 
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/killing-the-buddha/
 As students of the Buddha, we should dispense with Buddhism. - See more at: 
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/killing-the-buddha/#sthash.Hbqbm55C.dpuf
 
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/killing-the-buddha/#sthash.Hbqbm55C.dpuf
 As students of the Buddha, we should dispense with Buddhism. - See more at: 
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/killing-the-buddha/#sthash.Hbqbm55C.dp 
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/killing-the-buddha/#sthash.Hbqbm55C.dpuf

Harris is an enthusiastic supporter of the kill the Buddha if you meet him on 
the road POV. 
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/killing-the-buddha/#sthash.Hbqbm55C.dpuf
 
 As students of the Buddha, we should dispense with Buddhism. - See more at: 
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/killing-the-buddha/#sthash.Hbqbm55C.dpuf
 
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/killing-the-buddha/#sthash.Hbqbm55C.dpuf
 As students of the Buddha, we should dispense with Buddhism. - See more at: 
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/killing-the-buddha/#sthash.Hbqbm55C.dpuf
 
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/killing-the-buddha/#sthash.Hbqbm55C.dpufI
 think there are some useful distinctions to be made in these experiences. 
Lumping them all together under a banner of physics poetry is unlikely to 
result in our understanding the differences between these experiences, and I 
believe those distinctions could be useful. And not in some triumphalist one 
is better than another, but perhaps people may need different techniques 
depending on the results they are seeking or even some personal variables that 
we will never understand if we throw them all together. Plus I believe there is 
some brain study research that supports the idea that there really are 
differences between meditations types neurologically.


 














Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Re-Facilitating a Future and the New TM Movement:

2014-05-02 Thread authfriend
Just making an observation, Barry. Since it's factually accurate, there's no 
basis to argue about it. In any case, some of the discussions of belief in God 
have been entirely pleasant until you stuck your nose in and insulted the 
participants. So in that sense, if I'm a pathetic old hag, so are you. 

 

 

 Sorta like the way you're trying to barge into a pleasant conversation that 
doesn't concern you and trying to turn it into an argument of some kind? What a 
pathetic old hag you are, Judy.  

 From: authfriend@... authfriend@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Friday, May 2, 2014 3:14 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Re-Facilitating a Future and the New TM 
Movement:
 
 
   Right. You just regularly barge into such discussions, announcing that there 
is no God and that anyone who believes there is is worse than a fool.
 

 

 Although I fully understand that some people get off on debating the existence 
of God and things like that, *nothing bores me more* these days, and thus I 
find that I rarely go there.





























Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Re-Facilitating a Future and the New TM Movement:

2014-05-02 Thread authfriend
Okey-doke, glad to hear it. I don't recall anyone trying to stick you with 
Barry's perspective on Lenz's alleged levitation exploits, though, previous 
poster or otherwise (it wasn't entirely clear what previous poster meant--it 
could have referred to a poster not involved in the current discussion). 

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

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

 I hope you're not alluding to me, Curtis, because if you are, this would be a 
seriously misleading way of putting it. Verging on deceptive, in fact. 

C: Sorry to bust your righteousness buzz but I was not. You are a current 
poster.

 

 

 A previous poster was also a big fan of trying to hold me accountable for 
Barry's perspective.  What is with you guys? Can't keep yer eye on the ball in 
a discussion? You got a case of the Rama tourettes Richard or some wicked 
Barry-centric ADD. Either way take that shit up with him if you want. We can do 
better than run that tape loop together here can't we? I am only sleeping in 
the bed I make for myself here. 













Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Re-Facilitating a Future and the New TM Movement:

2014-05-02 Thread authfriend
FWIW, Maharishi said at one point, Bliss isn't blissful. By which he meant, I 
assume, that to experience blissfulness required some degree of waking-state 
consciousness. IOW, you wouldn't experience blissfullness in 
transcendental-consciousness-by-itself--but you would be in a state of bliss by 
definition (the ananda part of sat-chit-ananda). 

 

 

 

 I'd like to know how Curtis does this dive deep for samadhi meditation, 
C: It was Barry who described his practice this way. I don't accept the 
conceptual model of samadhi to describe my meditation experiences anymore. My 
experience with mindfulness meditation is that it is almost in the opposite 
direction to diving deep. It is a more full awareness of the what I am 
experiencing right now without any evaluation of 'deep or not.

I am not sure that bliss is a term that fits my perspective. Both forms of 
meditation are subjectively enjoyable but in different ways. It is the 
differences that I am hoping to discover as i continue to practice.

I am the last person to go to for meditation advice my brother! I am a one 
step up from shitting in my own diaper baby with meditation. (But as a factor 
of comfort, that upgrade makes all the difference in the world!0



 I have been doing some shikantaza meditation, but I just get vibbed with the 
bliss I feel after a little while and then get up and go do something else. The 
bliss starts after about one minute so its like, ok I'm here now WTF do I do? 
Bliss gets tiresome after a while I find. Any guidance on that Curtis?








Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Re-Facilitating a Future and the New TM Movement:

2014-05-02 Thread authfriend
Curtis didn't mean me, as it turns out. (I had thought by previous poster he 
meant someone not involved in the current discussion.) 

 However, I'd been nagging Curtis about not calling Barry on his abusive 
behavior (as opposed to his perspective) long before Robin ever showed up.
 

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

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :

 Judy, I doubt that Curtis thinks of you as a previous poster! Want to guess 
again?
 

 I think it was more that Robin was hoping Curtis might call Barry on some of 
his abusive bullshit when it had something to do with Robin. But this was 
before my time here so I am conjecturing based on having read some old posts 
just previous to my showing up here.
 

 On Friday, May 2, 2014 8:20 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote:
 
   I hope you're not alluding to me, Curtis, because if you are, this would be 
a seriously misleading way of putting it. Verging on deceptive, in fact. 
 

 

 A previous poster was also a big fan of trying to hold me accountable for 
Barry's perspective.  What is with you guys? Can't keep yer eye on the ball in 
a discussion? You got a case of the Rama tourettes Richard or some wicked 
Barry-centric ADD. Either way take that shit up with him if you want. We can do 
better than run that tape loop together here can't we? I am only sleeping in 
the bed I make for myself here. 








 


 














Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Re-Facilitating a Future and the New TM Movement:

2014-05-02 Thread authfriend
By abusive behavior, I include lying, as Barry does below. I hadn't mentioned 
Robin when Barry made this post and did so only after Ann did, to exclude 
Robin. Ann wasn't aware that Curtis's refusal to criticize Barry's behavior was 
a longstanding bone of contention between us. And she wasn't trying to bring 
him up to derail another pleasant discussion anyway. The discussion in 
question was hardly pleasant (see below), and Ann was simply trying to 
clarify who Curtis might have meant by previous poster. 

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

 And right on cue, the two Robin cultists try to bring him up to derail yet 
another pleasant discussion. 

 From: awoelflebater@... awoelflebater@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Friday, May 2, 2014 5:21 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Re-Facilitating a Future and the New TM 
Movement:
 
 
   
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :

 Judy, I doubt that Curtis thinks of you as a previous poster! Want to guess 
again?
 

 I think it was more that Robin was hoping Curtis might call Barry on some of 
his abusive bullshit when it had something to do with Robin. But this was 
before my time here so I am conjecturing based on having read some old posts 
just previous to my showing up here.
 

 On Friday, May 2, 2014 8:20 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote:
 
   I hope you're not alluding to me, Curtis, because if you are, this would be 
a seriously misleading way of putting it. Verging on deceptive, in fact. 
 

 

 A previous poster was also a big fan of trying to hold me accountable for 
Barry's perspective.  What is with you guys? Can't keep yer eye on the ball in 
a discussion? You got a case of the Rama tourettes Richard or some wicked 
Barry-centric ADD. Either way take that shit up with him if you want. We can do 
better than run that tape loop together here can't we? I am only sleeping in 
the bed I make for myself here. 








 


























Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris

2014-05-02 Thread authfriend
Comments below...
 

 

 From a sociological POV this question has vast implications, and always has, 
in how we approach society's sense of justice in our legal system. It wasn't 
long ago that we hanged an elephant for killing a man. Today we have people on 
death row who were not mentally able to make a choice, so this topic is very up 
as we learn more about the brain and how it creates sociopaths. I believe that 
this information may lead to a more just humane society where we don't sentence 
people with a wink wink to getting raped in prison for their choice to commit 
a crime. 
 
I guess I'm not that idealistic. I think there are people out there in the 
world who read the news reports about Oklahoma's recent botched execution and 
felt GOOD that the prisoner suffered. I don't see them altering these views in 
any way as a result of some kind of science trying to convince them that 
there is no free will.
 

 Probably not, but on the other hand such people are most likely a small 
minority, not nearly enough for their view to determine how society treats 
criminals. The outrage over that execution was worldwide.
 
From a personal POV I find the question insightful as I attempt to approach 
making personal changes in my life. In my experience, self improvement of any 
kind is like herding cats. 

I certainly can't disagree with that. One of the things about FFL that amuses 
me the most is the proliferation of people who claim to believe that God does 
everything and that there is no free will, but somehow *them* having decided 
to learn TM and continue doing it makes them special.  :-)
 

 Aside from the fact that a proliferation of people is Barry's fantasy, many 
of us just feel exceedingly lucky to have stumbled across TM and taken a flyer 
on it. The feeling special part, in the sense of taking credit for oneself, 
is also Barry's fantasy. But in any case, those who believe God does 
everything might well feel special--i.e., blessed--because God led them to 
TM.
 

 















Re: [FairfieldLife] The World's Highest Ranking Alien Believer

2014-04-30 Thread authfriend
I'm happy to report that I have never seen your dick, Barry, but if you say 
it's tiny, I'll take your word for it. 

 

 

 

 Hey Jude...if your panties are this twisted, you and Ann might want to switch 
over to comments about how tiny my dick is. That would fit in better with you 
gals' obvious penis envy. :-) 
Here's some research material to make your job easier, because I know you're 
not very good at coming up with creative stuff on your own.  :-)  :-)  :-)

 http://digg.com/video/louis-ck-dicks-supercut-louie 
http://digg.com/video/louis-ck-dicks-supercut-louie

 







[FairfieldLife] Re: RIP Bob Hoskins

2014-04-30 Thread authfriend
Well, that would actually be all of your talk about such faces, Barry. 

 BTW, below is a photo of Hoskins in his late 30s.
 

 

 

 With all of this talk recently of faces that show their age, it is sad to 
bid farewell to one that never did.  

 
 

 Bob Hoskins was a journeyman actor, as comfortable playing Sancho Panza in 
Don Quixote or Micawber in David Copperfield or J. Edgar Hoover in Nixon 
or Iago in Othello as he was playing the fool in Who Killed Roger Rabbit. 
Even playing the most dastardly of villains, there was something about his 
smile, when the role allowed one to leak through. He will be missed. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Good-lookin' dude back then.
 

 We all show our age eventually, at least if we live long enough.
 

 







Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: RIP Bob Hoskins

2014-04-30 Thread authfriend
Barry's becoming increasingly vulnerable to having his buttons pushed... And 
when he gets his buttons pushed hard enough, he becomes incoherent, as he is 
here. 

 

 

 Do you never tire of reacting mindlessly to someone suggesting that your 
current appearance in photos is *not* representative of who you really are? 

 Are you suggesting that I'm really an ugly old woman but that the photo 
makes me look pretty nice? Or that I'm really pretty nice looking but that the 
photo makes me look like an ugly old woman? One way or the other, all you've 
got is the photo.
 

 When you're suffering from seriously pushed buttons, Barry, for your own good 
you need to learn to read over what you've written before you post it to see 
whether it makes sense. Or at least wait to write it until you're not so 
rattled.
 

 In any case, not sure what either would have to do with the fact that Bob 
Hoskins, contrary to your claim, most certainly DOES show his age in the photo 
you posted. No biggie; it happens to all of us. And he looks fine for his age.
 
To a non-biased observer,
 

 Which non-biased observer would that be, now?
 

 it would seem that the only thing that could resolve the issue is for you to 
post a photo that shows you as being as much of a a fairly attractive a dame 
as you seem to think you are. We'll wait. 
 

 Fairly nice-looking dame was my phrase. Whether you or anyone else considers 
me attractive is a different question.
 

 As to resolving the issue, you can't even state what the issue IS, your 
misogynistic pea-brain has been so thoroughly fried from having your buttons 
pushed umpty times in a row since you started this.
 

 But no need to wait; the photo you want is the very one you've been stupidly 
ragging on.
 

 

 :-)

 

 From: authfriend@... authfriend@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 9:21 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: RIP Bob Hoskins
 
 
   Well, that would actually be all of your talk about such faces, Barry.
 

 BTW, below is a photo of Hoskins in his late 30s.
 

 With all of this talk recently of faces that show their age, it is sad to 
bid farewell to one that never did.  

 
 

 Bob Hoskins was a journeyman actor, as comfortable playing Sancho Panza in 
Don Quixote or Micawber in David Copperfield or J. Edgar Hoover in Nixon 
or Iago in Othello as he was playing the fool in Who Killed Roger Rabbit. 
Even playing the most dastardly of villains, there was something about his 
smile, when the role allowed one to leak through. He will be missed. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Good-lookin' dude back then.
 

 We all show our age eventually, at least if we live long enough.
 

 






 


 












Re: [FairfieldLife] Watch Dav i d Lynch’s hy pnoti c new video

2014-04-29 Thread authfriend
Er, Salyavin, there are plenty of David Lynch fans who aren't TMers. (Not to 
mention TMers who aren't David Lynch fans, like moi.) 

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

 
 Share, Nabby is motivated here by the fact that Lynch does TM. Whether you are 
on his side spiritually is his primary filter, he doesn't give a damn about the 
movies. 
 

 He'd think Lynch's early output is complete rubbish if he hadn't founded the 
DLF.

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :

 Nablusoss, I think everybody has some poetry in them to some degree. Besides, 
The Straight Story is a wonderful film and I think Salyavin would enjoy it.
 

 On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 6:33 AM, nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:
 
   

 Why discuss art with people without a poetic bone in their body ? It's a waste 
of time. 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :

 Salyavin, imo Lynch's The Straight Story is also wonderful though very 
different than Elephant Man, but both having an underlying, non sacharine 
sweetness.
 

 On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 3:22 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:
 
   

 

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

 Color me not impressed by either the music or the video. This is the sort of 
stuff my friends in film school were doing in 1969. It's adolescent poseur 
stuff.
 

 I didn't get as far as watching the video. I think DL had some good ideas in 
the early days but his stuff seems really lazy now. In inland empire he'd have 
a conversation going on between two characters and someone will walk past in 
the background with a fish mask on. Yeah, it's technically surreal but so what? 
It isn't like he's making any clever points about the human unconscious , it's 
all just art for arts sake.
 

 And Mulholland Drive was a wasted opportunity IMO, all those great actors and 
he decided to leave it up to the viewer to decide which bits were real or not 
That sort of laziness makes even Eraserhead feel really shallow to me now.  I 
bet Elephant Man is still good though, but that's about it.
 

 Rant over.
 

 Penny Dreadful is much better, and it's just television.  :-)
 

 Yes. I'm looking forward to that one.
 

 
 From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 8:34 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Watch Dav id Lynch’s hypnoti c new video
 
 
   --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, LEnglish5@... wrote :
 
 He says uniformly blissful from the very first one.
 

 Would he be such an evangelist if he knew what everyone else experienced?
 

 L
 

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

 One wonder if this is what David Lynch's meditations are like?  :-D 
 
 On 04/28/2014 02:12 PM, nablusoss1008 wrote:
 
   Mindy Jones is haunted by Wicker Man-esque masked figures in Moby’s 
‘reversion’ of ‘The Big Dream’ 
 Watch David Lynch’s hypnotic new video 
http://www.dazeddigital.com/music/article/19712/1/watch-david-lynch-s-hypnotic-new-video
 
 
 
http://www.dazeddigital.com/music/article/19712/1/watch-david-lynch-s-hypnotic-new-video
 
 Watch David Lynch’s hypnotic new video Mindy Jones is haunted by Wicker 
Man-esque masked figures in Moby’s ‘reversion’ of ‘The Big Dream’


 
 View on www.dazeddigital.com 
http://www.dazeddigital.com/music/article/19712/1/watch-david-lynch-s-hypnotic-new-video
 Preview by Yahoo
 

  

 


















 















 


 
















Re: [FairfieldLife] The World's Highest Ranking Alien Believer

2014-04-29 Thread authfriend
Thanks, Steve. 

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

 Based on that picture of her, I'd say it's pretty accurate.
 

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

 Rather that admit the effects of all those years of cigarettes and seething 
anger, she calls herself “a fairly nice-looking dame.” Yeah…..right…and TM 
“reverses the aging process.”   
 

 http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/ http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/






[FairfieldLife] Re: Nazi Cult Mentality

2014-04-29 Thread authfriend
Fascinating, Michael, that you would see this comment as describing TMers 
(presumably TB TMers). 

 TMers generally are fairly well educated, first of all. And if they didn't 
question the world around them, they would be unlikely to become committed to 
TM to start with, given that TM is promoted as the way to fix everything that's 
wrong with the world.
 

 Second, how extremely odd to characterize TMers as living by the routine and 
the mundane and being thrown by new innovation, or new way of doing 
something. Even sitting to meditate twice a day is a new way of doing 
something for the vast majority of people. And then there's, you know, the 
TM-Sidhis and Yogic Flying, Ayurveda, Sthapatya Veda, yagyas, etc., etc., that 
TB TMers engage in. Hardly routine and mundane, wouldn't you say?
 

 Bottom line, it's the folks this comment describes who are least interested in 
and most resistant to TM exactly because it's a new way of doing something. 
You have it exactly backwards. For better or for worse, TM is very much a new 
innovation that appeals to those who become TMers and scares off those who 
live in a limited, blinkered world.

 
 

 

 
 I love the comment one person posted on this Washington Post article - fits 
perfectly with so many TM and other like mind set people.
 
 Frau Kalhammer is simply of a mindset that was once common, but which still 
exists today,  may, in fact, be more to do with genetics  brain development 
than with culture or upbringing. I had relatives like this. they didn't 
have much education... I'm not really sure if they would have succeeded beyond 
the point where they left school. They don't question the world around them. 
They hate questions because questions upset routine. They, instead, live by the 
routine  the mundane. If you step outside of those, they can't handle it. Any 
new innovation, or new way of doing something throws them. Therefore, they live 
in a very limited, blinkered world. It is, simply, who they are.




Re: [FairfieldLife] The World's Highest Ranking Alien Believer

2014-04-29 Thread authfriend
Actually, as you know, Richard, I did post a photo of my own face a few years 
ago (along with Barry's Fantasy Image of Judy). It's in the Members section. 
That's the one azgray is referring to. Apparently he believes he's the only one 
who can see it, so he feels safe in describing it as what he wishes I looked 
like. 

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

 On 4/28/2014 7:38 PM, azgrey wrote:

 
 Rather that admit the effects of all those years of cigarettes and seething 
anger, she calls herself “a fairly nice-looking dame.” Yeah…..right…and TM 
“reverses the aging process.”   
 Most of us can determine for ourselves who is a fairly nice-looking dame, and 
who isn't. But, she forgot to post a photo of her own face. That, in itself 
tells us quite about as-grey. Go figure.

 



Re: [FairfieldLife] The World's Highest Ranking Alien Believer

2014-04-29 Thread authfriend
Isn't it amazing what overpowering hatred and debilitating fear can do to 
someone's perceptions of the object of that hatred and fear? 

 (The interesting thing is that Barry had been describing me as an ugly old 
woman etc. etc. for years before he ever saw my photo. That's what inspired 
the Barry's Fantasy Image of Judy shot, in fact.)
 

 

 

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

 With all due lack of respect, any person describing *either* of the photos 
Judy posted as containing a fairly nice-looking dame is either blind or 
delusional. They contain (just as AZ said) an overweight, sallow-faced old 
woman with sagging jowls who doesn't appear to have ever had a happy or 
compassionate moment in her life. 
 

 Judy would like to believe otherwise, but let's face it, this is the woman who 
claims she never lies and other stuff that we know to be delusional, too. What 
she's describing is what *she* wishes she looked like. 

 

 Chalk up another vote here for ugly old woman too out of it to even realize 
she's an ugly old woman.
 

 That said, it's *OK* to be an ugly old woman. What's less acceptable is being 
an ugly old woman and being completely unaware of it. That implies either never 
having looked in a mirror or being a vampire, and unable to see her own image 
in it.  :-)

 

 From: authfriend@... authfriend@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 8:23 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] The World's Highest Ranking Alien Believer
 
 
   Actually, as you know, Richard, I did post a photo of my own face a few 
years ago (along with Barry's Fantasy Image of Judy). It's in the Members 
section. That's the one azgray is referring to. Apparently he believes he's the 
only one who can see it, so he feels safe in describing it as what he wishes I 
looked like.
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote :

 On 4/28/2014 7:38 PM, azgrey wrote:

 
 Rather that admit the effects of all those years of cigarettes and seething 
anger, she calls herself “a fairly nice-looking dame.” Yeah…..right…and TM 
“reverses the aging process.”   
 Most of us can determine for ourselves who is a fairly nice-looking dame, and 
who isn't. But, she forgot to post a photo of her own face. That, in itself 
tells us quite about as-grey. Go figure.




 


 












Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Nazi Cult Mentality

2014-04-29 Thread authfriend
Sez Michael, carefully ignoring the points I made. 

 (BTW, I'm not sure erudite means what you think it means.)
 

 

 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote :

 Routine - I get up and do asanas and pranayam and go with all the other 
lemmings to a Dome. I sit for an hour and a half or more and believe I am 
creating world peace. I spend inordinate amounts of money on herbal formulas 
that maybe are working for me, I spend more money on jyotish charts and Hindu 
sacrifices because I am told I should spend my money on such things. I give 
money that I am told will create world peace but what I usually see as a result 
is another request for a monetary donation.
 I don't question the leaders of my Movement. Even when what I am presented 
with makes no sense, I accept it as being for my greater good, and the people 
above me in the hierarchy know better than me and on and on and on
 
 I close this erudite offering with a quote from Uncle Adolf that is most 
appropriate to TM True Believers:
 
 By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see 
even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise - Adolf Hitler
 
 On Tue, 4/29/14, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... authfriend@... 
mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Nazi Cult Mentality
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Tuesday, April 29, 2014, 6:02 PM

 Fascinating,
 Michael, that you would see this comment as describing TMers
 (presumably TB TMers).
 TMers generally are fairly well
 educated, first of all. And if they didn't
 question the world around them, they would be
 unlikely to become committed to TM to start with, given that
 TM is promoted as the way to fix everything that's
 wrong with the world.
 Second, how extremely odd
 to characterize TMers as living by the routine and the
 mundane and being thrown by new innovation, or
 new way of doing something. Even sitting to meditate
 twice a day is a new way of doing something for
 the vast majority of people. And then there's, you know,
 the TM-Sidhis and Yogic Flying, Ayurveda, Sthapatya Veda,
 yagyas, etc., etc., that TB TMers engage in. Hardly
 routine and mundane, wouldn't you
 say?
 Bottom line, it's the folks
 this comment describes who are least interested in and most
 resistant to TM exactly because it's a
 new way of doing something. You have it exactly
 backwards. For better or for worse, TM is very much a
 new innovation that appeals to those who become
 TMers and scares off those who live in a limited,
 blinkered world.
 
 
 
 
 
 I love the comment one person posted on this Washington Post
 article - fits perfectly with so many TM and other like
 mind set people.
 
 
 
 Frau Kalhammer is simply of a mindset that was once
 common, but which still exists today,  may, in fact, be
 more to do with genetics  brain development than with
 culture or upbringing. I had relatives like this. they
 didn't have much education... I'm not really sure if
 they would have succeeded beyond the point where they left
 school. They don't question the world around them. They
 hate questions because questions upset routine. They,
 instead, live by the routine  the mundane. If you step
 outside of those, they can't handle it. Any new
 innovation, or new way of doing something throws them.
 Therefore, they live in a very limited, blinkered world. It
 is, simply, who they are.





Re: [FairfieldLife] The World's Highest Ranking Alien Believer

2014-04-29 Thread authfriend
Oh, OK, thanks for explaining. I agree, faces are purely incidental here. 
Apparently Barry and azgray feel otherwise, but it seems to me that to rag on 
what someone looks like exposes a certain, well, deficit in the ability to come 
up with meaningful criticism of the person's participation. It says far more 
about them than it does about the object of their disapprobation. 

 On 4/29/2014 1:23 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote:

 Actually, as you know, Richard, I did post a photo of my own face a few 
years ago (along with Barry's Fantasy Image of Judy). 
 
 Sorry for the confusion, Judy, I was referring to azgrey as she, maybe it's 
a he, but whatever, it's anonymous to me as a face, which was my point. I'm 
not really serious about people's faces - I don't care what people look like or 
where they were born or live - only what they say or post. Seriously.
 
 It's in the Members section. That's the one azgray is referring to. Apparently 
he believes he's the only one who can see it, so he feels safe in describing it 
as what he wishes I looked like.
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
punditster@... mailto:punditster@... wrote :
 
 On 4/28/2014 7:38 PM, azgrey wrote:

 
 Rather that admit the effects of all those years of cigarettes and seething 
anger, she calls herself “a fairly nice-looking dame.” Yeah…..right…and TM 
“reverses the aging process.”   
 Most of us can determine for ourselves who is a fairly nice-looking dame, and 
who isn't. But, she forgot to post a photo of her own face. That, in itself 
tells us quite about as-grey. Go figure.

 
 




Re: [FairfieldLife] The World's Highest Ranking Alien Believer

2014-04-29 Thread authfriend
P.S.: And it says far more when it's men ragging on a woman's looks. It marks 
them as male chauvinists at best and misogynists at worst, no matter what they 
may claim in other contexts. (Especially when they do it without knowing what 
the woman looks like, as Barry did with me.) Speculating negatively about a 
woman's love life (as Barry has also done with me--he should only know!) falls 
in the same category. 

 

 

 

 Oh, OK, thanks for explaining. I agree, faces are purely incidental here. 
Apparently Barry and azgray feel otherwise, but it seems to me that to rag on 
what someone looks like exposes a certain, well, deficit in the ability to come 
up with meaningful criticism of the person's participation. It says far more 
about them than it does about the object of their disapprobation. 

 On 4/29/2014 1:23 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote:

 Actually, as you know, Richard, I did post a photo of my own face a few 
years ago (along with Barry's Fantasy Image of Judy). 
 
 Sorry for the confusion, Judy, I was referring to azgrey as she, maybe it's 
a he, but whatever, it's anonymous to me as a face, which was my point. I'm 
not really serious about people's faces - I don't care what people look like or 
where they were born or live - only what they say or post. Seriously.
 
 It's in the Members section. That's the one azgray is referring to. Apparently 
he believes he's the only one who can see it, so he feels safe in describing it 
as what he wishes I looked like.
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
punditster@... mailto:punditster@... wrote :
 
 On 4/28/2014 7:38 PM, azgrey wrote:

 
 Rather that admit the effects of all those years of cigarettes and seething 
anger, she calls herself “a fairly nice-looking dame.” Yeah…..right…and TM 
“reverses the aging process.”   
 Most of us can determine for ourselves who is a fairly nice-looking dame, and 
who isn't. But, she forgot to post a photo of her own face. That, in itself 
tells us quite about as-grey. Go figure.

 
 







Re: [FairfieldLife] Maharishi interview excerpts

2014-04-28 Thread authfriend
I wouldn't call his answers enlightened wisdom, but a lot of them are clever 
and funny. One would have to be a real sourpuss not to find them charming, even 
if one were a True Unbeliever. 

 Barry hasn't had the chance to spill his bile for three whole days. Expect a 
veritable flood in the week ahead.
 

 

 

 

 One of the most fascinating things I've found about the cult mindset is how 
they can find a way to turn anything their cult leader says into a positive. 
You can tell that Dick Mays is actually *proud* of these answers. 
Try reading through this interview while substituting the name of any famous 
psychopath or megalomanic for MAHARISHI and you've got the same answers. If 
they'd seen these answers coming from anyone else, they would have been able to 
see how crazy they are. But because they're coming from him, they'll interpret 
them as enlightened wisdom. My favorite is highlighted in red below.
 

 From: Dick Mays dickmays@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 1:48 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Maharishi interview excerpts
 
 
   REPORTER: You're not doing much to disabuse me of the notion that you're 
just a P.T. Barnum of the psychic set.
MAHARISHI: What does this mean?
REPORTER: That you're a natural salesman.
MAHARISHI: Very right. I think I have something salable.
REPORTER: What are you selling?
MAHARISHI: Natural law and the simplest level of consciousness where 
everything is spontaneously supported by nature. If people buy this product, 
they're better off.

* * * * * * *
REPORTER: Why don't you raise money and distribute it to needy people? Would 
this not be a more effective way to bring about change?
MAHARISHI: No, no, it's not the money that can make one happy.
REPORTER: How can Third World people think about their consciousness when 
they're hungry?
MAHARISHI: By using that hardware of the cosmic computer, if they use their 
brain properly -- this is the Technology of the Unified Field -- the infinity 
of nature will make them capable of not only earning their ordinary bread but 
very first-class bread.
 
* * * * * * *
REPORTER: What do you think about the arms race and nuclear war?
MAHARISHI: Arms race will not be the cause of nuclear war. Stress will be the 
cause of nuclear war. Stress is the greatest enemy of life, and that we can 
eliminate completely. 

* * * * * * *
REPORTER: You have written that by meditating, man brings out his own sense of 
divinity in himself.
MAHARISHI: Right, we can talk divinity.
REPORTER: What about someone like Hitler. If he had meditated?
MAHARISHI: He would have been more positive.
REPORTER: You really think you can change people's natures by meditating?
MAHARISHI: The world is already a changed situation. One would not know what 
would have happened between the power blocs if Transcendental Meditation was 
not raising the consciousness of the world.

* * * * * * *
REPORTER: What do you do for play?
MAHARISHI: The whole life is play.
REPORTER: What do you do for amusement?
MAHARISHI: Oh, this is great amusement when I talk about the unified field, 
laws of nature, when I hear so many people are starting the courses. I am doing 
two things. One, creating a softness in world consciousness. Second, training 
leadership.
 
* * * * * * *
REPORTER: Is what you are doing a game?
MAHARISHI: It's a game.
REPORTER: Do you ever sit back and say, 'I've been playing this game for 25 
years. I'm a millionaire. Gee, I'm a good player?'
MAHARISHI: I don't play in the past. I always play in the present for a good 
future.
 
* * * * * * *
REPORTER: Do you want to take over the world?
MAHARISHI: I have taken over already!
REPORTER: How do you expect people to take you seriously?
MAHARISHI: I don't because that is damage to my own message. Serious means 
under stress.
REPORTER: You don't think that you're just pulling off a beautiful job of 
fooling people?
MAHARISHI: Those people who don't know better are always fools, but they will 
become better thinkers, better knowers with this message.
REPORTER: Are you a snake-oil salesman?
MAHARISHI: What is a snake oil?
REPORTER: A panacea. Something that will solve all the ills of the world. 
MAHARISHI: Then this is it!
 
* * * * * * *
REPORTER: If we sent in an outside person not connected with you to take 
pictures [of Yogic Flying]?
MAHARISHI: No one is not connected with me.
REPORTER: Where did you get your modesty?
MAHARISHI: It's simplicity.
 
* * * * * * * 
REPORTER: Do people create when they're sitting around feeling happiness 
bubble up? How do you explain geniuses like Dostoevski who lived a miserable 
life and created very much?
MAHARISHI: He could have created much more if the environment was less 
stressed.
REPORTER: But he wrote about stress. He would have had nothing to write about 
if there hadn't been stress.
MAHARISHI: One could write about a pond, but that doesn't justify the 
existence of the pond or its utility.
 
* * * * * * *
REPORTER: But you claim credit for 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Brahmachari Girish Varma Ji is to be praised

2014-04-28 Thread authfriend
What a crashingly stupid paragraph. There were, of course (as Barry knows), 
umpty obits published after MMY died. As I recall, quite a few of them were 
posted or linked to here. Some were biased negatively, some were biased 
positively, some were nicely balanced. I probably did critique one of the 
negatively biased ones, but Barry's pretense that I was pretending it was 
biased is just laughable.
 

 Nor does he know what most people on the planet think of Maharishi, if they 
think of him at all. Many of those who do have an opinion, however, most likely 
think what the media tells them to think; and especially in the U.S., the media 
assumes that Eastern guru-types are all swindlers and portrays them as 
negatively as they can manage. So the point Barry thinks he's making is 
absurdly circular.
 

 

 

 

 The fascinating thing from my point of view is that Lawson seems to actually 
believe that the things you, I, Curtis, and Michael say are some kind of 
fringe opinions spouted by those with a grudge against the TM movement. That 
belief *alone* is True Believerism to the max. It's like when someone (I think 
the Judester) pretended that the obit article written at the time of 
Maharishi's death and posted here was biased. It really wasn't. It was HOW 
MOST PEOPLE ON THE PLANET VIEW MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI.
 






[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi interview excerpts

2014-04-28 Thread authfriend
He probably didn't know what snake oil was, but I wouldn't put it past him to 
have been familiar with the term (he loved playing with idioms) and set the 
reporter up. If the reporter had defined it differently--Snake oil is a fake 
panacea--he'd have had a smart-ass response to that instead. One way or the 
other, he'd have turned it to his advantage. 

 The only reason he admits to being a snake oil salesman here is because he 
didn't really understand the question, even though most of his products are 
snake oil!  






Re: [FairfieldLife] Maharishi interview excerpts

2014-04-28 Thread authfriend
Lenz may well have been interviewed by Hard Copy at some point, but the 
reporter in the wheelchair was crack journalist John Hockenberry interviewing 
Lenz on Dateline NBC. When I saw the tapes, I couldn't believe how phony Lenz 
came across. 

 Just as an aside: If one isn't a terminal tightass, it's entirely possible to 
appreciate charm and wit and general cleverness without necessarily believing 
the charmer is perfect. As it happens, in these transcripts the comparison of 
Maharishi with Lenz regarding these qualities is not, to say the least, in 
Lenz's favor.
 

 

 

 

 So in a fit of Narcissistic Personality Disorder squared, the Rama guy 
actually agreed to be interviewed by Hard Copy, the American TV counterpart 
of the National Enquirer. Bahd idea, as Ahnold said in Predator. :-) The 
interviewer 1) had done his homework, and 2) was in a wheelchair. It was a 
bloodbath.  


Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi interview excerpts

2014-04-28 Thread authfriend
Clever is not another word for perfect, dumbass. 

 

 

 In other words, it was perfect. I rest my case.  :-)  :-)  :-) 

 From: authfriend@... authfriend@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 6:03 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi interview excerpts
 
 
   He probably didn't know what snake oil was, but I wouldn't put it past him 
to have been familiar with the term (he loved playing with idioms) and set the 
reporter up. If the reporter had defined it differently--Snake oil is a fake 
panacea--he'd have had a smart-ass response to that instead. One way or the 
other, he'd have turned it to his advantage.
 

 The only reason he admits to being a snake oil salesman here is because he 
didn't really understand the question, even though most of his products are 
snake oil! 

















Re: [FairfieldLife] Questions for Rick

2014-04-28 Thread authfriend
Except, of course, for the fact that Nabby is right. We've been hearing 
complaints about Amma here on FFL for years. I believe there's even an 
anti-Amma Yahoo Group. So it really is a little odd to see Rick saying 
Tredwell's is a lone voice. 

 Maybe Rick didn't express himself clearly; perhaps he'll explain further what 
he had in mind.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 Ah, the classic cultist response. If someone believes something you don't 
agree with about *your* spiritual teacher, cast aspersions on his teacher, or 
who you imagine his teacher is.

Where this strategy falls flat is when dealing with people whose primary 
identification in life is *not* their spiritual teacher, or their former ones. 
Those whose lives still revolve around the people they consider their spiritual 
teachers never seem to get this. 

As far as I've been able to figure out, they simply cannot imagine life 
*without* having given oneself over to some spiritual teacher, so they cannot 
imagine others being able to do so. So they try to jab at them with taunts that 
would only be meaningful to cultists like themselves. It's kinda the Ultimate 
Projection. Go figure.  :-)  
 

 From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 7:34 PM
 Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Questions for Rick
 
 
   Lone critic ? Shows how blind you have become. Try Google for critics of 
Amma and you will have more than one hit, to say the least.

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

 I’ve been following the whole thing. I wouldn’t say it’s all lies. The truth 
is never black and white. But unlike with MMY, Gail Treadwell seems to be a 
lone voice. Very little if any corroborating evidence for her most egregious 
accusations. Bronte Baxter, who posted on FFL for a while some years ago, was 
her editor, and has a bone to pick with Amma and with gurus in general. 
   


















Re: [FairfieldLife] Questions for Rick

2014-04-28 Thread authfriend
OK, looks like Rick was referring to Tredwell's specific claims, whatever they 
are. Still, to point out that Amma has a lot of critics is hardly to cast 
aspersions on her; it's just a matter of fact. 

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

 Except, of course, for the fact that Nabby is right. We've been hearing 
complaints about Amma here on FFL for years. I believe there's even an 
anti-Amma Yahoo Group. So it really is a little odd to see Rick saying 
Tredwell's is a lone voice. 

 Maybe Rick didn't express himself clearly; perhaps he'll explain further what 
he had in mind.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 Ah, the classic cultist response. If someone believes something you don't 
agree with about *your* spiritual teacher, cast aspersions on his teacher, or 
who you imagine his teacher is.

Where this strategy falls flat is when dealing with people whose primary 
identification in life is *not* their spiritual teacher, or their former ones. 
Those whose lives still revolve around the people they consider their spiritual 
teachers never seem to get this. 

As far as I've been able to figure out, they simply cannot imagine life 
*without* having given oneself over to some spiritual teacher, so they cannot 
imagine others being able to do so. So they try to jab at them with taunts that 
would only be meaningful to cultists like themselves. It's kinda the Ultimate 
Projection. Go figure.  :-)  
 

 From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 7:34 PM
 Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Questions for Rick
 
 
   Lone critic ? Shows how blind you have become. Try Google for critics of 
Amma and you will have more than one hit, to say the least.

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

 I’ve been following the whole thing. I wouldn’t say it’s all lies. The truth 
is never black and white. But unlike with MMY, Gail Treadwell seems to be a 
lone voice. Very little if any corroborating evidence for her most egregious 
accusations. Bronte Baxter, who posted on FFL for a while some years ago, was 
her editor, and has a bone to pick with Amma and with gurus in general. 
   
















 



Re: [FairfieldLife] The World's Highest Ranking Alien Believer

2014-04-28 Thread authfriend
You mean, this one? 

 
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/photos/albums/408557067/lightbox/1672927237?orderBy=ordinalamp;sortOrder=asc
 
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/photos/albums/408557067/lightbox/1672927237?orderBy=ordinalamp;sortOrder=asc
 

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

 The sallow faced old coprophagous junkyard dog must miss me.
 






Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Brahmachari Girish Varma Ji is to be praised

2014-04-27 Thread authfriend
He knows that, Lawson. He's trolling. 

 

 The Raj is in the USA. We're talking about the Maharishi AYurveda facility in 
India that the press says is worth $1.5 billion US. 

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

 On 4/27/2014 4:29 AM, LEnglish5@... mailto:LEnglish5@... wrote:
  The place is now just ruins.
 
 Google Earth view of the Raj at Vedic City:
 
 http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/images/raj.JPG 
http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/images/raj.JPG








[FairfieldLife] Re: Heaven on Earth for all Mankind

2014-04-27 Thread authfriend
Those sure are some gorgeous Jerseys they've got. They make the huge hulking 
Holsteins that supply supermarket milk look like ungainly monsters. (Not the 
Holsteins' fault; they were bred that way to give as much milk as possible. But 
it isn't anywhere as good as milk from Jerseys.) 

 

 

 

 A beautiful key to creating Heaven on Earth for all mankind, the proper 
treatment of the cows 

 http://www.universalfields.org/index.html 
http://www.universalfields.org/index.html
 

 Jai Jai Jai Jai Jai Maharishi-ji!






Re: [FairfieldLife] Heaven on Earth for all Mankind

2014-04-27 Thread authfriend
Not quite true, Alex. One of the males is featured here:
 

 http://www.universalfields.org/tala_ram.html 
http://www.universalfields.org/tala_ram.html

 
Doesn't sound like he's going to end up as veal chops, but perhaps he's the 
exception. At any rate, the text sounds very respectful and protective of the 
males.
 

 

 

 True, which is why unwanted male dairy calves often end up slaughtered young, 
as veal. It's a huge glaring omission that the website below is totally focused 
on the cows, with no mention of the males, which make up 50% of the calves born 
every year. Radiance Dairy in Fairfield operates under basically the same 
principles, and the owner has no shortage of people who want to buy his male 
calves, which ultimately end up as little wrapped packages of meat in a 
freezer. Folks can go on and on all they like about the Vedicness and 
Sattvicness of milk, but the reality is that with the exception of a few very 
rare ahimsa dairies, milk production has slaughtered animals as a by-product.  
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote :

 Of course milk cows are not beef cattle.  Folks here should read Swami  
Bhaskarananda's The Essentials of Hinduism where he writes about that.  It 
heard tales of him taking a slice of roast beef at a Vedanta Society potluck 
and putting it on an anemic looking disciple's plate.  I met him in the 1970s 
when he was the new Swami at the Seattle Vedanta Center where the late Bobby 
Warren took me because it was a good place to get incense.
 
 On 04/27/2014 09:25 AM, srijau@... mailto:srijau@... wrote:
 
   A beautiful key to creating Heaven on Earth for all mankind, the proper 
treatment of the cows
 
 

 http://www.universalfields.org/index.html 
http://www.universalfields.org/index.html
 
 
 Jai Jai Jai Jai Jai Maharishi-ji!
 

 






Re: [FairfieldLife] Heaven on Earth for all Mankind

2014-04-27 Thread authfriend
Seems like there's a limited number of things that can be done with bulls. What 
happens to male buffalo, for example? They can't each have their own herd of 
females, and you can't have a herd of males, can you? They'd kill each other. 

 I'm serious; I really don't know. Something in nature must keep down the 
number of males that reach maturity, at least of this general type of critter, 
no? I never thought about it before.
 

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

 
 It would make sense to keep a bull or two around for breeding purposes. But, 
it is highly unlikely that they keep all males. Unlike Jersey cows, which tend 
to be sweet and docile, Jersey bulls are considered the least docile of all 
cattle breeds. As steers, they are apparently suitable as draft animals, albeit 
not the largest and strongest breed for that task. But, can cutting off a 
bull's balls and enslaving it as a draft animal truly be considered ahimsa?

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

 Not quite true, Alex. One of the males is featured here:
 

 http://www.universalfields.org/tala_ram.html 
http://www.universalfields.org/tala_ram.html

 
Doesn't sound like he's going to end up as veal chops, but perhaps he's the 
exception. At any rate, the text sounds very respectful and protective of the 
males.
 

 

 

 True, which is why unwanted male dairy calves often end up slaughtered young, 
as veal. It's a huge glaring omission that the website below is totally focused 
on the cows, with no mention of the males, which make up 50% of the calves born 
every year. Radiance Dairy in Fairfield operates under basically the same 
principles, and the owner has no shortage of people who want to buy his male 
calves, which ultimately end up as little wrapped packages of meat in a 
freezer. Folks can go on and on all they like about the Vedicness and 
Sattvicness of milk, but the reality is that with the exception of a few very 
rare ahimsa dairies, milk production has slaughtered animals as a by-product.  
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote :

 Of course milk cows are not beef cattle.  Folks here should read Swami  
Bhaskarananda's The Essentials of Hinduism where he writes about that.  It 
heard tales of him taking a slice of roast beef at a Vedanta Society potluck 
and putting it on an anemic looking disciple's plate.  I met him in the 1970s 
when he was the new Swami at the Seattle Vedanta Center where the late Bobby 
Warren took me because it was a good place to get incense.
 
 On 04/27/2014 09:25 AM, srijau@... mailto:srijau@... wrote:
 
   A beautiful key to creating Heaven on Earth for all mankind, the proper 
treatment of the cows
 
 

 http://www.universalfields.org/index.html 
http://www.universalfields.org/index.html
 
 
 Jai Jai Jai Jai Jai Maharishi-ji!
 

 










Re: [FairfieldLife] Creationists thwart mammoth bid!

2014-04-26 Thread authfriend
Not clear whether Richard is just trolling, but of course Anglicanism is not 
subject to the pope. That's kind of its raison d'etre, in fact.
 

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

 On 4/26/2014 10:09 AM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote:

 You do realize that vast majority of Protestant Christians in America do not 
consider members of the Anglican Church as real Christians?
 

 Can you back that statement up?
 
 Maybe he means in S.C. - Protestant Christianity is Western Christianity that 
is not subject to the Roman Catholic Pope. Go figure.

 



Re: [FairfieldLife] Creationists thwart mammoth bid!

2014-04-26 Thread authfriend
Also, Episcopalianism in the U.S. is the same as Anglicanism in the U.K., 
except it isn't subject to the British monarch. 

 

 Not clear whether Richard is just trolling, but of course Anglicanism is not 
subject to the pope. That's kind of its raison d'etre, in fact.
 

 

 

 You do realize that vast majority of Protestant Christians in America do not 
consider members of the Anglican Church as real Christians? 

 Can you back that statement up?
 
 Maybe he means in S.C. - Protestant Christianity is Western Christianity that 
is not subject to the Roman Catholic Pope. Go figure.

 






Re: [FairfieldLife] Creationists thwart mammoth bid!

2014-04-26 Thread authfriend
Actually, Episcopalianism (Anglicanism) is Protestant. But it looks too 
Catholic for some fundamentalists and other Protestants to be comfortable with 
it. 

 My parents both came from long lines of Presbyterians. Although they weren't 
at all religious, they were scandalized when my father's brother converted to 
Episcopalianism. If I remember correctly, my uncle's second wife was Catholic. 
For him to convert to Catholicism would have been just too much given the 
family heritage, so they compromised on Episcopalianism.
 


 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote :

 Come on down here and you'll see - some of those folk like the feller that was 
mentioned who was in the wedding with his pistol behind his back don't know 
nuthin' about the Anglican Church, but were you to mention it to folks like 
what there are around here, they would treat the idea of it with a good deal of 
suspicion. Hell, in these parts Protestants don't even consider Catholics real 
and proper Christians and I ain't kiddin. I also know some folk here in SC who 
are members of independent churches and they don't consider anyone outside 
their own church to be real Christians. 





Re: [FairfieldLife] The World's Highest Ranking Alien Believer

2014-04-25 Thread authfriend
Thanks for confirming that my looks make you absolutely crazy, Barry. Folks can 
verify for themselves that you've gone off the deep end here by checking as to 
whether the photo is real or not, and whether you are telling the truth that 
azgrey (not Edg) was describing it accurately: 

 
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/photos/albums/408557067/lightbox/267727991?orderBy=ordinalamp;sortOrder=asc
 
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/photos/albums/408557067/lightbox/267727991?orderBy=ordinalamp;sortOrder=asc
 

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

 From: authfriend@... authfriend@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 9:54 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] The World's Highest Ranking Alien Believer
 
 
   Ooops. Looks like I pushed a few more of Barry's buttons.
 It makes him absolutely crazy that I'm actually a fairly nice-looking dame 
rather than the hideous hag of his nightmares.
 
 
Sure you are, Judy...in the same alternate universe in which TMSP practitioners 
are soaring through the air with the greatest of ease and you're actually as 
smart as you believe you are.  :-)  :-)  :-)

But the person you should be complaining to is Edg, who wrote the line below 
that you don't seem to like, based on the two photographs you posted of 
yourself. I thought he captured the essence of both of them quite nicely. 

If you really feel the need to convince us of how nice-looking you are, I'd 
suggest finding a friend to take a real photo of you next time, instead of 
taking a webcam selfie. 

Oh. But that presupposes you actually have a friend. Never mind.  :-)  :-)  :-)


In many cases what people say about your face is more devastating than turning 
it into a caricature. We see political cartoons all the time so it's really 
nothing new. But, when people post in plain text some comments it can really 
get to you. It's like, so personal. Hey, we could start a thread about this! Go 
figure. 






I think that thread was started long ago, with the words, The censorious 
editor could most definitely be judged a Tulku of Carry Nation. Several other 
qualities also appear to be in common in addition to the prominent sagging 
jowls on a sallow face completely devoid of humor and warmhearted compassion.  
:-)























Re: [FairfieldLife] The poetry of motion

2014-04-25 Thread authfriend
Good one, Share! 

 

 Wow! thanks, salyavin
PS I'd say this is one way that balls can be used to prove the existence of God 
(-:
 

 On Friday, April 25, 2014 5:53 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:
 
   Pendulum Waves https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVkdfJ9PkRQ

 
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVkdfJ9PkRQ
 
 Pendulum Waves https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVkdfJ9PkRQ Fifteen uncoupled 
simple pendulums of monotonically increasing lengths dance together to produce 
visual traveling waves, standing waves, beating, and...


 
 View on youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVkdfJ9PkRQ 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

 


 


 












[FairfieldLife] Re: When it isn't your time to go....

2014-04-25 Thread authfriend
Sorry, but Edg's right: 

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

 

 Courtesy snopes.com:
 

 http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/onewing.asp 
http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/onewing.asp

 

 (Actually, the Snopes.com cite is courtesy one of the commenters on the video 
you posted.)
 

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

 

 

 

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

 Faked
 

 Yeah.





[FairfieldLife] Re: When it isn't your time to go....

2014-04-25 Thread authfriend
Oh, OK, thought you were being sarcastic. 

 

 

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

 
 

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

 Sorry, but Edg's right:
 

 I know, that's why I said yeah... 
 

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

 

 Courtesy snopes.com:
 

 http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/onewing.asp 
http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/onewing.asp

 

 (Actually, the Snopes.com cite is courtesy one of the commenters on the video 
you posted.)
 

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

 

 

 

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

 Faked
 

 Yeah.









[FairfieldLife] Re: Portia de Rossi Pregnant

2014-04-25 Thread authfriend
Most likely possibility: She isn't pregnant. This is a story from the National 
Enquirer. It's almost certainly just a dumb rumor, tabloid B.S. 

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

 Anything is possible in any marriage these days.  Gay or straight.
 

 
http://www.inquisitr.com/1225474/portia-de-rossi-pregnant-ellen-degeneres-reportedly-considering-divorce-after-baby-shocker/
 
http://www.inquisitr.com/1225474/portia-de-rossi-pregnant-ellen-degeneres-reportedly-considering-divorce-after-baby-shocker/

 

 





[FairfieldLife] Re: Portia de Rossi Pregnant

2014-04-25 Thread authfriend
Really? She'd file for divorce just because something's wrong with the 
marriage? How petty! 

 

 
 Judy, 

 We still don't know if this story is true or not.
 

 Yes, that's why I said most likely possibility and almost certainly just a 
dumb rumor. Are any of those words unfamiliar to you?
 

 

  Only time will tell.  If Ellen files for a divorce, then we can be certain 
something is wrong with their marriage.
 

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

 Most likely possibility: She isn't pregnant. This is a story from the National 
Enquirer. It's almost certainly just a dumb rumor, tabloid B.S. 

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

 Anything is possible in any marriage these days.  Gay or straight.
 

 
http://www.inquisitr.com/1225474/portia-de-rossi-pregnant-ellen-degeneres-reportedly-considering-divorce-after-baby-shocker/
 
http://www.inquisitr.com/1225474/portia-de-rossi-pregnant-ellen-degeneres-reportedly-considering-divorce-after-baby-shocker/

 

 











Re: [FairfieldLife] The World's Highest Ranking Alien Believer

2014-04-24 Thread authfriend
See Barry. See Barry freak out when Judy pushes his buttons. ;-) 

 (Note that he's so freaked out that he says the same things twice...)
 

 I've gotten more mileage from Barry out of that Barry's Fantasy Image of 
Judy photo than I ever dreamed I would when I first posted it seven years ago. 
It's haunted his dreams ever since.
 

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

 From: authfriend@... authfriend@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 12:01 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] The World's Highest Ranking Alien Believer
 
 
   Willytex is only pretending, but I certainly am an ET. Just ask Barry. Why 
do you think I freak him out so badly?
 It's worth pointing out that even Judy's *fantasies* are psychotic, and about 
the ways she imagines that she freaks out people. That's not being an 
extraterrestrial, merely insane. Case in point -- here is the photo Judy posted 
that contains *HER* fantasy image of how she imagines me seeing her. 

 
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/photos/albums/408557067/lightbox/1624549388
 
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/photos/albums/408557067/lightbox/1624549388

 

 It's worth pointing out that this photo isn't Judy making a face, this IS 
her face.  Do you know anyone else who could manage to look so ugly, or want 
to?  :-)  :-)  :-)
 

 If I were to actually try to visualize the inner Judy Stein, it would be 
more like this.  Not quite as scary as she imagines, is it?   :-)  :-)  :-)  

 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote :

 I am perfectly willing to believe that WillyTex and possbily Judy are indeed 
ET's.
 
 On Wed, 4/23/14, nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 
mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] The World's Highest Ranking Alien Believer
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Wednesday, April 23, 2014, 8:43 PM

 Paul Hellyer recently stirred up global
 controversy when he testified before a half-dozen former US
 representatives that aliens exist. As Canada's former
 Minister of Defence, Hellyer is the first and only
 cabinet-ranking official from a G8 nation to publicly state
 a belief in extraterrestrials.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt1WVeyMqdo 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt1WVeyMqdo 

   
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/photos/albums/408557067/lightbox/1624549388
 
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/photos/albums/408557067/lightbox/1624549388

 

 It's also worth pointing out that this photo isn't Judy making a face, this 
IS her face.  Do you know anyone else who could manage to look so ugly, or want 
to?  :-)  :-)  :-)


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote :

 I am perfectly willing to believe that WillyTex and possbily Judy are indeed 
ET's.
 
 On Wed, 4/23/14, nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 
mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] The World's Highest Ranking Alien Believer
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Wednesday, April 23, 2014, 8:43 PM

 Paul Hellyer recently stirred up global
 controversy when he testified before a half-dozen former US
 representatives that aliens exist. As Canada's former
 Minister of Defence, Hellyer is the first and only
 cabinet-ranking official from a G8 nation to publicly state
 a belief in extraterrestrials.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt1WVeyMqdo 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt1WVeyMqdo 



 


 













Re: [FairfieldLife] The World's Highest Ranking Alien Believer

2014-04-24 Thread authfriend
Barry's linked to that Barry's fantasy image of Judy photo at least a dozen 
times since I posted it (and at one point he did a Photoshop job making it 
appear to be a huge crop circle). Talk about obsession!

 Admittedly, the photo was an afterthought. If anybody wants to see what I look 
like when I'm not making a face, just click on the left arrow on the page at 
Barry's link. (I was grinning at the egotism involved in taking a selfie with 
a Webcam.)
 

 

 Only someone comfortable in their own skin is going to post a picture like you 
did, Judy. I think it's funny and you scored there with that visage of yours! 
Poor Bawwy doesn't seem to realize that inner ugliness is far more 
life-threatening and unattractive than someone making a face at a camera.
 














Re: [FairfieldLife] The World's Highest Ranking Alien Believer

2014-04-24 Thread authfriend
Ooops. Looks like I pushed a few more of Barry's buttons. 

 It makes him absolutely crazy that I'm actually a fairly nice-looking dame 
rather than the hideous hag of his nightmares.
 
 In many cases what people say about your face is more devastating than turning 
it into a caricature. We see political cartoons all the time so it's really 
nothing new. But, when people post in plain text some comments it can really 
get to you. It's like, so personal. Hey, we could start a thread about this! Go 
figure. 






I think that thread was started long ago, with the words, The censorious 
editor could most definitely be judged a Tulku of Carry Nation. Several other 
qualities also appear to be in common in addition to the prominent sagging 
jowls on a sallow face completely devoid of humor and warmhearted compassion.  
:-)



 
  

I think that thread was started long ago, with the words, 








Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Brahmachari Girish Varma Ji is to be praised?

2014-04-23 Thread authfriend
For once I completely agree with Barry: the guy is positively icky. 

 But then, that's what I thought about Fred Lenz too. (Maybe even ickier given 
that he was better looking.)
 

 

 

 Run away! Run away!
 

 

 
When it comes to Girish Varma, IMO anyone who couldn't just look at photos of 
him and see what a slimeball he was, even before this happened, is more than a 
little light in the loafers, discrimination-wise. The guy is positively icky. 

 



 


 









Re: [FairfieldLife] ACTIVE Need for More Meditation, Chemtrails Discussed At United Nations, Must Watch For All Non-belivers

2014-04-23 Thread authfriend
Better is death in one's own dharma; the dharma of another brings 
danger.--3:35, Maharishi's translation 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :

 Buck, it isn't everyone's dharma to be meditating more and as it says in the 
Gita, the dharma of another, though higher, brings danger. Better one's own 
dharma.
 






Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Brahmachari Girish Varma Ji is to be praised?

2014-04-23 Thread authfriend
Oh, for crying out loud, Michael. This is just as extreme, and just as 
laughably unrealistic, as the effusions of the blissninniest TM TB. 

 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote :

 Nope this WAS the plan all along - to use the idea of enlightenment and 
whatever else would sell to get rich, be held up as a god and get laid as often 
as possible 



Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-23 Thread authfriend
Share, were you in the Reply window when you tried to do the edit? 

 What's File Edit?

 

 I have no trouble editing in Neo.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :

 Richard, I just attempted to edit your post in Neo. I highlighted what i 
wanted to edit. When I hit backspace, nothing happened. When I went to File 
Edit, nothing happened.
 

 How can I edit in Neo?
 

 Sorry, I don't want to change to Google Chrome even though designed by 
geniuses (-:

 On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 11:09 AM, Richard J. Williams punditster@... 
wrote:
 
   
 On 4/21/2014 1:57 PM, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... wrote:

 My responses are interwoven into her last post. I marked our responses with 
our initials before each response. In my web browser it shows up right at the 
top of all the discussion posts in this thread.
 
 Snipping anything often leads to accusations around here so I stopped doing 
it. But if you just read the top of the pile you are reading the most recent.
 I don't know how to format it any better than that. 
 
 Your input would be welcome Richard. 
 Thanks for your reply, Curtis. You seem to take some time to format your 
responses, that's a good thing. 
 
 These days, what with Neo and everything, people get really laze in their 
posting, too much in a hurry, and they don't care to take time to make 
themselves look good in print. Which is weird, seeing as how at least three 
people on this list claim to have been involved professionally with graphics 
and text layout. There is one FFL informant, an obvious neo-phyte, that never 
includes a quote from the message he's reply to - and he claims to be a 
computer professional. Go figure.
 
 All the colored text just creeps me out, some are to faint to read, the colors 
don't seem to be consistent. Blue for example is usually reserved for hypertext 
links. There's too much empty space and sometimes I can't even tell who posted 
what. And, in Neo when you don't snip, their is way too much scrolling involved 
- Neo is just a mess - I don't know why you yahoos insist on using it. Yahoo 
Mail sucks! 
 
 The first thing to do is get out of Yahoo Neo and switch to a better browser 
like Google Chrome and create a free Google Mail account and then have the FFL 
messages sent to your mail account for easy reading. I'm using Mozilla 
Thunderbird most of the time as an news-reader, and it works pretty good.
 
 In contrast to Yahoo Groups, the Google Groups looks like it was designed by 
geniuses. 
 
 https://groups.google.com/forum/forum/sci.skeptic 
https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21forum/sci.skeptic
 

 This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus 
http://www.avast.com/ protection is active.
 

 


 













Re: [FairfieldLife] The World's Highest Ranking Alien Believer

2014-04-23 Thread authfriend
Willytex is only pretending, but I certainly am an ET. Just ask Barry. Why do 
you think I freak him out so badly? 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote :

 I am perfectly willing to believe that WillyTex and possbily Judy are indeed 
ET's.
 
 On Wed, 4/23/14, nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 
mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] The World's Highest Ranking Alien Believer
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Wednesday, April 23, 2014, 8:43 PM

 Paul Hellyer recently stirred up global
 controversy when he testified before a half-dozen former US
 representatives that aliens exist. As Canada's former
 Minister of Defence, Hellyer is the first and only
 cabinet-ranking official from a G8 nation to publicly state
 a belief in extraterrestrials.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt1WVeyMqdo 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt1WVeyMqdo 



Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?

2014-04-22 Thread authfriend
Hey, Salyavin, you and I were talking about paranormal research in this 
exchange, remember? You brought God into it, not me.
 

 BTW, the light green type you're using now is so faint it's really hard to 
read. Please pick something darker.
 

 

 Again, speaking just for myself, I have no problem with people believing in 
unicorns, or in God. It's when they attempt to waste my time by getting me to 
argue about either mythical beast's existence that I cry bullshit. 

 

 Yes, we are at a bit of an impasse with this debate. Good fun though.
 



























Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?

2014-04-22 Thread authfriend
Barry has always been...uh...metaphysically challlenged. ;-) 

 Hey, Bar, metaphysical ultimacy isn't an argument, unprovable or otherwise. 
It's just a technical term. Relax.
 
 
 You mean unprovable arguments like metaphysical ultimacy? I'm sorry, but 
that strikes me as a made-up phrase designed to dazzle with bullshit rather 
than say anything. It's like using the term Equus monoclonius to refer to a 
unicorn. It makes it sound more impressive, while ignoring the fact that 
unicorns don't exist. Obviously, some people are more easily dazzled by 
bullshit than others. :-) 

 


























Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?

2014-04-22 Thread authfriend
Me in blue...
 

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

 
 

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

 Hey, Salyavin, you and I were talking about paranormal research in this 
exchange, remember? You brought God into it, not me.
 

 I think God is quite paranormal and Ed Fess usually crops up these days.
 

 I didn't quote Feser in the God context, as I told you. And God may be 
paranormal in some sense, but the paranormal in the usual sense isn't 
necessarily a function of God. I mean, we could have the paranormal even if we 
didn't have God.
 

 BTW, the light green type you're using now is so faint it's really hard to 
read. Please pick something darker.
 

 How about this?
 

 MUCH better.
 

  Seems that yahoo have changed the interface again, or is that only on my 
computer?
 

 Changed it how? Since when? Not sure what you're referring to.
 

 

 Again, speaking just for myself, I have no problem with people believing in 
unicorns, or in God. It's when they attempt to waste my time by getting me to 
argue about either mythical beast's existence that I cry bullshit. 

 

 Yes, we are at a bit of an impasse with this debate. Good fun though.
 































Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?

2014-04-22 Thread authfriend
Barry was taking a shot at me because he assumed I'd started the God argument 
in this exchange (not having read the whole thing, as usual). 

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

 
 

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

 Hey, Salyavin, you and I were talking about paranormal research in this 
exchange, remember? You brought God into it, not me.
 

 Wait I see what you mean. Barry was commenting on the God debate situation, 
that's at an impasse. has been for a couple of thousand years I think.
 

 































Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?

2014-04-22 Thread authfriend
Bar, you have NO IDEA how transparent your mind is. 

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

 From: authfriend@... authfriend@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 3:11 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?
 
 
   Barry was taking a shot at me because he assumed I'd started the God 
argument in this exchange (not having read the whole thing, as usual).
 
And Judy is claiming to be able to read minds again. :-) I was merely making a 
comment for Salyavin's benefit, one that I felt he would enjoy and not be 
threatened by. It's a pity that Judy isn't either as intelligent or as 
non-reactive as he is. 
















Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?

2014-04-22 Thread authfriend
Just out of curiosity, Barry, when have I tried to appear technical without 
having a clue? Let's have an example. 

 You're pulling a Judy, Share, and trying to appear technical while having 
nary a clue. 
 















Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-22 Thread authfriend
Actually, the fire hydrant analogy is a perfect one for Barry's near-total 
ignorance of metaphyics. (As well as of Robin.) 

 Discussions of God and theology make Barry very nervous; that's why he's 
especially irritable and gratuitously nasty this morning.
 

 

 But what do you think of the metaphysical arguments for the existence of god 
as opposed to more materialistic approaches?
 
 
Try to remember who you're talking to, Salyavin. This is a person who actually 
believed Robin Carlsen was bright and charismatic and worth following as a 
spiritual teacher. Your question is like asking a fire hydrant to explain 
physics. :-)

 
 
























Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-22 Thread authfriend
You missed the point, dimwit. It's not that the insult was funny, it's that it 
was, like so many of your insults and accusations, a projection of your own 
flaws onto someone else, in this case your abysmal ignorance of metaphysics. I 
suspect everyone recognized that but you. 

 Oooopsie!
 

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

 I'll reply just because it's perversely pleasing to see Judy trying to steal 
someone else's funny insult because she's incapable of thinking up her own. 
She's been reduced to I know she is, but so are you!  :-)  :-)  :-)
 

 
 

 From: authfriend@... authfriend@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 6:44 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version 
of the God Idea?
 
 
   Actually, the fire hydrant analogy is a perfect one for Barry's near-total 
ignorance of metaphyics. (As well as of Robin.)
 

 Discussions of God and theology make Barry very nervous; that's why he's 
especially irritable and gratuitously nasty this morning.
 

 

 But what do you think of the metaphysical arguments for the existence of god 
as opposed to more materialistic approaches?
 
 
Try to remember who you're talking to, Salyavin. This is a person who actually 
believed Robin Carlsen was bright and charismatic and worth following as a 
spiritual teacher. Your question is like asking a fire hydrant to explain 
physics. :-)

  



































Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-22 Thread authfriend
Projection, as I just pointed out. 

 This is a person who actually believed Robin Carlsen was bright and 
charismatic and worth following as a spiritual teacher. 
 As opposed to Barry who actually believed Fred Lenz was bright enough to turn 
huge halls golden and worth following as a spiritual teacher because he could 
levitate for real? Yeah, that's it.

 




Re: [FairfieldLife] Hey Sal, Re: Entities

2014-04-21 Thread authfriend
This sounds like one of Barry's paranoid fantasies--that Steve, by his own 
admission, wants to force atheists to be uncomfortable. There's zero 
indication of that in what Steve wrote. He lists some possible future 
scientific developments that he speculates might make an atheist uncomfortable 
if they were to take place. 

 Apparently those possibilities do make Barry uncomfortable, or he wouldn't 
have responded as he did. So he projects his own discomfort onto Steve, who 
hasn't been showing the slightest degree of discomfort in this discussion. In 
fact, he's been going to some lengths to avoid making Barry uncomfortable. 
Barry, however, will take offense and blame Steve for being offensive no matter 
what, even accusing him of being desperate because his belief in God is so 
strong. This after Steve has been explicit that proof of reincarnation would 
not prove the existence of God.
 

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

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

 From: steve.sundur@... steve.sundur@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 12:24 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Hey Sal, Re: Entities
 
 
   I see what you mean about entities, or components
 

 And yes, you are right, introducing rebirth, or reincarnation does necessitate 
entities.
 

 You look at the accounts indicating rebirth and find them lacking.  
 

 I look at the accounts and find many of them credible.
 

 And so, the point I was making at the outset is that if somehow these accounts 
are found to be credible, or if the preponderance of evidence seems to suggest 
such, or if such a time comes when something such as a causal body can be 
measured, then yes, I would say that an atheist would then be required to 
acknowledge that there must be some organizing body or entities at work to 
maintain order in this process..
 

 I am not saying it proves the existence of God.  All I am saying is that it 
might force a door open that an atheist might not be comfortable seeing cracked 
open. 








And I'm saying you sound kind of desperate, as if -- as you admit -- forcing an 
imaginary atheist to be uncomfortable is your real goal. 

In other words, it sounds to me as just *talk* about atheism has been so 
uncomfortable *for you* that you want to make someone else uncomfortable in 
retaliation. 

If your belief in a God is so strong, why is it so challenged just by someone 
believing something different than you believe? You seem to pin almost your 
*entire* reason for believing in God on your desire/need to believe in 
reincarnation. Great...I get it...you don't want to die, and prefer to believe 
that you won't, and in your view you need a God to make that happen. 

As I've told you, I don't believe in God, and yet I sorta suspect there is 
something to reincarnation. Millions of Buddhists feel the same way -- they 
believe in reincarnation and don't believe in God. Doncha think you're being 
kinda silly to try to make someone feel uncomfortable just because you can't 
conceive of reincarnation being an automatic process that requires no 
intervention or supervision?

This is your never-ending tactic, Bawwy. First, you set yourself up as the 
independent thinker who doesn't give a shit about just about anything and then 
you proceed to berate and belittle anyone who doesn't feel the same as you do, 
all the while making up characteristics almost nobody here possesses just so 
you have an opportunity to make yourself feel superior in some way. You've got 
an interesting gig going and so, so predictable.










Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-21 Thread authfriend

 
Summary!
 

 my own summery



Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?

2014-04-21 Thread authfriend
More comments below (in blue).
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :

 Comments below...
 
 
  One reason I don't rule paranormal stuff out is that I'm not convinced 
  science knows how to test for some of it. I could not possibly disagree more 
  strongly with the notion that only what is measurable is real. Actually, 
  measuring (in the broadest sense) is the only tool science has.

 

 Only? Find me something that can't be measured.
 

 Oh, you know, beauty, love, stuff like that, just for starters.
 

 But love isn't a thing separate from our experience. If two people in love are 
sitting on a bench in the sun and the people disappear, so does the love. The 
sun however, doesn't disappear. 
 

 But it is measurable.

 

 Love is part of our inner world only and is therefore dependent on our brains 
and this is where it can be measured. Maybe crudely at the moment 
 

 VERY crudely: yes or no, that's it.
 

 but I bet there's a distinct chemical signature involving dopamine etc that 
you could look at in someone's head and know what they are experiencing.
 

 What they are experiencing covers a lot of territory. Just saying, Oh, 
they're experiencing love doesn't tell you much.
 

 Takes the fun out of romance sure, but it's them chemicals what turn us upside 
down I bet.
 

 Surely chemicals have something to do with it. But which came first, the 
chemicals or the love?
 

 Beauty could be measurable too, you'd just have to decide on a common 
framework for whatever it is you want to judge.
 

 Oh, jeepers. Right, try getting a statistically significant sample of people 
to agree on what's beautiful and what isn't.
 

 It's all part of out inner life. Why we feel such richness for things like art 
or landscapes is another question but one of psychology and chemistry not 
physics, that won't be able to help us tell love from hate.
 

 Supposedly psychology and chemistry are all reducible to physics.
 

 

 Just as the success of metal detectors in finding metal does not entail that 
there are no other, non-metallic aspects of reality, so too does the success of 
science in capturing those aspects of nature susceptible of prediction and 
control give us no reason to think that there are not other aspects that are 
not susceptible of prediction and control -- aspects we should not expect to 
find by the methods of science
 

 Sounds like special pleading to me. Sounds like he's got something he wants 
people not to be able to find. Probably why he thinks science has no place 
answering metaphysical questions (if that was him).
 

 It was Feser, but gee whiz, he's far from the only person to make the same 
point, including some scientists and (gasp) atheists. (What would Feser not 
want people to find??) The point applies in many different contexts,  not just 
theism.
 

 Including me, but I'm not the one with a theistic concept I'm trying to 
convince the world of that I think is superior to the current scientific 
paradigm.
 

 Neither is Feser. Classical theism doesn't claim to be superior to the 
current scientific paradigm.
 

 (And I wasn't using the quote in that context in any case.)
 

 And besides, his blog is where you got the idea about metaphysical concepts 
not being open to scientific inquiry wasn't it?
 

 Sheesh. Not that I recall.
 

 If it was he was wrong. NASA won't abandon it's plans to probe the cosmic 
microwave background because the overall concept of universal origins is 
metaphysical.
 

 Of course not. No theist would suggest such a thing.
 

 What he (or anyone) has to do to convince me is explain what this god thing is 
and, most importantly, how it can be apart from the four known forces of 
nature. If it's real in any sense we'll find it somehow. Even if it's a real 
thing like love.
 

 Science ain't gonna find it. It's transcendent to the four known forces of 
nature, ontologically prior to them (and to everything else in the universe).
 

 http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/03/rosenhouse-keeps-digging.html#more 
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/03/rosenhouse-keeps-digging.html#more 

 
 
  Are there methods of investigation other than measurement/prediction/control 
  that might convincingly detect paranormal events? 
 
 
 How would you know if you had or not?
 
 
  Some paranormal researchers (Lawrence Le Shan in particular) have suggested 
  potentially fruitful systematic, social-science-like approaches. See Le 
  Shan's book A New Science of the Paranormal: the Promise of Psychical 
  Research for details.
 
 
 OK, if it's orderable from my local library I'll read it.
 

 If you can get it, let me know what you think. It's been awhile since I read 
it. (He has a new one out, Landscapes of the Mind: The Faces of Reality, which 
purports to be a taxonomy of consciousness, whatever that means.)
 

 It's not but I read the first page on Amazon and might give

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-21 Thread authfriend
Xenosophistry: you can't beat it. 

 Metaphysical ultimacy = divine simplicity. Being Itself. Doesn't get much 
simpler than that.
 

 Quantum mechanics, most successful theory in the history of science. And the 
simple formula that everyone can understand is...?
 

 “Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, But how can it 
be like that? because you will get down the drain, into a blind alley from 
which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that. 
http://izquotes.com/quote/228636”--Richard Feynman 
http://izquotes.com/author/richard-feynman on quantum mechanics
 

 

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

 The best way to show someone there is such a thing as an apple, is to show 
him/her/it one. In the absence of an apple, you could string arguments to the 
end of the universe and an eternity of time, and still not produce knowledge of 
an apple. Now theism and enlightenment are special cases since they are 
arguments like the set of all sets in mathematics. These particular items have 
no objectivity. If they are real, they are subjectively real. Meditation and 
internal inquiry are traditional methods for this investigation, but they have 
the liability that any knowledge so derived is not objective, and no external 
argumentation can demonstrate its value or detriment. The best arguments in any 
case are clear and simple and usually easily understood. The length or 
complexity of an argument is generally not favourable for its correctness, if 
we assume that underlying the universe is simplicity. If god were ultimate 
simplicity, why need then an ultra complex argument, one that few can 
understand? General relativity tends to be difficult for people to understand, 
but one of its formulae, e=mc^2, is extraordinarily simple, and even someone 
without much sophistication can grasp something of its significance, 
particularly if they have seen a nuclear reactor or films of atomic fission or 
hydrogen fusion bombs. 

 Note that great spiritual figures typically express themselves in clear simple 
expressions. When someone is trying to put something over on you, then the 
complexity begins. The longer a circular argument, the less likely one will 
notice the tail meets the head.
 






 




















Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?

2014-04-20 Thread authfriend
In the minds of a few on FFL, the only reason to defend a person (or group, or 
idea) that is being treated unfairly is that one fully supports that person (or 
group, or idea). Therefore, if one defends Maharishi or the TMO, one is ipso 
facto a cultist. If one defends theism, one is ipso facto a believer in God.
 
IOW, there can be no basis for objecting to unfairness per se, on its own terms 
(whether deliberate, due to malice, or inadvertent, due to ignorance). One 
never, ever stands up for what one perceives to be right unless one has a 
personal investment in specifically protecting who/whatever is being wronged 
from unjust criticism or attack.
 

 This stance has the advantage of making ethical choices much easier: You don't 
have to worry about being unfair; you don't have to worry about dismissing 
without consideration arguments for whatever you're against. There's no reason 
ever to rethink your opposition on the basis of input from a different 
perspective, because such input is--again, on its face--always tainted by bias. 
(Not that perfect objectivity is ever possible, of course, but it's not 
necessary to evaluate degrees of objectivity.)
 

 The disadvantage of this stance is that sometimes you are confronted by 
serious cognitive dissonance--as in the case, for example, of a person who must 
be a cultist because they defend Maharishi from what they consider unfair 
attack, but who also is sharply critical of Maharishi for his philandering with 
his female followers.
 

 A corollary to all this is that there is no basis for anyone to take a 
devil's advocate position simply for the intellectual exercise. From 
Wikipedia:
 

 In common parlance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parlance, a devil's advocate 
is someone who, given a certain argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument, 
takes a position they do not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative 
position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_sake_of_argument or to explore the thought 
further. In taking this position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate 
role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose 
of such a process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and 
identify weaknesses in its structure, and to use such information to either 
improve or abandon the original, opposing position.

 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_advocate 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_advocate

 

 Just something to think about on a Monday morning...
 

 

 

 On 4/19/2014 6:09 PM, emilymaenot@... wrote:
  I just laugh at your obsession with using poor dead Fred as a baseball 
  bat to hit Barry over the head with. 
 
 Yes, it is funny - I use poor dead Fred as a baseball bat every time 
 Barry uses poor dead Marshy as a baseball. LoL!
 






At least Richard can admit to being a cultist, and to what triggers his use of 
cult tactics. 










Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?

2014-04-20 Thread authfriend
Um, that would be ...on a Sunday morning. (But you can think about it on 
Monday morning too if you choose. ;-) ) 
 Just something to think about on a Monday morning...
 






[FairfieldLife] Feel-good story of the week

2014-04-20 Thread authfriend
From a New York Times obituary this morning: 

 Gene Estess worked on Wall Street for two decades and came to feel that
 he never had really good days. “I didn’t come home with stories to tell or
 satisfaction or a feeling I’d done anything to help anybody except myself
 and my family,” he said in an interview with The New York Times in 2003.
 

 Mr. Estess changed that, however, abandoning the financial world to
 lead the Jericho Project, which serves homeless, mentally ill and addicted
 people in Harlem and the South Bronx. He set up a succession of
 residences and started initiatives that included helping formerly homeless
 women regain custody of their children
 

 Mr. Estess cautioned against exaggerating his dramatic change of life.
 “Please understand,” he said, “it was nothing religious. It wasn’t Godlike.”

 

 Read more:
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/nyregion/gene-estess-who-left-wall-street-to-aid-the-poor-dies-as-78.html
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/nyregion/gene-estess-who-left-wall-street-to-aid-the-poor-dies-as-78.html?hpwamp;rref=obituaries

 

 The original 2003 Times story on Mr. Estess:
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/29/nyregion/neighborhood-report-tremont-citypeople-he-saw-homeless-woman-found-his-calling.html
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/29/nyregion/neighborhood-report-tremont-citypeople-he-saw-homeless-woman-found-his-calling.html

 



Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?

2014-04-20 Thread authfriend
Excellent post, Salyavin. 

 FWIW, this is what I mean when I say I don't rule something out:
 
Can minds affect and influence each other at a distance? I still actually keep 
an open mind to it, but I don't believe it.
 

 Also:
 

 Regarding proof, I think it doesn't matter whether everyone accepts it or not, 
as long as it stands up in court, or makes a case no reasonable person could 
refute.
 

 Important point. It isn't as if nobody has ever accepted what they had thought 
was impossible. The idea that the earth wasn't the center of the universe after 
all blew many minds and caused enormous outrage when it was first proposed, but 
eventually the evidence was enough to outweigh the skepticism almost 
universally.
 

 science only works if something is repeatable, reading about someone's 
experience and passing it off as something we already understand is fraught 
with obvious dangers, but is a good place to start the planning on how to test 
it for real.
 

 One reason I don't rule paranormal stuff out is that I'm not convinced science 
knows how to test for some of it. I could not possibly disagree more strongly 
with the notion that only what is measurable is real. Actually, measuring (in 
the broadest sense) is the only tool science has.
 

 As one philosophy blogger ;-) has noted (in the context of theism 
specifically, but it applies here as well):
 

 Just as the success of metal detectors in finding metal does not entail that 
there are no other, non-metallic aspects of reality, so too does the success of 
science in capturing those aspects of nature susceptible of prediction and 
control give us no reason to think that there are not other aspects that are 
not susceptible of prediction and control -- aspects we should not expect to 
find by the methods of science
 

 http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/03/rosenhouse-keeps-digging.html#more 
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/03/rosenhouse-keeps-digging.html#more 

 

 Are there methods of investigation other than measurement/prediction/control 
that might convincingly detect paranormal events? Some paranormal researchers 
(Lawrence Le Shan in particular) have suggested potentially fruitful 
systematic, social-science-like approaches. See Le Shan's book A New Science 
of the Paranormal: the Promise of Psychical Research for details.
 














[FairfieldLife] Re: Lurking and Searching FairfieldLife on Yahoo [ FFL ]

2014-04-20 Thread authfriend
One workaround is if you find a message you want to read on the list of search 
hits, instead of left-clicking on the link to the message to open it directly, 
right-click on it, then click Open in New Tab (this is in Windows 7 using 
Chrome; not sure if there's a Mac equivalent, but as I recall IE had a similar 
option). Read the message in the new tab, and close or save it or whatever when 
you're done. You'll then be back in the list you were perusing and still be 
where you were instead of being thrown back to the beginning. 
 

 Within 'messages' on the FFL page I find typing in a word to search in to the 
box at the top of the page starts something as a search. Then that gets you the 
opportunity for, “advanced search” that comes with the results of the first 
search. Once you get going that can narrow down. But each time it kicks you 
back out to square one. Neo is quite miserable.
 Any other suggestions to lurkers to help with searches?

 -Buck  





Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?

2014-04-20 Thread authfriend
I once read about a study in which a large number of subjects (at least a 
thousand) were hypnotically regressed to past lives. Only a handful, 
apparently, remembered lives in identifiably historical times. The great 
majority recalled lives as brown-skinned people working in the fields. (A 
little later than hunter-gatherers, but close enough.)  

 Putting it in an evolutionary context, the vast majority of people that ever 
lived were hunter gatherers.
 















[FairfieldLife] It helps to speak out (sometimes)

2014-04-20 Thread authfriend
General Mills Reverses Itself on Consumers’
 Right to Sue
 By STEPHANIE STROM APRIL 20, 2014
 

 General Mills, one of the country’s largest food companies, on Saturday
 night announced in a stunning about-face that it was withdrawing its
 controversial plans to make consumers give up their right to sue it.
 In an email sent after 10 p.m. on Saturday, the company said that due
 to concerns that its plans to require consumers to agree to informal
 negotiation or arbitration had raised among the public, it was taking down
 the new terms it had posted on its website.
 

 “Because our concerns and intentions were widely misunderstood,
 causing concerns among our consumers, we’ve decided to change them
 back to what they were,” Mike Siemienas, a company spokesman, wrote in
 the email. “As a result, the recently updated legal terms are being removed
 from our websites, and we are announcing today that we have reverted
 back to our prior legal terms, which contain no mention of arbitration.”
 

 The announcement was a stunning reversal for the company, which
 had quietly put up the new terms requiring consumers downloading
 coupons, “joining its online communities,” participating in sweepstakes
 and other promotions, and interacting with General Mills in a variety of
 other ways to agree to arbitration in lieu of suing the company in the event
 of a dispute.
 

 Those terms, which were first reported by The New York Times on 
 Wednesday, were widely excoriated by consumers on Facebook and
 Twitter, and legal experts questioned whether the broad language the
 company used could be enforced. In a pop-up box on its home page, the
 company had said it would “require all disputes related to the purchase or
 use of any General Mills product or service to be resolved through binding
 arbitration.”
 

 The company elaborated on its change of heart in a blog post.
 

 
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/business/general-mills-reverses-itself-on-consumers-right-to-sue.html
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/business/general-mills-reverses-itself-on-consumers-right-to-sue.html?hp



  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >