Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[Share Long]

Thanks, Buck, these are wonderful too. I didn't realize how many good 
photographers we have in FF. I've always thought the midwest has its own kind 
of beauty. Sure, the coasts have beautiful sunrises on the ocean and the west 
has the snow clad Rockies. But all that land stretching out in all directions 
also has something that touches the heart and soul.





On Thursday, December 12, 2013 6:04 AM, "dhamiltony...@yahoo.com" 
 wrote:
 
  
Nice photos of Fair Field, Iowa

http://www.beingandseeing.com/





Fairfield

 Come,
humble sinner, in whose breast
A thousand thoughts revolve.
Come
with your guilt and fear oppressed,
And make this last
resolve. 

I'll go to the Domes  , though my sin
Hath
like a mountain rose;
I know its ways, I'll enter in,
Whatever
may oppose.

I can but perish if I don't go,
I am resolved
to try,
For if I stay away I know
I must forever die.

Fairfield:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXLJepRUYYE 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[authfriend]

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

 Richard trolled:
 
 > So, I guess it's settled now - Judy posted a fib and now everyone knows it. 
 > Serves her right for trying to be so high and mighty and attempting to teach 
 > us all about TM and what MMY meant about the names of the personal gods, 
 > which fetch to us all the grace. Judy thinks she knows more about TM than 
 > MMY himself. Go figure.
 
 "Richard is lying. I never said anything about "the technique," whatever it 
is, or was. Nor did I say the bijas weren't "nicknames" of the deities 
(whatever "nicknames" means in this context)."
 
 From: authfriend
 Subject: OMG: madhuauudana & definition of dhaaraNaa
 Forum: Yahoo! FairfiedLife
 Date: November 25, 2013 2:04 PM
 On 12/10/2013 1:38 PM
 
 On 12/10/2013 2:25 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
   This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here (except Xeno) 
takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know.
 
 
 Richard trolled:
 
 
 
 > It really doesn't matter what your handle is or what your email address is, 
 > because you posted a fib, and it's not very difficult to tell when you're 
 > trying to weasel out of it. You either posted the message below or you did 
 > not. If you did, it contradicts what you previously posted about the TM 
 > mantras NOT being the names of the personal gods. 
 
 > And, that's not even counting how many times you've posted comments about 
 > "the technique".
 
 "Richard is lying. I never said anything about "the technique," whatever it 
is, or was. Nor did I say the bijas weren't "nicknames" of the deities 
(whatever "nicknames" means in this context)."
 
 From: authfriend
 Subject: OMG: madhuauudana & definition of dhaaraNaa
 Forum: Yahoo! FairfiedLife
 Date: November 25, 2013 2:04 PM
 On 12/10/2013 1:38 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
   This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here (except Xeno) 
takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know.
 
 
 Richard trolled: 
 
 It sure looks like you're posting as "authfriend" and it looks like your email 
address is authfriend.  But I could be mistaken. Are you still "The Author's 
Friend" or not? Seriously - it's not a trick question!
 
 
 On 12/10/2013 10:45 AM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
   This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here (except Xeno) 
takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know. 
 
 
 Richard trolled:
 
 Well, it sure looks like you're posting as the "author's friend", but it's 
hard to tell by the way you spelled your it, authfriend. The problem isn't so 
much what the respondents here think about your handle and your email address - 
it's what your clients think about it when they find out you're posting here at 
all. Go figure.
 
 On 12/9/2013 8:09 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
   This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here (except Xeno) 
takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know. 
 
 
 Richard wrote:
 
 > The problem is posting to a chat room using your professional name as a 
 > handle and including your business email address in order to advertise your 
 > services. That's against the FFL rule about posting spam to the group. It's 
 > even worse if you're using someone else's business name. That's real serious!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[awoelflebater]

 

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

 Ann, I have a hunch that by "Wolf Baiter," empty isn't referring to you but to 
Xeno, who "baited" you. I.e., you da wolf, Xeno da baiter.
 

 He always calls me that so I am not so sure he meant it the way you describe 
here, but your analysis is a good one.

 

 empty wrote:
 

 > Wolf Baiter sez:
 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[Richard J. Williams]

So, I guess it's settled now - Judy posted a fib and now everyone knows 
it. Serves her right for trying to be so high and mighty and attempting 
to teach us all about TM and what MMY meant about the names of the 
personal gods, which fetch to us all the grace. Judy thinks she knows 
more about TM than MMY himself. Go figure.


"Richard is lying. I never said anything about "the technique," whatever 
it is, or was. Nor did I say the bijas weren't "nicknames" of the 
deities (whatever "nicknames" means in this context)."


From: authfriend
Subject: OMG: madhuauudana & definition of dhaaraNaa
Forum: Yahoo! FairfiedLife
Date: November 25, 2013 2:04 PM
On 12/10/2013 1:38 PM

On 12/10/2013 2:25 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:


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


*
*

*Richard trolled:*

*
*

> It really doesn't matter what your handle is or what your email 
address is, because you posted a fib, and it's not very difficult to 
tell when you're trying to weasel out of it. You either posted the 
message below or you did not. If you did, it contradicts what you 
previously posted about the TM mantras NOT being the names of the 
personal gods.


> And, that's not even counting how many times you've posted comments 
about "the technique".


"Richard is lying. I never said anything about "the technique," 
whatever it is, or was. Nor did I say the bijas weren't "nicknames" of 
the deities (whatever "nicknames" means in this context)."


From: authfriend
Subject: OMG: madhuauudana & definition of dhaaraNaa
Forum: Yahoo! FairfiedLife
Date: November 25, 2013 2:04 PM

On 12/10/2013 1:38 PM, authfriend@...  wrote:

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



*Richard trolled: *


It sure looks like you're posting as "authfriend" and it looks like 
your email address is authfriend.  But I could be mistaken. Are you 
still "The Author's Friend" or not? Seriously - it's not a trick 
question!



On 12/10/2013 10:45 AM, authfriend@...  wrote:

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

*

*
Richard trolled:*

Well, it sure looks like you're posting as the "author's friend", 
but it's hard to tell by the way you spelled your it, authfriend. 
The problem isn't so much what the respondents here think about your 
handle and your email address - it's what your clients think about 
it when they find out you're posting here at all. Go figure.


On 12/9/2013 8:09 PM, authfriend@...  wrote:

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



*Richard wrote:*

> The problem is posting to a chat room using your professional 
name as a handle and including your business email address in order 
to advertise your services. That's against the FFL rule about 
posting spam to the group. It's even worse if you're using someone 
else's business name. That's real serious!

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[authfriend]

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

 Richard trolled:
 


 > It really doesn't matter what your handle is or what your email address is, 
 > because you posted a fib, and it's not very difficult to tell when you're 
 > trying to weasel out of it. You either posted the message below or you did 
 > not. If you did, it contradicts what you previously posted about the TM 
 > mantras NOT being the names of the personal gods. 
 
> And, that's not even counting how many times you've posted comments about 
> "the technique".
 
 "Richard is lying. I never said anything about "the technique," whatever it 
is, or was. Nor did I say the bijas weren't "nicknames" of the deities 
(whatever "nicknames" means in this context)."
 
 From: authfriend
 Subject: OMG: madhuauudana & definition of dhaaraNaa
 Forum: Yahoo! FairfiedLife
 Date: November 25, 2013 2:04 PM
 On 12/10/2013 1:38 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
   This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here (except Xeno) 
takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know.
 
 
 Richard trolled: 
 
 It sure looks like you're posting as "authfriend" and it looks like your email 
address is authfriend.  But I could be mistaken. Are you still "The Author's 
Friend" or not? Seriously - it's not a trick question!
 
 
 On 12/10/2013 10:45 AM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
   This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here (except Xeno) 
takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know. 
 
 
 Richard trolled:
 
 Well, it sure looks like you're posting as the "author's friend", but it's 
hard to tell by the way you spelled your it, authfriend. The problem isn't so 
much what the respondents here think about your handle and your email address - 
it's what your clients think about it when they find out you're posting here at 
all. Go figure.
 
 On 12/9/2013 8:09 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
   This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here (except Xeno) 
takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know. 
 
 
 Richard wrote:
 
 > The problem is posting to a chat room using your professional name as a 
 > handle and including your business email address in order to advertise your 
 > services. That's against the FFL rule about posting spam to the group. It's 
 > even worse if you're using someone else's business name. That's real serious!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[Richard J. Williams]

It really doesn't matter what your handle is or what your email address 
is, because you posted a fib, and it's not very difficult to tell when 
you're trying to weasel out of it. You either posted the message below 
or you did not. If you did, it contradicts what you previously posted 
about the TM mantras NOT being the names of the personal gods.


And, that's not even counting how many times you've posted comments 
about "the technique".


"Richard is lying. I never said anything about "the technique," whatever 
it is, or was. Nor did I say the bijas weren't "nicknames" of the 
deities (whatever "nicknames" means in this context)."


From: authfriend
Subject: OMG: madhuauudana & definition of dhaaraNaa
Forum: Yahoo! FairfiedLife
Date: November 25, 2013 2:04 PM



On 12/10/2013 1:38 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:


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



*Richard trolled: *


It sure looks like you're posting as "authfriend" and it looks like 
your email address is authfriend.  But I could be mistaken. Are you 
still "The Author's Friend" or not? Seriously - it's not a trick question!



On 12/10/2013 10:45 AM, authfriend@...  wrote:

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

*

*
Richard trolled:*

Well, it sure looks like you're posting as the "author's friend", but 
it's hard to tell by the way you spelled your it, authfriend. The 
problem isn't so much what the respondents here think about your 
handle and your email address - it's what your clients think about it 
when they find out you're posting here at all. Go figure.


On 12/9/2013 8:09 PM, authfriend@...  wrote:

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



*Richard wrote:*

> The problem is posting to a chat room using your professional name 
as a handle and including your business email address in order to 
advertise your services. That's against the FFL rule about posting 
spam to the group. It's even worse if you're using someone else's 
business name. That's real serious!

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[Richard J. Williams]

It's true - I've been picked on by Judy for about ten years. I'm not 
making this up. Nobody would dispute this except Judy. It used to kind 
of hurt my feelings because I've posted thousands of on-topic message on 
the internet mostly about spiritual paths since 1999. But, I don't take 
it personal anymore since it's obvious that Judy is just mean and ornery 
to almost everyone. Why, I don't know. But, now it's kind of fun to poke 
fun at her because she takes everything so seriously. Go figure.


On 12/10/2013 10:56 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: .


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


*
*

*Richard trolled:*


> Well Ann, I didn't make up the rules around here and I didn't start 
this thread either. But, I did post this from my home office and I 
used my real name, so it looks like I'm guilty on all charges. The 
only difference is, I don't charge anything for offering my opinions 
like a professional editor would be doing. LoL!


> But, I have been picked on a lot by Judy, for no apparent reason 
that I can tell. If she thinks I told an untruth, why won't she just 
point it out so we can all read it and decide for ourselves? It's one 
thing to post slander, but why does Judy have to be a hypocrite as 
well? Go figure.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[authfriend]

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

 Richard trolled: 
 
 It sure looks like you're posting as "authfriend" and it looks like your email 
address is authfriend.  But I could be mistaken. Are you still "The Author's 
Friend" or not? Seriously - it's not a trick question!
 
 
 On 12/10/2013 10:45 AM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
   This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here (except Xeno) 
takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know. 
 
 
 Richard trolled:
 
 Well, it sure looks like you're posting as the "author's friend", but it's 
hard to tell by the way you spelled your it, authfriend. The problem isn't so 
much what the respondents here think about your handle and your email address - 
it's what your clients think about it when they find out you're posting here at 
all. Go figure.
 
 On 12/9/2013 8:09 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
   This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here (except Xeno) 
takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know. 
 
 
 Richard wrote:
 
 > The problem is posting to a chat room using your professional name as a 
 > handle and including your business email address in order to advertise your 
 > services. That's against the FFL rule about posting spam to the group. It's 
 > even worse if you're using someone else's business name. That's real serious!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[authfriend]

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

 P.S.: Anyone with two synapses to rub together should be able to figure out 
Richard's fib here, even if they didn't read my refutation.
 

 Richard trolled:
 
> Maybe I missed the documentation of how Judy created a macro in Neo, but it's 
> not important - what is interesting is Judy's statement  below, which 
> contradicts her previous statement, that the TM mantras are not the names of 
> the personal gods. If Judy refuted her own statement, can someone post it 
> here so we can all read it. Thanks.

 
 "Richard is lying. I never said anything about "the technique," whatever it 
is, or was. Nor did I say the bijas weren't "nicknames" of the deities 
(whatever "nicknames" means in this context)."
 
 From: authfriend
 Subject: OMG: madhuauudana & definition of dhaaraNaa
 Forum: Yahoo! FairfiedLife
 Date: November 25, 2013 2:04 PM
 
 
 
 On 12/10/2013 10:43 AM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
   Interesting, but not at all unexpected. After I'd refuted Richard's 
accusation that I had "fibbed," with documentation, I asked explicitly if 
anyone could still detect any "fibs."
 
 
 Barry couldn't, of course, because there weren't any (duh).
 
 
 I had done exactly what I had promised to do. So there's Barry, hoist on his 
own petard, with egg dripping down his face, as usual. And as usual, he simply 
tells his own fibs and pretends his hopeful fantasy was the reality.
 
 
 Offer is still open, for anybody, including Barry (but not including Richard 
or Xeno) to find any fibs either in what I had said originally or in my 
refutation. But you need to specify what the purported fibs are rather than 
just declare you found some.
 
 
 While I'm at it, another REEELY STOPID fib Barry tells in the post I'm 
commenting on is that I claim to be able to document what I say but never do. 
Anyone who actually reads my posts knows that I do it frequently, most recently 
with Share (and not the only time I've done it with her either), and countless 
times with Barry. Neither of them is capable of admitting they've been caught 
telling falsehoods.
 
 
 Another offer: Anyone (except Richard and Xeno, but including Barry) who wants 
to go back to any of Richard's previous (or subsequent) posts that I've 
responded to with the macro I started using awhile back and demand to see the 
refutations I promised is welcome to do so. This current one wasn't all that 
detailed because Richard's fibs weren't that detailed.
 
 
 I use the macro because it's not possible to rationally engage with Richard, 
as many folks here have discovered. He isn't interested in rational engagement, 
only in trolling, and in extending an initial troll for as long as he can 
possibly keep it going. The only way to deal with him is simply to refuse to 
play his game and make him play it with himself.
 
 
 Barry fibbed:. 
 
 
 I just thought it was funny, that's all. The crazy old coot does this all the 
time -- claim that she *could* document something to prove how RIGHT she is and 
how WRONG (or LYING) someone else is -- but never has any intention of actually 
doing it. So I figured I'd take advantage of her blanket offer to see if she'd 
actually be able to come up with the "detailed refutation" she claimed to be 
able to write. As I suspected, she wasn't. It was just more lame-o "He's lying" 
bullshit. 
 
 More people should call her on this crap. Then as she floundered around trying 
to get her own petard out of her ass, *perhaps* there might be something about 
her interesting enough to at least laugh at.  :-)
 >
 
 
 
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[Richard J. Williams]

Now this is funny - somebody that posts as "empty", is nobody, and gets 
a reply from nobody, and an "authfriend", who is a professional editor, 
replies to nobody. Go figure.


n 12/10/2013 10:55 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:


Ann, I have a hunch that by "Wolf Baiter," empty isn't referring to 
you but to Xeno, who "baited" you. I.e., you da wolf, Xeno da baiter.



empty wrote:


> Wolf Baiter sez:

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[Richard J. Williams]

It sure looks like you're posting as "authfriend" and it looks like your 
email address is authfriend. But I could be mistaken. Are you still "The 
Author's Friend" or not? Seriously - it's not a trick question!



On 12/10/2013 10:45 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:


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

*

*
Richard trolled:*

Well, it sure looks like you're posting as the "author's friend", but 
it's hard to tell by the way you spelled your it, authfriend. The 
problem isn't so much what the respondents here think about your 
handle and your email address - it's what your clients think about it 
when they find out you're posting here at all. Go figure.


On 12/9/2013 8:09 PM, authfriend@...  wrote:

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



*Richard wrote:*

> The problem is posting to a chat room using your professional name 
as a handle and including your business email address in order to 
advertise your services. That's against the FFL rule about posting 
spam to the group. It's even worse if you're using someone else's 
business name. That's real serious!

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[Richard J. Williams]

Maybe I missed the documentation of how Judy created a macro in Neo, but 
it's not important - what is interesting is Judy's statement  below, 
which contradicts her previous statement, that the TM mantras are not 
the names of the personal gods. If Judy refuted her own statement, can 
someone post it here so we can all read it. Thanks.


"Richard is lying. I never said anything about "the technique," whatever 
it is, or was. Nor did I say the bijas weren't "nicknames" of the 
deities (whatever "nicknames" means in this context)."


From: authfriend
Subject: OMG: madhuauudana & definition of dhaaraNaa
Forum: Yahoo! FairfiedLife
Date: November 25, 2013 2:04 PM



On 12/10/2013 10:43 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:


Interesting, but not at all unexpected. After I'd refuted Richard's 
accusation that I had "fibbed," with documentation, I asked explicitly 
if anyone could still detect any "fibs."



Barry couldn't, of course, because there weren't any (duh).


I had done exactly what I had promised to do. So there's Barry, hoist 
on his own petard, with egg dripping down his face, as usual. And as 
usual, he simply tells his own fibs and pretends his hopeful fantasy 
was the reality.



Offer is still open, for anybody, including Barry (but not including 
Richard or Xeno) to find any fibs either in what I had said originally 
or in my refutation. But you need to specify what the purported fibs 
are rather than just declare you found some.



While I'm at it, another REEELY STOPID fib Barry tells in the 
post I'm commenting on is that I claim to be able to document what I 
say but never do. Anyone who actually reads my posts knows that I do 
it frequently, most recently with Share (and not the only time I've 
done it with her either), and countless times with Barry. Neither of 
them is capable of admitting they've been caught telling falsehoods.



Another offer: Anyone (except Richard and Xeno, but including Barry) 
who wants to go back to any of Richard's previous (or subsequent) 
posts that I've responded to with the macro I started using awhile 
back and demand to see the refutations I promised is welcome to do so. 
This current one wasn't all that detailed because Richard's fibs 
weren't that detailed.



I use the macro because it's not possible to rationally engage with 
Richard, as many folks here have discovered. He isn't interested in 
rational engagement, only in trolling, and in extending an initial 
troll for as long as he can possibly keep it going. The only way to 
deal with him is simply to refuse to play his game and make him play 
it with himself.



Barry fibbed:.


*/I just thought it was funny, that's all. The crazy old coot does 
this all the time -- claim that she *could* document something to 
prove how RIGHT she is and how WRONG (or LYING) someone else is -- but 
never has any intention of actually doing it. So I figured I'd take 
advantage of her blanket offer to see if she'd actually be able to 
come up with the "detailed refutation" she claimed to be able to 
write. As I suspected, she wasn't. It was just more lame-o "He's 
lying" bullshit. /*

*/
More people should call her on this crap. Then as she floundered 
around trying to get her own petard out of her ass, *perhaps* there 
might be something about her interesting enough to at least laugh at.  :-)

/*

>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[authfriend]

Ann, I have a hunch that by "Wolf Baiter," empty isn't referring to you but to 
Xeno, who "baited" you. I.e., you da wolf, Xeno da baiter.
 

 empty wrote:
 

 > Wolf Baiter sez:
 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[authfriend]

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

 

 Richard trolled:
 
 > Well Ann, I didn't make up the rules around here and I didn't start this 
 > thread either. But, I did post this from my home office and I used my real 
 > name, so it looks like I'm guilty on all charges. The only difference is, I 
 > don't charge anything for offering my opinions like a professional editor 
 > would be doing. LoL!
 
> But, I have been picked on a lot by Judy, for no apparent reason that I can 
> tell. If she thinks I told an untruth, why won't she just point it out so we 
> can all read it and decide for ourselves? It's one thing to post slander, but 
> why does Judy have to be a hypocrite as well? Go figure.

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[authfriend]

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

 
Richard trolled:

 Well, it sure looks like you're posting as the "author's friend", but it's 
hard to tell by the way you spelled your it, authfriend. The problem isn't so 
much what the respondents here think about your handle and your email address - 
it's what your clients think about it when they find out you're posting here at 
all. Go figure.
 
 On 12/9/2013 8:09 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
   This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here (except Xeno) 
takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know. 
 
 
 Richard wrote:
 
 > The problem is posting to a chat room using your professional name as a 
 > handle and including your business email address in order to advertise your 
 > services. That's against the FFL rule about posting spam to the group. It's 
 > even worse if you're using someone else's business name. That's real serious!
 
 
 
 
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[Share Long]

Richard, Ann was talking about Sweet Share (-:




On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 9:57 AM, Richard J. Williams 
 wrote:
 
  
Let me rephrase that:

NOBODY cares if you care what Share cares about. NOBODY.

On 12/9/2013 8:44 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote:

  
>
>
>---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
>
>
>Let me rephrase that:
>
>NOBODY cares that you're working from home and NOBODY
  cares if you're posting 
>here in between working for clients and NOBODY cares
  if you have any clients 
>and almost NOBODY cares if you post anything or not.
  Almost NOBODY.
>
>
>Can I just say this: NOBODY cares what you wore today. NOBODY cares what your 
>face looked like today. NOBODY cares where you drove by during your mundane 
>day, NOBODY. Oh, except Sweet Share.
>
>
>On 12/9/2013 1:23 PM, TurquoiseB wrote:  
>>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" wrote:
>>>
>>> Let's make this real simple so everyone
understands:
>>> 
>>> NOBODY cares that you're working from home
and NOBODY cares if you're 
>>> posting here in between working for clients
and NOBODY cares if you have 
>>> any clients and NOBODY cares if you post
anything or not. NOBODY.
>>
>>
>>I dunno, Richard. I, for one, would love to see her come up with this 
>>"detailed refuation" she's been crowing about for so long. 
>>
>>So, speaking in my capacity as "someone
  other than Xeno who takes Richard
  seriously enough to want a detailed
  refutation," I want one. 
>>
>>Failure to produce one will prove Judy a
  liar, because she made that very offer
  just below. 
>>
>>I expect exact quotes, URLs, and
  citations. Maybe even a bibliography and
  footnotes. :-)
>>
>>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[Richard J. Williams]

Let me rephrase that:

NOBODY cares if you care what Share cares about. NOBODY.

On 12/9/2013 8:44 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote:


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

Let me rephrase that:

NOBODY cares that you're working from home and NOBODY cares if you're 
posting
here in between working for clients and NOBODY cares if you have any 
clients

and almost NOBODY cares if you post anything or not. Almost NOBODY.

Can I just say this: NOBODY cares what you wore today. NOBODY cares 
what your face looked like today. NOBODY cares where you drove by 
during your mundane day, NOBODY. Oh, except Sweet Share.



On 12/9/2013 1:23 PM, TurquoiseB wrote:

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
, "Richard J. Williams" wrote:

>
> Let's make this real simple so everyone understands:
>
> NOBODY cares that you're working from home and NOBODY cares if you're
> posting here in between working for clients and NOBODY cares if you 
have

> any clients and NOBODY cares if you post anything or not. NOBODY.


/*I dunno, Richard. I, for one, would love to see her come up with 
this "detailed refuation" she's been crowing about for so long.


So, speaking in my capacity as "someone other than Xeno who takes 
Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation," I want one.


Failure to produce one will prove Judy a liar, because she made that 
very offer just below.


I expect exact quotes, URLs, and citations. Maybe even a bibliography 
and footnotes. :-)

*/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[Richard J. Williams]

Well Ann, I didn't make up the rules around here and I didn't start this 
thread either. But, I did post this from my home office and I used my 
real name, so it looks like I'm guilty on all charges. The only 
difference is, I don't charge anything for offering my opinions like a 
professional editor would be doing. LoL!


But, I have been picked on a lot by Judy, for no apparent reason that I 
can tell. If she thinks I told an untruth, why won't she just point it 
out so we can all read it and decide for ourselves? It's one thing to 
post slander, but why does Judy have to be a hypocrite as well? Go figure.


On 12/9/2013 8:37 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote:


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

Let's get serious.

So, why would anybody care if anyone else is posting from home; or 
from their living room; or from their kitchen; or from a cafe in 
Paris, FR; or from a Dairy Queen in Paris, TX; or even posting from a 
parking lot on a cell phone Walmart in Deadwood, SD?


Now, I can understand why someone might get defensive if anyone found 
out they were posting to a chat room from their place of employ; or if 
you're charging clients by the hour and posting from your home office 
when you should be doing work. That's some serious posting!


But, if you're getting paid by the piece, it should be no problem - 
lot's of people are able to multi-task all day and all night and make 
an honest living and send posts at all hours.


The problem is posting to a chat room using your professional name as 
a handle and including your business email address in order to 
advertise your services. That's against the FFL rule about posting 
spam to the group. It's even worse if you're using someone else's 
business name. That's real serious!


As serious as it gets Ricky. I, for one, will distribute the mandatory 
pitchforks, you can organize the burning torches. BTW, were you picked 
on as a kid and now use FFL as a way to get back at the world for 
having allowed yourself to have been tortured to death as a child by 
some aberrant neighbor or older sibling? You certainly seem like a guy 
with a rather large, shall we say, chip on their shoulder. I first 
noticed it with MJ.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[sharelong60]

But wait a minute, Richard! Way over on that other thread Time Doesn't 
Exist..., they concluded that time is an illusion! Signed, the other retired 
non self on FFL (-:

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[Richard J. Williams]

You're sounding JELLOS, but I am retired now, so I do have lot's of time 
on my hands. I can always depend on your to respond, but are you retired 
too?


On 12/9/2013 8:30 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote:

This is a man who has far too much free time on his hands.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[Richard J. Williams]

Well, it sure looks like you're posting as the "author's friend", but 
it's hard to tell by the way you spelled your it, authfriend. The 
problem isn't so much what the respondents here think about your handle 
and your email address - it's what your clients think about it when they 
find out you're posting here at all. Go figure.


On 12/9/2013 8:09 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:


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



*Richard wrote:*

> The problem is posting to a chat room using your professional name 
as a handle and including your business email address in order to 
advertise your services. That's against the FFL rule about posting 
spam to the group. It's even worse if you're using someone else's 
business name. That's real serious!

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[anartaxius]

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

 Let me rephrase that:
 
 NOBODY cares that you're working from home and NOBODY cares if you're posting 
 here in between working for clients and NOBODY cares if you have any clients 
 and almost NOBODY cares if you post anything or not. Almost NOBODY.
 

 Can I just say this: NOBODY cares what you wore today. NOBODY cares what your 
face looked like today. NOBODY cares where you drove by during your mundane 
day, NOBODY. Oh, except Sweet Share.

Perhaps Richard cares. But then you might be right. What are we? Suppose that 
in reality we are all NOBODY inside, that our personal life is but the stuff 
dreams are made of, a fiction created by mistaking our idea of ourselves for 
something that  is real?
 

 Dear Xeno, this is as real as it gets. You need to take the bull by its 
proverbial horns and go for a RIDE man. Stop pussyfooting around and pretending 
it is all make-believe, that life is a row, row, row your boat. You are in the 
middle of something big and something powerful and yet you stand by the wayside 
and think it all has nothing to do with you, that there isn't real red 
pulsating blood in them thar veins. But there is and you can pretend all you 
like that concrete isn't hard and rain isn't wet but you're missing the chance 
to ride in the last car of the roller coaster when you live in your head like 
you do. I'd love to spend a day with you, but bring your galoshes and thermos 
of hot chocolate.
 



You are misinterpreting what I am saying. I never imply that concrete is not 
hard, that there is no such thing as physical pain. It's snowing here now, it 
is cold. I made hot chocolate last night. The illusion, if you will, is not 
these experiences, it is how the mind interprets them. It is kind of a 
graduated thing, the further you get from concrete experience and into the more 
abstract realms the mind is capable of thinking, the less likely those thoughts 
are really useful for anything unless there is a way to correlate those 
thoughts with experience (this is how scientists are supposed to proceed). Now 
thoughts get very abstract when talking about consciousness and all this 
spiritual stuff. They mean nothing without the underlying experience to flesh 
them out, and in fact they are, in relation to experience, essentially untrue. 
 

 Most of the psychological suffering people experience has to do with ideas in 
the head about their life - who they think they are and what life is supposed 
to be - ideas that are basically false. It is quite a project to undo these 
ideas; that project is typically called 'the path of enlightenment' wherein one 
examines one's experience from various perspectives (using such devices as 
meditation, etc.) until a point is reached where those false ideas fall away.
 

 I was in New York City the other day, basically to look at a painting by 
Vermeer - 'The Girl with the Pearl Earring' - which is temporarily on loan from 
Europe. A beautiful, not very large, but soft portrait of a young woman, 
considered one of the great paintings of all time. There were also some 
paintings by Rembrandt. Walking back at night to Grand Central Terminal, I was 
on 48th Street and happened to pass by the Fox News Channel headquarters. The 
red news banner was proclaiming that Nelson Mandela had died. His name was not 
visible, but from the text it was unmistakable that they were writing about 
Mandela in the past tense. Now there is someone who experienced an incredible 
life.
 

 Experience has everything to do with everything. You are mistaking what I say 
to mean I am detached. Everything in this world is intimately connected. 
Everything about this world is about the world as a whole. The mistake people 
make is thinking the world is about an individual 'them' being in the world. 
The idea of a personal 'self' is a fiction. It seems real enough until you get 
far enough along on a spiritual path, and then you discover it is not about 
you, it is all about the world as a whole and that interpretation of 'your' 
experience that makes it seem as if you are a separate thing apart from the 
world is just a misinterpretation. 
 

 The whole world is pure existence in all its hard, gritty glory, it is pure 
experience through and through. There is happiness, sadness, elation, 
depression, comfort and pain, but it is not happening to anyone, it is just 
happening. For brevity and convenience, we say 'it is happening to me' but if 
we believe this, we are lost. But to unbelieve it requires something much more 
than denial of the belief, or a pretense of detachment, it requires dismantling 
of the human ego, and that is a rocky trip indeed. The world is all about the 
world in all its variety and that includes the body and mind, but this cannot 
be experienced when the mind thinks it is a

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[awoelflebater]

 

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

 Wolf Baiter sez:
  
 Perhaps Richard cares. But then you might be right. What are we? Suppose that 
in reality we are all NOBODY inside, that our personal life is but the stuff 
dreams are made of, a fiction created by mistaking our idea of ourselves for 
something that is real?
 

 Great synopsis of one of Buddhism’s essential point. However, you forgot the 
other important point. Yer supposed to feel sorry for all the schizoids wanting 
to protect that nothing who falsely believe they are something. 

 

 So, feel sorry and start calling your“self” …  Mz. Nothing.
 

 Wolf Baiter said no such thing. That was Xeno who said that. You'd never 
hear/see something like that come out of my mouth or off my computer screen. 
See response of mine to what he wrote here:
 

 Dear Xeno, this is as real as it gets. You need to take the bull by its 
proverbial horns and go for a RIDE man. Stop pussyfooting around and pretending 
it is all make-believe, that life is a row, row, row your boat. You are in the 
middle of something big and something powerful and yet you stand by the wayside 
and think it all has nothing to do with you, that there isn't real red 
pulsating blood in them thar veins. But there is and you can pretend all you 
like that concrete isn't hard and rain isn't wet but you're missing the chance 
to ride in the last car of the roller coaster when you live in your head like 
you do. I'd love to spend a day with you, but bring your galoshes and thermos 
of hot chocolate.

 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[emptybill]

Wolf Baiter sez:
  
 Perhaps Richard cares. But then you might be right. What are we? Suppose that 
in reality we are all NOBODY inside, that our personal life is but the stuff 
dreams are made of, a fiction created by mistaking our idea of ourselves for 
something that is real?
 

 Great synopsis of one of Buddhism’s essential point. However, you forgot the 
other important point. Yer supposed to feel sorry for all the schizoids wanting 
to protect that nothing who falsely believe they are something. 

 

 So, feel sorry and start calling your“self” …  Mz. Nothing.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[sharelong60]

I'm nobody! Who are you? I'm nobody! Who are you?
Are you nobody, too?
Then there's a pair of us -- don't tell!
They'd banish -- you know!

How dreary to be somebody!
How public like a frog
To tell one's name the livelong day
To an admiring bog! 
 
 
 
Emily Dickinson

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[awoelflebater]

 

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

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

 Let me rephrase that:
 
 NOBODY cares that you're working from home and NOBODY cares if you're posting 
 here in between working for clients and NOBODY cares if you have any clients 
 and almost NOBODY cares if you post anything or not. Almost NOBODY.
 

 Can I just say this: NOBODY cares what you wore today. NOBODY cares what your 
face looked like today. NOBODY cares where you drove by during your mundane 
day, NOBODY. Oh, except Sweet Share.

Perhaps Richard cares. But then you might be right. What are we? Suppose that 
in reality we are all NOBODY inside, that our personal life is but the stuff 
dreams are made of, a fiction created by mistaking our idea of ourselves for 
something that  is real?
 

 Dear Xeno, this is as real as it gets. You need to take the bull by its 
proverbial horns and go for a RIDE man. Stop pussyfooting around and pretending 
it is all make-believe, that life is a row, row, row your boat. You are in the 
middle of something big and something powerful and yet you stand by the wayside 
and think it all has nothing to do with you, that there isn't real red 
pulsating blood in them thar veins. But there is and you can pretend all you 
like that concrete isn't hard and rain isn't wet but you're missing the chance 
to ride in the last car of the roller coaster when you live in your head like 
you do. I'd love to spend a day with you, but bring your galoshes and thermos 
of hot chocolate.
 On 12/9/2013 1:23 PM, TurquoiseB wrote:
 
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
"Richard J. Williams" wrote:
 >
 > Let's make this real simple so everyone understands:
 > 
 > NOBODY cares that you're working from home and NOBODY cares if you're 
 > posting here in between working for clients and NOBODY cares if you have 
 > any clients and NOBODY cares if you post anything or not. NOBODY.
 
 
 I dunno, Richard. I, for one, would love to see her come up with this 
"detailed refuation" she's been crowing about for so long. 
 
 So, speaking in my capacity as "someone other than Xeno who takes Richard 
seriously enough to want a detailed refutation," I want one. 
 
 Failure to produce one will prove Judy a liar, because she made that very 
offer just below. 
 
 I expect exact quotes, URLs, and citations. Maybe even a bibliography and 
footnotes. :-)
 
  
 > On 12/9/2013 12:51 PM, authfriend@... wrote:
 > >
 > > This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here (except 
 > > Xeno) takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, 
 > > let me know.
 > >
 > >
 > > Richard wrote:
 > >
 > > > Maybe Share is waiting to see if you'll explain NOT saying the bijas 
 > > are the nicknames of the deities and why you're mixing working and 
 > > posting to a discussion group at the same time.
 > >
 > > On 12/9/2013 11:08 AM, authfriend@ > >
 > >> So you've made up your mind to die with the sin of bearing false 
 > >> witness (one of the Big Ten) on your soul? In your mind, that's 
 > >> preferable to confessing?
 > >>
 > >>
 > >> (And as you know, "sub specie aeternitatis" has nothing to do with 
 > >> scolding, so that's yet more false witness.)
 > >>
 > >>
 > >> Share did her phony innocent lightheartedness act:
 > >>
 > >> >But Richard, you gotta give Judy points, or something, for scolding 
 > >> me in Latin!Google is my new best friend, along with eternity (-:
 > >>
 > >>
 > >>
 > >> On Monday, December 9, 2013 8:56 AM, Richard J. Williams 
 > >> punditster@ > >> This message has all the earmarks of you sitting at your 
 > >> computer in 
 > >> a home office posting replies whenever the "ding" goes off, alerting 
 > >> you that someone posted to FFL.
 > >>
 > >> So, which is it? Did you say the TM mantras are NOT the names of the 
 > >> personal gods; or did you NOT say the bijas weren't "nicknames" of 
 > >> the deities? Go figure.
 > >>
 > >> "Richard is lying. I never said anything about "the technique," 
 > >> whatever it is, or was. Nor did I say the bijas weren't "nicknames" 
 > >> of the deities (whatever "nicknames" means in this context)."
 > >>
 > >> From: authfriend
 > >> Subject: OMG: madhuauudana & definition of dhaaraNaa
 > >> Forum: Yahoo! FairfiedLife
 > >> Date: November 25, 2013 2:04 PM
 > >>
 > >> On 12/9/2013 8:36 AM, authfriend@ > >>
 > >>> This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here takes 
 > >>> Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know.
 > >>>
 > >>> Richard trolled:
 > >>>
 > >>> > Maybe Share is waiting for you to admit you told a fib about the 
 > >>> TM mantras being the names of the Hindu personal gods.
 > >>>
 > >>> On 12/9/2013 8:03 AM, authfriend@ > >>>
 >  Do you think this "last resolve" for you, Share, will include 
 >  confessing and repenting of the falsehoods you've told on FFL? Or 
 >  are you just going to preten

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[anartaxius]

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

 Let me rephrase that:
 
 NOBODY cares that you're working from home and NOBODY cares if you're posting 
 here in between working for clients and NOBODY cares if you have any clients 
 and almost NOBODY cares if you post anything or not. Almost NOBODY.
 

 Can I just say this: NOBODY cares what you wore today. NOBODY cares what your 
face looked like today. NOBODY cares where you drove by during your mundane 
day, NOBODY. Oh, except Sweet Share.

Perhaps Richard cares. But then you might be right. What are we? Suppose that 
in reality we are all NOBODY inside, that our personal life is but the stuff 
dreams are made of, a fiction created by mistaking our idea of ourselves for 
something that  is real?
 On 12/9/2013 1:23 PM, TurquoiseB wrote:
 
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
"Richard J. Williams" wrote:
 >
 > Let's make this real simple so everyone understands:
 > 
 > NOBODY cares that you're working from home and NOBODY cares if you're 
 > posting here in between working for clients and NOBODY cares if you have 
 > any clients and NOBODY cares if you post anything or not. NOBODY.
 
 
 I dunno, Richard. I, for one, would love to see her come up with this 
"detailed refuation" she's been crowing about for so long. 
 
 So, speaking in my capacity as "someone other than Xeno who takes Richard 
seriously enough to want a detailed refutation," I want one. 
 
 Failure to produce one will prove Judy a liar, because she made that very 
offer just below. 
 
 I expect exact quotes, URLs, and citations. Maybe even a bibliography and 
footnotes. :-)
 
  
 > On 12/9/2013 12:51 PM, authfriend@... wrote:
 > >
 > > This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here (except 
 > > Xeno) takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, 
 > > let me know.
 > >
 > >
 > > Richard wrote:
 > >
 > > > Maybe Share is waiting to see if you'll explain NOT saying the bijas 
 > > are the nicknames of the deities and why you're mixing working and 
 > > posting to a discussion group at the same time.
 > >
 > > On 12/9/2013 11:08 AM, authfriend@ > >
 > >> So you've made up your mind to die with the sin of bearing false 
 > >> witness (one of the Big Ten) on your soul? In your mind, that's 
 > >> preferable to confessing?
 > >>
 > >>
 > >> (And as you know, "sub specie aeternitatis" has nothing to do with 
 > >> scolding, so that's yet more false witness.)
 > >>
 > >>
 > >> Share did her phony innocent lightheartedness act:
 > >>
 > >> >But Richard, you gotta give Judy points, or something, for scolding 
 > >> me in Latin!Google is my new best friend, along with eternity (-:
 > >>
 > >>
 > >>
 > >> On Monday, December 9, 2013 8:56 AM, Richard J. Williams 
 > >> punditster@ > >> This message has all the earmarks of you sitting at your 
 > >> computer in 
 > >> a home office posting replies whenever the "ding" goes off, alerting 
 > >> you that someone posted to FFL.
 > >>
 > >> So, which is it? Did you say the TM mantras are NOT the names of the 
 > >> personal gods; or did you NOT say the bijas weren't "nicknames" of 
 > >> the deities? Go figure.
 > >>
 > >> "Richard is lying. I never said anything about "the technique," 
 > >> whatever it is, or was. Nor did I say the bijas weren't "nicknames" 
 > >> of the deities (whatever "nicknames" means in this context)."
 > >>
 > >> From: authfriend
 > >> Subject: OMG: madhuauudana & definition of dhaaraNaa
 > >> Forum: Yahoo! FairfiedLife
 > >> Date: November 25, 2013 2:04 PM
 > >>
 > >> On 12/9/2013 8:36 AM, authfriend@ > >>
 > >>> This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here takes 
 > >>> Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know.
 > >>>
 > >>> Richard trolled:
 > >>>
 > >>> > Maybe Share is waiting for you to admit you told a fib about the 
 > >>> TM mantras being the names of the Hindu personal gods.
 > >>>
 > >>> On 12/9/2013 8:03 AM, authfriend@ > >>>
 >  Do you think this "last resolve" for you, Share, will include 
 >  confessing and repenting of the falsehoods you've told on FFL? Or 
 >  are you just going to pretend they don't count, pretend they're 
 >  only a matter of seeing things differently, and take a chance 
 >  you'll get away with them sub specie aeternitatis?
 > 
 >  Share exclaimed:
 > 
 >  > Wow, Buck, what a great rousing hymn to begin the week with, thanks 
 >  > for posting.
 > 
 > 
 >
 
 
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[awoelflebater]

 

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

 Let me rephrase that:
 
 NOBODY cares that you're working from home and NOBODY cares if you're posting 
 here in between working for clients and NOBODY cares if you have any clients 
 and almost NOBODY cares if you post anything or not. Almost NOBODY.
 

 Can I just say this: NOBODY cares what you wore today. NOBODY cares what your 
face looked like today. NOBODY cares where you drove by during your mundane 
day, NOBODY. Oh, except Sweet Share.
 
 On 12/9/2013 1:23 PM, TurquoiseB wrote:
 
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
"Richard J. Williams" wrote:
 >
 > Let's make this real simple so everyone understands:
 > 
 > NOBODY cares that you're working from home and NOBODY cares if you're 
 > posting here in between working for clients and NOBODY cares if you have 
 > any clients and NOBODY cares if you post anything or not. NOBODY.
 
 
 I dunno, Richard. I, for one, would love to see her come up with this 
"detailed refuation" she's been crowing about for so long. 
 
 So, speaking in my capacity as "someone other than Xeno who takes Richard 
seriously enough to want a detailed refutation," I want one. 
 
 Failure to produce one will prove Judy a liar, because she made that very 
offer just below. 
 
 I expect exact quotes, URLs, and citations. Maybe even a bibliography and 
footnotes. :-)
 
  
 > On 12/9/2013 12:51 PM, authfriend@... wrote:
 > >
 > > This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here (except 
 > > Xeno) takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, 
 > > let me know.
 > >
 > >
 > > Richard wrote:
 > >
 > > > Maybe Share is waiting to see if you'll explain NOT saying the bijas 
 > > are the nicknames of the deities and why you're mixing working and 
 > > posting to a discussion group at the same time.
 > >
 > > On 12/9/2013 11:08 AM, authfriend@ > >
 > >> So you've made up your mind to die with the sin of bearing false 
 > >> witness (one of the Big Ten) on your soul? In your mind, that's 
 > >> preferable to confessing?
 > >>
 > >>
 > >> (And as you know, "sub specie aeternitatis" has nothing to do with 
 > >> scolding, so that's yet more false witness.)
 > >>
 > >>
 > >> Share did her phony innocent lightheartedness act:
 > >>
 > >> >But Richard, you gotta give Judy points, or something, for scolding 
 > >> me in Latin!Google is my new best friend, along with eternity (-:
 > >>
 > >>
 > >>
 > >> On Monday, December 9, 2013 8:56 AM, Richard J. Williams 
 > >> punditster@ > >> This message has all the earmarks of you sitting at your 
 > >> computer in 
 > >> a home office posting replies whenever the "ding" goes off, alerting 
 > >> you that someone posted to FFL.
 > >>
 > >> So, which is it? Did you say the TM mantras are NOT the names of the 
 > >> personal gods; or did you NOT say the bijas weren't "nicknames" of 
 > >> the deities? Go figure.
 > >>
 > >> "Richard is lying. I never said anything about "the technique," 
 > >> whatever it is, or was. Nor did I say the bijas weren't "nicknames" 
 > >> of the deities (whatever "nicknames" means in this context)."
 > >>
 > >> From: authfriend
 > >> Subject: OMG: madhuauudana & definition of dhaaraNaa
 > >> Forum: Yahoo! FairfiedLife
 > >> Date: November 25, 2013 2:04 PM
 > >>
 > >> On 12/9/2013 8:36 AM, authfriend@ > >>
 > >>> This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here takes 
 > >>> Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know.
 > >>>
 > >>> Richard trolled:
 > >>>
 > >>> > Maybe Share is waiting for you to admit you told a fib about the 
 > >>> TM mantras being the names of the Hindu personal gods.
 > >>>
 > >>> On 12/9/2013 8:03 AM, authfriend@ > >>>
 >  Do you think this "last resolve" for you, Share, will include 
 >  confessing and repenting of the falsehoods you've told on FFL? Or 
 >  are you just going to pretend they don't count, pretend they're 
 >  only a matter of seeing things differently, and take a chance 
 >  you'll get away with them sub specie aeternitatis?
 > 
 >  Share exclaimed:
 > 
 >  > Wow, Buck, what a great rousing hymn to begin the week with, thanks 
 >  > for posting.
 > 
 > 
 >
 
 
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[awoelflebater]

 

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

 Let's get serious.
 
 So, why would anybody care if anyone else is posting from home; or from their 
living room; or from their kitchen; or from a cafe in Paris, FR; or from a 
Dairy Queen in Paris, TX; or even posting from a parking lot on a cell phone 
Walmart in Deadwood, SD? 
 
 Now, I can understand why someone might get defensive if anyone found out they 
were posting to a chat room from their place of employ; or if you're charging 
clients by the hour and posting from your home office when you should be doing 
work. That's some serious posting!
 
 But, if you're getting paid by the piece, it should be no problem - lot's of 
people are able to multi-task all day and all night and make an honest living 
and send posts at all hours.
 
 The problem is posting to a chat room using your professional name as a handle 
and including your business email address in order to advertise your services. 
That's against the FFL rule about posting spam to the group. It's even worse if 
you're using someone else's business name. That's real serious!
 

 As serious as it gets Ricky. I, for one, will distribute the mandatory 
pitchforks, you can organize the burning torches. BTW, were you picked on as a 
kid and now use FFL as a way to get back at the world for having allowed 
yourself to have been tortured to death as a child by some aberrant neighbor or 
older sibling? You certainly seem like a guy with a rather large, shall we say, 
chip on their shoulder. I first noticed it with MJ.
 
 On 12/9/2013 4:20 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
   I don't believe for a second, Barry, that you take Richard seriously. 
Rather, you take me VERY seriously, and you're continuing to stalk me. So I 
really shouldn't accede to your request. But it's so laughably simple, I will.
 
 
 (Oh, by the way, you failed Emily's test miserably. You were unable to hold 
off stalking me for even two weeks--it's been only four days.)
 
 
 Here's Richard's original troll:
 
 
 > Yogi Bhajan says that "Kundalini energy is technically explained as being 
 > sparked during yogic breathing 
 > when prana and apana blends at the 3rd chakra (naval center) at which point 
 > it initially drops down to the 
 > 1st and 2nd chakras before traveling up to the spine to the higher centers 
 > of the brain to activate the 
 > golden cord - the connection between the pituitary and pineal glands - and 
 > penetrate the 7 chakras." 
 > However, this technique was denigrated by Judy in a somewhat inane post 
 > denying that MMY bijas were 
 > the nicknames of  the Istadevatas. Go figure.
 
 
 Richard never was able to document his claim that I "denigrated" the technique 
he describes. I don't know anything about the technique, had never heard of it, 
would have had no reason to "denigrate" it. Nor has he come up with any 
documentation that I denied that "MMY bijas were the nicknames of the 
Istadevatas." I don't know (as I said in the quote he keeps posting) what 
"nicknames" might even mean in this context.
 
 
 But the bijas are not, as I said in the other quote Richard keeps posting, the 
names of the personal gods; they have perfectly good names of their own 
(Lakshmi, Saraswati, etc.). Maharishi said in Beacon Light that the bijas are 
the "mantras" of personal gods, not the names of personal gods.
 
 
 For reference, here are the two quotes from my posts as Richard has posted 
them:
 
 
 "...the TM mantras are *not* the names of the Hindu gods. The Hindu gods 
 have perfectly good names of their own."
 
 
 And:
 
 
 
 
 "Richard is lying. I never said anything about 'the technique,'
 whatever it is, or was. Nor did I say the bijas weren't 'nicknames'
 of the deities (whatever 'nicknames' means in this context)." 
 
 Any questions? Anybody see any lies or fibs (except from Richard)?
 
 
 Feeling a little silly, Barry? After all that huffing and puffing?
 
 
 BTW, Barry, just for the recordI, failing to keep a promise does not make the 
promise a lie unless it can be shown that the person who made it never intended 
to keep it. 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:turquoiseb@... wrote:
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
"Richard J. Williams" wrote:
 >
 > Let's make this real simple so everyone understands:
 > 
 > NOBODY cares that you're working from home and NOBODY cares if you're 
 > posting here in between working for clients and NOBODY cares if you have 
 > any clients and NOBODY cares if you post anything or not. NOBODY.
 
 
 I dunno, Richard. I, for one, would love to see her come up with this 
"detailed refuation" she's been crowing about for so long. 
 
 So, speaking in my capacity as "someone other than Xeno who takes Richard 
seriously enough to want a detailed refutation," I want one. 
 
 Failure to produce one will prove Judy a liar, because she made that very 
offer just below. 
 
 I ex

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[awoelflebater]

 

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

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

 

 Poor Richard. One minute he's expounding on the quinoa salad, the next he is 
telling us about his wardrobe which usually includes sweat pants and sneakers, 
in the next moment we are receiving travelogue photos of buildings in strip 
malls, then we are barraged with his never-ending 
"let's-keep-harping-on-some-subject-because-I-just-love-to-be-repetitively-annoying
 act. This is a man who has far too much free time on his hands. But Share 
really enjoys his posts and we all really appreciate Share's posts for their 
depth and profundity too. Now what I would really have enjoyed seeing is 
Share's analysis of your interaction with Bob last night re: the Pinter piece.
 
Richard wrote:
 
 > The problem is posting to a chat room using your professional name as a 
 > handle and including your business email address in order to advertise your 
 > services. That's against the FFL rule about posting spam to the group. It's 
 > even worse if you're using someone else's business name. That's real serious!

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[authfriend]

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

 
Richard wrote:
 
> The problem is posting to a chat room using your professional name as a 
> handle and including your business email address in order to advertise your 
> services. That's against the FFL rule about posting spam to the group. It's 
> even worse if you're using someone else's business name. That's real serious!

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[Richard J. Williams]

Let's get serious.

So, why would anybody care if anyone else is posting from home; or from 
their living room; or from their kitchen; or from a cafe in Paris, FR; 
or from a Dairy Queen in Paris, TX; or even posting from a parking lot 
on a cell phone Walmart in Deadwood, SD?


Now, I can understand why someone might get defensive if anyone found 
out they were posting to a chat room from their place of employ; or if 
you're charging clients by the hour and posting from your home office 
when you should be doing work. That's some serious posting!


But, if you're getting paid by the piece, it should be no problem - 
lot's of people are able to multi-task all day and all night and make an 
honest living and send posts at all hours.


The problem is posting to a chat room using your professional name as a 
handle and including your business email address in order to advertise 
your services. That's against the FFL rule about posting spam to the 
group. It's even worse if you're using someone else's business name. 
That's real serious!


On 12/9/2013 4:20 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:


I don't believe for a second, Barry, that you take Richard seriously. 
Rather, you take me VERY seriously, and you're continuing to stalk me. 
So I really shouldn't accede to your request. But it's so laughably 
simple, I will.



(Oh, by the way, you failed Emily's test miserably. You were unable to 
hold off stalking me for even two weeks--it's been only four days.)



Here's Richard's original troll:


> Yogi Bhajan says that "Kundalini energy is technically explained as being sparked during 
yogic breathing


> when prana and apana blends at the 3rd chakra (naval center) at which point it initially drops 
down to the


> 1stand 2nd chakras before traveling up to the spine to the higher centers 
of the brain to activate the


> golden cord - the connection between the pituitary and pineal glands 
- and penetrate the 7 chakras."


> However, this technique was denigrated by Judy in a somewhat inane 
post denying that MMY bijas were


> the nicknames of the Istadevatas. Go figure.


Richard never was able to document his claim that I "denigrated" the 
technique he describes. I don't know anything about the technique, had 
never heard of it, would have had no reason to "denigrate" it. Nor has 
he come up with any documentation that I denied that "MMY bijas were 
the nicknames of the Istadevatas." I don't know (as I said in the 
quote he keeps posting) what "nicknames" might even mean in this context.



But the bijas are not, as I said in the other quote Richard keeps 
posting, the names of the personal gods; they have perfectly good 
names of their own (Lakshmi, Saraswati, etc.). Maharishi said in 
Beacon Light that the bijas are the "mantras" of personal gods, not 
the names of personal gods.



For reference, here are the two quotes from my posts as Richard has 
posted them:



"...the TM mantras are *not* the names of the Hindu gods. The Hindu gods
have perfectly good names of their own."

And:


"Richard is lying. I never said anything about 'the technique,'
whatever it is, or was. Nor did I say the bijas weren't 'nicknames'
of the deities (whatever 'nicknames' means in this context)."

Any questions? Anybody see any lies or fibs (except from Richard)?

Feeling a little silly, Barry? After all that huffing and puffing?

BTW, Barry, just for the recordI, failing to keep a promise does not 
make the promise a lie unless it can be shown that the person who made 
it never intended to keep it.


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

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" wrote:

>
> Let's make this real simple so everyone understands:
>
> NOBODY cares that you're working from home and NOBODY cares if
you're
> posting here in between working for clients and NOBODY cares if
you have
> any clients and NOBODY cares if you post anything or not. NOBODY.


/*I dunno, Richard. I, for one, would love to see her come up with 
this "detailed refuation" she's been crowing about for so long.


So, speaking in my capacity as "someone other than Xeno who takes 
Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation," I want one.


Failure to produce one will prove Judy a liar, because she made that 
very offer just below.


I expect exact quotes, URLs, and citations. Maybe even a bibliography 
and footnotes. :-)

*/

> On 12/9/2013 12:51 PM, authfriend@... wrote:
> >
> > This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here
(except
> > Xeno) takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed
refutation,
> > let me know.
> >
> >
> > Richard wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe Share is waiting to see if you'll explain NOT saying
the bijas
> > are the nicknames of the deities and why you're mixing working
and
> > posting to a discussion group at the same time.
> >
> > On 12/9/2013 11:08 AM, authfriend@ > >
> >> So

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[Richard J. Williams]

Let me rephrase that:

NOBODY cares that you're working from home and NOBODY cares if you're 
posting
here in between working for clients and NOBODY cares if you have any 
clients

and almost NOBODY cares if you post anything or not. Almost NOBODY.

On 12/9/2013 1:23 PM, TurquoiseB wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" wrote:
>
> Let's make this real simple so everyone understands:
>
> NOBODY cares that you're working from home and NOBODY cares if you're
> posting here in between working for clients and NOBODY cares if you 
have

> any clients and NOBODY cares if you post anything or not. NOBODY.


/*I dunno, Richard. I, for one, would love to see her come up with 
this "detailed refuation" she's been crowing about for so long.


So, speaking in my capacity as "someone other than Xeno who takes 
Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation," I want one.


Failure to produce one will prove Judy a liar, because she made that 
very offer just below.


I expect exact quotes, URLs, and citations. Maybe even a bibliography 
and footnotes. :-)

*/

> On 12/9/2013 12:51 PM, authfriend@... wrote:
> >
> > This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here (except
> > Xeno) takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation,
> > let me know.
> >
> >
> > Richard wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe Share is waiting to see if you'll explain NOT saying the 
bijas

> > are the nicknames of the deities and why you're mixing working and
> > posting to a discussion group at the same time.
> >
> > On 12/9/2013 11:08 AM, authfriend@ > >
> >> So you've made up your mind to die with the sin of bearing false
> >> witness (one of the Big Ten) on your soul? In your mind, that's
> >> preferable to confessing?
> >>
> >>
> >> (And as you know, "sub specie aeternitatis" has nothing to do with
> >> scolding, so that's yet more false witness.)
> >>
> >>
> >> Share did her phony innocent lightheartedness act:
> >>
> >> >But Richard, you gotta give Judy points, or something, for scolding
> >> me in Latin!Google is my new best friend, along with eternity (-:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Monday, December 9, 2013 8:56 AM, Richard J. Williams
> >> punditster@ > >> This message has all the earmarks of you sitting 
at your computer in

> >> a home office posting replies whenever the "ding" goes off, alerting
> >> you that someone posted to FFL.
> >>
> >> So, which is it? Did you say the TM mantras are NOT the names of the
> >> personal gods; or did you NOT say the bijas weren't "nicknames" of
> >> the deities? Go figure.
> >>
> >> "Richard is lying. I never said anything about "the technique,"
> >> whatever it is, or was. Nor did I say the bijas weren't "nicknames"
> >> of the deities (whatever "nicknames" means in this context)."
> >>
> >> From: authfriend
> >> Subject: OMG: madhuauudana & definition of dhaaraNaa
> >> Forum: Yahoo! FairfiedLife
> >> Date: November 25, 2013 2:04 PM
> >>
> >> On 12/9/2013 8:36 AM, authfriend@ > >>
> >>> This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here takes
> >>> Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know.
> >>>
> >>> Richard trolled:
> >>>
> >>> > Maybe Share is waiting for you to admit you told a fib about the
> >>> TM mantras being the names of the Hindu personal gods.
> >>>
> >>> On 12/9/2013 8:03 AM, authfriend@ > >>>
>  Do you think this "last resolve" for you, Share, will include
>  confessing and repenting of the falsehoods you've told on FFL? Or
>  are you just going to pretend they don't count, pretend they're
>  only a matter of seeing things differently, and take a chance
>  you'll get away with them sub specie aeternitatis?
> 
>  Share exclaimed:
> 
>  > Wow, Buck, what a great rousing hymn to begin the week with, 
thanks for posting.

> 
> 
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[authfriend]

And BTW, you didn't answer my questions. Here, I'll repeat them for your 
convenience:
 

 If you are now, finally, willing to admit that I did qualify the statements in 
that post, why did you whine to Barry that I had not done so? Even right down 
to denying I'd said the very words I did, in fact, say? What the hell were you 
thinking, and why has it taken you so long to acknowledge those falsehoods? Why 
have you been dancing all around your misdeeds, and even trying to blame me for 
them?

 




 You didn't think your opinion carried any weight one way or the other, did 
you, Share?
 
Share insipidated:
 
 > Me too, turq. Except I probably wouldn't take Judy's detailed refutation 
 > seriously enough for her!
 

 

 
 
 On Monday, December 9, 2013 1:23 PM, TurquoiseB  wrote:
 
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" wrote:
>
> Let's make this real simple so everyone understands:
> 
> NOBODY cares that you're working from home and NOBODY cares if you're 
> posting here in between working for clients and NOBODY cares if you have 
> any clients and NOBODY cares if you post anything or not. NOBODY.


I dunno, Richard. I, for one, would love to see her come up with this "detailed 
refuation" she's been crowing about for so long. 

So, speaking in my capacity as "someone other than Xeno who takes Richard 
seriously enough to want a detailed refutation," I want one. 

Failure to produce one will prove Judy a liar, because she made that very offer 
just below. 

I expect exact quotes, URLs, and citations. Maybe even a bibliography and 
footnotes. :-)






 
 
 
 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[authfriend]

You didn't think your opinion carried any weight one way or the other, did you, 
Share?
 
Share inspidated:
 
 > Me too, turq. Except I probably wouldn't take Judy's detailed refutation 
 > seriously enough for her!
 

 
 
 On Monday, December 9, 2013 1:23 PM, TurquoiseB  wrote:
 
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" wrote:
>
> Let's make this real simple so everyone understands:
> 
> NOBODY cares that you're working from home and NOBODY cares if you're 
> posting here in between working for clients and NOBODY cares if you have 
> any clients and NOBODY cares if you post anything or not. NOBODY.


I dunno, Richard. I, for one, would love to see her come up with this "detailed 
refuation" she's been crowing about for so long. 

So, speaking in my capacity as "someone other than Xeno who takes Richard 
seriously enough to want a detailed refutation," I want one. 

Failure to produce one will prove Judy a liar, because she made that very offer 
just below. 

I expect exact quotes, URLs, and citations. Maybe even a bibliography and 
footnotes. :-)






 
 
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Fairfield, Iowa

[Share Long]

Me too, turq. Except I probably wouldn't take Judy's detailed refutation 
seriously enough for her!





On Monday, December 9, 2013 1:23 PM, TurquoiseB  wrote:
 
  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"  wrote:
>
> Let's make this real simple so everyone understands:
> 
> NOBODY cares that you're working from home and NOBODY cares if you're 
> posting here in between working for clients and NOBODY cares if you have 
> any clients and NOBODY cares if you post anything or not. NOBODY.


I dunno, Richard. I, for one, would love to see her come up with this "detailed 
refuation" she's been crowing about for so long. 

So, speaking in my capacity as "someone other than Xeno who takes Richard 
seriously enough to want a detailed refutation," I want one. 

Failure to produce one will prove Judy a liar, because she made that very offer 
just below. 

I expect exact quotes, URLs, and citations. Maybe even a bibliography and 
footnotes. :-)

 
> On 12/9/2013 12:51 PM, authfriend@... wrote:
> >
> > This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here (except 
> > Xeno) takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, 
> > let me know.
> >
> >
> > Richard wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe Share is waiting to see if you'll explain NOT saying the bijas 
> > are the nicknames of the deities and why you're mixing working and 
> > posting to a discussion group at the same time.
> >
> > On 12/9/2013 11:08 AM, authfriend@ > >
> >> So you've made up your mind to die with the sin of bearing false 
> >> witness (one of the Big Ten) on your soul? In your mind, that's 
> >> preferable to confessing?
> >>
> >>
> >> (And as you know, "sub specie aeternitatis" has nothing to do with 
> >> scolding, so that's yet more false witness.)
> >>
> >>
> >> Share did her phony innocent lightheartedness act:
> >>
> >> >But Richard, you gotta give Judy points, or something, for scolding 
> >> me in Latin!Google is my new best friend, along with eternity (-:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Monday, December 9, 2013 8:56 AM, Richard J. Williams 
> >> punditster@ > >> This message has all the earmarks of you sitting at your 
> >> computer in 
> >> a home office posting replies whenever the "ding" goes off, alerting 
> >> you that someone posted to FFL.
> >>
> >> So, which is it? Did you say the TM mantras are NOT the names of the 
> >> personal gods; or did you NOT say the bijas weren't "nicknames" of 
> >> the deities? Go figure.
> >>
> >> "Richard is lying. I never said anything about "the technique," 
> >> whatever it is, or was. Nor did I say the bijas weren't "nicknames" 
> >> of the deities (whatever "nicknames" means in this context)."
> >>
> >> From: authfriend
> >> Subject: OMG: madhuauudana & definition of dhaaraNaa
> >> Forum: Yahoo! FairfiedLife
> >> Date: November 25, 2013 2:04 PM
> >>
> >> On 12/9/2013 8:36 AM, authfriend@ > >>
> >>> This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here takes 
> >>> Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know.
> >>>
> >>> Richard trolled:
> >>>
> >>> > Maybe Share is waiting for you to admit you told a fib about the 
> >>> TM mantras being the names of the Hindu personal gods.
> >>>
> >>> On 12/9/2013 8:03 AM, authfriend@ > >>>
>  Do you think this "last resolve" for you, Share, will include 
>  confessing and repenting of the falsehoods you've told on FFL? Or 
>  are you just going to pretend they don't count, pretend they're 
>  only a matter of seeing things differently, and take a chance 
>  you'll get away with them sub specie aeternitatis?
> 
>  Share exclaimed:
> 
>  > Wow, Buck, what a great rousing hymn to begin the week with, thanks 
>  > for posting.
> 
> 
>