[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect pitch, anybody??

[he...@hotmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

Tempered Tuning   This is a method of tuning that addresses all of the above 
factors. In essence, this method takes the inharmonicity of all six strings and 
the slight mathematical discrepancy between the whole scales and divides the 
variation equally among each string. This means that while no one chord or 
interval is perfect (and it is physically impossible for them all to be 
perfect), they are all only slightly off. But off by such a small, consistent 
amount that no ordinary ear can detect any dissonance. What follow are the 
steps to achieve this tempered tuning. You can learn it quickly. Master it and 
you will tune your guitar quicker and slicker than the other kids on the block! 
Fail to master it, and studies show you will spend 7.52 years of your life 
tuning your guitar.

http://www.ryanguitars.com/GuitarTech-Tuning.html 
http://www.ryanguitars.com/GuitarTech-Tuning.html


 
 
 http://www.ryanguitars.com/GuitarTech-Tuning.html 
 
 http://www.ryanguitars.com/GuitarTech-Tuning.html 
http://www.ryanguitars.com/GuitarTech-Tuning.html   I 
learned this method of temper-tuning a guitar while I was a professional piano 
tuner in Ohio about 24 years ago. 
 
 
 
 View on www.ryan... http://www.ryanguitars.com/GuitarTech-Tuning.html 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 
 
  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect pitch, anybody??

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

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

 MS, 

 It's unusual that a girl would study the trombone as the instrument of choice. 
 I'm thinking that girls usually play the violin, viola or cello.  But it 
obviously paid off for her since she's playing for symphonies now.
 

 I have a niece who started out with playing the flute and ended up at 
Guildehall in London getting her Masters int the French Horn. 
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildhall_School_of_Music_and_Drama 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildhall_School_of_Music_and_Drama

 

 To a gifted musician, the world itself is a symphony of music.  One of Greek 
philosophers coined the term "music of the spheres" to describe the function of 
the various planets in the zodiac.  IMO, the "music" refers to the wave 
functions for each of the planets which affect our brains and physiology.
 

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

 This girl was 13 at the time. She did not major in piano but trombone and now 
plays for symphonies. Her father was a conductor. She said that her biggest 
problem was when playing with symphonies it would drive her nuts when the 
symphony would tune sharp of the standardized tuning of 440 because to her ear 
440 was normal. When she was young and would hang out with my daughter, she 
would identify the pitches of all the different sounds like printers 
transformer noise etc. Got to be a joke after awhile. 
 
 
http://music.stackexchange.com/questions/776/why-are-orchestras-tuned-differently
 
http://music.stackexchange.com/questions/776/why-are-orchestras-tuned-differently

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect pitch, anybody??

[he...@hotmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

 Wikipedia:
 

 A440 or A4, which has a frequency of 440 Hz 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hertz, is the musical note 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_note A 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_(musical_note) above middle C 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_C and serves as a general tuning standard 
for musical pitch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_(music).
 Prior to the standardization on 440 Hz, many countries and organizations 
followed the Austrian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austriagovernment's 1885 
recommendation of 435 Hz, which had also been the French standard since the 
1860s.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A440_(pitch_standard)#cite_note-1 The 
American music industry reached an informal standard of 440 Hz in 1926, and 
some began using it in instrument manufacturing. In 1936 the American Standards 
Association 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Standards_Associationrecommended that 
the A above middle C be tuned to 440 Hz.[2] 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A440_(pitch_standard)#cite_note-2 This standard 
was taken up by theInternational Organization for Standardization 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organization_for_Standardization in 
1955 (reaffirmed by them in 1975) as ISO 16.[3] 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A440_(pitch_standard)#cite_note-3 Although not 
universally accepted, since then it has served as the audio frequency 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency reference for the calibration of 
acoustic equipment and the tuning of pianos, violins, and other musical 
instruments.

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect pitch, anybody??

[msilver1...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Friend of my daughters was playing our plano. she looked up at me and said this 
piano is flat, it's tuned to 436 instead of 440. It just so happened that the 
piano had been tuned to 436 intentionally a few hours before she sat down to 
play it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect pitch, anybody??

[jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

MS, 

 I had a friend while in college who proved to me that he had perfect pitch.  
While he was on the other room, I played on the piano several notes one at a 
time.  And he named all of the notes that I played.  I was impressed.
 

 He was our guitar player at the time.  But he majored in Engineering at UC 
Berkeley, and did not stay in music as a professional career.
 

 I myself am self-taught in playing the piano.  There is much to know about the 
subject.  There's a guy on YouTube who is an excellent teacher for playing 
jazz.  He's got a video on how to use the various scales and modes while 
playing during solos and improvisations.  I'm practicing some of his concepts 
now and it's improved my playing as well.
 

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

 Friend of my daughters was playing our plano. she looked up at me and said 
this piano is flat, it's tuned to 436 instead of 440. It just so happened that 
the piano had been tuned to 436 intentionally a few hours before she sat down 
to play it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect pitch, anybody??

[msilver1...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

This girl was 13 at the time. She did not major in piano but trombone and now 
plays for symphonies. Her father was a conductor. She said that her biggest 
problem was when playing with symphonies it would drive her nuts when the 
symphony would tune sharp of the standardized tuning of 440 because to her ear 
440 was normal. When she was young and would hang out with my daughter,  she 
would identify the pitches of all the different sounds like printers 
transformer noise etc. Got to be a joke after awhile. 

http://music.stackexchange.com/questions/776/why-are-orchestras-tuned-differently

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect pitch, anybody??

[Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]]

I've never quite understood perfect pitch because musical tunings have 
evolved arbitrarily unless some frequency just seemed "right" to some 
people.  I worked with a pianist who claimed to have perfect pitch and 
would bring a tuning kit to gigs to fix and instrument he had to play 
on.  I need to look up if there is some physiological theory on why some 
people develop "perfect pitch."


On 09/13/2015 11:42 AM, jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:


MS,


It's unusual that a girl would study the trombone as the instrument of 
choice.  I'm thinking that girls usually play the violin, viola or 
cello.  But it obviously paid off for her since she's playing for 
symphonies now.


To a gifted musician, the world itself is a symphony of music.  One of 
Greek philosophers coined the term "music of the spheres" to describe 
the function of the various planets in the zodiac.  IMO, the "music" 
refers to the wave functions for each of the planets which affect our 
brains and physiology.



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

This girl was 13 at the time. She did not major in piano but trombone 
and now plays for symphonies. Her father was a conductor. She said 
that her biggest problem was when playing with symphonies it would 
drive her nuts when the symphony would tune sharp of the standardized 
tuning of 440 because to her ear 440 was normal. When she was young 
and would hang out with my daughter, she would identify the pitches of 
all the different sounds like printers transformer noise etc. Got to 
be a joke after awhile.


http://music.stackexchange.com/questions/776/why-are-orchestras-tuned-differently

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect pitch, anybody??

[jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

MS, 

 It's unusual that a girl would study the trombone as the instrument of choice. 
 I'm thinking that girls usually play the violin, viola or cello.  But it 
obviously paid off for her since she's playing for symphonies now.
 

 To a gifted musician, the world itself is a symphony of music.  One of Greek 
philosophers coined the term "music of the spheres" to describe the function of 
the various planets in the zodiac.  IMO, the "music" refers to the wave 
functions for each of the planets which affect our brains and physiology.
 

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

 This girl was 13 at the time. She did not major in piano but trombone and now 
plays for symphonies. Her father was a conductor. She said that her biggest 
problem was when playing with symphonies it would drive her nuts when the 
symphony would tune sharp of the standardized tuning of 440 because to her ear 
440 was normal. When she was young and would hang out with my daughter, she 
would identify the pitches of all the different sounds like printers 
transformer noise etc. Got to be a joke after awhile. 
 
 
http://music.stackexchange.com/questions/776/why-are-orchestras-tuned-differently
 
http://music.stackexchange.com/questions/776/why-are-orchestras-tuned-differently

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect pitch, anybody??

[steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Has the Department of Homeland Security been notified?
 

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

 Friend of my daughters was playing our plano. she looked up at me and said 
this piano is flat, it's tuned to 436 instead of 440. It just so happened that 
the piano had been tuned to 436 intentionally a few hours before she sat down 
to play it.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect pitch, anybody??

[msilver1...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

My son who plays bass professionally has relative pitch which means he can 
determine a secondary note from hearing in his head an E note.  The note is 
always E so he has to work his way up or down the scale to figure out the 
secondary note.This is probably developed. 

Perfect pitch on the other hand seems to be a talent your born with because 
it's uncanny how Matar can tell you the pitch-note and frequency, sharp ,flat 
or natural immediately with no calculation.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect living arrangements for Buck

[j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

The developer's website says, For security reasons, we will not disclose the 
exact location, though we can tell you that both silo 1 and 2 are located in 
Kansas. Well, locations of old missile silos are public info and easily found 
online. From what I can gather, these are the two locations:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B024%2745.4%22N+97%C2%B040%2755.4%22W/@39.412606,-97.68206,335m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0
 
https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B024%2745.4%22N+97%C2%B040%2755.4%22W/@39.412606,-97.68206,335m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0
 
https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B009'52.0%22N+97%C2%B039'50.0%22W/@39.1595884,-97.666,2729m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0?hl=en
 
https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B009%2752.0%22N+97%C2%B039'50.0%22W/@39.1595884,-97.666,2729m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0?hl=en
  


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

 Those On The Program TMers who want to be prepared for *either* the coming Age 
of Sat Yuga *or* the Apocalypse (whichever comes first) should consider buying 
one of these condos. Only 1 hour and ten minutes from the Brahmastan of the US 
at Lebanon, Kansas.  

 

 They've already got a pee in the cup room and a holding cell for those who 
are unstressing or Off The Program and need a time out. Sounds *perfect* for 
diehard TMers who want to die hard.   :-)
 

 U.S. survival condos: Luxury apartments designed for doomsday 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=himiayarTS8
 

  
  
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=himiayarTS8
  
  
  
  
  
 U.S. survival condos: Luxury apartments designed for doo... 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=himiayarTS8

 
 View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=himiayarTS8
 Preview by Yahoo
 
  

 




  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect living arrangements for Buck

[j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Personally, I would rather not survive anything resembling an apocalypse, and 
most certainly not in a bunker full of survivalist types. Perhaps, if I had 
children, I'd feel differently; my dad always made it clear he did not want to 
be kept alive with machines and whatnot. But, several years ago, when nature 
provided him with a ticket out of here, he opted to to get the pacemaker so 
that he could spend more time with his kids. 
 

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

 I just keep thinking that there's a movie of the week in this somewhere. I 
mean, a properly perverted writer could do wonders with the idea of these 
Luxury Condos Of The Rich And Famous as a kind of self-selecting hell, similar 
to Poe's The Masque of the Red Death. 

 

 You pay your million+ bucks to get your insurance policy for the Apocalypse, 
and then the Apocalypse really happens, and you're stuck with people just like 
you in an underground bunker. Forever. 

 

 It could be a really funny sitcom, with people like Donald Trump living next 
to Paris Hilton and Shirley MacLaine and and a few assorted celebrities, 
politicians, rock stars, and Silicon Valley gazillionaires. It could be like 
Harlan Ellison's A Boy and his Dog, but with better characters and better 
cuisine. ( That's an in-joke for those who know Harlan's piece. :-)

 From: j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 3:45 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect living arrangements for Buck
 
 
   The developer's website says, For security reasons, we will not disclose 
the exact location, though we can tell you that both silo 1 and 2 are located 
in Kansas. Well, locations of old missile silos are public info and easily 
found online. From what I can gather, these are the two locations:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B024%2745.4%22N+97%C2%B040%2755.4%22W/@39.412606,-97.68206,335m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0
 
https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B024%2745.4%22N+97%C2%B040%2755.4%22W/@39.412606,-97.68206,335m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0

 
https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B009'52.0%22N+97%C2%B039'50.0%22W/@39.1595884,-97.666,2729m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0?hl=en
 
https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B009%2752.0%22N+97%C2%B039%2750.0%22W/@39.1595884,-97.666,2729m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0?hl=en
  
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote :

 


 Those On The Program TMers who want to be prepared for *either* the coming Age 
of Sat Yuga *or* the Apocalypse (whichever comes first) should consider buying 
one of these condos. Only 1 hour and ten minutes from the Brahmastan of the US 
at Lebanon, Kansas.  

 

 They've already got a pee in the cup room and a holding cell for those who 
are unstressing or Off The Program and need a time out. Sounds *perfect* for 
diehard TMers who want to die hard.   :-)
 

 U.S. survival condos: Luxury apartments designed for doomsday 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=himiayarTS8
 

  
  
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=himiayarTS8
  
  
  
  
  
 U.S. survival condos: Luxury apartments designed for doo... 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=himiayarTS8

 
 View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=himiayarTS8
 Preview by Yahoo
 
  

 





  

 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect living arrangements for Buck

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

I just keep thinking that there's a movie of the week in this somewhere. I 
mean, a properly perverted writer could do wonders with the idea of these 
Luxury Condos Of The Rich And Famous as a kind of self-selecting hell, similar 
to Poe's The Masque of the Red Death. 

You pay your million+ bucks to get your insurance policy for the Apocalypse, 
and then the Apocalypse really happens, and you're stuck with people just like 
you in an underground bunker. Forever. 

It could be a really funny sitcom, with people like Donald Trump living next to 
Paris Hilton and Shirley MacLaine and and a few assorted celebrities, 
politicians, rock stars, and Silicon Valley gazillionaires. It could be like 
Harlan Ellison's A Boy and his Dog, but with better characters and better 
cuisine. ( That's an in-joke for those who know Harlan's piece. :-)
  From: j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 3:45 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect living arrangements for Buck
   
    The developer's website says, For security reasons, we will not disclose 
the exact location, though we can tell you that both silo 1 and 2 are located 
in Kansas. Well, locations of old missile silos are public info and easily 
found online. From what I can gather, these are the two locations:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B024%2745.4%22N+97%C2%B040%2755.4%22W/@39.412606,-97.68206,335m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0

https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B009'52.0%22N+97%C2%B039'50.0%22W/@39.1595884,-97.666,2729m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0?hl=en
  ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote :



Those On The Program TMers who want to be prepared for *either* the coming Age 
of Sat Yuga *or* the Apocalypse (whichever comes first) should consider buying 
one of these condos. Only 1 hour and ten minutes from the Brahmastan of the US 
at Lebanon, Kansas.  

They've already got a pee in the cup room and a holding cell for those who 
are unstressing or Off The Program and need a time out. Sounds *perfect* for 
diehard TMers who want to die hard.   :-)
U.S. survival condos: Luxury apartments designed for doomsday

|   |
|   |  |   |   |   |   |   |
| U.S. survival condos: Luxury apartments designed for doo... |
|  |
| View on www.youtube.com | Preview by Yahoo |
|  |
|   |


   #yiv1452207727 #yiv1452207727 -- #yiv1452207727ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid 
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv1452207727 
#yiv1452207727ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv1452207727 
#yiv1452207727ygrp-mkp #yiv1452207727hd 
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 
0;}#yiv1452207727 #yiv1452207727ygrp-mkp #yiv1452207727ads 
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv1452207727 #yiv1452207727ygrp-mkp .yiv1452207727ad 
{padding:0 0;}#yiv1452207727 #yiv1452207727ygrp-mkp .yiv1452207727ad p 
{margin:0;}#yiv1452207727 #yiv1452207727ygrp-mkp .yiv1452207727ad a 
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv1452207727 #yiv1452207727ygrp-sponsor 
#yiv1452207727ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv1452207727 
#yiv1452207727ygrp-sponsor #yiv1452207727ygrp-lc #yiv1452207727hd {margin:10px 
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv1452207727 
#yiv1452207727ygrp-sponsor #yiv1452207727ygrp-lc .yiv1452207727ad 
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv1452207727 #yiv1452207727actions 
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv1452207727 
#yiv1452207727activity 
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv1452207727
 #yiv1452207727activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv1452207727 
#yiv1452207727activity span:first-child 
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv1452207727 #yiv1452207727activity span a 
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv1452207727 #yiv1452207727activity span 
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv1452207727 #yiv1452207727activity span 
.yiv1452207727underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1452207727 
.yiv1452207727attach 
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px 
0;width:400px;}#yiv1452207727 .yiv1452207727attach div a 
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv1452207727 .yiv1452207727attach img 
{border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv1452207727 .yiv1452207727attach label 
{display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv1452207727 .yiv1452207727attach label a 
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv1452207727 blockquote {margin:0 0 0 
4px;}#yiv1452207727 .yiv1452207727bold 
{font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}#yiv1452207727 
.yiv1452207727bold a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv1452207727 dd.yiv1452207727last 
p a {font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv1452207727 dd.yiv1452207727last p 
span {margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv1452207727 
dd.yiv1452207727last p span.yiv1452207727yshortcuts 
{margin-right:0;}#yiv1452207727 div.yiv1452207727attach-table div div a 
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv1452207727

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect living arrangements for Buck

[rich...@rwilliams.us [FairfieldLife]]

 The only thing the TMers on FFL are concerned about at present is if we have 
enough saved up so we can retire and eat well. We're not concerned with 
surviving the coming apocalypse because we already realize we're all going to 
die soon of old age - nobody gets out of here alive.

If you want to go ahead and believe in pie in the sky Buddhas and a soul that 
reincarnates, that's your business. 

We've already done what had to be done, worked all our life and raised families 
- we've accomplished all our aims and are at peace. Now all we have to do is 
sit back and enjoy. You, on the other hand, may still need some spiritual work 
in order to avoid the danger that lies ahead. 

So, forget about us, just continue to work out your own salvation with 
diligence and hope you can last a few more years without much pain and 
suffering.

Good luck - you'll probably be needing it considering where you're presently 
holed up and how much  money you've been able to save for your own retirement - 
don't give up your day job, if your still have one.

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

 Those On The Program TMers who want to be prepared for *either* the coming Age 
of Sat Yuga *or* the Apocalypse (whichever comes first) should consider buying 
one of these condos. Only 1 hour and ten minutes from the Brahmastan of the US 
at Lebanon, Kansas.  

 

 They've already got a pee in the cup room and a holding cell for those who 
are unstressing or Off The Program and need a time out. Sounds *perfect* for 
diehard TMers who want to die hard.   :-)
 

 U.S. survival condos: Luxury apartments designed for doomsday 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=himiayarTS8
 

  
  
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=himiayarTS8
  
  
  
  
  
 U.S. survival condos: Luxury apartments designed for doo... 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=himiayarTS8

 
 View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=himiayarTS8
 Preview by Yahoo
 
  

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect!

[Richard J. Williams]

turquoise:
 ...whenever I see photos of this guy, I always
 think of Ravi. 

So, why would think you're superior to Ravi,
because you're a free white, and look different
from an average Asian? Last time I checked,
Indians were Caucasian just like you. LoL!

To be white like you in Paris ...is to have the 
privilege of being able to define one's political 
identity in terms of one's own superiority, 
whether real or imagined, over other members of 
one's own race.

'A Theory of White Racism Against Whites'
Wall Street Journal:
http://tinyurl.com/cekutw6

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect!

[Richard J. Williams]

Ravi Chivukula:
 Yes - I totally agree Barry baby - he's a clown

Rama (a.k.a. Frederick Lenz a.k.a. Atmananda) 1950-1998

  http://www.zenmasterrama.com/TantricZen.htm

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect!

[Ann]

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

 
 Ravi Chivukula:
  Yes - I totally agree Barry baby - he's a clown
 
 Rama (a.k.a. Frederick Lenz a.k.a. Atmananda) 1950-1998
 
   http://www.zenmasterrama.com/TantricZen.htm

Maybe we should forgive Fred for this image and blame the whole thing on the 
80's.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect!

[doctordumbass]

Sort of Alice Cooper meets Art Garfunkel meets Carrot Top, with a healthy dose 
of extra frizz. He must have followed the directions on the Prell bottle that 
said, rinse, AND REPEAT. Guaranteed to strip the oil from every follicle on his 
head, and then some.  

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

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams richard@ wrote:
 
  
  Ravi Chivukula:
   Yes - I totally agree Barry baby - he's a clown
  
  Rama (a.k.a. Frederick Lenz a.k.a. Atmananda) 1950-1998
  
http://www.zenmasterrama.com/TantricZen.htm
 
 Maybe we should forgive Fred for this image and blame the whole thing on the 
 80's.
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect!

[Richard J. Williams]

Ann:
 Maybe we should forgive Fred for this image and blame the
 whole thing on the 80's.

Maybe, but that's Fred from the 70s. LoL!

Fred's guru, Chinmoy Kumar Ghose: 'The Transcendental'

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Chinmoy

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect!

[nablusoss1008]

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




 Fred's guru, Chinmoy Kumar Ghose: 'The Transcendental'





The second greatest being I ever met. An amazing Yogi.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect Sense

[turquoiseb]

I saw this some time ago (think Johnny Depp saying, Pirate!),
and thought I'd mentioned it here, but a quick search seems to
indicate that maybe I didn't. I just loved this movie, and not
*only* because it stars one of the most beautiful women in
the world, Eva Green.

The whole metaphor is lovely, especially what happens as people
learn to cope with the loss of a sense that they felt kinda defined
life and what it is to live it. The sense disappears, but life does not,
and one learns to cope, and continue on.

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

 Perfect Sense is an apocalyptic love story.   It is the story of two
 people who fall in love as an epidemic spreads the planet robbing
people
 of their sensory perceptions.   Ewan McGregor plays a chef in a
 restaurant next door to the apartment of a epidemiologist, played by
Eva
 Green, who works for an organization trying to solve what is happening
 with the epidemic.  The first sense to go is that of smell.

 This is a smart apocalyptic film.  People don't turn into zombies but
 they do go berserk a bit whenever they lose another sense.  More
nudity
 than blood but not enough to rate it Not for Buck.

 It's not on Netflix WI but available on DVD from Netflix.  I watched
it
 on Showtime OnDemand because Netflix was having another re-buffering
fit
 because apparently a lot of people were staying home last night and
 watching Netflix and their servers are just not ready for that kind of
 demand.

 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1439572/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect Sense

[turquoiseb]

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

 I saw this some time ago (think Johnny Depp saying, Pirate!),
 and thought I'd mentioned it here, but a quick search seems to
 indicate that maybe I didn't. 

Ah, I did. I was searching for the title of the movie
in the text of the post, and it was in the Subject line.
Worth repeating, because as Bhairitu says, this is a
pretty good movie:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/299267

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/299278

 I just loved this movie, and not
 *only* because it stars one of the most beautiful women in
 the world, Eva Green.
 
 The whole metaphor is lovely, especially what happens as people
 learn to cope with the loss of a sense that they felt kinda defined
 life and what it is to live it. The sense disappears, but life does not,
 and one learns to cope, and continue on.
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
 
  Perfect Sense is an apocalyptic love story.   It is the story of two
  people who fall in love as an epidemic spreads the planet robbing
 people
  of their sensory perceptions.   Ewan McGregor plays a chef in a
  restaurant next door to the apartment of a epidemiologist, played by
 Eva
  Green, who works for an organization trying to solve what is happening
  with the epidemic.  The first sense to go is that of smell.
 
  This is a smart apocalyptic film.  People don't turn into zombies but
  they do go berserk a bit whenever they lose another sense.  More
 nudity
  than blood but not enough to rate it Not for Buck.
 
  It's not on Netflix WI but available on DVD from Netflix.  I watched
 it
  on Showtime OnDemand because Netflix was having another re-buffering
 fit
  because apparently a lot of people were staying home last night and
  watching Netflix and their servers are just not ready for that kind of
  demand.
 
  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1439572/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect Sense

[Bhairitu]

I stumbled upon it because of Netflix's buffering problems.  I also had 
the problem Saturday night so spent some money and watched Bourne 
Legacy on Amazon.  I chose Amazon over Vudu not because Vudu is owned 
by Walmart but because they use Dolby Digital Plus on some of their HD 
offerings and my receiver is too old to know what the hell DD+ is and 
decodes it as ProLogic which is underwhelming.  Amazon only does Dolby 
Digital 5.1.

Many of the films listed on Showtime, HBO and the free movies section of 
Comcast I've seen.  This was one I hadn't.  It followed trying to watch 
Wreckage for the second time on Showtime.  I stopped a couple nights 
back because Wreckage had all the signs of being a real loser because 
of 5 minutes of opening credits and a weak opening.  There was some 
argument about the film on a forum so I checked the reviews and many 
people said it picks up when Breaking Bad actor Aaron Paul is 
introduced and indeed it does. The film is too brutal for tender FFL'ers 
though so I'll rate it Not for Buck.

I don't know how much longer I'm going to make out checks to Comcast 
welfare.  They lobbied and got the right from the FCC to encrypt local 
broadcast stations.  When that happens there is no real reason to keep 
them.  I will take up U-Verse on their promo offer.  When that runs out 
I'll switch to a satellite provider. Broadcast TV is rather droll as it 
is obvious that without upsetting mythical prudish midwesterners, who 
apparently stupidly fall for the advertising pitches, shows get toned 
down too much.

I won't risk the eyepatch route because the US gestapo is always looking 
for someone to hang for that.  Regarding fireworks I'll note they aren't 
happening this year for the downtown.  I think they even canceled them 
last year as they were too expensive and in recent years even canceled 
due to rain.  It is going to be a clear cold evening and cops busy 
filling jails with people who have alcohol on their breathe though maybe 
not even impaired enough to drive carelessly.  I'll find another video 
to watch.

After all:

It's the most boring time of the year.
When TV is boring,
you feel just like snoring,
as repeats make your eyes tear.
It's the most boring time of the year!

Happy New Year! :-D

On 12/31/2012 09:48 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:
 I saw this some time ago (think Johnny Depp saying, Pirate!),
 and thought I'd mentioned it here, but a quick search seems to
 indicate that maybe I didn't.
 Ah, I did. I was searching for the title of the movie
 in the text of the post, and it was in the Subject line.
 Worth repeating, because as Bhairitu says, this is a
 pretty good movie:

 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/299267

 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/299278

 I just loved this movie, and not
 *only* because it stars one of the most beautiful women in
 the world, Eva Green.

 The whole metaphor is lovely, especially what happens as people
 learn to cope with the loss of a sense that they felt kinda defined
 life and what it is to live it. The sense disappears, but life does not,
 and one learns to cope, and continue on.

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
 Perfect Sense is an apocalyptic love story.   It is the story of two
 people who fall in love as an epidemic spreads the planet robbing
 people
 of their sensory perceptions.   Ewan McGregor plays a chef in a
 restaurant next door to the apartment of a epidemiologist, played by
 Eva
 Green, who works for an organization trying to solve what is happening
 with the epidemic.  The first sense to go is that of smell.

 This is a smart apocalyptic film.  People don't turn into zombies but
 they do go berserk a bit whenever they lose another sense.  More
 nudity
 than blood but not enough to rate it Not for Buck.

 It's not on Netflix WI but available on DVD from Netflix.  I watched
 it
 on Showtime OnDemand because Netflix was having another re-buffering
 fit
 because apparently a lot of people were staying home last night and
 watching Netflix and their servers are just not ready for that kind of
 demand.

 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1439572/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[Emily Reyn]

Thank you Raunchy.  Coming back to FFL is a bit like returning after vacation 
to the large projects I used to work onwithin a space of a week or two, 
much can happen.    



 From: raunchydog raunchy...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 10:16 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for 
the Church of $cientology
 

  
Welcome back, Emily. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:

 Well,  I clicked randomly on this because I like Judy and because I am 
 randomly re-entering my life here in Seattle.  
 
 I've adopted the fictive voice of others and 
 dared a certain someone to take a week off from 
 dissing those she so habitually feels the need to
 demonize here on FFL. 
 
 
 Simply focusing on this statement above by Barry, and responding to Alex 
 incorrectly, I just have to say that I have proactively dared Barry to take 
 a week off and watch several times nowya know, to practice what he 
 preaches, and all that.  
 
 Now, I will STFU for awhile and try and catch up.  Or...not.  I'm holed up 
 in another hotel undergoing my re-entry process, watching cable TV, catching 
 up on the news for the masses.  
 
 The grandeur of Utah and Highway 12 were unparalleled.  Beauty and spirit in 
 the Escalante were almost more than one could take in.   Didn't even make it 
 to the Arches or Canyonlands National Parks, proper.  Vegas has grown up in 
 the 20 years since I've been there - talk about man-made surreal. 
  Psychodelic.  O was a good show, and it was hard to leave the pastries 
 cooked up by the French chefs at the Bellagio. But, nothing compares to what 
 nature presents to us and I'd rather be camped at the base of a sandstone 
 cliff in the desert.  
 
 Curtis, while hiking up Angel's Landing in Zion it came to me that I was, oh 
 so long ago it seems now, laughing at your expense.  I admit it.  As I told 
 you, I wrote my out into my revamp of Robin's ironic post.  Remember I 
 told you that.  I was laughing at youlong and luscious laughs. Where 
 *was* your sense of humor.  Jesus loves you...the Mormons told me so.  I'll 
 get back to you later on all those rockin' assumptions about my motivations 
 you leveled at me in my absence.  Tee Hee and don't forget it :)
 
 
 
  From: Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 8:29 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for 
 the Church of $cientology
 
 
   
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
  
   ... I think what I don't like is gratuitous negativity.
   Especially the kind that is mean and nasty towards 
   someone else. Like the kind that seemingly pops up out 
   of nowhere and functions merely to keep the negativity 
   flowing. And ironically enough, often it happens here 
   just when things have quieted down! DUH! 
  
  A noble thought. Now let's see how you follow through
  on it. 
  
  I've said what I had to say in my little Intervention
  riff. I've adopted the fictive voice of others and 
  dared a certain someone to take a week off from 
  dissing those she so habitually feels the need to
  demonize here on FFL. 
  
  WHY am I doing this? As a kind of proactive experiment.
  We who have (ahem) been around FFL longer than you have
  are by now used to her attempting to restart the demon-
  izations after a break. Let's see what she -- and
  others who tend to join her in them -- do this time,
  shall we?
  
  From my side, I will try my best to neither read any-
  thing she writes, or respond to it. I shall also try
  to avoid mentioning her at all. I suspect that Curtis
  will do the same, since that is his current M.O. anyway.
  He rarely gets involved until after the first brick 
  has been thrown attempting to damage his career as an
  educator. Vaj is silent for his own reasons, many of
  which have to do with the renewed presence on this
  forum of a rather disturbed troll.
  
  So...just sayin'...what will happen from *your* side,
  since you've weighed in above? Will you call *others*
  on this forum if *they* try to restart the olde
  bitterness and grudges? Or is that something you
  only do when those whom you've been taught to assoc-
  iate with the Curtis-Barry-Vaj troika speak up?
  
  I guess only time will tell, eh?
 
 
 Yahoo already gave us an intervention of sorts, on Aug 24th, the Day of 999 
 Error Terror. On that day, Judy patiently sat it out, waiting for Yahoo to 
 fix the web interface. Barry, OTOH, decloaked from no_reply mode in order 
 to send two posts via email:
 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/317920
 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/317926



 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[Emily Reyn]

Judy.  You are right - Barry could have been referring to me in that quote!  
After all, this was his latest assessment of my character:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320299


Pussywhipped, juvenile, and pathetic person that I am, I see little hope for 
recovery of any credibility related to my postings here on FFL.

Perhaps I can redeem some semblance of perceived normality in the eyes of Barry 
by posting a few pics (although I know he's seen it all before being the 
dismissive, been there, done that kind of guy that he is) which I will do in 
the next week or so.  My camera battery near the beginning of the trip so many 
of the images are retained in my mind's eye.  Again, not so good for my 
credibility.  But, yes, I'll share.   



 From: authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 8:56 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for 
the Church of $cientology
 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:

 Well, I clicked randomly on this because I like Judy and because I am 
 randomly re-entering my life here in Seattle.
 
 I've adopted the fictive voice of others and 
 dared a certain someone to take a week off from
 dissing those she so habitually feels the need to
 demonize here on FFL.

Emily baby! Great to see you back.

Thank you for da kind woids. But however did you figure out
Barry was referring to me in that quote? I just can't imagine.

Sounds like a terrific trip. Got pictures?

 Simply focusing on this statement above by Barry, and responding to Alex 
 incorrectly, I just have to say that I have proactively dared Barry to take 
 a week off and watch several times nowya know, to practice what he 
 preaches, and all that.  
 
 Now, I will STFU for awhile and try and catch up.  Or...not.  I'm holed up 
 in another hotel undergoing my re-entry process, watching cable TV, catching 
 up on the news for the masses.  
 
 The grandeur of Utah and Highway 12 were unparalleled.  Beauty and spirit in 
 the Escalante were almost more than one could take in.   Didn't even make it 
 to the Arches or Canyonlands National Parks, proper.  Vegas has grown up in 
 the 20 years since I've been there - talk about man-made surreal. 
  Psychodelic.  O was a good show, and it was hard to leave the pastries 
 cooked up by the French chefs at the Bellagio. But, nothing compares to what 
 nature presents to us and I'd rather be camped at the base of a sandstone 
 cliff in the desert.  
 
 Curtis, while hiking up Angel's Landing in Zion it came to me that I was, oh 
 so long ago it seems now, laughing at your expense.  I admit it.  As I told 
 you, I wrote my out into my revamp of Robin's ironic post.  Remember I 
 told you that.  I was laughing at youlong and luscious laughs. Where 
 *was* your sense of humor.  Jesus loves you...the Mormons told me so.  I'll 
 get back to you later on all those rockin' assumptions about my motivations 
 you leveled at me in my absence.  Tee Hee and don't forget it :)


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[Emily Reyn]

Ann, I did practice clubbing for one night at the B club, but was without 
the appropriate gem-studded, sparkly, spike heels.  Still a student I fear, but 
I'll try and aspire to dancing with the C club.  The DJ played Black Eyed 
Peas (I've Gotta Feeling) as we walked in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSD4vsh1zDA 



 From: awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 8:41 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for 
the Church of $cientology
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:

 Well,  I clicked randomly on this because I like Judy and because I am 
 randomly re-entering my life here in Seattle.  
 
 I've adopted the fictive voice of others and 
 dared a certain someone to take a week off from 
 dissing those she so habitually feels the need to
 demonize here on FFL. 
 
 
 Simply focusing on this statement above by Barry, and responding to Alex 
 incorrectly, I just have to say that I have proactively dared Barry to take 
 a week off and watch several times nowya know, to practice what he 
 preaches, and all that.  
 
 Now, I will STFU for awhile and try and catch up.  Or...not.  I'm holed up 
 in another hotel undergoing my re-entry process, watching cable TV, catching 
 up on the news for the masses.  
 
 The grandeur of Utah and Highway 12 were unparalleled.  Beauty and spirit in 
 the Escalante were almost more than one could take in.   Didn't even make it 
 to the Arches or Canyonlands National Parks, proper.  Vegas has grown up in 
 the 20 years since I've been there - talk about man-made surreal. 
  Psychodelic.  O was a good show, and it was hard to leave the pastries 
 cooked up by the French chefs at the Bellagio. But, nothing compares to what 
 nature presents to us and I'd rather be camped at the base of a sandstone 
 cliff in the desert.  
 
 Curtis, while hiking up Angel's Landing in Zion it came to me that I was, oh 
 so long ago it seems now, laughing at your expense.  I admit it.  As I told 
 you, I wrote my out into my revamp of Robin's ironic post.  Remember I 
 told you that.  I was laughing at youlong and luscious laughs. Where 
 *was* your sense of humor.  Jesus loves you...the Mormons told me so.  I'll 
 get back to you later on all those rockin' assumptions about my motivations 
 you leveled at me in my absence.  Tee Hee and don't forget it :)

Emily, you seem in fine form. I look forward to your full return but the 
preview was more than worth the price of admission. Be careful, you might be 
joining the 'C' club but you can handle it.
 
 
 
  From: Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 8:29 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for 
 the Church of $cientology
 
 
   
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
  
   ... I think what I don't like is gratuitous negativity.
   Especially the kind that is mean and nasty towards 
   someone else. Like the kind that seemingly pops up out 
   of nowhere and functions merely to keep the negativity 
   flowing. And ironically enough, often it happens here 
   just when things have quieted down! DUH! 
  
  A noble thought. Now let's see how you follow through
  on it. 
  
  I've said what I had to say in my little Intervention
  riff. I've adopted the fictive voice of others and 
  dared a certain someone to take a week off from 
  dissing those she so habitually feels the need to
  demonize here on FFL. 
  
  WHY am I doing this? As a kind of proactive experiment.
  We who have (ahem) been around FFL longer than you have
  are by now used to her attempting to restart the demon-
  izations after a break. Let's see what she -- and
  others who tend to join her in them -- do this time,
  shall we?
  
  From my side, I will try my best to neither read any-
  thing she writes, or respond to it. I shall also try
  to avoid mentioning her at all. I suspect that Curtis
  will do the same, since that is his current M.O. anyway.
  He rarely gets involved until after the first brick 
  has been thrown attempting to damage his career as an
  educator. Vaj is silent for his own reasons, many of
  which have to do with the renewed presence on this
  forum of a rather disturbed troll.
  
  So...just sayin'...what will happen from *your* side,
  since you've weighed in above? Will you call *others*
  on this forum if *they* try to restart the olde
  bitterness and grudges? Or is that something you
  only do when those whom you've been taught to assoc-
  iate with the Curtis-Barry-Vaj troika speak up?
  
  I guess only time will tell, eh?
 
 
 Yahoo already gave us an intervention of sorts, on Aug 24th

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:

 Ann, I did practice clubbing for one night at the B club, but
 was without the appropriate gem-studded, sparkly, spike heels.
  Still a student I fear, but I'll try and aspire to dancing with
 the C club.  The DJ played Black Eyed Peas (I've Gotta Feeling)
 as we walked in:

A brand new nightclub just opened in Seattle:

http://www.qcapitolhill.com/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[Emily Reyn]

Ha ha.  Didn't know about this; just read the review.  With 4 disco balls and a 
bourbon lounge, it might be worth a try next time I need to blow some steam 
off.  I don't pick up men anymore, but I still love to dance.   



 From: Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, October 1, 2012 9:54 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for 
the Church of $cientology
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:

 Ann, I did practice clubbing for one night at the B club, but
 was without the appropriate gem-studded, sparkly, spike heels.
  Still a student I fear, but I'll try and aspire to dancing with
 the C club.  The DJ played Black Eyed Peas (I've Gotta Feeling)
 as we walked in:

A brand new nightclub just opened in Seattle:

http://www.qcapitolhill.com/


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[Emily Reyn]

Alex, that last line should have read..I don't pick up men anymore *and* I 
still love to dance.  Whooo.  



 From: Emily Reyn emilymae.r...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, October 1, 2012 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing 
for the Church of $cientology
 

Ha ha.  Didn't know about this; just read the review.  With 4 disco balls and a 
bourbon lounge, it might be worth a try next time I need to blow some steam 
off.  I don't pick up men anymore, but I still love to dance.   



 From: Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, October 1, 2012 9:54 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for 
the Church of $cientology
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:

 Ann, I did practice clubbing for one night at the B club, but
 was without the appropriate gem-studded, sparkly, spike heels.
  Still a student I fear, but I'll try and aspire to dancing with
 the C club.  The DJ played Black Eyed Peas (I've Gotta Feeling)
 as we walked in:

A brand new nightclub just opened in Seattle:

http://www.qcapitolhill.com/


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[Emily Reyn]

Well,  I clicked randomly on this because I like Judy and because I am randomly 
re-entering my life here in Seattle.  

I've adopted the fictive voice of others and 
dared a certain someone to take a week off from 
dissing those she so habitually feels the need to
demonize here on FFL. 


Simply focusing on this statement above by Barry, and responding to Alex 
incorrectly, I just have to say that I have proactively dared Barry to take a 
week off and watch several times nowya know, to practice what he 
preaches, and all that.  

Now, I will STFU for awhile and try and catch up.  Or...not.  I'm holed up in 
another hotel undergoing my re-entry process, watching cable TV, catching up on 
the news for the masses.  

The grandeur of Utah and Highway 12 were unparalleled.  Beauty and spirit in 
the Escalante were almost more than one could take in.   Didn't even make it to 
the Arches or Canyonlands National Parks, proper.  Vegas has grown up in the 20 
years since I've been there - talk about man-made surreal.  Psychodelic.  O was 
a good show, and it was hard to leave the pastries cooked up by the French 
chefs at the Bellagio. But, nothing compares to what nature presents to us and 
I'd rather be camped at the base of a sandstone cliff in the desert.  

Curtis, while hiking up Angel's Landing in Zion it came to me that I was, oh so 
long ago it seems now, laughing at your expense.  I admit it.  As I told you, I 
wrote my out into my revamp of Robin's ironic post.  Remember I told you 
that.  I was laughing at youlong and luscious laughs. Where *was* your 
sense of humor.  Jesus loves you...the Mormons told me so.  I'll get back to 
you later on all those rockin' assumptions about my motivations you leveled at 
me in my absence.  Tee Hee and don't forget it :)



 From: Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 8:29 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for 
the Church of $cientology
 

  


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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
 
  ... I think what I don't like is gratuitous negativity.
  Especially the kind that is mean and nasty towards 
  someone else. Like the kind that seemingly pops up out 
  of nowhere and functions merely to keep the negativity 
  flowing. And ironically enough, often it happens here 
  just when things have quieted down! DUH! 
 
 A noble thought. Now let's see how you follow through
 on it. 
 
 I've said what I had to say in my little Intervention
 riff. I've adopted the fictive voice of others and 
 dared a certain someone to take a week off from 
 dissing those she so habitually feels the need to
 demonize here on FFL. 
 
 WHY am I doing this? As a kind of proactive experiment.
 We who have (ahem) been around FFL longer than you have
 are by now used to her attempting to restart the demon-
 izations after a break. Let's see what she -- and
 others who tend to join her in them -- do this time,
 shall we?
 
 From my side, I will try my best to neither read any-
 thing she writes, or respond to it. I shall also try
 to avoid mentioning her at all. I suspect that Curtis
 will do the same, since that is his current M.O. anyway.
 He rarely gets involved until after the first brick 
 has been thrown attempting to damage his career as an
 educator. Vaj is silent for his own reasons, many of
 which have to do with the renewed presence on this
 forum of a rather disturbed troll.
 
 So...just sayin'...what will happen from *your* side,
 since you've weighed in above? Will you call *others*
 on this forum if *they* try to restart the olde
 bitterness and grudges? Or is that something you
 only do when those whom you've been taught to assoc-
 iate with the Curtis-Barry-Vaj troika speak up?
 
 I guess only time will tell, eh?


Yahoo already gave us an intervention of sorts, on Aug 24th, the Day of 999 
Error Terror. On that day, Judy patiently sat it out, waiting for Yahoo to fix 
the web interface. Barry, OTOH, decloaked from no_reply mode in order to send 
two posts via email:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/317920

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/317926


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[seventhray1]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@...
wrote:

 Curtis, while hiking up Angel's Landing in Zion it came to me thatÂ
I was, oh so long ago it seems now, laughing at your expense. Â I
admit it. Â As I told you, I wrote my out into my revamp of Robin's
ironic post. Â Remember I told you that. Â I was laughing at
youlong and luscious laughs. Where *was* your sense of humor. Â
Jesus loves you...the Mormons told me so. Â I'll get back to you
later on all those rockin' assumptions about my motivations you leveled
at me in my absence. Â Tee Hee and don't forget it :)


Hey Em,

If you don't mind my asking, how did you find the hike up Angel's
Landing?  I did it summer before this one.  My one son scrambled up
without much of a problem. (other son was sick at the hotel)

My daughter got freaked a couple hundred feet on the trail, and I had to
turn around with her.

I was freaked out pretty much the entire time as I went back up.

My wife passed on it.

It was the second time I have done it.

From your tone, it sounds like there was not much trepidation on your
part.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[awoelflebater]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:

 Well,  I clicked randomly on this because I like Judy and because I am 
 randomly re-entering my life here in Seattle.  
 
 I've adopted the fictive voice of others and 
 dared a certain someone to take a week off from 
 dissing those she so habitually feels the need to
 demonize here on FFL. 
 
 
 Simply focusing on this statement above by Barry, and responding to Alex 
 incorrectly, I just have to say that I have proactively dared Barry to take 
 a week off and watch several times nowya know, to practice what he 
 preaches, and all that.  
 
 Now, I will STFU for awhile and try and catch up.  Or...not.  I'm holed up 
 in another hotel undergoing my re-entry process, watching cable TV, catching 
 up on the news for the masses.  
 
 The grandeur of Utah and Highway 12 were unparalleled.  Beauty and spirit in 
 the Escalante were almost more than one could take in.   Didn't even make it 
 to the Arches or Canyonlands National Parks, proper.  Vegas has grown up in 
 the 20 years since I've been there - talk about man-made surreal. 
  Psychodelic.  O was a good show, and it was hard to leave the pastries 
 cooked up by the French chefs at the Bellagio. But, nothing compares to what 
 nature presents to us and I'd rather be camped at the base of a sandstone 
 cliff in the desert.  
 
 Curtis, while hiking up Angel's Landing in Zion it came to me that I was, oh 
 so long ago it seems now, laughing at your expense.  I admit it.  As I told 
 you, I wrote my out into my revamp of Robin's ironic post.  Remember I 
 told you that.  I was laughing at youlong and luscious laughs. Where 
 *was* your sense of humor.  Jesus loves you...the Mormons told me so.  I'll 
 get back to you later on all those rockin' assumptions about my motivations 
 you leveled at me in my absence.  Tee Hee and don't forget it :)

Emily, you seem in fine form. I look forward to your full return but the 
preview was more than worth the price of admission. Be careful, you might be 
joining the 'C' club but you can handle it.
 
 
 
  From: Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 8:29 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for 
 the Church of $cientology
  
 
   
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
  
   ... I think what I don't like is gratuitous negativity.
   Especially the kind that is mean and nasty towards 
   someone else. Like the kind that seemingly pops up out 
   of nowhere and functions merely to keep the negativity 
   flowing. And ironically enough, often it happens here 
   just when things have quieted down! DUH! 
  
  A noble thought. Now let's see how you follow through
  on it. 
  
  I've said what I had to say in my little Intervention
  riff. I've adopted the fictive voice of others and 
  dared a certain someone to take a week off from 
  dissing those she so habitually feels the need to
  demonize here on FFL. 
  
  WHY am I doing this? As a kind of proactive experiment.
  We who have (ahem) been around FFL longer than you have
  are by now used to her attempting to restart the demon-
  izations after a break. Let's see what she -- and
  others who tend to join her in them -- do this time,
  shall we?
  
  From my side, I will try my best to neither read any-
  thing she writes, or respond to it. I shall also try
  to avoid mentioning her at all. I suspect that Curtis
  will do the same, since that is his current M.O. anyway.
  He rarely gets involved until after the first brick 
  has been thrown attempting to damage his career as an
  educator. Vaj is silent for his own reasons, many of
  which have to do with the renewed presence on this
  forum of a rather disturbed troll.
  
  So...just sayin'...what will happen from *your* side,
  since you've weighed in above? Will you call *others*
  on this forum if *they* try to restart the olde
  bitterness and grudges? Or is that something you
  only do when those whom you've been taught to assoc-
  iate with the Curtis-Barry-Vaj troika speak up?
  
  I guess only time will tell, eh?
 
 
 Yahoo already gave us an intervention of sorts, on Aug 24th, the Day of 999 
 Error Terror. On that day, Judy patiently sat it out, waiting for Yahoo to 
 fix the web interface. Barry, OTOH, decloaked from no_reply mode in order 
 to send two posts via email:
 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/317920
 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/317926

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[Ravi Chivukula]

Emily, you seem in fine form. I look forward to your full return but the
preview was more than worth the price of admission. *Be careful, you might
be joining the 'C' club but you can handle it.*

LOL..good one, now it makes sense dear Ann, all Curtis was doing was
preparing Emily to be part of the C club. I see it - poor guy, oh man why
do I always misunderstand him, his compassion, love and sacrifice is
unmatched.

Welcome Emily !!!

On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 8:41 PM, awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote:

 **




 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@...
 wrote:
 
  Well, Â I clicked randomly on this because I like Judy and because I am
 randomly re-entering my life here in Seattle. Â
 
  I've adopted the fictive voice of others andÂ
  dared a certain someone to take a week off fromÂ

  dissing those she so habitually feels the need to
  demonize here on FFL.Â
 
 
  Simply focusing on this statement above by Barry, and responding to Alex
 incorrectly, I just have to say that I have proactively dared Barry to
 take a week off and watch several times nowya know, to practice what
 he preaches, and all that. Â
 
  Now, I will STFU for awhile and try and catch up. Â Or...not. Â I'm
 holed up in another hotel undergoing my re-entry process, watching cable
 TV, catching up on the news for the masses. Â
 
  The grandeur of Utah and Highway 12 were unparalleled. Â Beauty and
 spirit in the Escalante were almost more than one could take in. Â  Didn't
 even make it to the Arches or Canyonlands National Parks, proper. Â Vegas
 has grown up in the 20 years since I've been there - talk about man-made
 surreal. Â Psychodelic. Â O was a good show, and it was hard to leave the
 pastries cooked up by the French chefs at the Bellagio. But, nothing
 compares to what nature presents to us and I'd rather be camped at the base
 of a sandstone cliff in the desert. Â
 
  Curtis, while hiking up Angel's Landing in Zion it came to me that I
 was, oh so long ago it seems now, laughing at your expense. Â I admit it.
 Â As I told you, I wrote my out into my revamp of Robin's ironic post.
 Â Remember I told you that. Â I was laughing at youlong and luscious
 laughs. Where *was* your sense of humor. Â Jesus loves you...the Mormons
 told me so. Â I'll get back to you later on all those rockin' assumptions
 about my motivations you leveled at me in my absence. Â Tee Hee and don't
 forget it :)

 Emily, you seem in fine form. I look forward to your full return but the
 preview was more than worth the price of admission. Be careful, you might
 be joining the 'C' club but you can handle it.
 
 
  
  From: Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@...

  To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 8:29 AM
  Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein --
 writing for the Church of $cientology
 
 
  Â
 
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
   
... I think what I don't like is gratuitous negativity.
Especially the kind that is mean and nasty towards
someone else. Like the kind that seemingly pops up out
of nowhere and functions merely to keep the negativity
flowing. And ironically enough, often it happens here
just when things have quieted down! DUH!
  
   A noble thought. Now let's see how you follow through
   on it.
  
   I've said what I had to say in my little Intervention
   riff. I've adopted the fictive voice of others and
   dared a certain someone to take a week off from
   dissing those she so habitually feels the need to
   demonize here on FFL.
  
   WHY am I doing this? As a kind of proactive experiment.
   We who have (ahem) been around FFL longer than you have
   are by now used to her attempting to restart the demon-
   izations after a break. Let's see what she -- and
   others who tend to join her in them -- do this time,
   shall we?
  
   From my side, I will try my best to neither read any-
   thing she writes, or respond to it. I shall also try
   to avoid mentioning her at all. I suspect that Curtis
   will do the same, since that is his current M.O. anyway.
   He rarely gets involved until after the first brick
   has been thrown attempting to damage his career as an
   educator. Vaj is silent for his own reasons, many of
   which have to do with the renewed presence on this
   forum of a rather disturbed troll.
  
   So...just sayin'...what will happen from *your* side,
   since you've weighed in above? Will you call *others*
   on this forum if *they* try to restart the olde
   bitterness and grudges? Or is that something you
   only do when those whom you've been taught to assoc-
   iate with the Curtis-Barry-Vaj troika speak up?
  
   I guess only time will tell, eh?
  
 
  Yahoo already gave us an intervention of sorts, on Aug 24th, the Day of
 999 Error Terror. On that day

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:

 Well, I clicked randomly on this because I like Judy and because I am 
 randomly re-entering my life here in Seattle.
 
 I've adopted the fictive voice of others and 
 dared a certain someone to take a week off from
 dissing those she so habitually feels the need to
 demonize here on FFL.

Emily baby! Great to see you back.

Thank you for da kind woids. But however did you figure out
Barry was referring to me in that quote? I just can't imagine.

Sounds like a terrific trip. Got pictures?



 Simply focusing on this statement above by Barry, and responding to Alex 
 incorrectly, I just have to say that I have proactively dared Barry to take 
 a week off and watch several times nowya know, to practice what he 
 preaches, and all that.  
 
 Now, I will STFU for awhile and try and catch up.  Or...not.  I'm holed up 
 in another hotel undergoing my re-entry process, watching cable TV, catching 
 up on the news for the masses.  
 
 The grandeur of Utah and Highway 12 were unparalleled.  Beauty and spirit in 
 the Escalante were almost more than one could take in.   Didn't even make it 
 to the Arches or Canyonlands National Parks, proper.  Vegas has grown up in 
 the 20 years since I've been there - talk about man-made surreal. 
  Psychodelic.  O was a good show, and it was hard to leave the pastries 
 cooked up by the French chefs at the Bellagio. But, nothing compares to what 
 nature presents to us and I'd rather be camped at the base of a sandstone 
 cliff in the desert.  
 
 Curtis, while hiking up Angel's Landing in Zion it came to me that I was, oh 
 so long ago it seems now, laughing at your expense.  I admit it.  As I told 
 you, I wrote my out into my revamp of Robin's ironic post.  Remember I 
 told you that.  I was laughing at youlong and luscious laughs. Where 
 *was* your sense of humor.  Jesus loves you...the Mormons told me so.  I'll 
 get back to you later on all those rockin' assumptions about my motivations 
 you leveled at me in my absence.  Tee Hee and don't forget it :)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[raunchydog]

Welcome back, Emily. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:

 Well,  I clicked randomly on this because I like Judy and because I am 
 randomly re-entering my life here in Seattle.  
 
 I've adopted the fictive voice of others and 
 dared a certain someone to take a week off from 
 dissing those she so habitually feels the need to
 demonize here on FFL. 
 
 
 Simply focusing on this statement above by Barry, and responding to Alex 
 incorrectly, I just have to say that I have proactively dared Barry to take 
 a week off and watch several times nowya know, to practice what he 
 preaches, and all that.  
 
 Now, I will STFU for awhile and try and catch up.  Or...not.  I'm holed up 
 in another hotel undergoing my re-entry process, watching cable TV, catching 
 up on the news for the masses.  
 
 The grandeur of Utah and Highway 12 were unparalleled.  Beauty and spirit in 
 the Escalante were almost more than one could take in.   Didn't even make it 
 to the Arches or Canyonlands National Parks, proper.  Vegas has grown up in 
 the 20 years since I've been there - talk about man-made surreal. 
  Psychodelic.  O was a good show, and it was hard to leave the pastries 
 cooked up by the French chefs at the Bellagio. But, nothing compares to what 
 nature presents to us and I'd rather be camped at the base of a sandstone 
 cliff in the desert.  
 
 Curtis, while hiking up Angel's Landing in Zion it came to me that I was, oh 
 so long ago it seems now, laughing at your expense.  I admit it.  As I told 
 you, I wrote my out into my revamp of Robin's ironic post.  Remember I 
 told you that.  I was laughing at youlong and luscious laughs. Where 
 *was* your sense of humor.  Jesus loves you...the Mormons told me so.  I'll 
 get back to you later on all those rockin' assumptions about my motivations 
 you leveled at me in my absence.  Tee Hee and don't forget it :)
 
 
 
  From: Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 8:29 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for 
 the Church of $cientology
  
 
   
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
  
   ... I think what I don't like is gratuitous negativity.
   Especially the kind that is mean and nasty towards 
   someone else. Like the kind that seemingly pops up out 
   of nowhere and functions merely to keep the negativity 
   flowing. And ironically enough, often it happens here 
   just when things have quieted down! DUH! 
  
  A noble thought. Now let's see how you follow through
  on it. 
  
  I've said what I had to say in my little Intervention
  riff. I've adopted the fictive voice of others and 
  dared a certain someone to take a week off from 
  dissing those she so habitually feels the need to
  demonize here on FFL. 
  
  WHY am I doing this? As a kind of proactive experiment.
  We who have (ahem) been around FFL longer than you have
  are by now used to her attempting to restart the demon-
  izations after a break. Let's see what she -- and
  others who tend to join her in them -- do this time,
  shall we?
  
  From my side, I will try my best to neither read any-
  thing she writes, or respond to it. I shall also try
  to avoid mentioning her at all. I suspect that Curtis
  will do the same, since that is his current M.O. anyway.
  He rarely gets involved until after the first brick 
  has been thrown attempting to damage his career as an
  educator. Vaj is silent for his own reasons, many of
  which have to do with the renewed presence on this
  forum of a rather disturbed troll.
  
  So...just sayin'...what will happen from *your* side,
  since you've weighed in above? Will you call *others*
  on this forum if *they* try to restart the olde
  bitterness and grudges? Or is that something you
  only do when those whom you've been taught to assoc-
  iate with the Curtis-Barry-Vaj troika speak up?
  
  I guess only time will tell, eh?
 
 
 Yahoo already gave us an intervention of sorts, on Aug 24th, the Day of 999 
 Error Terror. On that day, Judy patiently sat it out, waiting for Yahoo to 
 fix the web interface. Barry, OTOH, decloaked from no_reply mode in order 
 to send two posts via email:
 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/317920
 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/317926

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- replying to BW

[Ravi Chivukula]

 Excellent analysis and ideas, Barry. And compassionate, too. YUou do see
connections between things, kind of like a rabbi or a minister preparing a
sermon. Next lifetime. 

LMAO..This has got to be the post of my FFL lifetime. King Baby Barry - the
emotionally stunted, deranged, depraved one..the compassionate rabbi? The
paranoid, delusional, narcissist..a compassionate minister? OMG..this is
just too hilarious. It will take a while to recover from this :-)

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:06 PM, wayback71 waybac...@yahoo.com wrote:

 **




 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote:
 
  Hi BW, yes, I saw that article.  Read quickly as is my tendency.Â
 Sometimes I think I'm using a VERY small part of my brain here on FFL.Â
 Sometimes I think I'm using too much!  Wonder how that combo of thoughts
 would look on MRI.
 
  I was a Lit major in undergrad and then TV/Film in grad school.  Now
 can't even imagine reading or watching for anything other than pleasure.Â
 But, having said that, it seems deeply imbued in my perceiving such to
 notice patterns, themes, overarching tones.  Dare I say that I attribute
 this to my jyotish chart?!
 
  I think it would be fascinating to do similar research on musicians.  I
 read somewhere, not recently, that overall, musicians tend to live
 longer.  Don't remember other details.  Not my strong suit to do so.Â
 But wanted to mention it anyway.  And wonder if maybe they, more than any
 other artists, combine pleasure and work.  Hmmm, now that I think of it,
 I'd put poets in this category too.  Probably missing merudanda more than
 is reasonable.
 
 
  Yes, I take into account that someone might be accustomed to close
 reading.  And it makes sense to me that that trait would spill over into
 writing.  Even into other activities.  I appreciate your bringing this to
 my attention again.  Can aim for compassion.  As I anticipate a new
 posting week (-:

 
  Also want to say that I appreciate your being somewhat of a good sport
 about the Stand Up Comedy Awards, etc.
 
 
  PS  I enjoyed both reading your post and replying to it.  win win, my
 favorite

 
 
  
  From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com
  To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 9:10 AM
  Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for
 the Church of $cientology
 
 
  Â
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
  
   Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence
   distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the
   import of my complete thought as contained in the
   whole paragraph.
 
  Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but
  tripping on what you said above, I thought I
  should draw your attention to a post I made
  here recently entitled This is your brain on
  reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously.
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510
 
  It details some fascinating research being done
  on people to determine what is going on in their
  brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the
  sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is
  called close reading, as if they have to report
  on what they're reading later in an essay about it.
  The researchers, watching the brains of people
  through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered
  that very different parts of the brain are being
  used, depending on whether one is reading for
  pleasure, or doing close reading.
 
  Riffing on what you say above, is it possible
  that a certain person is using different parts
  of their brain when reading your posts than you
  used when writing them?
 
  I find this an interesting question when applied
  to this forum. Different strokes for different
  folks turns out to be true even in the brain,
  and at different times, depending on the *intent*
  with which we read. Two people could read the
  same piece of literature -- in the experiments,
  passages from Jane Austen -- and get two very
  different things from them. That's not a surprise,
  of course, chances are we *all* would see the
  same passages slightly differently. *However*,
  the new information from these studies is that
  the *same* person could view and interpret
  these passages completely differently, depend-
  ing on how they're reading them -- for pleasure,
  or for work.
 
  Taking a profession completely at random, consider
  the case of a professional editor. Their day job
  is parsing other people's writing, *looking for
  nits to pick*. The person is, as you suggest,
  parsing word by word, sentence by sentence, *look-
  ing for errors or lapses in grammar or logic*.
  And to such a person, a single typo or misspelling
  could render an entire work unworthy of publication,
  and thus of being taken seriously.
 
  Now consider another random profession, say a
  person who makes their living as a musician and
  an educator

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- replying to BW

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote:

 Excellent analysis and ideas, Barry. And compassionate, too. 
 You do see connections between things, kind of like a rabbi 
 or a minister preparing a sermon. Next lifetime. 
 
 LMAO..This has got to be the post of my FFL lifetime. King 
 Baby Barry - the emotionally stunted, deranged, depraved one..
 the compassionate rabbi? The paranoid, delusional, narcissist..
 a compassionate minister? OMG..this is just too hilarious. 
 It will take a while to recover from this :-)

I'm sure both you and the Judester will get over it.
After all, it's just simple jealousy. :-)

If either of you actually had anything original or
even slightly interesting to post, people might
say stuff like that about you, too. Just sayin'...

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- replying to BW

[Ravi Chivukula]

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 12:54 AM, turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote:

 **


 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@...
 wrote:
 
  Excellent analysis and ideas, Barry. And compassionate, too.
  You do see connections between things, kind of like a rabbi
  or a minister preparing a sermon. Next lifetime. 
 
  LMAO..This has got to be the post of my FFL lifetime. King
  Baby Barry - the emotionally stunted, deranged, depraved one..
  the compassionate rabbi? The paranoid, delusional, narcissist..
  a compassionate minister? OMG..this is just too hilarious.
  It will take a while to recover from this :-)

 I'm sure both you and the Judester will get over it.
 After all, it's just simple jealousy. :-)

 If either of you actually had anything original or
 even slightly interesting to post, people might
 say stuff like that about you, too. Just sayin'...

  _


You dirt eating piece of slime, you scum sucking pig, you son of a
motherless goat !!!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- replying to BW

[doctordumbass]

Doc sez, grain of truth to that, and also that what a sermon is known best for, 
is putting people to sleep.

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote:
 
  Excellent analysis and ideas, Barry. And compassionate, too. 
  You do see connections between things, kind of like a rabbi 
  or a minister preparing a sermon. Next lifetime. 
  
  LMAO..This has got to be the post of my FFL lifetime. King 
  Baby Barry - the emotionally stunted, deranged, depraved one..
  the compassionate rabbi? The paranoid, delusional, narcissist..
  a compassionate minister? OMG..this is just too hilarious. 
  It will take a while to recover from this :-)
 
 I'm sure both you and the Judester will get over it.
 After all, it's just simple jealousy. :-)
 
 If either of you actually had anything original or
 even slightly interesting to post, people might
 say stuff like that about you, too. Just sayin'...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- replying to BW

[laughinggull108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote:

 On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 12:54 AM, turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote:
 
  **
 
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@
  wrote:
  
   Excellent analysis and ideas, Barry. And compassionate, too.
   You do see connections between things, kind of like a rabbi
   or a minister preparing a sermon. Next lifetime. 
  
   LMAO..This has got to be the post of my FFL lifetime. King
   Baby Barry - the emotionally stunted, deranged, depraved one..
   the compassionate rabbi? The paranoid, delusional, narcissist..
   a compassionate minister? OMG..this is just too hilarious.
   It will take a while to recover from this :-)
 
  I'm sure both you and the Judester will get over it.
  After all, it's just simple jealousy. :-)
 
  If either of you actually had anything original or
  even slightly interesting to post, people might
  say stuff like that about you, too. Just sayin'...
 
   _
 
 
 You dirt eating piece of slime, you scum sucking pig, you son of a
 motherless goat !!!


(God, I hope this works) Baby Krishna...Baby Krishna...Baby Krishna...Baby 
Krishna...Baby Krishna...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- replying to BW

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@...
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@
wrote:
 
  On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 12:54 AM, turquoiseb
no_reply@yahoogroups.comwrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
chivukula.ravi@
   wrote:
   
Excellent analysis and ideas, Barry. And compassionate, too.
You do see connections between things, kind of like a rabbi
or a minister preparing a sermon. Next lifetime. 
   
LMAO..This has got to be the post of my FFL lifetime. King
Baby Barry - the emotionally stunted, deranged, depraved one..
the compassionate rabbi? The paranoid, delusional, narcissist..
a compassionate minister? OMG..this is just too hilarious.
It will take a while to recover from this :-)
  
   I'm sure both you and the Judester will get over it.
   After all, it's just simple jealousy. :-)
  
   If either of you actually had anything original or
   even slightly interesting to post, people might
   say stuff like that about you, too. Just sayin'...
 
  You dirt eating piece of slime, you scum sucking pig, you son of a
  motherless goat !!!

 (God, I hope this works) Baby Krishna...Baby Krishna...Baby Krishna...
 Baby Krishna...Baby Krishna...


Hey, this is kinda cool, being surrounded by babes and all.
I think when I grow up I'm going to learn to play the flute.
I hear babes like that.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- to Ann Judy writing for the Church of $cientology

[authfriend]

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

 Is this the one where TurqB was trying to convert me?!

No, this is a different one from the one you just read
and pretended you hadn't.

 If yes, I did read it but didn't pick up any fanatic
 trying to make me a fanatic vibe.

Did someone suggest something about a fanatic trying
to make you a fanatic vibe? Or did you make that up
as well?




  I thought it was simply an interesting article.  I looked in Trash, Inbox 
and FFL folder.  Couldn't find the one where he was misrepresenting me.  Will 
have another look after Dome.
 
 
 
 
  From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 9:10 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the 
 Church of $cientology
  
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
 
  Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence 
  distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the 
  import of my complete thought as contained in the 
  whole paragraph.
 
 Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but 
 tripping on what you said above, I thought I
 should draw your attention to a post I made
 here recently entitled This is your brain on 
 reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously. 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510
 
 It details some fascinating research being done
 on people to determine what is going on in their
 brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the
 sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is
 called close reading, as if they have to report
 on what they're reading later in an essay about it. 
 The researchers, watching the brains of people 
 through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered 
 that very different parts of the brain are being 
 used, depending on whether one is reading for 
 pleasure, or doing close reading.
 
 Riffing on what you say above, is it possible 
 that a certain person is using different parts
 of their brain when reading your posts than you
 used when writing them?
 
 I find this an interesting question when applied
 to this forum. Different strokes for different
 folks turns out to be true even in the brain,
 and at different times, depending on the *intent*
 with which we read. Two people could read the
 same piece of literature -- in the experiments,
 passages from Jane Austen -- and get two very
 different things from them. That's not a surprise,
 of course, chances are we *all* would see the
 same passages slightly differently. *However*,
 the new information from these studies is that
 the *same* person could view and interpret 
 these passages completely differently, depend-
 ing on how they're reading them -- for pleasure,
 or for work.
 
 Taking a profession completely at random, consider
 the case of a professional editor. Their day job
 is parsing other people's writing, *looking for
 nits to pick*. The person is, as you suggest, 
 parsing word by word, sentence by sentence, *look-
 ing for errors or lapses in grammar or logic*.
 And to such a person, a single typo or misspelling
 could render an entire work unworthy of publication,
 and thus of being taken seriously.
 
 Now consider another random profession, say a 
 person who makes their living as a musician and
 an educator. Such a person might have said many
 times that they read the posts on FFL -- and
 write their own -- for pleasure. They do *not*
 tend to parse them carefully, looking for things
 not right in them; instead they might be looking
 for things to enjoy. Which is the objective, after 
 all, of reading for pleasure.
 
 These two types of people, conditioned by years
 of habit to read either for pleasure or for work,
 might be using entirely different parts of their
 brains while reading, and as a result might have 
 a tendency to react to what you write completely
 differently.
 
 Now make a mental leap with me beyond the context
 of the experiments so far and to the next level.
 If humans use different parts of their brains
 when either reading for pleasure or reading more
 seriously, close reading, is it possible that
 they do the exact same thing when writing?
 
 The musician in my completely random example, for
 example, might have gone on record many times as
 saying that he writes for pleasure, for the sheer
 fun of writing and for the joy of seeing one's
 ideas come together as a result of the very
 act of writing. I'm like that, and I intuit 
 that you might be, too. 
 
 Someone else might tend to bring the same close
 reading brain functioning they practice as a 
 reader to their writing, and tend to take the 
 writing more seriously, and less as an opportunity 
 to have fun. They might, in fact, be practicing 
 close writing. If this were the case, would it 
 not be likely that they are using an entirely 
 different mode of brain functioning when writing 
 than the person

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[Robin Carlsen]

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

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:
 
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
   
... I think what I don't like is gratuitous negativity.
Especially the kind that is mean and nasty towards 
someone else. Like the kind that seemingly pops up out 
of nowhere and functions merely to keep the negativity 
flowing. And ironically enough, often it happens here 
just when things have quieted down! DUH! 
   
   A noble thought. Now let's see how you follow through
   on it. 
   
   I've said what I had to say in my little Intervention
   riff. I've adopted the fictive voice of others and 
   dared a certain someone to take a week off from 
   dissing those she so habitually feels the need to
   demonize here on FFL.
  
  Sez Barry, who has been busy demonizing me all week and
  thinks he has a chance of converting Share--not
  realizing she underwent her conversion several weeks
  ago (and never had anything to be converted *from*
  anyway).
  
  snip
   From my side, I will try my best to neither read any-
   thing she writes, or respond to it. I shall also try
   to avoid mentioning her at all.
  
  His best is none too good. If he's tried this once,
  he's tried it scores of times, unsuccessfully.
  
   I suspect that Curtis
   will do the same, since that is his current M.O. anyway.
   He rarely gets involved until after the first brick 
   has been thrown attempting to damage his career as an
   educator.
  
  Uh-oh, the Bullshit Meter just went on Overload. And
  it's set *very* high for Barry's posts.
  
  You'd think Curtis would speak up to correct Barry's
  misrepresentations, wouldn't you? But he won't, even
  knowing that the rest of the forum is well aware
  they're bullshit.
  
   Vaj is silent for his own reasons, many of
   which have to do with the renewed presence on this
   forum of a rather disturbed troll.
  
  As Barry knows, the rather disturbed troll was Vaj
  himself. Vaj is silent because the last we heard from
  him, Barry reported that he had told Barry something
  about Ann in private that turned out not to be true. He
  does not want to have to confront the fallout from his
  lie.
  
   So...just sayin'...what will happen from *your* side,
   since you've weighed in above? Will you call *others*
   on this forum if *they* try to restart the olde
   bitterness and grudges? Or is that something you
   only do when those whom you've been taught to assoc-
   iate with the Curtis-Barry-Vaj troika speak up?
  
  Let's see if Share will correct Barry's misrepresentations
  of her. I'll bet she won't either.
 
 There's no hiding from the demands of reality. Who would have thought that 
 courage and integrity were required on a forum where miles of space and time 
 can seem to separate us from each other? But what do you know, there's no 
 hiding behind any curtain. Sooner or later Dorothy and her friends are going 
 to catch a glimpse of what is really going on back there. And it may not be 
 pretty.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPei0VZnZUo

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to BW Judy -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[Share Long]

Is this the one where Turq was trying to convert and misrepresent me?  Anyway, 
BW, to set the record straight, the sensible positive clique I told Ravi to put 
me in was the Curtis Susan Steven one.  Never mentioned Vaj.  Did not include 
you BW in that clique because have never thought the dumb c remark was 
positive.  Or the least bit funny.  And several times mentioned that I was 
referring to that situation only.  Plus that I didn't like cliques and would be 
independent re all posts and pilings on.  Then called fouls on Barry and Judy 
and Curtis.  So, BW, time has already told.  But perhaps you're not reading ALL 
my posts wink wink.  




 From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 8:37 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for 
the Church of $cientology
 

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

 ... I think what I don't like is gratuitous negativity.
 Especially the kind that is mean and nasty towards 
 someone else. Like the kind that seemingly pops up out 
 of nowhere and functions merely to keep the negativity 
 flowing. And ironically enough, often it happens here 
 just when things have quieted down! DUH! 

A noble thought. Now let's see how you follow through
on it. 

I've said what I had to say in my little Intervention
riff. I've adopted the fictive voice of others and 
dared a certain someone to take a week off from 
dissing those she so habitually feels the need to
demonize here on FFL. 

WHY am I doing this? As a kind of proactive experiment.
We who have (ahem) been around FFL longer than you have
are by now used to her attempting to restart the demon-
izations after a break. Let's see what she -- and
others who tend to join her in them -- do this time,
shall we?

From my side, I will try my best to neither read any-
thing she writes, or respond to it. I shall also try
to avoid mentioning her at all. I suspect that Curtis
will do the same, since that is his current M.O. anyway.
He rarely gets involved until after the first brick 
has been thrown attempting to damage his career as an
educator. Vaj is silent for his own reasons, many of
which have to do with the renewed presence on this
forum of a rather disturbed troll.

So...just sayin'...what will happen from *your* side,
since you've weighed in above? Will you call *others*
on this forum if *they* try to restart the olde
bitterness and grudges? Or is that something you
only do when those whom you've been taught to assoc-
iate with the Curtis-Barry-Vaj troika speak up?

I guess only time will tell, eh?


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to BW Judy -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[Robin Carlsen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksfAyW5FCwwfeature=related

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

 Is this the one where Turq was trying to convert and misrepresent me?  
 Anyway, BW, to set the record straight, the sensible positive clique I told 
 Ravi to put me in was the Curtis Susan Steven one.  Never mentioned Vaj.  
 Did not include you BW in that clique because have never thought the dumb c 
 remark was positive.  Or the least bit funny.  And several times mentioned 
 that I was referring to that situation only.  Plus that I didn't like 
 cliques and would be independent re all posts and pilings on.  Then called 
 fouls on Barry and Judy and Curtis.  So, BW, time has already told.  But 
 perhaps you're not reading ALL my posts wink wink.  
 
 
 
 
  From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 8:37 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for 
 the Church of $cientology
  
 
   
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
 
  ... I think what I don't like is gratuitous negativity.
  Especially the kind that is mean and nasty towards 
  someone else. Like the kind that seemingly pops up out 
  of nowhere and functions merely to keep the negativity 
  flowing. And ironically enough, often it happens here 
  just when things have quieted down! DUH! 
 
 A noble thought. Now let's see how you follow through
 on it. 
 
 I've said what I had to say in my little Intervention
 riff. I've adopted the fictive voice of others and 
 dared a certain someone to take a week off from 
 dissing those she so habitually feels the need to
 demonize here on FFL. 
 
 WHY am I doing this? As a kind of proactive experiment.
 We who have (ahem) been around FFL longer than you have
 are by now used to her attempting to restart the demon-
 izations after a break. Let's see what she -- and
 others who tend to join her in them -- do this time,
 shall we?
 
 From my side, I will try my best to neither read any-
 thing she writes, or respond to it. I shall also try
 to avoid mentioning her at all. I suspect that Curtis
 will do the same, since that is his current M.O. anyway.
 He rarely gets involved until after the first brick 
 has been thrown attempting to damage his career as an
 educator. Vaj is silent for his own reasons, many of
 which have to do with the renewed presence on this
 forum of a rather disturbed troll.
 
 So...just sayin'...what will happen from *your* side,
 since you've weighed in above? Will you call *others*
 on this forum if *they* try to restart the olde
 bitterness and grudges? Or is that something you
 only do when those whom you've been taught to assoc-
 iate with the Curtis-Barry-Vaj troika speak up?
 
 I guess only time will tell, eh?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to BW Judy -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[turquoiseb]

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

 Is this the one where Turq was trying to convert and 
 misrepresent me? Anyway, BW, to set the record straight, 
 the sensible positive clique I told Ravi to put me in 
 was the Curtis Susan Steven one. Never mentioned Vaj.  
 Did not include you BW in that clique because have 
 never thought the dumb c remark was positive. Or the 
 least bit funny. And several times mentioned that I 
 was referring to that situation only. Plus that I 
 didn't like cliques and would be independent re all 
 posts and pilings on. Then called fouls on Barry and 
 Judy and Curtis. So, BW, time has already told. But 
 perhaps you're not reading ALL my posts wink wink.

Share, you clearly didn't understand my Time will
tell comment, and still don't. Part of what I was
referring to is the difference between your *talk*,
in which you claim to wish to end all of this petty,
Junior-high-school-level nastiness, and your *walk*,
in which you are one of the people perpetuating it.

What do you think that your ego-need to set the 
straight DOES?

Let's look at the numbers so far this new posting
week, shall we? So far, the person we all expected
to try to restart last week's juvenile nasty-fest
has made five posts attempting to do just that. You
have made four on the same subject. So far. You may 
feel that in so doing you are just defending yourself 
or setting the record straight, but the bottom line
is that you've almost doubled the total number of
nasty-fest posts. 

Have you ever considered walking away from the whole
thing, and just *ignoring* the provocations meant
to tempt you *into* perpetuating it? The reason that
this person is focusing on YOU and no longer on C
or myself is that she knows we won't fall for it
any more unless she stoops to outright libel. So 
far, the only people besides yourself who *have* 
fallen for it this week and piled on the same old
nastywagon were Awoe and Robin. Just sayin'...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[maskedzebra]

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

CURTIS: This exchange made it worth participating on FFL this month! Thanks.

ROBIN: A wonderfully generous and fair and noble summing up. We are grateful 
for this, Curtis. I entirely concur--and not under duress either. I envy your 
brotherly love with Barry.

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

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

  CURTIS: That was a bit of a revelation and a cogent analysis of why we 
  can't get there from here between some posters.

ROBIN: Indubitably. The self-objectivity of you and Barry in terms of 
appraising your performance on FFL, it is something I strive for, Curtis. Well, 
at least you don't have to worry about getting crucified for your willingness 
to stand for the truth. Curtis: I am the way, the truth, and the life. Except 
you come through me you cannot enter the kingdom of Curtis. I wish I could 
enter that kingdom, Curtis. My conscience in this regard is my enemy.

 BARRY: Glad you enjoyed it.

ROBIN: I enjoyed it too, Barry. But my response carries the universality of my 
pleasure in it, not the inside fidelity of my friendship with you. Glad you 
enjoyed it--why even have to say this out loud to each other, Barry? We all 
know that you would be glad that Curtis enjoyed it. Stick with the secret 
handshake. Don't give away the initiation ceremony with all the skulls.

  CURTIS: Since I know the hypothetical guy you were imagining...
  it also explains why it can be fun to go point by point
  to stimulate a different part of my brain. That was
  largely what doing philosophy involved and I enjoy that
  in a different way from creative writing.

ROBIN: What a guy we have here who presents himself to us. Inside talk to 
Barry: closed off to the rest of us. This quarantined talk between you and 
Barry: it is a singular phenomenon on FFL: no one else acts as if their bond 
was a Freemasonry; only you and Barry. This is decisive in its sentence of 
failure. I don't know any posters on the other side--the hostile alliance 
arrayed against you guys--who speak in a kind of intimate sphere of seclusion. 
A wonder, this. You have stopped talking to reality; you are only talking to 
yourselves. Hope this works when you come to the Big Event that all of us face, 
Curtis. But then you are a True Believer.

CLICK

 BARRY: Professor Phillips points out that neither of these modes
 of brain functioning are superior, and in fact the real
 benefit is that we can switch between them, to train and
 develop different parts of the brain. In her words,
 ...cognition is shaped not just by what we read, but how
 we read it. Reading rigorously and analyzing the ideas
 presented and even the structure of the language and how
 the ideas are presented exercises one mode of functioning
 in our brains, and cultivates that mode. Reading just for
 the fun of it exercises another mode of functioning, and
 cultivates it. Both are necessary to see the world around
 us clearly, from a balanced point of view.

ROBIN: You and Curtis: You guys didn't even have to read the theory: it is 
already embodied in the performance of each of you. This is just 
self-congratulations. You are reading a description of what your brains do 
perfectly already. I like this. I am jealous of this. It is an achievement 
which we can only lament because it is clear, from the tone of your 
conversation with Curtis, that the rest of us have been left out. Reading 
rigorously and analyzing the ideas presented and even the structure of the 
language and how the ideas are presented: this is an exercise that is manifest 
in every one of your posts, Barry. Both are necessary to see the world around 
us clearly, from a balanced point of view.

Oops! I get it. This is Monty Python.

But since I can't quite bring myself to believe that, I am going to take you 
and Curtis seriously from here until I get to the end.

  CURTIS: Drilling deeper into this thoery I can also see how being
  attacked here stimulates a pseudo fear mechanism that
  prompts and urgency of response. Combined with things
  that a reader feels are inaccurate it creates a sturdy
  chain to pull and get pulled by. That may be a case for
  not posting in a place where a lot of that goes on. It
  is hard to resist getting pulled into that cycle,
  especially when not much more of that writing is going on.

ROBIN: For your position to be true, Curtis, it requires that Raunchy's three 
satirical pieces didn't make it. Are you prepared to lie through your teeth and 
declare that it is your honest experience that Barry's assessment of the 
efficacy of Raunchy's dialogues is in agreement with a truth beyond and outside 
of your, my, Raunchy's, and Barry's POV?

Your loyalty to your friend comes ahead of any regard for truth. And the 
appalling and ludicrous implication of what you say here is: NO ONE BUT YOU 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to BW Judy -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[Robin Carlsen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCU1qQ0cw6U

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
 
  Is this the one where Turq was trying to convert and 
  misrepresent me? Anyway, BW, to set the record straight, 
  the sensible positive clique I told Ravi to put me in 
  was the Curtis Susan Steven one. Never mentioned Vaj.  
  Did not include you BW in that clique because have 
  never thought the dumb c remark was positive. Or the 
  least bit funny. And several times mentioned that I 
  was referring to that situation only. Plus that I 
  didn't like cliques and would be independent re all 
  posts and pilings on. Then called fouls on Barry and 
  Judy and Curtis. So, BW, time has already told. But 
  perhaps you're not reading ALL my posts wink wink.
 
 Share, you clearly didn't understand my Time will
 tell comment, and still don't. Part of what I was
 referring to is the difference between your *talk*,
 in which you claim to wish to end all of this petty,
 Junior-high-school-level nastiness, and your *walk*,
 in which you are one of the people perpetuating it.
 
 What do you think that your ego-need to set the 
 straight DOES?
 
 Let's look at the numbers so far this new posting
 week, shall we? So far, the person we all expected
 to try to restart last week's juvenile nasty-fest
 has made five posts attempting to do just that. You
 have made four on the same subject. So far. You may 
 feel that in so doing you are just defending yourself 
 or setting the record straight, but the bottom line
 is that you've almost doubled the total number of
 nasty-fest posts. 
 
 Have you ever considered walking away from the whole
 thing, and just *ignoring* the provocations meant
 to tempt you *into* perpetuating it? The reason that
 this person is focusing on YOU and no longer on C
 or myself is that she knows we won't fall for it
 any more unless she stoops to outright libel. So 
 far, the only people besides yourself who *have* 
 fallen for it this week and piled on the same old
 nastywagon were Awoe and Robin. Just sayin'...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[Robin Carlsen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=berL-80EPmg

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

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ 
 wrote:
 
 CURTIS: This exchange made it worth participating on FFL this month! Thanks.
 
 ROBIN: A wonderfully generous and fair and noble summing up. We are grateful 
 for this, Curtis. I entirely concur--and not under duress either. I envy your 
 brotherly love with Barry.
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@
 wrote:
 
   CURTIS: That was a bit of a revelation and a cogent analysis of why we 
   can't get there from here between some posters.
 
 ROBIN: Indubitably. The self-objectivity of you and Barry in terms of 
 appraising your performance on FFL, it is something I strive for, Curtis. 
 Well, at least you don't have to worry about getting crucified for your 
 willingness to stand for the truth. Curtis: I am the way, the truth, and the 
 life. Except you come through me you cannot enter the kingdom of Curtis. I 
 wish I could enter that kingdom, Curtis. My conscience in this regard is my 
 enemy.
 
  BARRY: Glad you enjoyed it.
 
 ROBIN: I enjoyed it too, Barry. But my response carries the universality of 
 my pleasure in it, not the inside fidelity of my friendship with you. Glad 
 you enjoyed it--why even have to say this out loud to each other, Barry? We 
 all know that you would be glad that Curtis enjoyed it. Stick with the secret 
 handshake. Don't give away the initiation ceremony with all the skulls.
 
   CURTIS: Since I know the hypothetical guy you were imagining...
   it also explains why it can be fun to go point by point
   to stimulate a different part of my brain. That was
   largely what doing philosophy involved and I enjoy that
   in a different way from creative writing.
 
 ROBIN: What a guy we have here who presents himself to us. Inside talk to 
 Barry: closed off to the rest of us. This quarantined talk between you and 
 Barry: it is a singular phenomenon on FFL: no one else acts as if their bond 
 was a Freemasonry; only you and Barry. This is decisive in its sentence of 
 failure. I don't know any posters on the other side--the hostile alliance 
 arrayed against you guys--who speak in a kind of intimate sphere of 
 seclusion. A wonder, this. You have stopped talking to reality; you are only 
 talking to yourselves. Hope this works when you come to the Big Event that 
 all of us face, Curtis. But then you are a True Believer.
 
 CLICK
 
  BARRY: Professor Phillips points out that neither of these modes
  of brain functioning are superior, and in fact the real
  benefit is that we can switch between them, to train and
  develop different parts of the brain. In her words,
  ...cognition is shaped not just by what we read, but how
  we read it. Reading rigorously and analyzing the ideas
  presented and even the structure of the language and how
  the ideas are presented exercises one mode of functioning
  in our brains, and cultivates that mode. Reading just for
  the fun of it exercises another mode of functioning, and
  cultivates it. Both are necessary to see the world around
  us clearly, from a balanced point of view.
 
 ROBIN: You and Curtis: You guys didn't even have to read the theory: it is 
 already embodied in the performance of each of you. This is just 
 self-congratulations. You are reading a description of what your brains do 
 perfectly already. I like this. I am jealous of this. It is an achievement 
 which we can only lament because it is clear, from the tone of your 
 conversation with Curtis, that the rest of us have been left out. Reading 
 rigorously and analyzing the ideas presented and even the structure of the 
 language and how the ideas are presented: this is an exercise that is 
 manifest in every one of your posts, Barry. Both are necessary to see the 
 world around us clearly, from a balanced point of view.
 
 Oops! I get it. This is Monty Python.
 
 But since I can't quite bring myself to believe that, I am going to take you 
 and Curtis seriously from here until I get to the end.
 
   CURTIS: Drilling deeper into this thoery I can also see how being
   attacked here stimulates a pseudo fear mechanism that
   prompts and urgency of response. Combined with things
   that a reader feels are inaccurate it creates a sturdy
   chain to pull and get pulled by. That may be a case for
   not posting in a place where a lot of that goes on. It
   is hard to resist getting pulled into that cycle,
   especially when not much more of that writing is going on.
 
 ROBIN: For your position to be true, Curtis, it requires that Raunchy's three 
 satirical pieces didn't make it. Are you prepared to lie through your teeth 
 and declare that it is your honest experience that Barry's assessment of the 
 efficacy of Raunchy's dialogues is in agreement with a truth 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to BW Judy -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:
snip
 Have you ever considered walking away from the whole
 thing, and just *ignoring* the provocations meant
 to tempt you *into* perpetuating it? The reason that
 this person is focusing on YOU and no longer on C
 or myself is that she knows we won't fall for it
 any more unless she stoops to outright libel.

No, that isn't true, and Barry knows it isn't true. 
Curtis and Barry both focused on me plenty in the past
week, with no outright libel in sight (at least not
on my part).

How much I focus on Barry and Curtis and Share in the
coming week will depend on how much bullshit they post.
Share was up today because she made several bullshit
posts aimed at me. Right now I'm addressing a bullshit
post of Barry's aimed at me. Curtis has left only one
post so far today, so lame it didn't even qualify as
bullshit, not worth responding to.

Curtis and Barry's bullshit exchange yesterday was
dealt with definitively by Robin; Barry's bullshit
Open Mike post yesterday was definitively dealt
with by Ann and raunchy and Dr. Dumbass and Robin
and Ravi, so nothing from Barry or Curtis I needed
to deal with.

But we'll see what they post tomorrow.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[turquoiseb]

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

 Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence 
 distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the 
 import of my complete thought as contained in the 
 whole paragraph.

Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but 
tripping on what you said above, I thought I
should draw your attention to a post I made
here recently entitled This is your brain on 
reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510

It details some fascinating research being done
on people to determine what is going on in their
brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the
sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is
called close reading, as if they have to report
on what they're reading later in an essay about it. 
The researchers, watching the brains of people 
through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered 
that very different parts of the brain are being 
used, depending on whether one is reading for 
pleasure, or doing close reading.

Riffing on what you say above, is it possible 
that a certain person is using different parts
of their brain when reading your posts than you
used when writing them?

I find this an interesting question when applied
to this forum. Different strokes for different
folks turns out to be true even in the brain,
and at different times, depending on the *intent*
with which we read. Two people could read the
same piece of literature -- in the experiments,
passages from Jane Austen -- and get two very
different things from them. That's not a surprise,
of course, chances are we *all* would see the
same passages slightly differently. *However*,
the new information from these studies is that
the *same* person could view and interpret 
these passages completely differently, depend-
ing on how they're reading them -- for pleasure,
or for work.

Taking a profession completely at random, consider
the case of a professional editor. Their day job
is parsing other people's writing, *looking for
nits to pick*. The person is, as you suggest, 
parsing word by word, sentence by sentence, *look-
ing for errors or lapses in grammar or logic*.
And to such a person, a single typo or misspelling
could render an entire work unworthy of publication,
and thus of being taken seriously.

Now consider another random profession, say a 
person who makes their living as a musician and
an educator. Such a person might have said many
times that they read the posts on FFL -- and
write their own -- for pleasure. They do *not*
tend to parse them carefully, looking for things
not right in them; instead they might be looking
for things to enjoy. Which is the objective, after 
all, of reading for pleasure.

These two types of people, conditioned by years
of habit to read either for pleasure or for work,
might be using entirely different parts of their
brains while reading, and as a result might have 
a tendency to react to what you write completely
differently.

Now make a mental leap with me beyond the context
of the experiments so far and to the next level.
If humans use different parts of their brains
when either reading for pleasure or reading more
seriously, close reading, is it possible that
they do the exact same thing when writing?

The musician in my completely random example, for
example, might have gone on record many times as
saying that he writes for pleasure, for the sheer
fun of writing and for the joy of seeing one's
ideas come together as a result of the very
act of writing. I'm like that, and I intuit 
that you might be, too. 

Someone else might tend to bring the same close
reading brain functioning they practice as a 
reader to their writing, and tend to take the 
writing more seriously, and less as an opportunity 
to have fun. They might, in fact, be practicing 
close writing. If this were the case, would it 
not be likely that they are using an entirely 
different mode of brain functioning when writing 
than the person who is writing for the pleasure 
of it?

Just a few random thoughts, written for the
pleasure of writing them. Parse them as you will,
and do with them what you will, using whatever
parts of your brain you tend to use when doing
that sorta stuff.  :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- replying to BW

[Share Long]

Hi BW, yes, I saw that article.  Read quickly as is my tendency.  Sometimes I 
think I'm using a VERY small part of my brain here on FFL.  Sometimes I think 
I'm using too much!  Wonder how that combo of thoughts would look on MRI.

I was a Lit major in undergrad and then TV/Film in grad school.  Now can't even 
imagine reading or watching for anything other than pleasure.  But, having said 
that, it seems deeply imbued in my perceiving such to notice patterns, themes, 
overarching tones.  Dare I say that I attribute this to my jyotish chart?!

I think it would be fascinating to do similar research on musicians.  I read 
somewhere, not recently, that overall, musicians tend to live longer.  Don't 
remember other details.  Not my strong suit to do so.  But wanted to mention it 
anyway.  And wonder if maybe they, more than any other artists, combine 
pleasure and work.  Hmmm, now that I think of it, I'd put poets in this 
category too.  Probably missing merudanda more than is reasonable.


Yes, I take into account that someone might be accustomed to close reading.  
And it makes sense to me that that trait would spill over into writing.  Even 
into other activities.  I appreciate your bringing this to my attention again.  
Can aim for compassion.  As I anticipate a new posting week (-:

Also want to say that I appreciate your being somewhat of a good sport about 
the Stand Up Comedy Awards, etc. 


PS  I enjoyed both reading your post and replying to it.  win win, my favorite



 From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 9:10 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the 
Church of $cientology
 

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

 Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence 
 distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the 
 import of my complete thought as contained in the 
 whole paragraph.

Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but 
tripping on what you said above, I thought I
should draw your attention to a post I made
here recently entitled This is your brain on 
reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510

It details some fascinating research being done
on people to determine what is going on in their
brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the
sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is
called close reading, as if they have to report
on what they're reading later in an essay about it. 
The researchers, watching the brains of people 
through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered 
that very different parts of the brain are being 
used, depending on whether one is reading for 
pleasure, or doing close reading.

Riffing on what you say above, is it possible 
that a certain person is using different parts
of their brain when reading your posts than you
used when writing them?

I find this an interesting question when applied
to this forum. Different strokes for different
folks turns out to be true even in the brain,
and at different times, depending on the *intent*
with which we read. Two people could read the
same piece of literature -- in the experiments,
passages from Jane Austen -- and get two very
different things from them. That's not a surprise,
of course, chances are we *all* would see the
same passages slightly differently. *However*,
the new information from these studies is that
the *same* person could view and interpret 
these passages completely differently, depend-
ing on how they're reading them -- for pleasure,
or for work.

Taking a profession completely at random, consider
the case of a professional editor. Their day job
is parsing other people's writing, *looking for
nits to pick*. The person is, as you suggest, 
parsing word by word, sentence by sentence, *look-
ing for errors or lapses in grammar or logic*.
And to such a person, a single typo or misspelling
could render an entire work unworthy of publication,
and thus of being taken seriously.

Now consider another random profession, say a 
person who makes their living as a musician and
an educator. Such a person might have said many
times that they read the posts on FFL -- and
write their own -- for pleasure. They do *not*
tend to parse them carefully, looking for things
not right in them; instead they might be looking
for things to enjoy. Which is the objective, after 
all, of reading for pleasure.

These two types of people, conditioned by years
of habit to read either for pleasure or for work,
might be using entirely different parts of their
brains while reading, and as a result might have 
a tendency to react to what you write completely
differently.

Now make a mental leap with me beyond the context
of the experiments so far and to the next level.
If humans use different parts of their brains
when either reading for pleasure or reading more
seriously, close

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[curtisdeltablues]

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


That was a bit of a revelation and a cogent analysis of why we can't get there 
from here between some posters.  Since I know the hypothetical guy you were 
imagining...it also explains why it can be fun to go point by point to 
stimulate a different part of my brain.  That was largely what doing philosophy 
involved and I enjoy that in a different way from creative writing.

Drilling deeper into this thoery I can also see how being attacked here 
stimulates a pseudo fear mechanism that prompts and urgency of response.  
Combined with things that a reader feels are inaccurate it creates a sturdy 
chain to pull and get pulled by.  That may be a case for not posting in a place 
where a lot of that goes on.  It is hard to resist getting pulled into that 
cycle, especially when not much more of that writing is going on. 

I used to think about some of the back and forth stuff about Maharishi's 
philosophy here as more of the first thing, the stimulation of the close 
attention part of my brain.  As it has drifted further and further from any 
content, it has become less and less satisfying in that regard, so I switch to 
the creative but negative angle creating images of trollish scenes to keep me 
interested in writing.

This really gives me a lot to think about, thanks for that Barry.  I would like 
to become a bit more conscious of my outcomes here and ultimately if being here 
is where my real outcomes are likely to get met in becoming the kind of writer 
I want to be.


 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
 
  Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence 
  distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the 
  import of my complete thought as contained in the 
  whole paragraph.
 
 Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but 
 tripping on what you said above, I thought I
 should draw your attention to a post I made
 here recently entitled This is your brain on 
 reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously. 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510
 
 It details some fascinating research being done
 on people to determine what is going on in their
 brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the
 sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is
 called close reading, as if they have to report
 on what they're reading later in an essay about it. 
 The researchers, watching the brains of people 
 through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered 
 that very different parts of the brain are being 
 used, depending on whether one is reading for 
 pleasure, or doing close reading.
 
 Riffing on what you say above, is it possible 
 that a certain person is using different parts
 of their brain when reading your posts than you
 used when writing them?
 
 I find this an interesting question when applied
 to this forum. Different strokes for different
 folks turns out to be true even in the brain,
 and at different times, depending on the *intent*
 with which we read. Two people could read the
 same piece of literature -- in the experiments,
 passages from Jane Austen -- and get two very
 different things from them. That's not a surprise,
 of course, chances are we *all* would see the
 same passages slightly differently. *However*,
 the new information from these studies is that
 the *same* person could view and interpret 
 these passages completely differently, depend-
 ing on how they're reading them -- for pleasure,
 or for work.
 
 Taking a profession completely at random, consider
 the case of a professional editor. Their day job
 is parsing other people's writing, *looking for
 nits to pick*. The person is, as you suggest, 
 parsing word by word, sentence by sentence, *look-
 ing for errors or lapses in grammar or logic*.
 And to such a person, a single typo or misspelling
 could render an entire work unworthy of publication,
 and thus of being taken seriously.
 
 Now consider another random profession, say a 
 person who makes their living as a musician and
 an educator. Such a person might have said many
 times that they read the posts on FFL -- and
 write their own -- for pleasure. They do *not*
 tend to parse them carefully, looking for things
 not right in them; instead they might be looking
 for things to enjoy. Which is the objective, after 
 all, of reading for pleasure.
 
 These two types of people, conditioned by years
 of habit to read either for pleasure or for work,
 might be using entirely different parts of their
 brains while reading, and as a result might have 
 a tendency to react to what you write completely
 differently.
 
 Now make a mental leap with me beyond the context
 of the experiments so far and to the next level.
 If humans use different parts of their brains
 when either reading for pleasure or reading more
 seriously, close reading, is it possible that
 they do the exact same thing when writing?
 
 The musician in my completely random 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- replying to Curtis

[Share Long]

Enjoying what you say here Curtis.  AND I also want to add my 2 cents worth 
about emotions, such as fear, and the body and or energy field around it.  I'll 
speak from personal experience.  Which is, especially recently, if I've eaten 
sugar, even the day before, I get triggered quite easily.

What I mean by triggered, is that I have a physiological response that 
initially is ALMOST ENTIRELY energetic.  Neither thoughts nor emotions attached 
to it yet.  They can come later.  So I've learned to postpone responding at 
least until my physiology is settled down.

Another confession:  if I suspect that a post will upset me, I don't read it 
until there's a soothing activity on the horizon.  Such as getting together 
with a friend, going to writing group, going to the Dome.  


I'm not suggesting that any of this applies directly to you.  I thought my 
experience might add something to the conversation.  BTW, I've also been 
thinking about the wisdom of participating here.  I think even more than the 
gratuitous negativity I get triggered by the ganging up on one person.  
Probably something from my childhood.      




 From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 9:47 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the 
Church of $cientology
 

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


That was a bit of a revelation and a cogent analysis of why we can't get there 
from here between some posters.  Since I know the hypothetical guy you were 
imagining...it also explains why it can be fun to go point by point to 
stimulate a different part of my brain.  That was largely what doing philosophy 
involved and I enjoy that in a different way from creative writing.

Drilling deeper into this thoery I can also see how being attacked here 
stimulates a pseudo fear mechanism that prompts and urgency of response.  
Combined with things that a reader feels are inaccurate it creates a sturdy 
chain to pull and get pulled by.  That may be a case for not posting in a place 
where a lot of that goes on.  It is hard to resist getting pulled into that 
cycle, especially when not much more of that writing is going on. 

I used to think about some of the back and forth stuff about Maharishi's 
philosophy here as more of the first thing, the stimulation of the close 
attention part of my brain.  As it has drifted further and further from any 
content, it has become less and less satisfying in that regard, so I switch to 
the creative but negative angle creating images of trollish scenes to keep me 
interested in writing.

This really gives me a lot to think about, thanks for that Barry.  I would like 
to become a bit more conscious of my outcomes here and ultimately if being here 
is where my real outcomes are likely to get met in becoming the kind of writer 
I want to be.

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
 
  Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence 
  distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the 
  import of my complete thought as contained in the 
  whole paragraph.
 
 Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but 
 tripping on what you said above, I thought I
 should draw your attention to a post I made
 here recently entitled This is your brain on 
 reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously. 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510
 
 It details some fascinating research being done
 on people to determine what is going on in their
 brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the
 sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is
 called close reading, as if they have to report
 on what they're reading later in an essay about it. 
 The researchers, watching the brains of people 
 through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered 
 that very different parts of the brain are being 
 used, depending on whether one is reading for 
 pleasure, or doing close reading.
 
 Riffing on what you say above, is it possible 
 that a certain person is using different parts
 of their brain when reading your posts than you
 used when writing them?
 
 I find this an interesting question when applied
 to this forum. Different strokes for different
 folks turns out to be true even in the brain,
 and at different times, depending on the *intent*
 with which we read. Two people could read the
 same piece of literature -- in the experiments,
 passages from Jane Austen -- and get two very
 different things from them. That's not a surprise,
 of course, chances are we *all* would see the
 same passages slightly differently. *However*,
 the new information from these studies is that
 the *same* person could view and interpret 
 these passages completely differently, depend-
 ing on how they're reading them -- for pleasure,
 or for work.
 
 Taking a profession completely at random, consider
 the case

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[Richard J. Williams]

  Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence 
  distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the 
  import of my complete thought as contained in the 
  whole paragraph.
 
turquoiseb:
 Taking a profession completely at random, consider
 the case of a professional editor...

Share, I already told you it's all about Judy. Don't
you get it - Barry does. He'll write almost anything
for hours, days, weeks, months, and years, to drag you 
down with him into the rabbit hole. LoL!

 Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but 
 tripping on what you said above, I thought I
 should draw your attention to a post I made
 here recently entitled This is your brain on 
 reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously. 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510
 
 It details some fascinating research being done
 on people to determine what is going on in their
 brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the
 sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is
 called close reading, as if they have to report
 on what they're reading later in an essay about it. 
 The researchers, watching the brains of people 
 through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered 
 that very different parts of the brain are being 
 used, depending on whether one is reading for 
 pleasure, or doing close reading.
 
 Riffing on what you say above, is it possible 
 that a certain person is using different parts
 of their brain when reading your posts than you
 used when writing them?
 
 I find this an interesting question when applied
 to this forum. Different strokes for different
 folks turns out to be true even in the brain,
 and at different times, depending on the *intent*
 with which we read. Two people could read the
 same piece of literature -- in the experiments,
 passages from Jane Austen -- and get two very
 different things from them. That's not a surprise,
 of course, chances are we *all* would see the
 same passages slightly differently. *However*,
 the new information from these studies is that
 the *same* person could view and interpret 
 these passages completely differently, depend-
 ing on how they're reading them -- for pleasure,
 or for work.
 
 Taking a profession completely at random, consider
 the case of a professional editor. Their day job
 is parsing other people's writing, *looking for
 nits to pick*. The person is, as you suggest, 
 parsing word by word, sentence by sentence, *look-
 ing for errors or lapses in grammar or logic*.
 And to such a person, a single typo or misspelling
 could render an entire work unworthy of publication,
 and thus of being taken seriously.
 
 Now consider another random profession, say a 
 person who makes their living as a musician and
 an educator. Such a person might have said many
 times that they read the posts on FFL -- and
 write their own -- for pleasure. They do *not*
 tend to parse them carefully, looking for things
 not right in them; instead they might be looking
 for things to enjoy. Which is the objective, after 
 all, of reading for pleasure.
 
 These two types of people, conditioned by years
 of habit to read either for pleasure or for work,
 might be using entirely different parts of their
 brains while reading, and as a result might have 
 a tendency to react to what you write completely
 differently.
 
 Now make a mental leap with me beyond the context
 of the experiments so far and to the next level.
 If humans use different parts of their brains
 when either reading for pleasure or reading more
 seriously, close reading, is it possible that
 they do the exact same thing when writing?
 
 The musician in my completely random example, for
 example, might have gone on record many times as
 saying that he writes for pleasure, for the sheer
 fun of writing and for the joy of seeing one's
 ideas come together as a result of the very
 act of writing. I'm like that, and I intuit 
 that you might be, too. 
 
 Someone else might tend to bring the same close
 reading brain functioning they practice as a 
 reader to their writing, and tend to take the 
 writing more seriously, and less as an opportunity 
 to have fun. They might, in fact, be practicing 
 close writing. If this were the case, would it 
 not be likely that they are using an entirely 
 different mode of brain functioning when writing 
 than the person who is writing for the pleasure 
 of it?
 
 Just a few random thoughts, written for the
 pleasure of writing them. Parse them as you will,
 and do with them what you will, using whatever
 parts of your brain you tend to use when doing
 that sorta stuff.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[doctordumbass]

Doc sez, through careful and conclusive research, it has been shown that 
blowing oneself up like a balloon, purely by virtue of a large internal volume 
of hot air, somehow distorts the visual field, making all of those around you 
look like pricks.

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
 
 
 That was a bit of a revelation and a cogent analysis of why we can't get 
 there from here between some posters.  Since I know the hypothetical guy you 
 were imagining...it also explains why it can be fun to go point by point to 
 stimulate a different part of my brain.  That was largely what doing 
 philosophy involved and I enjoy that in a different way from creative writing.
 
 Drilling deeper into this thoery I can also see how being attacked here 
 stimulates a pseudo fear mechanism that prompts and urgency of response.  
 Combined with things that a reader feels are inaccurate it creates a sturdy 
 chain to pull and get pulled by.  That may be a case for not posting in a 
 place where a lot of that goes on.  It is hard to resist getting pulled into 
 that cycle, especially when not much more of that writing is going on. 
 
 I used to think about some of the back and forth stuff about Maharishi's 
 philosophy here as more of the first thing, the stimulation of the close 
 attention part of my brain.  As it has drifted further and further from any 
 content, it has become less and less satisfying in that regard, so I switch 
 to the creative but negative angle creating images of trollish scenes to keep 
 me interested in writing.
 
 This really gives me a lot to think about, thanks for that Barry.  I would 
 like to become a bit more conscious of my outcomes here and ultimately if 
 being here is where my real outcomes are likely to get met in becoming the 
 kind of writer I want to be.
 
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
  
   Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence 
   distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the 
   import of my complete thought as contained in the 
   whole paragraph.
  
  Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but 
  tripping on what you said above, I thought I
  should draw your attention to a post I made
  here recently entitled This is your brain on 
  reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously. 
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510
  
  It details some fascinating research being done
  on people to determine what is going on in their
  brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the
  sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is
  called close reading, as if they have to report
  on what they're reading later in an essay about it. 
  The researchers, watching the brains of people 
  through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered 
  that very different parts of the brain are being 
  used, depending on whether one is reading for 
  pleasure, or doing close reading.
  
  Riffing on what you say above, is it possible 
  that a certain person is using different parts
  of their brain when reading your posts than you
  used when writing them?
  
  I find this an interesting question when applied
  to this forum. Different strokes for different
  folks turns out to be true even in the brain,
  and at different times, depending on the *intent*
  with which we read. Two people could read the
  same piece of literature -- in the experiments,
  passages from Jane Austen -- and get two very
  different things from them. That's not a surprise,
  of course, chances are we *all* would see the
  same passages slightly differently. *However*,
  the new information from these studies is that
  the *same* person could view and interpret 
  these passages completely differently, depend-
  ing on how they're reading them -- for pleasure,
  or for work.
  
  Taking a profession completely at random, consider
  the case of a professional editor. Their day job
  is parsing other people's writing, *looking for
  nits to pick*. The person is, as you suggest, 
  parsing word by word, sentence by sentence, *look-
  ing for errors or lapses in grammar or logic*.
  And to such a person, a single typo or misspelling
  could render an entire work unworthy of publication,
  and thus of being taken seriously.
  
  Now consider another random profession, say a 
  person who makes their living as a musician and
  an educator. Such a person might have said many
  times that they read the posts on FFL -- and
  write their own -- for pleasure. They do *not*
  tend to parse them carefully, looking for things
  not right in them; instead they might be looking
  for things to enjoy. Which is the objective, after 
  all, of reading for pleasure.
  
  These two types of people, conditioned by years
  of habit to read either for pleasure or for work,
  might be using entirely different parts of their
  brains while 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[turquoiseb]

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

 That was a bit of a revelation and a cogent analysis of 
 why we can't get there from here between some posters.  

Glad you enjoyed it.

 Since I know the hypothetical guy you were imagining...
 it also explains why it can be fun to go point by point 
 to stimulate a different part of my brain. That was 
 largely what doing philosophy involved and I enjoy that 
 in a different way from creative writing.

Professor Phillips points out that neither of these modes 
of brain functioning are superior, and in fact the real 
benefit is that we can switch between them, to train and 
develop different parts of the brain. In her words, 
...cognition is shaped not just by what we read, but how 
we read it. Reading rigorously and analyzing the ideas 
presented and even the structure of the language and how 
the ideas are presented exercises one mode of functioning 
in our brains, and cultivates that mode. Reading just for 
the fun of it exercises another mode of functioning, and 
cultivates it. Both are necessary to see the world around 
us clearly, from a balanced point of view. 

 Drilling deeper into this thoery I can also see how being 
 attacked here stimulates a pseudo fear mechanism that 
 prompts and urgency of response.  Combined with things 
 that a reader feels are inaccurate it creates a sturdy 
 chain to pull and get pulled by.  That may be a case for 
 not posting in a place where a lot of that goes on.  It 
 is hard to resist getting pulled into that cycle, 
 especially when not much more of that writing is going on. 
 
 I used to think about some of the back and forth stuff 
 about Maharishi's philosophy here as more of the first 
 thing, the stimulation of the close attention part of my 
 brain.  As it has drifted further and further from any 
 content, it has become less and less satisfying in that 
 regard, so I switch to the creative but negative angle 
 creating images of trollish scenes to keep me interested 
 in writing.
 
 This really gives me a lot to think about, thanks for 
 that Barry.  I would like to become a bit more conscious 
 of my outcomes here and ultimately if being here is where 
 my real outcomes are likely to get met in becoming the 
 kind of writer I want to be.

Much more research is being done by this same team, 
including fMRI scans of readers to determine how the 
two different modes of reading affect such things as 
how they experience emotion arising from what they're 
reading. Will those emotions be stronger and affect 
the person more when reading for pleasure, or for 
analysis? 

But one of the valuable things learned even so far 
from this projects is that each of us has the ability 
to *change the way that our own brains work*. We can 
shift them from one mode of operation to another, 
just by the *intent* we bring to our reading. This 
is a discovery that I cannot help but relate to work 
on mindfulness meditation and fMRI, which has also 
shown that we can control which areas of our brains 
light up and are used or not used, depending on 
whether or not they are appropriate for the 
circumstances. 

On the literature side of the equation, these 
experiments may help us to understand the impact 
that great writing has on us. As Natalie Phillips 
says, ...give us a bigger, richer picture of how 
our minds engage with art – or, in our case, of the 
complex experience we know as literary reading.


 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
  
   Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence 
   distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the 
   import of my complete thought as contained in the 
   whole paragraph.
  
  Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but 
  tripping on what you said above, I thought I
  should draw your attention to a post I made
  here recently entitled This is your brain on 
  reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously. 
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510
  
  It details some fascinating research being done
  on people to determine what is going on in their
  brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the
  sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is
  called close reading, as if they have to report
  on what they're reading later in an essay about it. 
  The researchers, watching the brains of people 
  through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered 
  that very different parts of the brain are being 
  used, depending on whether one is reading for 
  pleasure, or doing close reading.
  
  Riffing on what you say above, is it possible 
  that a certain person is using different parts
  of their brain when reading your posts than you
  used when writing them?
  
  I find this an interesting question when applied
  to this forum. Different strokes for different
  folks turns out to be true even in the 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[curtisdeltablues]

This exchange made it worth participating on FFL this month!  Thanks.

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ 
 wrote:
 
  That was a bit of a revelation and a cogent analysis of 
  why we can't get there from here between some posters.  
 
 Glad you enjoyed it.
 
  Since I know the hypothetical guy you were imagining...
  it also explains why it can be fun to go point by point 
  to stimulate a different part of my brain. That was 
  largely what doing philosophy involved and I enjoy that 
  in a different way from creative writing.
 
 Professor Phillips points out that neither of these modes 
 of brain functioning are superior, and in fact the real 
 benefit is that we can switch between them, to train and 
 develop different parts of the brain. In her words, 
 ...cognition is shaped not just by what we read, but how 
 we read it. Reading rigorously and analyzing the ideas 
 presented and even the structure of the language and how 
 the ideas are presented exercises one mode of functioning 
 in our brains, and cultivates that mode. Reading just for 
 the fun of it exercises another mode of functioning, and 
 cultivates it. Both are necessary to see the world around 
 us clearly, from a balanced point of view. 
 
  Drilling deeper into this thoery I can also see how being 
  attacked here stimulates a pseudo fear mechanism that 
  prompts and urgency of response.  Combined with things 
  that a reader feels are inaccurate it creates a sturdy 
  chain to pull and get pulled by.  That may be a case for 
  not posting in a place where a lot of that goes on.  It 
  is hard to resist getting pulled into that cycle, 
  especially when not much more of that writing is going on. 
  
  I used to think about some of the back and forth stuff 
  about Maharishi's philosophy here as more of the first 
  thing, the stimulation of the close attention part of my 
  brain.  As it has drifted further and further from any 
  content, it has become less and less satisfying in that 
  regard, so I switch to the creative but negative angle 
  creating images of trollish scenes to keep me interested 
  in writing.
  
  This really gives me a lot to think about, thanks for 
  that Barry.  I would like to become a bit more conscious 
  of my outcomes here and ultimately if being here is where 
  my real outcomes are likely to get met in becoming the 
  kind of writer I want to be.
 
 Much more research is being done by this same team, 
 including fMRI scans of readers to determine how the 
 two different modes of reading affect such things as 
 how they experience emotion arising from what they're 
 reading. Will those emotions be stronger and affect 
 the person more when reading for pleasure, or for 
 analysis? 
 
 But one of the valuable things learned even so far 
 from this projects is that each of us has the ability 
 to *change the way that our own brains work*. We can 
 shift them from one mode of operation to another, 
 just by the *intent* we bring to our reading. This 
 is a discovery that I cannot help but relate to work 
 on mindfulness meditation and fMRI, which has also 
 shown that we can control which areas of our brains 
 light up and are used or not used, depending on 
 whether or not they are appropriate for the 
 circumstances. 
 
 On the literature side of the equation, these 
 experiments may help us to understand the impact 
 that great writing has on us. As Natalie Phillips 
 says, ...give us a bigger, richer picture of how 
 our minds engage with art – or, in our case, of the 
 complex experience we know as literary reading.
 
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
   
Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence 
distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the 
import of my complete thought as contained in the 
whole paragraph.
   
   Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but 
   tripping on what you said above, I thought I
   should draw your attention to a post I made
   here recently entitled This is your brain on 
   reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously. 
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510
   
   It details some fascinating research being done
   on people to determine what is going on in their
   brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the
   sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is
   called close reading, as if they have to report
   on what they're reading later in an essay about it. 
   The researchers, watching the brains of people 
   through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered 
   that very different parts of the brain are being 
   used, depending on whether one is reading for 
   pleasure, or doing close reading.
   
   Riffing on what you say above, is it possible 
   that a certain 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[Richard J. Williams]

  Drilling deeper into this thoery I can also see how being
  attacked here stimulates a pseudo fear mechanism that
  prompts and urgency of response...
 
curtisdeltablues:
 This exchange made it worth participating on FFL this 
 month!  Thanks.
 
Looks like several respondents got really scared of Judy. 

LoL!

   That was a bit of a revelation and a cogent analysis of 
   why we can't get there from here between some posters.  
  
  Glad you enjoyed it.
  
   Since I know the hypothetical guy you were imagining...
   it also explains why it can be fun to go point by point 
   to stimulate a different part of my brain. That was 
   largely what doing philosophy involved and I enjoy that 
   in a different way from creative writing.
   
  Professor Phillips points out that neither of these modes 
  of brain functioning are superior, and in fact the real 
  benefit is that we can switch between them, to train and 
  develop different parts of the brain. In her words, 
  ...cognition is shaped not just by what we read, but how 
  we read it. Reading rigorously and analyzing the ideas 
  presented and even the structure of the language and how 
  the ideas are presented exercises one mode of functioning 
  in our brains, and cultivates that mode. Reading just for 
  the fun of it exercises another mode of functioning, and 
  cultivates it. Both are necessary to see the world around 
  us clearly, from a balanced point of view. 
  
   Drilling deeper into this thoery I can also see how being 
   attacked here stimulates a pseudo fear mechanism that 
   prompts and urgency of response.  Combined with things 
   that a reader feels are inaccurate it creates a sturdy 
   chain to pull and get pulled by.  That may be a case for 
   not posting in a place where a lot of that goes on.  It 
   is hard to resist getting pulled into that cycle, 
   especially when not much more of that writing is going on. 
   
   I used to think about some of the back and forth stuff 
   about Maharishi's philosophy here as more of the first 
   thing, the stimulation of the close attention part of my 
   brain.  As it has drifted further and further from any 
   content, it has become less and less satisfying in that 
   regard, so I switch to the creative but negative angle 
   creating images of trollish scenes to keep me interested 
   in writing.
   
   This really gives me a lot to think about, thanks for 
   that Barry.  I would like to become a bit more conscious 
   of my outcomes here and ultimately if being here is where 
   my real outcomes are likely to get met in becoming the 
   kind of writer I want to be.
  
  Much more research is being done by this same team, 
  including fMRI scans of readers to determine how the 
  two different modes of reading affect such things as 
  how they experience emotion arising from what they're 
  reading. Will those emotions be stronger and affect 
  the person more when reading for pleasure, or for 
  analysis? 
  
  But one of the valuable things learned even so far 
  from this projects is that each of us has the ability 
  to *change the way that our own brains work*. We can 
  shift them from one mode of operation to another, 
  just by the *intent* we bring to our reading. This 
  is a discovery that I cannot help but relate to work 
  on mindfulness meditation and fMRI, which has also 
  shown that we can control which areas of our brains 
  light up and are used or not used, depending on 
  whether or not they are appropriate for the 
  circumstances. 
  
  On the literature side of the equation, these 
  experiments may help us to understand the impact 
  that great writing has on us. As Natalie Phillips 
  says, ...give us a bigger, richer picture of how 
  our minds engage with art – or, in our case, of the 
  complex experience we know as literary reading.
  
 Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence 
 distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the 
 import of my complete thought as contained in the 
 whole paragraph.

Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but 
tripping on what you said above, I thought I
should draw your attention to a post I made
here recently entitled This is your brain on 
reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510

It details some fascinating research being done
on people to determine what is going on in their
brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the
sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is
called close reading, as if they have to report
on what they're reading later in an essay about it. 
The researchers, watching the brains of people 
through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered 
that very different parts of the brain are being 
used, depending on whether one is reading for 
pleasure, or doing close reading.

Riffing on what you say 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[Share Long]

Richard, do you have a little Irish in you?  We Irish are prone to exaggerating 
for effect from time to time.  


Anyway, if by rabbit hole you mean my opinions of Judy, I assure you that Barry 
has little to do with that.  When Judy butted in and continued to butt into a 
personal and emotional matter between me and Robin, that's when my current 
opinions of Judy were formed.  




 From: Richard J. Williams rich...@rwilliams.us
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 10:45 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the 
Church of $cientology
 

  


  Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence 
  distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the 
  import of my complete thought as contained in the 
  whole paragraph.
 
turquoiseb:
 Taking a profession completely at random, consider
 the case of a professional editor...

Share, I already told you it's all about Judy. Don't
you get it - Barry does. He'll write almost anything
for hours, days, weeks, months, and years, to drag you 
down with him into the rabbit hole. LoL!

 Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but 
 tripping on what you said above, I thought I
 should draw your attention to a post I made
 here recently entitled This is your brain on 
 reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously. 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510
 
 It details some fascinating research being done
 on people to determine what is going on in their
 brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the
 sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is
 called close reading, as if they have to report
 on what they're reading later in an essay about it. 
 The researchers, watching the brains of people 
 through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered 
 that very different parts of the brain are being 
 used, depending on whether one is reading for 
 pleasure, or doing close reading.
 
 Riffing on what you say above, is it possible 
 that a certain person is using different parts
 of their brain when reading your posts than you
 used when writing them?
 
 I find this an interesting question when applied
 to this forum. Different strokes for different
 folks turns out to be true even in the brain,
 and at different times, depending on the *intent*
 with which we read. Two people could read the
 same piece of literature -- in the experiments,
 passages from Jane Austen -- and get two very
 different things from them. That's not a surprise,
 of course, chances are we *all* would see the
 same passages slightly differently. *However*,
 the new information from these studies is that
 the *same* person could view and interpret 
 these passages completely differently, depend-
 ing on how they're reading them -- for pleasure,
 or for work.
 
 Taking a profession completely at random, consider
 the case of a professional editor. Their day job
 is parsing other people's writing, *looking for
 nits to pick*. The person is, as you suggest, 
 parsing word by word, sentence by sentence, *look-
 ing for errors or lapses in grammar or logic*.
 And to such a person, a single typo or misspelling
 could render an entire work unworthy of publication,
 and thus of being taken seriously.
 
 Now consider another random profession, say a 
 person who makes their living as a musician and
 an educator. Such a person might have said many
 times that they read the posts on FFL -- and
 write their own -- for pleasure. They do *not*
 tend to parse them carefully, looking for things
 not right in them; instead they might be looking
 for things to enjoy. Which is the objective, after 
 all, of reading for pleasure.
 
 These two types of people, conditioned by years
 of habit to read either for pleasure or for work,
 might be using entirely different parts of their
 brains while reading, and as a result might have 
 a tendency to react to what you write completely
 differently.
 
 Now make a mental leap with me beyond the context
 of the experiments so far and to the next level.
 If humans use different parts of their brains
 when either reading for pleasure or reading more
 seriously, close reading, is it possible that
 they do the exact same thing when writing?
 
 The musician in my completely random example, for
 example, might have gone on record many times as
 saying that he writes for pleasure, for the sheer
 fun of writing and for the joy of seeing one's
 ideas come together as a result of the very
 act of writing. I'm like that, and I intuit 
 that you might be, too. 
 
 Someone else might tend to bring the same close
 reading brain functioning they practice as a 
 reader to their writing, and tend to take the 
 writing more seriously, and less as an opportunity 
 to have fun. They might, in fact, be practicing 
 close writing. If this were the case, would it 
 not be likely that they are using an entirely 
 different mode of brain functioning when writing 
 than

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[raunchydog]

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

 Richard, do you have a little Irish in you?  We Irish are prone to 
 exaggerating for effect from time to time.  
 
 
 Anyway, if by rabbit hole you mean my opinions of Judy, I assure you that 
 Barry has little to do with that.  When Judy butted in and continued to butt 
 into a personal and emotional matter between me and Robin, that's when my 
 current opinions of Judy were formed.  
 
 

Pick Your Battles - Dr. Thema Bryant-Davis 
http://youtu.be/x6ZpdxlwxLI
 
 
  From: Richard J. Williams richard@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 10:45 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the 
 Church of $cientology
  
 
   
 
 
   Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence 
   distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the 
   import of my complete thought as contained in the 
   whole paragraph.
  
 turquoiseb:
  Taking a profession completely at random, consider
  the case of a professional editor...
 
 Share, I already told you it's all about Judy. Don't
 you get it - Barry does. He'll write almost anything
 for hours, days, weeks, months, and years, to drag you 
 down with him into the rabbit hole. LoL!
 
  Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but 
  tripping on what you said above, I thought I
  should draw your attention to a post I made
  here recently entitled This is your brain on 
  reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously. 
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510
  
  It details some fascinating research being done
  on people to determine what is going on in their
  brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the
  sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is
  called close reading, as if they have to report
  on what they're reading later in an essay about it. 
  The researchers, watching the brains of people 
  through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered 
  that very different parts of the brain are being 
  used, depending on whether one is reading for 
  pleasure, or doing close reading.
  
  Riffing on what you say above, is it possible 
  that a certain person is using different parts
  of their brain when reading your posts than you
  used when writing them?
  
  I find this an interesting question when applied
  to this forum. Different strokes for different
  folks turns out to be true even in the brain,
  and at different times, depending on the *intent*
  with which we read. Two people could read the
  same piece of literature -- in the experiments,
  passages from Jane Austen -- and get two very
  different things from them. That's not a surprise,
  of course, chances are we *all* would see the
  same passages slightly differently. *However*,
  the new information from these studies is that
  the *same* person could view and interpret 
  these passages completely differently, depend-
  ing on how they're reading them -- for pleasure,
  or for work.
  
  Taking a profession completely at random, consider
  the case of a professional editor. Their day job
  is parsing other people's writing, *looking for
  nits to pick*. The person is, as you suggest, 
  parsing word by word, sentence by sentence, *look-
  ing for errors or lapses in grammar or logic*.
  And to such a person, a single typo or misspelling
  could render an entire work unworthy of publication,
  and thus of being taken seriously.
  
  Now consider another random profession, say a 
  person who makes their living as a musician and
  an educator. Such a person might have said many
  times that they read the posts on FFL -- and
  write their own -- for pleasure. They do *not*
  tend to parse them carefully, looking for things
  not right in them; instead they might be looking
  for things to enjoy. Which is the objective, after 
  all, of reading for pleasure.
  
  These two types of people, conditioned by years
  of habit to read either for pleasure or for work,
  might be using entirely different parts of their
  brains while reading, and as a result might have 
  a tendency to react to what you write completely
  differently.
  
  Now make a mental leap with me beyond the context
  of the experiments so far and to the next level.
  If humans use different parts of their brains
  when either reading for pleasure or reading more
  seriously, close reading, is it possible that
  they do the exact same thing when writing?
  
  The musician in my completely random example, for
  example, might have gone on record many times as
  saying that he writes for pleasure, for the sheer
  fun of writing and for the joy of seeing one's
  ideas come together as a result of the very
  act of writing. I'm like that, and I intuit 
  that you might be, too. 
  
  Someone else might tend to bring the same close
  reading brain functioning they practice as a 
  reader to their writing, and tend

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[seventhray1]

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

 Actually Steve, Ravi thought the story wasn't funny because he was
joking that he thought story was real. Now, *that* was funny. Anyway,
thanks for the kudos.

Missing Ravi's humor.  How could that happen!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- replying to BW

[wayback71]

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

 Hi BW, yes, I saw that article.  Read quickly as is my tendency.  Sometimes 
 I think I'm using a VERY small part of my brain here on FFL.  Sometimes I 
 think I'm using too much!  Wonder how that combo of thoughts would look on 
 MRI.
 
 I was a Lit major in undergrad and then TV/Film in grad school.  Now can't 
 even imagine reading or watching for anything other than pleasure.  But, 
 having said that, it seems deeply imbued in my perceiving such to notice 
 patterns, themes, overarching tones.  Dare I say that I attribute this to my 
 jyotish chart?!
 
 I think it would be fascinating to do similar research on musicians.  I read 
 somewhere, not recently, that overall, musicians tend to live longer.  Don't 
 remember other details.  Not my strong suit to do so.  But wanted to 
 mention it anyway.  And wonder if maybe they, more than any other artists, 
 combine pleasure and work.  Hmmm, now that I think of it, I'd put poets in 
 this category too.  Probably missing merudanda more than is reasonable.
 
 
 Yes, I take into account that someone might be accustomed to close reading.  
 And it makes sense to me that that trait would spill over into writing.  
 Even into other activities.  I appreciate your bringing this to my attention 
 again.  Can aim for compassion.  As I anticipate a new posting week (-:
 
 Also want to say that I appreciate your being somewhat of a good sport about 
 the Stand Up Comedy Awards, etc. 
 
 
 PS  I enjoyed both reading your post and replying to it.  win win, my 
 favorite
 
 
 
  From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 9:10 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the 
 Church of $cientology
  
 
   
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
 
  Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence 
  distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the 
  import of my complete thought as contained in the 
  whole paragraph.
 
 Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but 
 tripping on what you said above, I thought I
 should draw your attention to a post I made
 here recently entitled This is your brain on 
 reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously. 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510
 
 It details some fascinating research being done
 on people to determine what is going on in their
 brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the
 sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is
 called close reading, as if they have to report
 on what they're reading later in an essay about it. 
 The researchers, watching the brains of people 
 through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered 
 that very different parts of the brain are being 
 used, depending on whether one is reading for 
 pleasure, or doing close reading.
 
 Riffing on what you say above, is it possible 
 that a certain person is using different parts
 of their brain when reading your posts than you
 used when writing them?
 
 I find this an interesting question when applied
 to this forum. Different strokes for different
 folks turns out to be true even in the brain,
 and at different times, depending on the *intent*
 with which we read. Two people could read the
 same piece of literature -- in the experiments,
 passages from Jane Austen -- and get two very
 different things from them. That's not a surprise,
 of course, chances are we *all* would see the
 same passages slightly differently. *However*,
 the new information from these studies is that
 the *same* person could view and interpret 
 these passages completely differently, depend-
 ing on how they're reading them -- for pleasure,
 or for work.
 
 Taking a profession completely at random, consider
 the case of a professional editor. Their day job
 is parsing other people's writing, *looking for
 nits to pick*. The person is, as you suggest, 
 parsing word by word, sentence by sentence, *look-
 ing for errors or lapses in grammar or logic*.
 And to such a person, a single typo or misspelling
 could render an entire work unworthy of publication,
 and thus of being taken seriously.
 
 Now consider another random profession, say a 
 person who makes their living as a musician and
 an educator. Such a person might have said many
 times that they read the posts on FFL -- and
 write their own -- for pleasure. They do *not*
 tend to parse them carefully, looking for things
 not right in them; instead they might be looking
 for things to enjoy. Which is the objective, after 
 all, of reading for pleasure.
 
 These two types of people, conditioned by years
 of habit to read either for pleasure or for work,
 might be using entirely different parts of their
 brains while reading, and as a result might have 
 a tendency to react to what you write completely
 differently

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote:
snip
 Anyway, if by rabbit hole you mean my opinions of Judy, I
 assure you that Barry has little to do with that.  When
 Judy butted in and continued to butt into a personal and
 emotional matter between me and Robin, that's when my
 current opinions of Judy were formed.

You are not being truthful here, Share. You and I had
*exactly one exchange* concerning the matter between
you and Robin. I did not continue to butt in.

Moreover, when you make public posts, you do not have
the right to expect that nobody will comment on them,
no matter how personal and emotional they are. You
don't get to have a private exchange on a public forum.
That's what email is for.

It wasn't my butting in that formed your current opinions
of me in any case. It's that I took you to task for
the misstatements and unfairness in your posts. Curtis
butted in as well, but he supported you, so you didn't
form a negative opinion of him for doing so.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[Robin Carlsen]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
 
  ... I think what I don't like is gratuitous negativity.
  Especially the kind that is mean and nasty towards 
  someone else. Like the kind that seemingly pops up out 
  of nowhere and functions merely to keep the negativity 
  flowing. And ironically enough, often it happens here 
  just when things have quieted down! DUH! 
 
 A noble thought. Now let's see how you follow through
 on it. 
 
 I've said what I had to say in my little Intervention
 riff. I've adopted the fictive voice of others and 
 dared a certain someone to take a week off from 
 dissing those she so habitually feels the need to
 demonize here on FFL. 
 
 WHY am I doing this? As a kind of proactive experiment.
 We who have (ahem) been around FFL longer than you have
 are by now used to her attempting to restart the demon-
 izations after a break. Let's see what she -- and
 others who tend to join her in them -- do this time,
 shall we?
 
 From my side, I will try my best to neither read any-
 thing she writes, or respond to it. I shall also try
 to avoid mentioning her at all. I suspect that Curtis
 will do the same, since that is his current M.O. anyway.
 He rarely gets involved until after the first brick 
 has been thrown attempting to damage his career as an
 educator. Vaj is silent for his own reasons, many of
 which have to do with the renewed presence on this
 forum of a rather disturbed troll.
 
 So...just sayin'...what will happen from *your* side,
 since you've weighed in above? Will you call *others*
 on this forum if *they* try to restart the olde
 bitterness and grudges? Or is that something you
 only do when those whom you've been taught to assoc-
 iate with the Curtis-Barry-Vaj troika speak up?
 
 I guess only time will tell, eh?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[authfriend]

Share, you might want to read my response to Curtis below.

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:
 
 I left in the post of mine you were responding to. I'd
 suggest you read it again to refresh your memory, and
 then see if you can bring yourself to respond to my
 question straightforwardly.
 
 M:  If I could pick one snip of a post to express how Judy operates
 here, it might be this one.  It is so pregnant with assumptive 
 condescension. If it was a line spoken in a movie who would play
 it?  Joan Crawford with the arching eyebrows?  Perhaps the aging
 Betty Davis with her foundation cracking into her furrowed skin?

Gee, Curtis, you wouldn't be trying to discourage Share
from looking over the post again, would you?

Share did say I was sounding more reasonable than you.
Do you think she'll find this post of yours any more
reasonable? Or do you think she'll realize you're doing
your damndest to prevent her from acknowledging that you
had lied about what I had said in your response to my
earlier post?

 Nice touch calling my asking Robin for the reasons he finds stories
 of saints doing miraculous things a long time ago compelling as 
 picking a fight.

Sure it was. This type of issue has been one of the biggest
sources of conflict between you and Robin. He hadn't been
addressing you; you jumped into a discussion between him
and Salyavin--and then acknowledged at the end of your post
that you should have left it at the comment Salyavin had
made, and that you hadn't helped further the discussion
with your post. But you made it anyway. Hmmm.

Jumping into discussions is something we often do here. But
when you jump into a discussion on the side of a debating
opponent of one of your biggest adversaries, concerning an
issue that has always been a hot-button one between you,
picking a fight is not an inappropriate characterization.
Especially when that's the only post of substance you had
addressed to Robin since your return.

 And I loved your doubling down on the death threat thing, even
 now, with the connection with the Darwin Awards spelled out for
 you, clueless to the end.

Curtis, I do not believe you are so oblivious to the context
of what I said to Share that you honestly think I doubled
down on the death threat thing. I think you're trying very
hard to make *Share*--and anyone else reading this--think I
did. But you know I didn't. Share erred in saying Barry's
remark hadn't had anything about death in it, and I corrected
her. I also agreed with her that it wasn't a literal death
threat.

The Darwin Awards business is just misdirection, as you know.
It was never relevant. It was only an excuse Barry used to
fantasize about raunchy and me dying. Too stupid to tie
their shoes or something similar would have conveyed the
idea Barry claims he wanted to express just as well--but he
chose too stupid to live.

And then of course there was also the fantasy about our
bursting into flame, which you have consistently avoided
mentioning. Again Barry has tried to convince us that this
was a reference to liar, liar, pants on fire--but neither
raunchy nor I had lied, and in any case pants on fire
refers to being spanked for lying, not to bursting into
flame via spontaneous combustion.

You're a writer who claims to be sensitive to nuance.
These did not escape you.

 And all the time wagging her finger, liar, liar, liar, liar all
 around her liars.

I'm wagging my finger at you and Barry. There are a few
others here who lie, but none of them to anywhere near the
same extent, or with the same intense malice, as the two
of you.

 Now Share, obey her command to focus on her mighty words,
 dripping with contempt,

Curtis-spin designed to keep Share from rereading what I
wrote. There was no contempt at all in it. But if Curtis
can convince her there was, he's hoping she'll be offended
and refuse.

 and answer zee questions, zey are critical and will expose you
 before her mighty power.

Just one question, actually, a rather simple one.

 And please remember to answer what she ASKED and do it 
 straightforwardly zis time.

Share *was* willing to answer my question, and *did*
answer it in my favor. She just couldn't quite bring
herself to acknowledge your attempts at deception. You
are terribly afraid she will do so this time, so you 
are again attempting to deceive in an effort to keep
her from acknowledging the blatantly obvious.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[authfriend]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
 
  ... I think what I don't like is gratuitous negativity.
  Especially the kind that is mean and nasty towards 
  someone else. Like the kind that seemingly pops up out 
  of nowhere and functions merely to keep the negativity 
  flowing. And ironically enough, often it happens here 
  just when things have quieted down! DUH! 
 
 A noble thought. Now let's see how you follow through
 on it. 
 
 I've said what I had to say in my little Intervention
 riff. I've adopted the fictive voice of others and 
 dared a certain someone to take a week off from 
 dissing those she so habitually feels the need to
 demonize here on FFL.

Sez Barry, who has been busy demonizing me all week and
thinks he has a chance of converting Share--not
realizing she underwent her conversion several weeks
ago (and never had anything to be converted *from*
anyway).

snip
 From my side, I will try my best to neither read any-
 thing she writes, or respond to it. I shall also try
 to avoid mentioning her at all.

His best is none too good. If he's tried this once,
he's tried it scores of times, unsuccessfully.

 I suspect that Curtis
 will do the same, since that is his current M.O. anyway.
 He rarely gets involved until after the first brick 
 has been thrown attempting to damage his career as an
 educator.

Uh-oh, the Bullshit Meter just went on Overload. And
it's set *very* high for Barry's posts.

You'd think Curtis would speak up to correct Barry's
misrepresentations, wouldn't you? But he won't, even
knowing that the rest of the forum is well aware
they're bullshit.

 Vaj is silent for his own reasons, many of
 which have to do with the renewed presence on this
 forum of a rather disturbed troll.

As Barry knows, the rather disturbed troll was Vaj
himself. Vaj is silent because the last we heard from
him, Barry reported that he had told Barry something
about Ann in private that turned out not to be true. He
does not want to have to confront the fallout from his
lie.

 So...just sayin'...what will happen from *your* side,
 since you've weighed in above? Will you call *others*
 on this forum if *they* try to restart the olde
 bitterness and grudges? Or is that something you
 only do when those whom you've been taught to assoc-
 iate with the Curtis-Barry-Vaj troika speak up?

Let's see if Share will correct Barry's misrepresentations
of her. I'll bet she won't either.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[awoelflebater]

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

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
  
   ... I think what I don't like is gratuitous negativity.
   Especially the kind that is mean and nasty towards 
   someone else. Like the kind that seemingly pops up out 
   of nowhere and functions merely to keep the negativity 
   flowing. And ironically enough, often it happens here 
   just when things have quieted down! DUH! 
  
  A noble thought. Now let's see how you follow through
  on it. 
  
  I've said what I had to say in my little Intervention
  riff. I've adopted the fictive voice of others and 
  dared a certain someone to take a week off from 
  dissing those she so habitually feels the need to
  demonize here on FFL.
 
 Sez Barry, who has been busy demonizing me all week and
 thinks he has a chance of converting Share--not
 realizing she underwent her conversion several weeks
 ago (and never had anything to be converted *from*
 anyway).
 
 snip
  From my side, I will try my best to neither read any-
  thing she writes, or respond to it. I shall also try
  to avoid mentioning her at all.
 
 His best is none too good. If he's tried this once,
 he's tried it scores of times, unsuccessfully.
 
  I suspect that Curtis
  will do the same, since that is his current M.O. anyway.
  He rarely gets involved until after the first brick 
  has been thrown attempting to damage his career as an
  educator.
 
 Uh-oh, the Bullshit Meter just went on Overload. And
 it's set *very* high for Barry's posts.
 
 You'd think Curtis would speak up to correct Barry's
 misrepresentations, wouldn't you? But he won't, even
 knowing that the rest of the forum is well aware
 they're bullshit.
 
  Vaj is silent for his own reasons, many of
  which have to do with the renewed presence on this
  forum of a rather disturbed troll.
 
 As Barry knows, the rather disturbed troll was Vaj
 himself. Vaj is silent because the last we heard from
 him, Barry reported that he had told Barry something
 about Ann in private that turned out not to be true. He
 does not want to have to confront the fallout from his
 lie.
 
  So...just sayin'...what will happen from *your* side,
  since you've weighed in above? Will you call *others*
  on this forum if *they* try to restart the olde
  bitterness and grudges? Or is that something you
  only do when those whom you've been taught to assoc-
  iate with the Curtis-Barry-Vaj troika speak up?
 
 Let's see if Share will correct Barry's misrepresentations
 of her. I'll bet she won't either.

There's no hiding from the demands of reality. Who would have thought that 
courage and integrity were required on a forum where miles of space and time 
can seem to separate us from each other? But what do you know, there's no 
hiding behind any curtain. Sooner or later Dorothy and her friends are going to 
catch a glimpse of what is really going on back there. And it may not be pretty.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[Ravi Chivukula]

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:04 PM, raunchydog raunchy...@yahoo.com wrote:

 **




 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote:
 
  At the risk of 'piling on' this little vignette was priceless. Probably
 because it rang so true. All you left out was some bimbo trying to climb
 onto his lap.
 

 Hold the applause, Ann. You're only encouraging me. I can't...no I
 mustn't...Help! Somebody STOP ME! Oh alright.

 Scene: Leiden, Holland, 2:00 am. Two Dutch grifters discuss their recent
 mark.
 Guy: Hey, what's in his wallet?
 Gal: ID, Barry Wright, two bucks and a condom...expiration date, August
 18, 1969.
 Guy: Sonofabitch, the last time that old geezer got laid was at Woodstock!
 Gal: Thought so...probably explains the tie-dyed boxer shorts.
 Guy: Did you get those too?
 Gal: Yep, trophy for my easy mark collection.
 Guy: Two bucks? Hardly worth the trouble of letting him feel your ass.
 Gal: My ass, his shorts, win, win.

 Meanwhile, alone in a fleabag hotel, passed out cold, handcuffed to a
 chair and stripped naked except for a Jerry Garcia tie* gracefully covering
 his privates. Barry slowly regains consciousness, muttering, win,
 win...win, win.

 Barry: What a night! Can't wait to write about it.

 *Jerry Garcia tie: Barry's most prized possession.


Sorry raunchy, this would have been real funny if it weren't real. Thanks
for trying.



  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
  
  
   Barry: I've got a problem.
   Bartender: Yeah. Tell me about it.
   Barry: There's this woman...
   Bartender (aside): Here he goes again...another sob story about some
 crazy bitch named Judy. Man, this dame really gets to him.
   Barry: This woman is diving me crazy...haunting my every waking
 moment. Gimme another drink.
   Bartender: I hear you, Buddy. (aside) Yep. We know where this one's
 going.
   Barry: She has this creepy power over people who actually read her
 posts on FFLife.
   Bartender: (pretending interest) Uh-huh...
   Barry: THOSE PEOPLE...who read her posts. Do you know what happens to
 them?
   Bartender: Have another shot with your beer, Buddy. You're gunna need
 it.
   Barry: She makes THOSE PEOPLE hate me...Oh the agony, the unbearable
 pain...etc, etc, etc. blubber, blubber, boo hoo hoo.
  
   Two hours later..
  
   Bartender: Time to go home, Buddy.
   Barry: My hair! What happened to my hair? I have no hair!
   Bartender: It caught on fire...spontaneous combustion. You should have
 seen it. You were spectacular! Never saw anything like it. Blue flames
 shooting out yer ass, hair on fire...quite a show, quite a show, indeed.
 The joint was packed.
   Barry: I need a drink.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:

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

  You'll have to learn by experience what the positive-to-
  negative ratios of FFL participants are. With some of
  them, you may never see their negative side until you
  get into a dispute with them.
   
Note the incredibly clueless assumption here -- that
getting into a dispute with them is something that
is going to -- or should -- happen. It doesn't, for
most here. It *does*, for those who live for disputes.
   
The same assumption -- nigh unto a presumption -- was
voiced recently in response to my suggestion that the
screaming of Non-sequitur! was a barrier to conver-
sation. The person replying didn't even *address* the
possibility that FFL could be *about* conversation.
Instead, it was presumed to be a forum for debate.
   
Some people, as strange as it may seem, *don't* live
for debate, or view every occasion to interact with
other human beings as an opportunity to start one.
These people instead -- not being as ego-attached to
their POVs and rigid, fixed ideas -- enjoy discussing
them calmly with others, in more of a (dare I say it)
conversation. These strange people don't feel the same
compulsive need to *assert* their own POVs and ideas
and declare them better or more right than those
of others, and thus don't feel the same compulsive
need to turn every conversation about POVs and ideas
into a debate. Just sayin'...
   
  Those with a penchant for
  dishonesty are so clever about giving the false
  impression that the other side is at fault that a third
  party reading the posts in the dispute is unable to see
  how they've done it.

 Rght. Only Judy can. It is kind of like a magical
 power but she was never bitten by a spider and doesn't come
 from a red planet that exploded.
   
I'm not completely convinced about her not coming from
another planet :-), but I'd agree with you about not
being bitten by a spider. Spiders have better taste. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[Share Long]

Hi Ann, I was out of town yesterday but here I am now!  Right!  I think what I 
don't like is gratuitous negativity.  Especially the kind that is mean and 
nasty towards someone else.  Like the kind that seemingly pops up out of 
nowhere and functions merely to keep the negativity flowing.  And ironically 
enough, often it happens here just when things have quieted down!  DUH!      


I totally understand if someone is triggered and lashes out.  But some of the 
seemingly untriggered attacks just seem mean spirited.    


Replying to other email:

Thank you for your curiosity about my life.  I think!  I don't mind your 
posting about QL.  Maybe it will generate some business for Kenji (-:


Here's the thing, Ann:  it sounds like you're happily married.  In this day and 
age, IMO, that in and of itself is an accomplishment.  Plus you have your 
beloved horses.  And you live in a wonderful albeit expensive place.


I'm retired and fortunately FF is inexpensive enough that I can live 
comfortably here.  I go to the Dome morning and evening.  I consider that my 
job.  When I left campus 10 years ago I did so with the conscious intention to 
get the emotional healing I needed.  I think I've been very blessed in that 
endeavor.  Both with the people who have been in my life and the knowledge and 
techniques I've learned about.  


I haven't done everything that's come to FF.  But I've done a lot.  Some of it 
I've stuck with.  Some not.  And some just a little.  For example, from Kenji's 
QLW, I do self waves when I have trouble getting back to sleep.  And don't 
tell, but I combine EFT and ho'oponopono!

I don't really do jyotish as in check my chart every day.  But I read the 
newsletters I get, etc.  I'm nowhere near as knowledgeable as John is.


For me TM is the basis of emotional development.  And other procedures are 
necessary for my emotional healing.  Hope this all helps.



 From: awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:13 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the 
Church of $cientology
 

  


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

 Something that happened almost 9 years ago?!  Nope, not interested.
 
 Someone getting beat up by someone else.  Definitely not interested.

Figuratively speaking I believe. It seems there were no bloody noses or 
cauliflower ears resulting from the verbal tussle. But, again, I could be 
wrong. I have been once or twice before. (By the way, I hope you didn't mind me 
posting the blurb on QLW, it was a straight quote right off the website. I was 
actually really curious about what it could be, I dated a quantum physicist 
once and was wondering if it involved any real physics. I am still not sure. 
But I do know that boyfriend and I had some physics going on at the time. 
Curtis knew him, they played music together.)
 
 
 
  From: Richard J. Williams richard@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 10:57 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the 
 Church of $cientology
 
 
   
 
 
   Sorry, Richard but IMO Barry's not schizo...
  
 authfriend:
  ...don't believe everything you read here. Not 
  only is Barry not schizo, the rest of Richard's 
  description of him is not accurate either.
 
 Here's the thread so Share can read it and judge for 
 herself how Turq got beatup by Moogin and Judy. 
 
 Not only did Turq get beat up by Judy, Moogin beat 
 up Turq's defense of TMer 'transcendence creation' 
 theory! LoL!
 
 Subject: Emperor's New Clothes
 Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic
 Date: 2003-10-17 05:35:21 PST
 http://tinyurl.com/95drxtz
 
 Uncle Tantra: 
   I don't believe that there is anything in the
   universe called truth.
 
 Moogin:
  Then you said, The only 'perspective' that would 
  be valid to judge creation would have to transcend 
  creation, you were just offering one of your 
  beliefs, not -- despite appearances -- a claim 
  about the truth of things concerning the universe.
 
 -- Moggin
 
 to e-mail, remove the thorn



 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[turquoiseb]

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

 ... I think what I don't like is gratuitous negativity.
 Especially the kind that is mean and nasty towards 
 someone else. Like the kind that seemingly pops up out 
 of nowhere and functions merely to keep the negativity 
 flowing. And ironically enough, often it happens here 
 just when things have quieted down! DUH! 

A noble thought. Now let's see how you follow through
on it. 

I've said what I had to say in my little Intervention
riff. I've adopted the fictive voice of others and 
dared a certain someone to take a week off from 
dissing those she so habitually feels the need to
demonize here on FFL. 

WHY am I doing this? As a kind of proactive experiment.
We who have (ahem) been around FFL longer than you have
are by now used to her attempting to restart the demon-
izations after a break. Let's see what she -- and
others who tend to join her in them -- do this time,
shall we?

From my side, I will try my best to neither read any-
thing she writes, or respond to it. I shall also try
to avoid mentioning her at all. I suspect that Curtis
will do the same, since that is his current M.O. anyway.
He rarely gets involved until after the first brick 
has been thrown attempting to damage his career as an
educator. Vaj is silent for his own reasons, many of
which have to do with the renewed presence on this
forum of a rather disturbed troll.

So...just sayin'...what will happen from *your* side,
since you've weighed in above? Will you call *others*
on this forum if *they* try to restart the olde
bitterness and grudges? Or is that something you
only do when those whom you've been taught to assoc-
iate with the Curtis-Barry-Vaj troika speak up?

I guess only time will tell, eh?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[awoelflebater]

Hi Share, thanks for being a good sport because I was making just the
teeniest bit of fun yesterday, especially about the World Puja Show. But
I don't think you took it as spiteful so some of those techniques are
obviously working for you. And I sometimes have a slightly mischevious
sense of humour when I like to feel someone out on certain things. But
you passed the test and I learned a little about Light Weaving. But that
Puja business seems just a little good to be true...
And yes, some people here just lurk and wait to jump out and land in a
heap on top of someone once it looks safe to do so because there is
safety in numbers or others simply start out all welcoming and inviting
until you get a bit vulnerable and then they throw in a left hook when
you expected a plate of cupcakes. But I have figured that particular
person out months ago and never believe there are cupcakes on the menu
even when the smell from the kitchen is delicious.
When I lived in FF as a student I had my horse there and every day
summer or winter I went to ride. Freezing cold or boiling hot I loved
the opportunity to ride through the soybean fields and corn, to jump
through large snow drifts and to get to know some of the locals as well.
I also enjoyed the small town ambiance, the town square and all the
little shops. The quintessential small town America from the 50's and
60's when I was there in the late 70's and early 80's. I know it is very
different now. I haven't been there since about 1988.  But I know I
couldn't live there now. I have this rebel thing going on and there are
just too many rules and too many people doing the same thing. Or at
least I have that impression. Maybe one day I will make a trip back just
to get the feel for the place but I won't be making any forays into that
Golden Dome, they wouldn't have me anyway. And I'd do something
obnoxious like make some scene about it just to push some buttons. I can
be a real jerk sometimes.

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

 Hi Ann, I was out of town yesterday but here I am now!  Right!Â
I think what I don't like is gratuitous negativity.  Especially the
kind that is mean and nasty towards someone else.  Like the kind
that seemingly pops up out of nowhere and functions merely to keep the
negativity flowing.  And ironically enough, often it happens here
just when things have quieted down!  DUH!    Â


 I totally understand if someone is triggered and lashes out.  But
some of the seemingly untriggered attacks just seem mean spirited. Â
Â


 Replying to other email:

 Thank you for your curiosity about my life.  I think!  I don't
mind your posting about QL.  Maybe it will generate some business
for Kenji (-:


 Here's the thing, Ann:Â  it sounds like you're happily married.Â
In this day and age, IMO, that in and of itself is an
accomplishment.  Plus you have your beloved horses.  And you
live in a wonderful albeit expensive place.


 I'm retired and fortunately FF is inexpensive enough that I can live
comfortably here.  I go to the Dome morning and evening.  I
consider that my job.  When I left campus 10 years ago I did so with
the conscious intention to get the emotional healing I needed.  I
think I've been very blessed in that endeavor.  Both with the people
who have been in my life and the knowledge and techniques I've learned
about.Â


 I haven't done everything that's come to FF.  But I've done a
lot.  Some of it I've stuck with.  Some not.  And some just
a little.  For example, from Kenji's QLW, I do self waves when I
have trouble getting back to sleep.  And don't tell, but I combine
EFT and ho'oponopono!

 I don't really do jyotish as in check my chart every day.  But I
read the newsletters I get, etc.  I'm nowhere near as knowledgeable
as John is.


 For me TM is the basis of emotional development.  And other
procedures are necessary for my emotional healing.  Hope this all
helps.


 
  From: awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:13 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for
the Church of $cientology


 Â


 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
 
  Something that happened almost 9 years ago?!  Nope, not
interested.
 
  Someone getting beat up by someone else.  Definitely not
interested.

 Figuratively speaking I believe. It seems there were no bloody noses
or cauliflower ears resulting from the verbal tussle. But, again, I
could be wrong. I have been once or twice before. (By the way, I hope
you didn't mind me posting the blurb on QLW, it was a straight quote
right off the website. I was actually really curious about what it could
be, I dated a quantum physicist once and was wondering if it involved
any real physics. I am still not sure. But I do know that boyfriend and
I had some physics going on at the time. Curtis knew

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[awoelflebater]

Oh s--- woman it just gets better and better. This is funny, not because poor 
Barry has been given this huge send up but because it is downright hilarious on 
any level. Come to think of it, okay, it's funny because it makes fun of Barry 
but my God woman, you've missed your calling. Keep cooking with gas.

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

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote:
 
  At the risk of 'piling on' this little vignette was priceless. Probably 
  because it rang so true. All you left out was some bimbo trying to climb 
  onto his lap.
  
 
 Hold the applause, Ann. You're only encouraging me. I can't...no I 
 mustn't...Help! Somebody STOP ME! Oh alright.
 
 Scene: Leiden, Holland, 2:00 am. Two Dutch grifters discuss their recent mark.
 Guy: Hey, what's in his wallet?
 Gal: ID, Barry Wright, two bucks and a condom...expiration date, August 18, 
 1969.
 Guy: Sonofabitch, the last time that old geezer got laid was at Woodstock!
 Gal: Thought so...probably explains the tie-dyed boxer shorts.
 Guy: Did you get those too?
 Gal: Yep, trophy for my easy mark collection.
 Guy: Two bucks? Hardly worth the trouble of letting him feel your ass.
 Gal: My ass, his shorts, win, win.
 
 Meanwhile, alone in a fleabag hotel, passed out cold, handcuffed to a chair 
 and stripped naked except for a Jerry Garcia tie* gracefully covering his 
 privates. Barry slowly regains consciousness, muttering, win, win...win, 
 win. 
 
 Barry: What a night! Can't wait to write about it.
 
 *Jerry Garcia tie: Barry's most prized possession.
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
  
   
   Barry: I've got a problem.
   Bartender: Yeah. Tell me about it.
   Barry: There's this woman...
   Bartender (aside): Here he goes again...another sob story about some 
   crazy bitch named Judy. Man, this dame really gets to him.
   Barry: This woman is diving me crazy...haunting my every waking moment. 
   Gimme another drink.
   Bartender: I hear you, Buddy. (aside) Yep. We know where this one's going.
   Barry: She has this creepy power over people who actually read her posts 
   on FFLife.
   Bartender: (pretending interest) Uh-huh...
   Barry: THOSE PEOPLE...who read her posts. Do you know what happens to 
   them?
   Bartender: Have another shot with your beer, Buddy. You're gunna need it.
   Barry: She makes THOSE PEOPLE hate me...Oh the agony, the unbearable 
   pain...etc, etc, etc. blubber, blubber, boo hoo hoo.
   
   Two hours later..
   
   Bartender: Time to go home, Buddy.
   Barry: My hair! What happened to my hair? I have no hair!
   Bartender: It caught on fire...spontaneous combustion. You should have 
   seen it. You were spectacular! Never saw anything like it. Blue flames 
   shooting out yer ass, hair on fire...quite a show, quite a show, indeed. 
   The joint was packed.
   Barry: I need a drink.

   
   
   

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ 
 wrote:
 
  You'll have to learn by experience what the positive-to-
  negative ratios of FFL participants are. With some of
  them, you may never see their negative side until you
  get into a dispute with them. 

Note the incredibly clueless assumption here -- that
getting into a dispute with them is something that
is going to -- or should -- happen. It doesn't, for
most here. It *does*, for those who live for disputes.

The same assumption -- nigh unto a presumption -- was
voiced recently in response to my suggestion that the
screaming of Non-sequitur! was a barrier to conver-
sation. The person replying didn't even *address* the
possibility that FFL could be *about* conversation.
Instead, it was presumed to be a forum for debate.

Some people, as strange as it may seem, *don't* live
for debate, or view every occasion to interact with
other human beings as an opportunity to start one.
These people instead -- not being as ego-attached to
their POVs and rigid, fixed ideas -- enjoy discussing
them calmly with others, in more of a (dare I say it)
conversation. These strange people don't feel the same
compulsive need to *assert* their own POVs and ideas
and declare them better or more right than those
of others, and thus don't feel the same compulsive
need to turn every conversation about POVs and ideas
into a debate. Just sayin'...

  Those with a penchant for
  dishonesty are so clever about giving the false
  impression that the other side is at fault that a third
  party reading the posts in the dispute is unable to see
  how they've done it.
 
 Rght.  Only Judy can.  It is kind of like a 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[Richard J. Williams]

Share Long:
 Something that happened almost 9 years ago? 
 Nope, not interested.

Did you ever notice how Turq's posts seem to mention or
refer to Judy all the time? It's been this way for over
fourteen years, Share. Get a grip and get up to speed.

If you're going to go down the rabbit hole, you need
to know what you're dealing with.

 
 Someone getting beat up by someone else. Definitely 
 not interested.
 
Turq called you an 'idiot', Share. Now why would Turq do
that when you took up for Judy? There's a pattern here.

 
   Sorry, Richard but IMO Barry's not schizo...
  
 authfriend:
  ...don't believe everything you read here. Not 
  only is Barry not schizo, the rest of Richard's 
  description of him is not accurate either.
 
 Here's the thread so Share can read it and judge for 
 herself how Turq got beatup by Moogin and Judy. 
 
 Not only did Turq get beat up by Judy, Moogin beat 
 up Turq's defense of TMer 'transcendence creation' 
 theory! LoL!
 
 Subject: Emperor's New Clothes
 Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic
 Date: 2003-10-17 05:35:21 PST
 http://tinyurl.com/95drxtz
 
 Uncle Tantra: 
   I don't believe that there is anything in the
   universe called truth.
 
 Moogin:
  Then you said, The only 'perspective' that would 
  be valid to judge creation would have to transcend 
  creation, you were just offering one of your 
  beliefs, not -- despite appearances -- a claim 
  about the truth of things concerning the universe.
 
 -- Moggin
 
 to e-mail, remove the thorn

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig to Ann for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[Alex Stanley]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
 
  ... I think what I don't like is gratuitous negativity.
  Especially the kind that is mean and nasty towards 
  someone else. Like the kind that seemingly pops up out 
  of nowhere and functions merely to keep the negativity 
  flowing. And ironically enough, often it happens here 
  just when things have quieted down! DUH! 
 
 A noble thought. Now let's see how you follow through
 on it. 
 
 I've said what I had to say in my little Intervention
 riff. I've adopted the fictive voice of others and 
 dared a certain someone to take a week off from 
 dissing those she so habitually feels the need to
 demonize here on FFL. 
 
 WHY am I doing this? As a kind of proactive experiment.
 We who have (ahem) been around FFL longer than you have
 are by now used to her attempting to restart the demon-
 izations after a break. Let's see what she -- and
 others who tend to join her in them -- do this time,
 shall we?
 
 From my side, I will try my best to neither read any-
 thing she writes, or respond to it. I shall also try
 to avoid mentioning her at all. I suspect that Curtis
 will do the same, since that is his current M.O. anyway.
 He rarely gets involved until after the first brick 
 has been thrown attempting to damage his career as an
 educator. Vaj is silent for his own reasons, many of
 which have to do with the renewed presence on this
 forum of a rather disturbed troll.
 
 So...just sayin'...what will happen from *your* side,
 since you've weighed in above? Will you call *others*
 on this forum if *they* try to restart the olde
 bitterness and grudges? Or is that something you
 only do when those whom you've been taught to assoc-
 iate with the Curtis-Barry-Vaj troika speak up?
 
 I guess only time will tell, eh?


Yahoo already gave us an intervention of sorts, on Aug 24th, the Day of 999 
Error Terror. On that day, Judy patiently sat it out, waiting for Yahoo to fix 
the web interface. Barry, OTOH, decloaked from no_reply mode in order to send 
two posts via email:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/317920

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/317926

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[Share Long]

About Turq calling me an idiot, when someone calls me a name, first I consider 
the source.  Then I recognize that I've probably been that at least once in my 
life.  Then I figure they got triggered by something I said.  


Basically people should not waste posts calling me names.  Unless they really 
enjoy doing so.  Thanks for heads up.




 From: Richard J. Williams rich...@rwilliams.us
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 9:58 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the 
Church of $cientology
 

  


Share Long:
 Something that happened almost 9 years ago? 
 Nope, not interested.

Did you ever notice how Turq's posts seem to mention or
refer to Judy all the time? It's been this way for over
fourteen years, Share. Get a grip and get up to speed.

If you're going to go down the rabbit hole, you need
to know what you're dealing with.

 Someone getting beat up by someone else. Definitely 
 not interested.
 
Turq called you an 'idiot', Share. Now why would Turq do
that when you took up for Judy? There's a pattern here.

   Sorry, Richard but IMO Barry's not schizo...
  
 authfriend:
  ...don't believe everything you read here. Not 
  only is Barry not schizo, the rest of Richard's 
  description of him is not accurate either.
 
 Here's the thread so Share can read it and judge for 
 herself how Turq got beatup by Moogin and Judy. 
 
 Not only did Turq get beat up by Judy, Moogin beat 
 up Turq's defense of TMer 'transcendence creation' 
 theory! LoL!
 
 Subject: Emperor's New Clothes
 Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic
 Date: 2003-10-17 05:35:21 PST
 http://tinyurl.com/95drxtz
 
 Uncle Tantra: 
   I don't believe that there is anything in the
   universe called truth.
 
 Moogin:
  Then you said, The only 'perspective' that would 
  be valid to judge creation would have to transcend 
  creation, you were just offering one of your 
  beliefs, not -- despite appearances -- a claim 
  about the truth of things concerning the universe.
 
 -- Moggin
 
 to e-mail, remove the thorn



 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[Richard J. Williams]

Share Long:  
 Basically people should not waste posts calling me 
 names. Unless they really enjoy doing so. Thanks 
 for heads up...
 
This entire thread from Turq is an attempt to take you
down the rabbit hole, Share. 

But, for GAWD'S sake, DON'T talk about the spiritual
life! LoL!

  Something that happened almost 9 years ago? 
  Nope, not interested.
 
 Did you ever notice how Turq's posts seem to mention or
 refer to Judy all the time? It's been this way for over
 fourteen years, Share. Get a grip and get up to speed.
 
 If you're going to go down the rabbit hole, you need
 to know what you're dealing with.
 
  Someone getting beat up by someone else. Definitely 
  not interested.
  
 Turq called you an 'idiot', Share. Now why would Turq do
 that when you took up for Judy? There's a pattern here.
 
Sorry, Richard but IMO Barry's not schizo...
   
  authfriend:
   ...don't believe everything you read here. Not 
   only is Barry not schizo, the rest of Richard's 
   description of him is not accurate either.
  
  Here's the thread so Share can read it and judge for 
  herself how Turq got beatup by Moogin and Judy. 
  
  Not only did Turq get beat up by Judy, Moogin beat 
  up Turq's defense of TMer 'transcendence creation' 
  theory! LoL!
  
  Subject: Emperor's New Clothes
  Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic
  Date: 2003-10-17 05:35:21 PST
  http://tinyurl.com/95drxtz
  
  Uncle Tantra: 
I don't believe that there is anything in the
universe called truth.
  
  Moogin:
   Then you said, The only 'perspective' that would 
   be valid to judge creation would have to transcend 
   creation, you were just offering one of your 
   beliefs, not -- despite appearances -- a claim 
   about the truth of things concerning the universe.
  
  -- Moggin
  
  to e-mail, remove the thorn
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[authfriend]

. And this current
flareup began when Curtis decided to pick a fight with Robin
about saints and levitation. You were already here then, I
believe. I wonder how you missed it. It was only a little
over two weeks ago:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319290

Your thing with Robin was just a sideshow to the main event.

(BTW, Curtis misrepresents the page Robin cited in that
post. I don't imagine you looked at the page, though, so
even if you saw the exchange, you'd have no way of knowing
that.)

 Which lead to Sal comment, which lead to Emily email to you,
 which lead to...yep, these things seem to take on a life of
 their own.

This one certainly seems to have done so in your mind.

 Lastly, I will continue to not choose sides but rather take
 each situation, each post on its own merit.

Really? Because on Tuesday you said:

dear Ravi, you can add me to the Curtis Susan Steven clique.
Thank you, Share  

PS  I really don't like to be in any clique but in this
ongoing conflict between the absent Emily and Sal, hope you
can see the irony in that, I choose to align myself with the
clique that is overall being the most positive and sensible.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320393

Had you forgotten you'd chosen a side just two days ago?

 While maintaining some compassionate memory of a history
 I've only glimpsed.  Best I can do for now.

Yeah, I'm not sure those glimpses have been enough to be
useful to you in evaluating many of these situations. You're
probably better off not even trying when they involve the
past history of the forum.

But when a situation unfolds before your eyes, you ought to
be able to come to some conclusions.

For example, Curtis has been under some pretty heavy fire.
in the matter of Sal's email to Emily. If you look closely
at how he attempts to defend himself, comparing it with
what others have been saying, you may be able to determine
for yourself what kind of tactics he uses to do this.

Barry, as you've no doubt seen, refuses to engage with his
critics or even read their posts (not true, but that's 
what he claims), let alone take any responsibility for the
accuracy of what he says about them. To my mind, that's a
big red flag in and of itself.

Because I *have* been following the discussion closely
(and have seen Sal's email), and because I've been here
for years and know what people have done and said and not
done and said, I'm quite comfortable with my evaluation
of the honesty and accuracy of Curtis's and Barry's
recent posts. Most positive and sensible is not a
phrase I'd apply to Curtis's posts, let alone Barry's.
And poor Steve and Susan are just right out of it, even
though they've been here for years.

I left in the post of mine you were responding to. I'd
suggest you read it again to refresh your memory, and
then see if you can bring yourself to respond to my
question straightforwardly.

 
  From: authfriend authfriend@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 6:26 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the 
 Church of $cientology
  
 
   
 Share, can you see the attempted deceptions in Curtis's
 response? Read what I wrote carefully, then read what
 Curtis wrote, then read the numbered paragraphs I added.
 See which of us you think is telling the truth about
 what I said to you.
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:
  
   You'll have to learn by experience what the positive-to-
   negative ratios of FFL participants are. With some of
   them, you may never see their negative side until you
   get into a dispute with them. Those with a penchant for
   dishonesty are so clever about giving the false
   impression that the other side is at fault that a third
   party reading the posts in the dispute is unable to see
   how they've done it.
  
  Rght.  Only Judy can.
 
 1. What I said was that only those people who have disputes
 with such folks are likely to see their negative side. There
 are at least six people currently posting to FFL who have
 had disputes with Curtis, for example. All of them have seen
 his negative side and have testified to it. Many of those
 who have *not* had disputes with Curtis, in contrast, think
 of him as Mr. Wonderful.
 
  It is kind of like a magical power but she was never bitten
  by a spidera and doesn't come from a red planet that exploded.
  
  She just declared it and ShhaaammmM!
 
 2. Not magic at all. Again, as I said, it's a function of
 getting into a dispute with such people. It's very hard for
 a third party to tell when one's context is being twisted or
 erased, but one can see it quite clearly oneself.
 
  So just take her word for when someone is lying, she will need
  no evidence and you shouldn't worry your pretty little head.
 
 3. What I

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[curtisdeltablues]

 sounding like a death wish.
  So still extreme vicious.  Easy for me to suggest forgive
  and forget.  But can't help but wonder what would happen
  if you did.
 
 If *I* did?? Have you not been paying *any* attention?
 Or perhaps you've been paying attention only to Barry
 and Curtis, who have consistently and deliberately
 misrepresented the whole incident.
 
 FYI, Share: *Barry is the person who brings this up over
 and over, not me, and not raunchy*. I already told you
 that just two days ago:
 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320416
 
 You might want to speak to him about forgiving and
 forgetting. Really, though, you're a lot better off not
 giving advice when you don't have any idea what the hell
 is going on.
 
  Have not checked archives to see Curtis part in all that.
  Probably won't.
 
 Of course you won't. You're struggling to preserve your
 image of him; why would you expose yourself to any
 contrary evidence?
 
  What else?  I still think piling on does not help matters
  that are essentially private and emotional. Like the conflict 
  between me and Robin.
 
 You mean, all your public posts castigating him for having
 said something that you misunderstood?
 
  Which is actually what lead to conflict between Robin and
  Curtis.
 
 Oh, Share. No, that isn't what led to the conflict between
 Robin and Curtis. That began last fall. And this current
 flareup began when Curtis decided to pick a fight with Robin
 about saints and levitation. You were already here then, I
 believe. I wonder how you missed it. It was only a little
 over two weeks ago:
 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319290
 
 Your thing with Robin was just a sideshow to the main event.
 
 (BTW, Curtis misrepresents the page Robin cited in that
 post. I don't imagine you looked at the page, though, so
 even if you saw the exchange, you'd have no way of knowing
 that.)
 
  Which lead to Sal comment, which lead to Emily email to you,
  which lead to...yep, these things seem to take on a life of
  their own.
 
 This one certainly seems to have done so in your mind.
 
  Lastly, I will continue to not choose sides but rather take
  each situation, each post on its own merit.
 
 Really? Because on Tuesday you said:
 
 dear Ravi, you can add me to the Curtis Susan Steven clique.
 Thank you, Share  
 
 PS  I really don't like to be in any clique but in this
 ongoing conflict between the absent Emily and Sal, hope you
 can see the irony in that, I choose to align myself with the
 clique that is overall being the most positive and sensible.
 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320393
 
 Had you forgotten you'd chosen a side just two days ago?
 
  While maintaining some compassionate memory of a history
  I've only glimpsed.  Best I can do for now.
 
 Yeah, I'm not sure those glimpses have been enough to be
 useful to you in evaluating many of these situations. You're
 probably better off not even trying when they involve the
 past history of the forum.
 
 But when a situation unfolds before your eyes, you ought to
 be able to come to some conclusions.
 
 For example, Curtis has been under some pretty heavy fire.
 in the matter of Sal's email to Emily. If you look closely
 at how he attempts to defend himself, comparing it with
 what others have been saying, you may be able to determine
 for yourself what kind of tactics he uses to do this.
 
 Barry, as you've no doubt seen, refuses to engage with his
 critics or even read their posts (not true, but that's 
 what he claims), let alone take any responsibility for the
 accuracy of what he says about them. To my mind, that's a
 big red flag in and of itself.
 
 Because I *have* been following the discussion closely
 (and have seen Sal's email), and because I've been here
 for years and know what people have done and said and not
 done and said, I'm quite comfortable with my evaluation
 of the honesty and accuracy of Curtis's and Barry's
 recent posts. Most positive and sensible is not a
 phrase I'd apply to Curtis's posts, let alone Barry's.
 And poor Steve and Susan are just right out of it, even
 though they've been here for years.
 
 I left in the post of mine you were responding to. I'd
 suggest you read it again to refresh your memory, and
 then see if you can bring yourself to respond to my
 question straightforwardly.
 
  
   From: authfriend authfriend@
  To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 6:26 PM
  Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the 
  Church of $cientology
   
  
    
  Share, can you see the attempted deceptions in Curtis's
  response? Read what I wrote carefully, then read what
  Curtis wrote, then read the numbered paragraphs I added.
  See which of us you think is telling the truth about
  what I said to you.
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[awoelflebater]

  question straightforwardly.
  
   
From: authfriend authfriend@
   To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
   Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 6:26 PM
   Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for 
   the Church of $cientology

   
     
   Share, can you see the attempted deceptions in Curtis's
   response? Read what I wrote carefully, then read what
   Curtis wrote, then read the numbered paragraphs I added.
   See which of us you think is telling the truth about
   what I said to you.
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
   curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:

 You'll have to learn by experience what the positive-to-
 negative ratios of FFL participants are. With some of
 them, you may never see their negative side until you
 get into a dispute with them. Those with a penchant for
 dishonesty are so clever about giving the false
 impression that the other side is at fault that a third
 party reading the posts in the dispute is unable to see
 how they've done it.

Rght.  Only Judy can.
   
   1. What I said was that only those people who have disputes
   with such folks are likely to see their negative side. There
   are at least six people currently posting to FFL who have
   had disputes with Curtis, for example. All of them have seen
   his negative side and have testified to it. Many of those
   who have *not* had disputes with Curtis, in contrast, think
   of him as Mr. Wonderful.
   
It is kind of like a magical power but she was never bitten
by a spidera and doesn't come from a red planet that exploded.

She just declared it and ShhaaammmM!
   
   2. Not magic at all. Again, as I said, it's a function of
   getting into a dispute with such people. It's very hard for
   a third party to tell when one's context is being twisted or
   erased, but one can see it quite clearly oneself.
   
So just take her word for when someone is lying, she will need
no evidence and you shouldn't worry your pretty little head.
   
   3. What I told Share was that she would have to learn from
   experience, not that she should take my word for it.
   
When it looks like she has been spinning bullshit here, it
is really that you just lack her special powers.
   
   I don't spin bullshit. I don't have to. Curtis had to, as
   his post demonstrates.
   

Sometimes I wonder if she believes she is addressing a room full of 
preschoolers. 








 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
 
  Sorry, Richard but IMO Barry's not schizo.  Barry is simply
  like the rest of us, a mix and positive and negative.  Judy
  too.  And yes it's often perplexing to me.  But I rarely find
  it helpful to pull out DSM IV labels (not sure that's the
  right number) to bolster one's argument.  None of us are
  trained therapists, right?  And it's not helpful when Turq
  does it either.  Just in case someone was going to waste a
  post bringing that to my attention!
 
 Good for you, Share. Just two points to add:
 
 First, don't believe everything you read here. Not only is
 Barry not schizo, the rest of Richard's description of
 him is not accurate either. On the other hand, most of
 what Barry has said about FFL and its participants,
 especially in the last couple of days, is not accurate
 either (and the inaccuracy goes way beyond just spinning).
 
 You have to be particularly cautious, generally speaking,
 when someone delivers a rant about past trends or events
 on this forum that you weren't around to witness. It's
 often just about impossible to know whether they're
 telling the truth if you weren't here, especially if you
 have never learned how to consult the archives of the
 forum.
 
 Second, everyone is a mixture of positive and negative,
 that's very true. But the ratio of positive to negative
 is not always equal in a given individual. Some people
 are more negative than positive, some are more positive
 than negative.
 
 You'll have to learn by experience what the positive-to-
 negative ratios of FFL participants are. With some of
 them, you may never see their negative side until you
 get into a dispute with them. Those with a penchant for
 dishonesty are so clever about giving the false
 impression that the other side is at fault that a third
 party reading the posts in the dispute is unable to see
 how they've done it.
 
 Others are less clever about concealing the truth; if
 they got into an actual dispute their dishonesty would
 very quickly become apparent. They know this and do 
 their best to avoid

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[Share Long]

Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence distorts the meaning of my 
words and overshadows the import of my complete thought as contained in the 
whole paragraph.  For example, what I said about the death wish phrase.  


From your overall relentlessly combative tone, I think this aim of distorting, 
rather than arriving at truth or harmony, is your purpose.  More directly, I 
did not put Barry in the positive and sensible clique as you accuse me of 
below.  OTOH, when I recall the straightforward tone of Barry calling me an 
idiot, I'm more likely to put him there rather than you with, what one friend 
of mine calls, your toxic and obfuscating nitpicking.  And I'm sure Barry's 
happy not to be put in any clique! 

Perhaps I've been guilty of considered and considerate niceness, what you call 
synthetic, in the service of not hurting people's feelings and speaking the 
truth that is sweet.  But you're guilty of synthetic truth seeking.  In service 
to putting others down and attempting to win every argument.    



 From: authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:35 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the 
Church of $cientology
 

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

 Yes, Judy I see what you mean.  In this instance I'd say
 you're sounding more reasonable than Curtis.

Oh, but that isn't what I asked, is it? I asked if you
could see the attempted deceptions in Curtis's comments
on my earlier post to you.

The attempts to deceive are very clear-cut and objective:
I said one thing, and he pretended I had said something
different. You should be able to see that and to
acknowledge it.

Take another look, please. I left it all in below.

 BUT...did you see his reply to Ravi in which he admits that
 he overreacted?

Yes, I didn't find it terribly impressive. He didn't
retract any of his accusations (false, IMHO) against
Ravi, and in any case in his next post to Ravi he said
he was not so sure that he'd overreacted after all.

 That's something I very much admire.  When a person can say
 that maybe they got it wrong that time.  Or maybe they 
 overreacted.  Or maybe they weren't thinking clearly, or
 maybe having a bad day.  Something along those lines.  So
 for me, Curtis gets big points for that.

It needs to be balanced against everything else he's said
to and about Ravi and the other participants in this
dispute, including Emily. It's barely a drop in the bucket
of the retractions and apologies he still owes.

 And I'm glad that you're feeling better.

Now, why would you say that, Share, when I never said
I was feeling anything less than fine?

You know, I have a lot more respect for people who come
right out and say what they mean, even if it's hostile,
than for those who try to disguise it, as you just did
with that comment.

Or perhaps you're just having a bad day.

I'll take honesty and reality, even if they're ugly,
over synthetic niceness any time.

 Which is how you sound to me in this post.

Seems like your intuition may need a tune-up.

Or just your common sense, maybe. I addressed you in a
more cordial tone in the post you're responding to not
because I hadn't been feeling well previously, but
because you had said something important and intelligent
that I agreed with, about DSM-IV labels (V will come out
next May) not being helpful to nonprofessionals (although 
Richard's SCHIZO wasn't a DSM label, but a crude insult
to go with the rest of his faux history of Barry--and no,
the link he posted to an old discussion doesn't help his
own credibility, just FYI).

 Hey I just remembered.  You have 49 posts so you're
 welcome to answer this to me directly if you want.

Uhhh, thanks, but no thanks. If I had wanted to
communicate with you privately, I would have done that
from the start.

 Anyway, I agree with you that different people are a different
 percentage of positive and negative. I find most people to be 
 mostly positive. Say 70-90%.

It doesn't surprise me that this is what you think. I'm
not at all sure it serves you in contexts like FFL, though.

snip
 Anyway, what else to say that might be beneficial at this point?
 As I said before, I don't think the dumb c phrase was a death 
 threat.

Not literally, of course not.

 Actually the word death is not in the quote at all.

Too stupid to live does suggest death, don't you think?
But perhaps you missed that part of the quote. Or the
other bit in the post about raunchy and me bursting into
flames. Barry reposted the whole thing, though, so you
should have seen both:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320412

Oh, I just checked, and you *did* see that post, because you responded to it. 
So why would you say there was nothing
about death in what he'd written?

 Nonetheless it comes across sounding like a death wish.
 So still extreme vicious.  Easy

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[raunchydog]

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

 Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence distorts the meaning of 
 my words and overshadows the import of my complete thought as contained in 
 the whole paragraph.  For example, what I said about the death wish 
 phrase.  
 
 
 From your overall relentlessly combative tone, I think this aim of 
 distorting, rather than arriving at truth or harmony, is your purpose.  More 
 directly, I did not put Barry in the positive and sensible clique as you 
 accuse me of below.  OTOH, when I recall the straightforward tone of Barry 
 calling me an idiot, I'm more likely to put him there rather than you with, 
 what one friend of mine calls, your toxic and obfuscating nitpicking.  And 
 I'm sure Barry's happy not to be put in any clique! 
 
 Perhaps I've been guilty of considered and considerate niceness, what you 
 call synthetic, in the service of not hurting people's feelings and speaking 
 the truth that is sweet.  But you're guilty of synthetic truth seeking.  In 
 service to putting others down and attempting to win every argument.    
 

ad victorem spolias 

 
  From: authfriend authfriend@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:35 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the 
 Church of $cientology
  
 
   
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
 
  Yes, Judy I see what you mean.  In this instance I'd say
  you're sounding more reasonable than Curtis.
 
 Oh, but that isn't what I asked, is it? I asked if you
 could see the attempted deceptions in Curtis's comments
 on my earlier post to you.
 
 The attempts to deceive are very clear-cut and objective:
 I said one thing, and he pretended I had said something
 different. You should be able to see that and to
 acknowledge it.
 
 Take another look, please. I left it all in below.
 
  BUT...did you see his reply to Ravi in which he admits that
  he overreacted?
 
 Yes, I didn't find it terribly impressive. He didn't
 retract any of his accusations (false, IMHO) against
 Ravi, and in any case in his next post to Ravi he said
 he was not so sure that he'd overreacted after all.
 
  That's something I very much admire.  When a person can say
  that maybe they got it wrong that time.  Or maybe they 
  overreacted.  Or maybe they weren't thinking clearly, or
  maybe having a bad day.  Something along those lines.  So
  for me, Curtis gets big points for that.
 
 It needs to be balanced against everything else he's said
 to and about Ravi and the other participants in this
 dispute, including Emily. It's barely a drop in the bucket
 of the retractions and apologies he still owes.
 
  And I'm glad that you're feeling better.
 
 Now, why would you say that, Share, when I never said
 I was feeling anything less than fine?
 
 You know, I have a lot more respect for people who come
 right out and say what they mean, even if it's hostile,
 than for those who try to disguise it, as you just did
 with that comment.
 
 Or perhaps you're just having a bad day.
 
 I'll take honesty and reality, even if they're ugly,
 over synthetic niceness any time.
 
  Which is how you sound to me in this post.
 
 Seems like your intuition may need a tune-up.
 
 Or just your common sense, maybe. I addressed you in a
 more cordial tone in the post you're responding to not
 because I hadn't been feeling well previously, but
 because you had said something important and intelligent
 that I agreed with, about DSM-IV labels (V will come out
 next May) not being helpful to nonprofessionals (although 
 Richard's SCHIZO wasn't a DSM label, but a crude insult
 to go with the rest of his faux history of Barry--and no,
 the link he posted to an old discussion doesn't help his
 own credibility, just FYI).
 
  Hey I just remembered.  You have 49 posts so you're
  welcome to answer this to me directly if you want.
 
 Uhhh, thanks, but no thanks. If I had wanted to
 communicate with you privately, I would have done that
 from the start.
 
  Anyway, I agree with you that different people are a different
  percentage of positive and negative. I find most people to be 
  mostly positive. Say 70-90%.
 
 It doesn't surprise me that this is what you think. I'm
 not at all sure it serves you in contexts like FFL, though.
 
 snip
  Anyway, what else to say that might be beneficial at this point?
  As I said before, I don't think the dumb c phrase was a death 
  threat.
 
 Not literally, of course not.
 
  Actually the word death is not in the quote at all.
 
 Too stupid to live does suggest death, don't you think?
 But perhaps you missed that part of the quote. Or the
 other bit in the post about raunchy and me bursting into
 flames. Barry reposted the whole thing, though, so you
 should have seen both:
 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320412
 
 Oh, I just

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[seventhray1]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
chivukula.ravi@... wrote:

 Sorry raunchy, this would have been real funny if it weren't real.
Thanks
 for trying.

Poor Ravi.  He's gotten so twisted that he can't appreciate real humor.
I guess if it doesn't contain a heaping dose of abusive language, it
doesn't make an impression on him.
Oh, well.
Raunch,
I thought it was pretty funny. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... 
wrote:

 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
 chivukula.ravi@ wrote:
 
  Sorry raunchy, this would have been real funny if it weren't real.
 Thanks
  for trying.
 
 Poor Ravi.  He's gotten so twisted that he can't appreciate real humor.
 I guess if it doesn't contain a heaping dose of abusive language, it
 doesn't make an impression on him.
 Oh, well.
 Raunch,
 I thought it was pretty funny.


Actually Steve, Ravi thought the story wasn't funny because he was joking that 
he thought story was real. Now, *that* was funny. Anyway, thanks for the kudos.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[Share Long]

Dear Ravi,  Thank you so much for this, for not taking sides, for good 
intentions, for trying to bridge a gap as it were.  I can feel your kindness 
towards me in your words and it touches my heart.  And I must admit I wish you 
could be as kind to everyone on FFL.  I guess you're a mix like we all are.  
It's all right.  We're all human here and doing the best we can.

Share  




 From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the 
Church of $cientology
 

  
Auntie Share - the legend of St. Judy Durga, the embodiment of honest and 
integrity is well known around here. FYI - we usually don't mess with her 
unless we are suffering from IDSD - Ignorance Deception Spectrum Disorder. She 
will wear us down, because for her truth is not a game of probability, there's 
no 70-80% truth for her, she doesn't buy that, either it's the truth or not, 
doesn't negotiate truth, integrity for the sake of niceness, politeness, 
doesn't shy away from any discomfort, pain, anxiety, fear caused by taking 
strong moral stands. A tough love secular saint, some say. Even you brave, 
intrepid nephew Ladislaw is wary of this woman.

Love,
Ravi



On Sep 20, 2012, at 12:31 PM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com wrote:


  
Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence distorts the meaning of 
my words and overshadows the import of my complete thought as contained in the 
whole paragraph.  For example, what I said about the death wish phrase.  



From your overall relentlessly combative tone, I think this aim of distorting, 
rather than arriving at truth or harmony, is your purpose.  More directly, I 
did not put Barry in the positive and sensible clique as you accuse me of 
below.  OTOH, when I recall the straightforward tone of Barry calling me an 
idiot, I'm more likely to put him there rather than you with, what one friend 
of mine calls, your toxic and obfuscating nitpicking.  And I'm sure Barry's 
happy not to be put in any clique! 

Perhaps I've been guilty of considered and considerate niceness, what you call 
synthetic, in the service of not hurting people's feelings and speaking the 
truth that is sweet.  But you're guilty of synthetic truth seeking.  In 
service to putting others down and attempting to win every argument.    



 From: authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:35 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the 
Church of $cientology
 

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

 Yes, Judy I see what you mean.  In this instance I'd say
 you're sounding more reasonable than Curtis.

Oh, but that isn't what I asked, is it? I asked if you
could see the attempted deceptions in Curtis's comments
on my earlier post to you.

The attempts to deceive are very clear-cut and objective:
I said one thing, and he pretended I had said something
different. You should be able to see that and to
acknowledge it.

Take another look, please. I left it all in below.

 BUT...did you see his reply to Ravi in which he admits that
 he overreacted?

Yes, I didn't find it terribly impressive. He didn't
retract any of his accusations (false, IMHO) against
Ravi, and in any case in his next post to Ravi he said
he was not so sure that he'd overreacted after all.

 That's something I very much admire.  When a person can say
 that maybe they got it wrong that time.  Or maybe they 
 overreacted.  Or maybe they weren't thinking clearly, or
 maybe having a bad day.  Something along those lines.  So
 for me, Curtis gets big points for that.

It needs to be balanced against everything else he's said
to and about Ravi and the other participants in this
dispute, including Emily. It's barely a drop in the bucket
of the retractions and apologies he still owes.

 And I'm glad that you're feeling better.

Now, why would you say that, Share, when I never said
I was feeling anything less than fine?

You know, I have a lot more respect for people who come
right out and say what they mean, even if it's hostile,
than for those who try to disguise it, as you just did
with that comment.

Or perhaps you're just having a bad day.

I'll take honesty and reality, even if they're ugly,
over synthetic niceness any time.

 Which is how you sound to me in this post.

Seems like your intuition may need a tune-up.

Or just your common sense, maybe. I addressed you in a
more cordial tone in the post you're responding to not
because I hadn't been feeling well previously, but
because you had said something important and intelligent
that I agreed with, about DSM-IV labels (V will come out
next May) not being helpful to nonprofessionals (although 
Richard's SCHIZO wasn't a DSM label, but a crude

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[Ravi Chivukula]

Any time dear Share.

Love,
Ravi.


On Sep 20, 2012, at 4:24 PM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com wrote:

 Dear Ravi,  Thank you so much for this, for not taking sides, for good 
 intentions, for trying to bridge a gap as it were.  I can feel your kindness 
 towards me in your words and it touches my heart.  And I must admit I wish 
 you could be as kind to everyone on FFL.  I guess you're a mix like we all 
 are.  It's all right.  We're all human here and doing the best we can.
 Share  
 
 From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 5:08 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for 
 the Church of $cientology
 
  
 Auntie Share - the legend of St. Judy Durga, the embodiment of honest and 
 integrity is well known around here. FYI - we usually don't mess with her 
 unless we are suffering from IDSD - Ignorance Deception Spectrum Disorder. 
 She will wear us down, because for her truth is not a game of probability, 
 there's no 70-80% truth for her, she doesn't buy that, either it's the truth 
 or not, doesn't negotiate truth, integrity for the sake of niceness, 
 politeness, doesn't shy away from any discomfort, pain, anxiety, fear caused 
 by taking strong moral stands. A tough love secular saint, some say. Even you 
 brave, intrepid nephew Ladislaw is wary of this woman.
 
 Love,
 Ravi
 
 
 
 On Sep 20, 2012, at 12:31 PM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com wrote:
 
  
 Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence distorts the meaning of 
 my words and overshadows the import of my complete thought as contained in 
 the whole paragraph.  For example, what I said about the death wish phrase.  
 
 From your overall relentlessly combative tone, I think this aim of 
 distorting, rather than arriving at truth or harmony, is your purpose.  More 
 directly, I did not put Barry in the positive and sensible clique as you 
 accuse me of below.  OTOH, when I recall the straightforward tone of Barry 
 calling me an idiot, I'm more likely to put him there rather than you with, 
 what one friend of mine calls, your toxic and obfuscating nitpicking.  And 
 I'm sure Barry's happy not to be put in any clique! 
 
 Perhaps I've been guilty of considered and considerate niceness, what you 
 call synthetic, in the service of not hurting people's feelings and speaking 
 the truth that is sweet.  But you're guilty of synthetic truth seeking.  In 
 service to putting others down and attempting to win every argument.
 From: authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:35 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the 
 Church of $cientology
 
  
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote:
 
  Yes, Judy I see what you mean.  In this instance I'd say
  you're sounding more reasonable than Curtis.
 
 Oh, but that isn't what I asked, is it? I asked if you
 could see the attempted deceptions in Curtis's comments
 on my earlier post to you.
 
 The attempts to deceive are very clear-cut and objective:
 I said one thing, and he pretended I had said something
 different. You should be able to see that and to
 acknowledge it.
 
 Take another look, please. I left it all in below.
 
  BUT...did you see his reply to Ravi in which he admits that
  he overreacted?
 
 Yes, I didn't find it terribly impressive. He didn't
 retract any of his accusations (false, IMHO) against
 Ravi, and in any case in his next post to Ravi he said
 he was not so sure that he'd overreacted after all.
 
  That's something I very much admire.  When a person can say
  that maybe they got it wrong that time.  Or maybe they 
  overreacted.  Or maybe they weren't thinking clearly, or
  maybe having a bad day.  Something along those lines.  So
  for me, Curtis gets big points for that.
 
 It needs to be balanced against everything else he's said
 to and about Ravi and the other participants in this
 dispute, including Emily. It's barely a drop in the bucket
 of the retractions and apologies he still owes.
 
  And I'm glad that you're feeling better.
 
 Now, why would you say that, Share, when I never said
 I was feeling anything less than fine?
 
 You know, I have a lot more respect for people who come
 right out and say what they mean, even if it's hostile,
 than for those who try to disguise it, as you just did
 with that comment.
 
 Or perhaps you're just having a bad day.
 
 I'll take honesty and reality, even if they're ugly,
 over synthetic niceness any time.
 
  Which is how you sound to me in this post.
 
 Seems like your intuition may need a tune-up.
 
 Or just your common sense, maybe. I addressed you in a
 more cordial tone in the post you're responding to not
 because I hadn't been feeling well previously, but
 because you had said something important and intelligent
 that I agreed with, about

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[turquoiseb]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:
 
  You'll have to learn by experience what the positive-to-
  negative ratios of FFL participants are. With some of
  them, you may never see their negative side until you
  get into a dispute with them. 

Note the incredibly clueless assumption here -- that
getting into a dispute with them is something that
is going to -- or should -- happen. It doesn't, for
most here. It *does*, for those who live for disputes.

The same assumption -- nigh unto a presumption -- was
voiced recently in response to my suggestion that the
screaming of Non-sequitur! was a barrier to conver-
sation. The person replying didn't even *address* the
possibility that FFL could be *about* conversation.
Instead, it was presumed to be a forum for debate.

Some people, as strange as it may seem, *don't* live
for debate, or view every occasion to interact with
other human beings as an opportunity to start one.
These people instead -- not being as ego-attached to
their POVs and rigid, fixed ideas -- enjoy discussing
them calmly with others, in more of a (dare I say it)
conversation. These strange people don't feel the same
compulsive need to *assert* their own POVs and ideas
and declare them better or more right than those
of others, and thus don't feel the same compulsive
need to turn every conversation about POVs and ideas
into a debate. Just sayin'...

  Those with a penchant for
  dishonesty are so clever about giving the false
  impression that the other side is at fault that a third
  party reading the posts in the dispute is unable to see
  how they've done it.
 
 Rght.  Only Judy can.  It is kind of like a magical 
 power but she was never bitten by a spider and doesn't come 
 from a red planet that exploded.

I'm not completely convinced about her not coming from
another planet :-), but I'd agree with you about not
being bitten by a spider. Spiders have better taste. :-)

 She just declared it and 
 ShhaaammmM!

And when other people here the magic word Shazam they
should just STFU and believe it thoroughly, the way
she did whenever Maharishi said something. 

She wants to have that same level of authority, but
without ever having done anything to deserve it.

 So just take her word for when someone is lying, she will 
 need no evidence and you shouldn't worry your pretty 
 little head.  When it looks like she has been spinning 
 bullshit here, it is really that you just lack her special 
 powers.

Also, Share has never had conferred upon her the Blinding
Light Power Of The Presumptuous Assumption as Judy has.
This is a special power given to those who uphold the
High Dharma by telling other people who is lying and who
is not. 

Such people are needed in the world because others, less
evolved than Judy, are too STPID to see that people
are LYING to them. Only Judy is clever enough to see that.

More important, these lesser people, being so STPID
and all, desperately NEED someone as devoted as Judy to
save them from themselves. Being too STPID to make
decisions on their own, they NEED the Judy's of this
world to decide for them, and tell them who to believe,
who not to believe, and who to hate. 

 Sometimes I wonder if she believes she is addressing a 
 room full of preschoolers.  

I don't wonder about this at all. Judy's whole ACT is
an insult to the people she claims to be protecting.
It *presumes* that they are too STPID to figure
things out on their own, and make their own decisions.
These STOPID people NEED her to explain to them 
how deviously clever these People They Should Hate
are. They NEED her to tell them what to think and what
to believe. 

Just as she NEEDED Maharishi to do the same for her.

Does no one else see the incredible PRESUMPTION
at the basis of Judy's whole act? She as appointed
herself protector of people who Don't Need Her
Protection. Because they're more than smart enough
and more than capable enough of figuring things out
on their own. 

The person who is incapable of doing this, in my
considered opinion, is the person who has been repeat-
ing the same hate speech about people on this forum
for years, telling others over and over who to hate
and what to believe, and NEVER figuring out either
that they don't need her to do this, or that They're
Not Listening. 

The more people think for themselves, the more upset
Judy gets. 

The more they like the people she's told them to hate,
the more Judy hates the people she hates, and the more
she attacks those who haven't yet seen the light
and joined her in hating them. 

And all of this without ever once having been asked
to provide this service.

She appointed herself as Protector. The same way 
that the olde members of the Inquisition did, and the
same way that Maharishi did, with the people *he*
told how to think, what to believe, and who to 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[raunchydog]

Barry: I've got a problem.
Bartender: Yeah. Tell me about it.
Barry: There's this woman...
Bartender (aside): Here he goes again...another sob story about some crazy 
bitch named Judy. Man, this dame really gets to him.
Barry: This woman is diving me crazy...haunting my every waking moment. Gimme 
another drink.
Bartender: I hear you, Buddy. (aside) Yep. We know where this one's going.
Barry: She has this creepy power over people who actually read her posts on 
FFLife.
Bartender: (pretending interest) Uh-huh...
Barry: THOSE PEOPLE...who read her posts. Do you know what happens to them?
Bartender: Have another shot with your beer, Buddy. You're gunna need it.
Barry: She makes THOSE PEOPLE hate me...Oh the agony, the unbearable 
pain...etc, etc, etc. blubber, blubber, boo hoo hoo.

Two hours later..

Bartender: Time to go home, Buddy.
Barry: My hair! What happened to my hair? I have no hair!
Bartender: It caught on fire...spontaneous combustion. You should have seen it. 
You were spectacular! Never saw anything like it. Blue flames shooting out yer 
ass, hair on fire...quite a show, quite a show, indeed. The joint was packed.
Barry: I need a drink.
 



 



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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:
  
   You'll have to learn by experience what the positive-to-
   negative ratios of FFL participants are. With some of
   them, you may never see their negative side until you
   get into a dispute with them. 
 
 Note the incredibly clueless assumption here -- that
 getting into a dispute with them is something that
 is going to -- or should -- happen. It doesn't, for
 most here. It *does*, for those who live for disputes.
 
 The same assumption -- nigh unto a presumption -- was
 voiced recently in response to my suggestion that the
 screaming of Non-sequitur! was a barrier to conver-
 sation. The person replying didn't even *address* the
 possibility that FFL could be *about* conversation.
 Instead, it was presumed to be a forum for debate.
 
 Some people, as strange as it may seem, *don't* live
 for debate, or view every occasion to interact with
 other human beings as an opportunity to start one.
 These people instead -- not being as ego-attached to
 their POVs and rigid, fixed ideas -- enjoy discussing
 them calmly with others, in more of a (dare I say it)
 conversation. These strange people don't feel the same
 compulsive need to *assert* their own POVs and ideas
 and declare them better or more right than those
 of others, and thus don't feel the same compulsive
 need to turn every conversation about POVs and ideas
 into a debate. Just sayin'...
 
   Those with a penchant for
   dishonesty are so clever about giving the false
   impression that the other side is at fault that a third
   party reading the posts in the dispute is unable to see
   how they've done it.
  
  Rght.  Only Judy can.  It is kind of like a magical 
  power but she was never bitten by a spider and doesn't come 
  from a red planet that exploded.
 
 I'm not completely convinced about her not coming from
 another planet :-), but I'd agree with you about not
 being bitten by a spider. Spiders have better taste. :-)
 
  She just declared it and 
  ShhaaammmM!
 
 And when other people here the magic word Shazam they
 should just STFU and believe it thoroughly, the way
 she did whenever Maharishi said something. 
 
 She wants to have that same level of authority, but
 without ever having done anything to deserve it.
 
  So just take her word for when someone is lying, she will 
  need no evidence and you shouldn't worry your pretty 
  little head.  When it looks like she has been spinning 
  bullshit here, it is really that you just lack her special 
  powers.
 
 Also, Share has never had conferred upon her the Blinding
 Light Power Of The Presumptuous Assumption as Judy has.
 This is a special power given to those who uphold the
 High Dharma by telling other people who is lying and who
 is not. 
 
 Such people are needed in the world because others, less
 evolved than Judy, are too STPID to see that people
 are LYING to them. Only Judy is clever enough to see that.
 
 More important, these lesser people, being so STPID
 and all, desperately NEED someone as devoted as Judy to
 save them from themselves. Being too STPID to make
 decisions on their own, they NEED the Judy's of this
 world to decide for them, and tell them who to believe,
 who not to believe, and who to hate. 
 
  Sometimes I wonder if she believes she is addressing a 
  room full of preschoolers.  
 
 I don't wonder about this at all. Judy's whole ACT is
 an insult to the people she claims to be protecting.
 It *presumes* that they are too STPID to figure
 things out on their own, and make their own decisions.
 These STOPID people 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[Share Long]

Thank you and glad if it helps.  Funnily enough my ex and I were just emailing 
about how sometimes relationships can be so simple.  Of course we were also 
laughing about that illusion delusion.

IMUnhumbleO, intimate partnerships are the post doc work for so called 
spiritual life.  With parents and children being close runner ups.

You remind me of one of my favorite Sedona Method inquiries:  Can I let go and 
allow them to be other than what I think they are?  Such a gift to others.  
Because I do think our long term beliefs about others has an influence on them, 
for good or bad.  


Good to see the potential good in others.  And practical to have accurate 
vision of how much that potential is actually realized.  In this moment.  And 
overall.
Sorry for lecturing.  thanks again.  Share  




 From: stevelf ysoy1...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:13 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the 
Church of $cientology
 

  
Ah, but the solution is SO simple, yet perhaps temporarily thwarted by my 
calling attention to it  :
One of them has to send the other your Hawaiian guy's cool deal ;  I'm sorry-- 
please forgive me--- Thank you---  I LOVE YOU..
BTW-- I use this thanks to you... 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote:

 Sorry, Richard but IMO Barry's not schizo.  Barry is simply like the rest of 
 us, a mix and positive and negative.  Judy too.  And yes it's often 
 perplexing to me.  But I rarely find it helpful to pull out DSM IV labels 
 (not sure that's the right number) to bolster one's argument.  None of us 
 are trained therapists, right?  And it's not helpful when Turq does it 
 either.  Just in case someone was going to waste a post bringing that to my 
 attention!
 
 
 As for the ongoing war between him and Judy, they do seem locked into it from 
 my perspective.  At this point, with my very limited knowledge, I find them 
 equally responsible in terms of keeping it going.  What to do?
 
 I'll soldier on with compassion and reasonableness and good humor as best I 
 can.   Bound to make mistakes.  Repeating myself.  Ugh!   
 
 
 
 
  From: Richard J. Williams richard@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:40 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the 
 Church of $cientology
 
 
   
 
 
 Share Long:
  This foul's on you, Turq...  Brain stretching to encompass 
  such a polarity.   
  
 Obviously, Turq is SCHIZO! Keep in mind that Turq once was
 a defender of MMY and TM, but he turned negative after Judy
 whipped Turq real good in an argument with Andrew Skolnick;
 the final takedown before the actual melt-down came a little 
 later on on alt.religion.gnostic with Moogin and Kater.
 
 Ever since then,  Turq got his head on screwed on spinning 
 backwards. It's ALL about Judy. Go figure.
 
   
  If Judy ever gets tired of correcting other people's 
  homework and decides to try her hand at actually writing
  something, I've got the perfect gig for her: writing 
  angry, stinging letters to Co$ critics. 
  
  The back story on this is as follows. Vanity Fair is
  released a story about how Tom Cruise, unable to find a
  wife for himself who was considered suitable by the 
  Church, arranged for numerous interview sessions so
  that he could try out pre-approved $cientologists as
  his prospective wife, while the Church interrogated 
  them and investigated every aspect of their lives in
  the background. According to the article, it was a 
  level of vetting that political candidates don't even
  go through.
  
  So how did the Co$ *react* to this article? Well, those
  who have followed their exploits know that they'll prob-
  ably react by siccing private detectives and smear 
  artists on the article's author and on Graydon Carter,
  the publisher of VF. What they did in public was to have
  their lawyers send Mr. Carter a long, long, long-winded,
  eight-page hate letter:
  
  Article about the letter:
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/17/church-of-scientology-responds-vanity-fair-tom-cruise-wife-auditioning_n_1889734.html
  
  The letter itself:
  http://www.scientologynews.org/sites/default/files/1-Jeff-Riffer-Re-David-Miscavige-to-Gaydon-Carter-16-Aug-2012.pdf
  
  Look it over. See if you don't think that writing such 
  letters is a PERFECT career choice for Judy Stein. I mean,
  it's got all of her trademarks:
  
  * Picking nits and homing in on them to obfuscate larger 
  issues
  * Trying to present the criticism as an example of religious 
  hate crime and its authors as bigots
  * Posting total irrelevancies lauding David Miscavige (the
  leader of the Co$) to make him seem saintly while demonizing
  his critics
  * Lying outright (Miscavige has been reported as viewing
  videotapes of auditing

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[awoelflebater]

At the risk of 'piling on' this little vignette was priceless. Probably because 
it rang so true. All you left out was some bimbo trying to climb onto his lap.

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

 
 Barry: I've got a problem.
 Bartender: Yeah. Tell me about it.
 Barry: There's this woman...
 Bartender (aside): Here he goes again...another sob story about some crazy 
 bitch named Judy. Man, this dame really gets to him.
 Barry: This woman is diving me crazy...haunting my every waking moment. Gimme 
 another drink.
 Bartender: I hear you, Buddy. (aside) Yep. We know where this one's going.
 Barry: She has this creepy power over people who actually read her posts on 
 FFLife.
 Bartender: (pretending interest) Uh-huh...
 Barry: THOSE PEOPLE...who read her posts. Do you know what happens to them?
 Bartender: Have another shot with your beer, Buddy. You're gunna need it.
 Barry: She makes THOSE PEOPLE hate me...Oh the agony, the unbearable 
 pain...etc, etc, etc. blubber, blubber, boo hoo hoo.
 
 Two hours later..
 
 Bartender: Time to go home, Buddy.
 Barry: My hair! What happened to my hair? I have no hair!
 Bartender: It caught on fire...spontaneous combustion. You should have seen 
 it. You were spectacular! Never saw anything like it. Blue flames shooting 
 out yer ass, hair on fire...quite a show, quite a show, indeed. The joint was 
 packed.
 Barry: I need a drink.
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:
   
You'll have to learn by experience what the positive-to-
negative ratios of FFL participants are. With some of
them, you may never see their negative side until you
get into a dispute with them. 
  
  Note the incredibly clueless assumption here -- that
  getting into a dispute with them is something that
  is going to -- or should -- happen. It doesn't, for
  most here. It *does*, for those who live for disputes.
  
  The same assumption -- nigh unto a presumption -- was
  voiced recently in response to my suggestion that the
  screaming of Non-sequitur! was a barrier to conver-
  sation. The person replying didn't even *address* the
  possibility that FFL could be *about* conversation.
  Instead, it was presumed to be a forum for debate.
  
  Some people, as strange as it may seem, *don't* live
  for debate, or view every occasion to interact with
  other human beings as an opportunity to start one.
  These people instead -- not being as ego-attached to
  their POVs and rigid, fixed ideas -- enjoy discussing
  them calmly with others, in more of a (dare I say it)
  conversation. These strange people don't feel the same
  compulsive need to *assert* their own POVs and ideas
  and declare them better or more right than those
  of others, and thus don't feel the same compulsive
  need to turn every conversation about POVs and ideas
  into a debate. Just sayin'...
  
Those with a penchant for
dishonesty are so clever about giving the false
impression that the other side is at fault that a third
party reading the posts in the dispute is unable to see
how they've done it.
   
   Rght.  Only Judy can.  It is kind of like a magical 
   power but she was never bitten by a spider and doesn't come 
   from a red planet that exploded.
  
  I'm not completely convinced about her not coming from
  another planet :-), but I'd agree with you about not
  being bitten by a spider. Spiders have better taste. :-)
  
   She just declared it and 
   ShhaaammmM!
  
  And when other people here the magic word Shazam they
  should just STFU and believe it thoroughly, the way
  she did whenever Maharishi said something. 
  
  She wants to have that same level of authority, but
  without ever having done anything to deserve it.
  
   So just take her word for when someone is lying, she will 
   need no evidence and you shouldn't worry your pretty 
   little head.  When it looks like she has been spinning 
   bullshit here, it is really that you just lack her special 
   powers.
  
  Also, Share has never had conferred upon her the Blinding
  Light Power Of The Presumptuous Assumption as Judy has.
  This is a special power given to those who uphold the
  High Dharma by telling other people who is lying and who
  is not. 
  
  Such people are needed in the world because others, less
  evolved than Judy, are too STPID to see that people
  are LYING to them. Only Judy is clever enough to see that.
  
  More important, these lesser people, being so STPID
  and all, desperately NEED someone as devoted as Judy to
  save them from themselves. Being too STPID to make
  decisions on their own, they NEED the Judy's of this
  world to decide for them, and tell them who to believe,
  who not to believe, and 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[awoelflebater]

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

 Thank you and glad if it helps.  Funnily enough my ex and I were just 
 emailing about how sometimes relationships can be so simple.  Of course we 
 were also laughing about that illusion delusion.
 
 IMUnhumbleO, intimate partnerships are the post doc work for so called 
 spiritual life.  With parents and children being close runner ups.
 
 You remind me of one of my favorite Sedona Method inquiries:  Can I let go 
 and allow them to be other than what I think they are?  Such a gift to 
 others.  Because I do think our long term beliefs about others has an 
 influence on them, for good or bad.  
 
 
 Good to see the potential good in others.  And practical to have accurate 
 vision of how much that potential is actually realized.  In this moment.  
 And overall.
 Sorry for lecturing.  thanks again.  Share  
 
 
 
 
  From: stevelf ysoy10li@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:13 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the 
 Church of $cientology
  
 
   
 Ah, but the solution is SO simple, yet perhaps temporarily thwarted by my 
 calling attention to it  :
 One of them has to send the other your Hawaiian guy's cool deal ;  I'm 
 sorry-- please forgive me--- Thank you---  I LOVE YOU..
 BTW-- I use this thanks to you... 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
 
  Sorry, Richard but IMO Barry's not schizo.  Barry is simply like the 
  rest of us, a mix and positive and negative.  Judy too.  And yes it's 
  often perplexing to me.  But I rarely find it helpful to pull out DSM IV 
  labels (not sure that's the right number) to bolster one's argument.  
  None of us are trained therapists, right?  And it's not helpful when 
  Turq does it either.  Just in case someone was going to waste a post 
  bringing that to my attention!
  
  
  As for the ongoing war between him and Judy, they do seem locked into it 
  from my perspective.  At this point, with my very limited knowledge, I 
  find them equally responsible in terms of keeping it going.  What to do?
  
  I'll soldier on with compassion and reasonableness and good humor as best I 
  can.   Bound to make mistakes.  Repeating myself.  Ugh!   
  
  
  
  
   From: Richard J. Williams richard@
  To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:40 AM
  Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the 
  Church of $cientology
  
  
    
  
  
  Share Long:
   This foul's on you, Turq...  Brain stretching to encompass 
   such a polarity.   
   
  Obviously, Turq is SCHIZO! Keep in mind that Turq once was
  a defender of MMY and TM, but he turned negative after Judy
  whipped Turq real good in an argument with Andrew Skolnick;
  the final takedown before the actual melt-down came a little 
  later on on alt.religion.gnostic with Moogin and Kater.
  
  Ever since then,  Turq got his head on screwed on spinning 
  backwards. It's ALL about Judy. Go figure.
  
    
   If Judy ever gets tired of correcting other people's 
   homework and decides to try her hand at actually writing
   something, I've got the perfect gig for her: writing 
   angry, stinging letters to Co$ critics. 
   
   The back story on this is as follows. Vanity Fair is
   released a story about how Tom Cruise, unable to find a
   wife for himself who was considered suitable by the 
   Church, arranged for numerous interview sessions so
   that he could try out pre-approved $cientologists as
   his prospective wife, while the Church interrogated 
   them and investigated every aspect of their lives in
   the background. According to the article, it was a 
   level of vetting that political candidates don't even
   go through.
   
   So how did the Co$ *react* to this article? Well, those
   who have followed their exploits know that they'll prob-
   ably react by siccing private detectives and smear 
   artists on the article's author and on Graydon Carter,
   the publisher of VF. What they did in public was to have
   their lawyers send Mr. Carter a long, long, long-winded,
   eight-page hate letter:
   
   Article about the letter:
   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/17/church-of-scientology-responds-vanity-fair-tom-cruise-wife-auditioning_n_1889734.html
   
   The letter itself:
   http://www.scientologynews.org/sites/default/files/1-Jeff-Riffer-Re-David-Miscavige-to-Gaydon-Carter-16-Aug-2012.pdf
   
   Look it over. See if you don't think that writing such 
   letters is a PERFECT career choice for Judy Stein. I mean,
   it's got all of her trademarks:
   
   * Picking nits and homing in on them to obfuscate larger 
   issues
   * Trying to present the criticism as an example of religious 
   hate crime and its authors

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[awoelflebater]

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

 Thank you and glad if it helps.  Funnily enough my ex and I were just 
 emailing about how sometimes relationships can be so simple.  Of course we 
 were also laughing about that illusion delusion.
 
 IMUnhumbleO, intimate partnerships are the post doc work for so called 
 spiritual life.  With parents and children being close runner ups.
 
 You remind me of one of my favorite Sedona Method inquiries:  Can I let go 
 and allow them to be other than what I think they are?  Such a gift to 
 others.  Because I do think our long term beliefs about others has an 
 influence on them, for good or bad. 

In all seriousness Share, I would love to see a list of all of the techniques 
and different mental, physical and spiritual practices you engage in currently 
or have used in the past. Nearly every time you post you mention another one! I 
can't keep up and I have heard of only two - TM and jyotish. But you have 
mentioned at least 6 others including my personal favourite Quantum Light 
Weaving. While I've been out trying to make a living and improve my riding 
skills you have had the opportunity to engage in far less mundane activities 
your whole life. What am I missing? (That's partly what I meant about you being 
horrified living my life for a week.)
 
 
 Good to see the potential good in others.  And practical to have accurate 
 vision of how much that potential is actually realized.  In this moment.  
 And overall.
 Sorry for lecturing.  thanks again.  Share  
 
 
 
 
  From: stevelf ysoy10li@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:13 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the 
 Church of $cientology
  
 
   
 Ah, but the solution is SO simple, yet perhaps temporarily thwarted by my 
 calling attention to it  :
 One of them has to send the other your Hawaiian guy's cool deal ;  I'm 
 sorry-- please forgive me--- Thank you---  I LOVE YOU..
 BTW-- I use this thanks to you... 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
 
  Sorry, Richard but IMO Barry's not schizo.  Barry is simply like the 
  rest of us, a mix and positive and negative.  Judy too.  And yes it's 
  often perplexing to me.  But I rarely find it helpful to pull out DSM IV 
  labels (not sure that's the right number) to bolster one's argument.  
  None of us are trained therapists, right?  And it's not helpful when 
  Turq does it either.  Just in case someone was going to waste a post 
  bringing that to my attention!
  
  
  As for the ongoing war between him and Judy, they do seem locked into it 
  from my perspective.  At this point, with my very limited knowledge, I 
  find them equally responsible in terms of keeping it going.  What to do?
  
  I'll soldier on with compassion and reasonableness and good humor as best I 
  can.   Bound to make mistakes.  Repeating myself.  Ugh!   
  
  
  
  
   From: Richard J. Williams richard@
  To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:40 AM
  Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the 
  Church of $cientology
  
  
    
  
  
  Share Long:
   This foul's on you, Turq...  Brain stretching to encompass 
   such a polarity.   
   
  Obviously, Turq is SCHIZO! Keep in mind that Turq once was
  a defender of MMY and TM, but he turned negative after Judy
  whipped Turq real good in an argument with Andrew Skolnick;
  the final takedown before the actual melt-down came a little 
  later on on alt.religion.gnostic with Moogin and Kater.
  
  Ever since then,  Turq got his head on screwed on spinning 
  backwards. It's ALL about Judy. Go figure.
  
    
   If Judy ever gets tired of correcting other people's 
   homework and decides to try her hand at actually writing
   something, I've got the perfect gig for her: writing 
   angry, stinging letters to Co$ critics. 
   
   The back story on this is as follows. Vanity Fair is
   released a story about how Tom Cruise, unable to find a
   wife for himself who was considered suitable by the 
   Church, arranged for numerous interview sessions so
   that he could try out pre-approved $cientologists as
   his prospective wife, while the Church interrogated 
   them and investigated every aspect of their lives in
   the background. According to the article, it was a 
   level of vetting that political candidates don't even
   go through.
   
   So how did the Co$ *react* to this article? Well, those
   who have followed their exploits know that they'll prob-
   ably react by siccing private detectives and smear 
   artists on the article's author and on Graydon Carter,
   the publisher of VF. What they did in public was to have
   their lawyers send Mr. Carter a long, long, long-winded

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[Share Long]

Yes, Judy I see what you mean.  In this instance I'd say you're sounding more 
reasonable than Curtis.  BUT...did you see his reply to Ravi in which he admits 
that he overreacted?  That's something I very much admire.  When a person can 
say that maybe they got it wrong that time.  Or maybe they overreacted.  Or 
maybe they weren't thinking clearly, or maybe having a bad day.  Something 
along those lines.  So for me, Curtis gets big points for that.  And I'm glad 
that you're feeling better.  Which is how you sound to me in this post.


Hey I just remembered.  You have 49 posts so you're welcome to answer this to 
me directly if you want.

Anyway, I agree with you that different people are a different percentage of 
positive and negative.  I find most people to be mostly positive.  Say 70-90%.  
And most of us can and do fluctuate from day to day or situation to situation.  
Heck I've even seen posters fluctuate from positive to very negative within 1 
paragraph of a post!  If I did that I'd figure I ate too much sugar.  But 
probably what puts someone over the top is different for different peeps.  


Laughing because I was typing away and looked at screen and I had typed poops 
instead of peeps in last sentence above.  You gotta love Freud and his whole 
Freudian slip thingie (-:

Anyway, what else to say that might be beneficial at this point?  As I said 
before, I don't think the dumb c phrase was a death threat.  Actually the word 
death is not in the quote at all.  Nonetheless it comes across sounding like a 
death wish.  So still extreme vicious.  Easy for me to suggest forgive and 
forget.  But can't help but wonder what would happen if you did.  


Have not checked archives to see Curtis part in all that.  Probably won't.  
Have to go out of town today.  1 hour drive each way. 


What else?  I still think piling on does not help matters that are essentially 
private and emotional.  Like the conflict between me and Robin.  Which is 
actually what lead to conflict between Robin and Curtis.  Which lead to Sal 
comment, which lead to Emily email to you, which lead to...yep, these things 
seem to take on a life of their own. 


Lastly, I will continue to not choose sides but rather take each situation, 
each post on its own merit.  While maintaining some compassionate memory of a 
history I've only glimpsed.  Best I can do for now.
Share  




 From: authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 6:26 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the 
Church of $cientology
 

  
Share, can you see the attempted deceptions in Curtis's
response? Read what I wrote carefully, then read what
Curtis wrote, then read the numbered paragraphs I added.
See which of us you think is telling the truth about
what I said to you.

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:
 
  You'll have to learn by experience what the positive-to-
  negative ratios of FFL participants are. With some of
  them, you may never see their negative side until you
  get into a dispute with them. Those with a penchant for
  dishonesty are so clever about giving the false
  impression that the other side is at fault that a third
  party reading the posts in the dispute is unable to see
  how they've done it.
 
 Rght.  Only Judy can.

1. What I said was that only those people who have disputes
with such folks are likely to see their negative side. There
are at least six people currently posting to FFL who have
had disputes with Curtis, for example. All of them have seen
his negative side and have testified to it. Many of those
who have *not* had disputes with Curtis, in contrast, think
of him as Mr. Wonderful.

 It is kind of like a magical power but she was never bitten
 by a spidera and doesn't come from a red planet that exploded.
 
 She just declared it and ShhaaammmM!

2. Not magic at all. Again, as I said, it's a function of
getting into a dispute with such people. It's very hard for
a third party to tell when one's context is being twisted or
erased, but one can see it quite clearly oneself.

 So just take her word for when someone is lying, she will need
 no evidence and you shouldn't worry your pretty little head.

3. What I told Share was that she would have to learn from
experience, not that she should take my word for it.

 When it looks like she has been spinning bullshit here, it
 is really that you just lack her special powers.

I don't spin bullshit. I don't have to. Curtis had to, as
his post demonstrates.

 
 Sometimes I wonder if she believes she is addressing a room full of 
 preschoolers. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
  
   Sorry, Richard but IMO Barry's not schizo.  Barry is simply
   like the rest

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[Richard J. Williams]

  Sorry, Richard but IMO Barry's not schizo...
 
authfriend:
 ...don't believe everything you read here. Not 
 only is Barry not schizo, the rest of Richard's 
 description of him is not accurate either.

Here's the thread so Share can read it and judge for 
herself how Turq got beatup by Moogin and Judy. 

Not only did Turq get beat up by Judy, Moogin beat 
up Turq's defense of TMer 'transcendence creation' 
theory! LoL!

Subject: Emperor's New Clothes
Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic
Date: 2003-10-17 05:35:21 PST
http://tinyurl.com/95drxtz

Uncle Tantra: 
  I don't believe that there is anything in the
  universe called truth.

Moogin:
 Then you said, The only 'perspective' that would 
 be valid to judge creation would have to transcend 
 creation, you were just offering one of your 
 beliefs, not -- despite appearances -- a claim 
 about the truth of things concerning the universe.

-- Moggin

to e-mail, remove the thorn

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[seventhray1]

Isn't it nice?  I mean doesn't it make an enormous difference when Judy
takes on a more conciliatory tone.  It does for me.  She had me won
over.
Curtis didn't buy the more conciliatory tone.  That's certainly his
right.  He sort of tore it apart.
But perhaps like you, Judy in that fashion was someone that I know I
would enjoy talking with.
I don't think she respects me much however, but that's okay too.

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

 Yes, Judy I see what you mean.  In this instance I'd say you're
sounding more reasonable than Curtis.  BUT...did you see his reply
to Ravi in which he admits that he overreacted?  That's something I
very much admire.  When a person can say that maybe they got it
wrong that time.  Or maybe they overreacted.  Or maybe they
weren't thinking clearly, or maybe having a bad day.  Something
along those lines.  So for me, Curtis gets big points for that. 
And I'm glad that you're feeling better.  Which is how you sound to
me in this post.


 Hey I just remembered.  You have 49 posts so you're welcome to
answer this to me directly if you want.

 Anyway, I agree with you that different people are a different
percentage of positive and negative.  I find most people to be
mostly positive.  Say 70-90%.  And most of us can and do
fluctuate from day to day or situation to situation.  Heck I've even
seen posters fluctuate from positive to very negative within 1 paragraph
of a post!  If I did that I'd figure I ate too much sugar.  But
probably what puts someone over the top is different for different
peeps.Â


 Laughing because I was typing away and looked at screen and I had
typed poops instead of peeps in last sentence above.  You gotta love
Freud and his whole Freudian slip thingie (-:

 Anyway, what else to say that might be beneficial at this point? 
As I said before, I don't think the dumb c phrase was a death
threat.  Actually the word death is not in the quote at all. 
Nonetheless it comes across sounding like a death wish.  So still
extreme vicious.  Easy for me to suggest forgive and forget. 
But can't help but wonder what would happen if you did.Â


 Have not checked archives to see Curtis part in all that. 
Probably won't.  Have to go out of town today.  1 hour drive
each way.


 What else?  I still think piling on does not help matters that are
essentially private and emotional.  Like the conflict between me and
Robin.  Which is actually what lead to conflict between Robin and
Curtis.  Which lead to Sal comment, which lead to Emily email to
you, which lead to...yep, these things seem to take on a life of their
own.


 Lastly, I will continue to not choose sides but rather take each
situation, each post on its own merit.  While maintaining some
compassionate memory of a history I've only glimpsed.  Best I can do
for now.
 ShareÂ



 
  From: authfriend authfriend@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 6:26 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for
the Church of $cientology


 Â
 Share, can you see the attempted deceptions in Curtis's
 response? Read what I wrote carefully, then read what
 Curtis wrote, then read the numbered paragraphs I added.
 See which of us you think is telling the truth about
 what I said to you.

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@
wrote:
 
   You'll have to learn by experience what the positive-to-
   negative ratios of FFL participants are. With some of
   them, you may never see their negative side until you
   get into a dispute with them. Those with a penchant for
   dishonesty are so clever about giving the false
   impression that the other side is at fault that a third
   party reading the posts in the dispute is unable to see
   how they've done it.
 
  Rght.  Only Judy can.

 1. What I said was that only those people who have disputes
 with such folks are likely to see their negative side. There
 are at least six people currently posting to FFL who have
 had disputes with Curtis, for example. All of them have seen
 his negative side and have testified to it. Many of those
 who have *not* had disputes with Curtis, in contrast, think
 of him as Mr. Wonderful.

  It is kind of like a magical power but she was never bitten
  by a spidera and doesn't come from a red planet that exploded.
 
  She just declared it and ShhaaammmM!

 2. Not magic at all. Again, as I said, it's a function of
 getting into a dispute with such people. It's very hard for
 a third party to tell when one's context is being twisted or
 erased, but one can see it quite clearly oneself.

  So just take her word for when someone is lying, she will need
  no evidence and you shouldn't worry your pretty little head.

 3. What I told Share was that she would have

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[Share Long]

Something that happened almost 9 years ago?!  Nope, not interested.

Someone getting beat up by someone else.  Definitely not interested.



 From: Richard J. Williams rich...@rwilliams.us
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 10:57 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the 
Church of $cientology
 

  


  Sorry, Richard but IMO Barry's not schizo...
 
authfriend:
 ...don't believe everything you read here. Not 
 only is Barry not schizo, the rest of Richard's 
 description of him is not accurate either.

Here's the thread so Share can read it and judge for 
herself how Turq got beatup by Moogin and Judy. 

Not only did Turq get beat up by Judy, Moogin beat 
up Turq's defense of TMer 'transcendence creation' 
theory! LoL!

Subject: Emperor's New Clothes
Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic
Date: 2003-10-17 05:35:21 PST
http://tinyurl.com/95drxtz

Uncle Tantra: 
  I don't believe that there is anything in the
  universe called truth.

Moogin:
 Then you said, The only 'perspective' that would 
 be valid to judge creation would have to transcend 
 creation, you were just offering one of your 
 beliefs, not -- despite appearances -- a claim 
 about the truth of things concerning the universe.

-- Moggin

to e-mail, remove the thorn


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[awoelflebater]

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

 Something that happened almost 9 years ago?!  Nope, not interested.
 
 Someone getting beat up by someone else.  Definitely not interested.

Figuratively speaking I believe. It seems there were no bloody noses or 
cauliflower ears resulting from the verbal tussle. But, again, I could be 
wrong. I have been once or twice before. (By the way, I hope you didn't mind me 
posting the blurb on QLW, it was a straight quote right off the website. I was 
actually really curious about what it could be, I dated a quantum physicist 
once and was wondering if it involved any real physics. I am still not sure. 
But I do know that boyfriend and I had some physics going on at the time. 
Curtis knew him, they played music together.)
 
 
 
  From: Richard J. Williams richard@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 10:57 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the 
 Church of $cientology
  
 
   
 
 
   Sorry, Richard but IMO Barry's not schizo...
  
 authfriend:
  ...don't believe everything you read here. Not 
  only is Barry not schizo, the rest of Richard's 
  description of him is not accurate either.
 
 Here's the thread so Share can read it and judge for 
 herself how Turq got beatup by Moogin and Judy. 
 
 Not only did Turq get beat up by Judy, Moogin beat 
 up Turq's defense of TMer 'transcendence creation' 
 theory! LoL!
 
 Subject: Emperor's New Clothes
 Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic
 Date: 2003-10-17 05:35:21 PST
 http://tinyurl.com/95drxtz
 
 Uncle Tantra: 
   I don't believe that there is anything in the
   universe called truth.
 
 Moogin:
  Then you said, The only 'perspective' that would 
  be valid to judge creation would have to transcend 
  creation, you were just offering one of your 
  beliefs, not -- despite appearances -- a claim 
  about the truth of things concerning the universe.
 
 -- Moggin
 
 to e-mail, remove the thorn

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[raunchydog]

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

 At the risk of 'piling on' this little vignette was priceless. Probably 
 because it rang so true. All you left out was some bimbo trying to climb onto 
 his lap.
 

Hold the applause, Ann. You're only encouraging me. I can't...no I 
mustn't...Help! Somebody STOP ME! Oh alright.

Scene: Leiden, Holland, 2:00 am. Two Dutch grifters discuss their recent mark.
Guy: Hey, what's in his wallet?
Gal: ID, Barry Wright, two bucks and a condom...expiration date, August 18, 
1969.
Guy: Sonofabitch, the last time that old geezer got laid was at Woodstock!
Gal: Thought so...probably explains the tie-dyed boxer shorts.
Guy: Did you get those too?
Gal: Yep, trophy for my easy mark collection.
Guy: Two bucks? Hardly worth the trouble of letting him feel your ass.
Gal: My ass, his shorts, win, win.

Meanwhile, alone in a fleabag hotel, passed out cold, handcuffed to a chair and 
stripped naked except for a Jerry Garcia tie* gracefully covering his privates. 
Barry slowly regains consciousness, muttering, win, win...win, win. 

Barry: What a night! Can't wait to write about it.

*Jerry Garcia tie: Barry's most prized possession.

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
 
  
  Barry: I've got a problem.
  Bartender: Yeah. Tell me about it.
  Barry: There's this woman...
  Bartender (aside): Here he goes again...another sob story about some crazy 
  bitch named Judy. Man, this dame really gets to him.
  Barry: This woman is diving me crazy...haunting my every waking moment. 
  Gimme another drink.
  Bartender: I hear you, Buddy. (aside) Yep. We know where this one's going.
  Barry: She has this creepy power over people who actually read her posts on 
  FFLife.
  Bartender: (pretending interest) Uh-huh...
  Barry: THOSE PEOPLE...who read her posts. Do you know what happens to them?
  Bartender: Have another shot with your beer, Buddy. You're gunna need it.
  Barry: She makes THOSE PEOPLE hate me...Oh the agony, the unbearable 
  pain...etc, etc, etc. blubber, blubber, boo hoo hoo.
  
  Two hours later..
  
  Bartender: Time to go home, Buddy.
  Barry: My hair! What happened to my hair? I have no hair!
  Bartender: It caught on fire...spontaneous combustion. You should have seen 
  it. You were spectacular! Never saw anything like it. Blue flames shooting 
  out yer ass, hair on fire...quite a show, quite a show, indeed. The joint 
  was packed.
  Barry: I need a drink.
   
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
   curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:

 You'll have to learn by experience what the positive-to-
 negative ratios of FFL participants are. With some of
 them, you may never see their negative side until you
 get into a dispute with them. 
   
   Note the incredibly clueless assumption here -- that
   getting into a dispute with them is something that
   is going to -- or should -- happen. It doesn't, for
   most here. It *does*, for those who live for disputes.
   
   The same assumption -- nigh unto a presumption -- was
   voiced recently in response to my suggestion that the
   screaming of Non-sequitur! was a barrier to conver-
   sation. The person replying didn't even *address* the
   possibility that FFL could be *about* conversation.
   Instead, it was presumed to be a forum for debate.
   
   Some people, as strange as it may seem, *don't* live
   for debate, or view every occasion to interact with
   other human beings as an opportunity to start one.
   These people instead -- not being as ego-attached to
   their POVs and rigid, fixed ideas -- enjoy discussing
   them calmly with others, in more of a (dare I say it)
   conversation. These strange people don't feel the same
   compulsive need to *assert* their own POVs and ideas
   and declare them better or more right than those
   of others, and thus don't feel the same compulsive
   need to turn every conversation about POVs and ideas
   into a debate. Just sayin'...
   
 Those with a penchant for
 dishonesty are so clever about giving the false
 impression that the other side is at fault that a third
 party reading the posts in the dispute is unable to see
 how they've done it.

Rght.  Only Judy can.  It is kind of like a magical 
power but she was never bitten by a spider and doesn't come 
from a red planet that exploded.
   
   I'm not completely convinced about her not coming from
   another planet :-), but I'd agree with you about not
   being bitten by a spider. Spiders have better taste. :-)
   
She just declared it and 
ShhaaammmM!
   
   And when other people here the magic word Shazam they
   should just STFU and believe it thoroughly, the way
   she did whenever 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[Richard J. Williams]

Share Long:
 This foul's on you, Turq...  Brain stretching to encompass 
 such a polarity.   
 
Obviously, Turq is SCHIZO! Keep in mind that Turq once was
a defender of MMY and TM, but he turned negative after Judy
whipped Turq real good in an argument with Andrew Skolnick;
the final takedown before the actual melt-down came a little 
later on on alt.religion.gnostic with Moogin and Kater.

Ever since then,  Turq got his head on screwed on spinning 
backwards. It's ALL about Judy. Go figure.
 
  
 If Judy ever gets tired of correcting other people's 
 homework and decides to try her hand at actually writing
 something, I've got the perfect gig for her: writing 
 angry, stinging letters to Co$ critics. 
 
 The back story on this is as follows. Vanity Fair is
 released a story about how Tom Cruise, unable to find a
 wife for himself who was considered suitable by the 
 Church, arranged for numerous interview sessions so
 that he could try out pre-approved $cientologists as
 his prospective wife, while the Church interrogated 
 them and investigated every aspect of their lives in
 the background. According to the article, it was a 
 level of vetting that political candidates don't even
 go through.
 
 So how did the Co$ *react* to this article? Well, those
 who have followed their exploits know that they'll prob-
 ably react by siccing private detectives and smear 
 artists on the article's author and on Graydon Carter,
 the publisher of VF. What they did in public was to have
 their lawyers send Mr. Carter a long, long, long-winded,
 eight-page hate letter:
 
 Article about the letter:
 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/17/church-of-scientology-responds-vanity-fair-tom-cruise-wife-auditioning_n_1889734.html
 
 The letter itself:
 http://www.scientologynews.org/sites/default/files/1-Jeff-Riffer-Re-David-Miscavige-to-Gaydon-Carter-16-Aug-2012.pdf
 
 Look it over. See if you don't think that writing such 
 letters is a PERFECT career choice for Judy Stein. I mean,
 it's got all of her trademarks:
 
 * Picking nits and homing in on them to obfuscate larger 
 issues
 * Trying to present the criticism as an example of religious 
 hate crime and its authors as bigots
 * Posting total irrelevancies lauding David Miscavige (the
 leader of the Co$) to make him seem saintly while demonizing
 his critics
 * Lying outright (Miscavige has been reported as viewing
 videotapes of auditing sessions and using them for blackmail
 purposes *in court*, despite what this letter says)
 * Pretending that the critics don't really believe what they
 are saying but are lying and saying it to be malicious
 * Appealing to a derogatory history of the critics that
 is made up
 * Portraying the author's sources in not just a derogatory
 fashion but a libelous one, trying to portray them as liars
 * Making threats 
 * Ignoring the actual question of whether the Church tried
 to be a matchmaker for Tom Cruise to find him a wife who
 was suitable for them, focusing only on Kill the
 messenger
 
 This letter follows almost all of the guidelines I posted
 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/318903)
 the other day from L. Ron Hubbard on how to deal with critics.
 
 It also follows the Judy Stein Playbook, using the same 
 tactics she uses here every week to demonize critics of TM,
 the TMO, and Maharishi. That's why I think writing for the
 Church of $cientology might be a great career choice for
 her. She certainly has the training for it, and who knows...
 writing for them she might accomplish what she has not here,
 and find some people who buy her act.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[Share Long]

Sorry, Richard but IMO Barry's not schizo.  Barry is simply like the rest of 
us, a mix and positive and negative.  Judy too.  And yes it's often perplexing 
to me.  But I rarely find it helpful to pull out DSM IV labels (not sure that's 
the right number) to bolster one's argument.  None of us are trained 
therapists, right?  And it's not helpful when Turq does it either.  Just in 
case someone was going to waste a post bringing that to my attention!


As for the ongoing war between him and Judy, they do seem locked into it from 
my perspective.  At this point, with my very limited knowledge, I find them 
equally responsible in terms of keeping it going.  What to do?

I'll soldier on with compassion and reasonableness and good humor as best I 
can.   Bound to make mistakes.  Repeating myself.  Ugh!   




 From: Richard J. Williams rich...@rwilliams.us
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:40 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the 
Church of $cientology
 

  


Share Long:
 This foul's on you, Turq...  Brain stretching to encompass 
 such a polarity.   
 
Obviously, Turq is SCHIZO! Keep in mind that Turq once was
a defender of MMY and TM, but he turned negative after Judy
whipped Turq real good in an argument with Andrew Skolnick;
the final takedown before the actual melt-down came a little 
later on on alt.religion.gnostic with Moogin and Kater.

Ever since then,  Turq got his head on screwed on spinning 
backwards. It's ALL about Judy. Go figure.

  
 If Judy ever gets tired of correcting other people's 
 homework and decides to try her hand at actually writing
 something, I've got the perfect gig for her: writing 
 angry, stinging letters to Co$ critics. 
 
 The back story on this is as follows. Vanity Fair is
 released a story about how Tom Cruise, unable to find a
 wife for himself who was considered suitable by the 
 Church, arranged for numerous interview sessions so
 that he could try out pre-approved $cientologists as
 his prospective wife, while the Church interrogated 
 them and investigated every aspect of their lives in
 the background. According to the article, it was a 
 level of vetting that political candidates don't even
 go through.
 
 So how did the Co$ *react* to this article? Well, those
 who have followed their exploits know that they'll prob-
 ably react by siccing private detectives and smear 
 artists on the article's author and on Graydon Carter,
 the publisher of VF. What they did in public was to have
 their lawyers send Mr. Carter a long, long, long-winded,
 eight-page hate letter:
 
 Article about the letter:
 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/17/church-of-scientology-responds-vanity-fair-tom-cruise-wife-auditioning_n_1889734.html
 
 The letter itself:
 http://www.scientologynews.org/sites/default/files/1-Jeff-Riffer-Re-David-Miscavige-to-Gaydon-Carter-16-Aug-2012.pdf
 
 Look it over. See if you don't think that writing such 
 letters is a PERFECT career choice for Judy Stein. I mean,
 it's got all of her trademarks:
 
 * Picking nits and homing in on them to obfuscate larger 
 issues
 * Trying to present the criticism as an example of religious 
 hate crime and its authors as bigots
 * Posting total irrelevancies lauding David Miscavige (the
 leader of the Co$) to make him seem saintly while demonizing
 his critics
 * Lying outright (Miscavige has been reported as viewing
 videotapes of auditing sessions and using them for blackmail
 purposes *in court*, despite what this letter says)
 * Pretending that the critics don't really believe what they
 are saying but are lying and saying it to be malicious
 * Appealing to a derogatory history of the critics that
 is made up
 * Portraying the author's sources in not just a derogatory
 fashion but a libelous one, trying to portray them as liars
 * Making threats 
 * Ignoring the actual question of whether the Church tried
 to be a matchmaker for Tom Cruise to find him a wife who
 was suitable for them, focusing only on Kill the
 messenger
 
 This letter follows almost all of the guidelines I posted
 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/318903)
 the other day from L. Ron Hubbard on how to deal with critics.
 
 It also follows the Judy Stein Playbook, using the same 
 tactics she uses here every week to demonize critics of TM,
 the TMO, and Maharishi. That's why I think writing for the
 Church of $cientology might be a great career choice for
 her. She certainly has the training for it, and who knows...
 writing for them she might accomplish what she has not here,
 and find some people who buy her act.