[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- replying to BW
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 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 > > > 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 -- replying to BW
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 12:54 AM, turquoiseb wrote: > > > ** > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula > > 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
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 wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula 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
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 12:54 AM, turquoiseb wrote: > ** > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula > 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
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula 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
" 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 wrote: > ** > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long 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 > > 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 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 ser
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- replying to BW
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long 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 > > 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 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- replying to BW
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long 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 > 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 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 resu
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- replying to BW
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 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 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 poss
