Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Short on effective force,

 the Dome group meditation is understaffed by several thousand meditators..
 
 Likewise, The British army is understaffed by several thousand troops.

 Needing ‘recruits, 
 the Brits look at gen Z and millennials.  "We understand the drive they have 
to succeed and recognise their need for a bigger sense of purpose in a job 
where they can do something meaningful."  

 ..aimed at 16- to 25-year-olds "looking for a job with purpose," 
..advertisements take negative stereotypes about Generation Z — and their 
predecessors, the notorious millennials — and rebrand them as strengths. 
Self-centeredness becomes "self-belief," phone obsession becomes "focus" and 
selfies become "confidence."
 ..called the campaign a "powerful call to action."

 
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/03/681953174/british-army-seeks-snowflakes-and-me-me-me-millennials-in-new-recruiting-campaig
 

 

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

 The communal meditating numbers? There are mornings here more recently with 
150 or so meditating in the men’s Dome, doing 'program'.. 160 or 170 is common 
now in the men’s Dome in the mornings. Less than doubling these and roughly you 
get totals between the Men’s and Women’s Domes. Evenings are more typically 
190, 200, 220 in the Men’s Dome. From the 1990’s on there are long communal 
narratives about membership in our group meditation numbers.  Folks for so long 
were actively separated, Domes depopulating, membership moved away taking their 
resources leaving a reduced group inside. So it is. 

 ..Communal hurt with what was the membership it seems has not yet been 
reconciled.
 

 

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

 LOOK, the peculiar communal hurts we have here with the Dome numbers run over 
three decades. It serves no good just to get in to editing the old guidelines. 
The strict preservationist element (the tru-believer) gets too defended in 
their narrative trying to have discussion, a consideration, even when they are 
confronted with the numbers in front of them.  They have a cultural problem. 
 

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

 A count of 1171 messages written in this “The Dome Numbers” FairfieldLife 
thread?
  
 Reading back in to this “Dome Numbers” thread
 even to before the start of the IA assembly in 2006 the long unsolved problem 
has been in the written guidelines for membership that have separated, 
disaffiliated, dissociated practitioners from the group meditation and the 
movement, so many who had learned the practices.

 On the radio today some commentator defined “progressives” as problem solvers. 
What would that make our TM movement conservatives and the ‘preservationists', 
the problem? 

 ..obstructionist.   
 

 

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

 Nice unity sentiments, but the statistical fact as well as experience of 
meditators is that both proximity and numbers together meditating effectively 
matter to the Meissner-like spiritual effect in wellbeing on people.  The 
science well indicates there is a significant benefit to collective meditation 
in society. That is what ‘we’ were more essentially about in Fairfield here as 
community with the facilitating that has been the Dome meditations. It is an 
amazing facility that has been capitalized here. 
 If one understands the science of the experience and its implication then the 
metrics of the aggregate numbers meditating together offer a tragedy here in 
how badly it has gone with the administration of the the communal collective of 
the group meditation. That is the story of the reading of this long "The Dome 
Numbers" thread. 
 

 
 


 On Monday, October 29, 2018, 12:25:05 AM GMT, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife]  wrote:
 

 What we are
 meditating for in the end is each
 Other.
 
 Sorry, I don't mean to preach here.
 
 But if you would choose to join
 With us in group meditation,
 I would be personally grateful.
 
 I think if we lose this fight, we lose
 The war.
 
 Help out.
 Come back to meditation.
 
 -Buck, in FF
 
 12 Oct. 2010
 
 http://invincibleamerica.org/ http://invincibleamerica.org/
 
 > 
 > "This is a critical time and a tremendous 
 > opportunity for all of us. We cannot afford to 
 > fall back from what we have accomplished so far.
 > We need to sustain and build upon what we have 
 > created over these past four years—and create 
 > true and lasting invincibility for our nation and 
 > peace for our world family." 
 > —Raja John Hagelin
 > 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

The communal meditating numbers? There are mornings here more recently with 150 
or so meditating in the men’s Dome, doing 'program'.. 160 or 170 is common now 
in the men’s Dome in the mornings. Less than doubling these and roughly you get 
totals between the Men’s and Women’s Domes. Evenings are more typically 190, 
200, 220 in the Men’s Dome. From the 1990’s on there are long communal 
narratives about membership in our group meditation numbers.  Folks for so long 
were actively separated, Domes depopulating, membership moved away taking their 
resources leaving a reduced group inside. So it is. 

 ..Communal hurt with what was the membership it seems has not yet been 
reconciled.
 

 

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

 LOOK, the peculiar communal hurts we have here with the Dome numbers run over 
three decades. It serves no good just to get in to editing the old guidelines. 
The strict preservationist element (the tru-believer) gets too defended in 
their narrative trying to have discussion, a consideration, even when they are 
confronted with the numbers in front of them.  They have a cultural problem. 
 

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

 A count of 1171 messages written in this “The Dome Numbers” FairfieldLife 
thread?
  
 Reading back in to this “Dome Numbers” thread
 even to before the start of the IA assembly in 2006 the long unsolved problem 
has been in the written guidelines for membership that have separated, 
disaffiliated, dissociated practitioners from the group meditation and the 
movement, so many who had learned the practices.

 On the radio today some commentator defined “progressives” as problem solvers. 
What would that make our TM movement conservatives and the ‘preservationists', 
the problem? 

 ..obstructionist.   
 

 

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

 Nice unity sentiments, but the statistical fact as well as experience of 
meditators is that both proximity and numbers together meditating effectively 
matter to the Meissner-like spiritual effect in wellbeing on people.  The 
science well indicates there is a significant benefit to collective meditation 
in society. That is what ‘we’ were more essentially about in Fairfield here as 
community with the facilitating that has been the Dome meditations. It is an 
amazing facility that has been capitalized here. 
 If one understands the science of the experience and its implication then the 
metrics of the aggregate numbers meditating together offer a tragedy here in 
how badly it has gone with the administration of the the communal collective of 
the group meditation. That is the story of the reading of this long "The Dome 
Numbers" thread. 
 

 
 


 On Monday, October 29, 2018, 12:25:05 AM GMT, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife]  wrote:
 

 What we are
 meditating for in the end is each
 Other.
 
 Sorry, I don't mean to preach here.
 
 But if you would choose to join
 With us in group meditation,
 I would be personally grateful.
 
 I think if we lose this fight, we lose
 The war.
 
 Help out.
 Come back to meditation.
 
 -Buck, in FF
 
 12 Oct. 2010
 
 http://invincibleamerica.org/ http://invincibleamerica.org/
 
 > 
 > "This is a critical time and a tremendous 
 > opportunity for all of us. We cannot afford to 
 > fall back from what we have accomplished so far.
 > We need to sustain and build upon what we have 
 > created over these past four years—and create 
 > true and lasting invincibility for our nation and 
 > peace for our world family." 
 > —Raja John Hagelin
 > 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

LOOK, the peculiar communal hurts we have here with the Dome numbers run over 
three decades. It serves no good just to get in to editing the old guidelines. 
The strict preservationist element (the tru-believer) gets too defended in 
their narrative trying to have discussion, a consideration, even when they are 
confronted with the numbers in front of them.  They have a cultural problem. 
 

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

 1171 messages written in this “The Dome Numbers” FairfieldLife thread?
  
 Reading back in to this “Dome Numbers” thread even to before the start of the 
IA assembly in 2006 the long unsolved problem has been in the written 
guidelines for membership that have separated, disaffiliated, dissociated 
practitioners from the group meditation and the movement, so many who had 
learned the practices.

 On the radio today some commentator defined “progressives” as problem solvers. 
What would that make our TM movement conservatives and the ‘preservationists', 
the problem? 

 ..obstructionist.   
 

 

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

 Nice unity sentiments, but the statistical fact as well as experience of 
meditators is that both proximity and numbers together meditating effectively 
matter to the Meissner-like spiritual effect in wellbeing on people.  The 
science well indicates there is a significant benefit to collective meditation 
in society. That is what ‘we’ were more essentially about in Fairfield here as 
community with the facilitating that has been the Dome meditations. It is an 
amazing facility that has been capitalized here. 
 If one understands the science of the experience and its implication then the 
metrics of the aggregate numbers meditating together offer a tragedy here in 
how badly it has gone with the administration of the the communal collective of 
the group meditation. That is the story of the reading of this long "The Dome 
Numbers" thread. 
 

 

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

 
 What we are meditating for in the end, is so there is no other, only the Self. 
Community is nice, but it is a more superficial view. Unity is not created by 
packing bodies in proximity, it can be done alone, in a cave, or anywhere if 
you have persistence. 
 

 Packing bodies in proximity can have beneficial effects or detrimental effects 
(such as a mob) depending on clarity of experience. However you do it, taking 
care of your own experience first is foremost. If what you are doing is not 
working, then try something else.
 


 On Monday, October 29, 2018, 12:25:05 AM GMT, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife]  wrote:
 

 What we are
 meditating for in the end is each
 Other.
 
 Sorry, I don't mean to preach here.
 
 But if you would choose to join
 With us in group meditation,
 I would be personally grateful.
 
 I think if we lose this fight, we lose
 The war.
 
 Help out.
 Come back to meditation.
 
 -Buck, in FF
 
 12 Oct. 2010
 
 http://invincibleamerica.org/ http://invincibleamerica.org/
 
 > 
 > "This is a critical time and a tremendous 
 > opportunity for all of us. We cannot afford to 
 > fall back from what we have accomplished so far.
 > We need to sustain and build upon what we have 
 > created over these past four years—and create 
 > true and lasting invincibility for our nation and 
 > peace for our world family." 
 > —Raja John Hagelin
 > 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Regardless it is okay, the Meissner-like effect is a good enough metaphor for 
the experience of superradiance where two or more gather in meditation. 
 

 

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

 
 The Meissner effect results in a magnetic field being repelled in a 
superconducting metal. So what is being repelled with meditation? City-Data.com 
reports that Fairfield has more crime than 67.6% of U.S. cites and other 
reports indicate Fairfield rates a C+ for crime, 20% higher than the national 
average and 43% higher than the rest of Iowa. 
https://www.areavibes.com/fairfield-ia/crime/ 
https://www.areavibes.com/fairfield-ia/crime/
 

 Fairfield has the largest group of TM meditators and sidhas in the U.S. and 
crime is worse in proximity to this group, so clearly the program is not 
repelling crime, and this statistic is the one used to justify the program, so 
clearly the Meissner-like effect is a false analogy in relation to crime.
 

 If anything is being repelled, it seems to be people who would like to 
meditate in the domes.
 

 Amenities, cost of living, and education in Fairfield seem pretty good, but it 
is a lousy place to look for a job, for weather, and only fair for housing. 
Where I live the cost of living is high, but we have much lower crime, over 
FOUR TIMES LOWER than Fairfield, IA and 60% lower than the national average and 
almost no meditators are here.
  
 I left Fairfield, IA, a couple of decades ago, and am much better for it. The 
demographic facts indicate the Meissner-like effect does not work.
 

 

 


 On Tuesday, October 30, 2018, 1:53:12 AM GMT, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife]  wrote: 
 

 

   
 Nice unity sentiments, but the statistical fact as well as experience of 
meditators is that both proximity and numbers together meditating effectively 
matter to the Meissner-like spiritual effect in wellbeing on people.  The 
science well indicates there is a significant benefit to collective meditation 
in society. That is what ‘we’ were more essentially about in Fairfield here as 
community with the facilitating that has been the Dome meditations. It is an 
amazing facility that has been capitalized here. 
 If one understands the science of the experience and its implication then the 
metrics of the aggregate numbers meditating together offer a tragedy here in 
how badly it has gone with the administration of the the communal collective of 
the group meditation. That is the story of the reading of this long "The Dome 
Numbers" thread. 
 

 

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

 
 What we are meditating for in the end, is so there is no other, only the Self. 
Community is nice, but it is a more superficial view. Unity is not created by 
packing bodies in proximity, it can be done alone, in a cave, or anywhere if 
you have persistence. 
 

 Packing bodies in proximity can have beneficial effects or detrimental effects 
(such as a mob) depending on clarity of experience. However you do it, taking 
care of your own experience first is foremost. If what you are doing is not 
working, then try something else.
 


 On Monday, October 29, 2018, 12:25:05 AM GMT, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife]  wrote:
 

 What we are
 meditating for in the end is each
 Other.
 
 Sorry, I don't mean to preach here.
 
 But if you would choose to join
 With us in group meditation,
 I would be personally grateful.
 
 I think if we lose this fight, we lose
 The war.
 
 Help out.
 Come back to meditation.
 
 -Buck, in FF
 
 12 Oct. 2010
 
 http://invincibleamerica.org/ http://invincibleamerica.org/
 
 > 
 > "This is a critical time and a tremendous 
 > opportunity for all of us. We cannot afford to 
 > fall back from what we have accomplished so far.
 > We need to sustain and build upon what we have 
 > created over these past four years—and create 
 > true and lasting invincibility for our nation and 
 > peace for our world family." 
 > —Raja John Hagelin
 > 


 











 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[Archer Angel archonan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 The Meissner effect results in a magnetic field being repelled in a 
superconducting metal. So what is being repelled with meditation? City-Data.com 
reports that Fairfield has more crime than 67.6% of U.S. cites and other 
reports indicate Fairfield rates a C+ for crime, 20% higher than the national 
average and 43% higher than the rest of Iowa. 
https://www.areavibes.com/fairfield-ia/crime/
Fairfield has the largest group of TM meditators and sidhas in the U.S. and 
crime is worse in proximity to this group, so clearly the program is not 
repelling crime, and this statistic is the one used to justify the program, so 
clearly the Meissner-like effect is a false analogy in relation to crime..
If anything is being repelled, it seems to be people who would like to meditate 
in the domes.
Amenities, cost of living, and education in Fairfield seem pretty good, but it 
is a lousy place to look for a job, for weather, and only fair for housing. 
Where I live the cost of living is high, but we have much lower crime, over 
FOUR TIMES LOWER than Fairfield, IA and 60% lower than the national average and 
almost no meditators are here. I left Fairfield, IA, a couple of decades ago, 
and am much better for it. The demographic facts indicate the Meissner-like 
effect does not work.


On Tuesday, October 30, 2018, 1:53:12 AM GMT, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife]  wrote:  
 
     


Nice unity sentiments, but the statistical fact as well as experience of 
meditators is that both proximity and numbers together meditating effectively 
matter to the Meissner-like spiritual effect in wellbeing on people.  The 
science well indicates there is a significant benefit to collective meditation 
in society. That is what ‘we’ were more essentially about in Fairfield here as 
community with the facilitating that has been the Dome meditations. It is an 
amazing facility that has been capitalized here. 

If one understands the science of the experience and its implication then the 
metrics of the aggregate numbers meditating together offer a tragedy here in 
how badly it has gone with the administration of the the communal collective of 
the group meditation. That is the story of the reading of this long "The Dome 
Numbers" thread. 



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

What we are meditating for in the end, is so there is no other, only the Self. 
Community is nice, but it is a more superficial view. Unity is not created by 
packing bodies in proximity, it can be done alone, in a cave, or anywhere if 
you have persistence. 
Packing bodies in proximity can have beneficial effects or detrimental effects 
(such as a mob) depending on clarity of experience. However you do it, taking 
care of your own experience first is foremost. If what you are doing is not 
working, then try something else.

 On Monday, October 29, 2018, 12:25:05 AM GMT, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife]  wrote:


What we are
meditating for in the end is each
Other.

Sorry, I don't mean to preach here.

But if you would choose to join
With us in group meditation,
I would be personally grateful.

I think if we lose this fight, we lose
The war.

Help out.
Come back to meditation.

-Buck, in FF

12 Oct. 2010

http://invincibleamerica.org/


 > 
> "This is a critical time and a tremendous 
> opportunity for all of us. We cannot afford to 
> fall back from what we have accomplished so far.
> We need to sustain and build upon what we have 
> created over these past four years—and create 
> true and lasting invincibility for our nation and 
> peace for our world family." 
> —Raja John Hagelin
> 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

1171 messages written in this “The Dome Numbers” FairfieldLife thread?
  
 Reading back in to this “Dome Numbers” thread even to before the start of the 
IA assembly in 2006 the long unsolved problem has been in the written 
guidelines for membership that have separated, disaffiliated, dissociated from 
the group meditation and the movement so many who had learned the practices.

 On the radio today some commentator defined “progressives” as problem solvers. 
What would that make our TM movement conservatives and the ‘preservationists, 
the problem? 

 ..obstructionist.   
 

 

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

 Nice unity sentiments, but the statistical fact as well as experience of 
meditators is that both proximity and numbers together meditating effectively 
matter to the Meissner-like spiritual effect in wellbeing on people.  The 
science well indicates there is a significant benefit to collective meditation 
in society. That is what ‘we’ were more essentially about in Fairfield here as 
community with the facilitating that has been the Dome meditations. It is an 
amazing facility that has been capitalized here. 
 If one understands the science of the experience and its implication then the 
metrics of the aggregate numbers meditating together offer a tragedy here in 
how badly it has gone with the administration of the the communal collective of 
the group meditation. That is the story of the reading of this long "The Dome 
Numbers" thread. 
 

 

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

 
 What we are meditating for in the end, is so there is no other, only the Self. 
Community is nice, but it is a more superficial view. Unity is not created by 
packing bodies in proximity, it can be done alone, in a cave, or anywhere if 
you have persistence. 
 

 Packing bodies in proximity can have beneficial effects or detrimental effects 
(such as a mob) depending on clarity of experience. However you do it, taking 
care of your own experience first is foremost. If what you are doing is not 
working, then try something else.
 


 On Monday, October 29, 2018, 12:25:05 AM GMT, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife]  wrote:
 

 What we are
 meditating for in the end is each
 Other.
 
 Sorry, I don't mean to preach here.
 
 But if you would choose to join
 With us in group meditation,
 I would be personally grateful.
 
 I think if we lose this fight, we lose
 The war.
 
 Help out.
 Come back to meditation.
 
 -Buck, in FF
 
 12 Oct. 2010
 
 http://invincibleamerica.org/ http://invincibleamerica.org/
 
 > 
 > "This is a critical time and a tremendous 
 > opportunity for all of us. We cannot afford to 
 > fall back from what we have accomplished so far.
 > We need to sustain and build upon what we have 
 > created over these past four years—and create 
 > true and lasting invincibility for our nation and 
 > peace for our world family." 
 > —Raja John Hagelin
 > 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Nice unity sentiments, but the statistical fact as well as experience of 
meditators is that both proximity and numbers together meditating effectively 
matter to the Meissner-like spiritual effect in wellbeing on people.  The 
science well indicates there is a significant benefit to collective meditation 
in society. That is what ‘we’ were more essentially about in Fairfield here as 
community with the facilitating that has been the Dome meditations. It is an 
amazing facility that has been capitalized here. 
 If one understands the science of the experience and its implication then the 
metrics of the aggregate numbers meditating together offer a tragedy here in 
how badly it has gone with the administration of the the communal collective of 
the group meditation. That is the story of the reading of this long "The Dome 
Numbers" thread. 
 

 

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

 
 What we are meditating for in the end, is so there is no other, only the Self. 
Community is nice, but it is a more superficial view. Unity is not created by 
packing bodies in proximity, it can be done alone, in a cave, or anywhere if 
you have persistence. 
 

 Packing bodies in proximity can have beneficial effects or detrimental effects 
(such as a mob) depending on clarity of experience. However you do it, taking 
care of your own experience first is foremost. If what you are doing is not 
working, then try something else.
 


 On Monday, October 29, 2018, 12:25:05 AM GMT, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife]  wrote:
 

 What we are
 meditating for in the end is each
 Other.
 
 Sorry, I don't mean to preach here.
 
 But if you would choose to join
 With us in group meditation,
 I would be personally grateful.
 
 I think if we lose this fight, we lose
 The war.
 
 Help out.
 Come back to meditation.
 
 -Buck, in FF
 
 12 Oct. 2010
 
 http://invincibleamerica.org/ http://invincibleamerica.org/
 
 > 
 > "This is a critical time and a tremendous 
 > opportunity for all of us. We cannot afford to 
 > fall back from what we have accomplished so far.
 > We need to sustain and build upon what we have 
 > created over these past four years—and create 
 > true and lasting invincibility for our nation and 
 > peace for our world family." 
 > —Raja John Hagelin
 > 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[Archer Angel archonan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 What we are meditating for in the end, is so there is no other, only the Self. 
Community is nice, but it is a more superficial view. Unity is not created by 
packing bodies in proximity, it can be done alone, in a cave, or anywhere if 
you have persistence. 
Packing bodies in proximity can have beneficial effects or detrimental effects 
(such as a mob) depending on clarity of experience. However you do it, taking 
care of your own experience first is foremost. If what you are doing is not 
working, then try something else.
On Monday, October 29, 2018, 12:25:05 AM GMT, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife]  wrote:  
 
     





What we are
meditating for in the end is each
Other.

Sorry, I don't mean to preach here.

But if you would choose to join
With us in group meditation,
I would be personally grateful.

I think if we lose this fight, we lose
The war.

Help out.
Come back to meditation.

-Buck, in FF

12 Oct. 2010

http://invincibleamerica.org/


 > 
> "This is a critical time and a tremendous 
> opportunity for all of us. We cannot afford to 
> fall back from what we have accomplished so far.
> We need to sustain and build upon what we have 
> created over these past four years—and create 
> true and lasting invincibility for our nation and 
> peace for our world family." 
> —Raja John Hagelin
> 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

This “Dome Numbers” subject thread extends clear back to 2006 and follows 
through the life cycle of what was the Invincible America Assembly (the IAA). 
 Within the thread are chronicled the ups and downs of ‘the Dome Numbers’ and 
what anguish there was over local meditators who would not come out for the 
Dome group program. Of course there is a longer story there related to ‘the 
guidelines’ as they were used to separate people from the Dome group meditation.

 This October 2010 post below chronicles part of a second episode where I was 
denied a Dome meditation badge. This was for having visited Ammachi at some 
earlier time.  “There is something about Ammachi in your file, tell us about 
that.” 
 

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

 Well, it is official.
 I could've helped
 with the numbers
 but my application
 to the dome
 has been denied.
 The process has
 ended, with a negative
 Outcome.
 
 There was something
 about Ammachi in their
 file on me.
 
 Evidently the policy is
 essentially still 
 "Don't ask, don't tell".
 For regular citizens
 Or TM teachers or Govs.
 
 The file had an entry
 about something with
 having seen Ammachi.
 
 I wish them well and
 hope for them that
 they get the
 numbers meditating
 they would like.
 
 http://invincibleamerica.org/tallies.html 
http://invincibleamerica.org/tallies.html
 
 Jai Adi Shankara,
 -Buck in FF
 
 
 >
 > FW:
 > October 12, 2010
 > 
 > Dear Friends,
 > 
 > We were thrilled to see so many of you in the Dome for our
 > "Transforming America" meeting on October 2nd—and very encouraged by
 > your warm support for our presentations. We were also greatly honored
 > by the presence of Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam and by his kind words
 > about this initiative. Thank you so much for coming. We hope that you
 > have been taking action to help build our Super Radiance numbers in
 > whatever way you can: by joining the Invincible America Assembly
 > (click here to apply), by bringing your Sidha friends to the flying
 > halls, and/or by increasing your own attendance at group program.
 > 
 > As we announced at the meeting, Dr. Howard Settle has made a very
 > generous offer to our community to help inspire our 2000 initiative:
 > If we can increase our Super Radiance attendance by 100 per day, the
 > Settle Foundation will match that increase by sponsoring an additional
 > 100 Vedic Pandits in Maharishi Vedic City. The result would be 200
 > more participants in daily group program—enough to take us over the
 > 2,000 threshold every evening and on many mornings.
 > 
 > Here's a simple, novel, easy way to fulfill Dr. Settle's pledge to us.
 > We can all simply commit to attending at least two more programs each
 > and every week—and bringing a friend as well.
 > 
 > Consider the math:
 > 100 more Sidhas per day = 1,400 more program "attendances" each week
 > (200 more per day for 7 days)
 > 
 > If even a quarter of the nearly 3,000 Sidhas in our community
 > committed to two more programs per week, we would create the
 > equivalent of 100 additional Sidhas in the Domes immediately—enough to
 > set in motion the Settle pledge and establish 2,000 for the U.S. And
 > we don't need to stop there. Each and every additional program adds to
 > the collective impact of this initiative. (If you are already
 > attending the maximum number of programs per week—
 > thank you!)
 > 
 > In addition, we can each contact as many fellow Sidhas as possible
 > about this challenge. If each of us can bring at least one Sidha to
 > the Dome for at least two more programs per week, we will create a
 > large additional safety factor in numbers, and we will enjoy 2,000
 > every day, twice a day, throughout the year.
 > 
 > Attendance now is easy and comfortable. We have seven local group
 > program halls, including the Domes, and seating has been expanded in
 > them all. For Sidhas who would like to enjoy longer programs, the
 > Settle grant program provides approximately $750 per month in support
 > (for more information, call 641-472-1212 or visit
 > www.invincibleamerica.org).
 > 
 > So please attend at least two more programs per week, every week—and
 > bring a friend. And contact as many others Sidhas as possible to do
 > the same. In this way we can easily stabilize the Super Radiance goal
 > we came here to achieve and thereby help fulfill Maharishi's vision
 > for our community, our nation, and our world.
 > 
 > Thank you in advance for your participation—and for everything you do
 > to create peace on earth.
 > 
 > Sincerely,
 > 
 > Raja John Hagelin
 > 
 > Honorary Chairman,
 > Board of Trustees,
 > Maharishi University
 > of Management
 > 
 > Raja of Invincible
 > America
 > 
 > Dr. Bevan Morris
 > 
 > President, Maharishi
 > University of
 > Management
 > 
 > Prime Minister,
 > Global Country of
 > World Peace
 > 
 > > > 
 > > > 
 > > > > > > > 
 > > > > > > > What we are
 > > > > > > > meditating for in the end is each
 > > > > > > > Other.
 > > > > > > > 
 > > 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

.. 


 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
saintsdarshan  wrote:
 >
 > 
 > that many Purushas have visited her. Some still
 > do, even some Purusha higher-ups, as I hear from a friend who is close
 > to her. But the same is true for Ammachi, many Ex-Purushas moved to >her,
 
 Each one a prodigal child who
 could come back and help with
 the dome program numbers. 
 
 I should welcome them back even
 if as sinners gone away. All these are
 meditators, governors who can do the practice.
 Brothers in arms, we could use the help.
 
 Our movement should just ask them
 back to help with the numbers.
 
 All we are saying is give peace a chance.
 
 -Buck in FF
 
 
 > others are still visiting.
 > 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

 Friends, 
 We are well below strength.
 
 You know who we are,
 What we are doing here.
 
 Here is the situation, this is no
 Time for an argument.
 
 http://invincibleamerica.org/tallies.html 
http://invincibleamerica.org/tallies.html
 
 We are a movement out to set
 Other people free. What we are
 Meditating for in the end is each
 Other.
 
 Sorry, I don't mean to preach here.
 
 But if you would choose to join
 With us in group meditation,
 I would be personally grateful.
 
 I think if we lose this fight, we lose
 The war. 
 
 Help out.
 Come back to meditation.
 
 -Buck, in FF
 
 http://invincibleamerica.org/ http://invincibleamerica.org/
 
 11 October 2010
 
 
 > 
 > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > Quite an erosion even just in those years. Similar total numbers but
 > flipping over to hired boys to do the meditating.
 > 
 > Most of them don't really meditate. They're not into it.
 > 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 


 What we are
 meditating for in the end is each
 Other.
 
 Sorry, I don't mean to preach here.
 
 But if you would choose to join
 With us in group meditation,
 I would be personally grateful.
 
 I think if we lose this fight, we lose
 The war.
 
 Help out.
 Come back to meditation.
 
 -Buck, in FF
 
 12 Oct. 2010
 
 http://invincibleamerica.org/ http://invincibleamerica.org/
 
 > 
 > "This is a critical time and a tremendous 
 > opportunity for all of us. We cannot afford to 
 > fall back from what we have accomplished so far.
 > We need to sustain and build upon what we have 
 > created over these past four years—and create 
 > true and lasting invincibility for our nation and 
 > peace for our world family." 
 > —Raja John Hagelin
 > 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 
 
  
 Come, fathers and mothers, Come, sisters and brothers,
Come, join us to sing praise to meditation;
O, friends, don't you feel determined, To meditate within the walls of the dome.
We'll shout and fly round, We'll shout and fly round,
We'll shout and fly round the walls of Dome when the Rajas the right thing do.
 

 From 20 October 2010

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Prophetic words from way back in 2010, "Wayback71" wrote then:  “Well, the 
longer they keep willing people out of the Domes, the less likely it is that 
they will ever return, even if restrictions are lifted some day or some year. I 
would say if the policy is ever to be changed, the Rajas should do it really 
soon. Or when they open the doors, there won't be anyone waiting to come in.” 
“Buck” did comment back then too.. 
 Like quite a lot of Meditators in the dome now have 'not gone' to saints or 
spiritual healers either(!). Given the personalities, it will probably not be 
until a time comes after one current Prime Minister that anything like a 
reconciliation in the TM movement could happen. But like the Society of Friends 
with the loss of a lot of membership, shakti and resource in the meantime that 
had previously been there, the Quakers never really recovered the same after 
that old man's work had been done to the Society in those years.
 A good lesson. 
 

 

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
"wayback71"  wrote:
 >
 > 
 >
 > Well, the longer they keep willing people out of the Domes, the less likely 
 > it is that they will ever return, even if restrictions are lifted some day 
 > or some year. I would say if the policy is ever to be changed, the Rajas 
 > should do it really soon. Or when they open the doors, there won't be anyone 
 > waiting to come in.
 >
 
 71,
 Yep. that essentially has happened already here.
 
 A similar thing happened in Quaker history.
 Memberships of activist anti-slavery Friends
 were administratively withdrawn. A particular
 tyrannical and dictatorial Yearly Meeting Clerk
 came out with Minutes instructing all the Monthly Meetings under their
 Yearly Meeting to go out and withdraw the memberships
 of known anti-slavery Friends. 
 
 Technically there was a larger tiff that was going on
 more about 'protecting' the essentially spiritual practice of Friends
 and the use of the organizational structure and facility of the Society of 
Friends by social activist activities. 
 The conservatives saying that
 the Society was more strictly about spiritual practice as
 the Friend's unique Meeting for Worship (group meditation).
 
 Different Yearly Meetings handled the encroaching activism differently.
 Some just ignored it or said, "We're about spiritual practice, do that 
activism over there, not here thank you, we are about doing this here..."
 
 So, this one rigid doctrinal guideline guy who was the Yearly Meeting Clerk
 of the Indiana Yearly Meeting (which Iowa was under at the time)
 came out with this minute directing all meetings under their
 jurisdiction to actively go out and separate abolitionists. The overall 
membership at the time was quite large in America.
 
 There was a big 'Fuck You' from the separated Friends..
 It was not that so many Friends of that time were not also abolitionists.
 (Sort of like meditators seeing saints)
 This was a guide-lining administrative application of this one rigid guy.
 Reconciliation was not possible the way it was done under Indiana Yearly 
Meeting.
 
 The separated Friends eventually were invited back after the old clerk had 
died and passed away. 
 Actually, it became his son who subsequently became the new Clerk of Indiana 
Yearly Meeting and went out inviting old Friends back after the old man was 
gone. That next generation.
 
 Lot of parallel.
 
 Like quite a lot of Meditators in the dome now have not gone to saints or 
spiritual healers either(!). Given the personalities, it will probably not be 
until a time comes after one current Prime Minister that anything like a 
reconciliation in the TM movement could happen. But like the Society of 
Friends, with the loss of a lot of membership, shakti and resource in the 
meantime that had previously been there. The Quakers never really recovered the 
same after that old man's work had been done to the Society in those years.
 
 A good lesson. 
 
 -Buck
 
 
 > Well, the longer they keep willing people out of the Domes, the less likely 
 > it is that they will ever return, even if restrictions are lifted some day 
 > or some year. I would say if the policy is ever to be changed, the Rajas 
 > should do it really soon. Or when they open the doors, there won't be anyone 
 > waiting to come in.
 >
 
 
 > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 > "Buck"  wrote:
 > >
 > > 
 > > 
 > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 > > "wayback71"  wrote:
 > > >
 > > > 
 > > > 
 > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 > > > mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
 > > > >
 > > > > 
 > > > > 
 > > > > >
 > > > > > Numbers skid 
 > > > > > to lowest numbers
 > > > > > in almost a year.
 > > > > > 
 > > > > > 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 
 “Well, the longer they keep willing people out of the Domes, the less likely 
it is that they will ever return, even if restrictions are lifted some day or 
some year. I would say if the policy is ever to be changed, the Rajas should do 
it really soon. Or when they open the doors, there won't be anyone waiting to 
come in.”
   -Wayback71
 
 
 That was prophetic when it was published before on FFL. It is relevant now. 
 
 
 I see the iphone smartphone screen does not open the faint link, “show message 
history” shown in FFL posts like a laptop will.   Wanting to share the 
observation in context now with some folks in the middle of TM I am pasting the 
quote at the screen top to be more readily found. -JaiGuruYou 
 
 
 In context that whole thread goes back to 2010 originating with: 
 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/topics/258829 
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/topics/258829
 
 
 

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

 # 

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

 Wayback, you'd proly like this one too. About a guy named Philemon Stewart for 
example.
 
 In addition to the handling of the 'Anti-Slavery Friends' example listed 
below, this is another good historical example of how spiritual movements can 
be lost to inflexible rigid tyrannical personalities coming in to positions of 
administrative authority behind a spiritual founder. 
 
 This one is about a guy named Philemon Stewart. Philemon Stewart rose to 
become a Shaker elder in the central Shaker Ministry sort of like TM-Rajas are 
to TM. (Shaker, as different from Quaker) This excerpt points to a great 
example of how spiritual movements are lost in time at that point where 
facilitating 'policies and guidelines' may rise to become group doctrine in a 
'post -founder stage'. Where followers can begin confusing policy guidelines 
for the spiritual knowledge of the group and then failing to adapt those 
policies in time as a larger group is squandered away.
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
"Buck" wrote:
 >
 > 
 > 
 > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 > "wayback71"  wrote:
 > >
 > > 
 > >
 > > Well, the longer they keep willing people out of the Domes, the less 
 > > likely it is that they will ever return, even if restrictions are lifted 
 > > some day or some year. I would say if the policy is ever to be changed, 
 > > the Rajas should do it really soon. Or when they open the doors, there 
 > > won't be anyone waiting to come in.
 > >
 > 
 > 71,
 > Yep. that essentially has happened already here.
 > 
 > A similar thing happened in Quaker history.
 > Memberships of activist anti-slavery Friends
 > were administratively withdrawn. A particular
 > tyrannical and dictatorial Yearly Meeting Clerk
 > came out with Minutes instructing all the Monthly Meetings under their
 > Yearly Meeting to go out and withdraw the memberships
 > of known anti-slavery Friends. 
 > 
 > Technically there was a larger tiff that was going on
 > more about 'protecting' the essentially spiritual practice of Friends
 > and the use of the organizational structure and facility of the Society of 
 > Friends by social activist activities. 
 > The conservatives saying that
 > the Society was more strictly about spiritual practice as
 > the Friend's unique Meeting for Worship (group meditation).
 > 
 > Different Yearly Meetings handled the encroaching activism differently.
 > Some just ignored it or said, "We're about spiritual practice, do that 
 > activism over there, not here thank you, we are about doing this here..."
 > 
 > So, this one rigid doctrinal guideline guy who was the Yearly Meeting Clerk
 > of the Indiana Yearly Meeting (which Iowa was under at the time)
 > came out with this minute directing all meetings under their
 > jurisdiction to actively go out and separate abolitionists. The overall 
 > membership at the time was quite large in America.
 > 
 > There was a big 'Fuck You' from the separated Friends..
 > It was not that so many Friends of that time were not also abolitionists.
 > (Sort of like meditators seeing saints)
 > This was a guide-lining administrative application of this one rigid guy.
 > Reconciliation was not possible the way it was done under Indiana Yearly 
 > Meeting.
 > 
 > The separated Friends eventually were invited back after the old clerk had 
 > died and passed away. 
 > Actually, it became his son who subsequently became the new Clerk of Indiana 
 > Yearly Meeting and went out inviting old Friends back after the old man was 
 > gone. That next generation.
 > 
 > Lot of parallel.
 > 
 > Like quite a lot of Meditators in the dome now have gone to saints or 
 > spiritual healers either(!). Given the personalities, it will probably not 
 > be until a time comes after one current Prime Minister that anything 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

# 

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

 Wayback, you'd proly like this one too. About a guy named Philemon Stewart for 
example.
 
 In addition to the handling of the 'Anti-Slavery Friends' example listed 
below, this is another good historical example of how spiritual movements can 
be lost to inflexible rigid tyrannical personalities coming in to positions of 
administrative authority behind a spiritual founder. 
 
 This one is about a guy named Philemon Stewart. Philemon Stewart rose to 
become a Shaker elder in the central Shaker Ministry sort of like TM-Rajas are 
to TM. (Shaker, as different from Quaker) This excerpt points to a great 
example of how spiritual movements are lost in time at that point where 
facilitating 'policies and guidelines' may rise to become group doctrine in a 
'post -founder stage'. Where followers can begin confusing policy guidelines 
for the spiritual knowledge of the group and then failing to adapt those 
policies in time as a larger group is squandered away.
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
"Buck" wrote:
 >
 > 
 > 
 > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 > "wayback71"  wrote:
 > >
 > > 
 > >
 > > Well, the longer they keep willing people out of the Domes, the less 
 > > likely it is that they will ever return, even if restrictions are lifted 
 > > some day or some year. I would say if the policy is ever to be changed, 
 > > the Rajas should do it really soon. Or when they open the doors, there 
 > > won't be anyone waiting to come in.
 > >
 > 
 > 71,
 > Yep. that essentially has happened already here.
 > 
 > A similar thing happened in Quaker history.
 > Memberships of activist anti-slavery Friends
 > were administratively withdrawn. A particular
 > tyrannical and dictatorial Yearly Meeting Clerk
 > came out with Minutes instructing all the Monthly Meetings under their
 > Yearly Meeting to go out and withdraw the memberships
 > of known anti-slavery Friends. 
 > 
 > Technically there was a larger tiff that was going on
 > more about 'protecting' the essentially spiritual practice of Friends
 > and the use of the organizational structure and facility of the Society of 
 > Friends by social activist activities. 
 > The conservatives saying that
 > the Society was more strictly about spiritual practice as
 > the Friend's unique Meeting for Worship (group meditation).
 > 
 > Different Yearly Meetings handled the encroaching activism differently.
 > Some just ignored it or said, "We're about spiritual practice, do that 
 > activism over there, not here thank you, we are about doing this here..."
 > 
 > So, this one rigid doctrinal guideline guy who was the Yearly Meeting Clerk
 > of the Indiana Yearly Meeting (which Iowa was under at the time)
 > came out with this minute directing all meetings under their
 > jurisdiction to actively go out and separate abolitionists. The overall 
 > membership at the time was quite large in America.
 > 
 > There was a big 'Fuck You' from the separated Friends..
 > It was not that so many Friends of that time were not also abolitionists.
 > (Sort of like meditators seeing saints)
 > This was a guide-lining administrative application of this one rigid guy.
 > Reconciliation was not possible the way it was done under Indiana Yearly 
 > Meeting.
 > 
 > The separated Friends eventually were invited back after the old clerk had 
 > died and passed away. 
 > Actually, it became his son who subsequently became the new Clerk of Indiana 
 > Yearly Meeting and went out inviting old Friends back after the old man was 
 > gone. That next generation.
 > 
 > Lot of parallel.
 > 
 > Like quite a lot of Meditators in the dome now have gone to saints or 
 > spiritual healers either(!). Given the personalities, it will probably not 
 > be until a time comes after one current Prime Minister that anything like a 
 > reconciliation in the TM movement could happen. But like the Society of 
 > Friends, with the loss of a lot of membership, shakti and resource in the 
 > meantime that had previously been there. The Quakers never really recovered 
 > the same after that old man's work had been done to the Society in those 
 > years.
 > 
 > A good lesson. 
 > 
 > -Buck
 > 
 > 
 > > Well, the longer they keep willing people out of the Domes, the less 
 > > likely it is that they will ever return, even if restrictions are lifted 
 > > some day or some year. I would say if the policy is ever to be changed, 
 > > the Rajas should do it really soon. Or when they open the doors, there 
 > > won't be anyone waiting to come in.
 > >
 > 
 > 
 > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 > > "Buck"  wrote:
 > > >
 > > > 
 > > > 
 > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 > > > mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71"  wrote:
 > > > >
 > > > > 
 > > > > 
 > > > > --- 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers and Super Storms

[Michael Jackson]

Buck, don't be so sure the Settles are behind the move - if Big Bopper Bevan 
and the others TMO Top Dogs can get the money shifted to the Latin American 
countries where the financial oversight is harder to achieve than here in the 
US, Big Bopper and the boys at the top including Girish and the Srivastavas 
boys have a better chance of stealing it than if it is actually supporting 
broke TM'ers here in the US of A.





 From: Buck dhamiltony...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:30 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers and Super Storms
 


  


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

 
  
 
 Hypocrite:
 
 adjective
 
 1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue
 or religion
 2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her
 stated beliefs or feelings
 
 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite
 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite
 
 
 
   Wow, $100,000,000 goes into Invincible America and
   you *still* get tornadoes?
  
   Are the Settle's feeling sick or what!

That is interesting.  A real failure within the Invincibility Dome numbers is 
that the guidelines they use to feel people out has effectively made hypocrites 
of us all as a community.  It is appalling to a lot of people.  Bevan wants to 
fealty test and punish people and people have generally said fuck you we are 
not that. 

I spoke with a friend just recently who got his badge back after they urged him 
to lie about seeing saints.  He got the badge but feels so compromised by the 
reality of the process that he just threw it in his desk drawer and will not 
go.  This is an old-time really strong and bright lit TM-meditator.  The 
Failure of the Dome numbers simply has gone way back to Bevan and his 
authoritarian sense of faith and belief in Maharishi.  We're stuck and no 
wonder the Settles and Rudney's could feel chagrined that they never really got 
the numbers they hoped for.  It's a shame. 


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers and Super Storms

[Buck]

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

 
  
 
 Hypocrite:
 
 adjective
 
 1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue
 or religion
 2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her
 stated beliefs or feelings
 
 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite
 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite
 
 
 
   Wow, $100,000,000 goes into Invincible America and
   you *still* get tornadoes?
  
   Are the Settle's feeling sick or what!

That is interesting.  A real failure within the Invincibility Dome numbers is 
that the guidelines they use to feel people out has effectively made hypocrites 
of us all as a community.  It is appalling to a lot of people.  Bevan wants to 
fealty test and punish people and people have generally said fuck you we are 
not that.  

I spoke with a friend just recently who got his badge back after they urged him 
to lie about seeing saints.  He got the badge but feels so compromised by the 
reality of the process that he just threw it in his desk drawer and will not 
go.  This is an old-time really strong and bright lit TM-meditator.  The 
Failure of the Dome numbers simply has gone way back to Bevan and his 
authoritarian sense of faith and belief in Maharishi.  We're stuck and no 
wonder the Settles and Rudney's could feel chagrined that they never really got 
the numbers they hoped for.  It's a shame.   

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[Buck]

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

 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote:
 
  Sorry to inform you from Fairfield, the Dome numbers have been in
 decline for some time.
 
  If some of you could make meditation a priority again, leave your life
 elsewhere and join the group it would be very good for everyone.  Please
 help as you can even if you do not like the TM movement.  There is
 something larger going on here.  We could use your good attention and
 support for the large group meditation again.  Please help as best you
 can
 
   -Buck
 
 Community dome numbers Dec. 2011 to yesterday (average of morning and
 evening programmes):
 
   [Graph:Community dome numbers 20111201 to 20130218]
 
 
 
 
 Buck, people meditate and do other techniques for various reasons.
 Suppose TM and its related techniques actually work. Say a certain
 percent of meditators in Fairfield are in Brahman consciousness. What is
 the reason they would use these techniques for? They would be, in the
 definition of the TMO, enlightened and fulfilled. The techniques have
 fulfilled their purpose. So what would be their use now? Whatever state
 they were purposed for is now a persistent experience, why practice
 them? MMY said 'It is important only that we radiate life.' If someone
 is, in fact, in such a state, why would they have to do something extra 
 to have that effect, other than just being what they are?


Suppose, suppose, suppose.  Dear Xeno,You supposin', a lot.  Yes, quite clearly 
the field effect of spirituality is environmental and our spirituality 
radiating can be progressive in affect in a physics that is even humanitarian.  
  But, Xeno the field effect of the divine experience in the human form is 
certainly within human experience and the science is just getting its hands 
around that.  You might enjoy more reading, some Meher Baba.   'God Speaks'  
about awakening and the divine in human form of experience on earth.  Of course 
there is way more to experience while you're here and the enlightened do 
continue to meditate to good affect.  Some don't by personality.  'Make good 
use of your time'.
http://www.ambppct.org/meherbaba/Book_Files/godspeaks_p1.pdf

Love,
-Buck  


 
 Note the dome numbers tally in the invincible America website has the
 following report:
 
 Due to technical difficulties, tallies beginning in late November (as of
 11-27) are not correct. This problem is being diligently addressed. We
 appreciate your understanding. This link will also be undergoing changes
 in format as well as updated information. Please check back for progress
 soon!
 
 In other words, an error that has been present in the tallies since Nov.
 11 has been diligently addressed, and not yet fixed after over two and a
 half months. Note that the graph in this post does not use the erroneous
 tallies, just the community part of the totals.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

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

 Sorry to inform you from Fairfield, the Dome numbers have been in
decline for some time.

 If some of you could make meditation a priority again, leave your life
elsewhere and join the group it would be very good for everyone.  Please
help as you can even if you do not like the TM movement.  There is
something larger going on here.  We could use your good attention and
support for the large group meditation again.  Please help as best you
can

  -Buck

Community dome numbers Dec. 2011 to yesterday (average of morning and
evening programmes):

  [Graph:Community dome numbers 20111201 to 20130218]




Buck, people meditate and do other techniques for various reasons.
Suppose TM and its related techniques actually work. Say a certain
percent of meditators in Fairfield are in Brahman consciousness. What is
the reason they would use these techniques for? They would be, in the
definition of the TMO, enlightened and fulfilled. The techniques have
fulfilled their purpose. So what would be their use now? Whatever state
they were purposed for is now a persistent experience, why practice
them? MMY said 'It is important only that we radiate life.' If someone
is, in fact, in such a state, why would they have to do something extra 
to have that effect, other than just being what they are?

Note the dome numbers tally in the invincible America website has the
following report:

Due to technical difficulties, tallies beginning in late November (as of
11-27) are not correct. This problem is being diligently addressed. We
appreciate your understanding. This link will also be undergoing changes
in format as well as updated information. Please check back for progress
soon!

In other words, an error that has been present in the tallies since Nov.
11 has been diligently addressed, and not yet fixed after over two and a
half months. Note that the graph in this post does not use the erroneous
tallies, just the community part of the totals.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[nablusoss1008]

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

 Om BTW,  I got a Dome badge.  They called and they re-wrote the whole 'course 
 agreement' form to make it less 'onerous'.  And of course earlier they gave 
 me an exemption to be able to see saints for reasons of my health and a 
 stipulation that only TM techniques are to be practiced in the dome program.  
 So it all worked out, it has taken 12 years of re-application.  I went today 
 both this morning and evening for meditation and yes the domes are fabulous 
 places for meditation.  You all should ought to come along too.  It's a 
 special place and you'd proly like it.
 -Buck in FF


That's brilliant news Buck, congratulations ! 

Jai Guru Dev

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote:
 Dear Susan,  No, that is not actually what happened.  The dome program 
 administrators have not 'forgiving' anyone.  The dome program guidelines have 
 not changed at all.  They gave me an exemption to be able to see saints for 
 my health with a stipulation that I not be practicing other spiritual 
 techniques in the dome program.  


I know it's a long shot, but what if another saint actaully 
improves your health? Are you allowed to talk about to other 
people in the domes? Seems like that is just the sort of dis-
conformation of TM stuff they want to avoid.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[Susan]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote:
  Dear Susan,  No, that is not actually what happened.  The dome program 
  administrators have not 'forgiving' anyone.  The dome program guidelines 
  have not changed at all.  They gave me an exemption to be able to see 
  saints for my health with a stipulation that I not be practicing other 
  spiritual techniques in the dome program.  
 

Oh, well, I guess I assumed too much of the best possible outcome. Still, 
someone in there is being reasonable and compassionate enough to lower some 
barriers to let at least you in.  Or did you pester them until they caved?
 
 I know it's a long shot, but what if another saint actaully 
 improves your health? Are you allowed to talk about to other 
 people in the domes? Seems like that is just the sort of dis-
 conformation of TM stuff they want to avoid.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[awoelflebater]

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



 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@ wrote:
 
 
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey no_reply@ wrote:
   snip
Judy would love to attend
  
   Not if they paid me.
  
but all the crazy shit she writes
is an embarrassment to the Dome administrators and her
extensive psychiatric care, probably ignored in the 70's
would be a huge red flag now.
 
  AZ, this is a mean and low blow.  You know it. Depression can hit
anyone, even you.  It is an illness, like cancer or high blood pressure.
Judy took care of it and thank God it did not return.



 I'm hurt Wayback. You heard me, hurt. And disappointed.
 Hurt, disappointed and surprised. Surprised that you so
 easily fell for Judy's sophistry. As you can clearly see, I made
 no allegation of depression, that was a purely mendacious
 canard by Judy in a malicious and sadistic attempt to
 terroristically discredit me and make me look like the bad guy.

 My statement was a prologue to a Modest Proposal , and *all*
 that entails, of an explanation of her behavior that entails
 multiple sessions of electro-convulsive therapy, probably weekly
 over a course of several years. It really would explain her
 subsequent behavior. After all, that therapy was still rather crude
 in the 1970's and often resulted in many extraneous neural
 pathways permanently severed.

 I would also suggest the possibility of her eating her own children
 but that isn't credible as the likelihood of her finding a male of the
 species to actually engage in coitus with her is highly unlikely.

Quick Raunchy, another classic for the misogynist Hall of Fame.



  
   Sorry, az, I know you thought you were revealing something
   that would embarrass me, but as it happens I've described
   my clinical depression at least five times here (and before
   that a number of times on alt.m.t).
  
   You're right, in 1975, a couple of years after I'd recovered
   and was no longer under a therapist's care, I applied to
   learn TM, and my psychiatric record was not an obstacle. Nor
   was it an obstacle when I applied for the TM-Siddhis in the
   mid-'80s.
  
   I seriously doubt it would be an obstacle to admission to
   the dome now either, since I've had no recurrence for 40
   years.
  
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[Susan]

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

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@ wrote:
 
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey no_reply@ wrote:
   snip
Judy would love to attend
   
   Not if they paid me.
   
but all the crazy shit she writes 
is an embarrassment to the Dome administrators and her
extensive psychiatric care, probably ignored in the 70's
would be a huge red flag now.
  
  AZ, this is a mean and low blow.  You know it. Depression can hit anyone, 
  even you.  It is an illness, like cancer or high blood pressure.  Judy took 
  care of it and thank God it did not return.
 
 
 
 I'm hurt Wayback. You heard me, hurt. And disappointed.
 Hurt, disappointed and surprised. Surprised that you so 
 easily fell for Judy's sophistry. As you can clearly see, I made
 no allegation of depression, that was a purely mendacious 
 canard by Judy in a malicious and sadistic attempt to 
 terroristically discredit me and make me look like the bad guy.
 
 My statement was a prologue to a Modest Proposal , and *all*
 that entails, of an explanation of her behavior that entails 
 multiple sessions of electro-convulsive therapy, probably weekly
 over a course of several years. It really would explain her 
 subsequent behavior. After all, that therapy was still rather crude
 in the 1970's and often resulted in many extraneous neural
 pathways permanently severed. 
 
 I would also suggest the possibility of her eating her own children
 but that isn't credible as the likelihood of her finding a male of the
 species to actually engage in coitus with her is highly unlikely.   


I hear you, AZ.  And I read you.  Always.  Here on FFL that is. Still do.

 Here is where I was coming from: I work with people who have various problems, 
things like depression, suicidal ideation, anxiety, etc.  Sensitive area for 
me. And I react when those types of disorders are used to put down someone or 
criticize them.  Not that I don't fall into that mode myself from time to time. 
 Seems more than habit, maybe human nature.  But with all the science out about 
the brain, it seems we all need to get out of that way of thinking if we can.

But, I also might, just might I say, have over reacted.  You are forgiven!

  

 
 
 
 
   
   Sorry, az, I know you thought you were revealing something
   that would embarrass me, but as it happens I've described
   my clinical depression at least five times here (and before
   that a number of times on alt.m.t).
   
   You're right, in 1975, a couple of years after I'd recovered
   and was no longer under a therapist's care, I applied to
   learn TM, and my psychiatric record was not an obstacle. Nor
   was it an obstacle when I applied for the TM-Siddhis in the
   mid-'80s.
   
   I seriously doubt it would be an obstacle to admission to
   the dome now either, since I've had no recurrence for 40
   years.
  
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey no_reply@... wrote:
snip 
 My statement was a prologue to a Modest Proposal , and 
 *all* that entails, of an explanation of her behavior that
 entails multiple sessions of electro-convulsive therapy,
 probably weekly over a course of several years. It really
 would explain her subsequent behavior. After all, that
 therapy was still rather crude in the 1970's and often
 resulted in many extraneous neural pathways permanently
 severed. 

Nope, never had ECT. The depression wasn't severe enough,
thank goodness.

Try again.

 I would also suggest the possibility of her eating her own
 children but that isn't credible as the likelihood of her
 finding a male of the species to actually engage in coitus
 with her is highly unlikely.   

Oh, more than one, actually (not at the same time, however).
But either they or I took precautions, so no kids resulted.
Also thank goodness.

That's three strikes, counting the initial failed attempt
at a Big Reveal.

I guess az is one of the people on FFL Barry was referring
to who nurse their anger for years. The odd thing is that
he's never had the guts to tell me what it was I did to
him to provoke this anger.

 

 
   Sorry, az, I know you thought you were revealing something
   that would embarrass me, but as it happens I've described
   my clinical depression at least five times here (and before
   that a number of times on alt.m.t).
   
   You're right, in 1975, a couple of years after I'd recovered
   and was no longer under a therapist's care, I applied to
   learn TM, and my psychiatric record was not an obstacle. Nor
   was it an obstacle when I applied for the TM-Siddhis in the
   mid-'80s.
   
   I seriously doubt it would be an obstacle to admission to
   the dome now either, since I've had no recurrence for 40
   years.
  
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[raunchydog]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey no_reply@ wrote:
 snip 
  My statement was a prologue to a Modest Proposal , and 
  *all* that entails, of an explanation of her behavior that
  entails multiple sessions of electro-convulsive therapy,
  probably weekly over a course of several years. It really
  would explain her subsequent behavior. After all, that
  therapy was still rather crude in the 1970's and often
  resulted in many extraneous neural pathways permanently
  severed. 
 
 Nope, never had ECT. The depression wasn't severe enough,
 thank goodness.
 
 Try again.
 
  I would also suggest the possibility of her eating her own
  children but that isn't credible as the likelihood of her
  finding a male of the species to actually engage in coitus
  with her is highly unlikely.   
 
 Oh, more than one, actually (not at the same time, however).
 But either they or I took precautions, so no kids resulted.
 Also thank goodness.
 
 That's three strikes, counting the initial failed attempt
 at a Big Reveal.
 
 I guess az is one of the people on FFL Barry was referring
 to who nurse their anger for years. The odd thing is that
 he's never had the guts to tell me what it was I did to
 him to provoke this anger.
 

Other than the fact that you are a woman and he can't bullshit you into 
becoming an adoring ass kisser, azgrey has no reason to hate you, nor does he 
have the guts to recognize his own misogyny.  
  
 
  
Sorry, az, I know you thought you were revealing something
that would embarrass me, but as it happens I've described
my clinical depression at least five times here (and before
that a number of times on alt.m.t).

You're right, in 1975, a couple of years after I'd recovered
and was no longer under a therapist's care, I applied to
learn TM, and my psychiatric record was not an obstacle. Nor
was it an obstacle when I applied for the TM-Siddhis in the
mid-'80s.

I seriously doubt it would be an obstacle to admission to
the dome now either, since I've had no recurrence for 40
years.
   
  
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote:
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
snip
  I guess az is one of the people on FFL Barry was referring
  to who nurse their anger for years. The odd thing is that
  he's never had the guts to tell me what it was I did to
  him to provoke this anger.
 
 Other than the fact that you are a woman and he can't bullshit
 you into becoming an adoring ass kisser, azgrey has no reason
 to hate you, nor does he have the guts to recognize his own 
 misogyny.

Roger on that last. But I do suspect he and I may have
tangled at some point back on alt.meditation.transcendental.
His hatred seems very personal. If so, he's using a different
handle now, and I have no idea who he was then. I must have
beaten the crap out of him.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[raunchydog]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 snip
   I guess az is one of the people on FFL Barry was referring
   to who nurse their anger for years. The odd thing is that
   he's never had the guts to tell me what it was I did to
   him to provoke this anger.
  
  Other than the fact that you are a woman and he can't bullshit
  you into becoming an adoring ass kisser, azgrey has no reason
  to hate you, nor does he have the guts to recognize his own 
  misogyny.
 
 Roger on that last. But I do suspect he and I may have
 tangled at some point back on alt.meditation.transcendental.
 His hatred seems very personal. If so, he's using a different
 handle now, and I have no idea who he was then. I must have
 beaten the crap out of him.


Black lace and leather become you.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[azgrey]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey no_reply@ wrote:
  snip
   Judy would love to attend
  
  Not if they paid me.
  
   but all the crazy shit she writes 
   is an embarrassment to the Dome administrators and her
   extensive psychiatric care, probably ignored in the 70's
   would be a huge red flag now.
 
 AZ, this is a mean and low blow.  You know it. Depression can hit anyone, 
 even you.  It is an illness, like cancer or high blood pressure.  Judy took 
 care of it and thank God it did not return.



I'm hurt Wayback. You heard me, hurt. And disappointed.
Hurt, disappointed and surprised. Surprised that you so 
easily fell for Judy's sophistry. As you can clearly see, I made
no allegation of depression, that was a purely mendacious 
canard by Judy in a malicious and sadistic attempt to 
terroristically discredit me and make me look like the bad guy.

My statement was a prologue to a Modest Proposal , and *all*
that entails, of an explanation of her behavior that entails 
multiple sessions of electro-convulsive therapy, probably weekly
over a course of several years. It really would explain her 
subsequent behavior. After all, that therapy was still rather crude
in the 1970's and often resulted in many extraneous neural
pathways permanently severed. 

I would also suggest the possibility of her eating her own children
but that isn't credible as the likelihood of her finding a male of the
species to actually engage in coitus with her is highly unlikely.   




  
  Sorry, az, I know you thought you were revealing something
  that would embarrass me, but as it happens I've described
  my clinical depression at least five times here (and before
  that a number of times on alt.m.t).
  
  You're right, in 1975, a couple of years after I'd recovered
  and was no longer under a therapist's care, I applied to
  learn TM, and my psychiatric record was not an obstacle. Nor
  was it an obstacle when I applied for the TM-Siddhis in the
  mid-'80s.
  
  I seriously doubt it would be an obstacle to admission to
  the dome now either, since I've had no recurrence for 40
  years.
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[raunchydog]

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

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@ wrote:
 
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey no_reply@ wrote:
   snip
Judy would love to attend
   
   Not if they paid me.
   
but all the crazy shit she writes 
is an embarrassment to the Dome administrators and her
extensive psychiatric care, probably ignored in the 70's
would be a huge red flag now.
  
  AZ, this is a mean and low blow.  You know it. Depression can hit anyone, 
  even you.  It is an illness, like cancer or high blood pressure.  Judy took 
  care of it and thank God it did not return.
 
 
 
 I'm hurt Wayback. You heard me, hurt. And disappointed.
 Hurt, disappointed and surprised. Surprised that you so 
 easily fell for Judy's sophistry. As you can clearly see, I made
 no allegation of depression, that was a purely mendacious 
 canard by Judy in a malicious and sadistic attempt to 
 terroristically discredit me and make me look like the bad guy.

Judy didn't make you look like the bad guy. You did that all by yourself and 
you're stupidly doing it again. Step away from the thesaurus and crawl back 
under your rock. Your glib is showing.

 
 My statement was a prologue to a Modest Proposal , and *all*
 that entails, of an explanation of her behavior that entails 
 multiple sessions of electro-convulsive therapy, probably weekly
 over a course of several years. It really would explain her 
 subsequent behavior. After all, that therapy was still rather crude
 in the 1970's and often resulted in many extraneous neural
 pathways permanently severed. 
 
 I would also suggest the possibility of her eating her own children
 but that isn't credible as the likelihood of her finding a male of the
 species to actually engage in coitus with her is highly unlikely.   
 
 
 
 
   
   Sorry, az, I know you thought you were revealing something
   that would embarrass me, but as it happens I've described
   my clinical depression at least five times here (and before
   that a number of times on alt.m.t).
   
   You're right, in 1975, a couple of years after I'd recovered
   and was no longer under a therapist's care, I applied to
   learn TM, and my psychiatric record was not an obstacle. Nor
   was it an obstacle when I applied for the TM-Siddhis in the
   mid-'80s.
   
   I seriously doubt it would be an obstacle to admission to
   the dome now either, since I've had no recurrence for 40
   years.
  
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[azgrey]

Haven't you been paying attention in class Emily? :-)

Didn't you know Raunchy helped build the Golden Dome
with her own little faux-feminist hands? She daily goes 
and bounces on the ever widening expanse of her behind 
there to prevent World War III. or something like that. 
It's not at all a cultist kinda thing.

Judy would love to attend but all the crazy shit she writes 
is an embarrassment to the Dome administrators and her
extensive psychiatric care, probably ignored in the 70's
would be a huge red flag now. 




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

 Butt Bouncing in the Golden Dome of Pure Knowledge.  If that 'ain't 
 completely surreal, I don't know what is.  Just the name of the facility is 
 completely over the top.  What gives?  

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[Buck]

Remedial Golden Domes 
see:

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



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

 
 
 Haven't you been paying attention in class Emily? :-)
 
 Didn't you know Raunchy helped build the Golden Dome
 with her own little faux-feminist hands? She daily goes 
 and bounces on the ever widening expanse of her behind 
 there to prevent World War III. or something like that. 
 It's not at all a cultist kinda thing.
 
 Judy would love to attend but all the crazy shit she writes 
 is an embarrassment to the Dome administrators and her
 extensive psychiatric care, probably ignored in the 70's
 would be a huge red flag now. 
 
 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote:
 
  Butt Bouncing in the Golden Dome of Pure Knowledge.  If that 'ain't 
  completely surreal, I don't know what is.  Just the name of the facility 
  is completely over the top.  What gives?  

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[awoelflebater]

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

 
 
 Haven't you been paying attention in class Emily? :-)
 
 Didn't you know Raunchy helped build the Golden Dome
 with her own little faux-feminist hands? She daily goes 
 and bounces on the ever widening expanse of her behind 
 there to prevent World War III. or something like that. 
 It's not at all a cultist kinda thing.
 
 Judy would love to attend but all the crazy shit she writes 
 is an embarrassment to the Dome administrators and her
 extensive psychiatric care, probably ignored in the 70's
 would be a huge red flag now. 

Its time to shut down your computer, you aren't contributing to anything 
worthwhile by writing whatever it is you think you are writing. All you are 
doing is riding on the coat tails of the other assholes around here, proving 
yourself to be nothing other than annoying. Go away.
 
 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote:
 
  Butt Bouncing in the Golden Dome of Pure Knowledge.  If that 'ain't 
  completely surreal, I don't know what is.  Just the name of the facility 
  is completely over the top.  What gives?  

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[seventhray1]

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

 A contract of adhesion isn't necessarily invalid, but adhesion
contracts, due to the imbalance of power between the two contracting
parties are often found to be unconscionable and, consequently,
invalid.
I knew it!  I just knew!  It is a bully contract.  Buck are you going to
stand for being bullied by these people?  Marek, this could be an
opportunity for you to make your mark on the legal profession.
A contract of adhesion make also be invalid on account that it
incorporates elements of bullying, and bullying has been defined
as..(wait, have to get back to you on that,  mama just
called me to dinner-sorry)

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey no_reply@... wrote:
snip
 Judy would love to attend

Not if they paid me.

 but all the crazy shit she writes 
 is an embarrassment to the Dome administrators and her
 extensive psychiatric care, probably ignored in the 70's
 would be a huge red flag now.

Sorry, az, I know you thought you were revealing something
that would embarrass me, but as it happens I've described
my clinical depression at least five times here (and before
that a number of times on alt.m.t).

You're right, in 1975, a couple of years after I'd recovered
and was no longer under a therapist's care, I applied to
learn TM, and my psychiatric record was not an obstacle. Nor
was it an obstacle when I applied for the TM-Siddhis in the
mid-'80s.

I seriously doubt it would be an obstacle to admission to
the dome now either, since I've had no recurrence for 40
years.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[Susan]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey no_reply@ wrote:
 snip
  Judy would love to attend
 
 Not if they paid me.
 
  but all the crazy shit she writes 
  is an embarrassment to the Dome administrators and her
  extensive psychiatric care, probably ignored in the 70's
  would be a huge red flag now.

AZ, this is a mean and low blow.  You know it. Depression can hit anyone, even 
you.  It is an illness, like cancer or high blood pressure.  Judy took care of 
it and thank God it did not return.
 
 Sorry, az, I know you thought you were revealing something
 that would embarrass me, but as it happens I've described
 my clinical depression at least five times here (and before
 that a number of times on alt.m.t).
 
 You're right, in 1975, a couple of years after I'd recovered
 and was no longer under a therapist's care, I applied to
 learn TM, and my psychiatric record was not an obstacle. Nor
 was it an obstacle when I applied for the TM-Siddhis in the
 mid-'80s.
 
 I seriously doubt it would be an obstacle to admission to
 the dome now either, since I've had no recurrence for 40
 years.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@... wrote:
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey no_reply@ wrote:
  snip
   Judy would love to attend
  
  Not if they paid me.
  
   but all the crazy shit she writes 
   is an embarrassment to the Dome administrators and her
   extensive psychiatric care, probably ignored in the 70's
   would be a huge red flag now.
 
 AZ, this is a mean and low blow.

He *hoped* it would be. That's just the kinda guy he is.
But he screwed up, because I have no problem whatsoever
with folks knowing about it. I've brought it up myself
and am happy to discuss it with anyone who's interested.
It wasn't a pleasant experience, but it was a valuable
one that, in retrospect, I wouldn't have missed for
anything.

The prognosis for a recurrence, as it happens, wasn't
good. I think the likelihood that I'd have had one, or
more, if I hadn't started TM is pretty high.



 You know it. Depression can hit anyone, even you.  It is an illness, like 
 cancer or high blood pressure.  Judy took care of it and thank God it did not 
 return.
  
  Sorry, az, I know you thought you were revealing something
  that would embarrass me, but as it happens I've described
  my clinical depression at least five times here (and before
  that a number of times on alt.m.t).
  
  You're right, in 1975, a couple of years after I'd recovered
  and was no longer under a therapist's care, I applied to
  learn TM, and my psychiatric record was not an obstacle. Nor
  was it an obstacle when I applied for the TM-Siddhis in the
  mid-'80s.
  
  I seriously doubt it would be an obstacle to admission to
  the dome now either, since I've had no recurrence for 40
  years.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[Emily Reyn]

snip
The dome for men is formally known as the Maharishi Patanjali Golden Dome of 
Pure Knowledge and the dome for ladies is the Bagambhrini Golden Dome of Pure 
Knowledge, but they are commonly called the Men's Dome and the Ladies' 
Dome. Buildings used for Yogic Flying, such as the Golden Domes, are known 
generically as flying halls. The Golden Domes were the first structures built 
specifically for Yogic Flying.


O, this makes *way* more sense.  Glad to see they separate the men from 
the ladies.send me a link on why that is?  



 From: Buck dhamiltony...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2012 3:36 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The  Dome  Numbers
 

  
Remedial Golden Domes 
see:

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

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

 
 
 Haven't you been paying attention in class Emily? :-)
 
 Didn't you know Raunchy helped build the Golden Dome
 with her own little faux-feminist hands? She daily goes 
 and bounces on the ever widening expanse of her behind 
 there to prevent World War III. or something like that. 
 It's not at all a cultist kinda thing.
 
 Judy would love to attend but all the crazy shit she writes 
 is an embarrassment to the Dome administrators and her
 extensive psychiatric care, probably ignored in the 70's
 would be a huge red flag now. 
 
 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote:
 
  Butt Bouncing in the Golden Dome of Pure Knowledge.  If that 'ain't 
  completely surreal, I don't know what is.  Just the name of the facility 
  is completely over the top.  What gives?  



 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[Emily Reyn]

Yep, I must say, this is the most credible statement I've heard re: the 
benefits of TM :).  



 From: authfriend jst...@panix.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2012 5:21 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The  Dome  Numbers
 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@... wrote:
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey no_reply@ wrote:
  snip
   Judy would love to attend
  
  Not if they paid me.
  
   but all the crazy shit she writes 
   is an embarrassment to the Dome administrators and her
   extensive psychiatric care, probably ignored in the 70's
   would be a huge red flag now.
 
 AZ, this is a mean and low blow.

He *hoped* it would be. That's just the kinda guy he is.
But he screwed up, because I have no problem whatsoever
with folks knowing about it. I've brought it up myself
and am happy to discuss it with anyone who's interested.
It wasn't a pleasant experience, but it was a valuable
one that, in retrospect, I wouldn't have missed for
anything.

The prognosis for a recurrence, as it happens, wasn't
good. I think the likelihood that I'd have had one, or
more, if I hadn't started TM is pretty high.

 You know it. Depression can hit anyone, even you.  It is an illness, like 
 cancer or high blood pressure.  Judy took care of it and thank God it did not 
 return.
  
  Sorry, az, I know you thought you were revealing something
  that would embarrass me, but as it happens I've described
  my clinical depression at least five times here (and before
  that a number of times on alt.m.t).
  
  You're right, in 1975, a couple of years after I'd recovered
  and was no longer under a therapist's care, I applied to
  learn TM, and my psychiatric record was not an obstacle. Nor
  was it an obstacle when I applied for the TM-Siddhis in the
  mid-'80s.
  
  I seriously doubt it would be an obstacle to admission to
  the dome now either, since I've had no recurrence for 40
  years.


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[authfriend]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
 [To Emily]
  I sat there and took photo after photo after photo. I think
  I ended up taking over 50 shots before I got one that looked
  like me. And all of them were better than the usual result
  from a snapshot
 
 Photography is a pretty mechanical process. All photos that
 we have of ourselves look like us.

Duh. It's rare that a photo will be so bad that the person
can't be recognized. Look like me is a shorthand way of
conveying a subtle and complex phenomenon (as I suspect you
know). To focus on the semantic inaccuracy of the phrase
and claim (as Barry has) that it means the idea of not being 
photogenic is false is just silly.

 They just tend to not look like how we like to see ourselves.

No, it's more than that, actually. Often other people whom
one knows will agree about the quality of a photo. And the
flattening effect on a person's looks is well known to
photographers.

Wikipedia has an article on this:

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

And WikiHow has a neat article on how to maximize one's
photogenicity:

http://www.wikihow.com/Be-Photogenic

 When we see a person 'live', we do not see just a moment
 frozen in time, we see motion, different angles of view,
 we see in a sense an average of thousands of views all
 merged into memory. When we see one of those moments
 captured by photography, it's not that composite
 impression we have of others,

This is part of it. However, the difference can be seen
as well in a stereogram, which is also static but which
simulates the 3D effect of seeing with two eyes rather
than the single camera lens.

 or of ourselves, looking in a mirror.

This is correct, because the mirror image is effectively
3D, and of course it also reflects any motion, such as
turning one's head from side to side to see one's face
at different angles. 

 When you look at a video, you are seeing 30 still images
 per second, so in a one minute video you have looked at
 1,800 still photographs.

At many different angles in sequence (assuming the person
and the camera aren't remaining stock-still). This also
creates a 3D effect.

The 3D effect is really the most significant factor. The
Wikipedia Photogenic article lists some others as well,
including the fact that a still photo is rarely able to
capture a person's charisma, the magnetism of their
personality.

 Most people's faces have a noticeable asymmetry. When we
 see a photo of ourselves, we compare it with our memory
 of seeing ourselves in a mirror. The asymmetry seems much
 more pronounced in this situation because it is reversed
 than when we see photos of others. This is another reason
 why we think a photo of us does not look like us.

That's another part of it, but again the 3D effect is
much more important.

I found taking the Webcam photos pretty much eliminated
any sense I had of the asymmetry discrepancy between
mirror image and photo. Looking at myself via the Webcam
quickly became like looking in a mirror, but with the
asymmetry reversed. Somehow my brain has now filed my
mirror image and my Webcam image in separate locations,
so I don't tend to see one as a distorted version of the
other. I'd guess that people who frequently have photos
taken of them--models, for example--also quickly get
used to the reversal of the asymmetry.

 You can take a DVD or Blu-ray disc with attractive actors
 and actresses, and stop frame close ups of their faces,
 and view each still separately, and most of the time,
 they do not look so hot - eyes half open, distorted mouth,
 blank stares.

True, but of course this wouldn't be comparable to a posed
photograph. (Although folks sometimes blink just as a 
photo is being taken, and the camera can capture them with
closed or half-closed eyes.)

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  Turns out I have a couple of posts left...
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
  anartaxius@ wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 snip
  
  Not surprising that you're unable to bring yourself to
  cop to your double standards.
 
 It is a double standard if I agree with Curtis but not
 with you?

No, it's a double standard if you object to my mindreading
but not to Curtis's. You snipped the context. Let's look at
it again:

  That Curtis is terrified of me is my observation, not my
  dream. If he weren't terrified, he wouldn't have to be
  such a dirty fighter.
 
  This is absurd Judy. An act of mind reading.
 
  I would fully expect, Xeno, that you would leap on an
  instance you perceived to be mindreading on my part and
  completely ignore all those that Curtis has indulged in
  in this discussion, starting with the claim that I was
  *deliberately* misusing bully and then accusing me of
  lying when I said I was using it as I understood it; and
  

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[Richard J. Williams]

azgrey:
 ...a grasping, unscrupulous woman.
  
You sound really scared, you bottom-poster!

 hmmm, rapacious monstera grasping and 
 unscrupulous woman...
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

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

[To Emily]
 I sat there and took photo after photo after photo. I think
 I ended up taking over 50 shots before I got one that looked
 like me. And all of them were better than the usual result
 from a snapshot


Photography is a pretty mechanical process. All photos that we have of 
ourselves look like us. They just tend to not look like how we like to see 
ourselves. When we see a person 'live', we do not see just a moment frozen in 
time, we see motion, different angles of view, we see in a sense an average of 
thousands of views all merged into memory. When we see one of those moments 
captured by photography, it's not that composite impression we have of others, 
or of ourselves, looking in a mirror. When you look at a video, you are seeing 
30 still images per second, so in a one minute video you have looked at 1,800 
still photographs. 

This is why it takes so many still photographs to get a portrait of ourselves, 
or of others that corresponds to the average impression we have. Once I saw a 
set of proof sheets a photographer had of Raquel Welch - 400 images - from 
which one was selected. We look for the one image that best fits that average 
impression, or the impression we are trying to create. Even so, all the ones we 
don't like still look like us. Another aspect of this. Most people's faces have 
a noticeable asymmetry. When we see a photo of ourselves, we compare it with 
our memory of seeing ourselves in a mirror. The asymmetry seems much more 
pronounced in this situation because it is reversed than when we see photos of 
others. This is another reason why we think a photo of us does not look like us.

You can take a DVD or Blu-ray disc with attractive actors and actresses, and 
stop frame close ups of their faces, and view each still separately, and most 
of the time, they do not look so hot - eyes half open, distorted mouth, blank 
stares. 

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

 Turns out I have a couple of posts left...
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ 
 wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
snip
 
 Not surprising that you're unable to bring yourself to
 cop to your double standards.

It is a double standard if I agree with Curtis but not with you? Agreement or 
disagreement is not necessarily based on some standard yardstick, and it is 
most certainly not based on criteria that is not agreed on before hand by the 
parties involved. In informal discourse like here, I think we tend to be our 
own standard, and the rest be damned.

snip

 As for my analysis, maybe it is indeed wrong, but just 
 pointing out that it is wrong doesn't cut it.
 
 I suggested a way for you to figure out for yourself why
 it's wrong. I'm not going to do your homework for you. 

I really do not care for homework, and I have not assigned the right for you to 
give me any.

 Now, if you want to go back and do a close reading of
 the argument from the beginning, and you come upon
 something specific you don't understand, copy and paste
 it into a post to me and explain what confuses you about
 it. Then I'll take a crack at clarifying it.

That is a kind gesture, and maybe I will take you up on it sometime. Thank you.
 
 You are showing that preemptive dismissal that seems to be
 a hallmark of Barry's technique.
 
 Actually Barry's technique is quite different and used
 for different reasons.

Maybe, but we are really not all that different from one another when we 
respond to a challenge, especially when it comes to name calling. When I was 
reading some of your exchanges with Skolnick, both of you seemed pretty much 
the same to me, regardless of how much in your own mind you may have felt there 
was a difference.

 snip
 Now if both you and Curtis read all this, then I hypothesise
 that nothing or something will happen as a result, and that
 is not saying anything of course. I have been following this 
 argument with interest kind of like a bystander, but I do
 seem to have gotten sucked into it for other reasons than
 the nature of the specific issue between you and Curtis.
 
 You do seem to have decided you were going to involve
 yourself in it. I don't think anyone did anything to
 suck you in. Now, why do you think you decided to get
 involved? I have a couple of theories, but I'll let you
 go first.

I sucked myself in. Intrigued by the endless disparities on both sides. My view 
at the beginning about the subject of the discussion was pretty much like 
Curtis's based on my own experiences. Perhaps I ought extract myself from this 
thread. The views on bullying I read on some web sites does indicate there is 
more complex thought on the issue than was in this thread, and than what my 
impression was at the beginning. The argument on this thread still just seems 
pointless. The concept of power differential, real or attempted, 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[Richard J. Williams]

authfriend:
 I need to update that one photo anyway;
 it's now over four years old. I may have
 to wait till August, when I took that
 one, though, to get the right light
 through the window.

Yeah, I know what you mean - see that Apple
G4 in the background? I'm getting a new one
to run the Bootcamp.

  http://www.rwilliams.us/

 See youse all Friday or Saturday.

Thanks for everything, see you Friday or
Saturday! LoL!

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[Richard J. Williams]

  I missed Sal's goodbye to FFL, or her exit...
 
vajradhatu:
 IIRC, she left during the Robin fiasco. She
 probably just din't have the time to read his
 encyclicals.

Or, your 8,000 word copy-and-pastes! LoL!

304742 http://304742

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/304742

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[azgrey]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ 
 wrote:
 
  -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
   curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 snip
  This defining term makes the contingency of a power imbalance
  more clear. (notice the examples)  The aspect of intimidation
  is invoked because weaker people don't intimidate stronger
  ones.  It is another clue to how to apply the term bullying.  
  
  And to make sure we understand the contingency of the power
  imbalance they make it clear by using the word especially
  which means this is how to use the word correctly:
 
 No, it means *a way* to use the word correctly. Not the
 only way.
 
   person; especially : one habitually cruel to others who
  are weaker 
  
  I listened to the Judy dance about how to interpret this
  definition and didn't buy it.
 
 What Curtis listened to was M-W's explanation of how it
 uses especially in a definition. All I did was repeat
 it. This is a factual issue, not a matter of opinion.
 
 Curtis is free to disagree with how M-W defines the term.
 He simply makes himself absurd when he attempts to claim
 M-W is using especially to mean correctly, i.e., no
 other way to use the term.
 
  So you think she made a compelling case and I don't.  The
  word is defined in relationship to power imbalance, it is
  a key aspect of the proper use of the word.
 
 It is a key aspect of *one* proper use of the word, not the
 proper use of the word, according to M-W.
 
 Look at it again:
 
 a blustering browbeating person; especially: one habitually
 cruel to others who are weaker
 
 If M-W meant the part after especially here was the *only*
 proper use of the word, it wouldn't need the especially
 qualification; it would just define the term thus:
 
 a blustering browbeating person who is habitually cruel
 to others who are weaker
 
  But beyond this definition, this is how the term is
  actually applied in real life
 
 One way the term is actually applied in real life. There
 are others.
 
  as you will prove below.  In all the books that go more
  deeply into the meaning of bullying behavior, the power 
  differential is key.
 
 But this doesn't mean the term cannot be used without
 the implication of power differentials.
 
  If you lose site of that you have a bunch of people using
  it as an enhanced pejorative power word as you and Judy
  are attempting to do.
 
 Enhanced pejorative power word is a meaningless phrase
 in this context.
 
  Both you and Judy deny the need for a power imbalance for
  using the word, and then try to make a case that there
  really was a power inbalance between posters here on FFL.
 
 Curtis disingenuously attempts to suggest that these two
 are somehow mutually exclusive. Of course, they are not.
 There's no need, according to M-W, for a power imbalance
 when using the word; *and* there really are power
 imbalances between posters on FFL. One premise does not
 contradict the other.
 
   Example: Sal gratuitously, bullied Mark Landeau, kicked
   him when he was down just trying to make a buck.
  
  She expressed her opinion about selling the magic yogi sandals.
  Mark was not browbeaten by anything said
 
 Irrelevant. It's the action, not the reaction, that defines
 browbeating and bullying. And it's the *perception* of a
 power differential on the part of the bully that defines
 the behavior as bullying, whether or not that perception
 is accurate.
 
 Curtis has persistently ignored these points in trying
 to make his case, because he can make it only by not
 taking them into account.
 
  But here you betray your actual belief about the term
  bullying which is that a power differential is what
  makes it bullying.  Mark was down and she kicked him.
  It makes her look like a worse person than just someone
  expressing her opinion about his yogi relic huckstering.
 
 Raunchy betrayed nothing. Remember, that the term can be
 used in a general sense without implying power differentials
 does not mean it cannot *also* be used in a situation where
 power differentials are involved. To maintain the first
 does not mean denying the second.
 
 In Raunchy's example, Sal *perceived* a power differential
 in that Mark was asking for assistance. Whether he was
 really down is irrelevant to the issue of whether Sal was
 attempting to bully him by taking advantage of what she
 perceived.
 
   When artist, Jennifer Blair lost everything in a fire Sal 
  heartlessly, gratuitously, derided a fundraiser for her.
  
  Here you are not being truthful,
 
 She is not, as it happens, being *accurate*.
 
  here is the post:
  
  #296961 
  
  on Nov 30, 2011, at 1:18 PM, Alex Stanley wrote:
  
   Hello everyone:
  
   We wanted to let you know that you have another chance to see
   Jennifer's ceramics and paintings at our house this Thursday
   night, 1 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[raunchydog]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
 
 Judy won something (paraphrased)
 
 
 So what exactly do you imagine she won?
 

Judy won the debate that you started and lost.

 I don't think she was justified in calling Sal a bully. Both you and Judy do.
 

According to Merriam Webster's definition of bully, she was justified. MW: a 
blustering browbeating person; especially : one habitually cruel to others who 
are weaker 

Example: Sal gratuitously, bullied Mark Landeau, kicked him when he was down 
just trying to make a buck. When artist, Jennifer Blair lost everything in a 
fire Sal heartlessly, gratuitously, derided a fundraiser for her. When Judy 
justifiably gives Sal a taste of her own medicine she never does so 
gratuitously.

 I don't believe we are in a position to bully each other here.  You both do.
 

Why? Because in your opinion there isn't a power differential? According to 
MW a power differential does not need to exist between Sal and anyone for her 
to bully a person she believes to be a weaker target. If there's any power 
differential at all, it exists in Sal's head, whereby she bullies in an attempt 
to increase her power differential by weakening her target.

 I believe that the definitions of bully are contingent on a power 
 differential and that this is the aspect that is most important when applying 
 it in the real world.  You both don't share that view.
 

Bullying is not contingent on a power differential. It may be an aspect but it 
is not contingent. 

 Judy believes that me continuing the discussion as I had been doing was a 
 form of bullying her, and I don't want any part of that kind of weird 
 judgement on my discussion so I let it drop.  You feel that this means she 
 won something.
 

Judy believes you arbitrarily declared your POV as the only POV possible and 
dismissed her factual argument, supported by MW, and ignored MW as if your POV 
had supremacy over MW or any other definition. I call it chutzpah, to say the 
least. Judy didn't win the debate because you dropped out. You simply lost the 
debate. Nice try, no cigar.

 You guys view this more as a team sport than I do.  I was enjoying the 
 conversation of each of our views until she started pulling the B word on me 
 and turning it into what Judy always turns a discussion into.  Her winning 
 something.  I wouldn't have pegged you as buying into that Raunchy.  But here 
 you are.
 

I believe this is the first time I've jumped into one of your debates with 
Judy. Barry supports you. I support Judy. I usually read your long threads with 
her and enjoy watching you wriggle, and weave, dodge and dance around her 
points and counterpoints. Both of you love the challenge of matching wits and I 
love how you both go at it with such gusto. I admire you and Judy for the fine 
level of intelligence and liveliness you bring to the conversation at FFLife. 
I'm not on Judy's debate team. I'm just the scorekeeper.

 So you both won something.  Bully for you.
 

Oh Curtis, lighten up. I like you. I really do.

 
 
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
  anartaxius@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
anartaxius@ wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
snip
Second, Curtis doesn't just leave out a detail here or there.
He ignores large batches of points that make the case for the
point of view that opposes his and thus never has to address
them. I consider that a highly dishonest approach to debate
and do my best to address all the points a debating opponent
makes.
   
   Curtis says the same thing, that you ignore certain things in
   the attempt to bolster your position on this.
  
  If you find where he says that, I think you'll see he's
  talking about something quite different.
 
 I really don't know. When I read your response here, I was 
 expecting to feel some kind of antagonism, but it just did
 not arise. I don't feel antagonism in reading Curtis either.
 That means some shift has occurred in my experience; I don't
 know what it is, but the argument now seems even more
 pointless than ever. This is the sequence of enlightenment, 
 perhaps. Any antagonism one has with life is what you get to
 lose. As long as we are holding on to a POV, we lose, if we
 feel the tentacles of an argument pulling us along, and we
 don't let go, we lose the game. If we let go of that we win
 the game, except the personal aspect is lost, we lose the
 'me', justification goes out the window.

But this is DEscriptive, not PREscriptive.

snip
   
   Yeah, it's descriptive of my experience this morning. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ 
 wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
 anartaxius@ wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 snip
 Second, Curtis doesn't just leave out a detail here or there.
 He ignores large batches of points that make the case for the
 point of view that opposes his and thus never has to address
 them. I consider that a highly dishonest approach to debate
 and do my best to address all the points a debating opponent
 makes.
 
 Curtis says the same thing, that you ignore certain things in
 the attempt to bolster your position on this.
 
 If you find where he says that, I think you'll see he's
 talking about something quite different.
 
 I really don't know. When I read your response here, I was 
 expecting to feel some kind of antagonism, but it just did
 not arise. I don't feel antagonism in reading Curtis either.
 That means some shift has occurred in my experience; I don't
 know what it is, but the argument now seems even more
 pointless than ever. This is the sequence of enlightenment, 
 perhaps. Any antagonism one has with life is what you get to
 lose. As long as we are holding on to a POV, we lose, if we
 feel the tentacles of an argument pulling us along, and we
 don't let go, we lose the game. If we let go of that we win
 the game, except the personal aspect is lost, we lose the
 'me', justification goes out the window.
 
 But this is DEscriptive, not PREscriptive.
 
 snip
 
 Yeah, it's descriptive of my experience this morning. As far as the argument 
 went I did not see Curtis as bullying, and I think you just drew it out 
 interminably, and if he backs out of this pointlessness, a good move. You do 
 not win. Your POV on this has no practical value that I can see. I cannot 
 read your mind, but your passion seems an obsession. Have you ever tried, in 
 an argument, to just stop, and even against your better judgment, simply 
 surrender, and see what happens? It can be a really interesting experience 
 to capitulate, even if in the fact of the case, one is right. I am saying 
 this because these are the kinds of attachments that keep us locked down in 
 ignorance. No point of view is worth losing the wholeness of life.

 Judy has addressed all the points that Curtis raised. He hasn't addressed the 
 points she has raised, which leads one to conclude that he chooses to ignore 
 the points she raises or changes the context to fit his own POV because he 
 cannot rebut her argument. Until he addresses the points she raised, Judy 
 wins the debate. The winner of a debate does not capitulate, the loser does. 
 Jeez, Xeno, you're sounding awfully pompous tonight.

That is Judy's style. It is exhaustive, and including me, most here can't keep 
up with her. Most of the debates here, as opposed to discussions here seem to 
me to be arguments between different world views rather than the actual subject 
of the talking, rather like the endless debates between Democrats and 
Republicans in the U.S. which never end and never seem to resolve much of 
anything. It might be that points Judy raises, though to the point logically, 
or definitionally, simply mean nothing to Curtis. He was using the terms in a 
practical context of a 'real-world' situation. I was just saying that if you 
win all the points for your POV, you lose the enlightenment game, because you 
have to lose all those points to win. This particular enterprise is ultimately 
not a matter of logic or definition. The FFL forum does seem to have as its 
primary subject matter that which is delineated by the term enlightenment, even 
though a lot of other things go on here.

My feeling, and it seems some here(not all by any means) think Judy often 
pursues her arguments way beyond their useful life. She does not always do 
this, and writes some amazing things here, and her clarity about certain issues 
is illuminating. She digs up really interesting information sometimes. When 
dealing with those that see the world in a less logical and less point by point 
way, the core of the sense of argument rather than its details seem to get 
sidetracked; this is a fuzzier level of experience than manipulating words. 
Like the core aspects of spirituality (as distinguished from belief) are simply 
not amenable to reason alone. When she is in her 'battle mode' though, the 
argument, even if logical, tends to divert the discussion in the direction of 
war, where the object is not to illuminate but to destroy. In war a retreat is 
sometimes the better part of valour; one can fight another day. This reminds me 
of the beginning of a Terry Gilliam film 'The Adventures of Baron Munchausen' 
where the text on the screen near the beginning says 'The Age of Reason', and 
the visuals are cannon volleys.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[curtisdeltablues]

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

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
  
  Judy won something (paraphrased)
  
  
  So what exactly do you imagine she won?
  
 
 Judy won the debate that you started and lost.
 
  I don't think she was justified in calling Sal a bully. Both you and Judy 
  do.
  
 
 According to Merriam Webster's definition of bully, she was justified.

MW: a blustering 

blus·teredblus·ter·ing
Definition of BLUSTER
intransitive verb
1
: to talk or act with noisy swaggering threats
2
a : to blow in stormy noisy gusts b : to be windy and boisterous
transitive verb
1
: to utter with noisy self-assertiveness
2
: to drive or force by blustering
— blus·ter·er noun
— blus·ter·ing·ly adverb
See bluster defined for English-language learners »
See bluster defined for kids »
Examples of BLUSTER

He brags and blusters, but he never really does what he says he'll do.
I don't want to hear it! he blustered.
The wind blustered through the valley.


It is the threat aspect of this term that applies to a bully. All people who 
speak with nosy self absurdness are not bullies, but when the threat aspect 
comes in due to some power differential it applies.


browbeating

Definition of BROWBEAT
transitive verb
: to intimidate or disconcert by a stern manner or arrogant speech : bully
See browbeat defined for English-language learners »
See browbeat defined for kids »
Examples of BROWBEAT

His father likes to browbeat waiters and waitresses.
they would often browbeat the younger child until he cried

ME:
This defining term makes the contingency of a power imbalance more clear. 
(notice the examples)  The aspect of intimidation is invoked because weaker 
people don't intimidate stronger ones.  It is another clue to how to apply the 
term bullying.  

And to make sure we understand the contingency of the power imbalance they make 
it clear by using the word especially  which means this is how to use the 
word correctly:

 person; especially : one habitually cruel to others who are weaker 


I listened to the Judy dance about how to interpret this definition and didn't 
buy it.  So you think she made a compelling case and I don't.  The word is 
defined in relationship to power imbalance, it is a key aspect of the proper 
use of the word.  But beyond this definition, this is how the term is actually 
applied in real life as you will prove below.  In all the books that go more 
deeply into the meaning of bullying behavior, the power differential is key.  
If you lose site of that you have a bunch of people using it as an enhanced 
pejorative power word as you and Judy are attempting to do. Both you and Judy 
deny the need for a power imbalance for using the word, and then try to make a 
case that there really was a power inbalance between posters here on FFL.

 
 Example: Sal gratuitously, bullied Mark Landeau, kicked him when he was down 
 just trying to make a buck.

She expressed her opinion about selling the magic yogi sandals.  Mark was not 
browbeaten by anything said, he is a tough resilient guy.
But here you betray your actual belief about the term bullying which is that a 
power differential is what makes it bullying.  Mark was down and she kicked 
him.  It makes her look like a worse person than just someone expressing her 
opinion about his yogi relic huckstering. (which I supported)

 When artist, Jennifer Blair lost everything in a fire Sal heartlessly, 
gratuitously, derided a fundraiser for her.

Here you are not being truthful, here is the post:


#296961 

on Nov 30, 2011, at 1:18 PM, Alex Stanley wrote:

 Hello everyone:

 We wanted to let you know that you have another chance to see
 Jennifer's ceramics and paintings at our house this Thursday
 night, 1 December, at 7pm. See map attached.

 We will provide cookies and milk.


SAL:
 Presumably along with lollipops, balloons,
 and a game of duck-duck-goose as well.
 Unbelievable.

 Sal


ALEX:
 That's Jennifer Blair, whose studio was in the Depot Building that just burned
to the ground. What is so unbelievable about trying to raise some money after
experiencing a loss like that?

SAL:
Nothing at all, Alex, and it should be obvious that's
not what I meant. Jesus! Clearly I didn't know that~~
it wasn't obvious from the email, you know. I just meant the cookies and milk
bit. Well, I hope she raises some.

Sal

I object to your dishonest presentation of what went down.  She made a flip 
comment about life in Fairfield sometimes resembling a kiddy party at events, 
when she found out the true context she said:Well, I hope she raises some. 

So you  not only took it out of context, you completely misrepresented 
everything about what she said. 

To make Sal look bad.  Unfairly.  Like Judy did when she called her a bully.

 When Judy justifiably gives Sal a taste of her own 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[authfriend]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
 
 Judy won something (paraphrased)
 
 So what exactly do you imagine she won?

Funny that Curtis paraphrases what Raunchy wrote, when
in fact he could just have quoted it (it appears down at
the bottom here). But if he were going to paraphrase it,
it's even odder that he would substitute (something)
as if he didn't know what she was saying I had won, and
then go on to *ask* her what it was when he knew perfectly
well what she'd said.

I'll quote it:

  Until he addresses the points she raised, Judy wins
  the debate.

Why is Curtis pretending not to know what Raunchy said
I had won?

snip
 Judy believes that me continuing the discussion as I had
 been doing was a form of bullying her, and I don't want
 any part of that kind of weird judgement on my discussion
 so I let it drop.

This is not why Curtis let it drop. In fact, he *hasn't*
let it drop, as the post I'm replying to, along with several
others, demonstrates.

All he's done is refused to continue the discussion with me.
But it isn't because I've pointed out that he was trying to
bully me. It's because his attempts to bully me have been so
unsuccessful and his arguments so weak. And *especially*
because he went stark raving nuts in a previous post to me,
making a string of the most absurd accusations I think I've
ever seen here, which he knows he can't possibly defend.

 You feel that this means she won something.
 
 You guys view this more as a team sport than I do.  I was
 enjoying the conversation of each of our views until she
 started pulling the B word on me and turning it into what
 Judy always turns a discussion into.  Her winning something.
 I wouldn't have pegged you as buying into that Raunchy.

For the record, as Curtis knows, I do not claim to have
won debates. And in this case, that's how Raunchy sees it,
not me. So she isn't buying into anything; that's her own
idea. IOW, two lies in that paragraph from Curtis, plus the
lie I've already pointed out about why he refuses to
continue the discussion with me (while trying to keep it
going with others).

I don't think anybody wins debates. I think some people
are incompetent and/or disingenuous debaters who are
unsuccessful in holding up their end of an argument. You
could say this means they lose debates if you like that
terminology, but that doesn't mean the other person wins.

As to the team sport canard, you'll notice that Curtis
is happy to have Barry support him in his arguments
(albeit all Barry does is demonize Curtis's opponent; he
doesn't actually support Curtis's argument itself). So if
Raunchy deciding to support me (*and* my argument) is an
example of team sport, so is Barry deciding to support
Curtis by demonizing Curtis's opponent. IOW, more of
Curtis's patented hypocrisy.

Now, Curtis wants desperately to send his Barrel O' Crazy
from a couple days ago down the memory hole, but I'm going
to quote it again, with some comments:

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@...
wrote:
snip
 Your indelicate spin on what I was suggesting reveals that
 you don't really give a shit about the guy. You are a battler
 here and you will toss him into the fire to make me look bad
 of you have to.

Overlooking the gross hypocrisy of Curtis's massive attempt
at mindreading, which technique he's always claimed to
disdain when others do it, note that it was *Curtis* who
dragged Robin into the debate, not me.

 It is disgusting. The point I made was a
 valid one concerning his interpretation of his experiences
 after Arosa. He is clinging onto a model that I believe is
 not serving him. I sincerely believe that and I was offering
 that perspective to him because I knew him so well.

It's one thing to express disagreement with Robin's
experiences after Arosa. It's how Curtis did it that's the
problem, suggesting that Robin was and still is mentally
ill, in a context in which he portrayed Robin as weak in
many different respects. And Curtis said *explicitly* that
he was doing this to get back at Robin for Robin's own
unflattering analysis of Curtis. But Robin never did to
Curtis anything like what Curtis tried to do to Robin in
retaliation.

Curtis did his absolute damndest to exploit what he
perceived to be Robin's weakness in confessing to have
struck people early in his career as cult leader. Curtis
engaged in the most egregious form of bullying, hitting
Robin when Curtis perceived him to be down, using all his
skill with words in his attempt to cut Robin to pieces
after Robin had made himself vulnerable.

Worse, in this revolting endeavor, Curtis repeatedly
distorted what had happened to his own advantage.

As I said, it's the most blatant, extreme example of
bullying that's been seen on this forum since I joined
it.

Now Curtis gets into the real insanity:

 You are using him as a pawn in battling me.

This is 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[curtisdeltablues]

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

 He's (Curtis) most terrified of me(Judy)

Wow, that was completely enlightening.  Now I get the fuel for all the Can O' 
Crazy.  This is Judy's dream, to be considered powerful on an internet message 
board.  Paired with the bully discussion, this really gives me perspective. 
Judy aspires to bully here.  But she can't quite get past all the crazy to 
achieve it.  Plus we can't bully each other here.  When someone tries, they end 
up looking like Judy does below, so it backfires.

Below is as good a mirror for who Judy is than anything I could write.  There 
are specific inaccuracies and misrepresentations sprinkled in to try to get me 
to bite.  But people who give a shit about me already know where she is being 
untruthful.

Your malevolence always rises up and eclipses your value as a discussion 
partner here Judy.  Too bad.




 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
  
  Judy won something (paraphrased)
  
  So what exactly do you imagine she won?
 
 Funny that Curtis paraphrases what Raunchy wrote, when
 in fact he could just have quoted it (it appears down at
 the bottom here). But if he were going to paraphrase it,
 it's even odder that he would substitute (something)
 as if he didn't know what she was saying I had won, and
 then go on to *ask* her what it was when he knew perfectly
 well what she'd said.
 
 I'll quote it:
 
   Until he addresses the points she raised, Judy wins
   the debate.
 
 Why is Curtis pretending not to know what Raunchy said
 I had won?
 
 snip
  Judy believes that me continuing the discussion as I had
  been doing was a form of bullying her, and I don't want
  any part of that kind of weird judgement on my discussion
  so I let it drop.
 
 This is not why Curtis let it drop. In fact, he *hasn't*
 let it drop, as the post I'm replying to, along with several
 others, demonstrates.
 
 All he's done is refused to continue the discussion with me.
 But it isn't because I've pointed out that he was trying to
 bully me. It's because his attempts to bully me have been so
 unsuccessful and his arguments so weak. And *especially*
 because he went stark raving nuts in a previous post to me,
 making a string of the most absurd accusations I think I've
 ever seen here, which he knows he can't possibly defend.
 
  You feel that this means she won something.
  
  You guys view this more as a team sport than I do.  I was
  enjoying the conversation of each of our views until she
  started pulling the B word on me and turning it into what
  Judy always turns a discussion into.  Her winning something.
  I wouldn't have pegged you as buying into that Raunchy.
 
 For the record, as Curtis knows, I do not claim to have
 won debates. And in this case, that's how Raunchy sees it,
 not me. So she isn't buying into anything; that's her own
 idea. IOW, two lies in that paragraph from Curtis, plus the
 lie I've already pointed out about why he refuses to
 continue the discussion with me (while trying to keep it
 going with others).
 
 I don't think anybody wins debates. I think some people
 are incompetent and/or disingenuous debaters who are
 unsuccessful in holding up their end of an argument. You
 could say this means they lose debates if you like that
 terminology, but that doesn't mean the other person wins.
 
 As to the team sport canard, you'll notice that Curtis
 is happy to have Barry support him in his arguments
 (albeit all Barry does is demonize Curtis's opponent; he
 doesn't actually support Curtis's argument itself). So if
 Raunchy deciding to support me (*and* my argument) is an
 example of team sport, so is Barry deciding to support
 Curtis by demonizing Curtis's opponent. IOW, more of
 Curtis's patented hypocrisy.
 
 Now, Curtis wants desperately to send his Barrel O' Crazy
 from a couple days ago down the memory hole, but I'm going
 to quote it again, with some comments:
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@
 wrote:
 snip
  Your indelicate spin on what I was suggesting reveals that
  you don't really give a shit about the guy. You are a battler
  here and you will toss him into the fire to make me look bad
  of you have to.
 
 Overlooking the gross hypocrisy of Curtis's massive attempt
 at mindreading, which technique he's always claimed to
 disdain when others do it, note that it was *Curtis* who
 dragged Robin into the debate, not me.
 
  It is disgusting. The point I made was a
  valid one concerning his interpretation of his experiences
  after Arosa. He is clinging onto a model that I believe is
  not serving him. I sincerely believe that and I was offering
  that perspective to him because I knew him so well.
 
 It's one thing to express disagreement with Robin's
 experiences after Arosa. It's how Curtis did it that's the
 problem, suggesting that Robin was 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[authfriend]

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

 -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
snip
 This defining term makes the contingency of a power imbalance
 more clear. (notice the examples)  The aspect of intimidation
 is invoked because weaker people don't intimidate stronger
 ones.  It is another clue to how to apply the term bullying.  
 
 And to make sure we understand the contingency of the power
 imbalance they make it clear by using the word especially
 which means this is how to use the word correctly:

No, it means *a way* to use the word correctly. Not the
only way.

  person; especially : one habitually cruel to others who
 are weaker 
 
 I listened to the Judy dance about how to interpret this
 definition and didn't buy it.

What Curtis listened to was M-W's explanation of how it
uses especially in a definition. All I did was repeat
it. This is a factual issue, not a matter of opinion.

Curtis is free to disagree with how M-W defines the term.
He simply makes himself absurd when he attempts to claim
M-W is using especially to mean correctly, i.e., no
other way to use the term.

 So you think she made a compelling case and I don't.  The
 word is defined in relationship to power imbalance, it is
 a key aspect of the proper use of the word.

It is a key aspect of *one* proper use of the word, not the
proper use of the word, according to M-W.

Look at it again:

a blustering browbeating person; especially: one habitually
cruel to others who are weaker

If M-W meant the part after especially here was the *only*
proper use of the word, it wouldn't need the especially
qualification; it would just define the term thus:

a blustering browbeating person who is habitually cruel
to others who are weaker

 But beyond this definition, this is how the term is
 actually applied in real life

One way the term is actually applied in real life. There
are others.

 as you will prove below.  In all the books that go more
 deeply into the meaning of bullying behavior, the power 
 differential is key.

But this doesn't mean the term cannot be used without
the implication of power differentials.

 If you lose site of that you have a bunch of people using
 it as an enhanced pejorative power word as you and Judy
 are attempting to do.

Enhanced pejorative power word is a meaningless phrase
in this context.

 Both you and Judy deny the need for a power imbalance for
 using the word, and then try to make a case that there
 really was a power inbalance between posters here on FFL.

Curtis disingenuously attempts to suggest that these two
are somehow mutually exclusive. Of course, they are not.
There's no need, according to M-W, for a power imbalance
when using the word; *and* there really are power
imbalances between posters on FFL. One premise does not
contradict the other.

  Example: Sal gratuitously, bullied Mark Landeau, kicked
  him when he was down just trying to make a buck.
 
 She expressed her opinion about selling the magic yogi sandals.
 Mark was not browbeaten by anything said

Irrelevant. It's the action, not the reaction, that defines
browbeating and bullying. And it's the *perception* of a
power differential on the part of the bully that defines
the behavior as bullying, whether or not that perception
is accurate.

Curtis has persistently ignored these points in trying
to make his case, because he can make it only by not
taking them into account.

 But here you betray your actual belief about the term
 bullying which is that a power differential is what
 makes it bullying.  Mark was down and she kicked him.
 It makes her look like a worse person than just someone
 expressing her opinion about his yogi relic huckstering.

Raunchy betrayed nothing. Remember, that the term can be
used in a general sense without implying power differentials
does not mean it cannot *also* be used in a situation where
power differentials are involved. To maintain the first
does not mean denying the second.

In Raunchy's example, Sal *perceived* a power differential
in that Mark was asking for assistance. Whether he was
really down is irrelevant to the issue of whether Sal was
attempting to bully him by taking advantage of what she
perceived.

  When artist, Jennifer Blair lost everything in a fire Sal 
 heartlessly, gratuitously, derided a fundraiser for her.
 
 Here you are not being truthful,

She is not, as it happens, being *accurate*.

 here is the post:
 
 #296961 
 
 on Nov 30, 2011, at 1:18 PM, Alex Stanley wrote:
 
  Hello everyone:
 
  We wanted to let you know that you have another chance to see
  Jennifer's ceramics and paintings at our house this Thursday
  night, 1 December, at 7pm. See map attached.
 
  We will provide cookies and milk.
 
 SAL:
  Presumably along with lollipops, balloons,
  and a game of duck-duck-goose as well.
  Unbelievable.
 
  Sal
 
 ALEX:
  

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[authfriend]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  He's (Curtis) most terrified of me(Judy)
 
 Wow, that was completely enlightening.  Now I get the fuel
 for all the Can O' Crazy.  This is Judy's dream, to be
 considered powerful on an internet message board.

That Curtis is terrified of me is my observation, not my
dream. If he weren't terrified, he wouldn't have to be
such a dirty fighter.

snip
 Below is as good a mirror for who Judy is than anything I
 could write.  There are specific inaccuracies and 
 misrepresentations sprinkled in to try to get me to bite.
 But people who give a shit about me already know where she
 is being untruthful.

There are no misrepresentations or conscious untruths
in what I wrote. It was as accurate as I could make it.
It's no accident that Curtis does not even attempt to
point out any inaccuracies or misrepresentations. Nor
will any of the members of his team who purportedly
know where they are.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[turquoiseb]

Hey, Curtis, I claim dibs on having used the word
meltdown to describe what Judy would do if you
dumped her, earlier today in a post to Obba. Good
to see that my prescience is still on a roll.  :-)

One *serious* Can O' Crazy here. But it shouldn't
really surprise anyone. All anyone ever really needed
to know about Judy Stein and her precarious mental
state is in the caption she chose for one of the photos
she placed on the FFL Members Photo page, and in
the photo itself.

It's a veritable short story. First, the photo is taken
with her computer's Webcam, which I think we can inter-
pret to mean that she has no friends to ask to take a
photo of her. She takes one straight photo, uploads
it, but then, unable to stop her hatred of me even for
a moment, decides to take one more. She screws up her
face into the ugliest caricature of an ugly woman she can
imagine, trying to look fierce and achieving only ugly and
crazy, looks at it, and decides to post it as well.

*To this day* I don't think she's ever gotten how much
is revealed by what she decided to call this photo.
She decided on Barry's fantasy image of Judy.

Barry had nothing to do with either the taking of this
photo or the posting of it. Barry was not involved at
all. All of this Barry's fantasy stuff was going on
ONLY INSIDE JUDY'S HEAD.

What she should have called it is, Judy's fantasy of
how she would *like* Barry to see her. That would be
more honest, and more in line with some of the things
she says below.

The woman's a total nutcase.

Truth be told, before seeing these photos I probably
would have assumed that she looked more like the first
one -- overweight, kinda dyke-y, so ordinary that no
one would ever glance at her twice. But seeing the
second photo, and learning how *she* imagined that I
imagined her? That's one serious Can O' Crazy.

  [Barry's fantasy image of Judy]

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

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

 He's (Curtis) most terrified of me(Judy)

 Wow, that was completely enlightening.  Now I get the fuel
 for all the Can O' Crazy.  This is Judy's dream, to be
 considered powerful on an internet message board.  Paired
 with the bully discussion, this really gives me perspective.
 Judy aspires to bully here.  But she can't quite get past
 all the crazy to achieve it.  Plus we can't bully each other
 here.  When someone tries, they end up looking like Judy does
 below, so it backfires.

 Below is as good a mirror for who Judy is than anything I
 could write.  There are specific inaccuracies and
 misrepresentations sprinkled in to try to get me to bite.
 But people who give a shit about me already know where she
 is being untruthful.

 Your malevolence always rises up and eclipses your value as
 a discussion partner here Judy.  Too bad.



 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@
wrote:
  
   Judy won something (paraphrased)
  
   So what exactly do you imagine she won?
 
  Funny that Curtis paraphrases what Raunchy wrote, when
  in fact he could just have quoted it (it appears down at
  the bottom here). But if he were going to paraphrase it,
  it's even odder that he would substitute (something)
  as if he didn't know what she was saying I had won, and
  then go on to *ask* her what it was when he knew perfectly
  well what she'd said.
 
  I'll quote it:
 
Until he addresses the points she raised, Judy wins
the debate.
 
  Why is Curtis pretending not to know what Raunchy said
  I had won?
 
  snip
   Judy believes that me continuing the discussion as I had
   been doing was a form of bullying her, and I don't want
   any part of that kind of weird judgement on my discussion
   so I let it drop.
 
  This is not why Curtis let it drop. In fact, he *hasn't*
  let it drop, as the post I'm replying to, along with several
  others, demonstrates.
 
  All he's done is refused to continue the discussion with me.
  But it isn't because I've pointed out that he was trying to
  bully me. It's because his attempts to bully me have been so
  unsuccessful and his arguments so weak. And *especially*
  because he went stark raving nuts in a previous post to me,
  making a string of the most absurd accusations I think I've
  ever seen here, which he knows he can't possibly defend.
 
   You feel that this means she won something.
  
   You guys view this more as a team sport than I do.  I was
   enjoying the conversation of each of our views until she
   started pulling the B word on me and turning it into what
   Judy always turns a discussion into.  Her winning something.
   I wouldn't have pegged you as buying into that Raunchy.
 
  For the record, as Curtis knows, I do not claim to have
  won debates. And in this case, that's how Raunchy sees it,
  not me. So she isn't buying into anything; that's her own
  idea. IOW, two 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[curtisdeltablues]

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

 Irrelevant. It's the action, not the reaction, that defines
 browbeating and bullying. And it's the *perception* of a
 power differential on the part of the bully that defines
 the behavior as bullying, whether or not that perception
 is accurate.

I had a little trouble locating this in the definition.  Your description 
appears to be quite pale as if it had never seen any sun.  Is it possible that 
you pulled this from a place where the sun doesn't shine?

The definition does not say especially when the person is perceived to be 
weaker for a reason.  They have to actually be weaker for both browbeating and 
bullying to occur. 

Nice slippery move not addressing how the definition of browbeating supports 
the power differential contingency of the definition of bully.  And I just 
loved your slippery use of inaccurate.  That is a keeper. 

But here is the money shot:

 But Sal didn't retract her scorn for the cookies-and-milk,
 and even if the event *hadn't* been a fundraiser, that
 scorn would have been an attempt to bully. 

Yeah, I'm gunna have to disagree with that even by the standards of your misuse 
of the term cuz we don't know if the person being discussed was even reading 
FFL, and I'm pretty sure the cookies and milk didn't give a shit.  Making fun 
of Fairfield people's ideas of a social gathering doesn't bully anyone, it was 
funny.  Your using this as a way to try to make Sal look bad isn't bullying 
either.  It is just plain bullshittery with malicious intent. Or as I call it, 
another post from Judy.













 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ 
 wrote:
 
  -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
   curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 snip
  This defining term makes the contingency of a power imbalance
  more clear. (notice the examples)  The aspect of intimidation
  is invoked because weaker people don't intimidate stronger
  ones.  It is another clue to how to apply the term bullying.  
  
  And to make sure we understand the contingency of the power
  imbalance they make it clear by using the word especially
  which means this is how to use the word correctly:
 
 No, it means *a way* to use the word correctly. Not the
 only way.
 
   person; especially : one habitually cruel to others who
  are weaker 
  
  I listened to the Judy dance about how to interpret this
  definition and didn't buy it.
 
 What Curtis listened to was M-W's explanation of how it
 uses especially in a definition. All I did was repeat
 it. This is a factual issue, not a matter of opinion.
 
 Curtis is free to disagree with how M-W defines the term.
 He simply makes himself absurd when he attempts to claim
 M-W is using especially to mean correctly, i.e., no
 other way to use the term.
 
  So you think she made a compelling case and I don't.  The
  word is defined in relationship to power imbalance, it is
  a key aspect of the proper use of the word.
 
 It is a key aspect of *one* proper use of the word, not the
 proper use of the word, according to M-W.
 
 Look at it again:
 
 a blustering browbeating person; especially: one habitually
 cruel to others who are weaker
 
 If M-W meant the part after especially here was the *only*
 proper use of the word, it wouldn't need the especially
 qualification; it would just define the term thus:
 
 a blustering browbeating person who is habitually cruel
 to others who are weaker
 
  But beyond this definition, this is how the term is
  actually applied in real life
 
 One way the term is actually applied in real life. There
 are others.
 
  as you will prove below.  In all the books that go more
  deeply into the meaning of bullying behavior, the power 
  differential is key.
 
 But this doesn't mean the term cannot be used without
 the implication of power differentials.
 
  If you lose site of that you have a bunch of people using
  it as an enhanced pejorative power word as you and Judy
  are attempting to do.
 
 Enhanced pejorative power word is a meaningless phrase
 in this context.
 
  Both you and Judy deny the need for a power imbalance for
  using the word, and then try to make a case that there
  really was a power inbalance between posters here on FFL.
 
 Curtis disingenuously attempts to suggest that these two
 are somehow mutually exclusive. Of course, they are not.
 There's no need, according to M-W, for a power imbalance
 when using the word; *and* there really are power
 imbalances between posters on FFL. One premise does not
 contradict the other.
 
   Example: Sal gratuitously, bullied Mark Landeau, kicked
   him when he was down just trying to make a buck.
  
  She expressed her opinion about selling the magic yogi sandals.
  Mark was not browbeaten by anything said
 
 Irrelevant. It's the action, not the reaction, that defines
 browbeating and bullying. And it's the 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[curtisdeltablues]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   He's (Curtis) most terrified of me(Judy)
  
  Wow, that was completely enlightening.  Now I get the fuel
  for all the Can O' Crazy.  This is Judy's dream, to be
  considered powerful on an internet message board.
 
 That Curtis is terrified of me is my observation, not my
 dream. If he weren't terrified, he wouldn't have to be
 such a dirty fighter.
 
 snip
  Below is as good a mirror for who Judy is than anything I
  could write.  There are specific inaccuracies and 
  misrepresentations sprinkled in to try to get me to bite.
  But people who give a shit about me already know where she
  is being untruthful.
 
 There are no misrepresentations or conscious untruths
 in what I wrote. It was as accurate as I could make it.
 It's no accident that Curtis does not even attempt to
 point out any inaccuracies or misrepresentations. Nor
 will any of the members of his team who purportedly
 know where they are.

But you and I do and that is what is important to me.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[authfriend]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
   
He's (Curtis) most terrified of me(Judy)
   
   Wow, that was completely enlightening.  Now I get the fuel
   for all the Can O' Crazy.  This is Judy's dream, to be
   considered powerful on an internet message board.
  
  That Curtis is terrified of me is my observation, not my
  dream. If he weren't terrified, he wouldn't have to be
  such a dirty fighter.
  
  snip
   Below is as good a mirror for who Judy is than anything I
   could write.  There are specific inaccuracies and 
   misrepresentations sprinkled in to try to get me to bite.
   But people who give a shit about me already know where she
   is being untruthful.
  
  There are no misrepresentations or conscious untruths
  in what I wrote. It was as accurate as I could make it.
  It's no accident that Curtis does not even attempt to
  point out any inaccuracies or misrepresentations. Nor
  will any of the members of his team who purportedly
  know where they are.
 
 But you and I do and that is what is important to me.

As I said, Curtis, it was as accurate as I could possibly
make it. I know of no inaccuracies or misrepresentations
anywhere in it, and it certainly wasn't consciously
untruthful in any respect.

The same cannot be said for what you wrote that I was
commenting on.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[authfriend]

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

 Hey, Curtis, I claim dibs on having used the word
 meltdown to describe what Judy would do if you
 dumped her, earlier today in a post to Obba. Good
 to see that my prescience is still on a roll.  :-)

Unfortunately Barry didn't foresee that the dumping
wouldn't last long, or that even before Curtis got
back into it with me, he would continue to make his
claims against me in posts to others.

 One *serious* Can O' Crazy here. But it shouldn't
 really surprise anyone. All anyone ever really needed
 to know about Judy Stein and her precarious mental
 state is in the caption she chose for one of the photos
 she placed on the FFL Members Photo page, and in
 the photo itself.

 It's a veritable short story. First, the photo is taken
 with her computer's Webcam, which I think we can inter-
 pret to mean that she has no friends to ask to take a
 photo of her.

You can interpret it however you want. The *fact* is
that I happen to be seriously unphotogenic--all the
women in my family are--and using a Webcam is the only
way I can end up with a photo that actually looks
like me. I explained this when Barry first entertained
this fantasy on FFL, so he's lying here.

 She takes one straight photo, uploads
 it, but then, unable to stop her hatred of me even for
 a moment, decides to take one more. She screws up her
 face into the ugliest caricature of an ugly woman she can
 imagine, trying to look fierce and achieving only ugly and
 crazy, looks at it, and decides to post it as well.

 *To this day* I don't think she's ever gotten how much
 is revealed by what she decided to call this photo.
 She decided on Barry's fantasy image of Judy.

 Barry had nothing to do with either the taking of this
 photo or the posting of it. Barry was not involved at
 all. All of this Barry's fantasy stuff was going on
 ONLY INSIDE JUDY'S HEAD.

Barry's the only person on FFL who never got the joke.

I thought it was a funny gag at the time, as did others,
but I could never have dreamed it would pay the dividends
it has, and continues to pay to this day.

That photo has assumed *enormous* importance to him. He's
reposted it here at least a dozen times, including one
Photoshopped version made to look like an aerial view
of a crop circle featuring the photo that would have
been thousands of times its actual size.

 What she should have called it is, Judy's fantasy of
 how she would *like* Barry to see her. That would be
 more honest, and more in line with some of the things
 she says below.

Barry, December 2007, referring to the photo:

Look at the photograph, Judy. That's not you
making a face, that IS your face. What you
are shows in this photo all too clearly. And
it shows equally clearly in the other one you
posted to FFL, the one you thought you looked
good in.

As far as I can tell, what you're so angry about
is not what you see in me, but what you see
in the mirror.

 The woman's a total nutcase.

Mmm-hmmm. I'm crazy, but Barry has never quite
understood that what he's said in the past on
an archived forum can come back to haunt him.

 Truth be told, before seeing these photos I probably
 would have assumed that she looked more like the first
 one -- overweight, kinda dyke-y, so ordinary that no
 one would ever glance at her twice.

In fact, I'm neither overweight nor dyke-y, and I
still get admiring second and even third glances.
I don't have to beat men off with sticks the way I
used to in my salad days, but I do have to turn
down come-ons from time to time.

Most of my photos are in storage, but just for fun,
here's one from my college daze, in a performance
of Pirates of Penzance. That's me in front on the
right. Granted, I'm in stage makeup, but I never
needed much for my ingenue-type roles:

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ 
 wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  He's (Curtis) most terrified of me(Judy)
 
 Wow, that was completely enlightening. Now I get the fuel
 for all the Can O' Crazy. This is Judy's dream, to be
 considered powerful on an internet message board.
 
 That Curtis is terrified of me is my observation, not my
 dream. If he weren't terrified, he wouldn't have to be
 such a dirty fighter.

This is absurd Judy. An act of mind reading. Curtis is far more likely to be 
annoyed with you, I see no sign he is terrified of anything here. How in hell 
can one become terrified on a forum like this? 

Terrify: Cause to feel extreme fear; fill with terror; frighten greatly.

That is the typical definition. There is a less used definition of the root 
word terror: A person, esp. a child, who causes trouble or annoyance. That is 
probably how Curtis views you. 

As far as your analysis of the word 'especially', I think that is correct, but 
in emphasizing the non-power dominant idea over power disparity in bullying 
seems a very uncommon use of the word, and making that the linchpin of your 
argument seems like much ado about nothing. Curtis is using the meaning that, 
in my experience, is the only one I have heard other people, except you, use.

 snip
 Below is as good a mirror for who Judy is than anything I
 could write. There are specific inaccuracies and 
 misrepresentations sprinkled in to try to get me to bite.
 But people who give a shit about me already know where she
 is being untruthful.
 
 There are no misrepresentations or conscious untruths
 in what I wrote. It was as accurate as I could make it.
 It's no accident that Curtis does not even attempt to
 point out any inaccuracies or misrepresentations. Nor
 will any of the members of his team who purportedly
 know where they are.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[curtisdeltablues]

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

Thanks for following the discussion and for your comments.  I feel understood 
when I read your responses.

Yes, terrified was a fantasy of power she has. It is a common theme in her 
self image projected here.  It is part of the same ratcheting up the drama 
along with her insistence that me defending Sal was bullying Judy. Or her 
misuse of the term in the first place for Sal being snarky here.

Ultimately Judy doesn't like me and believes that anyone who does is being 
deceived by my hiding my darkness. It is funny to me when it isn't completely 
skieving me out.  There is a creepiness to it all that she believes she sees 
some darkness in me that I cannot see.  It is an interesting match for what 
Robin used to believe about his powers.(and may still)  But it is also just an 
attempt to elevate herself to understanding me better than I understand myself. 
 That is unlikely to get much traction from my end.

I believe that she has had low emotional intelligence her whole life and 
probably got picked on for it.  Just a guess.  But her lack of ability to 
detect social cues here combined with her combative nature causes a lot of 
excitement around here doesn't it?  She has been a useful writing prompter for 
me but I have to admit I do my worst, least creative writing in response to 
her, so I may have to rethink that.

At first she pursued the line that you don't need a power differential for 
bullying because of what she thought was a loophole in the definition.  I hope 
my inclusion of the definition of browbeating will put that ruse to rest.  But 
if you have noticed, the argument has shifted because she did mean it as the 
more grievous insult to Sal that she was harming a weaker person.  She has 
tried to include the idea that a person can just think of the person as weaker 
and then if she says something unpleasant, that is bullying.  Can you imagine 
sorting out that thought crime on the playground?

But you are correct, we only use bullying in its intended context of a power 
differential and so did Judy and so did Raunchy in her defense.  The term has 
more pejorative weight, more poopy in the pants value. The problem is that here 
we don't have a power differential, it is egalitarian.  So she had to 
manufacture one, making it an intention crime rather than anything close to the 
dictionary or common usage meaning.

But the exercise did drive home the challenges of schools applying this in 
practical life.  The devious use of power terms is gunna make a lot of lawyers 
happy in the next few years is my guess.

Thanks again for the contribution to the discussion. 



 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   He's (Curtis) most terrified of me(Judy)
  
  Wow, that was completely enlightening. Now I get the fuel
  for all the Can O' Crazy. This is Judy's dream, to be
  considered powerful on an internet message board.
  
  That Curtis is terrified of me is my observation, not my
  dream. If he weren't terrified, he wouldn't have to be
  such a dirty fighter.
 
 This is absurd Judy. An act of mind reading. Curtis is far more likely to be 
 annoyed with you, I see no sign he is terrified of anything here. How in hell 
 can one become terrified on a forum like this? 
 
 Terrify: Cause to feel extreme fear; fill with terror; frighten greatly.
 
 That is the typical definition. There is a less used definition of the root 
 word terror: A person, esp. a child, who causes trouble or annoyance. That is 
 probably how Curtis views you. 
 
 As far as your analysis of the word 'especially', I think that is correct, 
 but in emphasizing the non-power dominant idea over power disparity in 
 bullying seems a very uncommon use of the word, and making that the linchpin 
 of your argument seems like much ado about nothing. Curtis is using the 
 meaning that, in my experience, is the only one I have heard other people, 
 except you, use.
 
  snip
  Below is as good a mirror for who Judy is than anything I
  could write. There are specific inaccuracies and 
  misrepresentations sprinkled in to try to get me to bite.
  But people who give a shit about me already know where she
  is being untruthful.
  
  There are no misrepresentations or conscious untruths
  in what I wrote. It was as accurate as I could make it.
  It's no accident that Curtis does not even attempt to
  point out any inaccuracies or misrepresentations. Nor
  will any of the members of his team who purportedly
  know where they are.
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[Susan]

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

 
 On Feb 29, 2012, at 10:33 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
 
  She expressed her opinion about selling the magic yogi sandals.  
  Mark was not browbeaten by anything said, he is a tough resilient guy.
  But here you betray your actual belief about the term bullying  
  which is that a power differential is what makes it bullying. Mark  
  was down and she kicked him. It makes her look like a worse  
  person than just someone expressing her opinion about his yogi  
  relic huckstering. (which I supported)
 
 
 According to Mark in David Wants to Fly (BTW, still available for  
 free viewing online) the person who bullied and was emotionally  
 abusive to him was Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. In fact, Mark documents  
 that Marshy regularly abused people and discarded them - typically  
 when they ran out of money. He also used his position of power to  
 sexually bully young women via spiritual incest.
 
 Sal - not so much.


I missed Sal's goodbye to FFL, or her exit, or however she handled it. Did she 
feel driven away?  Get sick of the arguing, what?

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[authfriend]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   He's (Curtis) most terrified of me(Judy)
  
  Wow, that was completely enlightening. Now I get the fuel
  for all the Can O' Crazy. This is Judy's dream, to be
  considered powerful on an internet message board.
  
  That Curtis is terrified of me is my observation, not my
  dream. If he weren't terrified, he wouldn't have to be
  such a dirty fighter.
 
 This is absurd Judy. An act of mind reading.

I would fully expect, Xeno, that you would leap on an
instance you perceived to be mindreading on my part and
completely ignore all those that Curtis has indulged in
in this discussion, starting with the claim that I was
*deliberately* misusing bully and then accusing me of
lying when I said I was using it as I understood it; and
finishing up with what I've been calling the Barrel O'
Crazy, in which he goes way, *way* overboard in claiming
I didn't give a shit about Robin and that I enabled
Ravi's purported fantasies because I was using him as a
pawn. Plus plenty more in between.

No objection whatsoever from you to Curtis on any of
those.

 Curtis is far more likely to be annoyed with you, I see no
 sign he is terrified of anything here. How in hell can one
 become terrified on a forum like this? 

Not everyone here is as enlightened as you are, Xeno.

Would you like to take a crack at explaining why Curtis
is compelled to fight dirty if he's only annoyed with me?

In my experience and observation, when people have such
difficulty being straightforward, it's because they're
afraid of what they imagine the consequences will be if
they don't dissemble.

snip 
 As far as your analysis of the word 'especially', I think that
 is correct, but in emphasizing the non-power dominant idea over
 power disparity in bullying seems a very uncommon use of the
 word, and making that the linchpin of your argument seems like
 much ado about nothing.

Again you haven't been following the argument closely
enough. I'm not going to bother to explain it again.
You can just go review the posts if you're interested
in seeing what's wrong with your analysis above.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[Vaj]

On Feb 29, 2012, at 4:15 PM, Susan wrote:

 I missed Sal's goodbye to FFL, or her exit, or however she handled it. Did 
 she feel driven away? Get sick of the arguing, what?

IIRC, she left during the Robin fiasco. She probably just din't have the time 
to read his encyclicals.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
 
  
  On Feb 29, 2012, at 10:33 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
  
   She expressed her opinion about selling the magic yogi sandals.  
   Mark was not browbeaten by anything said, he is a tough resilient guy.
   But here you betray your actual belief about the term bullying  
   which is that a power differential is what makes it bullying. Mark  
   was down and she kicked him. It makes her look like a worse  
   person than just someone expressing her opinion about his yogi  
   relic huckstering. (which I supported)
  
  
  According to Mark in David Wants to Fly (BTW, still available for  
  free viewing online) the person who bullied and was emotionally  
  abusive to him was Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. In fact, Mark documents  
  that Marshy regularly abused people and discarded them - typically  
  when they ran out of money. He also used his position of power to  
  sexually bully young women via spiritual incest.
  
  Sal - not so much.
 
 
 I missed Sal's goodbye to FFL, or her exit, or however she handled
 it. Did she feel driven away?  Get sick of the arguing, what?


Sal is still subscribed and receiving FFL via email feed. Dunno why she's not 
posting.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@... wrote:
 
 I missed Sal's goodbye to FFL, or her exit, or however she handled it. Did 
 she feel driven away?  Get sick of the arguing, what?


I heard that it was from Judy's constant bullying of her.  Not that there was a 
power differential, but that Judy thought that she had an advantage over her, 
and this intention caused the bullying to take place fer real real.  So unable 
to fight the intention that Judy had in her mind when posting at Sal, she was 
forced to stop posting by the bullying thoughts projected toward her from 
Judy's mind.

Plus she was terrified of Judy's power, as am I.

No wait, that was it, the power differential was that Judy knows how dark we 
both are in a way others have missed by reading the same posts, and that gives 
her the power of fear over us so that creates the bullying.  Even though 
bullying does not require a power differential because of the word especially 
in the definition.

So there was bullying going on both in Judy's intention in her mind as well as 
actual power differential bullying going on due to Sal's fear of Judy's power.

I am hanging onto posting here through my own fear and her bullying efforts by 
a thread and only in the memory of our fallen solder Sal, another victim of 
FFL's unique form of intention bullying.

OMG I feel another bullying intention from Judy coming my way, I must get under 
my deer skin while wearing Rude-Rasksha beads.  These beads are just like the 
seeds Indian yogis wear but mine are made out of a hooker's arms wrapped around 
my neck which is wy ruder than beads let me tell you.  What goes on under 
the deer skin, stays under the deer skin!






 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
 
  
  On Feb 29, 2012, at 10:33 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
  
   She expressed her opinion about selling the magic yogi sandals.  
   Mark was not browbeaten by anything said, he is a tough resilient guy.
   But here you betray your actual belief about the term bullying  
   which is that a power differential is what makes it bullying. Mark  
   was down and she kicked him. It makes her look like a worse  
   person than just someone expressing her opinion about his yogi  
   relic huckstering. (which I supported)
  
  
  According to Mark in David Wants to Fly (BTW, still available for  
  free viewing online) the person who bullied and was emotionally  
  abusive to him was Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. In fact, Mark documents  
  that Marshy regularly abused people and discarded them - typically  
  when they ran out of money. He also used his position of power to  
  sexually bully young women via spiritual incest.
  
  Sal - not so much.
 
 
 I missed Sal's goodbye to FFL, or her exit, or however she handled it. Did 
 she feel driven away?  Get sick of the arguing, what?

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[turquoiseb]

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

 This [Curtis is terrified of me] is absurd Judy. An 
 act of mind reading. Curtis is far more likely to be 
 annoyed with you, I see no sign he is terrified of 
 anything here. How in hell can one become terrified 
 on a forum like this? 
 
 Terrify: Cause to feel extreme fear; fill with terror; 
 frighten greatly.

I would tend to agree, but I seem to remember that
one person grew so terrified that she claimed that 
death threats had been made against her on FFL. 

When everyone tried to point out to her that what
she was calling a death threat was...uh...a joke, 
she chose to *continue* to play the terrified victim 
and doubled down on the death threats claim. She
has done so ever since. So obviously it is *possible* 
for someone to become terrified on a forum like this. 
But you have to be pretty fuckin' crazy.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[authfriend]

First, Curtis, I'm sorry you were so terrified by my
observation that you are terrified of me. But you can
relax for a couple of days, since this is my 50th for
the week. Please feel free to post all the results of
your reading of my mind, and have fun misrepresenting
my arguments. You have until Friday evening at least
to say anything you please without fear of rebuttal.

You don't even have to correct Barry's misrepresentations
of the death threat incident, BTW. I mean, you don't
want to have to be an upstander and jeopardize your
cooperative relationship with your fellow gang, er, team
member. After all, anyone who's interested can just read
my post #303978 for the real story.

While I'm at it, though, you are aware that Barry insists
Sal didn't leave because I bullied her, right? You might
want to get your story straight with him.

I don't expect you to point out to Vaj that Sal's last post
here was on December 3, either; she'd stuck it out during
the Robin fiasco for over five of the seven months he was
here. And during that period, she had a number of positive
exchanges with him. She was a huge fan of the helicopter
drop, so she was  positively predisposed.

Anyway, on to my response to your post:



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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ 
wrote:
 
  Irrelevant. It's the action, not the reaction, that defines
  browbeating and bullying. And it's the *perception* of a
  power differential on the part of the bully that defines
  the behavior as bullying, whether or not that perception
  is accurate.
 
 I had a little trouble locating this in the definition.

Oh, what a shame you wasted time on this when it should have
been obvious that it wouldn't be in the dictionary definition.
The above was my argument concerning how power differentials,
perceived or real, are involved in the bullying that takes
place on FFL.

snip
 The definition does not say especially when the person is
 perceived to be weaker for a reason.  They have to actually
 be weaker for both browbeating and bullying to occur.

So if I were to call you poopy-pants, and you found 
that ridiculous and just laughed it off, that means
what I said wasn't an insult?

The dictionary doesn't reflect this, but semantically
there are two aspects to terms such as insult, bully,
intimidate, browbeat (or compliment, praise, etc.). One
is the *behavior* of the person doing the action, and
the other is how that behavior is *received* by the
person to whom it's directed. The two are not necessarily
the same even though the words are.

For that matter, I could compliment you, but you could 
perceive the compliment as an insult. Or vice-versa.

For instance, Barry and azgrey have repeatedly posted
the URL of Andrew Skolnick's Junkyard Dog Web site,
intending to embarrass me. But I'm actually proud of
that site; I consider it a badge of honor that Skolnick
couldn't hold his own on alt.m.t and had to create a
Web site where he could take my and others' posts out
of context and lie about them without fear of being
exposed.

The fact that I'm not embarrassed doesn't change Barry's
and azgrey's intention *to* embarrass me. That their
perception of their power to embarrass is mistaken
doesn't change what they are attempting to do.

 Nice slippery move not addressing how the definition of
 browbeating supports the power differential contingency
 of the definition of bully.

It's not at all slippery. It's just that you don't
understand the semantics.

 And I just loved your slippery use of inaccurate.  That
 is a keeper.

Nothing slippery about that either. I note that you didn't
even attempt a dissection of that one.

 But here is the money shot:
 
  But Sal didn't retract her scorn for the cookies-and-milk,
  and even if the event *hadn't* been a fundraiser, that
  scorn would have been an attempt to bully. 
 
 Yeah, I'm gunna have to disagree with that even by the
 standards of your misuse of the term

I haven't misused the term.

 cuz we don't know if the person being discussed was even
 reading FFL

Doesn't matter. It was blustering on Sal's part (to utter
with noisy self-assertiveness).

snip all the many points Curtis couldn't address, again

You take care, now. You've got a little over 48 hours, maybe
more depending on what I'm doing Friday evening, in which
you don't have to be terrified of me.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[Susan]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@ wrote:
  
  I missed Sal's goodbye to FFL, or her exit, or however she handled it. Did 
  she feel driven away?  Get sick of the arguing, what?
 
 
 I heard that it was from Judy's constant bullying of her.  Not that there was 
 a power differential, but that Judy thought that she had an advantage over 
 her, and this intention caused the bullying to take place fer real real.  So 
 unable to fight the intention that Judy had in her mind when posting at Sal, 
 she was forced to stop posting by the bullying thoughts projected toward her 
 from Judy's mind.
 
 Plus she was terrified of Judy's power, as am I.
 
 No wait, that was it, the power differential was that Judy knows how dark we 
 both are in a way others have missed by reading the same posts, and that 
 gives her the power of fear over us so that creates the bullying.  Even 
 though bullying does not require a power differential because of the word 
 especially in the definition.
 
 So there was bullying going on both in Judy's intention in her mind as well 
 as actual power differential bullying going on due to Sal's fear of Judy's 
 power.
 
 I am hanging onto posting here through my own fear and her bullying efforts 
 by a thread and only in the memory of our fallen solder Sal, another victim 
 of FFL's unique form of intention bullying.
 
 OMG I feel another bullying intention from Judy coming my way, I must get 
 under my deer skin while wearing Rude-Rasksha beads.  These beads are just 
 like the seeds Indian yogis wear but mine are made out of a hooker's arms 
 wrapped around my neck which is wy ruder than beads let me tell you.  
 What goes on under the deer skin, stays under the deer skin!


This post of yours get more and more interesting as the paragraphs fly by - you 
started with  our once favorite concept of the week - bullying - and its many 
many definitions depending on perspective, point of view, age, location, 
gender, highest level of education achieved, IQ, musicality, mind/body 
coordination and age - and ended with what appears to be a kind of happy 
breakdown resulting from that bully discussion.  The topic is worn to a nub, I 
would say, and I only skimmed the high points of it all. 

But getting to that final paragraph, the image is priceless!!!  Don't forget to 
rub on a bunch of sesame seed oil, and gargle with it too.  Makes everything 
better.  And it's magical  properties act as a kind of shield to prevent unkind 
thoughts from bullying your delicate aura.  Also, under that deerskin, be sure 
to face east and get into full lotus.


 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
  
   
   On Feb 29, 2012, at 10:33 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
   
She expressed her opinion about selling the magic yogi sandals.  
Mark was not browbeaten by anything said, he is a tough resilient guy.
But here you betray your actual belief about the term bullying  
which is that a power differential is what makes it bullying. Mark  
was down and she kicked him. It makes her look like a worse  
person than just someone expressing her opinion about his yogi  
relic huckstering. (which I supported)
   
   
   According to Mark in David Wants to Fly (BTW, still available for  
   free viewing online) the person who bullied and was emotionally  
   abusive to him was Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. In fact, Mark documents  
   that Marshy regularly abused people and discarded them - typically  
   when they ran out of money. He also used his position of power to  
   sexually bully young women via spiritual incest.
   
   Sal - not so much.
  
  
  I missed Sal's goodbye to FFL, or her exit, or however she handled it. Did 
  she feel driven away?  Get sick of the arguing, what?
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[Emily Reyn]

Wow...it just gets better and better.  Sesame oil is one of my favorites, I 
will admit...as is grapeseed oil in salad dressings and of course the artisan's 
100% RAW organic coconut oil.   



 From: Susan waybac...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 3:07 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The  Dome  Numbers
 

  


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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@ wrote:
  
  I missed Sal's goodbye to FFL, or her exit, or however she handled it. Did 
  she feel driven away?  Get sick of the arguing, what?
 
 
 I heard that it was from Judy's constant bullying of her.  Not that there was 
 a power differential, but that Judy thought that she had an advantage over 
 her, and this intention caused the bullying to take place fer real real.  So 
 unable to fight the intention that Judy had in her mind when posting at Sal, 
 she was forced to stop posting by the bullying thoughts projected toward her 
 from Judy's mind.
 
 Plus she was terrified of Judy's power, as am I.
 
 No wait, that was it, the power differential was that Judy knows how dark we 
 both are in a way others have missed by reading the same posts, and that 
 gives her the power of fear over us so that creates the bullying.  Even 
 though bullying does not require a power differential because of the word 
 especially in the definition.
 
 So there was bullying going on both in Judy's intention in her mind as well 
 as actual power differential bullying going on due to Sal's fear of Judy's 
 power.
 
 I am hanging onto posting here through my own fear and her bullying efforts 
 by a thread and only in the memory of our fallen solder Sal, another victim 
 of FFL's unique form of intention bullying.
 
 OMG I feel another bullying intention from Judy coming my way, I must get 
 under my deer skin while wearing Rude-Rasksha beads.  These beads are just 
 like the seeds Indian yogis wear but mine are made out of a hooker's arms 
 wrapped around my neck which is wy ruder than beads let me tell you.  
 What goes on under the deer skin, stays under the deer skin!


This post of yours get more and more interesting as the paragraphs fly by - you 
started with  our once favorite concept of the week - bullying - and its many 
many definitions depending on perspective, point of view, age, location, 
gender, highest level of education achieved, IQ, musicality, mind/body 
coordination and age - and ended with what appears to be a kind of happy 
breakdown resulting from that bully discussion.  The topic is worn to a nub, I 
would say, and I only skimmed the high points of it all. 

But getting to that final paragraph, the image is priceless!!!  Don't forget to 
rub on a bunch of sesame seed oil, and gargle with it too.  Makes everything 
better.  And it's magical  properties act as a kind of shield to prevent unkind 
thoughts from bullying your delicate aura.  Also, under that deerskin, be sure 
to face east and get into full lotus.

 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
  
   
   On Feb 29, 2012, at 10:33 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
   
She expressed her opinion about selling the magic yogi sandals. 
Mark was not browbeaten by anything said, he is a tough resilient guy.
But here you betray your actual belief about the term bullying 
which is that a power differential is what makes it bullying. Mark 
was down and she kicked him. It makes her look like a worse 
person than just someone expressing her opinion about his yogi 
relic huckstering. (which I supported)
   
   
   According to Mark in David Wants to Fly (BTW, still available for 
   free viewing online) the person who bullied and was emotionally 
   abusive to him was Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. In fact, Mark documents 
   that Marshy regularly abused people and discarded them - typically 
   when they ran out of money. He also used his position of power to 
   sexually bully young women via spiritual incest.
   
   Sal - not so much.
  
  
  I missed Sal's goodbye to FFL, or her exit, or however she handled it. Did 
  she feel driven away?  Get sick of the arguing, what?
 



 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ 
 wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  He's (Curtis) most terrified of me(Judy)
 
 Wow, that was completely enlightening. Now I get the fuel
 for all the Can O' Crazy. This is Judy's dream, to be
 considered powerful on an internet message board.
 
 That Curtis is terrified of me is my observation, not my
 dream. If he weren't terrified, he wouldn't have to be
 such a dirty fighter.
 
 This is absurd Judy. An act of mind reading.
 
 I would fully expect, Xeno, that you would leap on an
 instance you perceived to be mindreading on my part and
 completely ignore all those that Curtis has indulged in
 in this discussion, starting with the claim that I was
 *deliberately* misusing bully and then accusing me of
 lying when I said I was using it as I understood it; and
 finishing up with what I've been calling the Barrel O'
 Crazy, in which he goes way, *way* overboard in claiming
 I didn't give a shit about Robin and that I enabled
 Ravi's purported fantasies because I was using him as a
 pawn. Plus plenty more in between.
 
 No objection whatsoever from you to Curtis on any of
 those.

If you want to discuss what I wrote, it is not necessary to bring in ad hominem 
or pro hominem material about what Curtis wrote. He does seem to think you are 
nuts. I do not have that opinion. You seem as sane as most people around me, 
but you, in my opinion, seem more antagonistic than most people I am currently 
familair with. I enjoy reading what Curtis writes. I enjoy what you write. But 
I have never had a run-in with Curtis so I do not have first hand experience 
with his alleged darkness. I think you over-dramatize the dialogue, it just 
seems a little over the top.

 Curtis is far more likely to be annoyed with you, I see no
 sign he is terrified of anything here. How in hell can one
 become terrified on a forum like this? 
 
 Not everyone here is as enlightened as you are, Xeno.

I can't comment on other people's enlightenment here, because it would be an 
internal experience with them, that is from my POV it would be in their heads, 
something I cannot know directly. As far as enlightenment itself, everyone is 
in the same boat. You are no less than I am.
 
 Would you like to take a crack at explaining why Curtis
 is compelled to fight dirty if he's only annoyed with me?

I don't see him fighting dirty. I just see it as a different style. I think you 
are reading way too much into what he says. It is hard to tell when we get 
sucked into our minds. One criterion I use is 'do I have an incessant stream of 
thoughts related to situation x?', where x
is the current 'problem', or do I just have lazy infrequent thoughts about it?'

Kind of like the difference between a few bubbles rising up from the bottom of 
a pond versus an oxygen tank at the bottom of the pond with the valve open full 
(and various degrees in between). So for myself, if I find I cannot put 
something down, have lots of thoughts about it, then I am identified with the 
mind, and self-knowledge is absent. this is not an infallible criterion, but it 
works sometimes. Do you feel a deep an impenetrable silence when you are 
responding to Curtis?

I feel this way now, but some time ago when we were discussing Skolnick, I 
think I was a bit perturbed, because in part I could not quite get what you 
were about there, and I had also misread something, which of course you think I 
do often.

 In my experience and observation, when people have such
 difficulty being straightforward, it's because they're
 afraid of what they imagine the consequences will be if
 they don't dissemble.

I would agree with that, but I don't see Curtis being devious. Most people's 
world views (and that is quite possibly an unwarrented extrapolation from my 
sample of people I know directly) do not quite match up. I see you and Curtis 
writing about almost the same thing, but your world views, the intellectual and 
emotional palette behind the writing seem skewed off from one another. My own 
reading is you seem to experience a higher threat level in people's writing 
than Curtis does, you react more strongly, seemingly in a personal kind of 
sense, than most here, when there is disagreement. You do not have the 
Wikipedia 'neutral point of view' in this kind of discussion, but you show the 
Wikipedia kind of neutrality when the discussions are more about information 
etc. You seem sensitive to personal affront. You are like Mr Spock and Dr McCoy 
all in one (with a gender change of course).

 snip 
 As far as your analysis of the word 'especially', I think that
 is correct, but in emphasizing the non-power dominant idea over
 power disparity in bullying 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[Vaj]

On Feb 29, 2012, at 10:33 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:

She expressed her opinion about selling the magic yogi sandals.  
Mark was not browbeaten by anything said, he is a tough resilient guy.
But here you betray your actual belief about the term bullying  
which is that a power differential is what makes it bullying. Mark  
was down and she kicked him. It makes her look like a worse  
person than just someone expressing her opinion about his yogi  
relic huckstering. (which I supported)



According to Mark in David Wants to Fly (BTW, still available for  
free viewing online) the person who bullied and was emotionally  
abusive to him was Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. In fact, Mark documents  
that Marshy regularly abused people and discarded them - typically  
when they ran out of money. He also used his position of power to  
sexually bully young women via spiritual incest.


Sal - not so much.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[Emily Reyn]

snip
Now if both you and Curtis read all this, then I hypothesise that nothing or 
something will happen as a result, and that is not saying anything of course.  

I tell ya... you made my hit and miss day with this quotethis is some 
pretty amusing stuff here.  Don't  mind me though - I'm working on 
detachment:) 




 From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 5:04 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The  Dome  Numbers
 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ 
 wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  He's (Curtis) most terrified of me(Judy)
 
 Wow, that was completely enlightening. Now I get the fuel
 for all the Can O' Crazy. This is Judy's dream, to be
 considered powerful on an internet message board.
 
 That Curtis is terrified of me is my observation, not my
 dream. If he weren't terrified, he wouldn't have to be
 such a dirty fighter.
 
 This is absurd Judy. An act of mind reading.
 
 I would fully expect, Xeno, that you would leap on an
 instance you perceived to be mindreading on my part and
 completely ignore all those that Curtis has indulged in
 in this discussion, starting with the claim that I was
 *deliberately* misusing bully and then accusing me of
 lying when I said I was using it as I understood it; and
 finishing up with what I've been calling the Barrel O'
 Crazy, in which he goes way, *way* overboard in claiming
 I didn't give a shit about Robin and that I enabled
 Ravi's purported fantasies because I was using him as a
 pawn. Plus plenty more in between.
 
 No objection whatsoever from you to Curtis on any of
 those.

If you want to discuss what I wrote, it is not necessary to bring in ad hominem 
or pro hominem material about what Curtis wrote. He does seem to think you are 
nuts. I do not have that opinion. You seem as sane as most people around me, 
but you, in my opinion, seem more antagonistic than most people I am currently 
familair with. I enjoy reading what Curtis writes. I enjoy what you write. But 
I have never had a run-in with Curtis so I do not have first hand experience 
with his alleged darkness. I think you over-dramatize the dialogue, it just 
seems a little over the top.

 Curtis is far more likely to be annoyed with you, I see no
 sign he is terrified of anything here. How in hell can one
 become terrified on a forum like this? 
 
 Not everyone here is as enlightened as you are, Xeno.

I can't comment on other people's enlightenment here, because it would be an 
internal experience with them, that is from my POV it would be in their heads, 
something I cannot know directly. As far as enlightenment itself, everyone is 
in the same boat. You are no less than I am.
 
 Would you like to take a crack at explaining why Curtis
 is compelled to fight dirty if he's only annoyed with me?

I don't see him fighting dirty. I just see it as a different style. I think you 
are reading way too much into what he says. It is hard to tell when we get 
sucked into our minds. One criterion I use is 'do I have an incessant stream of 
thoughts related to situation x?', where x
is the current 'problem', or do I just have lazy infrequent thoughts about it?'

Kind of like the difference between a few bubbles rising up from the bottom of 
a pond versus an oxygen tank at the bottom of the pond with the valve open full 
(and various degrees in between). So for myself, if I find I cannot put 
something down, have lots of thoughts about it, then I am identified with the 
mind, and self-knowledge is absent. this is not an infallible criterion, but it 
works sometimes. Do you feel a deep an impenetrable silence when you are 
responding to Curtis?

I feel this way now, but some time ago when we were discussing Skolnick, I 
think I was a bit perturbed, because in part I could not quite get what you 
were about there, and I had also misread something, which of course you think I 
do often.

 In my experience and observation, when people have such
 difficulty being straightforward, it's because they're
 afraid of what they imagine the consequences will be if
 they don't dissemble.

I would agree with that, but I don't see Curtis being devious. Most people's 
world views (and that is quite possibly an unwarrented extrapolation from my 
sample of people I know directly) do not quite match up. I see you and Curtis 
writing about almost the same thing, but your world views, the intellectual and 
emotional palette behind the writing seem skewed off from one another. My own 
reading is you seem to experience a higher threat level in people's writing 
than Curtis does, you react more strongly, seemingly

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[seventhray1]

Now truly this is remarkable.  I wonder if Raunchy will have the
integrity to own up to this blatant misrepresentation.  Maybe Judy was
also a party to this misrepresentation.  Now we will see if someone is
willing to be an upstander rather than a bystander.

I hope  Raunchy didn't suddenly become to busy to respond to this.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@... wrote:
  Example: Sal gratuitously, bullied Mark Landeau, kicked him when he
was down just trying to make a buck.

 She expressed her opinion about selling the magic yogi sandals. Mark
was not browbeaten by anything said, he is a tough resilient guy.
 But here you betray your actual belief about the term bullying which
is that a power differential is what makes it bullying. Mark was down
and she kicked him. It makes her look like a worse person than just
someone expressing her opinion about his yogi relic huckstering. (which
I supported)

 When artist, Jennifer Blair lost everything in a fire Sal
heartlessly, gratuitously, derided a fundraiser for her.

 Here you are not being truthful, here is the post:
  #296961
  on Nov 30, 2011, at 1:18 PM, Alex Stanley wrote:
  Hello everyone:
  We wanted to let you know that you have another chance to see
  Jennifer's ceramics and paintings at our house this Thursday
  night, 1 December, at 7pm. See map attached.
 
  We will provide cookies and milk.
  SAL:
  Presumably along with lollipops, balloons,
  and a game of duck-duck-goose as well.
  Unbelievable.
  Sal
 
  ALEX:
  That's Jennifer Blair, whose studio was in the Depot Building that
just burned
 to the ground. What is so unbelievable about trying to raise some
money after
 experiencing a loss like that?

 SAL:
 Nothing at all, Alex, and it should be obvious that's
 not what I meant. Jesus! Clearly I didn't know that~~
 it wasn't obvious from the email, you know. I just meant the cookies
and milk
 bit. Well, I hope she raises some.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[seventhray1]

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

 I agree this isn't the best example; Raunchy obviously
 forgot that Sal did express a hope that Blair's fundraiser
 would be successful once she was told what it was for.
This is called integrity on Judy's part.
 But Sal didn't retract her scorn for the cookies-and-milk,
 and even if the event *hadn't* been a fundraiser, that
 scorn would have been an attempt to bully. As with Mark,
 in Sal's eyes a person trying to sell something is in a
 down position. That was the basis for Sal's initial
 bullying comment.
Really, I think it's a stretch to call something like that bullying. 
Even if I'd go along with looser definition, this sounds more like a
cynical* comment.

*Give me some time to look up the M/W, defintion of cynical, the
wikipedia definition, and the N/W definition just to be sure I'm using
it in the right context.  not!

Now let's see if Raunchy will own up to the misrepresentation.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[seventhray1]

Nice!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:

 Most of my photos are in storage, but just for fun,
 here's one from my college daze, in a performance
 of Pirates of Penzance. That's me in front on the
 right. Granted, I'm in stage makeup, but I never
 needed much for my ingenue-type roles:

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[Emily Reyn]

snip
You can interpret it however you want. The *fact* is
that I happen to be seriously unphotogenic--all the
women in my family are--and using a Webcam is the only
way I can end up with a photo that actually looks 
like me.

Baby, geez.  Actually, you posted an absolutely wonderful photo of you here  
once.  I laugh when I read this because, in fact, seriously, I am seriously 
unphotogenic - the worst of all my sisters and I seldom agree to be 
photographed.  Started at 12.  My family and friends agree...ha ha...you are 
WAY more photogenic than I, my dear.  I am much better in person.   




 From: authfriend jst...@panix.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 11:29 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The  Dome  Numbers
 

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

 Hey, Curtis, I claim dibs on having used the word
 meltdown to describe what Judy would do if you
 dumped her, earlier today in a post to Obba. Good
 to see that my prescience is still on a roll.  :-)
Unfortunately Barry didn't foresee that the dumping
wouldn't last long, or that even before Curtis got
back into it with me, he would continue to make his
claims against me in posts to others.
 One *serious* Can O' Crazy here. But it shouldn't
 really surprise anyone. All anyone ever really needed
 to know about Judy Stein and her precarious mental
 state is in the caption she chose for one of the photos
 she placed on the FFL Members Photo page, and in
 the photo itself.
 
 It's a veritable short story. First, the photo is taken
 with her computer's Webcam, which I think we can inter-
 pret to mean that she has no friends to ask to take a
 photo of her.
You can interpret it however you want. The *fact* is
that I happen to be seriously unphotogenic--all the
women in my family are--and using a Webcam is the only
way I can end up with a photo that actually looks 
like me. I explained this when Barry first entertained
this fantasy on FFL, so he's lying here.
 She takes one straight photo, uploads
 it, but then, unable to stop her hatred of me even for
 a moment, decides to take one more. She screws up her
 face into the ugliest caricature of an ugly woman she can
 imagine, trying to look fierce and achieving only ugly and
 crazy, looks at it, and decides to post it as well.
 
 *To this day* I don't think she's ever gotten how much
 is revealed by what she decided to call this photo.
 She decided on Barry's fantasy image of Judy.
 
 Barry had nothing to do with either the taking of this
 photo or the posting of it. Barry was not involved at
 all. All of this Barry's fantasy stuff was going on
 ONLY INSIDE JUDY'S HEAD.
Barry's the only person on FFL who never got the joke.
I thought it was a funny gag at the time, as did others,
but I could never have dreamed it would pay the dividends
it has, and continues to pay to this day.
That photo has assumed *enormous* importance to him. He's
reposted it here at least a dozen times, including one
Photoshopped version made to look like an aerial view
of a crop circle featuring the photo that would have
been thousands of times its actual size.
 What she should have called it is, Judy's fantasy of
 how she would *like* Barry to see her. That would be
 more honest, and more in line with some of the things
 she says below.
Barry, December 2007, referring to the photo:
Look at the photograph, Judy. That's not you
making a face, that IS your face. What you
are shows in this photo all too clearly. And
it shows equally clearly in the other one you
posted to FFL, the one you thought you looked
good in.
As far as I can tell, what you're so angry about
is not what you see in me, but what you see
in the mirror.
 The woman's a total nutcase.
Mmm-hmmm. I'm crazy, but Barry has never quite
understood that what he's said in the past on
an archived forum can come back to haunt him.
 Truth be told, before seeing these photos I probably
 would have assumed that she looked more like the first
 one -- overweight, kinda dyke-y, so ordinary that no
 one would ever glance at her twice.
In fact, I'm neither overweight nor dyke-y, and I
still get admiring second and even third glances.
I don't have to beat men off with sticks the way I
used to in my salad days, but I do have to turn
down come-ons from time to time.
Most of my photos are in storage, but just for fun,
here's one from my college daze, in a performance
of Pirates of Penzance. That's me in front on the
right. Granted, I'm in stage makeup, but I never
needed much for my ingenue-type roles:
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[Emily Reyn]

OMGcan you believe this?  Wordsdon't mess with a true editor, and Judy 
is that, give it up, just give it up.  Or, if you're like me, and tend to stay 
more big picture, than you end up with yes and yes and yes and yes and 
yes and yes and yes and yes and yes and yes and yes and, etc..

This bullying thing is something that was valid to start with but descended 
into forum dynamics and personalities.  Are we talking bullying on the forum 
between adults?  Are we talking about how the school system defines bullying?  
Are we talking about the technical definition of bullying per M-W?  Are we 
talking about Judy's treatment of Sal?  It's all the same in the big picture. 
The devil is in the details and depending on individual experience, it will 
differ.  There is no right and wrongthere are incorrect statements, there 
are disagreements in meaning, there is this and that and whatever and 
wherefore (I'm paraphrasing Xeno here) and there you go.  The father of my 
children and I could go to the same movie and come out and not be able to 
discuss anything in the movie.  We are not seeing the same movie.  This was my 
first true experience with the idea that we don't, really, live in the same 
reality as everyone else.  



 From: authfriend jst...@panix.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 8:37 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The  Dome  Numbers
 

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

 -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
snip
 This defining term makes the contingency of a power imbalance
 more clear. (notice the examples)  The aspect of intimidation
 is invoked because weaker people don't intimidate stronger
 ones.  It is another clue to how to apply the term bullying. 
 
 And to make sure we understand the contingency of the power
 imbalance they make it clear by using the word especially
 which means this is how to use the word correctly:

No, it means *a way* to use the word correctly. Not the
only way.

  person; especially : one habitually cruel to others who
 are weaker 
 
 I listened to the Judy dance about how to interpret this
 definition and didn't buy it.

What Curtis listened to was M-W's explanation of how it
uses especially in a definition. All I did was repeat
it. This is a factual issue, not a matter of opinion.

Curtis is free to disagree with how M-W defines the term.
He simply makes himself absurd when he attempts to claim
M-W is using especially to mean correctly, i.e., no
other way to use the term.

 So you think she made a compelling case and I don't.  The
 word is defined in relationship to power imbalance, it is
 a key aspect of the proper use of the word.

It is a key aspect of *one* proper use of the word, not the
proper use of the word, according to M-W.

Look at it again:

a blustering browbeating person; especially: one habitually
cruel to others who are weaker

If M-W meant the part after especially here was the *only*
proper use of the word, it wouldn't need the especially
qualification; it would just define the term thus:

a blustering browbeating person who is habitually cruel
to others who are weaker

 But beyond this definition, this is how the term is
 actually applied in real life

One way the term is actually applied in real life. There
are others.

 as you will prove below.  In all the books that go more
 deeply into the meaning of bullying behavior, the power 
 differential is key.

But this doesn't mean the term cannot be used without
the implication of power differentials.

 If you lose site of that you have a bunch of people using
 it as an enhanced pejorative power word as you and Judy
 are attempting to do.

Enhanced pejorative power word is a meaningless phrase
in this context.

 Both you and Judy deny the need for a power imbalance for
 using the word, and then try to make a case that there
 really was a power inbalance between posters here on FFL.

Curtis disingenuously attempts to suggest that these two
are somehow mutually exclusive. Of course, they are not.
There's no need, according to M-W, for a power imbalance
when using the word; *and* there really are power
imbalances between posters on FFL. One premise does not
contradict the other.

  Example: Sal gratuitously, bullied Mark Landeau, kicked
  him when he was down just trying to make a buck.
 
 She expressed her opinion about selling the magic yogi sandals.
 Mark was not browbeaten by anything said

Irrelevant. It's the action, not the reaction, that defines
browbeating and bullying. And it's the *perception* of a
power differential on the part of the bully that defines
the behavior as bullying, whether or not that perception
is accurate.

Curtis has persistently ignored these points in trying
to make his case, because he can make it only by not
taking

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[authfriend]

Turns out I have a couple of posts left...

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
snip
  That Curtis is terrified of me is my observation, not my
  dream. If he weren't terrified, he wouldn't have to be
  such a dirty fighter.
  
  This is absurd Judy. An act of mind reading.
  
  I would fully expect, Xeno, that you would leap on an
  instance you perceived to be mindreading on my part and
  completely ignore all those that Curtis has indulged in
  in this discussion, starting with the claim that I was
  *deliberately* misusing bully and then accusing me of
  lying when I said I was using it as I understood it; and
  finishing up with what I've been calling the Barrel O'
  Crazy, in which he goes way, *way* overboard in claiming
  I didn't give a shit about Robin and that I enabled
  Ravi's purported fantasies because I was using him as a
  pawn. Plus plenty more in between.
  
  No objection whatsoever from you to Curtis on any of
  those.
 
 If you want to discuss what I wrote, it is not necessary
 to bring in ad hominem or pro hominem material about what
 Curtis wrote.

Not surprising that you're unable to bring yourself to
cop to your double standards.

 He does seem to think you are nuts.

He doesn't think I'm nuts. That's his current bullying
posture.

 I do not have that opinion. You seem as sane as most people
 around me, but you, in my opinion, seem more antagonistic
 than most people I am currently familair with. I enjoy
 reading what Curtis writes. I enjoy what you write. But I
 have never had a run-in with Curtis so I do not have first
 hand experience with his alleged darkness.

Right, you don't. 

snip
  Would you like to take a crack at explaining why Curtis
  is compelled to fight dirty if he's only annoyed with me?
 
 I don't see him fighting dirty.

Right, see above. It doesn't become evident until you get
into a dispute with him. Maybe not even then if you aren't
particularly astute; you may just wonder how he seems to
have turned the argument in his favor and why the context
for your position has somehow disappeared and you're left
floundering around with no idea how it happened.

snip
 It is hard to tell when we get sucked into our minds. One 
 criterion I use is 'do I have an incessant stream of
 thoughts related to situation x?', where x is the current
 'problem', or do I just have lazy infrequent thoughts
 about it?'
 
 Kind of like the difference between a few bubbles rising up
 from the bottom of a pond versus an oxygen tank at the
 bottom of the pond with the valve open full (and various
 degrees in between). So for myself, if I find I cannot put 
 something down, have lots of thoughts about it, then I am 
 identified with the mind, and self-knowledge is absent. this
 is not an infallible criterion, but it works sometimes.
 Do you feel a deep an impenetrable silence when you are 
 responding to Curtis?

Uh, no. I don't have lots of thoughts about whether I'm
having lots of thoughts, though.

snip
  In my experience and observation, when people have such
  difficulty being straightforward, it's because they're
  afraid of what they imagine the consequences will be if
  they don't dissemble.
 
 I would agree with that, but I don't see Curtis being devious.

Right. As has been determined, you haven't been in a
position to see that. So perhaps my observation that
Curtis is terrified of me is not quite the absurd 
mindreading that you declared it was to start with.

snip
  As far as your analysis of the word 'especially', I think 
  that is correct, but in emphasizing the non-power dominant
  idea over power disparity in bullying seems a very
  uncommon use of the word, and making that the linchpin of 
  your argument seems like much ado about nothing.
  
  Again you haven't been following the argument closely
  enough. I'm not going to bother to explain it again.
  You can just go review the posts if you're interested
  in seeing what's wrong with your analysis above.
 
 If I am unable to follow your argument, perhaps you should
 assume I am too dim to discern what you are trying to 
 communicate. To get through such a barrier, you need to
 refashion what you are attempting to say so I can understand
 it.

Not interested, sorry. If you aren't able to get it by
going back and doing a close reading, you're not likely
to get it in a refashioned version either. I don't really
think you need to have it dumbed down for you.

 Curtis seems to have a good intellect, yet he does not
 seem to get what you are trying to say.

That's because he deals only with his own context. He
doesn't bother to take in the other person's context,
even with a view to rebutting it. He just erases it as
if it never existed.

snip
 As for my analysis, maybe it is indeed wrong, but just 
 pointing out that it is wrong doesn't cut it.

I suggested a way for you to figure out for yourself why
it's 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[Emily Reyn]

Well, I have lots more posts, so I will say, that the only thing that I 
consistently note by Judy is that no one else has ever gotten' into a dispute 
with Curtis (except Robin, possibly) and therefore, we don't have the kind of 
first-person experience of conversing with him in such a vein.  Or something 
close to that - of course I see this as a valid comment, looking at the recent 
few long-thread forum discussions.  From the outside, it can all be interpreted 
differently, but these are two veterans here, which is a tiny bit different, in 
that they know each other.  For example, when I started here, I never looked 
at who was writing what...why care?  I was interested in the content only.  
And, then, after realizing that it seemed on this forum that there was a valid 
who component, I started to pay more attention.  Recently, I'm back to 
looking at the what, but of course, now I recognize people's writing better 
so it's no longer a truly
 objective approach.  



 From: authfriend jst...@panix.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:27 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The  Dome  Numbers
 

  
Turns out I have a couple of posts left...

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
snip
  That Curtis is terrified of me is my observation, not my
  dream. If he weren't terrified, he wouldn't have to be
  such a dirty fighter.
  
  This is absurd Judy. An act of mind reading.
  
  I would fully expect, Xeno, that you would leap on an
  instance you perceived to be mindreading on my part and
  completely ignore all those that Curtis has indulged in
  in this discussion, starting with the claim that I was
  *deliberately* misusing bully and then accusing me of
  lying when I said I was using it as I understood it; and
  finishing up with what I've been calling the Barrel O'
  Crazy, in which he goes way, *way* overboard in claiming
  I didn't give a shit about Robin and that I enabled
  Ravi's purported fantasies because I was using him as a
  pawn. Plus plenty more in between.
  
  No objection whatsoever from you to Curtis on any of
  those.
 
 If you want to discuss what I wrote, it is not necessary
 to bring in ad hominem or pro hominem material about what
 Curtis wrote.

Not surprising that you're unable to bring yourself to
cop to your double standards.

 He does seem to think you are nuts.

He doesn't think I'm nuts. That's his current bullying
posture.

 I do not have that opinion. You seem as sane as most people
 around me, but you, in my opinion, seem more antagonistic
 than most people I am currently familair with. I enjoy
 reading what Curtis writes. I enjoy what you write. But I
 have never had a run-in with Curtis so I do not have first
 hand experience with his alleged darkness.

Right, you don't. 

snip
  Would you like to take a crack at explaining why Curtis
  is compelled to fight dirty if he's only annoyed with me?
 
 I don't see him fighting dirty.

Right, see above. It doesn't become evident until you get
into a dispute with him. Maybe not even then if you aren't
particularly astute; you may just wonder how he seems to
have turned the argument in his favor and why the context
for your position has somehow disappeared and you're left
floundering around with no idea how it happened.

snip
 It is hard to tell when we get sucked into our minds. One 
 criterion I use is 'do I have an incessant stream of
 thoughts related to situation x?', where x is the current
 'problem', or do I just have lazy infrequent thoughts
 about it?'
 
 Kind of like the difference between a few bubbles rising up
 from the bottom of a pond versus an oxygen tank at the
 bottom of the pond with the valve open full (and various
 degrees in between). So for myself, if I find I cannot put 
 something down, have lots of thoughts about it, then I am 
 identified with the mind, and self-knowledge is absent. this
 is not an infallible criterion, but it works sometimes.
 Do you feel a deep an impenetrable silence when you are 
 responding to Curtis?

Uh, no. I don't have lots of thoughts about whether I'm
having lots of thoughts, though.

snip
  In my experience and observation, when people have such
  difficulty being straightforward, it's because they're
  afraid of what they imagine the consequences will be if
  they don't dissemble.
 
 I would agree with that, but I don't see Curtis being devious.

Right. As has been determined, you haven't been in a
position to see that. So perhaps my observation that
Curtis is terrified of me is not quite the absurd 
mindreading that you declared it was to start with.

snip
  As far as your analysis of the word 'especially', I think 
  that is correct, but in emphasizing the non-power dominant
  idea over power disparity in bullying seems a very
  uncommon use of the word, and making that the linchpin of 
  your

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[curtisdeltablues]

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

Cool, more posts, here is one to chew on:
I'm gunna hand you one of your statements as an integrity test Judy.  You want 
me to discuss my statements about Robin, but once again you repeated a lie 
about what I said. There are two lies in that paragraph but I'm gunna start 
with one:

Here is the context:

 It's one thing to express disagreement with Robin's
 experiences after Arosa. It's how Curtis did it that's the
 problem, suggesting that Robin was and still is mentally
 ill, in a context in which he portrayed Robin as weak in
 many different respects.

Here is the lie:

 And Curtis said *explicitly* that
 he was doing this to get back at Robin for Robin's own
 unflattering analysis of Curtis. But Robin never did to
 Curtis anything like what Curtis tried to do to Robin in
 retaliation.

That isn't what I said or what I meant.  Here is the quote to Robin: #302457 

Since I've endured pages of Robin's accusations that I am being subtly 
deceptive on this board I'm gunna spell this out as I see it.

The obvious meaning is that I needed to speak plainly and directly spell it 
out rather than hint because I had been accused of being subtly deceptive by 
Robin.  So I spelled it out in explicit detail to avoid this accusation.

Being treated with respect has a price Judy.  This is yours.  Do with it what 
you want.  

Oh and since you have only a few left I'll consolidate with a comment on Xenos 
where you claim that you can only see my bad whatever in a dispute with me.  
You do know that everyone can read everyone else's posts here right?  Anyone 
else is capable of determining if your charge is real or from the can.  You 
know the can right?





 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
  
  Judy won something (paraphrased)
  
  So what exactly do you imagine she won?
 
 Funny that Curtis paraphrases what Raunchy wrote, when
 in fact he could just have quoted it (it appears down at
 the bottom here). But if he were going to paraphrase it,
 it's even odder that he would substitute (something)
 as if he didn't know what she was saying I had won, and
 then go on to *ask* her what it was when he knew perfectly
 well what she'd said.
 
 I'll quote it:
 
   Until he addresses the points she raised, Judy wins
   the debate.
 
 Why is Curtis pretending not to know what Raunchy said
 I had won?
 
 snip
  Judy believes that me continuing the discussion as I had
  been doing was a form of bullying her, and I don't want
  any part of that kind of weird judgement on my discussion
  so I let it drop.
 
 This is not why Curtis let it drop. In fact, he *hasn't*
 let it drop, as the post I'm replying to, along with several
 others, demonstrates.
 
 All he's done is refused to continue the discussion with me.
 But it isn't because I've pointed out that he was trying to
 bully me. It's because his attempts to bully me have been so
 unsuccessful and his arguments so weak. And *especially*
 because he went stark raving nuts in a previous post to me,
 making a string of the most absurd accusations I think I've
 ever seen here, which he knows he can't possibly defend.
 
  You feel that this means she won something.
  
  You guys view this more as a team sport than I do.  I was
  enjoying the conversation of each of our views until she
  started pulling the B word on me and turning it into what
  Judy always turns a discussion into.  Her winning something.
  I wouldn't have pegged you as buying into that Raunchy.
 
 For the record, as Curtis knows, I do not claim to have
 won debates. And in this case, that's how Raunchy sees it,
 not me. So she isn't buying into anything; that's her own
 idea. IOW, two lies in that paragraph from Curtis, plus the
 lie I've already pointed out about why he refuses to
 continue the discussion with me (while trying to keep it
 going with others).
 
 I don't think anybody wins debates. I think some people
 are incompetent and/or disingenuous debaters who are
 unsuccessful in holding up their end of an argument. You
 could say this means they lose debates if you like that
 terminology, but that doesn't mean the other person wins.
 
 As to the team sport canard, you'll notice that Curtis
 is happy to have Barry support him in his arguments
 (albeit all Barry does is demonize Curtis's opponent; he
 doesn't actually support Curtis's argument itself). So if
 Raunchy deciding to support me (*and* my argument) is an
 example of team sport, so is Barry deciding to support
 Curtis by demonizing Curtis's opponent. IOW, more of
 Curtis's patented hypocrisy.
 
 Now, Curtis wants desperately to send his Barrel O' Crazy
 from a couple days ago down the memory hole, but I'm going
 to quote it again, with some comments:
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@
 wrote:
 snip
  Your indelicate spin on 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[authfriend]

This post is primarily to Curtis, but I'm going to piggyback
on it to call Barry on another of his lies. He wrote to Ann:

The post you were replying to here was from Judy, who
of course implied that you had the RIGHT to 'ask for
clarification' or demand whatever you wanted. 

Of course anybody has the RIGHT to ask or demand whatever
they want from another poster. That poster, however, also
has the RIGHT to refuse to comply--and I said this
*explicitly* to Barry:

Of course, if you choose to back out of the argument you
tried to start, fine. Or if you weren't trying to start
an argument but simply wanted to put Ann down without
having to defend any of the putdown from challenge, that's
fine too. But be honest about why you're copping out.

And in any case, that wasn't my point. Here's the point:

--
[Ann wrote:]
  You need to clarify this before I can adequately address
  this idea.

[Barry wrote:]
 No, I really don't.

[I wrote:]
Um, yes, you do. See the word before in there? If
you want Ann to adequately address the idea, you need
to clarify it.

  I think I need help here because I haven't made any sense of
  your statement, and I don't agree with it even slightly, so it
  is up to you to clarify.

 No, it isn't.

Yes, it is. Are you having some trouble with your reading
comprehension? You're the only person who *can* clarify
the statement you made.
---

I then concluded with the paragraph quoted above about
Barry's right to back out without responding to Ann's
requests.

Now to Curtis's post:

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
[Curtis wrote:]
 Cool, more posts, here is one to chew on:
 I'm gunna hand you one of your statements as an integrity test Judy.

Problem is, Curtis, I have no trust in *your* integrity, so
you're hardly in a position to give me an integrity test.

 You want me to discuss my statements about Robin,

Actually I'd like you to discuss your statements about me.

 but once again
 you repeated a lie about what I said. There are two lies in that
 paragraph but I'm gunna start with one:

There are no lies in the paragraph. I sometimes make mistakes,
but I don't lie.

 Here is the context:
 
  It's one thing to express disagreement with Robin's
  experiences after Arosa. It's how Curtis did it that's the
  problem, suggesting that Robin was and still is mentally
  ill, in a context in which he portrayed Robin as weak in
  many different respects.
 
 Here is the lie:

At worst, it's a misunderstanding. But I'd have to trust
the veracity of your explanation to even be sure of that.

  And Curtis said *explicitly* that
  he was doing this to get back at Robin for Robin's own
  unflattering analysis of Curtis. But Robin never did to
  Curtis anything like what Curtis tried to do to Robin in
  retaliation.
 
 That isn't what I said or what I meant.  Here is the quote
 to Robin: #302457 
 
 Since I've endured pages of Robin's accusations that I am
 being subtly deceptive on this board I'm gunna spell this
 out as I see it.
 
 The obvious meaning is that I needed to speak plainly and
 directly spell it out rather than hint because I had been
 accused of being subtly deceptive by Robin.  So I spelled
 it out in explicit detail to avoid this accusation.

It's possible to understand your statement that way, but
it's far from obvious. Just for one thing, the sort of
subtle deception Robin accused you of was not a matter
of hinting rather than speaking plainly. For another, you
were indeed deceptive in this response to his open letter.
Some of the deception was subtle, some was quite blatant.
Spelling it out didn't make it any less deceptive.

So that's as far as I'll go. Semantically, the statement
can be understood as you claim. But it doesn't fit the
context that way, either of Robin's accusations or your
post. And I can't assume you're telling the truth about
how you meant the statement in any case; you certainly
have plenty of motivation to try to obscure an explicit
assertion that your post was in retaliation against
Robin's accusations.

I gather you claim the second lie was this:

  But Robin never did to Curtis anything like what Curtis
  tried to do to Robin in retaliation.

I stand by that assertion. The closest situation to Robin's
open letter was the revelation about what you said to Barry
in email, and Robin accepted your explanation for it and
didn't lecture you about it, much less accuse you of not
having been open with him once it came out.

 Being treated with respect has a price Judy.

It does indeed. If I respected you, I might be more willing
to accept your explanation about what you meant and just
chalk it up to unclear writing on your part.

 This is yours.  Do with it what you want.  
 
 Oh and since you have only a few left I'll consolidate with
 a comment on Xenos where you claim that you can only see my 
 bad whatever in a dispute with me.  You do 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[authfriend]

So this is now my 50th; I'm gonna go out on a fun one
for a change:

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

 snip
 You can interpret it however you want. The *fact* is
 that I happen to be seriously unphotogenic--all the
 women in my family are--and using a Webcam is the only
 way I can end up with a photo that actually looks 
 like me.
 
 Baby, geez. Actually, you posted an absolutely wonderful photo
 of you here once.

Emily, dear, thank you, but that was because I took it with
my Webcam. That's the real photo Barry's talking about,
the first one in the FFL Photo section.

I sat there and took photo after photo after photo. I think
I ended up taking over 50 shots before I got one that looked
like me. And all of them were better than the usual result
from a snapshot. (One advantage of this was that I kept
cracking myself up at how narcissistic it was, so the grins
were genuine.) You really can't ask a friend to spend that
much time and effort catering to your vanity.

 I laugh when I read this because, in fact, seriously, I am
 seriously unphotogenic - the worst of all my sisters and I
 seldom agree to be photographed.

My family's photo albums all have shots of my mother, my
sister, or me in which there's a hole where the face was,
because we simply couldn't stand what it looked like and
just cut it out.

 Started at 12. My family and
 friends agree...ha ha...you are WAY more photogenic than I,
 my dear. I am much better in person.

You should try getting yourself a good Webcam (the ones that
come with a computer are usually pretty crappy). The one I
have is a Logitech QuickCam 9000 Pro; you can get one now
for around $50. Then you can do what I did and take a zillion
shots until you get one you like.

I wish I hadn't deleted all the awful ones, or I'd post a
few to make you feel better!

The funny thing is, I look great on videotape. There's
something about the planes and angles and curves of my
face that just look weird flattened out in a still shot
but look fine when it's in motion; then there's a
quasi-3D effect, and I look like me. Maybe I should
make a video.

I need to update that one photo anyway; it's now over four
years old. I may have to wait till August, when I took
that one, though, to get the right light through the
window.

See youse all Friday or Saturday.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ 
 wrote:
 snip
  I cannot quite put my finger on what that is, but I sense a
  darkness in you, more than I sense darkness in Curtis.
 
 It's very difficult, if not impossible, to see Curtis's
 darkness until you get into a hostile conflict with him.
 
 Unlike Curtis, I don't feel the need to hide my darkness.
 
 snip
  To avoid diluting your argument, you really cannot cave in
  to power differential position.
 
 Actually incorporating power differentials strengthens
 my argument.
 
 snip
  It is really problematic to demonstrate a negative. What do
  you feel are the power differentials that you see here on FFL?
  If Curtis is wrong in saying there are none, and there are
  some, what are they?
 
 I went into this at some length in one of my posts to
 Curtis. I'm not going to go through it again.
 
 snip
   First, it doesn't require a good memory to ensure attention
   to details, since the words expressing those details are right
   there on the page.
  
  Even if they are on the page, human memory for most of us is
  less than stellar, people seldom remember much of what just 
  transpired, or was read, even if it was just a few minutes ago.
  That is a problem with these long posts.
 
 Actually all you have to do is read over what you're
 responding to before posting to make sure you've covered
 what you need to.
 
 snip
   Second, Curtis doesn't just leave out a detail here or there.
   He ignores large batches of points that make the case for the
   point of view that opposes his and thus never has to address
   them. I consider that a highly dishonest approach to debate
   and do my best to address all the points a debating opponent
   makes.
  
  Curtis says the same thing, that you ignore certain things in
  the attempt to bolster your position on this.
 
 If you find where he says that, I think you'll see he's
 talking about something quite different.

I really don't know. When I read your response here, I was expecting to feel 
some kind of antagonism, but it just did not arise. I don't feel antagonism in 
reading Curtis either. That means some shift has occurred in my experience; I 
don't know what it is, but the argument now seems even more pointless than 
ever. This is the sequence of enlightenment, perhaps. Any antagonism one has 
with life is what you get to lose. As long as we are holding on to a POV, we 
lose, if we feel the tentacles of an argument pulling us along, and we don't 
let go, we lose the game. If we let go of that we win the game, except the 
personal aspect is lost, we lose the 'me', justification goes out the window.

I wonder if my reading about the high school shooting in Ohio, which I read 
just before your post here last night. This incident is alleged to hinge on 
some incident of bullying. Then I went to bed. When I woke up, it felt as if 
something had gone out of my interest in this exchange.

I remember Charlie Lutes talking about his interest in football. He used to go 
to games all the time, know the coaches and players. An uber-fan. But after he 
started to meditate, he said that it just seemed like a bunch of people butting 
their heads together; all the significance about the contest that he formerly 
experienced was gone.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[awoelflebater]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
  anartaxius@ wrote:
  snip
   I cannot quite put my finger on what that is, but I sense a
   darkness in you, more than I sense darkness in Curtis.
  
  It's very difficult, if not impossible, to see Curtis's
  darkness until you get into a hostile conflict with him.
  
  Unlike Curtis, I don't feel the need to hide my darkness.
  
  snip
   To avoid diluting your argument, you really cannot cave in
   to power differential position.
  
  Actually incorporating power differentials strengthens
  my argument.
  
  snip
   It is really problematic to demonstrate a negative. What do
   you feel are the power differentials that you see here on FFL?
   If Curtis is wrong in saying there are none, and there are
   some, what are they?
  
  I went into this at some length in one of my posts to
  Curtis. I'm not going to go through it again.
  
  snip
First, it doesn't require a good memory to ensure attention
to details, since the words expressing those details are right
there on the page.
   
   Even if they are on the page, human memory for most of us is
   less than stellar, people seldom remember much of what just 
   transpired, or was read, even if it was just a few minutes ago.
   That is a problem with these long posts.
  
  Actually all you have to do is read over what you're
  responding to before posting to make sure you've covered
  what you need to.
  
  snip
Second, Curtis doesn't just leave out a detail here or there.
He ignores large batches of points that make the case for the
point of view that opposes his and thus never has to address
them. I consider that a highly dishonest approach to debate
and do my best to address all the points a debating opponent
makes.
   
   Curtis says the same thing, that you ignore certain things in
   the attempt to bolster your position on this.
  
  If you find where he says that, I think you'll see he's
  talking about something quite different.
 
 I really don't know. When I read your response here, I was expecting to feel 
 some kind of antagonism, but it just did not arise. I don't feel antagonism 
 in reading Curtis either. That means some shift has occurred in my 
 experience; I don't know what it is, but the argument now seems even more 
 pointless than ever. This is the sequence of enlightenment, perhaps. Any 
 antagonism one has with life is what you get to lose. As long as we are 
 holding on to a POV, we lose, if we feel the tentacles of an argument pulling 
 us along, and we don't let go, we lose the game. If we let go of that we win 
 the game, except the personal aspect is lost, we lose the 'me', justification 
 goes out the window.
 
 I wonder if my reading about the high school shooting in Ohio, which I read 
 just before your post here last night. This incident is alleged to hinge on 
 some incident of bullying. Then I went to bed. When I woke up, it felt as if 
 something had gone out of my interest in this exchange.
 
 I remember Charlie Lutes talking about his interest in football. He used to 
 go to games all the time, know the coaches and players. An uber-fan. But 
 after he started to meditate, he said that it just seemed like a bunch of 
 people butting their heads together; all the significance about the contest 
 that he formerly experienced was gone.

That's it, what you just wrote explains everything. I'm enlightened! I don't 
like football and this bullying argument never did interest me.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[authfriend]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
snip
Second, Curtis doesn't just leave out a detail here or there.
He ignores large batches of points that make the case for the
point of view that opposes his and thus never has to address
them. I consider that a highly dishonest approach to debate
and do my best to address all the points a debating opponent
makes.
   
   Curtis says the same thing, that you ignore certain things in
   the attempt to bolster your position on this.
  
  If you find where he says that, I think you'll see he's
  talking about something quite different.
 
 I really don't know. When I read your response here, I was 
 expecting to feel some kind of antagonism, but it just did
 not arise. I don't feel antagonism in reading Curtis either.
 That means some shift has occurred in my experience; I don't
 know what it is, but the argument now seems even more
 pointless than ever. This is the sequence of enlightenment, 
 perhaps. Any antagonism one has with life is what you get to
 lose. As long as we are holding on to a POV, we lose, if we
 feel the tentacles of an argument pulling us along, and we
 don't let go, we lose the game. If we let go of that we win
 the game, except the personal aspect is lost, we lose the
 'me', justification goes out the window.

But this is DEscriptive, not PREscriptive.

snip

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[curtisdeltablues]

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

All he can do now (and has been doing for several rounds
of this exchange) is bluster and browbeat, i.e., try to
bully me. He had hoped to weaken me initially but has
achieved the opposite.


Do tell, what other hopes did I harbor in our conversation? 

I hoped to weaken you? WTF?  Tell me more about my internal mental state, I 
am fascinated. 

Here is your way of looking at how to judge bullying in your response to Ann:

The defining characteristics of bullying, IMHO, are the
intention of the person doing it and what it looks like
(e.g., gratuitous, repeated), not whether it's successful.


In other words, you imagine what their intentions are (how convenient) and then 
can apply the term bully freely based on your own internal state. (spoiler 
alert, it applies to people whose opinions she doesn't like!)

This is why schools are going to have such a problem with this issue as soon as 
the lawyers get involved and is probably why it will not reach corporate 
America.  There are plenty of people like you who will misuse the term in a bid 
to make it seem as if they are doing more than putting someone down they don't 
agree with.  It is used to impune the person further than saying that their 
britches have tested positive for ecoli and fecal material is suspected. 

 





 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ 
 wrote:
 snip
  Judy is an editor. Curtis is a working musician. Judy is
  using the book, and Curtis is using living language, and
  possibly experience, in his use of the word.
 
 You're missing a few things. First, I was using the term
 based on how [I] learned the word in relation to other
 words that [I] have heard. When Curtis attempted to
 claim I was misusing the term, I checked the dictionary
 and found I was not.
 
 Second, Curtis was defining the term, as he's explained,
 not using living language but based on studying books
 in preparation for a presentation to students on bullying
 in schools:
 
 I checked many definitions of the term when I designed my
 course including over a dozen books on the subject.
 
 It seems those books were using the power differential
 definition, which makes sense in the context of schools.
 But that the books don't use the more general sense I was
 using doesn't somehow *negate* that more general sense.
 As you note, descriptive dictionaries like M-W simply list
 the senses in which people use a term. So his claim that
 I was misusing it is simply wrong.
 
 He *added* to that error the even more absurd claim that I
 *knew* I was misusing it and was doing so deliberately and
 accused me of lying when I told him otherwise. That 
 constitutes bullying on *his* part.
 
 As I thought about the power differentials issue, I 
 realized that my use of the term was perfectly compatible
 with that definition in any case.
 
 At this point, the disagreements between us are:
 
 1. Whether I misused the term deliberately.
 
 2. Whether the dictionary permits the more general use of
 the term that doesn't involve power differentials
 
 3. Whether power differentials are a factor on an Internet
 forum like FFL
 
 A positive answer to (1) would involve mindreading, which
 Curtis claims to disdain, so he's a hypocrite to make that
 claim. And it isn't true in any case, because (see 2) I
 didn't misuse it in the first place.
 
 (2) is a matter of fact. The dictionary does permit such
 use, and Curtis is simply wrong. He doesn't understand
 how dictionaries indicate usage.
 
 (3) is a matter of opinion. I've made a strong case that
 power differentials are a factor. Curtis hasn't addressed
 this case; he's simply denied that contention.
 
 And he's still insisting I misused the term deliberately,
 even given (2), and even given my advocacy of (3). Only
 by somehow refuting my position that power differentials
 are very much a factor on FFL can he hope to establish
 that I could only have been using the term in the general
 sense that doesn't involve such differentials but merely
 blustering or browbeating.
 
 But since that general sense is allowed by the dictionary,
 and he can't refute the dictionary, his claim that I was
 misusing the term, deliberately or otherwise, is
 definitively defeated. He can't read minds, he doesn't
 understand how dictionaries indicate usage, and he hasn't
 been able to make a case that power differentials are not
 a factor in discourse on FFL.
 
 All he can do now (and has been doing for several rounds
 of this exchange) is bluster and browbeat, i.e., try to
 bully me. He had hoped to weaken me initially but has
 achieved the opposite.
 
 snip
  This does not really exist here on the forum, it is all
  mental on the forum, even though we read physical words
  on a screen, the interactions are not physical like even
  a simple face-to-face conversation. An audio chat would
  be something closer, and a video chat might be closer
  still, but 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[authfriend]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
 All he can do now (and has been doing for several rounds
 of this exchange) is bluster and browbeat, i.e., try to
 bully me. He had hoped to weaken me initially but has
 achieved the opposite.
 
 Do tell, what other hopes did I harbor in our conversation?

I think the above pretty much covers it. 

 I hoped to weaken you? WTF?  Tell me more about my internal
 mental state, I am fascinated.

I think the above pretty much covers it. 

 Here is your way of looking at how to judge bullying in your
 response to Ann:
 
 The defining characteristics of bullying, IMHO, are the
 intention of the person doing it and what it looks like
 (e.g., gratuitous, repeated), not whether it's successful.
 
 In other words, you imagine what their intentions are (how 
 convenient) and then can apply the term bully freely based
 on your own internal state.

Explain to us all how your entirely gratuitous accusation
that I misused the term *deliberately* and that I was
lying when I explained otherwise could be anything *but* an
attempt to weaken me. Also explain why you're entitled to
imagine *my* internal state on the basis of zero evidence,
while I'm not permitted to imagine yours based on the
obviousness of your tactics.

 (spoiler alert, it applies to people whose opinions she
 doesn't like!)

More bullying. It's all you know how to do, Curtis.

As it happens, it applies to *people* I don't like, not
opinions I don't like. And I'll give you three guesses
as to why I don't like them. Hint: It's something the
people I like rarely or never do.

BTW, I note you appear to be unwilling to address the 
Barrel O' Crazy you dumped on me day before yesterday
that I singled out for examination in a separate post.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[curtisdeltablues]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
  All he can do now (and has been doing for several rounds
  of this exchange) is bluster and browbeat, i.e., try to
  bully me. He had hoped to weaken me initially but has
  achieved the opposite.
  
  Do tell, what other hopes did I harbor in our conversation?
 
 I think the above pretty much covers it. 
 
  I hoped to weaken you? WTF?  Tell me more about my internal
  mental state, I am fascinated.
 
 I think the above pretty much covers it. 
 
  Here is your way of looking at how to judge bullying in your
  response to Ann:
  
  The defining characteristics of bullying, IMHO, are the
  intention of the person doing it and what it looks like
  (e.g., gratuitous, repeated), not whether it's successful.
  
  In other words, you imagine what their intentions are (how 
  convenient) and then can apply the term bully freely based
  on your own internal state.
 
 Explain to us all how your entirely gratuitous accusation
 that I misused the term *deliberately* and that I was
 lying when I explained otherwise could be anything *but* an
 attempt to weaken me. Also explain why you're entitled to
 imagine *my* internal state on the basis of zero evidence,
 while I'm not permitted to imagine yours based on the
 obviousness of your tactics.
 
  (spoiler alert, it applies to people whose opinions she
  doesn't like!)
 
 More bullying. It's all you know how to do, Curtis.
 
 As it happens, it applies to *people* I don't like, not
 opinions I don't like. And I'll give you three guesses
 as to why I don't like them. Hint: It's something the
 people I like rarely or never do.
 
 BTW, I note you appear to be unwilling to address the 
 Barrel O' Crazy you dumped on me day before yesterday
 that I singled out for examination in a separate post.


I fear that any response will be perceived as bullying you so I wont be 
addressing that topic as I had hoped.

Overplaying the bully card has implications both within and outside the school 
yard Judy. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[authfriend]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
snip
  BTW, I note you appear to be unwilling to address the 
  Barrel O' Crazy you dumped on me day before yesterday
  that I singled out for examination in a separate post.
 
 I fear that any response will be perceived as bullying you
 so I wont be addressing that topic as I had hoped.

Translation: Whew, finally saw a way to get out of dealing
with my crazy outburst! Don't know what happened. I guess
I must have been so pissed off I blacked out for a few
minutes. Really made me look like a complete idiot and a
hypocrite to boot because of all the mindreading.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 snip
 Second, Curtis doesn't just leave out a detail here or there.
 He ignores large batches of points that make the case for the
 point of view that opposes his and thus never has to address
 them. I consider that a highly dishonest approach to debate
 and do my best to address all the points a debating opponent
 makes.

Curtis says the same thing, that you ignore certain things in
the attempt to bolster your position on this.
   
   If you find where he says that, I think you'll see he's
   talking about something quite different.
  
  I really don't know. When I read your response here, I was 
  expecting to feel some kind of antagonism, but it just did
  not arise. I don't feel antagonism in reading Curtis either.
  That means some shift has occurred in my experience; I don't
  know what it is, but the argument now seems even more
  pointless than ever. This is the sequence of enlightenment, 
  perhaps. Any antagonism one has with life is what you get to
  lose. As long as we are holding on to a POV, we lose, if we
  feel the tentacles of an argument pulling us along, and we
  don't let go, we lose the game. If we let go of that we win
  the game, except the personal aspect is lost, we lose the
  'me', justification goes out the window.
 
 But this is DEscriptive, not PREscriptive.
 
 snip

Yeah, it's descriptive of my experience this morning. As far as the argument 
went I did not see Curtis as bullying, and I think you just drew it out 
interminably, and if he backs out of this pointlessness, a good move. You do 
not win. Your POV on this has no practical value that I can see. I cannot read 
your mind, but your passion seems an obsession. Have you ever tried, in an 
argument, to just stop, and even against your better judgment, simply 
surrender, and see what happens? It can be a really interesting experience to 
capitulate, even if in the fact of the case, one is right. I am saying this 
because these are the kinds of attachments that keep us locked down in 
ignorance. No point of view is worth losing the wholeness of life.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[authfriend]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
  anartaxius@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  snip
  Second, Curtis doesn't just leave out a detail here or
  there.
  He ignores large batches of points that make the
  case for the point of view that opposes his and
  thus never has to address them. I consider that
  a highly dishonest approach to debate and do my
  best to address all the points a debating opponent
  makes.
 
 Curtis says the same thing, that you ignore certain
 things in the attempt to bolster your position on this.

If you find where he says that, I think you'll see he's
talking about something quite different.
   
   I really don't know. When I read your response here, I was 
   expecting to feel some kind of antagonism, but it just did
   not arise. I don't feel antagonism in reading Curtis either.
   That means some shift has occurred in my experience; I don't
   know what it is, but the argument now seems even more
   pointless than ever. This is the sequence of enlightenment, 
   perhaps. Any antagonism one has with life is what you get to
   lose. As long as we are holding on to a POV, we lose, if we
   feel the tentacles of an argument pulling us along, and we
   don't let go, we lose the game. If we let go of that we win
   the game, except the personal aspect is lost, we lose the
   'me', justification goes out the window.
  
  But this is DEscriptive, not PREscriptive.
  
  snip
 
 Yeah, it's descriptive of my experience this morning. As far
 as the argument went I did not see Curtis as bullying,

Well, of course you didn't.

 and I think you just drew it out interminably,

Of course you think that.

 and if he backs out of this pointlessness, a good move.

That's what I told him, actually.

 You do not win.

Not if you're calling it, no.

 Your POV on this has no practical value that I can see.

Of course not.

 I cannot read your mind, but your passion seems an obsession.

Of course it seems that way to you.

 Have you ever tried, in an argument, to just stop, and even
 against your better judgment, simply surrender, and see what 
 happens?

I've stopped arguing with Curtis a few times, yes, when he
had so misrepresented a discussion that it would have been
impossible to untangle the convolutions and distortions 
he'd introduced.

 It can be a really interesting experience to capitulate,
 even if in the fact of the case, one is right. I am saying
 this because these are the kinds of attachments that keep
 us locked down in ignorance. No point of view is worth
 losing the wholeness of life.

You know, Xeno, I'm not really inclined to pay any attention
to your advice or your pronouncements on How It All Is. I've
never been much impressed by your ability to follow an online
conversation, nor your insight into other people, so I don't
hold your commentary on either to be of much value. Sorry.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

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

snip 
 You know, Xeno, I'm not really inclined to pay any attention
 to your advice or your pronouncements on How It All Is. I've
 never been much impressed by your ability to follow an online
 conversation, nor your insight into other people, so I don't
 hold your commentary on either to be of much value. Sorry.

You don't have to be sorry. I doubt you are. I do not think anyone one this 
forum follows a conversation like you do. I typically follow a conversation 
rather generally; the precise meanings of words, a le dictionaire are probably 
different in someone else's head than in mine, so there will always be some 
kind of disconnect, so being too focused on that aspect of it leads to trouble 
that cannot be unscrambled. Also I often do not have the time to more than skim 
an argument. In your case that lack of detail tends to lead to great difficulty 
for most here, especially for those with whom you disagree. I claim no great 
insight into other people, probably my most perceptive intuition is hardly 
better than a guess sometimes.

I was likely aware that you follow no one's advice here. Some peoplehere talk 
about their experiences, but you do not seem to, at least in relation to the 
subject of consciousness and enlightenment, so what you say in this regard 
seems derivative; that is my impression, and an impression is not a fact.

There is one aspect of your style that I feel would be better beneath you 
seeing the precision of your intellect, and that is the snide comments you 
sometimes interject into your writing, e.g., the following from replies to 
others in the last day or so:

   snicker
   guffaw
   belly laugh

Even if you perceive others are ridiculing you this way, you do not have to 
reply in kind; it is like a child on the playground taunting others, it adds 
nothing to the power of your arguments; it detracts by undermining maturity. I 
think you have it in you to be better than that, even if you are dealing with 
your on-line nemesis.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[raunchydog]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
  anartaxius@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  snip
  Second, Curtis doesn't just leave out a detail here or there.
  He ignores large batches of points that make the case for the
  point of view that opposes his and thus never has to address
  them. I consider that a highly dishonest approach to debate
  and do my best to address all the points a debating opponent
  makes.
 
 Curtis says the same thing, that you ignore certain things in
 the attempt to bolster your position on this.

If you find where he says that, I think you'll see he's
talking about something quite different.
   
   I really don't know. When I read your response here, I was 
   expecting to feel some kind of antagonism, but it just did
   not arise. I don't feel antagonism in reading Curtis either.
   That means some shift has occurred in my experience; I don't
   know what it is, but the argument now seems even more
   pointless than ever. This is the sequence of enlightenment, 
   perhaps. Any antagonism one has with life is what you get to
   lose. As long as we are holding on to a POV, we lose, if we
   feel the tentacles of an argument pulling us along, and we
   don't let go, we lose the game. If we let go of that we win
   the game, except the personal aspect is lost, we lose the
   'me', justification goes out the window.
  
  But this is DEscriptive, not PREscriptive.
  
  snip
 
 Yeah, it's descriptive of my experience this morning. As far as the argument 
 went I did not see Curtis as bullying, and I think you just drew it out 
 interminably, and if he backs out of this pointlessness, a good move. You do 
 not win. Your POV on this has no practical value that I can see. I cannot 
 read your mind, but your passion seems an obsession. Have you ever tried, in 
 an argument, to just stop, and even against your better judgment, simply 
 surrender, and see what happens? It can be a really interesting experience to 
 capitulate, even if in the fact of the case, one is right. I am saying this 
 because these are the kinds of attachments that keep us locked down in 
 ignorance. No point of view is worth losing the wholeness of life.


Judy has addressed all the points that Curtis raised. He hasn't addressed the 
points she has raised, which leads one to conclude that he chooses to ignore 
the points she raises or changes the context to fit his own POV because he 
cannot rebut her argument. Until he addresses the points she raised, Judy wins 
the debate. The winner of a debate does not capitulate, the loser does. Jeez, 
Xeno, you're sounding awfully pompous tonight.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[curtisdeltablues]

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

Judy won something (paraphrased)


So what exactly do you imagine she won?

I don't think she was justified in calling Sal a bully. Both you and Judy do.

I don't believe we are in a position to bully each other here.  You both do.

I believe that the definitions of bully are contingent on a power differential 
and that this is the aspect that is most important when applying it in the real 
world.  You both don't share that view.

Judy believes that me continuing the discussion as I had been doing was a form 
of bullying her, and I don't want any part of that kind of weird judgement on 
my discussion so I let it drop.  You feel that this means she won something.

You guys view this more as a team sport than I do.  I was enjoying the 
conversation of each of our views until she started pulling the B word on me 
and turning it into what Judy always turns a discussion into.  Her winning 
something.  I wouldn't have pegged you as buying into that Raunchy.  But here 
you are.

So you both won something.  Bully for you.







 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
   anartaxius@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
   snip
   Second, Curtis doesn't just leave out a detail here or there.
   He ignores large batches of points that make the case for the
   point of view that opposes his and thus never has to address
   them. I consider that a highly dishonest approach to debate
   and do my best to address all the points a debating opponent
   makes.
  
  Curtis says the same thing, that you ignore certain things in
  the attempt to bolster your position on this.
 
 If you find where he says that, I think you'll see he's
 talking about something quite different.

I really don't know. When I read your response here, I was 
expecting to feel some kind of antagonism, but it just did
not arise. I don't feel antagonism in reading Curtis either.
That means some shift has occurred in my experience; I don't
know what it is, but the argument now seems even more
pointless than ever. This is the sequence of enlightenment, 
perhaps. Any antagonism one has with life is what you get to
lose. As long as we are holding on to a POV, we lose, if we
feel the tentacles of an argument pulling us along, and we
don't let go, we lose the game. If we let go of that we win
the game, except the personal aspect is lost, we lose the
'me', justification goes out the window.
   
   But this is DEscriptive, not PREscriptive.
   
   snip
  
  Yeah, it's descriptive of my experience this morning. As far as the 
  argument went I did not see Curtis as bullying, and I think you just drew 
  it out interminably, and if he backs out of this pointlessness, a good 
  move. You do not win. Your POV on this has no practical value that I can 
  see. I cannot read your mind, but your passion seems an obsession. Have you 
  ever tried, in an argument, to just stop, and even against your better 
  judgment, simply surrender, and see what happens? It can be a really 
  interesting experience to capitulate, even if in the fact of the case, one 
  is right. I am saying this because these are the kinds of attachments that 
  keep us locked down in ignorance. No point of view is worth losing the 
  wholeness of life.
 
 
 Judy has addressed all the points that Curtis raised. He hasn't addressed the 
 points she has raised, which leads one to conclude that he chooses to ignore 
 the points she raises or changes the context to fit his own POV because he 
 cannot rebut her argument. Until he addresses the points she raised, Judy 
 wins the debate. The winner of a debate does not capitulate, the loser does. 
 Jeez, Xeno, you're sounding awfully pompous tonight.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[turquoiseb]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
 
 Judy won something (paraphrased)
 
 So what exactly do you imagine she won?

I would love to hear Raunchy explain that myself.

 I don't think she was justified in calling Sal a bully. Both 
 you and Judy do.
 
 I don't believe we are in a position to bully each other here.  
 You both do.
 
 I believe that the definitions of bully are contingent on a 
 power differential and that this is the aspect that is most 
 important when applying it in the real world.  You both don't 
 share that view.
 
 Judy believes that me continuing the discussion as I had been 
 doing was a form of bullying her, and I don't want any part 
 of that kind of weird judgement on my discussion so I let 
 it drop.  You feel that this means she won something.
 
 You guys view this more as a team sport than I do.  

The very fact that they view constant argument as a 
sport in the first place is weird. That they view it
as a kind of team sport is insane.

 I was enjoying the conversation of each of our views until 
 she started pulling the B word on me and turning it into what 
 Judy always turns a discussion into.  Her winning something.  

How utterly pathetic. 

Try to *imagine* anything more pathetic than a 70-year-old
woman feeling that winning an argument on the Internet
is something valuable, something to be achieved. 

It actually boggles the mind. And Judy seemingly has nothing
else. How utterly pathetic.

 I wouldn't have pegged you as buying into that Raunchy.  But 
 here you are.
 
 So you both won something.  Bully for you.

A pathetic person, and the pathetic person's groupie.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[authfriend]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
 snip 
  You know, Xeno, I'm not really inclined to pay any attention
  to your advice or your pronouncements on How It All Is. I've
  never been much impressed by your ability to follow an online
  conversation, nor your insight into other people, so I don't
  hold your commentary on either to be of much value. Sorry.
 
 You don't have to be sorry. I doubt you are.

No, it's a ritual apology.

 I do not think
 anyone one this forum follows a conversation like you do.

Au contraire, IMHO. At any rate, many are able to
follow conversations better than you do.

 I typically follow a conversation rather generally; the
 precise meanings of words, a le dictionaire are probably
 different in someone else's head than in mine, so there
 will always be some kind of disconnect, so being too
 focused on that aspect of it leads to trouble that
 cannot be unscrambled.

Dictionaries can be helpful sometimes, but of course that
isn't what I meant by following a conversation.

 Also I often do not have the time to more than skim an
 argument.

I tend to refrain from intervening in arguments that I've
only had time to skim. It isn't fair to the participants
to make pronouncements on competing points of view if I
don't have a clear idea of the participants' positions and
how the argument has proceeded.

 In your case that lack of detail tends to lead to great
 difficulty for most here, especially for those with whom
 you disagree.

I think it would lead to great difficulty with regard to
any discussion for someone to butt in to a discussion
without really having a good grasp of what was involved.

 I claim no great insight into other people, probably my
 most perceptive intuition is hardly better than a guess
 sometimes.
 
 I was likely aware that you follow no one's advice here.
 Some peoplehere talk about their experiences, but you do
 not seem to, at least in relation to the subject of
 consciousness and enlightenment, so what you say in this
 regard seems derivative; that is my impression, and an
 impression is not a fact.

I'm wondering how talking about experiences got introduced
with regard to whether I follow anyone's advice.

I'm also wondering what you're identifying as what you
say in this regard, because typically what I say about
experiences of consciousness is from MMY's teaching, and
I identify it as such. IOW, to say it seems derivative
sounds like a gratuitous potshot when I've been clear
where it comes from.

In any case, as you know, I've described my experience
of consciousness in response to your request. By its
very nature--low key and gradual and almost impossible
to describe, if you'll recall--I fail to see how it
would contribute much to any of the conversations here.

 There is one aspect of your style that I feel would be
 better beneath you seeing the precision of your intellect,
 and that is the snide comments you sometimes interject
 into your writing, e.g., the following from replies to
 others in the last day or so:
 
snicker
guffaw
belly laugh
 
 Even if you perceive others are ridiculing you this way,
 you do not have to reply in kind; it is like a child on
 the playground taunting others, it adds nothing to the
 power of your arguments; it detracts by undermining
 maturity. I think you have it in you to be better than
 that, even if you are dealing with your on-line nemesis.

horselaugh

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[authfriend]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote:
  
  Judy won something (paraphrased)
  
  So what exactly do you imagine she won?
 
 I would love to hear Raunchy explain that myself.
 
  I don't think she was justified in calling Sal a bully. Both 
  you and Judy do.
  
  I don't believe we are in a position to bully each other here.  
  You both do.
  
  I believe that the definitions of bully are contingent on a 
  power differential and that this is the aspect that is most 
  important when applying it in the real world.  You both don't 
  share that view.
  
  Judy believes that me continuing the discussion as I had been 
  doing was a form of bullying her, and I don't want any part 
  of that kind of weird judgement on my discussion so I let 
  it drop.  You feel that this means she won something.
  
  You guys view this more as a team sport than I do.  
 
 The very fact that they view constant argument as a 
 sport in the first place is weird. That they view it
 as a kind of team sport is insane.
 
  I was enjoying the conversation of each of our views until 
  she started pulling the B word on me and turning it into what 
  Judy always turns a discussion into.  Her winning something.  
 
 How utterly pathetic. 
 
 Try to *imagine* anything more pathetic than a 70-year-old
 woman feeling that winning an argument on the Internet
 is something valuable, something to be achieved. 
 
 It actually boggles the mind. And Judy seemingly has nothing
 else. How utterly pathetic.

Barry and Curtis both seem a little confused about who said
what. Actually it was Raunchy who said I had won the
argument. I made no such claim.

What I find pathetic is a person who has shown himself to be
incompetent at debate claiming that it's weird for anybody
to enjoy debating.

Even more pathetic is for this person to claim that he finds
debate as a team sport insane, especially when he says
this to Curtis, whom he frequently backs up, just as Raunchy
backed me up.

Curtis at least took his best shot at this debate (which he
had started) and hung in for a long time. He didn't do very
well, to say the least, and his excuse for finally backing
out is transparently self-serving, but he did try.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[authfriend]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
   Take a look at the Wikipedia page on bullying. It confirms
   what I've been saying:
   
   Bullying is a form of aggressive behavior manifested by
   the use of force or coercion to affect others, particularly
   when the behavior is habitual and involves an imbalance of
   power. It can include verbal harassment, physical assault
   or coercion and may be directed repeatedly towards particular
   victims, perhaps on grounds of race, religion, gender,
   sexuality, or ability. The 'imbalance of power' may be social
   power and/or physical powerBullying can occur in any
   context in which human beings interact with each other.
   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying
   
   Any context in which human beings interact with each other.
   That could hardly be clearer, could it?
   
   If we focus on this we can see the outlines of the cognitive gap
   you have been displaying in this discussion.  By taking the last
   line away from the preceding sentences, you demonstrate the 
   desperateness of your attempt to be right about something you
   are wrong about.
   
   Do you seriously propose that the last line stands on its own
   and is not referencing the conditions spelled out above it?
  
  Did you seriously imagine I wouldn't just go ahead and quote
  what you're claiming I deliberately left out, so everyone
  can see yet another example of your disingenuity?
 
 I can't make heads or tails out of this.  I am just using
 the part you quoted to make your point.  I have rad books
 on the subject I don't need to go to Wiki to understand the
 term.

I was pointing out that Wikipedia agrees with me.

 I wasn't even aware of anything you left out, I was
 discussing what you posted.

OK, I misunderstood. Your writing has been getting 
increasingly unclear lately.

 And you didn't answer the question.  Are you proposing that
 the last line is not in reference to the ones preceding it?

And your questions are getting increasingly dimwitted. Why
would I have quoted the paragraph above that line if I
thought the line had nothing to do with the paragraph?

snip
  Ooopsie. Not a thing did I leave out that was relevant to
  the issue we've been discussing, certainly nothing that in
  any way conflicts with what I've been saying.
 
 Judy, you are off the rails here.  I wasn't referring to any
 of this which only strengthens my point, I was referring to
 your own quotes that you did use.

OK, as I said, I misunderstood you to be accusing me of
leaving stuff out deliberately.

 You tried to isolate the last sentence and claimed That
 could hardly be clearer, could it?

Too funny. You're really flailing here.

 No it is misleading to isolate it from what you quoted above
 or all the rest of it you just quoted.

Not when the rest of the paragraph is immediately above
it, no, it's not the least bit misleading. What I pulled
out was the salient point that I wanted to emphasize.

 Bullying requires a power differential to be a meaningful term.

That's right, including kind of social power differential
that exists on FFL.

 We have other words for things people do that annoy us in
 other ways.

That's right, but they don't apply to the kind of bullying
I've been talking about.

 Listen, I get it, you can't be wrong.  I am not arguing with
 you about your misunderstanding of the term.

How could you when I don't misunderstand it?

 I don't care if you can't understand it.  I was clearing the
 record about your misuse of it for Sal.

No, you were confusing the record by pretending I was
misusing it for Sal.

 She never bullied

She bullied frequently.

 and even your Can O' Crazy is not bullying me.

How about your Barrel O' Crazy that I pulled out and put
in a separate post? How about all the rest of this
exchange in which you portray me as having deliberately
misused the term? That sure is what I'd call bullying.

 We don't have the leverage here to accomplish the key aspect
 of how that term is applied, power differential.

Sure we do. And the bullies here use it all the time.

snip
   as long as there are the conditions of an imbalance of power, 
   social, physical etc.  Conditions that are not met on the 
   interactions on this board and certainly were not met by Sal's 
   posts here to others that you happened to not agree with.
  
  If you want to close your eyes to avoid seeing the power
  imbalances here, I can't stop you. All I can do is point
  out what you're doing.
 
 You have never made a case for Sal having a power imbalance
 over anyone

You know what? Your reading comprehension is very poor,
Curtis. I've explained several times now that the *attempt*
to create or enhance a power imbalance is bullying whether
it's successful or not. I don't have to make a case for
Sal having a power imbalance over anyone.

 where, you took the misguided track of 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

Curtis  Judy

This has been going on quite some time. I felt an impulse, no doubt governed by 
some laws of nature, to pipe in, though contrary to what I said before about 
wanting to stay out of it.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
Definition of BULLY
1
archaic 
a : sweetheart 
b : a fine chap 
2
a : a blustering browbeating person; especially : one habitually cruel to 
others who are weaker 
b : pimp 
3
: a hired ruffian 

Origin of BULLY
probably from Middle Dutch boele lover; akin to Middle Low German bōle lover, 
Middle High German buole
First Known Use: 1538

Hey you two are battling world-views, not so much definitions. Words change 
with time, meanings drift, and on the personal level of life, we generally also 
do not have dictionary definitions in our minds when we use words, it is often 
intuitive use based on how we learned the word in relation to other words that 
we have heard. Words only have meaning in relation to other words and 
experiences, and in a population this is always in a state of flux. 
Dictionaries also are not the rule for a word, but a record of how it has been 
used in the past. If we were to go with the archaic meaning of bully in 
Merriam-Webster, then if Curtis is bullying Judy and bullying were not an 
especial use, but general, she would be a sweetheart, which reading this forum, 
surely is not the case. By using the word to mean sweetheart, I am using the 
word in the most general time-inclusive way possible, by allowing an archaic 
definition.

Judy is an editor. Curtis is a working musician. Judy is using the book, and 
Curtis is using living language, and possibly experience, in his use of the 
word.

I tend to go along with Curtis. In my own experiences of bullying, a long time 
ago, I tended to get picked on; I was less strong, and perceived as probably 
weaker. The few times, alas, that I picked on someone, it was someone I 
perceived as weaker. I dread these memories, but not the ones where I was 
picked on. Sometimes I would stand up to the bully, and even if it did not come 
out to my advantage, it did earn me some respect in the eyes of the bully. So 
the stronger weaker dichotomy, I feel, holds well. 

Note that this Merriam-Webster definition says one who is habitually cruel to 
the weaker person, but not all instances are habitual. A person who browbeats 
another even once can be a bully. Being a bully (since I was apparently one for 
or two incidents in my life) is like a state of consciousness, you cannot do it 
unless you perceive that you will over-master the other person, beat them down, 
or destroy them. It is an intuitive sort of thing - this person is some kind of 
wimp, and I will win because I am absolutely sure they will crumble. It is a 
state of experiencing power over its lack. It is being coloured with the 
essential quality of evil, the opposite of well-being. But I think its quality 
involves a physical sense of might. 

This does not really exist here on the forum, it is all mental on the forum, 
even though we read physical words on a screen, the interactions are not 
physical like even a simple face-to-face conversation. An audio chat would be 
something closer, and a video chat might be closer still, but the sense of 
physical threat is what really delineates a bully.

Oxford Dictionaries ( http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/bully }

bully 

noun  (plural bullies)

a person who uses strength or influence to harm or intimidate those who are 
weaker: 
 he is a ranting, domineering bully

verb  (bullies, bullying, bullied)

use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force 
them to do something:
 a local man was bullied into helping them

Origin:

mid 16th century: probably from Middle Dutch boele 'lover'. Original use was as 
a term of endearment applied to either sex; it later became a familiar form of 
address to a male friend. The current sense dates from the late 17th century

I would try the Oxford English Dictionary, but subscription costs are like 
£215 (= US $340) a year for online use.

Not very many people I know walk around with a dictionary in their head and use 
that as the basis for what they say. We interact by jousting our typically 
erroneous world views, much ado about nothing. Kiss and make up kids. Is that 
making up? Making out? A hormone and/or neurological pressing of exogenous 
surfaces together? Chemical activity?

These online debates are so long and line-by-line complex that it is difficult 
to not leave out something, almost nobody has a memory good enough to recall 
all the details, so castigating each other about leaving out some detail seems 
mostly pointless. But having argued with Judy myself, I do admire Curtis's 
resolve here. I think I would just give up and nuke New Jersey. While Judy is 
being very specific verbally, I think Curtis is being just practical with his 
view of bullying, and this argument is about two different views. My own 
experience is if we 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers

[curtisdeltablues]

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

While Judy is being very specific verbally, I think Curtis is being just 
practical with his view of bullying, and this argument is about two different 
views. 

We are being equally specific.  Judy is just pretending that the definitions 
don't say what they say about how to apply the term bully.  She wants to use it 
for people she doesn't like to make their behavior look worse than it is.  It 
is one thing to say someone made a sarcastic post that might hurt someone's 
feelings.  It is quite another to accuse someone of the offense of bullying 
when they have not, or in this case, could not have done so.

Your experience speaks to the the way the term is understood by all of us here, 
Judy was on a fool's errand from the beginning.  She knows what the word means 
and how unfair it makes the person sound.  That is why she chose it.  Since Sal 
is not here to correct the error in her more concise snappy style, I was left 
with all my words.  But I am having fun, you too?



 Curtis  Judy
 
 This has been going on quite some time. I felt an impulse, no doubt governed 
 by some laws of nature, to pipe in, though contrary to what I said before 
 about wanting to stay out of it.
 
 Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
 Definition of BULLY
 1
 archaic 
 a : sweetheart 
 b : a fine chap 
 2
 a : a blustering browbeating person; especially : one habitually cruel to 
 others who are weaker 
 b : pimp 
 3
 : a hired ruffian 
 
 Origin of BULLY
 probably from Middle Dutch boele lover; akin to Middle Low German bōle 
 lover, Middle High German buole
 First Known Use: 1538
 
 Hey you two are battling world-views, not so much definitions. Words change 
 with time, meanings drift, and on the personal level of life, we generally 
 also do not have dictionary definitions in our minds when we use words, it is 
 often intuitive use based on how we learned the word in relation to other 
 words that we have heard. Words only have meaning in relation to other words 
 and experiences, and in a population this is always in a state of flux. 
 Dictionaries also are not the rule for a word, but a record of how it has 
 been used in the past. If we were to go with the archaic meaning of bully in 
 Merriam-Webster, then if Curtis is bullying Judy and bullying were not an 
 especial use, but general, she would be a sweetheart, which reading this 
 forum, surely is not the case. By using the word to mean sweetheart, I am 
 using the word in the most general time-inclusive way possible, by allowing 
 an archaic definition.
 
 Judy is an editor. Curtis is a working musician. Judy is using the book, and 
 Curtis is using living language, and possibly experience, in his use of the 
 word.
 
 I tend to go along with Curtis. In my own experiences of bullying, a long 
 time ago, I tended to get picked on; I was less strong, and perceived as 
 probably weaker. The few times, alas, that I picked on someone, it was 
 someone I perceived as weaker. I dread these memories, but not the ones where 
 I was picked on. Sometimes I would stand up to the bully, and even if it did 
 not come out to my advantage, it did earn me some respect in the eyes of the 
 bully. So the stronger weaker dichotomy, I feel, holds well. 
 
 Note that this Merriam-Webster definition says one who is habitually cruel to 
 the weaker person, but not all instances are habitual. A person who browbeats 
 another even once can be a bully. Being a bully (since I was apparently one 
 for or two incidents in my life) is like a state of consciousness, you cannot 
 do it unless you perceive that you will over-master the other person, beat 
 them down, or destroy them. It is an intuitive sort of thing - this person is 
 some kind of wimp, and I will win because I am absolutely sure they will 
 crumble. It is a state of experiencing power over its lack. It is being 
 coloured with the essential quality of evil, the opposite of well-being. But 
 I think its quality involves a physical sense of might. 
 
 This does not really exist here on the forum, it is all mental on the forum, 
 even though we read physical words on a screen, the interactions are not 
 physical like even a simple face-to-face conversation. An audio chat would be 
 something closer, and a video chat might be closer still, but the sense of 
 physical threat is what really delineates a bully.
 
 Oxford Dictionaries ( http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/bully }
 
 bully 
 
 noun  (plural bullies)
 
 a person who uses strength or influence to harm or intimidate those who are 
 weaker: 
  he is a ranting, domineering bully
 
 verb  (bullies, bullying, bullied)
 
 use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to 
 force them to do something:
  a local man was bullied into helping them
 
 Origin:
 
 mid 16th century: probably from Middle Dutch boele 'lover'. Original use was 
 as a term of endearment applied to