Preach on, Brother. I agree with everything said below. And do feel
like much of FFL has been hijacked and taken to an entirely different
tone and tenor from what it used to be. There are several people
whose posts I consistently open because I know that there will be
something of value in what
IMO, posters get into a pit of sand, hard to dig out, when they try to
diagnose motives and moods of other posters. If Dr. Pete can't do it
via text, and he is a trained professional in deciphering such with
live clients
Is there anyone here who is trained to work with dead clients? If so,
This is really a great analysis, Gabby, my previous joke about it
notwithstanding. Pretty
much how I often feel as well.
Sal
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctor_gabby_savy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
MG's recent post is another example. Diagnosing complex and generally
perversre
When I first chanced on FFL it seemed 'gentlemanly' if you can excuse
the non-PC term. Nowadays, it is an alley where one has to beware of
who might be about. Although it appears that there are more posts
nowadays, this is something of an illusion, since there is now an
anything-goes mentality
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctor_gabby_savy
[...]
Ownership and identity with petty things like thoughts and
intellectual creations certainly wanes in the process of consciouness
waking up to itself. From day one of transcennding IME. To claim full
wakefulness of consiousness to
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctor_gabby_savy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Premanand Paul Mason
premanandpaul@ wrote:
Well, for starters your posts always seem to me to be reasonably
polite, which is welcome.
Thanks.
I think if posters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been on forums way back to CompuServe in the early 1980's.
On all groups over the years I subscribe to there would be
flare-ups over how people post and the value of what they
post. These would always simmer down
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have to wonder how East can be the basis for so much
controversy with its being an arbitrary designation on an
insignificant planet in a minor solar system in a galaxy 0n the edge
of etc. etc.
I would think it should
I find that *very* annoying, Anon. Take it all back or I'm calling the Feds!
Sal
On Jan 31, 2006, at 11:30 PM, anonyff wrote:
Here's my imitation of a Michael Dean Goodman post
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Why don't you use your name, coward?
--- anonyff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's my imitation of a Michael Dean Goodman post
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah
Blah blah blah blah
He did. Don't you know the Anonyff's? Its a fine old New York family.
Frederick Anonuff came over on the Mayflower. Joseph Anonyff was an
alternate representative at the Declaration of Independence meetings.
Would have been a signer if the primary was still sick from too much
snuff.
--- In
on 1/31/06 8:16 PM, wayback71 at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nicely put, Michael. It seems to me that much of FFL is a different place
than it was a few
years ago. There are wonderful discussions, good laughs, and such knowledgable
people
here. But I skip many of the posts these days
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on 1/31/06 8:16 PM, wayback71 at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nicely put, Michael. It seems to me that much of FFL is a
different place
than it was a few
years ago. There are wonderful discussions, good laughs,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
on 1/31/06 8:16 PM, wayback71 at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree. I don't get this hostility on the Internet thing.
A basic question: can you objectively identify hostility in another, a
stranger -- someone you have
--- Michael Dean Goodman wrote:
you folks who joust and attack and bully
and rant, hiding behind anonymity here - in
my opinion you are simply cowards. Prove me
wrong. Reveal yourselves. Take responsibility for
your words. Step out of the shadows into the light.
All right. So be it.
doctor_gabby_savy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I checked the last 50 or so Technology arttices in the
NYTimes. And the last 50 or so articles in the Washington
section. Could't find anything close to what the poster cited.
So I did a search on anonymous and seperately on annoy.
There
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
doctor_gabby_savy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] responded:
Judy (authfriend) [EMAIL PROTECTED] then wrote:
Michael Dean Goodman wrote:
Dear Judy,
snip
Nicely put,
Perhaps then you could post something of interest periodically.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
doctor_gabby_savy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TurquoiseB [EMAIL
Here's my imitation of a Michael Dean Goodman post
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Here's my imitation of a Michael Dean Goodman post
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
This post is pretty funny. If not sad. Its sounded so odd that such a
major bill could pass congress and be signed without any controversy
in the media. It a major Free Speech issue.
So I checked the last 50 or so Technology arttices in the NYTimes. And
the last 50 or so articles in the
CNET NEWS
Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
By Declan McCullagh
9th January 2006
http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-
6022491.html?tag=nl
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctor_gabby_savy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This post is pretty funny.
http://news.com.com/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?tag=nl
easier-to-use URL
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Premanand Paul Mason
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CNET NEWS
Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
By Declan McCullagh
9th January 2006
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctor_gabby_savy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I checked the last 50 or so Technology arttices in the
NYTimes. And the last 50 or so articles in the Washington
section. Could't find anything close to what the poster cited.
So I did a search on
Yeah, his post reminded me of someone trying to understand something
written in a language that he cannot read. He uses a dictionary and he can
figure out the basic meanings of the words, but when he tries to put it all
together he writes nonsense.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctor_gabby_savy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This post is pretty funny. If not sad. Its sounded so odd that such
a major bill could pass congress and be signed without any
controversy in the media. It a major Free Speech issue.
So I checked the last 50
Thanks for the cite. I was thrown off by poster's misleading
timeframe. The bill was signed Jan 5, while the post implies it was
last thursday aka 1/26. I didn't look far enough back in
the archives.
1/28/06 post: I post the following information, from today's New York
Times news reports:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctor_gabby_savy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I checked the last 50 or so Technology arttices in the
NYTimes. And the last 50 or so articles in the Washington
section.
On Jan 29, 2006, at 12:29 PM, TurquoiseB wrote:The funny thing is, AkashAnonGabby, since the law appears to be real, you're the first person since it was mentioned here who would qualify for prosecution under it. And this probably comes as a shock to no one here. Now, now, now let's calm
It applies to private mails not lists, newsgroups, or forums. I
already mentioned in a reply to Paul post (which for some reason hasn't
arrived on the list even though that was over an hour ago and the other
sent at the same time to Michael posted immediately) that if you read
the CNET
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It applies to private mails not lists, newsgroups, or forums. I
already mentioned in a reply to Paul post (which for some reason hasn't
arrived on the list even though that was over an hour ago and the other
sent at
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It applies to private mails not lists, newsgroups, or forums. ...
if you read
the CNET article and scroll down to the comments you'll find that a)
Declan posted a link to the wrong section of the law and b) parsing the
Be sure to read the comments section below the article. You'll see the
paranoia was pretty much put to rest as this is for personal or private
emails, not lists, newsgroups or forums.
- Bhairitu
Premanand Paul Mason wrote:
CNET NEWS
Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
By Declan
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctor_gabby_savy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctor_gabby_savy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I checked the last 50 or so Technology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone with half a brain would have Googled on the name
of the law itself.
I guess thats why you did why you Googled it.
The funny thing is, AkashAnonGabby,
Are you calling me anonymously spacey?
since the law
35 matches
Mail list logo
