[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: CURTIS: This exchange made it worth participating on FFL this month! Thanks. ROBIN: A wonderfully generous and fair and noble summing up. We are grateful for this, Curtis. I entirely concur--and not under duress either. I envy your brotherly love with Barry. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: CURTIS: That was a bit of a revelation and a cogent analysis of why we can't get there from here between some posters. ROBIN: Indubitably. The self-objectivity of you and Barry in terms of appraising your performance on FFL, it is something I strive for, Curtis. Well, at least you don't have to worry about getting crucified for your willingness to stand for the truth. Curtis: I am the way, the truth, and the life. Except you come through me you cannot enter the kingdom of Curtis. I wish I could enter that kingdom, Curtis. My conscience in this regard is my enemy. BARRY: Glad you enjoyed it. ROBIN: I enjoyed it too, Barry. But my response carries the universality of my pleasure in it, not the inside fidelity of my friendship with you. Glad you enjoyed it--why even have to say this out loud to each other, Barry? We all know that you would be glad that Curtis enjoyed it. Stick with the secret handshake. Don't give away the initiation ceremony with all the skulls. CURTIS: Since I know the hypothetical guy you were imagining... it also explains why it can be fun to go point by point to stimulate a different part of my brain. That was largely what doing philosophy involved and I enjoy that in a different way from creative writing. ROBIN: What a guy we have here who presents himself to us. Inside talk to Barry: closed off to the rest of us. This quarantined talk between you and Barry: it is a singular phenomenon on FFL: no one else acts as if their bond was a Freemasonry; only you and Barry. This is decisive in its sentence of failure. I don't know any posters on the other side--the hostile alliance arrayed against you guys--who speak in a kind of intimate sphere of seclusion. A wonder, this. You have stopped talking to reality; you are only talking to yourselves. Hope this works when you come to the Big Event that all of us face, Curtis. But then you are a True Believer. CLICK BARRY: Professor Phillips points out that neither of these modes of brain functioning are superior, and in fact the real benefit is that we can switch between them, to train and develop different parts of the brain. In her words, ...cognition is shaped not just by what we read, but how we read it. Reading rigorously and analyzing the ideas presented and even the structure of the language and how the ideas are presented exercises one mode of functioning in our brains, and cultivates that mode. Reading just for the fun of it exercises another mode of functioning, and cultivates it. Both are necessary to see the world around us clearly, from a balanced point of view. ROBIN: You and Curtis: You guys didn't even have to read the theory: it is already embodied in the performance of each of you. This is just self-congratulations. You are reading a description of what your brains do perfectly already. I like this. I am jealous of this. It is an achievement which we can only lament because it is clear, from the tone of your conversation with Curtis, that the rest of us have been left out. Reading rigorously and analyzing the ideas presented and even the structure of the language and how the ideas are presented: this is an exercise that is manifest in every one of your posts, Barry. Both are necessary to see the world around us clearly, from a balanced point of view. Oops! I get it. This is Monty Python. But since I can't quite bring myself to believe that, I am going to take you and Curtis seriously from here until I get to the end. CURTIS: Drilling deeper into this thoery I can also see how being attacked here stimulates a pseudo fear mechanism that prompts and urgency of response. Combined with things that a reader feels are inaccurate it creates a sturdy chain to pull and get pulled by. That may be a case for not posting in a place where a lot of that goes on. It is hard to resist getting pulled into that cycle, especially when not much more of that writing is going on. ROBIN: For your position to be true, Curtis, it requires that Raunchy's three satirical pieces didn't make it. Are you prepared to lie through your teeth and declare that it is your honest experience that Barry's assessment of the efficacy of Raunchy's dialogues is in agreement with a truth beyond and outside of your, my, Raunchy's, and Barry's POV? Your loyalty to your friend comes ahead of any regard for truth. And the appalling and ludicrous implication of what you say here is: NO ONE BUT YOU
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=berL-80EPmg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra maskedzebra@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: CURTIS: This exchange made it worth participating on FFL this month! Thanks. ROBIN: A wonderfully generous and fair and noble summing up. We are grateful for this, Curtis. I entirely concur--and not under duress either. I envy your brotherly love with Barry. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: CURTIS: That was a bit of a revelation and a cogent analysis of why we can't get there from here between some posters. ROBIN: Indubitably. The self-objectivity of you and Barry in terms of appraising your performance on FFL, it is something I strive for, Curtis. Well, at least you don't have to worry about getting crucified for your willingness to stand for the truth. Curtis: I am the way, the truth, and the life. Except you come through me you cannot enter the kingdom of Curtis. I wish I could enter that kingdom, Curtis. My conscience in this regard is my enemy. BARRY: Glad you enjoyed it. ROBIN: I enjoyed it too, Barry. But my response carries the universality of my pleasure in it, not the inside fidelity of my friendship with you. Glad you enjoyed it--why even have to say this out loud to each other, Barry? We all know that you would be glad that Curtis enjoyed it. Stick with the secret handshake. Don't give away the initiation ceremony with all the skulls. CURTIS: Since I know the hypothetical guy you were imagining... it also explains why it can be fun to go point by point to stimulate a different part of my brain. That was largely what doing philosophy involved and I enjoy that in a different way from creative writing. ROBIN: What a guy we have here who presents himself to us. Inside talk to Barry: closed off to the rest of us. This quarantined talk between you and Barry: it is a singular phenomenon on FFL: no one else acts as if their bond was a Freemasonry; only you and Barry. This is decisive in its sentence of failure. I don't know any posters on the other side--the hostile alliance arrayed against you guys--who speak in a kind of intimate sphere of seclusion. A wonder, this. You have stopped talking to reality; you are only talking to yourselves. Hope this works when you come to the Big Event that all of us face, Curtis. But then you are a True Believer. CLICK BARRY: Professor Phillips points out that neither of these modes of brain functioning are superior, and in fact the real benefit is that we can switch between them, to train and develop different parts of the brain. In her words, ...cognition is shaped not just by what we read, but how we read it. Reading rigorously and analyzing the ideas presented and even the structure of the language and how the ideas are presented exercises one mode of functioning in our brains, and cultivates that mode. Reading just for the fun of it exercises another mode of functioning, and cultivates it. Both are necessary to see the world around us clearly, from a balanced point of view. ROBIN: You and Curtis: You guys didn't even have to read the theory: it is already embodied in the performance of each of you. This is just self-congratulations. You are reading a description of what your brains do perfectly already. I like this. I am jealous of this. It is an achievement which we can only lament because it is clear, from the tone of your conversation with Curtis, that the rest of us have been left out. Reading rigorously and analyzing the ideas presented and even the structure of the language and how the ideas are presented: this is an exercise that is manifest in every one of your posts, Barry. Both are necessary to see the world around us clearly, from a balanced point of view. Oops! I get it. This is Monty Python. But since I can't quite bring myself to believe that, I am going to take you and Curtis seriously from here until I get to the end. CURTIS: Drilling deeper into this thoery I can also see how being attacked here stimulates a pseudo fear mechanism that prompts and urgency of response. Combined with things that a reader feels are inaccurate it creates a sturdy chain to pull and get pulled by. That may be a case for not posting in a place where a lot of that goes on. It is hard to resist getting pulled into that cycle, especially when not much more of that writing is going on. ROBIN: For your position to be true, Curtis, it requires that Raunchy's three satirical pieces didn't make it. Are you prepared to lie through your teeth and declare that it is your honest experience that Barry's assessment of the efficacy of Raunchy's dialogues is in agreement with a truth
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the import of my complete thought as contained in the whole paragraph. Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but tripping on what you said above, I thought I should draw your attention to a post I made here recently entitled This is your brain on reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510 It details some fascinating research being done on people to determine what is going on in their brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is called close reading, as if they have to report on what they're reading later in an essay about it. The researchers, watching the brains of people through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered that very different parts of the brain are being used, depending on whether one is reading for pleasure, or doing close reading. Riffing on what you say above, is it possible that a certain person is using different parts of their brain when reading your posts than you used when writing them? I find this an interesting question when applied to this forum. Different strokes for different folks turns out to be true even in the brain, and at different times, depending on the *intent* with which we read. Two people could read the same piece of literature -- in the experiments, passages from Jane Austen -- and get two very different things from them. That's not a surprise, of course, chances are we *all* would see the same passages slightly differently. *However*, the new information from these studies is that the *same* person could view and interpret these passages completely differently, depend- ing on how they're reading them -- for pleasure, or for work. Taking a profession completely at random, consider the case of a professional editor. Their day job is parsing other people's writing, *looking for nits to pick*. The person is, as you suggest, parsing word by word, sentence by sentence, *look- ing for errors or lapses in grammar or logic*. And to such a person, a single typo or misspelling could render an entire work unworthy of publication, and thus of being taken seriously. Now consider another random profession, say a person who makes their living as a musician and an educator. Such a person might have said many times that they read the posts on FFL -- and write their own -- for pleasure. They do *not* tend to parse them carefully, looking for things not right in them; instead they might be looking for things to enjoy. Which is the objective, after all, of reading for pleasure. These two types of people, conditioned by years of habit to read either for pleasure or for work, might be using entirely different parts of their brains while reading, and as a result might have a tendency to react to what you write completely differently. Now make a mental leap with me beyond the context of the experiments so far and to the next level. If humans use different parts of their brains when either reading for pleasure or reading more seriously, close reading, is it possible that they do the exact same thing when writing? The musician in my completely random example, for example, might have gone on record many times as saying that he writes for pleasure, for the sheer fun of writing and for the joy of seeing one's ideas come together as a result of the very act of writing. I'm like that, and I intuit that you might be, too. Someone else might tend to bring the same close reading brain functioning they practice as a reader to their writing, and tend to take the writing more seriously, and less as an opportunity to have fun. They might, in fact, be practicing close writing. If this were the case, would it not be likely that they are using an entirely different mode of brain functioning when writing than the person who is writing for the pleasure of it? Just a few random thoughts, written for the pleasure of writing them. Parse them as you will, and do with them what you will, using whatever parts of your brain you tend to use when doing that sorta stuff. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: That was a bit of a revelation and a cogent analysis of why we can't get there from here between some posters. Since I know the hypothetical guy you were imagining...it also explains why it can be fun to go point by point to stimulate a different part of my brain. That was largely what doing philosophy involved and I enjoy that in a different way from creative writing. Drilling deeper into this thoery I can also see how being attacked here stimulates a pseudo fear mechanism that prompts and urgency of response. Combined with things that a reader feels are inaccurate it creates a sturdy chain to pull and get pulled by. That may be a case for not posting in a place where a lot of that goes on. It is hard to resist getting pulled into that cycle, especially when not much more of that writing is going on. I used to think about some of the back and forth stuff about Maharishi's philosophy here as more of the first thing, the stimulation of the close attention part of my brain. As it has drifted further and further from any content, it has become less and less satisfying in that regard, so I switch to the creative but negative angle creating images of trollish scenes to keep me interested in writing. This really gives me a lot to think about, thanks for that Barry. I would like to become a bit more conscious of my outcomes here and ultimately if being here is where my real outcomes are likely to get met in becoming the kind of writer I want to be. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the import of my complete thought as contained in the whole paragraph. Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but tripping on what you said above, I thought I should draw your attention to a post I made here recently entitled This is your brain on reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510 It details some fascinating research being done on people to determine what is going on in their brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is called close reading, as if they have to report on what they're reading later in an essay about it. The researchers, watching the brains of people through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered that very different parts of the brain are being used, depending on whether one is reading for pleasure, or doing close reading. Riffing on what you say above, is it possible that a certain person is using different parts of their brain when reading your posts than you used when writing them? I find this an interesting question when applied to this forum. Different strokes for different folks turns out to be true even in the brain, and at different times, depending on the *intent* with which we read. Two people could read the same piece of literature -- in the experiments, passages from Jane Austen -- and get two very different things from them. That's not a surprise, of course, chances are we *all* would see the same passages slightly differently. *However*, the new information from these studies is that the *same* person could view and interpret these passages completely differently, depend- ing on how they're reading them -- for pleasure, or for work. Taking a profession completely at random, consider the case of a professional editor. Their day job is parsing other people's writing, *looking for nits to pick*. The person is, as you suggest, parsing word by word, sentence by sentence, *look- ing for errors or lapses in grammar or logic*. And to such a person, a single typo or misspelling could render an entire work unworthy of publication, and thus of being taken seriously. Now consider another random profession, say a person who makes their living as a musician and an educator. Such a person might have said many times that they read the posts on FFL -- and write their own -- for pleasure. They do *not* tend to parse them carefully, looking for things not right in them; instead they might be looking for things to enjoy. Which is the objective, after all, of reading for pleasure. These two types of people, conditioned by years of habit to read either for pleasure or for work, might be using entirely different parts of their brains while reading, and as a result might have a tendency to react to what you write completely differently. Now make a mental leap with me beyond the context of the experiments so far and to the next level. If humans use different parts of their brains when either reading for pleasure or reading more seriously, close reading, is it possible that they do the exact same thing when writing? The musician in my completely random
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the import of my complete thought as contained in the whole paragraph. turquoiseb: Taking a profession completely at random, consider the case of a professional editor... Share, I already told you it's all about Judy. Don't you get it - Barry does. He'll write almost anything for hours, days, weeks, months, and years, to drag you down with him into the rabbit hole. LoL! Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but tripping on what you said above, I thought I should draw your attention to a post I made here recently entitled This is your brain on reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510 It details some fascinating research being done on people to determine what is going on in their brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is called close reading, as if they have to report on what they're reading later in an essay about it. The researchers, watching the brains of people through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered that very different parts of the brain are being used, depending on whether one is reading for pleasure, or doing close reading. Riffing on what you say above, is it possible that a certain person is using different parts of their brain when reading your posts than you used when writing them? I find this an interesting question when applied to this forum. Different strokes for different folks turns out to be true even in the brain, and at different times, depending on the *intent* with which we read. Two people could read the same piece of literature -- in the experiments, passages from Jane Austen -- and get two very different things from them. That's not a surprise, of course, chances are we *all* would see the same passages slightly differently. *However*, the new information from these studies is that the *same* person could view and interpret these passages completely differently, depend- ing on how they're reading them -- for pleasure, or for work. Taking a profession completely at random, consider the case of a professional editor. Their day job is parsing other people's writing, *looking for nits to pick*. The person is, as you suggest, parsing word by word, sentence by sentence, *look- ing for errors or lapses in grammar or logic*. And to such a person, a single typo or misspelling could render an entire work unworthy of publication, and thus of being taken seriously. Now consider another random profession, say a person who makes their living as a musician and an educator. Such a person might have said many times that they read the posts on FFL -- and write their own -- for pleasure. They do *not* tend to parse them carefully, looking for things not right in them; instead they might be looking for things to enjoy. Which is the objective, after all, of reading for pleasure. These two types of people, conditioned by years of habit to read either for pleasure or for work, might be using entirely different parts of their brains while reading, and as a result might have a tendency to react to what you write completely differently. Now make a mental leap with me beyond the context of the experiments so far and to the next level. If humans use different parts of their brains when either reading for pleasure or reading more seriously, close reading, is it possible that they do the exact same thing when writing? The musician in my completely random example, for example, might have gone on record many times as saying that he writes for pleasure, for the sheer fun of writing and for the joy of seeing one's ideas come together as a result of the very act of writing. I'm like that, and I intuit that you might be, too. Someone else might tend to bring the same close reading brain functioning they practice as a reader to their writing, and tend to take the writing more seriously, and less as an opportunity to have fun. They might, in fact, be practicing close writing. If this were the case, would it not be likely that they are using an entirely different mode of brain functioning when writing than the person who is writing for the pleasure of it? Just a few random thoughts, written for the pleasure of writing them. Parse them as you will, and do with them what you will, using whatever parts of your brain you tend to use when doing that sorta stuff. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Doc sez, through careful and conclusive research, it has been shown that blowing oneself up like a balloon, purely by virtue of a large internal volume of hot air, somehow distorts the visual field, making all of those around you look like pricks. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: That was a bit of a revelation and a cogent analysis of why we can't get there from here between some posters. Since I know the hypothetical guy you were imagining...it also explains why it can be fun to go point by point to stimulate a different part of my brain. That was largely what doing philosophy involved and I enjoy that in a different way from creative writing. Drilling deeper into this thoery I can also see how being attacked here stimulates a pseudo fear mechanism that prompts and urgency of response. Combined with things that a reader feels are inaccurate it creates a sturdy chain to pull and get pulled by. That may be a case for not posting in a place where a lot of that goes on. It is hard to resist getting pulled into that cycle, especially when not much more of that writing is going on. I used to think about some of the back and forth stuff about Maharishi's philosophy here as more of the first thing, the stimulation of the close attention part of my brain. As it has drifted further and further from any content, it has become less and less satisfying in that regard, so I switch to the creative but negative angle creating images of trollish scenes to keep me interested in writing. This really gives me a lot to think about, thanks for that Barry. I would like to become a bit more conscious of my outcomes here and ultimately if being here is where my real outcomes are likely to get met in becoming the kind of writer I want to be. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the import of my complete thought as contained in the whole paragraph. Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but tripping on what you said above, I thought I should draw your attention to a post I made here recently entitled This is your brain on reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510 It details some fascinating research being done on people to determine what is going on in their brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is called close reading, as if they have to report on what they're reading later in an essay about it. The researchers, watching the brains of people through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered that very different parts of the brain are being used, depending on whether one is reading for pleasure, or doing close reading. Riffing on what you say above, is it possible that a certain person is using different parts of their brain when reading your posts than you used when writing them? I find this an interesting question when applied to this forum. Different strokes for different folks turns out to be true even in the brain, and at different times, depending on the *intent* with which we read. Two people could read the same piece of literature -- in the experiments, passages from Jane Austen -- and get two very different things from them. That's not a surprise, of course, chances are we *all* would see the same passages slightly differently. *However*, the new information from these studies is that the *same* person could view and interpret these passages completely differently, depend- ing on how they're reading them -- for pleasure, or for work. Taking a profession completely at random, consider the case of a professional editor. Their day job is parsing other people's writing, *looking for nits to pick*. The person is, as you suggest, parsing word by word, sentence by sentence, *look- ing for errors or lapses in grammar or logic*. And to such a person, a single typo or misspelling could render an entire work unworthy of publication, and thus of being taken seriously. Now consider another random profession, say a person who makes their living as a musician and an educator. Such a person might have said many times that they read the posts on FFL -- and write their own -- for pleasure. They do *not* tend to parse them carefully, looking for things not right in them; instead they might be looking for things to enjoy. Which is the objective, after all, of reading for pleasure. These two types of people, conditioned by years of habit to read either for pleasure or for work, might be using entirely different parts of their brains while
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: That was a bit of a revelation and a cogent analysis of why we can't get there from here between some posters. Glad you enjoyed it. Since I know the hypothetical guy you were imagining... it also explains why it can be fun to go point by point to stimulate a different part of my brain. That was largely what doing philosophy involved and I enjoy that in a different way from creative writing. Professor Phillips points out that neither of these modes of brain functioning are superior, and in fact the real benefit is that we can switch between them, to train and develop different parts of the brain. In her words, ...cognition is shaped not just by what we read, but how we read it. Reading rigorously and analyzing the ideas presented and even the structure of the language and how the ideas are presented exercises one mode of functioning in our brains, and cultivates that mode. Reading just for the fun of it exercises another mode of functioning, and cultivates it. Both are necessary to see the world around us clearly, from a balanced point of view. Drilling deeper into this thoery I can also see how being attacked here stimulates a pseudo fear mechanism that prompts and urgency of response. Combined with things that a reader feels are inaccurate it creates a sturdy chain to pull and get pulled by. That may be a case for not posting in a place where a lot of that goes on. It is hard to resist getting pulled into that cycle, especially when not much more of that writing is going on. I used to think about some of the back and forth stuff about Maharishi's philosophy here as more of the first thing, the stimulation of the close attention part of my brain. As it has drifted further and further from any content, it has become less and less satisfying in that regard, so I switch to the creative but negative angle creating images of trollish scenes to keep me interested in writing. This really gives me a lot to think about, thanks for that Barry. I would like to become a bit more conscious of my outcomes here and ultimately if being here is where my real outcomes are likely to get met in becoming the kind of writer I want to be. Much more research is being done by this same team, including fMRI scans of readers to determine how the two different modes of reading affect such things as how they experience emotion arising from what they're reading. Will those emotions be stronger and affect the person more when reading for pleasure, or for analysis? But one of the valuable things learned even so far from this projects is that each of us has the ability to *change the way that our own brains work*. We can shift them from one mode of operation to another, just by the *intent* we bring to our reading. This is a discovery that I cannot help but relate to work on mindfulness meditation and fMRI, which has also shown that we can control which areas of our brains light up and are used or not used, depending on whether or not they are appropriate for the circumstances. On the literature side of the equation, these experiments may help us to understand the impact that great writing has on us. As Natalie Phillips says, ...give us a bigger, richer picture of how our minds engage with art or, in our case, of the complex experience we know as literary reading. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the import of my complete thought as contained in the whole paragraph. Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but tripping on what you said above, I thought I should draw your attention to a post I made here recently entitled This is your brain on reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510 It details some fascinating research being done on people to determine what is going on in their brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is called close reading, as if they have to report on what they're reading later in an essay about it. The researchers, watching the brains of people through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered that very different parts of the brain are being used, depending on whether one is reading for pleasure, or doing close reading. Riffing on what you say above, is it possible that a certain person is using different parts of their brain when reading your posts than you used when writing them? I find this an interesting question when applied to this forum. Different strokes for different folks turns out to be true even in the
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
This exchange made it worth participating on FFL this month! Thanks. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: That was a bit of a revelation and a cogent analysis of why we can't get there from here between some posters. Glad you enjoyed it. Since I know the hypothetical guy you were imagining... it also explains why it can be fun to go point by point to stimulate a different part of my brain. That was largely what doing philosophy involved and I enjoy that in a different way from creative writing. Professor Phillips points out that neither of these modes of brain functioning are superior, and in fact the real benefit is that we can switch between them, to train and develop different parts of the brain. In her words, ...cognition is shaped not just by what we read, but how we read it. Reading rigorously and analyzing the ideas presented and even the structure of the language and how the ideas are presented exercises one mode of functioning in our brains, and cultivates that mode. Reading just for the fun of it exercises another mode of functioning, and cultivates it. Both are necessary to see the world around us clearly, from a balanced point of view. Drilling deeper into this thoery I can also see how being attacked here stimulates a pseudo fear mechanism that prompts and urgency of response. Combined with things that a reader feels are inaccurate it creates a sturdy chain to pull and get pulled by. That may be a case for not posting in a place where a lot of that goes on. It is hard to resist getting pulled into that cycle, especially when not much more of that writing is going on. I used to think about some of the back and forth stuff about Maharishi's philosophy here as more of the first thing, the stimulation of the close attention part of my brain. As it has drifted further and further from any content, it has become less and less satisfying in that regard, so I switch to the creative but negative angle creating images of trollish scenes to keep me interested in writing. This really gives me a lot to think about, thanks for that Barry. I would like to become a bit more conscious of my outcomes here and ultimately if being here is where my real outcomes are likely to get met in becoming the kind of writer I want to be. Much more research is being done by this same team, including fMRI scans of readers to determine how the two different modes of reading affect such things as how they experience emotion arising from what they're reading. Will those emotions be stronger and affect the person more when reading for pleasure, or for analysis? But one of the valuable things learned even so far from this projects is that each of us has the ability to *change the way that our own brains work*. We can shift them from one mode of operation to another, just by the *intent* we bring to our reading. This is a discovery that I cannot help but relate to work on mindfulness meditation and fMRI, which has also shown that we can control which areas of our brains light up and are used or not used, depending on whether or not they are appropriate for the circumstances. On the literature side of the equation, these experiments may help us to understand the impact that great writing has on us. As Natalie Phillips says, ...give us a bigger, richer picture of how our minds engage with art or, in our case, of the complex experience we know as literary reading. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the import of my complete thought as contained in the whole paragraph. Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but tripping on what you said above, I thought I should draw your attention to a post I made here recently entitled This is your brain on reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510 It details some fascinating research being done on people to determine what is going on in their brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is called close reading, as if they have to report on what they're reading later in an essay about it. The researchers, watching the brains of people through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered that very different parts of the brain are being used, depending on whether one is reading for pleasure, or doing close reading. Riffing on what you say above, is it possible that a certain
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Drilling deeper into this thoery I can also see how being attacked here stimulates a pseudo fear mechanism that prompts and urgency of response... curtisdeltablues: This exchange made it worth participating on FFL this month! Thanks. Looks like several respondents got really scared of Judy. LoL! That was a bit of a revelation and a cogent analysis of why we can't get there from here between some posters. Glad you enjoyed it. Since I know the hypothetical guy you were imagining... it also explains why it can be fun to go point by point to stimulate a different part of my brain. That was largely what doing philosophy involved and I enjoy that in a different way from creative writing. Professor Phillips points out that neither of these modes of brain functioning are superior, and in fact the real benefit is that we can switch between them, to train and develop different parts of the brain. In her words, ...cognition is shaped not just by what we read, but how we read it. Reading rigorously and analyzing the ideas presented and even the structure of the language and how the ideas are presented exercises one mode of functioning in our brains, and cultivates that mode. Reading just for the fun of it exercises another mode of functioning, and cultivates it. Both are necessary to see the world around us clearly, from a balanced point of view. Drilling deeper into this thoery I can also see how being attacked here stimulates a pseudo fear mechanism that prompts and urgency of response. Combined with things that a reader feels are inaccurate it creates a sturdy chain to pull and get pulled by. That may be a case for not posting in a place where a lot of that goes on. It is hard to resist getting pulled into that cycle, especially when not much more of that writing is going on. I used to think about some of the back and forth stuff about Maharishi's philosophy here as more of the first thing, the stimulation of the close attention part of my brain. As it has drifted further and further from any content, it has become less and less satisfying in that regard, so I switch to the creative but negative angle creating images of trollish scenes to keep me interested in writing. This really gives me a lot to think about, thanks for that Barry. I would like to become a bit more conscious of my outcomes here and ultimately if being here is where my real outcomes are likely to get met in becoming the kind of writer I want to be. Much more research is being done by this same team, including fMRI scans of readers to determine how the two different modes of reading affect such things as how they experience emotion arising from what they're reading. Will those emotions be stronger and affect the person more when reading for pleasure, or for analysis? But one of the valuable things learned even so far from this projects is that each of us has the ability to *change the way that our own brains work*. We can shift them from one mode of operation to another, just by the *intent* we bring to our reading. This is a discovery that I cannot help but relate to work on mindfulness meditation and fMRI, which has also shown that we can control which areas of our brains light up and are used or not used, depending on whether or not they are appropriate for the circumstances. On the literature side of the equation, these experiments may help us to understand the impact that great writing has on us. As Natalie Phillips says, ...give us a bigger, richer picture of how our minds engage with art or, in our case, of the complex experience we know as literary reading. Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the import of my complete thought as contained in the whole paragraph. Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but tripping on what you said above, I thought I should draw your attention to a post I made here recently entitled This is your brain on reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510 It details some fascinating research being done on people to determine what is going on in their brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is called close reading, as if they have to report on what they're reading later in an essay about it. The researchers, watching the brains of people through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered that very different parts of the brain are being used, depending on whether one is reading for pleasure, or doing close reading. Riffing on what you say
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Richard, do you have a little Irish in you? We Irish are prone to exaggerating for effect from time to time. Anyway, if by rabbit hole you mean my opinions of Judy, I assure you that Barry has little to do with that. When Judy butted in and continued to butt into a personal and emotional matter between me and Robin, that's when my current opinions of Judy were formed. From: Richard J. Williams rich...@rwilliams.us To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 10:45 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the import of my complete thought as contained in the whole paragraph. turquoiseb: Taking a profession completely at random, consider the case of a professional editor... Share, I already told you it's all about Judy. Don't you get it - Barry does. He'll write almost anything for hours, days, weeks, months, and years, to drag you down with him into the rabbit hole. LoL! Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but tripping on what you said above, I thought I should draw your attention to a post I made here recently entitled This is your brain on reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510 It details some fascinating research being done on people to determine what is going on in their brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is called close reading, as if they have to report on what they're reading later in an essay about it. The researchers, watching the brains of people through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered that very different parts of the brain are being used, depending on whether one is reading for pleasure, or doing close reading. Riffing on what you say above, is it possible that a certain person is using different parts of their brain when reading your posts than you used when writing them? I find this an interesting question when applied to this forum. Different strokes for different folks turns out to be true even in the brain, and at different times, depending on the *intent* with which we read. Two people could read the same piece of literature -- in the experiments, passages from Jane Austen -- and get two very different things from them. That's not a surprise, of course, chances are we *all* would see the same passages slightly differently. *However*, the new information from these studies is that the *same* person could view and interpret these passages completely differently, depend- ing on how they're reading them -- for pleasure, or for work. Taking a profession completely at random, consider the case of a professional editor. Their day job is parsing other people's writing, *looking for nits to pick*. The person is, as you suggest, parsing word by word, sentence by sentence, *look- ing for errors or lapses in grammar or logic*. And to such a person, a single typo or misspelling could render an entire work unworthy of publication, and thus of being taken seriously. Now consider another random profession, say a person who makes their living as a musician and an educator. Such a person might have said many times that they read the posts on FFL -- and write their own -- for pleasure. They do *not* tend to parse them carefully, looking for things not right in them; instead they might be looking for things to enjoy. Which is the objective, after all, of reading for pleasure. These two types of people, conditioned by years of habit to read either for pleasure or for work, might be using entirely different parts of their brains while reading, and as a result might have a tendency to react to what you write completely differently. Now make a mental leap with me beyond the context of the experiments so far and to the next level. If humans use different parts of their brains when either reading for pleasure or reading more seriously, close reading, is it possible that they do the exact same thing when writing? The musician in my completely random example, for example, might have gone on record many times as saying that he writes for pleasure, for the sheer fun of writing and for the joy of seeing one's ideas come together as a result of the very act of writing. I'm like that, and I intuit that you might be, too. Someone else might tend to bring the same close reading brain functioning they practice as a reader to their writing, and tend to take the writing more seriously, and less as an opportunity to have fun. They might, in fact, be practicing close writing. If this were the case, would it not be likely that they are using an entirely different mode of brain functioning when writing than
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Richard, do you have a little Irish in you? We Irish are prone to exaggerating for effect from time to time. Anyway, if by rabbit hole you mean my opinions of Judy, I assure you that Barry has little to do with that. When Judy butted in and continued to butt into a personal and emotional matter between me and Robin, that's when my current opinions of Judy were formed. Pick Your Battles - Dr. Thema Bryant-Davis http://youtu.be/x6ZpdxlwxLI From: Richard J. Williams richard@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 10:45 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology  Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the import of my complete thought as contained in the whole paragraph. turquoiseb: Taking a profession completely at random, consider the case of a professional editor... Share, I already told you it's all about Judy. Don't you get it - Barry does. He'll write almost anything for hours, days, weeks, months, and years, to drag you down with him into the rabbit hole. LoL! Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but tripping on what you said above, I thought I should draw your attention to a post I made here recently entitled This is your brain on reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510 It details some fascinating research being done on people to determine what is going on in their brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is called close reading, as if they have to report on what they're reading later in an essay about it. The researchers, watching the brains of people through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered that very different parts of the brain are being used, depending on whether one is reading for pleasure, or doing close reading. Riffing on what you say above, is it possible that a certain person is using different parts of their brain when reading your posts than you used when writing them? I find this an interesting question when applied to this forum. Different strokes for different folks turns out to be true even in the brain, and at different times, depending on the *intent* with which we read. Two people could read the same piece of literature -- in the experiments, passages from Jane Austen -- and get two very different things from them. That's not a surprise, of course, chances are we *all* would see the same passages slightly differently. *However*, the new information from these studies is that the *same* person could view and interpret these passages completely differently, depend- ing on how they're reading them -- for pleasure, or for work. Taking a profession completely at random, consider the case of a professional editor. Their day job is parsing other people's writing, *looking for nits to pick*. The person is, as you suggest, parsing word by word, sentence by sentence, *look- ing for errors or lapses in grammar or logic*. And to such a person, a single typo or misspelling could render an entire work unworthy of publication, and thus of being taken seriously. Now consider another random profession, say a person who makes their living as a musician and an educator. Such a person might have said many times that they read the posts on FFL -- and write their own -- for pleasure. They do *not* tend to parse them carefully, looking for things not right in them; instead they might be looking for things to enjoy. Which is the objective, after all, of reading for pleasure. These two types of people, conditioned by years of habit to read either for pleasure or for work, might be using entirely different parts of their brains while reading, and as a result might have a tendency to react to what you write completely differently. Now make a mental leap with me beyond the context of the experiments so far and to the next level. If humans use different parts of their brains when either reading for pleasure or reading more seriously, close reading, is it possible that they do the exact same thing when writing? The musician in my completely random example, for example, might have gone on record many times as saying that he writes for pleasure, for the sheer fun of writing and for the joy of seeing one's ideas come together as a result of the very act of writing. I'm like that, and I intuit that you might be, too. Someone else might tend to bring the same close reading brain functioning they practice as a reader to their writing, and tend to
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: Actually Steve, Ravi thought the story wasn't funny because he was joking that he thought story was real. Now, *that* was funny. Anyway, thanks for the kudos. Missing Ravi's humor. How could that happen!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: snip Anyway, if by rabbit hole you mean my opinions of Judy, I assure you that Barry has little to do with that. When Judy butted in and continued to butt into a personal and emotional matter between me and Robin, that's when my current opinions of Judy were formed. You are not being truthful here, Share. You and I had *exactly one exchange* concerning the matter between you and Robin. I did not continue to butt in. Moreover, when you make public posts, you do not have the right to expect that nobody will comment on them, no matter how personal and emotional they are. You don't get to have a private exchange on a public forum. That's what email is for. It wasn't my butting in that formed your current opinions of me in any case. It's that I took you to task for the misstatements and unfairness in your posts. Curtis butted in as well, but he supported you, so you didn't form a negative opinion of him for doing so.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Share, you might want to read my response to Curtis below. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: I left in the post of mine you were responding to. I'd suggest you read it again to refresh your memory, and then see if you can bring yourself to respond to my question straightforwardly. M: If I could pick one snip of a post to express how Judy operates here, it might be this one. It is so pregnant with assumptive condescension. If it was a line spoken in a movie who would play it? Joan Crawford with the arching eyebrows? Perhaps the aging Betty Davis with her foundation cracking into her furrowed skin? Gee, Curtis, you wouldn't be trying to discourage Share from looking over the post again, would you? Share did say I was sounding more reasonable than you. Do you think she'll find this post of yours any more reasonable? Or do you think she'll realize you're doing your damndest to prevent her from acknowledging that you had lied about what I had said in your response to my earlier post? Nice touch calling my asking Robin for the reasons he finds stories of saints doing miraculous things a long time ago compelling as picking a fight. Sure it was. This type of issue has been one of the biggest sources of conflict between you and Robin. He hadn't been addressing you; you jumped into a discussion between him and Salyavin--and then acknowledged at the end of your post that you should have left it at the comment Salyavin had made, and that you hadn't helped further the discussion with your post. But you made it anyway. Hmmm. Jumping into discussions is something we often do here. But when you jump into a discussion on the side of a debating opponent of one of your biggest adversaries, concerning an issue that has always been a hot-button one between you, picking a fight is not an inappropriate characterization. Especially when that's the only post of substance you had addressed to Robin since your return. And I loved your doubling down on the death threat thing, even now, with the connection with the Darwin Awards spelled out for you, clueless to the end. Curtis, I do not believe you are so oblivious to the context of what I said to Share that you honestly think I doubled down on the death threat thing. I think you're trying very hard to make *Share*--and anyone else reading this--think I did. But you know I didn't. Share erred in saying Barry's remark hadn't had anything about death in it, and I corrected her. I also agreed with her that it wasn't a literal death threat. The Darwin Awards business is just misdirection, as you know. It was never relevant. It was only an excuse Barry used to fantasize about raunchy and me dying. Too stupid to tie their shoes or something similar would have conveyed the idea Barry claims he wanted to express just as well--but he chose too stupid to live. And then of course there was also the fantasy about our bursting into flame, which you have consistently avoided mentioning. Again Barry has tried to convince us that this was a reference to liar, liar, pants on fire--but neither raunchy nor I had lied, and in any case pants on fire refers to being spanked for lying, not to bursting into flame via spontaneous combustion. You're a writer who claims to be sensitive to nuance. These did not escape you. And all the time wagging her finger, liar, liar, liar, liar all around her liars. I'm wagging my finger at you and Barry. There are a few others here who lie, but none of them to anywhere near the same extent, or with the same intense malice, as the two of you. Now Share, obey her command to focus on her mighty words, dripping with contempt, Curtis-spin designed to keep Share from rereading what I wrote. There was no contempt at all in it. But if Curtis can convince her there was, he's hoping she'll be offended and refuse. and answer zee questions, zey are critical and will expose you before her mighty power. Just one question, actually, a rather simple one. And please remember to answer what she ASKED and do it straightforwardly zis time. Share *was* willing to answer my question, and *did* answer it in my favor. She just couldn't quite bring herself to acknowledge your attempts at deception. You are terribly afraid she will do so this time, so you are again attempting to deceive in an effort to keep her from acknowledging the blatantly obvious.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:04 PM, raunchydog raunchy...@yahoo.com wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: At the risk of 'piling on' this little vignette was priceless. Probably because it rang so true. All you left out was some bimbo trying to climb onto his lap. Hold the applause, Ann. You're only encouraging me. I can't...no I mustn't...Help! Somebody STOP ME! Oh alright. Scene: Leiden, Holland, 2:00 am. Two Dutch grifters discuss their recent mark. Guy: Hey, what's in his wallet? Gal: ID, Barry Wright, two bucks and a condom...expiration date, August 18, 1969. Guy: Sonofabitch, the last time that old geezer got laid was at Woodstock! Gal: Thought so...probably explains the tie-dyed boxer shorts. Guy: Did you get those too? Gal: Yep, trophy for my easy mark collection. Guy: Two bucks? Hardly worth the trouble of letting him feel your ass. Gal: My ass, his shorts, win, win. Meanwhile, alone in a fleabag hotel, passed out cold, handcuffed to a chair and stripped naked except for a Jerry Garcia tie* gracefully covering his privates. Barry slowly regains consciousness, muttering, win, win...win, win. Barry: What a night! Can't wait to write about it. *Jerry Garcia tie: Barry's most prized possession. Sorry raunchy, this would have been real funny if it weren't real. Thanks for trying. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Barry: I've got a problem. Bartender: Yeah. Tell me about it. Barry: There's this woman... Bartender (aside): Here he goes again...another sob story about some crazy bitch named Judy. Man, this dame really gets to him. Barry: This woman is diving me crazy...haunting my every waking moment. Gimme another drink. Bartender: I hear you, Buddy. (aside) Yep. We know where this one's going. Barry: She has this creepy power over people who actually read her posts on FFLife. Bartender: (pretending interest) Uh-huh... Barry: THOSE PEOPLE...who read her posts. Do you know what happens to them? Bartender: Have another shot with your beer, Buddy. You're gunna need it. Barry: She makes THOSE PEOPLE hate me...Oh the agony, the unbearable pain...etc, etc, etc. blubber, blubber, boo hoo hoo. Two hours later.. Bartender: Time to go home, Buddy. Barry: My hair! What happened to my hair? I have no hair! Bartender: It caught on fire...spontaneous combustion. You should have seen it. You were spectacular! Never saw anything like it. Blue flames shooting out yer ass, hair on fire...quite a show, quite a show, indeed. The joint was packed. Barry: I need a drink. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: You'll have to learn by experience what the positive-to- negative ratios of FFL participants are. With some of them, you may never see their negative side until you get into a dispute with them. Note the incredibly clueless assumption here -- that getting into a dispute with them is something that is going to -- or should -- happen. It doesn't, for most here. It *does*, for those who live for disputes. The same assumption -- nigh unto a presumption -- was voiced recently in response to my suggestion that the screaming of Non-sequitur! was a barrier to conver- sation. The person replying didn't even *address* the possibility that FFL could be *about* conversation. Instead, it was presumed to be a forum for debate. Some people, as strange as it may seem, *don't* live for debate, or view every occasion to interact with other human beings as an opportunity to start one. These people instead -- not being as ego-attached to their POVs and rigid, fixed ideas -- enjoy discussing them calmly with others, in more of a (dare I say it) conversation. These strange people don't feel the same compulsive need to *assert* their own POVs and ideas and declare them better or more right than those of others, and thus don't feel the same compulsive need to turn every conversation about POVs and ideas into a debate. Just sayin'... Those with a penchant for dishonesty are so clever about giving the false impression that the other side is at fault that a third party reading the posts in the dispute is unable to see how they've done it. Rght. Only Judy can. It is kind of like a magical power but she was never bitten by a spider and doesn't come from a red planet that exploded. I'm not completely convinced about her not coming from another planet :-), but I'd agree with you about not being bitten by a spider. Spiders have better taste.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Oh s--- woman it just gets better and better. This is funny, not because poor Barry has been given this huge send up but because it is downright hilarious on any level. Come to think of it, okay, it's funny because it makes fun of Barry but my God woman, you've missed your calling. Keep cooking with gas. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: At the risk of 'piling on' this little vignette was priceless. Probably because it rang so true. All you left out was some bimbo trying to climb onto his lap. Hold the applause, Ann. You're only encouraging me. I can't...no I mustn't...Help! Somebody STOP ME! Oh alright. Scene: Leiden, Holland, 2:00 am. Two Dutch grifters discuss their recent mark. Guy: Hey, what's in his wallet? Gal: ID, Barry Wright, two bucks and a condom...expiration date, August 18, 1969. Guy: Sonofabitch, the last time that old geezer got laid was at Woodstock! Gal: Thought so...probably explains the tie-dyed boxer shorts. Guy: Did you get those too? Gal: Yep, trophy for my easy mark collection. Guy: Two bucks? Hardly worth the trouble of letting him feel your ass. Gal: My ass, his shorts, win, win. Meanwhile, alone in a fleabag hotel, passed out cold, handcuffed to a chair and stripped naked except for a Jerry Garcia tie* gracefully covering his privates. Barry slowly regains consciousness, muttering, win, win...win, win. Barry: What a night! Can't wait to write about it. *Jerry Garcia tie: Barry's most prized possession. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Barry: I've got a problem. Bartender: Yeah. Tell me about it. Barry: There's this woman... Bartender (aside): Here he goes again...another sob story about some crazy bitch named Judy. Man, this dame really gets to him. Barry: This woman is diving me crazy...haunting my every waking moment. Gimme another drink. Bartender: I hear you, Buddy. (aside) Yep. We know where this one's going. Barry: She has this creepy power over people who actually read her posts on FFLife. Bartender: (pretending interest) Uh-huh... Barry: THOSE PEOPLE...who read her posts. Do you know what happens to them? Bartender: Have another shot with your beer, Buddy. You're gunna need it. Barry: She makes THOSE PEOPLE hate me...Oh the agony, the unbearable pain...etc, etc, etc. blubber, blubber, boo hoo hoo. Two hours later.. Bartender: Time to go home, Buddy. Barry: My hair! What happened to my hair? I have no hair! Bartender: It caught on fire...spontaneous combustion. You should have seen it. You were spectacular! Never saw anything like it. Blue flames shooting out yer ass, hair on fire...quite a show, quite a show, indeed. The joint was packed. Barry: I need a drink. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: You'll have to learn by experience what the positive-to- negative ratios of FFL participants are. With some of them, you may never see their negative side until you get into a dispute with them. Note the incredibly clueless assumption here -- that getting into a dispute with them is something that is going to -- or should -- happen. It doesn't, for most here. It *does*, for those who live for disputes. The same assumption -- nigh unto a presumption -- was voiced recently in response to my suggestion that the screaming of Non-sequitur! was a barrier to conver- sation. The person replying didn't even *address* the possibility that FFL could be *about* conversation. Instead, it was presumed to be a forum for debate. Some people, as strange as it may seem, *don't* live for debate, or view every occasion to interact with other human beings as an opportunity to start one. These people instead -- not being as ego-attached to their POVs and rigid, fixed ideas -- enjoy discussing them calmly with others, in more of a (dare I say it) conversation. These strange people don't feel the same compulsive need to *assert* their own POVs and ideas and declare them better or more right than those of others, and thus don't feel the same compulsive need to turn every conversation about POVs and ideas into a debate. Just sayin'... Those with a penchant for dishonesty are so clever about giving the false impression that the other side is at fault that a third party reading the posts in the dispute is unable to see how they've done it. Rght. Only Judy can. It is kind of like a
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Share Long: Something that happened almost 9 years ago? Nope, not interested. Did you ever notice how Turq's posts seem to mention or refer to Judy all the time? It's been this way for over fourteen years, Share. Get a grip and get up to speed. If you're going to go down the rabbit hole, you need to know what you're dealing with. Someone getting beat up by someone else. Definitely not interested. Turq called you an 'idiot', Share. Now why would Turq do that when you took up for Judy? There's a pattern here. Sorry, Richard but IMO Barry's not schizo... authfriend: ...don't believe everything you read here. Not only is Barry not schizo, the rest of Richard's description of him is not accurate either. Here's the thread so Share can read it and judge for herself how Turq got beatup by Moogin and Judy. Not only did Turq get beat up by Judy, Moogin beat up Turq's defense of TMer 'transcendence creation' theory! LoL! Subject: Emperor's New Clothes Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic Date: 2003-10-17 05:35:21 PST http://tinyurl.com/95drxtz Uncle Tantra: I don't believe that there is anything in the universe called truth. Moogin: Then you said, The only 'perspective' that would be valid to judge creation would have to transcend creation, you were just offering one of your beliefs, not -- despite appearances -- a claim about the truth of things concerning the universe. -- Moggin to e-mail, remove the thorn
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
About Turq calling me an idiot, when someone calls me a name, first I consider the source. Then I recognize that I've probably been that at least once in my life. Then I figure they got triggered by something I said. Basically people should not waste posts calling me names. Unless they really enjoy doing so. Thanks for heads up. From: Richard J. Williams rich...@rwilliams.us To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 9:58 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology Share Long: Something that happened almost 9 years ago? Nope, not interested. Did you ever notice how Turq's posts seem to mention or refer to Judy all the time? It's been this way for over fourteen years, Share. Get a grip and get up to speed. If you're going to go down the rabbit hole, you need to know what you're dealing with. Someone getting beat up by someone else. Definitely not interested. Turq called you an 'idiot', Share. Now why would Turq do that when you took up for Judy? There's a pattern here. Sorry, Richard but IMO Barry's not schizo... authfriend: ...don't believe everything you read here. Not only is Barry not schizo, the rest of Richard's description of him is not accurate either. Here's the thread so Share can read it and judge for herself how Turq got beatup by Moogin and Judy. Not only did Turq get beat up by Judy, Moogin beat up Turq's defense of TMer 'transcendence creation' theory! LoL! Subject: Emperor's New Clothes Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic Date: 2003-10-17 05:35:21 PST http://tinyurl.com/95drxtz Uncle Tantra: I don't believe that there is anything in the universe called truth. Moogin: Then you said, The only 'perspective' that would be valid to judge creation would have to transcend creation, you were just offering one of your beliefs, not -- despite appearances -- a claim about the truth of things concerning the universe. -- Moggin to e-mail, remove the thorn
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Share Long: Basically people should not waste posts calling me names. Unless they really enjoy doing so. Thanks for heads up... This entire thread from Turq is an attempt to take you down the rabbit hole, Share. But, for GAWD'S sake, DON'T talk about the spiritual life! LoL! Something that happened almost 9 years ago? Nope, not interested. Did you ever notice how Turq's posts seem to mention or refer to Judy all the time? It's been this way for over fourteen years, Share. Get a grip and get up to speed. If you're going to go down the rabbit hole, you need to know what you're dealing with. Someone getting beat up by someone else. Definitely not interested. Turq called you an 'idiot', Share. Now why would Turq do that when you took up for Judy? There's a pattern here. Sorry, Richard but IMO Barry's not schizo... authfriend: ...don't believe everything you read here. Not only is Barry not schizo, the rest of Richard's description of him is not accurate either. Here's the thread so Share can read it and judge for herself how Turq got beatup by Moogin and Judy. Not only did Turq get beat up by Judy, Moogin beat up Turq's defense of TMer 'transcendence creation' theory! LoL! Subject: Emperor's New Clothes Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic Date: 2003-10-17 05:35:21 PST http://tinyurl.com/95drxtz Uncle Tantra: I don't believe that there is anything in the universe called truth. Moogin: Then you said, The only 'perspective' that would be valid to judge creation would have to transcend creation, you were just offering one of your beliefs, not -- despite appearances -- a claim about the truth of things concerning the universe. -- Moggin to e-mail, remove the thorn
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Yes, Judy I see what you mean. In this instance I'd say you're sounding more reasonable than Curtis. Oh, but that isn't what I asked, is it? I asked if you could see the attempted deceptions in Curtis's comments on my earlier post to you. The attempts to deceive are very clear-cut and objective: I said one thing, and he pretended I had said something different. You should be able to see that and to acknowledge it. Take another look, please. I left it all in below. BUT...did you see his reply to Ravi in which he admits that he overreacted? Yes, I didn't find it terribly impressive. He didn't retract any of his accusations (false, IMHO) against Ravi, and in any case in his next post to Ravi he said he was not so sure that he'd overreacted after all. That's something I very much admire. When a person can say that maybe they got it wrong that time. Or maybe they overreacted. Or maybe they weren't thinking clearly, or maybe having a bad day. Something along those lines. So for me, Curtis gets big points for that. It needs to be balanced against everything else he's said to and about Ravi and the other participants in this dispute, including Emily. It's barely a drop in the bucket of the retractions and apologies he still owes. And I'm glad that you're feeling better. Now, why would you say that, Share, when I never said I was feeling anything less than fine? You know, I have a lot more respect for people who come right out and say what they mean, even if it's hostile, than for those who try to disguise it, as you just did with that comment. Or perhaps you're just having a bad day. I'll take honesty and reality, even if they're ugly, over synthetic niceness any time. Which is how you sound to me in this post. Seems like your intuition may need a tune-up. Or just your common sense, maybe. I addressed you in a more cordial tone in the post you're responding to not because I hadn't been feeling well previously, but because you had said something important and intelligent that I agreed with, about DSM-IV labels (V will come out next May) not being helpful to nonprofessionals (although Richard's SCHIZO wasn't a DSM label, but a crude insult to go with the rest of his faux history of Barry--and no, the link he posted to an old discussion doesn't help his own credibility, just FYI). Hey I just remembered. You have 49 posts so you're welcome to answer this to me directly if you want. Uhhh, thanks, but no thanks. If I had wanted to communicate with you privately, I would have done that from the start. Anyway, I agree with you that different people are a different percentage of positive and negative. I find most people to be mostly positive. Say 70-90%. It doesn't surprise me that this is what you think. I'm not at all sure it serves you in contexts like FFL, though. snip Anyway, what else to say that might be beneficial at this point? As I said before, I don't think the dumb c phrase was a death threat. Not literally, of course not. Actually the word death is not in the quote at all. Too stupid to live does suggest death, don't you think? But perhaps you missed that part of the quote. Or the other bit in the post about raunchy and me bursting into flames. Barry reposted the whole thing, though, so you should have seen both: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320412 Oh, I just checked, and you *did* see that post, because you responded to it. So why would you say there was nothing about death in what he'd written? Nonetheless it comes across sounding like a death wish. So still extreme vicious. Easy for me to suggest forgive and forget. But can't help but wonder what would happen if you did. If *I* did?? Have you not been paying *any* attention? Or perhaps you've been paying attention only to Barry and Curtis, who have consistently and deliberately misrepresented the whole incident. FYI, Share: *Barry is the person who brings this up over and over, not me, and not raunchy*. I already told you that just two days ago: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320416 You might want to speak to him about forgiving and forgetting. Really, though, you're a lot better off not giving advice when you don't have any idea what the hell is going on. Have not checked archives to see Curtis part in all that. Probably won't. Of course you won't. You're struggling to preserve your image of him; why would you expose yourself to any contrary evidence? What else? I still think piling on does not help matters that are essentially private and emotional. Like the conflict between me and Robin. You mean, all your public posts castigating him for having said something that you misunderstood? Which is actually what lead to conflict between Robin and Curtis. Oh, Share. No, that isn't what led to the conflict between Robin and Curtis. That began last fall. And this
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: I left in the post of mine you were responding to. I'd suggest you read it again to refresh your memory, and then see if you can bring yourself to respond to my question straightforwardly. M: If I could pick one snip of a post to express how Judy operates here, it might be this one. It is so pregnant with assumptive condescension. If it was a line spoken in a movie who would play it? Joan Crawford with the arching eyebrows? Perhaps the aging Betty Davis with her foundation cracking into her furrowed skin? Nice touch calling my asking Robin for the reasons he finds stories of saints doing miraculous things a long time ago compelling as picking a fight. And I loved your doubling down on the death threat thing, even now, with the connection with the Darwin Awards spelled out for you, clueless to the end. And all the time wagging her finger, liar, liar, liar, liar all around her liars. Now Share, obey her command to focus on her mighty words, dripping with contempt, and answer zee questions, zey are critical and will expose you before her mighty power. And please remember to answer what she ASKED and do it straightforwardly zis time. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Yes, Judy I see what you mean. In this instance I'd say you're sounding more reasonable than Curtis. Oh, but that isn't what I asked, is it? I asked if you could see the attempted deceptions in Curtis's comments on my earlier post to you. The attempts to deceive are very clear-cut and objective: I said one thing, and he pretended I had said something different. You should be able to see that and to acknowledge it. Take another look, please. I left it all in below. BUT...did you see his reply to Ravi in which he admits that he overreacted? Yes, I didn't find it terribly impressive. He didn't retract any of his accusations (false, IMHO) against Ravi, and in any case in his next post to Ravi he said he was not so sure that he'd overreacted after all. That's something I very much admire. When a person can say that maybe they got it wrong that time. Or maybe they overreacted. Or maybe they weren't thinking clearly, or maybe having a bad day. Something along those lines. So for me, Curtis gets big points for that. It needs to be balanced against everything else he's said to and about Ravi and the other participants in this dispute, including Emily. It's barely a drop in the bucket of the retractions and apologies he still owes. And I'm glad that you're feeling better. Now, why would you say that, Share, when I never said I was feeling anything less than fine? You know, I have a lot more respect for people who come right out and say what they mean, even if it's hostile, than for those who try to disguise it, as you just did with that comment. Or perhaps you're just having a bad day. I'll take honesty and reality, even if they're ugly, over synthetic niceness any time. Which is how you sound to me in this post. Seems like your intuition may need a tune-up. Or just your common sense, maybe. I addressed you in a more cordial tone in the post you're responding to not because I hadn't been feeling well previously, but because you had said something important and intelligent that I agreed with, about DSM-IV labels (V will come out next May) not being helpful to nonprofessionals (although Richard's SCHIZO wasn't a DSM label, but a crude insult to go with the rest of his faux history of Barry--and no, the link he posted to an old discussion doesn't help his own credibility, just FYI). Hey I just remembered. You have 49 posts so you're welcome to answer this to me directly if you want. Uhhh, thanks, but no thanks. If I had wanted to communicate with you privately, I would have done that from the start. Anyway, I agree with you that different people are a different percentage of positive and negative. I find most people to be mostly positive. Say 70-90%. It doesn't surprise me that this is what you think. I'm not at all sure it serves you in contexts like FFL, though. snip Anyway, what else to say that might be beneficial at this point? As I said before, I don't think the dumb c phrase was a death threat. Not literally, of course not. Actually the word death is not in the quote at all. Too stupid to live does suggest death, don't you think? But perhaps you missed that part of the quote. Or the other bit in the post about raunchy and me bursting into flames. Barry reposted the whole thing, though, so you should have seen both: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320412 Oh, I just checked, and you *did* see that post, because you responded to it. So why would you say there was nothing about death in what he'd written? Nonetheless it comes across
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: I left in the post of mine you were responding to. I'd suggest you read it again to refresh your memory, and then see if you can bring yourself to respond to my question straightforwardly. M: If I could pick one snip of a post to express how Judy operates here, it might be this one. It is so pregnant with assumptive condescension. If it was a line spoken in a movie who would play it? Joan Crawford with the arching eyebrows? Perhaps the aging Betty Davis with her foundation cracking into her furrowed skin? Nice touch calling my asking Robin for the reasons he finds stories of saints doing miraculous things a long time ago compelling as picking a fight. And I loved your doubling down on the death threat thing, even now, with the connection with the Darwin Awards spelled out for you, clueless to the end. And all the time wagging her finger, liar, liar, liar, liar all around her liars. Now Share, obey her command to focus on her mighty words, dripping with contempt, and answer zee questions, zey are critical and will expose you before her mighty power. And please remember to answer what she ASKED and do it straightforwardly zis time. Are you picking on the Germans?! If so, it would go like this, Now Share, o-bay her command to focus on her mighty vords, dripping vit contempt, and anser zee questions, zey are critical and vill expose you before her mighty powah. And please remember to ansar vat she ASKED and do it straightforvardly zis time. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Yes, Judy I see what you mean. In this instance I'd say you're sounding more reasonable than Curtis. Oh, but that isn't what I asked, is it? I asked if you could see the attempted deceptions in Curtis's comments on my earlier post to you. The attempts to deceive are very clear-cut and objective: I said one thing, and he pretended I had said something different. You should be able to see that and to acknowledge it. Take another look, please. I left it all in below. BUT...did you see his reply to Ravi in which he admits that he overreacted? Yes, I didn't find it terribly impressive. He didn't retract any of his accusations (false, IMHO) against Ravi, and in any case in his next post to Ravi he said he was not so sure that he'd overreacted after all. That's something I very much admire. When a person can say that maybe they got it wrong that time. Or maybe they overreacted. Or maybe they weren't thinking clearly, or maybe having a bad day. Something along those lines. So for me, Curtis gets big points for that. It needs to be balanced against everything else he's said to and about Ravi and the other participants in this dispute, including Emily. It's barely a drop in the bucket of the retractions and apologies he still owes. And I'm glad that you're feeling better. Now, why would you say that, Share, when I never said I was feeling anything less than fine? You know, I have a lot more respect for people who come right out and say what they mean, even if it's hostile, than for those who try to disguise it, as you just did with that comment. Or perhaps you're just having a bad day. I'll take honesty and reality, even if they're ugly, over synthetic niceness any time. Which is how you sound to me in this post. Seems like your intuition may need a tune-up. Or just your common sense, maybe. I addressed you in a more cordial tone in the post you're responding to not because I hadn't been feeling well previously, but because you had said something important and intelligent that I agreed with, about DSM-IV labels (V will come out next May) not being helpful to nonprofessionals (although Richard's SCHIZO wasn't a DSM label, but a crude insult to go with the rest of his faux history of Barry--and no, the link he posted to an old discussion doesn't help his own credibility, just FYI). Hey I just remembered. You have 49 posts so you're welcome to answer this to me directly if you want. Uhhh, thanks, but no thanks. If I had wanted to communicate with you privately, I would have done that from the start. Anyway, I agree with you that different people are a different percentage of positive and negative. I find most people to be mostly positive. Say 70-90%. It doesn't surprise me that this is what you think. I'm not at all sure it serves you in contexts like FFL, though. snip Anyway, what else to say that might be beneficial at this point? As I said before, I don't think the dumb c phrase was a death threat. Not literally, of course not. Actually the word death is not in the
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the import of my complete thought as contained in the whole paragraph. For example, what I said about the death wish phrase. From your overall relentlessly combative tone, I think this aim of distorting, rather than arriving at truth or harmony, is your purpose. More directly, I did not put Barry in the positive and sensible clique as you accuse me of below. OTOH, when I recall the straightforward tone of Barry calling me an idiot, I'm more likely to put him there rather than you with, what one friend of mine calls, your toxic and obfuscating nitpicking. And I'm sure Barry's happy not to be put in any clique! Perhaps I've been guilty of considered and considerate niceness, what you call synthetic, in the service of not hurting people's feelings and speaking the truth that is sweet. But you're guilty of synthetic truth seeking. In service to putting others down and attempting to win every argument. From: authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:35 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Yes, Judy I see what you mean. In this instance I'd say you're sounding more reasonable than Curtis. Oh, but that isn't what I asked, is it? I asked if you could see the attempted deceptions in Curtis's comments on my earlier post to you. The attempts to deceive are very clear-cut and objective: I said one thing, and he pretended I had said something different. You should be able to see that and to acknowledge it. Take another look, please. I left it all in below. BUT...did you see his reply to Ravi in which he admits that he overreacted? Yes, I didn't find it terribly impressive. He didn't retract any of his accusations (false, IMHO) against Ravi, and in any case in his next post to Ravi he said he was not so sure that he'd overreacted after all. That's something I very much admire. When a person can say that maybe they got it wrong that time. Or maybe they overreacted. Or maybe they weren't thinking clearly, or maybe having a bad day. Something along those lines. So for me, Curtis gets big points for that. It needs to be balanced against everything else he's said to and about Ravi and the other participants in this dispute, including Emily. It's barely a drop in the bucket of the retractions and apologies he still owes. And I'm glad that you're feeling better. Now, why would you say that, Share, when I never said I was feeling anything less than fine? You know, I have a lot more respect for people who come right out and say what they mean, even if it's hostile, than for those who try to disguise it, as you just did with that comment. Or perhaps you're just having a bad day. I'll take honesty and reality, even if they're ugly, over synthetic niceness any time. Which is how you sound to me in this post. Seems like your intuition may need a tune-up. Or just your common sense, maybe. I addressed you in a more cordial tone in the post you're responding to not because I hadn't been feeling well previously, but because you had said something important and intelligent that I agreed with, about DSM-IV labels (V will come out next May) not being helpful to nonprofessionals (although Richard's SCHIZO wasn't a DSM label, but a crude insult to go with the rest of his faux history of Barry--and no, the link he posted to an old discussion doesn't help his own credibility, just FYI). Hey I just remembered. You have 49 posts so you're welcome to answer this to me directly if you want. Uhhh, thanks, but no thanks. If I had wanted to communicate with you privately, I would have done that from the start. Anyway, I agree with you that different people are a different percentage of positive and negative. I find most people to be mostly positive. Say 70-90%. It doesn't surprise me that this is what you think. I'm not at all sure it serves you in contexts like FFL, though. snip Anyway, what else to say that might be beneficial at this point? As I said before, I don't think the dumb c phrase was a death threat. Not literally, of course not. Actually the word death is not in the quote at all. Too stupid to live does suggest death, don't you think? But perhaps you missed that part of the quote. Or the other bit in the post about raunchy and me bursting into flames. Barry reposted the whole thing, though, so you should have seen both: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320412 Oh, I just checked, and you *did* see that post, because you responded to it. So why would you say there was nothing about death in what he'd written? Nonetheless it comes across sounding like a death wish. So still extreme vicious. Easy
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the import of my complete thought as contained in the whole paragraph. For example, what I said about the death wish phrase. From your overall relentlessly combative tone, I think this aim of distorting, rather than arriving at truth or harmony, is your purpose. More directly, I did not put Barry in the positive and sensible clique as you accuse me of below. OTOH, when I recall the straightforward tone of Barry calling me an idiot, I'm more likely to put him there rather than you with, what one friend of mine calls, your toxic and obfuscating nitpicking. And I'm sure Barry's happy not to be put in any clique! Perhaps I've been guilty of considered and considerate niceness, what you call synthetic, in the service of not hurting people's feelings and speaking the truth that is sweet. But you're guilty of synthetic truth seeking. In service to putting others down and attempting to win every argument.   ad victorem spolias From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:35 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Yes, Judy I see what you mean. In this instance I'd say you're sounding more reasonable than Curtis. Oh, but that isn't what I asked, is it? I asked if you could see the attempted deceptions in Curtis's comments on my earlier post to you. The attempts to deceive are very clear-cut and objective: I said one thing, and he pretended I had said something different. You should be able to see that and to acknowledge it. Take another look, please. I left it all in below. BUT...did you see his reply to Ravi in which he admits that he overreacted? Yes, I didn't find it terribly impressive. He didn't retract any of his accusations (false, IMHO) against Ravi, and in any case in his next post to Ravi he said he was not so sure that he'd overreacted after all. That's something I very much admire. When a person can say that maybe they got it wrong that time. Or maybe they overreacted. Or maybe they weren't thinking clearly, or maybe having a bad day. Something along those lines. So for me, Curtis gets big points for that. It needs to be balanced against everything else he's said to and about Ravi and the other participants in this dispute, including Emily. It's barely a drop in the bucket of the retractions and apologies he still owes. And I'm glad that you're feeling better. Now, why would you say that, Share, when I never said I was feeling anything less than fine? You know, I have a lot more respect for people who come right out and say what they mean, even if it's hostile, than for those who try to disguise it, as you just did with that comment. Or perhaps you're just having a bad day. I'll take honesty and reality, even if they're ugly, over synthetic niceness any time. Which is how you sound to me in this post. Seems like your intuition may need a tune-up. Or just your common sense, maybe. I addressed you in a more cordial tone in the post you're responding to not because I hadn't been feeling well previously, but because you had said something important and intelligent that I agreed with, about DSM-IV labels (V will come out next May) not being helpful to nonprofessionals (although Richard's SCHIZO wasn't a DSM label, but a crude insult to go with the rest of his faux history of Barry--and no, the link he posted to an old discussion doesn't help his own credibility, just FYI). Hey I just remembered. You have 49 posts so you're welcome to answer this to me directly if you want. Uhhh, thanks, but no thanks. If I had wanted to communicate with you privately, I would have done that from the start. Anyway, I agree with you that different people are a different percentage of positive and negative. I find most people to be mostly positive. Say 70-90%. It doesn't surprise me that this is what you think. I'm not at all sure it serves you in contexts like FFL, though. snip Anyway, what else to say that might be beneficial at this point?  As I said before, I don't think the dumb c phrase was a death threat. Not literally, of course not. Actually the word death is not in the quote at all. Too stupid to live does suggest death, don't you think? But perhaps you missed that part of the quote. Or the other bit in the post about raunchy and me bursting into flames. Barry reposted the whole thing, though, so you should have seen both: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320412 Oh, I just
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Sorry raunchy, this would have been real funny if it weren't real. Thanks for trying. Poor Ravi. He's gotten so twisted that he can't appreciate real humor. I guess if it doesn't contain a heaping dose of abusive language, it doesn't make an impression on him. Oh, well. Raunch, I thought it was pretty funny.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Sorry raunchy, this would have been real funny if it weren't real. Thanks for trying. Poor Ravi. He's gotten so twisted that he can't appreciate real humor. I guess if it doesn't contain a heaping dose of abusive language, it doesn't make an impression on him. Oh, well. Raunch, I thought it was pretty funny. Actually Steve, Ravi thought the story wasn't funny because he was joking that he thought story was real. Now, *that* was funny. Anyway, thanks for the kudos.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Dear Ravi, Thank you so much for this, for not taking sides, for good intentions, for trying to bridge a gap as it were. I can feel your kindness towards me in your words and it touches my heart. And I must admit I wish you could be as kind to everyone on FFL. I guess you're a mix like we all are. It's all right. We're all human here and doing the best we can. Share From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 5:08 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology Auntie Share - the legend of St. Judy Durga, the embodiment of honest and integrity is well known around here. FYI - we usually don't mess with her unless we are suffering from IDSD - Ignorance Deception Spectrum Disorder. She will wear us down, because for her truth is not a game of probability, there's no 70-80% truth for her, she doesn't buy that, either it's the truth or not, doesn't negotiate truth, integrity for the sake of niceness, politeness, doesn't shy away from any discomfort, pain, anxiety, fear caused by taking strong moral stands. A tough love secular saint, some say. Even you brave, intrepid nephew Ladislaw is wary of this woman. Love, Ravi On Sep 20, 2012, at 12:31 PM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com wrote: Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the import of my complete thought as contained in the whole paragraph. For example, what I said about the death wish phrase. From your overall relentlessly combative tone, I think this aim of distorting, rather than arriving at truth or harmony, is your purpose. More directly, I did not put Barry in the positive and sensible clique as you accuse me of below. OTOH, when I recall the straightforward tone of Barry calling me an idiot, I'm more likely to put him there rather than you with, what one friend of mine calls, your toxic and obfuscating nitpicking. And I'm sure Barry's happy not to be put in any clique! Perhaps I've been guilty of considered and considerate niceness, what you call synthetic, in the service of not hurting people's feelings and speaking the truth that is sweet. But you're guilty of synthetic truth seeking. In service to putting others down and attempting to win every argument. From: authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:35 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Yes, Judy I see what you mean. In this instance I'd say you're sounding more reasonable than Curtis. Oh, but that isn't what I asked, is it? I asked if you could see the attempted deceptions in Curtis's comments on my earlier post to you. The attempts to deceive are very clear-cut and objective: I said one thing, and he pretended I had said something different. You should be able to see that and to acknowledge it. Take another look, please. I left it all in below. BUT...did you see his reply to Ravi in which he admits that he overreacted? Yes, I didn't find it terribly impressive. He didn't retract any of his accusations (false, IMHO) against Ravi, and in any case in his next post to Ravi he said he was not so sure that he'd overreacted after all. That's something I very much admire. When a person can say that maybe they got it wrong that time. Or maybe they overreacted. Or maybe they weren't thinking clearly, or maybe having a bad day. Something along those lines. So for me, Curtis gets big points for that. It needs to be balanced against everything else he's said to and about Ravi and the other participants in this dispute, including Emily. It's barely a drop in the bucket of the retractions and apologies he still owes. And I'm glad that you're feeling better. Now, why would you say that, Share, when I never said I was feeling anything less than fine? You know, I have a lot more respect for people who come right out and say what they mean, even if it's hostile, than for those who try to disguise it, as you just did with that comment. Or perhaps you're just having a bad day. I'll take honesty and reality, even if they're ugly, over synthetic niceness any time. Which is how you sound to me in this post. Seems like your intuition may need a tune-up. Or just your common sense, maybe. I addressed you in a more cordial tone in the post you're responding to not because I hadn't been feeling well previously, but because you had said something important and intelligent that I agreed with, about DSM-IV labels (V will come out next May) not being helpful to nonprofessionals (although Richard's SCHIZO wasn't a DSM label, but a crude
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Any time dear Share. Love, Ravi. On Sep 20, 2012, at 4:24 PM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com wrote: Dear Ravi, Thank you so much for this, for not taking sides, for good intentions, for trying to bridge a gap as it were. I can feel your kindness towards me in your words and it touches my heart. And I must admit I wish you could be as kind to everyone on FFL. I guess you're a mix like we all are. It's all right. We're all human here and doing the best we can. Share From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 5:08 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology Auntie Share - the legend of St. Judy Durga, the embodiment of honest and integrity is well known around here. FYI - we usually don't mess with her unless we are suffering from IDSD - Ignorance Deception Spectrum Disorder. She will wear us down, because for her truth is not a game of probability, there's no 70-80% truth for her, she doesn't buy that, either it's the truth or not, doesn't negotiate truth, integrity for the sake of niceness, politeness, doesn't shy away from any discomfort, pain, anxiety, fear caused by taking strong moral stands. A tough love secular saint, some say. Even you brave, intrepid nephew Ladislaw is wary of this woman. Love, Ravi On Sep 20, 2012, at 12:31 PM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com wrote: Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the import of my complete thought as contained in the whole paragraph. For example, what I said about the death wish phrase. From your overall relentlessly combative tone, I think this aim of distorting, rather than arriving at truth or harmony, is your purpose. More directly, I did not put Barry in the positive and sensible clique as you accuse me of below. OTOH, when I recall the straightforward tone of Barry calling me an idiot, I'm more likely to put him there rather than you with, what one friend of mine calls, your toxic and obfuscating nitpicking. And I'm sure Barry's happy not to be put in any clique! Perhaps I've been guilty of considered and considerate niceness, what you call synthetic, in the service of not hurting people's feelings and speaking the truth that is sweet. But you're guilty of synthetic truth seeking. In service to putting others down and attempting to win every argument. From: authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:35 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Yes, Judy I see what you mean. In this instance I'd say you're sounding more reasonable than Curtis. Oh, but that isn't what I asked, is it? I asked if you could see the attempted deceptions in Curtis's comments on my earlier post to you. The attempts to deceive are very clear-cut and objective: I said one thing, and he pretended I had said something different. You should be able to see that and to acknowledge it. Take another look, please. I left it all in below. BUT...did you see his reply to Ravi in which he admits that he overreacted? Yes, I didn't find it terribly impressive. He didn't retract any of his accusations (false, IMHO) against Ravi, and in any case in his next post to Ravi he said he was not so sure that he'd overreacted after all. That's something I very much admire. When a person can say that maybe they got it wrong that time. Or maybe they overreacted. Or maybe they weren't thinking clearly, or maybe having a bad day. Something along those lines. So for me, Curtis gets big points for that. It needs to be balanced against everything else he's said to and about Ravi and the other participants in this dispute, including Emily. It's barely a drop in the bucket of the retractions and apologies he still owes. And I'm glad that you're feeling better. Now, why would you say that, Share, when I never said I was feeling anything less than fine? You know, I have a lot more respect for people who come right out and say what they mean, even if it's hostile, than for those who try to disguise it, as you just did with that comment. Or perhaps you're just having a bad day. I'll take honesty and reality, even if they're ugly, over synthetic niceness any time. Which is how you sound to me in this post. Seems like your intuition may need a tune-up. Or just your common sense, maybe. I addressed you in a more cordial tone in the post you're responding to not because I hadn't been feeling well previously, but because you had said something important and intelligent that I agreed with, about
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: You'll have to learn by experience what the positive-to- negative ratios of FFL participants are. With some of them, you may never see their negative side until you get into a dispute with them. Note the incredibly clueless assumption here -- that getting into a dispute with them is something that is going to -- or should -- happen. It doesn't, for most here. It *does*, for those who live for disputes. The same assumption -- nigh unto a presumption -- was voiced recently in response to my suggestion that the screaming of Non-sequitur! was a barrier to conver- sation. The person replying didn't even *address* the possibility that FFL could be *about* conversation. Instead, it was presumed to be a forum for debate. Some people, as strange as it may seem, *don't* live for debate, or view every occasion to interact with other human beings as an opportunity to start one. These people instead -- not being as ego-attached to their POVs and rigid, fixed ideas -- enjoy discussing them calmly with others, in more of a (dare I say it) conversation. These strange people don't feel the same compulsive need to *assert* their own POVs and ideas and declare them better or more right than those of others, and thus don't feel the same compulsive need to turn every conversation about POVs and ideas into a debate. Just sayin'... Those with a penchant for dishonesty are so clever about giving the false impression that the other side is at fault that a third party reading the posts in the dispute is unable to see how they've done it. Rght. Only Judy can. It is kind of like a magical power but she was never bitten by a spider and doesn't come from a red planet that exploded. I'm not completely convinced about her not coming from another planet :-), but I'd agree with you about not being bitten by a spider. Spiders have better taste. :-) She just declared it and ShhaaammmM! And when other people here the magic word Shazam they should just STFU and believe it thoroughly, the way she did whenever Maharishi said something. She wants to have that same level of authority, but without ever having done anything to deserve it. So just take her word for when someone is lying, she will need no evidence and you shouldn't worry your pretty little head. When it looks like she has been spinning bullshit here, it is really that you just lack her special powers. Also, Share has never had conferred upon her the Blinding Light Power Of The Presumptuous Assumption as Judy has. This is a special power given to those who uphold the High Dharma by telling other people who is lying and who is not. Such people are needed in the world because others, less evolved than Judy, are too STPID to see that people are LYING to them. Only Judy is clever enough to see that. More important, these lesser people, being so STPID and all, desperately NEED someone as devoted as Judy to save them from themselves. Being too STPID to make decisions on their own, they NEED the Judy's of this world to decide for them, and tell them who to believe, who not to believe, and who to hate. Sometimes I wonder if she believes she is addressing a room full of preschoolers. I don't wonder about this at all. Judy's whole ACT is an insult to the people she claims to be protecting. It *presumes* that they are too STPID to figure things out on their own, and make their own decisions. These STOPID people NEED her to explain to them how deviously clever these People They Should Hate are. They NEED her to tell them what to think and what to believe. Just as she NEEDED Maharishi to do the same for her. Does no one else see the incredible PRESUMPTION at the basis of Judy's whole act? She as appointed herself protector of people who Don't Need Her Protection. Because they're more than smart enough and more than capable enough of figuring things out on their own. The person who is incapable of doing this, in my considered opinion, is the person who has been repeat- ing the same hate speech about people on this forum for years, telling others over and over who to hate and what to believe, and NEVER figuring out either that they don't need her to do this, or that They're Not Listening. The more people think for themselves, the more upset Judy gets. The more they like the people she's told them to hate, the more Judy hates the people she hates, and the more she attacks those who haven't yet seen the light and joined her in hating them. And all of this without ever once having been asked to provide this service. She appointed herself as Protector. The same way that the olde members of the Inquisition did, and the same way that Maharishi did, with the people *he* told how to think, what to believe, and who to
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Barry: I've got a problem. Bartender: Yeah. Tell me about it. Barry: There's this woman... Bartender (aside): Here he goes again...another sob story about some crazy bitch named Judy. Man, this dame really gets to him. Barry: This woman is diving me crazy...haunting my every waking moment. Gimme another drink. Bartender: I hear you, Buddy. (aside) Yep. We know where this one's going. Barry: She has this creepy power over people who actually read her posts on FFLife. Bartender: (pretending interest) Uh-huh... Barry: THOSE PEOPLE...who read her posts. Do you know what happens to them? Bartender: Have another shot with your beer, Buddy. You're gunna need it. Barry: She makes THOSE PEOPLE hate me...Oh the agony, the unbearable pain...etc, etc, etc. blubber, blubber, boo hoo hoo. Two hours later.. Bartender: Time to go home, Buddy. Barry: My hair! What happened to my hair? I have no hair! Bartender: It caught on fire...spontaneous combustion. You should have seen it. You were spectacular! Never saw anything like it. Blue flames shooting out yer ass, hair on fire...quite a show, quite a show, indeed. The joint was packed. Barry: I need a drink. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: You'll have to learn by experience what the positive-to- negative ratios of FFL participants are. With some of them, you may never see their negative side until you get into a dispute with them. Note the incredibly clueless assumption here -- that getting into a dispute with them is something that is going to -- or should -- happen. It doesn't, for most here. It *does*, for those who live for disputes. The same assumption -- nigh unto a presumption -- was voiced recently in response to my suggestion that the screaming of Non-sequitur! was a barrier to conver- sation. The person replying didn't even *address* the possibility that FFL could be *about* conversation. Instead, it was presumed to be a forum for debate. Some people, as strange as it may seem, *don't* live for debate, or view every occasion to interact with other human beings as an opportunity to start one. These people instead -- not being as ego-attached to their POVs and rigid, fixed ideas -- enjoy discussing them calmly with others, in more of a (dare I say it) conversation. These strange people don't feel the same compulsive need to *assert* their own POVs and ideas and declare them better or more right than those of others, and thus don't feel the same compulsive need to turn every conversation about POVs and ideas into a debate. Just sayin'... Those with a penchant for dishonesty are so clever about giving the false impression that the other side is at fault that a third party reading the posts in the dispute is unable to see how they've done it. Rght. Only Judy can. It is kind of like a magical power but she was never bitten by a spider and doesn't come from a red planet that exploded. I'm not completely convinced about her not coming from another planet :-), but I'd agree with you about not being bitten by a spider. Spiders have better taste. :-) She just declared it and ShhaaammmM! And when other people here the magic word Shazam they should just STFU and believe it thoroughly, the way she did whenever Maharishi said something. She wants to have that same level of authority, but without ever having done anything to deserve it. So just take her word for when someone is lying, she will need no evidence and you shouldn't worry your pretty little head. When it looks like she has been spinning bullshit here, it is really that you just lack her special powers. Also, Share has never had conferred upon her the Blinding Light Power Of The Presumptuous Assumption as Judy has. This is a special power given to those who uphold the High Dharma by telling other people who is lying and who is not. Such people are needed in the world because others, less evolved than Judy, are too STPID to see that people are LYING to them. Only Judy is clever enough to see that. More important, these lesser people, being so STPID and all, desperately NEED someone as devoted as Judy to save them from themselves. Being too STPID to make decisions on their own, they NEED the Judy's of this world to decide for them, and tell them who to believe, who not to believe, and who to hate. Sometimes I wonder if she believes she is addressing a room full of preschoolers. I don't wonder about this at all. Judy's whole ACT is an insult to the people she claims to be protecting. It *presumes* that they are too STPID to figure things out on their own, and make their own decisions. These STOPID people
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Thank you and glad if it helps. Funnily enough my ex and I were just emailing about how sometimes relationships can be so simple. Of course we were also laughing about that illusion delusion. IMUnhumbleO, intimate partnerships are the post doc work for so called spiritual life. With parents and children being close runner ups. You remind me of one of my favorite Sedona Method inquiries: Can I let go and allow them to be other than what I think they are? Such a gift to others. Because I do think our long term beliefs about others has an influence on them, for good or bad. Good to see the potential good in others. And practical to have accurate vision of how much that potential is actually realized. In this moment. And overall. Sorry for lecturing. thanks again. Share From: stevelf ysoy1...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:13 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology Ah, but the solution is SO simple, yet perhaps temporarily thwarted by my calling attention to it : One of them has to send the other your Hawaiian guy's cool deal ; I'm sorry-- please forgive me--- Thank you--- I LOVE YOU.. BTW-- I use this thanks to you... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Sorry, Richard but IMO Barry's not schizo. Barry is simply like the rest of us, a mix and positive and negative. Judy too. And yes it's often perplexing to me. But I rarely find it helpful to pull out DSM IV labels (not sure that's the right number) to bolster one's argument. None of us are trained therapists, right? And it's not helpful when Turq does it either. Just in case someone was going to waste a post bringing that to my attention! As for the ongoing war between him and Judy, they do seem locked into it from my perspective. At this point, with my very limited knowledge, I find them equally responsible in terms of keeping it going. What to do? I'll soldier on with compassion and reasonableness and good humor as best I can.  Bound to make mistakes. Repeating myself. Ugh!  From: Richard J. Williams richard@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:40 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology  Share Long: This foul's on you, Turq... Brain stretching to encompass such a polarity.  Obviously, Turq is SCHIZO! Keep in mind that Turq once was a defender of MMY and TM, but he turned negative after Judy whipped Turq real good in an argument with Andrew Skolnick; the final takedown before the actual melt-down came a little later on on alt.religion.gnostic with Moogin and Kater. Ever since then, Turq got his head on screwed on spinning backwards. It's ALL about Judy. Go figure.  If Judy ever gets tired of correcting other people's homework and decides to try her hand at actually writing something, I've got the perfect gig for her: writing angry, stinging letters to Co$ critics. The back story on this is as follows. Vanity Fair is released a story about how Tom Cruise, unable to find a wife for himself who was considered suitable by the Church, arranged for numerous interview sessions so that he could try out pre-approved $cientologists as his prospective wife, while the Church interrogated them and investigated every aspect of their lives in the background. According to the article, it was a level of vetting that political candidates don't even go through. So how did the Co$ *react* to this article? Well, those who have followed their exploits know that they'll prob- ably react by siccing private detectives and smear artists on the article's author and on Graydon Carter, the publisher of VF. What they did in public was to have their lawyers send Mr. Carter a long, long, long-winded, eight-page hate letter: Article about the letter: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/17/church-of-scientology-responds-vanity-fair-tom-cruise-wife-auditioning_n_1889734.html The letter itself: http://www.scientologynews.org/sites/default/files/1-Jeff-Riffer-Re-David-Miscavige-to-Gaydon-Carter-16-Aug-2012.pdf Look it over. See if you don't think that writing such letters is a PERFECT career choice for Judy Stein. I mean, it's got all of her trademarks: * Picking nits and homing in on them to obfuscate larger issues * Trying to present the criticism as an example of religious hate crime and its authors as bigots * Posting total irrelevancies lauding David Miscavige (the leader of the Co$) to make him seem saintly while demonizing his critics * Lying outright (Miscavige has been reported as viewing videotapes of auditing
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
At the risk of 'piling on' this little vignette was priceless. Probably because it rang so true. All you left out was some bimbo trying to climb onto his lap. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: Barry: I've got a problem. Bartender: Yeah. Tell me about it. Barry: There's this woman... Bartender (aside): Here he goes again...another sob story about some crazy bitch named Judy. Man, this dame really gets to him. Barry: This woman is diving me crazy...haunting my every waking moment. Gimme another drink. Bartender: I hear you, Buddy. (aside) Yep. We know where this one's going. Barry: She has this creepy power over people who actually read her posts on FFLife. Bartender: (pretending interest) Uh-huh... Barry: THOSE PEOPLE...who read her posts. Do you know what happens to them? Bartender: Have another shot with your beer, Buddy. You're gunna need it. Barry: She makes THOSE PEOPLE hate me...Oh the agony, the unbearable pain...etc, etc, etc. blubber, blubber, boo hoo hoo. Two hours later.. Bartender: Time to go home, Buddy. Barry: My hair! What happened to my hair? I have no hair! Bartender: It caught on fire...spontaneous combustion. You should have seen it. You were spectacular! Never saw anything like it. Blue flames shooting out yer ass, hair on fire...quite a show, quite a show, indeed. The joint was packed. Barry: I need a drink. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: You'll have to learn by experience what the positive-to- negative ratios of FFL participants are. With some of them, you may never see their negative side until you get into a dispute with them. Note the incredibly clueless assumption here -- that getting into a dispute with them is something that is going to -- or should -- happen. It doesn't, for most here. It *does*, for those who live for disputes. The same assumption -- nigh unto a presumption -- was voiced recently in response to my suggestion that the screaming of Non-sequitur! was a barrier to conver- sation. The person replying didn't even *address* the possibility that FFL could be *about* conversation. Instead, it was presumed to be a forum for debate. Some people, as strange as it may seem, *don't* live for debate, or view every occasion to interact with other human beings as an opportunity to start one. These people instead -- not being as ego-attached to their POVs and rigid, fixed ideas -- enjoy discussing them calmly with others, in more of a (dare I say it) conversation. These strange people don't feel the same compulsive need to *assert* their own POVs and ideas and declare them better or more right than those of others, and thus don't feel the same compulsive need to turn every conversation about POVs and ideas into a debate. Just sayin'... Those with a penchant for dishonesty are so clever about giving the false impression that the other side is at fault that a third party reading the posts in the dispute is unable to see how they've done it. Rght. Only Judy can. It is kind of like a magical power but she was never bitten by a spider and doesn't come from a red planet that exploded. I'm not completely convinced about her not coming from another planet :-), but I'd agree with you about not being bitten by a spider. Spiders have better taste. :-) She just declared it and ShhaaammmM! And when other people here the magic word Shazam they should just STFU and believe it thoroughly, the way she did whenever Maharishi said something. She wants to have that same level of authority, but without ever having done anything to deserve it. So just take her word for when someone is lying, she will need no evidence and you shouldn't worry your pretty little head. When it looks like she has been spinning bullshit here, it is really that you just lack her special powers. Also, Share has never had conferred upon her the Blinding Light Power Of The Presumptuous Assumption as Judy has. This is a special power given to those who uphold the High Dharma by telling other people who is lying and who is not. Such people are needed in the world because others, less evolved than Judy, are too STPID to see that people are LYING to them. Only Judy is clever enough to see that. More important, these lesser people, being so STPID and all, desperately NEED someone as devoted as Judy to save them from themselves. Being too STPID to make decisions on their own, they NEED the Judy's of this world to decide for them, and tell them who to believe, who not to believe, and
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Thank you and glad if it helps. Funnily enough my ex and I were just emailing about how sometimes relationships can be so simple. Of course we were also laughing about that illusion delusion. IMUnhumbleO, intimate partnerships are the post doc work for so called spiritual life. With parents and children being close runner ups. You remind me of one of my favorite Sedona Method inquiries: Can I let go and allow them to be other than what I think they are? Such a gift to others. Because I do think our long term beliefs about others has an influence on them, for good or bad. Good to see the potential good in others. And practical to have accurate vision of how much that potential is actually realized. In this moment. And overall. Sorry for lecturing. thanks again. Share From: stevelf ysoy10li@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:13 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology  Ah, but the solution is SO simple, yet perhaps temporarily thwarted by my calling attention to it : One of them has to send the other your Hawaiian guy's cool deal ; I'm sorry-- please forgive me--- Thank you--- I LOVE YOU.. BTW-- I use this thanks to you... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Sorry, Richard but IMO Barry's not schizo.àBarry is simply like the rest of us, a mix and positive and negative.àJudy too.àAnd yes it's often perplexing to me.àBut I rarely find it helpful to pull out DSM IV labels (not sure that's the right number) to bolster one's argument.àNone of us are trained therapists, right?àAnd it's not helpful when Turq does it either.àJust in case someone was going to waste a post bringing that to my attention! As for the ongoing war between him and Judy, they do seem locked into it from my perspective.àAt this point, with my very limited knowledge, I find them equally responsible in terms of keeping it going.àWhat to do? I'll soldier on with compassion and reasonableness and good humor as best I can. àBound to make mistakes.àRepeating myself.àUgh! àFrom: Richard J. Williams richard@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:40 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology àShare Long: This foul's on you, Turq...ÃâàBrain stretching to encompass such a polarity. àObviously, Turq is SCHIZO! Keep in mind that Turq once was a defender of MMY and TM, but he turned negative after Judy whipped Turq real good in an argument with Andrew Skolnick; the final takedown before the actual melt-down came a little later on on alt.religion.gnostic with Moogin and Kater. Ever since then, Turq got his head on screwed on spinning backwards. It's ALL about Judy. Go figure. àIf Judy ever gets tired of correcting other people's homework and decides to try her hand at actually writing something, I've got the perfect gig for her: writing angry, stinging letters to Co$ critics. The back story on this is as follows. Vanity Fair is released a story about how Tom Cruise, unable to find a wife for himself who was considered suitable by the Church, arranged for numerous interview sessions so that he could try out pre-approved $cientologists as his prospective wife, while the Church interrogated them and investigated every aspect of their lives in the background. According to the article, it was a level of vetting that political candidates don't even go through. So how did the Co$ *react* to this article? Well, those who have followed their exploits know that they'll prob- ably react by siccing private detectives and smear artists on the article's author and on Graydon Carter, the publisher of VF. What they did in public was to have their lawyers send Mr. Carter a long, long, long-winded, eight-page hate letter: Article about the letter: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/17/church-of-scientology-responds-vanity-fair-tom-cruise-wife-auditioning_n_1889734.html The letter itself: http://www.scientologynews.org/sites/default/files/1-Jeff-Riffer-Re-David-Miscavige-to-Gaydon-Carter-16-Aug-2012.pdf Look it over. See if you don't think that writing such letters is a PERFECT career choice for Judy Stein. I mean, it's got all of her trademarks: * Picking nits and homing in on them to obfuscate larger issues * Trying to present the criticism as an example of religious hate crime and its authors as
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Thank you and glad if it helps. Funnily enough my ex and I were just emailing about how sometimes relationships can be so simple. Of course we were also laughing about that illusion delusion. IMUnhumbleO, intimate partnerships are the post doc work for so called spiritual life. With parents and children being close runner ups. You remind me of one of my favorite Sedona Method inquiries: Can I let go and allow them to be other than what I think they are? Such a gift to others. Because I do think our long term beliefs about others has an influence on them, for good or bad. In all seriousness Share, I would love to see a list of all of the techniques and different mental, physical and spiritual practices you engage in currently or have used in the past. Nearly every time you post you mention another one! I can't keep up and I have heard of only two - TM and jyotish. But you have mentioned at least 6 others including my personal favourite Quantum Light Weaving. While I've been out trying to make a living and improve my riding skills you have had the opportunity to engage in far less mundane activities your whole life. What am I missing? (That's partly what I meant about you being horrified living my life for a week.) Good to see the potential good in others. And practical to have accurate vision of how much that potential is actually realized. In this moment. And overall. Sorry for lecturing. thanks again. Share From: stevelf ysoy10li@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:13 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology  Ah, but the solution is SO simple, yet perhaps temporarily thwarted by my calling attention to it : One of them has to send the other your Hawaiian guy's cool deal ; I'm sorry-- please forgive me--- Thank you--- I LOVE YOU.. BTW-- I use this thanks to you... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Sorry, Richard but IMO Barry's not schizo.àBarry is simply like the rest of us, a mix and positive and negative.àJudy too.àAnd yes it's often perplexing to me.àBut I rarely find it helpful to pull out DSM IV labels (not sure that's the right number) to bolster one's argument.àNone of us are trained therapists, right?àAnd it's not helpful when Turq does it either.àJust in case someone was going to waste a post bringing that to my attention! As for the ongoing war between him and Judy, they do seem locked into it from my perspective.àAt this point, with my very limited knowledge, I find them equally responsible in terms of keeping it going.àWhat to do? I'll soldier on with compassion and reasonableness and good humor as best I can. àBound to make mistakes.àRepeating myself.àUgh! àFrom: Richard J. Williams richard@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:40 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology àShare Long: This foul's on you, Turq...ÃâàBrain stretching to encompass such a polarity. àObviously, Turq is SCHIZO! Keep in mind that Turq once was a defender of MMY and TM, but he turned negative after Judy whipped Turq real good in an argument with Andrew Skolnick; the final takedown before the actual melt-down came a little later on on alt.religion.gnostic with Moogin and Kater. Ever since then, Turq got his head on screwed on spinning backwards. It's ALL about Judy. Go figure. àIf Judy ever gets tired of correcting other people's homework and decides to try her hand at actually writing something, I've got the perfect gig for her: writing angry, stinging letters to Co$ critics. The back story on this is as follows. Vanity Fair is released a story about how Tom Cruise, unable to find a wife for himself who was considered suitable by the Church, arranged for numerous interview sessions so that he could try out pre-approved $cientologists as his prospective wife, while the Church interrogated them and investigated every aspect of their lives in the background. According to the article, it was a level of vetting that political candidates don't even go through. So how did the Co$ *react* to this article? Well, those who have followed their exploits know that they'll prob- ably react by siccing private detectives and smear artists on the article's author and on Graydon Carter, the publisher of VF. What they did in public was to have their lawyers send Mr. Carter a long, long, long-winded,
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Yes, Judy I see what you mean. In this instance I'd say you're sounding more reasonable than Curtis. BUT...did you see his reply to Ravi in which he admits that he overreacted? That's something I very much admire. When a person can say that maybe they got it wrong that time. Or maybe they overreacted. Or maybe they weren't thinking clearly, or maybe having a bad day. Something along those lines. So for me, Curtis gets big points for that. And I'm glad that you're feeling better. Which is how you sound to me in this post. Hey I just remembered. You have 49 posts so you're welcome to answer this to me directly if you want. Anyway, I agree with you that different people are a different percentage of positive and negative. I find most people to be mostly positive. Say 70-90%. And most of us can and do fluctuate from day to day or situation to situation. Heck I've even seen posters fluctuate from positive to very negative within 1 paragraph of a post! If I did that I'd figure I ate too much sugar. But probably what puts someone over the top is different for different peeps. Laughing because I was typing away and looked at screen and I had typed poops instead of peeps in last sentence above. You gotta love Freud and his whole Freudian slip thingie (-: Anyway, what else to say that might be beneficial at this point? As I said before, I don't think the dumb c phrase was a death threat. Actually the word death is not in the quote at all. Nonetheless it comes across sounding like a death wish. So still extreme vicious. Easy for me to suggest forgive and forget. But can't help but wonder what would happen if you did. Have not checked archives to see Curtis part in all that. Probably won't. Have to go out of town today. 1 hour drive each way. What else? I still think piling on does not help matters that are essentially private and emotional. Like the conflict between me and Robin. Which is actually what lead to conflict between Robin and Curtis. Which lead to Sal comment, which lead to Emily email to you, which lead to...yep, these things seem to take on a life of their own. Lastly, I will continue to not choose sides but rather take each situation, each post on its own merit. While maintaining some compassionate memory of a history I've only glimpsed. Best I can do for now. Share From: authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 6:26 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology Share, can you see the attempted deceptions in Curtis's response? Read what I wrote carefully, then read what Curtis wrote, then read the numbered paragraphs I added. See which of us you think is telling the truth about what I said to you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: You'll have to learn by experience what the positive-to- negative ratios of FFL participants are. With some of them, you may never see their negative side until you get into a dispute with them. Those with a penchant for dishonesty are so clever about giving the false impression that the other side is at fault that a third party reading the posts in the dispute is unable to see how they've done it. Rght. Only Judy can. 1. What I said was that only those people who have disputes with such folks are likely to see their negative side. There are at least six people currently posting to FFL who have had disputes with Curtis, for example. All of them have seen his negative side and have testified to it. Many of those who have *not* had disputes with Curtis, in contrast, think of him as Mr. Wonderful. It is kind of like a magical power but she was never bitten by a spidera and doesn't come from a red planet that exploded. She just declared it and ShhaaammmM! 2. Not magic at all. Again, as I said, it's a function of getting into a dispute with such people. It's very hard for a third party to tell when one's context is being twisted or erased, but one can see it quite clearly oneself. So just take her word for when someone is lying, she will need no evidence and you shouldn't worry your pretty little head. 3. What I told Share was that she would have to learn from experience, not that she should take my word for it. When it looks like she has been spinning bullshit here, it is really that you just lack her special powers. I don't spin bullshit. I don't have to. Curtis had to, as his post demonstrates. Sometimes I wonder if she believes she is addressing a room full of preschoolers. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Sorry, Richard but IMO Barry's not schizo. Barry is simply like the rest of
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Sorry, Richard but IMO Barry's not schizo... authfriend: ...don't believe everything you read here. Not only is Barry not schizo, the rest of Richard's description of him is not accurate either. Here's the thread so Share can read it and judge for herself how Turq got beatup by Moogin and Judy. Not only did Turq get beat up by Judy, Moogin beat up Turq's defense of TMer 'transcendence creation' theory! LoL! Subject: Emperor's New Clothes Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic Date: 2003-10-17 05:35:21 PST http://tinyurl.com/95drxtz Uncle Tantra: I don't believe that there is anything in the universe called truth. Moogin: Then you said, The only 'perspective' that would be valid to judge creation would have to transcend creation, you were just offering one of your beliefs, not -- despite appearances -- a claim about the truth of things concerning the universe. -- Moggin to e-mail, remove the thorn
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Isn't it nice? I mean doesn't it make an enormous difference when Judy takes on a more conciliatory tone. It does for me. She had me won over. Curtis didn't buy the more conciliatory tone. That's certainly his right. He sort of tore it apart. But perhaps like you, Judy in that fashion was someone that I know I would enjoy talking with. I don't think she respects me much however, but that's okay too. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Yes, Judy I see what you mean. In this instance I'd say you're sounding more reasonable than Curtis. BUT...did you see his reply to Ravi in which he admits that he overreacted? That's something I very much admire. When a person can say that maybe they got it wrong that time. Or maybe they overreacted. Or maybe they weren't thinking clearly, or maybe having a bad day. Something along those lines. So for me, Curtis gets big points for that. And I'm glad that you're feeling better. Which is how you sound to me in this post. Hey I just remembered. You have 49 posts so you're welcome to answer this to me directly if you want. Anyway, I agree with you that different people are a different percentage of positive and negative. I find most people to be mostly positive. Say 70-90%. And most of us can and do fluctuate from day to day or situation to situation. Heck I've even seen posters fluctuate from positive to very negative within 1 paragraph of a post! If I did that I'd figure I ate too much sugar. But probably what puts someone over the top is different for different peeps. Laughing because I was typing away and looked at screen and I had typed poops instead of peeps in last sentence above. You gotta love Freud and his whole Freudian slip thingie (-: Anyway, what else to say that might be beneficial at this point? As I said before, I don't think the dumb c phrase was a death threat. Actually the word death is not in the quote at all. Nonetheless it comes across sounding like a death wish. So still extreme vicious. Easy for me to suggest forgive and forget. But can't help but wonder what would happen if you did. Have not checked archives to see Curtis part in all that. Probably won't. Have to go out of town today. 1 hour drive each way. What else? I still think piling on does not help matters that are essentially private and emotional. Like the conflict between me and Robin. Which is actually what lead to conflict between Robin and Curtis. Which lead to Sal comment, which lead to Emily email to you, which lead to...yep, these things seem to take on a life of their own. Lastly, I will continue to not choose sides but rather take each situation, each post on its own merit. While maintaining some compassionate memory of a history I've only glimpsed. Best I can do for now. Share From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 6:26 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology  Share, can you see the attempted deceptions in Curtis's response? Read what I wrote carefully, then read what Curtis wrote, then read the numbered paragraphs I added. See which of us you think is telling the truth about what I said to you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: You'll have to learn by experience what the positive-to- negative ratios of FFL participants are. With some of them, you may never see their negative side until you get into a dispute with them. Those with a penchant for dishonesty are so clever about giving the false impression that the other side is at fault that a third party reading the posts in the dispute is unable to see how they've done it. Rght. Only Judy can. 1. What I said was that only those people who have disputes with such folks are likely to see their negative side. There are at least six people currently posting to FFL who have had disputes with Curtis, for example. All of them have seen his negative side and have testified to it. Many of those who have *not* had disputes with Curtis, in contrast, think of him as Mr. Wonderful. It is kind of like a magical power but she was never bitten by a spidera and doesn't come from a red planet that exploded. She just declared it and ShhaaammmM! 2. Not magic at all. Again, as I said, it's a function of getting into a dispute with such people. It's very hard for a third party to tell when one's context is being twisted or erased, but one can see it quite clearly oneself. So just take her word for when someone is lying, she will need no evidence and you shouldn't worry your pretty little head. 3. What I told Share was that she would have
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Something that happened almost 9 years ago?! Nope, not interested. Someone getting beat up by someone else. Definitely not interested. From: Richard J. Williams rich...@rwilliams.us To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 10:57 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology Sorry, Richard but IMO Barry's not schizo... authfriend: ...don't believe everything you read here. Not only is Barry not schizo, the rest of Richard's description of him is not accurate either. Here's the thread so Share can read it and judge for herself how Turq got beatup by Moogin and Judy. Not only did Turq get beat up by Judy, Moogin beat up Turq's defense of TMer 'transcendence creation' theory! LoL! Subject: Emperor's New Clothes Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic Date: 2003-10-17 05:35:21 PST http://tinyurl.com/95drxtz Uncle Tantra: I don't believe that there is anything in the universe called truth. Moogin: Then you said, The only 'perspective' that would be valid to judge creation would have to transcend creation, you were just offering one of your beliefs, not -- despite appearances -- a claim about the truth of things concerning the universe. -- Moggin to e-mail, remove the thorn
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Something that happened almost 9 years ago?! Nope, not interested. Someone getting beat up by someone else. Definitely not interested. Figuratively speaking I believe. It seems there were no bloody noses or cauliflower ears resulting from the verbal tussle. But, again, I could be wrong. I have been once or twice before. (By the way, I hope you didn't mind me posting the blurb on QLW, it was a straight quote right off the website. I was actually really curious about what it could be, I dated a quantum physicist once and was wondering if it involved any real physics. I am still not sure. But I do know that boyfriend and I had some physics going on at the time. Curtis knew him, they played music together.) From: Richard J. Williams richard@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 10:57 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology  Sorry, Richard but IMO Barry's not schizo... authfriend: ...don't believe everything you read here. Not only is Barry not schizo, the rest of Richard's description of him is not accurate either. Here's the thread so Share can read it and judge for herself how Turq got beatup by Moogin and Judy. Not only did Turq get beat up by Judy, Moogin beat up Turq's defense of TMer 'transcendence creation' theory! LoL! Subject: Emperor's New Clothes Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic Date: 2003-10-17 05:35:21 PST http://tinyurl.com/95drxtz Uncle Tantra: I don't believe that there is anything in the universe called truth. Moogin: Then you said, The only 'perspective' that would be valid to judge creation would have to transcend creation, you were just offering one of your beliefs, not -- despite appearances -- a claim about the truth of things concerning the universe. -- Moggin to e-mail, remove the thorn
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: At the risk of 'piling on' this little vignette was priceless. Probably because it rang so true. All you left out was some bimbo trying to climb onto his lap. Hold the applause, Ann. You're only encouraging me. I can't...no I mustn't...Help! Somebody STOP ME! Oh alright. Scene: Leiden, Holland, 2:00 am. Two Dutch grifters discuss their recent mark. Guy: Hey, what's in his wallet? Gal: ID, Barry Wright, two bucks and a condom...expiration date, August 18, 1969. Guy: Sonofabitch, the last time that old geezer got laid was at Woodstock! Gal: Thought so...probably explains the tie-dyed boxer shorts. Guy: Did you get those too? Gal: Yep, trophy for my easy mark collection. Guy: Two bucks? Hardly worth the trouble of letting him feel your ass. Gal: My ass, his shorts, win, win. Meanwhile, alone in a fleabag hotel, passed out cold, handcuffed to a chair and stripped naked except for a Jerry Garcia tie* gracefully covering his privates. Barry slowly regains consciousness, muttering, win, win...win, win. Barry: What a night! Can't wait to write about it. *Jerry Garcia tie: Barry's most prized possession. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Barry: I've got a problem. Bartender: Yeah. Tell me about it. Barry: There's this woman... Bartender (aside): Here he goes again...another sob story about some crazy bitch named Judy. Man, this dame really gets to him. Barry: This woman is diving me crazy...haunting my every waking moment. Gimme another drink. Bartender: I hear you, Buddy. (aside) Yep. We know where this one's going. Barry: She has this creepy power over people who actually read her posts on FFLife. Bartender: (pretending interest) Uh-huh... Barry: THOSE PEOPLE...who read her posts. Do you know what happens to them? Bartender: Have another shot with your beer, Buddy. You're gunna need it. Barry: She makes THOSE PEOPLE hate me...Oh the agony, the unbearable pain...etc, etc, etc. blubber, blubber, boo hoo hoo. Two hours later.. Bartender: Time to go home, Buddy. Barry: My hair! What happened to my hair? I have no hair! Bartender: It caught on fire...spontaneous combustion. You should have seen it. You were spectacular! Never saw anything like it. Blue flames shooting out yer ass, hair on fire...quite a show, quite a show, indeed. The joint was packed. Barry: I need a drink. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: You'll have to learn by experience what the positive-to- negative ratios of FFL participants are. With some of them, you may never see their negative side until you get into a dispute with them. Note the incredibly clueless assumption here -- that getting into a dispute with them is something that is going to -- or should -- happen. It doesn't, for most here. It *does*, for those who live for disputes. The same assumption -- nigh unto a presumption -- was voiced recently in response to my suggestion that the screaming of Non-sequitur! was a barrier to conver- sation. The person replying didn't even *address* the possibility that FFL could be *about* conversation. Instead, it was presumed to be a forum for debate. Some people, as strange as it may seem, *don't* live for debate, or view every occasion to interact with other human beings as an opportunity to start one. These people instead -- not being as ego-attached to their POVs and rigid, fixed ideas -- enjoy discussing them calmly with others, in more of a (dare I say it) conversation. These strange people don't feel the same compulsive need to *assert* their own POVs and ideas and declare them better or more right than those of others, and thus don't feel the same compulsive need to turn every conversation about POVs and ideas into a debate. Just sayin'... Those with a penchant for dishonesty are so clever about giving the false impression that the other side is at fault that a third party reading the posts in the dispute is unable to see how they've done it. Rght. Only Judy can. It is kind of like a magical power but she was never bitten by a spider and doesn't come from a red planet that exploded. I'm not completely convinced about her not coming from another planet :-), but I'd agree with you about not being bitten by a spider. Spiders have better taste. :-) She just declared it and ShhaaammmM! And when other people here the magic word Shazam they should just STFU and believe it thoroughly, the way she did whenever
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Share Long: This foul's on you, Turq... Brain stretching to encompass such a polarity. Obviously, Turq is SCHIZO! Keep in mind that Turq once was a defender of MMY and TM, but he turned negative after Judy whipped Turq real good in an argument with Andrew Skolnick; the final takedown before the actual melt-down came a little later on on alt.religion.gnostic with Moogin and Kater. Ever since then, Turq got his head on screwed on spinning backwards. It's ALL about Judy. Go figure. If Judy ever gets tired of correcting other people's homework and decides to try her hand at actually writing something, I've got the perfect gig for her: writing angry, stinging letters to Co$ critics. The back story on this is as follows. Vanity Fair is released a story about how Tom Cruise, unable to find a wife for himself who was considered suitable by the Church, arranged for numerous interview sessions so that he could try out pre-approved $cientologists as his prospective wife, while the Church interrogated them and investigated every aspect of their lives in the background. According to the article, it was a level of vetting that political candidates don't even go through. So how did the Co$ *react* to this article? Well, those who have followed their exploits know that they'll prob- ably react by siccing private detectives and smear artists on the article's author and on Graydon Carter, the publisher of VF. What they did in public was to have their lawyers send Mr. Carter a long, long, long-winded, eight-page hate letter: Article about the letter: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/17/church-of-scientology-responds-vanity-fair-tom-cruise-wife-auditioning_n_1889734.html The letter itself: http://www.scientologynews.org/sites/default/files/1-Jeff-Riffer-Re-David-Miscavige-to-Gaydon-Carter-16-Aug-2012.pdf Look it over. See if you don't think that writing such letters is a PERFECT career choice for Judy Stein. I mean, it's got all of her trademarks: * Picking nits and homing in on them to obfuscate larger issues * Trying to present the criticism as an example of religious hate crime and its authors as bigots * Posting total irrelevancies lauding David Miscavige (the leader of the Co$) to make him seem saintly while demonizing his critics * Lying outright (Miscavige has been reported as viewing videotapes of auditing sessions and using them for blackmail purposes *in court*, despite what this letter says) * Pretending that the critics don't really believe what they are saying but are lying and saying it to be malicious * Appealing to a derogatory history of the critics that is made up * Portraying the author's sources in not just a derogatory fashion but a libelous one, trying to portray them as liars * Making threats * Ignoring the actual question of whether the Church tried to be a matchmaker for Tom Cruise to find him a wife who was suitable for them, focusing only on Kill the messenger This letter follows almost all of the guidelines I posted (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/318903) the other day from L. Ron Hubbard on how to deal with critics. It also follows the Judy Stein Playbook, using the same tactics she uses here every week to demonize critics of TM, the TMO, and Maharishi. That's why I think writing for the Church of $cientology might be a great career choice for her. She certainly has the training for it, and who knows... writing for them she might accomplish what she has not here, and find some people who buy her act.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Sorry, Richard but IMO Barry's not schizo. Barry is simply like the rest of us, a mix and positive and negative. Judy too. And yes it's often perplexing to me. But I rarely find it helpful to pull out DSM IV labels (not sure that's the right number) to bolster one's argument. None of us are trained therapists, right? And it's not helpful when Turq does it either. Just in case someone was going to waste a post bringing that to my attention! As for the ongoing war between him and Judy, they do seem locked into it from my perspective. At this point, with my very limited knowledge, I find them equally responsible in terms of keeping it going. What to do? I'll soldier on with compassion and reasonableness and good humor as best I can. Bound to make mistakes. Repeating myself. Ugh! From: Richard J. Williams rich...@rwilliams.us To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:40 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology Share Long: This foul's on you, Turq... Brain stretching to encompass such a polarity. Obviously, Turq is SCHIZO! Keep in mind that Turq once was a defender of MMY and TM, but he turned negative after Judy whipped Turq real good in an argument with Andrew Skolnick; the final takedown before the actual melt-down came a little later on on alt.religion.gnostic with Moogin and Kater. Ever since then, Turq got his head on screwed on spinning backwards. It's ALL about Judy. Go figure. If Judy ever gets tired of correcting other people's homework and decides to try her hand at actually writing something, I've got the perfect gig for her: writing angry, stinging letters to Co$ critics. The back story on this is as follows. Vanity Fair is released a story about how Tom Cruise, unable to find a wife for himself who was considered suitable by the Church, arranged for numerous interview sessions so that he could try out pre-approved $cientologists as his prospective wife, while the Church interrogated them and investigated every aspect of their lives in the background. According to the article, it was a level of vetting that political candidates don't even go through. So how did the Co$ *react* to this article? Well, those who have followed their exploits know that they'll prob- ably react by siccing private detectives and smear artists on the article's author and on Graydon Carter, the publisher of VF. What they did in public was to have their lawyers send Mr. Carter a long, long, long-winded, eight-page hate letter: Article about the letter: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/17/church-of-scientology-responds-vanity-fair-tom-cruise-wife-auditioning_n_1889734.html The letter itself: http://www.scientologynews.org/sites/default/files/1-Jeff-Riffer-Re-David-Miscavige-to-Gaydon-Carter-16-Aug-2012.pdf Look it over. See if you don't think that writing such letters is a PERFECT career choice for Judy Stein. I mean, it's got all of her trademarks: * Picking nits and homing in on them to obfuscate larger issues * Trying to present the criticism as an example of religious hate crime and its authors as bigots * Posting total irrelevancies lauding David Miscavige (the leader of the Co$) to make him seem saintly while demonizing his critics * Lying outright (Miscavige has been reported as viewing videotapes of auditing sessions and using them for blackmail purposes *in court*, despite what this letter says) * Pretending that the critics don't really believe what they are saying but are lying and saying it to be malicious * Appealing to a derogatory history of the critics that is made up * Portraying the author's sources in not just a derogatory fashion but a libelous one, trying to portray them as liars * Making threats * Ignoring the actual question of whether the Church tried to be a matchmaker for Tom Cruise to find him a wife who was suitable for them, focusing only on Kill the messenger This letter follows almost all of the guidelines I posted (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/318903) the other day from L. Ron Hubbard on how to deal with critics. It also follows the Judy Stein Playbook, using the same tactics she uses here every week to demonize critics of TM, the TMO, and Maharishi. That's why I think writing for the Church of $cientology might be a great career choice for her. She certainly has the training for it, and who knows... writing for them she might accomplish what she has not here, and find some people who buy her act.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Sorry, Richard but IMO Barry's not schizo. Barry is simply like the rest of us, a mix and positive and negative. Judy too. And yes it's often perplexing to me. But I rarely find it helpful to pull out DSM IV labels (not sure that's the right number) to bolster one's argument. None of us are trained therapists, right? And it's not helpful when Turq does it either. Just in case someone was going to waste a post bringing that to my attention! Good for you, Share. Just two points to add: First, don't believe everything you read here. Not only is Barry not schizo, the rest of Richard's description of him is not accurate either. On the other hand, most of what Barry has said about FFL and its participants, especially in the last couple of days, is not accurate either (and the inaccuracy goes way beyond just spinning). You have to be particularly cautious, generally speaking, when someone delivers a rant about past trends or events on this forum that you weren't around to witness. It's often just about impossible to know whether they're telling the truth if you weren't here, especially if you have never learned how to consult the archives of the forum. Second, everyone is a mixture of positive and negative, that's very true. But the ratio of positive to negative is not always equal in a given individual. Some people are more negative than positive, some are more positive than negative. You'll have to learn by experience what the positive-to- negative ratios of FFL participants are. With some of them, you may never see their negative side until you get into a dispute with them. Those with a penchant for dishonesty are so clever about giving the false impression that the other side is at fault that a third party reading the posts in the dispute is unable to see how they've done it. Others are less clever about concealing the truth; if they got into an actual dispute their dishonesty would very quickly become apparent. They know this and do their best to avoid responding to challenges to what they say, contenting themselves with rants and not reading any of the comments that point out the falsehoods. It's quite shocking to find out, as you eventually will, that not everyone on a supposedly spiritually oriented forum is dedicated to the truth, and that some are actually intentionally and even maliciously deceitful. But it's a fact of life, at least here on FFL.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: You'll have to learn by experience what the positive-to- negative ratios of FFL participants are. With some of them, you may never see their negative side until you get into a dispute with them. Those with a penchant for dishonesty are so clever about giving the false impression that the other side is at fault that a third party reading the posts in the dispute is unable to see how they've done it. Rght. Only Judy can. It is kind of like a magical power but she was never bitten by a spidera and doesn't come from a red planet that exploded. She just declared it and ShhaaammmM! So just take her word for when someone is lying, she will need no evidence and you shouldn't worry your pretty little head. When it looks like she has been spinning bullshit here, it is really that you just lack her special powers. Sometimes I wonder if she believes she is addressing a room full of preschoolers. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Sorry, Richard but IMO Barry's not schizo. Barry is simply like the rest of us, a mix and positive and negative. Judy too. And yes it's often perplexing to me. But I rarely find it helpful to pull out DSM IV labels (not sure that's the right number) to bolster one's argument. None of us are trained therapists, right? And it's not helpful when Turq does it either. Just in case someone was going to waste a post bringing that to my attention! Good for you, Share. Just two points to add: First, don't believe everything you read here. Not only is Barry not schizo, the rest of Richard's description of him is not accurate either. On the other hand, most of what Barry has said about FFL and its participants, especially in the last couple of days, is not accurate either (and the inaccuracy goes way beyond just spinning). You have to be particularly cautious, generally speaking, when someone delivers a rant about past trends or events on this forum that you weren't around to witness. It's often just about impossible to know whether they're telling the truth if you weren't here, especially if you have never learned how to consult the archives of the forum. Second, everyone is a mixture of positive and negative, that's very true. But the ratio of positive to negative is not always equal in a given individual. Some people are more negative than positive, some are more positive than negative. You'll have to learn by experience what the positive-to- negative ratios of FFL participants are. With some of them, you may never see their negative side until you get into a dispute with them. Those with a penchant for dishonesty are so clever about giving the false impression that the other side is at fault that a third party reading the posts in the dispute is unable to see how they've done it. Others are less clever about concealing the truth; if they got into an actual dispute their dishonesty would very quickly become apparent. They know this and do their best to avoid responding to challenges to what they say, contenting themselves with rants and not reading any of the comments that point out the falsehoods. It's quite shocking to find out, as you eventually will, that not everyone on a supposedly spiritually oriented forum is dedicated to the truth, and that some are actually intentionally and even maliciously deceitful. But it's a fact of life, at least here on FFL.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Share, can you see the attempted deceptions in Curtis's response? Read what I wrote carefully, then read what Curtis wrote, then read the numbered paragraphs I added. See which of us you think is telling the truth about what I said to you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: You'll have to learn by experience what the positive-to- negative ratios of FFL participants are. With some of them, you may never see their negative side until you get into a dispute with them. Those with a penchant for dishonesty are so clever about giving the false impression that the other side is at fault that a third party reading the posts in the dispute is unable to see how they've done it. Rght. Only Judy can. 1. What I said was that only those people who have disputes with such folks are likely to see their negative side. There are at least six people currently posting to FFL who have had disputes with Curtis, for example. All of them have seen his negative side and have testified to it. Many of those who have *not* had disputes with Curtis, in contrast, think of him as Mr. Wonderful. It is kind of like a magical power but she was never bitten by a spidera and doesn't come from a red planet that exploded. She just declared it and ShhaaammmM! 2. Not magic at all. Again, as I said, it's a function of getting into a dispute with such people. It's very hard for a third party to tell when one's context is being twisted or erased, but one can see it quite clearly oneself. So just take her word for when someone is lying, she will need no evidence and you shouldn't worry your pretty little head. 3. What I told Share was that she would have to learn from experience, not that she should take my word for it. When it looks like she has been spinning bullshit here, it is really that you just lack her special powers. I don't spin bullshit. I don't have to. Curtis had to, as his post demonstrates. Sometimes I wonder if she believes she is addressing a room full of preschoolers. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Sorry, Richard but IMO Barry's not schizo. Barry is simply like the rest of us, a mix and positive and negative. Judy too. And yes it's often perplexing to me. But I rarely find it helpful to pull out DSM IV labels (not sure that's the right number) to bolster one's argument. None of us are trained therapists, right? And it's not helpful when Turq does it either. Just in case someone was going to waste a post bringing that to my attention! Good for you, Share. Just two points to add: First, don't believe everything you read here. Not only is Barry not schizo, the rest of Richard's description of him is not accurate either. On the other hand, most of what Barry has said about FFL and its participants, especially in the last couple of days, is not accurate either (and the inaccuracy goes way beyond just spinning). You have to be particularly cautious, generally speaking, when someone delivers a rant about past trends or events on this forum that you weren't around to witness. It's often just about impossible to know whether they're telling the truth if you weren't here, especially if you have never learned how to consult the archives of the forum. Second, everyone is a mixture of positive and negative, that's very true. But the ratio of positive to negative is not always equal in a given individual. Some people are more negative than positive, some are more positive than negative. You'll have to learn by experience what the positive-to- negative ratios of FFL participants are. With some of them, you may never see their negative side until you get into a dispute with them. Those with a penchant for dishonesty are so clever about giving the false impression that the other side is at fault that a third party reading the posts in the dispute is unable to see how they've done it. Others are less clever about concealing the truth; if they got into an actual dispute their dishonesty would very quickly become apparent. They know this and do their best to avoid responding to challenges to what they say, contenting themselves with rants and not reading any of the comments that point out the falsehoods. It's quite shocking to find out, as you eventually will, that not everyone on a supposedly spiritually oriented forum is dedicated to the truth, and that some are actually intentionally and even maliciously deceitful. But it's a fact of life, at least here on FFL.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Ah, but the solution is SO simple, yet perhaps temporarily thwarted by my calling attention to it : One of them has to send the other your Hawaiian guy's cool deal ; I'm sorry-- please forgive me--- Thank you--- I LOVE YOU.. BTW-- I use this thanks to you... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Sorry, Richard but IMO Barry's not schizo. Barry is simply like the rest of us, a mix and positive and negative. Judy too. And yes it's often perplexing to me. But I rarely find it helpful to pull out DSM IV labels (not sure that's the right number) to bolster one's argument. None of us are trained therapists, right? And it's not helpful when Turq does it either. Just in case someone was going to waste a post bringing that to my attention! As for the ongoing war between him and Judy, they do seem locked into it from my perspective. At this point, with my very limited knowledge, I find them equally responsible in terms of keeping it going. What to do? I'll soldier on with compassion and reasonableness and good humor as best I can.  Bound to make mistakes. Repeating myself. Ugh!  From: Richard J. Williams richard@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:40 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology  Share Long: This foul's on you, Turq...àBrain stretching to encompass such a polarity.  Obviously, Turq is SCHIZO! Keep in mind that Turq once was a defender of MMY and TM, but he turned negative after Judy whipped Turq real good in an argument with Andrew Skolnick; the final takedown before the actual melt-down came a little later on on alt.religion.gnostic with Moogin and Kater. Ever since then, Turq got his head on screwed on spinning backwards. It's ALL about Judy. Go figure.  If Judy ever gets tired of correcting other people's homework and decides to try her hand at actually writing something, I've got the perfect gig for her: writing angry, stinging letters to Co$ critics. The back story on this is as follows. Vanity Fair is released a story about how Tom Cruise, unable to find a wife for himself who was considered suitable by the Church, arranged for numerous interview sessions so that he could try out pre-approved $cientologists as his prospective wife, while the Church interrogated them and investigated every aspect of their lives in the background. According to the article, it was a level of vetting that political candidates don't even go through. So how did the Co$ *react* to this article? Well, those who have followed their exploits know that they'll prob- ably react by siccing private detectives and smear artists on the article's author and on Graydon Carter, the publisher of VF. What they did in public was to have their lawyers send Mr. Carter a long, long, long-winded, eight-page hate letter: Article about the letter: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/17/church-of-scientology-responds-vanity-fair-tom-cruise-wife-auditioning_n_1889734.html The letter itself: http://www.scientologynews.org/sites/default/files/1-Jeff-Riffer-Re-David-Miscavige-to-Gaydon-Carter-16-Aug-2012.pdf Look it over. See if you don't think that writing such letters is a PERFECT career choice for Judy Stein. I mean, it's got all of her trademarks: * Picking nits and homing in on them to obfuscate larger issues * Trying to present the criticism as an example of religious hate crime and its authors as bigots * Posting total irrelevancies lauding David Miscavige (the leader of the Co$) to make him seem saintly while demonizing his critics * Lying outright (Miscavige has been reported as viewing videotapes of auditing sessions and using them for blackmail purposes *in court*, despite what this letter says) * Pretending that the critics don't really believe what they are saying but are lying and saying it to be malicious * Appealing to a derogatory history of the critics that is made up * Portraying the author's sources in not just a derogatory fashion but a libelous one, trying to portray them as liars * Making threats * Ignoring the actual question of whether the Church tried to be a matchmaker for Tom Cruise to find him a wife who was suitable for them, focusing only on Kill the messenger This letter follows almost all of the guidelines I posted (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/318903) the other day from L. Ron Hubbard on how to deal with critics. It also follows the Judy Stein Playbook, using the same tactics she uses here every week to demonize critics of TM, the TMO, and Maharishi. That's why I think writing for the Church of $cientology might be a great career choice for her.
