[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
I just looked up compassion sympathy and empathy as I was asking myself how I define them. I feel for others' and in Share's case, I offered her compassion the other day for her Attachment Disorder after viewing the host of difficult character traits associated with it. This was not accurate. What I was offering her was sympathy. Compassion is a big word and has an element of action to relieve suffering in it. You, Ann, demonstrate an online version of compassion in many instances here. I don't see this in Share, but I can only talk from my perspective. Resorting to name-calling, as she does with everyone she doesn't like is not a compassionate approach - more of a playground approach. Smile. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: Bless you Judy. I am going to take a nod from the Share playbook and offer you compassion. Your eyesight is better than mine. I have never seen compassion from Share. She, instead, chooses to view me as arrogant. Are deprecating labels another form of open-heartedness? Emily might have an opinion on this as well. (Emily, feel free to ignore this.) You'll have to find someone else to play with tonight. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: sure Judy. Carry on with your truth campaign. as Curtis aptly pointed out: for someone to constantly declare how dedicated to truth they are, is not unlike the magician telling everyone repeatedly how this is a plain, ordinary deck with which I am going to perform this trick. Not if the person is in fact dedicated to truth, unlike the magician. Curtis isn't, you aren't (as I just got done noting), Barry obviously isn't. So it isn't at all surprising that the three of you would be anxious to portray a truth-teller as a deceiver, is it? Can I assume you're afraid to answer my question, Stevie? And that's you in a nutshell, isn't Judy. You can fill in the blank, (as you do), Which blank would this be, Stevie? with whomever you determine to be the liar of the hour, or the day. Usually there is no shortage of candidates. Actually they don't change much from week to week, Stevie. And that, pretty much is how you spend your posts here. And that what, Stevie? Your writing is pretty incoherent tonight. I don't think you quite got what I've been saying. But it's obvious you aren't happy about the truths I've been telling, Stevie--you know, like the one about your having blamed DrD for bringing up Barry's brother's suicide when it was actually Barry who did that. And another truth is that you've never retracted your accusation nor apologized to DrD for it. I'm truly sorry that it makes you so uncomfortable, Stevie, but them's the breaks. And I am glad you have something to aspire towards. Perhaps someone here will take up your cause and make a nomination. I think it would make for a fascinating vetting process. And yikes. Could it be that you could be a possible candidate for the two different awards that have shown up now. Oh, Stevie, you've already forgotten what I said in my earlier post, and you've even quoted it below. See if you can find it. A little practice exercise for you. but this is how you choose to spend your life force, so I hope is gratifying for you. Not being concerned about the truth, you probably aren't aware that there are many people who have dedicated their lives to the truth, sometimes even *sacrificed* their lives to the truth. Truth and truth-telling have generally been highly regarded throughout history, something to strive for. http://www.ridenhour.org/prizes_truth_telling.html (I wouldn't consider myself to come close to deserving such a prize because my efforts have been so limited.) But there are always those who can't see the importance of truth, who find it inconvenient and annoying, not worth the effort; and even those who believe truth just gets in the way of their needs and desires and whims. And sometimes, of course, such people are just cowards who *fear* the truth. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: I wonder if anyone even reads those rebuttals. But I suppose they are gratifying to you. Right, the point is to get the truth on the record.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: sure Judy. Carry on with your truth campaign. as Curtis aptly pointed out: for someone to constantly declare how dedicated to truth they are, is not unlike the magician telling everyone repeatedly how this is a plain, ordinary deck with which I am going to perform this trick. but this is how you choose to spend your life force, so I hope is gratifying for you. And how do you see yourself spending your life force Steve? Why don't you ask that question to my family, to my employees, or to the local media who have made it point to compare our business to places like Nordstroms or Ritz Carlton as an example of of a (small) company that offers superior customer service. Oh, so you focus your energies on business. I knew someone like that once - he was my father. Ann, you've got to be kidding. I am a householder, I have responsibilities to my family and my employees. I have a job like most other people. I attempt to do it well. Your dad was a business titan. I am a business small fry, and my business is a means to an end. But I take pride in it, as do my the other employees. Are you trying to read some kind of obsession into this? No, are you? But you emphasized you business reputation in particular in your paragraph above. Many, many people focus on one thing more than the other, it is very tricky ( I find) to discover how to balance all of the responsibilities in one's life. You said obsession, not me. I'm glad to know you have a balanced life and your energies are distributed evenly. Just not, apparently, in rewarding those seeking truth (hence your original post to Judy). Now calm down and have a nice vacation. ( I like the term business titan, by the way, it sounds so powerful. But even my father was not obsessed. His business abilities came very easily to him. What he did in his career was very much a part of who he was naturally - an honest, bright, compassionate born leader.) How can you fault anyone for caring about truth, whether you believe that particular person is misguided or off base or not? Yow Ann. I'm not going to go along with this. I do feel a need to speak out if I feel a person is misguided. Don't you? Go along with what? Read my question again, I think you didn't understand it for some reason. You might find we actually agree on this one. How come you can sit there and make these mocking noises when your greatest contribution here appears to be belittling others? Sort of one sided, I think. But I can live that assessment, if that is how you see things. This is what I like about you Steve. Even though it is self evident that it is one sided ( it is, after all, just my viewpoint and that would make it singular) you come across as a nice guy. (Share, was that belittling of me?) Who do you perceive yourself to be that you can afford to jibber away in the corner laughing and scorning others who take umbrage at lies, manipulation s and the conscious twisting of true things? Ann, remember, opinions are like a-holes. Everyone has one, and most of them stink. I include myself in this category, but I wonder if you do as well? I don't think your answer went anywhere near my question but, in a strange way, you answered it completely, perhaps inadvertently. When did you decide life was not worth living well or deeply? You seem pretty all knowing Ann. Why don't you tell me? Ah, the cutting jab. Well, I have no idea when you stopped or if you ever were committed to such things but it doesn't appear as if you have considered it much.Ann, I guess I'll have to revert to a trite phrase. I simply try to live in the moment, and enjoy the moment. Not always easy, but I don't really know a better way. Share, take it away... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: I wonder if anyone even reads those rebuttals. But I suppose they are gratifying to you. Right, the point is to get the truth on the record. I mean, for example, I certainly wouldn't expect you to retract and apologize for accusing DrD of bringing up Barry's brother's suicide when, as I pointed out in one of those posts, it was actually Barry himself who had done so. But that error--blaming DrD for Barry's own behavior-- can't be allowed to stand unrefuted.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
May you enjoy many tall, strong and tropical beverages on your vacation!! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: Thank you Jim. A couple things come to mind. (as I am here at work, getting things in order so that I can go on vacation tomorrow with a somewhat unfettered mind) I am not sure if I have as much invested in this site as Judy. On the other hand, I do tend to trust my judgments, which many times are snap judgements. And it may be that when I take the time, to look more closely at something, (as I did recently at Judy's prodding), such as whether Robin was being truthful when he said he didn't strike someone, (and the context), then it may be that I modify my position some. But in that exact example a lot of effort was expended for a pretty small adjustment. I think the main complaint I hear about me is that I am too emotional in my judgments. Perhaps I am. On the other hand, it is always nice to have the real world to help you keep score on things. I will read over what you've written and see if anything else comes to mind. But I just don't know if I can come around to seeing Judy in a different light, than what I do. I'll try to keep an open mind. Thanks for your feedback. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: Hey Steve, I've been following this back and forth, for awhile. In terms of how you like to interact here, which I think mirrors your daily life and work, congenial, comes to mind. You and I could probably go to lunch and not mention TM, or any of the FFL topics, and still have plenty to yak about, and have a good time. I enjoy not always winding everything out, too. On the other hand, it was my business and skill for many years, to ensure clarity and understanding regarding the design, development, and transfer of very technical knowledge, to engineers and technicians, so that satellites, lasers, large phone switches, and data centers, for example, didn't fuck up. As a result, I can determine, when I want to put the effort into it, now that I don't *have* to, whether or not someone is being illogical, exaggerating, skewing material, has a hidden agenda, etc. Over so many years of analysis, it becomes obvious. Judy has a very consistent approach here. She is intent on unraveling the writing of those who are professing to say one thing, and in fact, through the mechanisms I referred to earlier, are saying something quite different. Further, if someone is simply expressing something, is there integrity in the expression? We do not have the luxury here to evaluate someone's body language and expressions here. It is all expressed through writing. So, the interactions between us are sometimes less than congenial, because there is no other way to further the thoughts expressed, sometimes, than to take exception. In everyday interaction, a raised eyebrow, or quick joke may suffice to move a conversation along, but here, with writing as the only tool, everything must be spelled out. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: Bless you Judy. I am going to take a nod from the Share playbook and offer you compassion. You'll have to find someone else to play with tonight. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: sure Judy. Carry on with your truth campaign. as Curtis aptly pointed out: for someone to constantly declare how dedicated to truth they are, is not unlike the magician telling everyone repeatedly how this is a plain, ordinary deck with which I am going to perform this trick. Not if the person is in fact dedicated to truth, unlike the magician. Curtis isn't, you aren't (as I just got done noting), Barry obviously isn't. So it isn't at all surprising that the three of you would be anxious to portray a truth-teller as a deceiver, is it? Can I assume you're afraid to answer my question, Stevie? And that's you in a nutshell, isn't Judy. You can fill in the blank, (as you do), Which blank would this be, Stevie? with whomever you determine to be the liar of the hour, or the day. Usually there is no shortage of candidates. Actually they don't change much from week to week, Stevie. And that, pretty much is how you spend your posts here. And that what, Stevie? Your writing is pretty incoherent tonight. I don't think you quite got what I've been saying. But it's obvious you aren't happy about the truths I've been telling, Stevie--you know, like the one about your having blamed DrD for bringing up
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymae.reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: I just looked up compassion sympathy and empathy as I was asking myself how I define them. I feel for others' and in Share's case, I offered her compassion the other day for her Attachment Disorder after viewing the host of difficult character traits associated with it. This was not accurate. What I was offering her was sympathy. Compassion is a big word and has an element of action to relieve suffering in it. You, Ann, demonstrate an online version of compassion in many instances here. I don't see this in Share, but I can only talk from my perspective. Resorting to name-calling, as she does with everyone she doesn't like is not a compassionate approach - more of a playground approach. Smile. Thanks for your input. I find it always to be worthwhile. I think what I can most admire in a person is the ability to 'drop' something in a moment and do an about face in any situation; for that person to be open enough to absorb new information and new input in a way that would allow them to begin fresh again in an old circumstance or in the face of a person they may be having a 'problem' with. This probably has nothing to do with compassion but it does have to do with openness. This kind of openness can certainly lead to what could appear, at times, to be compassion. Although I am certainly no saint and am no great exhibitor of the most positive traits known to man I AM open to finding out new and different things about people, in fact, I welcome this (especially if it were to show someone in a better light). Open vs closed. Holding on vs letting go. Moving on vs remaining static. These are just some of the qualities I value and am working on within myself. Not in some structured way as in adopting some path of discipline or spiritual tradition but just by becoming animated day after day in what I think of as my life. Roll with it all or become some jaded, angry, embittered and ultimately miserable person. I think we see this all the time in certain family and friends. Tragic. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: Bless you Judy. I am going to take a nod from the Share playbook and offer you compassion. Your eyesight is better than mine. I have never seen compassion from Share. She, instead, chooses to view me as arrogant. Are deprecating labels another form of open-heartedness? Emily might have an opinion on this as well. (Emily, feel free to ignore this.) You'll have to find someone else to play with tonight. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: sure Judy. Carry on with your truth campaign. as Curtis aptly pointed out: for someone to constantly declare how dedicated to truth they are, is not unlike the magician telling everyone repeatedly how this is a plain, ordinary deck with which I am going to perform this trick. Not if the person is in fact dedicated to truth, unlike the magician. Curtis isn't, you aren't (as I just got done noting), Barry obviously isn't. So it isn't at all surprising that the three of you would be anxious to portray a truth-teller as a deceiver, is it? Can I assume you're afraid to answer my question, Stevie? And that's you in a nutshell, isn't Judy. You can fill in the blank, (as you do), Which blank would this be, Stevie? with whomever you determine to be the liar of the hour, or the day. Usually there is no shortage of candidates. Actually they don't change much from week to week, Stevie. And that, pretty much is how you spend your posts here. And that what, Stevie? Your writing is pretty incoherent tonight. I don't think you quite got what I've been saying. But it's obvious you aren't happy about the truths I've been telling, Stevie--you know, like the one about your having blamed DrD for bringing up Barry's brother's suicide when it was actually Barry who did that. And another truth is that you've never retracted your accusation nor apologized to DrD for it. I'm truly sorry that it makes you so uncomfortable, Stevie, but them's the breaks. And I am glad you have something to aspire towards. Perhaps someone here will take up your cause and make a nomination. I think it would make for a fascinating vetting process. And yikes. Could it be that you could be a possible candidate for the two different awards that have shown up
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: No, are you? But you emphasized you business reputation in particular in your paragraph above. Many, many people focus on one thing more than the other, it is very tricky ( I find) to discover how to balance all of the responsibilities in one's life. You said obsession, not me. I'm glad to know you have a balanced life and your energies are distributed evenly. Just not, apparently, in rewarding those seeking truth (hence your original post to Judy). I'm good with you having the last word on this Ann. And thanks for the good wishes. Getting ready to head out now. Now calm down and have a nice vacation. ( I like the term business titan, by the way, it sounds so powerful. But even my father was not obsessed. His business abilities came very easily to him. What he did in his career was very much a part of who he was naturally - an honest, bright, compassionate born leader.) Well, I don't know if KF was a Dow Component, but if not, it couldn't have been far behind.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
Thanks Jim. I'm especially looking forward to a nice camping overnight. Maybe catch some lake trout to fry up. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: May you enjoy many tall, strong and tropical beverages on your vacation!! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: Thank you Jim. A couple things come to mind. (as I am here at work, getting things in order so that I can go on vacation tomorrow with a somewhat unfettered mind) I am not sure if I have as much invested in this site as Judy. On the other hand, I do tend to trust my judgments, which many times are snap judgements. And it may be that when I take the time, to look more closely at something, (as I did recently at Judy's prodding), such as whether Robin was being truthful when he said he didn't strike someone, (and the context), then it may be that I modify my position some. But in that exact example a lot of effort was expended for a pretty small adjustment. I think the main complaint I hear about me is that I am too emotional in my judgments. Perhaps I am. On the other hand, it is always nice to have the real world to help you keep score on things. I will read over what you've written and see if anything else comes to mind. But I just don't know if I can come around to seeing Judy in a different light, than what I do. I'll try to keep an open mind. Thanks for your feedback. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: Hey Steve, I've been following this back and forth, for awhile. In terms of how you like to interact here, which I think mirrors your daily life and work, congenial, comes to mind. You and I could probably go to lunch and not mention TM, or any of the FFL topics, and still have plenty to yak about, and have a good time. I enjoy not always winding everything out, too. On the other hand, it was my business and skill for many years, to ensure clarity and understanding regarding the design, development, and transfer of very technical knowledge, to engineers and technicians, so that satellites, lasers, large phone switches, and data centers, for example, didn't fuck up. As a result, I can determine, when I want to put the effort into it, now that I don't *have* to, whether or not someone is being illogical, exaggerating, skewing material, has a hidden agenda, etc. Over so many years of analysis, it becomes obvious. Judy has a very consistent approach here. She is intent on unraveling the writing of those who are professing to say one thing, and in fact, through the mechanisms I referred to earlier, are saying something quite different. Further, if someone is simply expressing something, is there integrity in the expression? We do not have the luxury here to evaluate someone's body language and expressions here. It is all expressed through writing. So, the interactions between us are sometimes less than congenial, because there is no other way to further the thoughts expressed, sometimes, than to take exception. In everyday interaction, a raised eyebrow, or quick joke may suffice to move a conversation along, but here, with writing as the only tool, everything must be spelled out. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: Bless you Judy. I am going to take a nod from the Share playbook and offer you compassion. You'll have to find someone else to play with tonight. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: sure Judy. Carry on with your truth campaign. as Curtis aptly pointed out: for someone to constantly declare how dedicated to truth they are, is not unlike the magician telling everyone repeatedly how this is a plain, ordinary deck with which I am going to perform this trick. Not if the person is in fact dedicated to truth, unlike the magician. Curtis isn't, you aren't (as I just got done noting), Barry obviously isn't. So it isn't at all surprising that the three of you would be anxious to portray a truth-teller as a deceiver, is it? Can I assume you're afraid to answer my question, Stevie? And that's you in a nutshell, isn't Judy. You can fill in the blank, (as you do), Which blank would this be, Stevie? with whomever you determine to be the liar of the hour, or the day. Usually there is no shortage of candidates. Actually they don't change much from week to week, Stevie. And that, pretty much is how you spend your posts here. And
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: No, are you? But you emphasized you business reputation in particular in your paragraph above. Many, many people focus on one thing more than the other, it is very tricky ( I find) to discover how to balance all of the responsibilities in one's life. You said obsession, not me. I'm glad to know you have a balanced life and your energies are distributed evenly. Just not, apparently, in rewarding those seeking truth (hence your original post to Judy). I'm good with you having the last word on this Ann. And thanks for the good wishes. Getting ready to head out now. Now calm down and have a nice vacation. ( I like the term business titan, by the way, it sounds so powerful. But even my father was not obsessed. His business abilities came very easily to him. What he did in his career was very much a part of who he was naturally - an honest, bright, compassionate born leader.) Well, I don't know if KF was a Dow Component, but if not, it couldn't have been far behind. Kraft Corp was the second largest food company in the world behind General Foods. My father was CEO of Kraft Corp ( not the smaller division of Kraft Foods). That later became Dart and Kraft while he was still working. Kraft Corp included many other food companies like Sealtest, Tupperware etc. My father was aghast and luckily retired by the time the cigarette company Philip Morris got in bed with Kraft.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 wrote: Thanks Jim. I'm especially looking forward to a nice camping overnight. Maybe catch some lake trout to fry up. Sounds great, Steve. No camping this weekend, but we did manage to have a family picnic in a canal-side park here in Leiden. Camping will come later this summer, on a family vacation in the south of France. [https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/1013750_62887018\ 3803785_697147719_n.jpg] [https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/1014004_62887021\ 3803782_671559224_n.jpg]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
Yes, openness as a lead in to compassion - I like that idea. Yes, I am working on doing what you describe below in my life. I'm all about trying to let go and be more present and aware of myself and relation to life and others' these days, which brings a number of other things into more clear focus - like control and fear and trust and on and on and on. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymae.reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: I just looked up compassion sympathy and empathy as I was asking myself how I define them. I feel for others' and in Share's case, I offered her compassion the other day for her Attachment Disorder after viewing the host of difficult character traits associated with it. This was not accurate. What I was offering her was sympathy. Compassion is a big word and has an element of action to relieve suffering in it. You, Ann, demonstrate an online version of compassion in many instances here. I don't see this in Share, but I can only talk from my perspective. Resorting to name-calling, as she does with everyone she doesn't like is not a compassionate approach - more of a playground approach. Smile. Thanks for your input. I find it always to be worthwhile. I think what I can most admire in a person is the ability to 'drop' something in a moment and do an about face in any situation; for that person to be open enough to absorb new information and new input in a way that would allow them to begin fresh again in an old circumstance or in the face of a person they may be having a 'problem' with. This probably has nothing to do with compassion but it does have to do with openness. This kind of openness can certainly lead to what could appear, at times, to be compassion. Although I am certainly no saint and am no great exhibitor of the most positive traits known to man I AM open to finding out new and different things about people, in fact, I welcome this (especially if it were to show someone in a better light). Open vs closed. Holding on vs letting go. Moving on vs remaining static. These are just some of the qualities I value and am working on within myself. Not in some structured way as in adopting some path of discipline or spiritual tradition but just by becoming animated day after day in what I think of as my life. Roll with it all or become some jaded, angry, embittered and ultimately miserable person. I think we see this all the time in certain family and friends. Tragic. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: Bless you Judy. I am going to take a nod from the Share playbook and offer you compassion. Your eyesight is better than mine. I have never seen compassion from Share. She, instead, chooses to view me as arrogant. Are deprecating labels another form of open-heartedness? Emily might have an opinion on this as well. (Emily, feel free to ignore this.) You'll have to find someone else to play with tonight. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: sure Judy. Carry on with your truth campaign. as Curtis aptly pointed out: for someone to constantly declare how dedicated to truth they are, is not unlike the magician telling everyone repeatedly how this is a plain, ordinary deck with which I am going to perform this trick. Not if the person is in fact dedicated to truth, unlike the magician. Curtis isn't, you aren't (as I just got done noting), Barry obviously isn't. So it isn't at all surprising that the three of you would be anxious to portray a truth-teller as a deceiver, is it? Can I assume you're afraid to answer my question, Stevie? And that's you in a nutshell, isn't Judy. You can fill in the blank, (as you do), Which blank would this be, Stevie? with whomever you determine to be the liar of the hour, or the day. Usually there is no shortage of candidates. Actually they don't change much from week to week, Stevie. And that, pretty much is how you spend your posts here. And that what, Stevie? Your writing is pretty incoherent tonight. I don't think you quite got what I've been saying. But it's obvious you aren't happy about the truths I've been telling, Stevie--you know, like the one about your having blamed DrD for bringing up Barry's brother's suicide when it was actually Barry who
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
Wonderful photo, thanks, turq, but what's *really* important: what was the FOOD s'il vous plait? From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 7, 2013 9:14 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 wrote: Thanks Jim. I'm especially looking forward to a nice camping overnight. Maybe catch some lake trout to fry up. Sounds great, Steve. No camping this weekend, but we did manage to have a family picnic in a canal-side park here in Leiden. Camping will come later this summer, on a family vacation in the south of France.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
Bon voyage, Steve and family! Usually I say it's a funny old world or that life is rich, strange but beautiful. I might start saying it's fluffy which to me means loveable (-: From: seventhray27 steve.sun...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 6, 2013 11:12 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson Thank you Ann, for your reply. And to borrow again from the Share playbook, regarding differences of opinion, The world is a crazy and fun place, (to paraphrase) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: Bless you Judy. I am going to take a nod from the Share playbook and offer you compassion. Your eyesight is better than mine. I have never seen compassion from Share. She, instead, chooses to view me as arrogant. Are deprecating labels another form of open-heartedness? Emily might have an opinion on this as well. (Emily, feel free to ignore this.) You'll have to find someone else to play with tonight. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: sure Judy. Carry on with your truth campaign. as Curtis aptly pointed out: for someone to constantly declare how dedicated to truth they are, is not unlike the magician telling everyone repeatedly how this is a plain, ordinary deck with which I am going to perform this trick. Not if the person is in fact dedicated to truth, unlike the magician. Curtis isn't, you aren't (as I just got done noting), Barry obviously isn't. So it isn't at all surprising that the three of you would be anxious to portray a truth-teller as a deceiver, is it? Can I assume you're afraid to answer my question, Stevie? And that's you in a nutshell, isn't Judy. You can fill in the blank, (as you do), Which blank would this be, Stevie? with whomever you determine to be the liar of the hour, or the day. Usually there is no shortage of candidates. Actually they don't change much from week to week, Stevie. And that, pretty much is how you spend your posts here. And that what, Stevie? Your writing is pretty incoherent tonight. I don't think you quite got what I've been saying. But it's obvious you aren't happy about the truths I've been telling, Stevie--you know, like the one about your having blamed DrD for bringing up Barry's brother's suicide when it was actually Barry who did that. And another truth is that you've never retracted your accusation nor apologized to DrD for it. I'm truly sorry that it makes you so uncomfortable, Stevie, but them's the breaks. And I am glad you have something to aspire towards. Perhaps someone here will take up your cause and make a nomination. I think it would make for a fascinating vetting process. And yikes. Could it be that you could be a possible candidate for the two different awards that have shown up now. Oh, Stevie, you've already forgotten what I said in my earlier post, and you've even quoted it below. See if you can find it. A little practice exercise for you. but this is how you choose to spend your life force, so I hope is gratifying for you. Not being concerned about the truth, you probably aren't aware that there are many people who have dedicated their lives to the truth, sometimes even *sacrificed* their lives to the truth. Truth and truth-telling have generally been highly regarded throughout history, something to strive for. http://www.ridenhour.org/prizes_truth_telling.html (I wouldn't consider myself to come close to deserving such a prize because my efforts have been so limited.) But there are always those who can't see the importance of truth, who find it inconvenient and annoying, not worth the effort; and even those who believe truth just gets in the way of their needs and desires and whims. And sometimes, of course, such people are just cowards who *fear* the truth. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: I wonder if anyone even reads those rebuttals. But I suppose they are gratifying to you. Right, the point is to get the truth on the record. I mean, for example, I certainly wouldn't expect you to retract and apologize for accusing DrD of bringing up Barry's brother's suicide when, as I pointed
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Wonderful photo, thanks, turq, but what's *really* important: what was the FOOD s'il vous plait? A chicken roasted with lemon and herbs, fresh olives, fresh bread, a variety of cheeses, fresh fruit salad for dessert, and a good bottle of wine. Homemade cookies, too, not that they would tempt you. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
Ack, turq torturing the FF Cookie Monster! But what kind, what kind? Ha! the only stuff that would NOT tempt me is the cheese and, ashamed to admit, the fruit salad. I'm the only person in the TMO who isn't into fruit which IMHO doesn't qualify as dessert as it's too healthy. Also only TMer not into pie. Go figure (-: From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 7, 2013 11:05 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Wonderful photo, thanks, turq, but what's *really* important: what was the FOOD s'il vous plait? A chicken roasted with lemon and herbs, fresh olives, fresh bread, a variety of cheeses, fresh fruit salad for dessert, and a good bottle of wine. Homemade cookies, too, not that they would tempt you. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
salyavin, I think it's more likely that our Space Brethren would try to communicate with dolphins and whales who carry in their DNA the knowledge of time travel. As for the limitations of scientific research, I guess if humans or even animals are involved then there's a chance that the observer will have an effect on the subjects of the experiment. Also, I think self report is considered a valid form of observation and research albeit an initial form of both, a jumping off point for further research. Your experiences with TM sound wonderful and actually IMHO, come through in your posts here. And regarding your point about interconnectedness, I refer you to wikipedia on mirror neurons. From: salyavin808 fintlewoodle...@mail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 6, 2013 1:04 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: salyavin, I too can't believe teasification isn't a real and or proper word. It should be both IMHO. And maybe it will be if our NSA buddies are tracking this tread. Anyway, I'm so glad you love crop circles but only in asterisks. And is there a scientific reason for thinking the Space Brothers wouldn't have their own websites?! One would logically think that if they can hurtle themselves through space to get here, they could set up a little website, etc. I'm just sayin. But maybe the Space Brothers aren't trying to communicate with us? Perhaps crop circles are aimed at crows who will turn out to be the true owners of the Earth. Or pigeons even... We just assume they must be for us as we have such a mighty opinion of ourselves. BTW, thank you too for all the cool info about the old fashioned typewriters and why the letters were arranged in the qwerty order, to keep the keys from getting jammed. Love learning new stuff (-: Last but not least I gotta ask what you think about the research just posted by Susan. Good design for a scientific study? Very interesting. Bit of a small sample, but a large signal from it. And with a form of guided meditation too, which some people round here will tell you does nothing at all. Would like to see a similar type of experiment with TMers, I think when people are caught out like that when they are acting naturally is much better than when the are in an experimental setting where white coat syndrome sets in and people start behaving - consciously or not - how they think the doctors would want them to behave. As for a mechanism, I'm not sure about the interconnectedness explanation as I can't see any way we actually are connected, especially in a woo-woo way. What I think TM has done for me is put me in touch with my deeper feelings and opened my heart a lot, so I guess that would make one more empathetic. I'm certainly more aware of my surroundings and how I affect other people and how they affect each other, in as much as these things are self measurable anyway.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
salyavin, I too can't believe teasification isn't a real and or proper word. It should be both IMHO. And maybe it will be if our NSA buddies are tracking this tread. Anyway, I'm so glad you love crop circles but only in asterisks. And is there a scientific reason for thinking the Space Brothers wouldn't have their own websites?! One would logically think that if they can hurtle themselves through space to get here, they could set up a little website, etc. I'm just sayin. BTW, thank you too for all the cool info about the old fashioned typewriters and why the letters were arranged in the qwerty order, to keep the keys from getting jammed. Love learning new stuff (-: Last but not least I gotta ask what you think about the research just posted by Susan. Good design for a scientific study? From: salyavin808 fintlewoodle...@mail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, July 5, 2013 12:03 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: salyavin, I like when people make up words like teasification. And IMHO it's sad if Ravi is right and Judy is unteasible. Sometimes I like it when someone makes me laugh at myself. Anyway, I've enjoyed your humor recently but wish you liked crop circles more. I think they're beautiful. Hey, I **love** crop circles! I just seriously doubt they are made by the Space Brothers. Especially when the people who do build them have their own website. PS I wonder if Ravi was being ironic when he lambasted you for writing FOUR posts on one topic. I think you need self awareness before you can do irony. PS I *can't* believe teasification isn't a proper word... From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, July 5, 2013 5:54 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: First and second, more bloopers from our little Stevie. Third, Maharishi and Robin. Is this a way of getting round the post limit? Moderator! Basically, yes. And, if you think I'm going to micromanage the content of posts in order to stop it, you need to put down that crack pipe. LOL, it was more for Judy's teasification than anything else but I know what you mean - I wouldn't read them if you paid me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: salyavin, I too can't believe teasification isn't a real and or proper word. It should be both IMHO. And maybe it will be if our NSA buddies are tracking this tread. Anyway, I'm so glad you love crop circles but only in asterisks. And is there a scientific reason for thinking the Space Brothers wouldn't have their own websites?! One would logically think that if they can hurtle themselves through space to get here, they could set up a little website, etc. I'm just sayin. But maybe the Space Brothers aren't trying to communicate with us? Perhaps crop circles are aimed at crows who will turn out to be the true owners of the Earth. Or pigeons even... We just assume they must be for us as we have such a mighty opinion of ourselves. BTW, thank you too for all the cool info about the old fashioned typewriters and why the letters were arranged in the qwerty order, to keep the keys from getting jammed. Love learning new stuff (-: Last but not least I gotta ask what you think about the research just posted by Susan. Good design for a scientific study? Very interesting. Bit of a small sample, but a large signal from it. And with a form of guided meditation too, which some people round here will tell you does nothing at all. Would like to see a similar type of experiment with TMers, I think when people are caught out like that when they are acting naturally is much better than when the are in an experimental setting where white coat syndrome sets in and people start behaving - consciously or not - how they think the doctors would want them to behave. As for a mechanism, I'm not sure about the interconnectedness explanation as I can't see any way we actually are connected, especially in a woo-woo way. What I think TM has done for me is put me in touch with my deeper feelings and opened my heart a lot, so I guess that would make one more empathetic. I'm certainly more aware of my surroundings and how I affect other people and how they affect each other, in as much as these things are self measurable anyway.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: I wonder if anyone even reads those rebuttals. But I suppose they are gratifying to you. Right, the point is to get the truth on the record. I mean, for example, I certainly wouldn't expect you to retract and apologize for accusing DrD of bringing up Barry's brother's suicide when, as I pointed out in one of those posts, it was actually Barry himself who had done so. But that error--blaming DrD for Barry's own behavior-- can't be allowed to stand unrefuted. That's just the way it is in this world. Some people care about the truth, and some don't. The former can't force the latter to care, so they do the best they can to ensure the truth is not obscured by those who don't care about it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
sure Judy. Carry on with your truth campaign. as Curtis aptly pointed out: for someone to constantly declare how dedicated to truth they are, is not unlike the magician telling everyone repeatedly how this is a plain, ordinary deck with which I am going to perform this trick. but this is how you choose to spend your life force, so I hope is gratifying for you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: I wonder if anyone even reads those rebuttals. But I suppose they are gratifying to you. Right, the point is to get the truth on the record. I mean, for example, I certainly wouldn't expect you to retract and apologize for accusing DrD of bringing up Barry's brother's suicide when, as I pointed out in one of those posts, it was actually Barry himself who had done so. But that error--blaming DrD for Barry's own behavior-- can't be allowed to stand unrefuted. That's just the way it is in this world. Some people care about the truth, and some don't. The former can't force the latter to care, so they do the best they can to ensure the truth is not obscured by those who don't care about it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: sure Judy. Carry on with your truth campaign. as Curtis aptly pointed out: for someone to constantly declare how dedicated to truth they are, is not unlike the magician telling everyone repeatedly how this is a plain, ordinary deck with which I am going to perform this trick. Not if the person is in fact dedicated to truth, unlike the magician. Curtis isn't, you aren't (as I just got done noting), Barry obviously isn't. So it isn't at all surprising that the three of you would be anxious to portray a truth-teller as a deceiver, is it? but this is how you choose to spend your life force, so I hope is gratifying for you. Not being concerned about the truth, you probably aren't aware that there are many people who have dedicated their lives to the truth, sometimes even *sacrificed* their lives to the truth. Truth and truth-telling have generally been highly regarded throughout history, something to strive for. http://www.ridenhour.org/prizes_truth_telling.html (I wouldn't consider myself to come close to deserving such a prize because my efforts have been so limited.) But there are always those who can't see the importance of truth, who find it inconvenient and annoying, not worth the effort; and even those who believe truth just gets in the way of their needs and desires and whims. And sometimes, of course, such people are just cowards who *fear* the truth. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: I wonder if anyone even reads those rebuttals. But I suppose they are gratifying to you. Right, the point is to get the truth on the record. I mean, for example, I certainly wouldn't expect you to retract and apologize for accusing DrD of bringing up Barry's brother's suicide when, as I pointed out in one of those posts, it was actually Barry himself who had done so. But that error--blaming DrD for Barry's own behavior-- can't be allowed to stand unrefuted. That's just the way it is in this world. Some people care about the truth, and some don't. The former can't force the latter to care, so they do the best they can to ensure the truth is not obscured by those who don't care about it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: sure Judy. Carry on with your truth campaign. as Curtis aptly pointed out: for someone to constantly declare how dedicated to truth they are, is not unlike the magician telling everyone repeatedly how this is a plain, ordinary deck with which I am going to perform this trick. but this is how you choose to spend your life force, so I hope is gratifying for you. And how do you see yourself spending your life force Steve? How can you fault anyone for caring about truth, whether you believe that particular person is misguided or off base or not? How come you can sit there and make these mocking noises when your greatest contribution here appears to be belittling others? Who do you perceive yourself to be that you can afford to jibber away in the corner laughing and scorning others who take umbrage at lies, manipulation s and the conscious twisting of true things? When did you decide life was not worth living well or deeply? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: I wonder if anyone even reads those rebuttals. But I suppose they are gratifying to you. Right, the point is to get the truth on the record. I mean, for example, I certainly wouldn't expect you to retract and apologize for accusing DrD of bringing up Barry's brother's suicide when, as I pointed out in one of those posts, it was actually Barry himself who had done so. But that error--blaming DrD for Barry's own behavior-- can't be allowed to stand unrefuted. That's just the way it is in this world. Some people care about the truth, and some don't. The former can't force the latter to care, so they do the best they can to ensure the truth is not obscured by those who don't care about it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: sure Judy. Carry on with your truth campaign. as Curtis aptly pointed out: for someone to constantly declare how dedicated to truth they are, is not unlike the magician telling everyone repeatedly how this is a plain, ordinary deck with which I am going to perform this trick. Not if the person is in fact dedicated to truth, unlike the magician. Curtis isn't, you aren't (as I just got done noting), Barry obviously isn't. So it isn't at all surprising that the three of you would be anxious to portray a truth-teller as a deceiver, is it?And that's you in a nutshell, isn't Judy. You can fill in the blank, (as you do), with whomever you determine to be the liar of the hour, or the day. Usually there is no shortage of candidates. And that, pretty much is how you spend your posts here. And I am glad you have something to aspire towards. Perhaps someone here will take up your cause and make a nomination. I think it would make for a fascinating vetting process. And yikes. Could it be that you could be a possible candidate for the two different awards that have shown up now. but this is how you choose to spend your life force, so I hope is gratifying for you. Not being concerned about the truth, you probably aren't aware that there are many people who have dedicated their lives to the truth, sometimes even *sacrificed* their lives to the truth. Truth and truth-telling have generally been highly regarded throughout history, something to strive for. http://www.ridenhour.org/prizes_truth_telling.html (I wouldn't consider myself to come close to deserving such a prize because my efforts have been so limited.) But there are always those who can't see the importance of truth, who find it inconvenient and annoying, not worth the effort; and even those who believe truth just gets in the way of their needs and desires and whims. And sometimes, of course, such people are just cowards who *fear* the truth. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: I wonder if anyone even reads those rebuttals. But I suppose they are gratifying to you. Right, the point is to get the truth on the record. I mean, for example, I certainly wouldn't expect you to retract and apologize for accusing DrD of bringing up Barry's brother's suicide when, as I pointed out in one of those posts, it was actually Barry himself who had done so. But that error--blaming DrD for Barry's own behavior-- can't be allowed to stand unrefuted. That's just the way it is in this world. Some people care about the truth, and some don't. The former can't force the latter to care, so they do the best they can to ensure the truth is not obscured by those who don't care about it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: sure Judy. Carry on with your truth campaign. as Curtis aptly pointed out: for someone to constantly declare how dedicated to truth they are, is not unlike the magician telling everyone repeatedly how this is a plain, ordinary deck with which I am going to perform this trick. but this is how you choose to spend your life force, so I hope is gratifying for you. And how do you see yourself spending your life force Steve?Why don't you ask that question to my family, to my employees, or to the local media who have made it point to compare our business to places like Nordstroms or Ritz Carlton as an example of of a (small) company that offers superior customer service. How can you fault anyone for caring about truth, whether you believe that particular person is misguided or off base or not? Yow Ann. I'm not going to go along with this. I do feel a need to speak out if I feel a person is misguided. Don't you? How come you can sit there and make these mocking noises when your greatest contribution here appears to be belittling others? Sort of one sided, I think. But I can live that assessment, if that is how you see things. Who do you perceive yourself to be that you can afford to jibber away in the corner laughing and scorning others who take umbrage at lies, manipulation s and the conscious twisting of true things? Ann, remember, opinions are like a-holes. Everyone has one, and most of them stink. I include myself in this category, but I wonder if you do as well? When did you decide life was not worth living well or deeply?You seem pretty all knowing Ann. Why don't you tell me? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: I wonder if anyone even reads those rebuttals. But I suppose they are gratifying to you. Right, the point is to get the truth on the record. I mean, for example, I certainly wouldn't expect you to retract and apologize for accusing DrD of bringing up Barry's brother's suicide when, as I pointed out in one of those posts, it was actually Barry himself who had done so. But that error--blaming DrD for Barry's own behavior-- can't be allowed to stand unrefuted. That's just the way it is in this world. Some people care about the truth, and some don't. The former can't force the latter to care, so they do the best they can to ensure the truth is not obscured by those who don't care about it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: sure Judy. Carry on with your truth campaign. as Curtis aptly pointed out: for someone to constantly declare how dedicated to truth they are, is not unlike the magician telling everyone repeatedly how this is a plain, ordinary deck with which I am going to perform this trick. Not if the person is in fact dedicated to truth, unlike the magician. Curtis isn't, you aren't (as I just got done noting), Barry obviously isn't. So it isn't at all surprising that the three of you would be anxious to portray a truth-teller as a deceiver, is it? Can I assume you're afraid to answer my question, Stevie? And that's you in a nutshell, isn't Judy. You can fill in the blank, (as you do), Which blank would this be, Stevie? with whomever you determine to be the liar of the hour, or the day. Usually there is no shortage of candidates. Actually they don't change much from week to week, Stevie. And that, pretty much is how you spend your posts here. And that what, Stevie? Your writing is pretty incoherent tonight. I don't think you quite got what I've been saying. But it's obvious you aren't happy about the truths I've been telling, Stevie--you know, like the one about your having blamed DrD for bringing up Barry's brother's suicide when it was actually Barry who did that. And another truth is that you've never retracted your accusation nor apologized to DrD for it. I'm truly sorry that it makes you so uncomfortable, Stevie, but them's the breaks. And I am glad you have something to aspire towards. Perhaps someone here will take up your cause and make a nomination. I think it would make for a fascinating vetting process. And yikes. Could it be that you could be a possible candidate for the two different awards that have shown up now. Oh, Stevie, you've already forgotten what I said in my earlier post, and you've even quoted it below. See if you can find it. A little practice exercise for you. but this is how you choose to spend your life force, so I hope is gratifying for you. Not being concerned about the truth, you probably aren't aware that there are many people who have dedicated their lives to the truth, sometimes even *sacrificed* their lives to the truth. Truth and truth-telling have generally been highly regarded throughout history, something to strive for. http://www.ridenhour.org/prizes_truth_telling.html (I wouldn't consider myself to come close to deserving such a prize because my efforts have been so limited.) But there are always those who can't see the importance of truth, who find it inconvenient and annoying, not worth the effort; and even those who believe truth just gets in the way of their needs and desires and whims. And sometimes, of course, such people are just cowards who *fear* the truth. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: I wonder if anyone even reads those rebuttals. But I suppose they are gratifying to you. Right, the point is to get the truth on the record. I mean, for example, I certainly wouldn't expect you to retract and apologize for accusing DrD of bringing up Barry's brother's suicide when, as I pointed out in one of those posts, it was actually Barry himself who had done so. But that error--blaming DrD for Barry's own behavior-- can't be allowed to stand unrefuted. That's just the way it is in this world. Some people care about the truth, and some don't. The former can't force the latter to care, so they do the best they can to ensure the truth is not obscured by those who don't care about it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: (snip) How can you fault anyone for caring about truth, whether you believe that particular person is misguided or off base or not? Yow Ann. I'm not going to go along with this. I do feel a need to speak out if I feel a person is misguided. Don't you? Ann, our Stevie believes that truth-telling is misguided, so anyone who does it is also misguided. That's why he's bravely speaking out against it, to stay on Barry's good side.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
Bless you Judy. I am going to take a nod from the Share playbook and offer you compassion. You'll have to find someone else to play with tonight. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: sure Judy. Carry on with your truth campaign. as Curtis aptly pointed out: for someone to constantly declare how dedicated to truth they are, is not unlike the magician telling everyone repeatedly how this is a plain, ordinary deck with which I am going to perform this trick. Not if the person is in fact dedicated to truth, unlike the magician. Curtis isn't, you aren't (as I just got done noting), Barry obviously isn't. So it isn't at all surprising that the three of you would be anxious to portray a truth-teller as a deceiver, is it? Can I assume you're afraid to answer my question, Stevie? And that's you in a nutshell, isn't Judy. You can fill in the blank, (as you do), Which blank would this be, Stevie? with whomever you determine to be the liar of the hour, or the day. Usually there is no shortage of candidates. Actually they don't change much from week to week, Stevie. And that, pretty much is how you spend your posts here. And that what, Stevie? Your writing is pretty incoherent tonight. I don't think you quite got what I've been saying. But it's obvious you aren't happy about the truths I've been telling, Stevie--you know, like the one about your having blamed DrD for bringing up Barry's brother's suicide when it was actually Barry who did that. And another truth is that you've never retracted your accusation nor apologized to DrD for it. I'm truly sorry that it makes you so uncomfortable, Stevie, but them's the breaks. And I am glad you have something to aspire towards. Perhaps someone here will take up your cause and make a nomination. I think it would make for a fascinating vetting process. And yikes. Could it be that you could be a possible candidate for the two different awards that have shown up now. Oh, Stevie, you've already forgotten what I said in my earlier post, and you've even quoted it below. See if you can find it. A little practice exercise for you. but this is how you choose to spend your life force, so I hope is gratifying for you. Not being concerned about the truth, you probably aren't aware that there are many people who have dedicated their lives to the truth, sometimes even *sacrificed* their lives to the truth. Truth and truth-telling have generally been highly regarded throughout history, something to strive for. http://www.ridenhour.org/prizes_truth_telling.html (I wouldn't consider myself to come close to deserving such a prize because my efforts have been so limited.) But there are always those who can't see the importance of truth, who find it inconvenient and annoying, not worth the effort; and even those who believe truth just gets in the way of their needs and desires and whims. And sometimes, of course, such people are just cowards who *fear* the truth. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: I wonder if anyone even reads those rebuttals. But I suppose they are gratifying to you. Right, the point is to get the truth on the record. I mean, for example, I certainly wouldn't expect you to retract and apologize for accusing DrD of bringing up Barry's brother's suicide when, as I pointed out in one of those posts, it was actually Barry himself who had done so. But that error--blaming DrD for Barry's own behavior-- can't be allowed to stand unrefuted. That's just the way it is in this world. Some people care about the truth, and some don't. The former can't force the latter to care, so they do the best they can to ensure the truth is not obscured by those who don't care about it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
Yes Judy, Don't say a word. Pappa's going to buy you a mocking bird.And if that mocking bird won't sing, Pappa's going to buy you a diamond ring.And if that diamond ring turns brass, Pappa's going to buy you a looking glass.And if that looking glass gets broke, Pappa's going to buy you a billy goat.And if that billy goat won't pull, Pappa's going to buy you a cart and bull.And if that cart and bull goes down, you'll still be the sweetest baby in town. Quiet your mind Judy. All's well. Get some rest, and wake up refreshed to fight tomorrows battles. I know they're still be here for you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: (snip) How can you fault anyone for caring about truth, whether you believe that particular person is misguided or off base or not? Yow Ann. I'm not going to go along with this. I do feel a need to speak out if I feel a person is misguided. Don't you? Ann, our Stevie believes that truth-telling is misguided, so anyone who does it is also misguided. That's why he's bravely speaking out against it, to stay on Barry's good side.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
It doesn't take long to make you realize you're in over your head, Stevie. Next time think about whether you really want to take that plunge, eh? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: Bless you Judy. I am going to take a nod from the Share playbook and offer you compassion. You'll have to find someone else to play with tonight. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: sure Judy. Carry on with your truth campaign. as Curtis aptly pointed out: for someone to constantly declare how dedicated to truth they are, is not unlike the magician telling everyone repeatedly how this is a plain, ordinary deck with which I am going to perform this trick. Not if the person is in fact dedicated to truth, unlike the magician. Curtis isn't, you aren't (as I just got done noting), Barry obviously isn't. So it isn't at all surprising that the three of you would be anxious to portray a truth-teller as a deceiver, is it? Can I assume you're afraid to answer my question, Stevie? And that's you in a nutshell, isn't Judy. You can fill in the blank, (as you do), Which blank would this be, Stevie? with whomever you determine to be the liar of the hour, or the day. Usually there is no shortage of candidates. Actually they don't change much from week to week, Stevie. And that, pretty much is how you spend your posts here. And that what, Stevie? Your writing is pretty incoherent tonight. I don't think you quite got what I've been saying. But it's obvious you aren't happy about the truths I've been telling, Stevie--you know, like the one about your having blamed DrD for bringing up Barry's brother's suicide when it was actually Barry who did that. And another truth is that you've never retracted your accusation nor apologized to DrD for it. I'm truly sorry that it makes you so uncomfortable, Stevie, but them's the breaks. And I am glad you have something to aspire towards. Perhaps someone here will take up your cause and make a nomination. I think it would make for a fascinating vetting process. And yikes. Could it be that you could be a possible candidate for the two different awards that have shown up now. Oh, Stevie, you've already forgotten what I said in my earlier post, and you've even quoted it below. See if you can find it. A little practice exercise for you. but this is how you choose to spend your life force, so I hope is gratifying for you. Not being concerned about the truth, you probably aren't aware that there are many people who have dedicated their lives to the truth, sometimes even *sacrificed* their lives to the truth. Truth and truth-telling have generally been highly regarded throughout history, something to strive for. http://www.ridenhour.org/prizes_truth_telling.html (I wouldn't consider myself to come close to deserving such a prize because my efforts have been so limited.) But there are always those who can't see the importance of truth, who find it inconvenient and annoying, not worth the effort; and even those who believe truth just gets in the way of their needs and desires and whims. And sometimes, of course, such people are just cowards who *fear* the truth. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: I wonder if anyone even reads those rebuttals. But I suppose they are gratifying to you. Right, the point is to get the truth on the record. I mean, for example, I certainly wouldn't expect you to retract and apologize for accusing DrD of bringing up Barry's brother's suicide when, as I pointed out in one of those posts, it was actually Barry himself who had done so. But that error--blaming DrD for Barry's own behavior-- can't be allowed to stand unrefuted. That's just the way it is in this world. Some people care about the truth, and some don't. The former can't force the latter to care, so they do the best they can to ensure the truth is not obscured by those who don't care about it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
Yes Judy. Of course Judy. As you wish, Judy. Sweet dreams Judy. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: It doesn't take long to make you realize you're in over your head, Stevie. Next time think about whether you really want to take that plunge, eh? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: Bless you Judy. I am going to take a nod from the Share playbook and offer you compassion. You'll have to find someone else to play with tonight. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: sure Judy. Carry on with your truth campaign. as Curtis aptly pointed out: for someone to constantly declare how dedicated to truth they are, is not unlike the magician telling everyone repeatedly how this is a plain, ordinary deck with which I am going to perform this trick. Not if the person is in fact dedicated to truth, unlike the magician. Curtis isn't, you aren't (as I just got done noting), Barry obviously isn't. So it isn't at all surprising that the three of you would be anxious to portray a truth-teller as a deceiver, is it? Can I assume you're afraid to answer my question, Stevie? And that's you in a nutshell, isn't Judy. You can fill in the blank, (as you do), Which blank would this be, Stevie? with whomever you determine to be the liar of the hour, or the day. Usually there is no shortage of candidates. Actually they don't change much from week to week, Stevie. And that, pretty much is how you spend your posts here. And that what, Stevie? Your writing is pretty incoherent tonight. I don't think you quite got what I've been saying. But it's obvious you aren't happy about the truths I've been telling, Stevie--you know, like the one about your having blamed DrD for bringing up Barry's brother's suicide when it was actually Barry who did that. And another truth is that you've never retracted your accusation nor apologized to DrD for it. I'm truly sorry that it makes you so uncomfortable, Stevie, but them's the breaks. And I am glad you have something to aspire towards. Perhaps someone here will take up your cause and make a nomination. I think it would make for a fascinating vetting process. And yikes. Could it be that you could be a possible candidate for the two different awards that have shown up now. Oh, Stevie, you've already forgotten what I said in my earlier post, and you've even quoted it below. See if you can find it. A little practice exercise for you. but this is how you choose to spend your life force, so I hope is gratifying for you. Not being concerned about the truth, you probably aren't aware that there are many people who have dedicated their lives to the truth, sometimes even *sacrificed* their lives to the truth. Truth and truth-telling have generally been highly regarded throughout history, something to strive for. http://www.ridenhour.org/prizes_truth_telling.html (I wouldn't consider myself to come close to deserving such a prize because my efforts have been so limited.) But there are always those who can't see the importance of truth, who find it inconvenient and annoying, not worth the effort; and even those who believe truth just gets in the way of their needs and desires and whims. And sometimes, of course, such people are just cowards who *fear* the truth. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: I wonder if anyone even reads those rebuttals. But I suppose they are gratifying to you. Right, the point is to get the truth on the record. I mean, for example, I certainly wouldn't expect you to retract and apologize for accusing DrD of bringing up Barry's brother's suicide when, as I pointed out in one of those posts, it was actually Barry himself who had done so. But that error--blaming DrD for Barry's own behavior-- can't be allowed to stand unrefuted. That's just the way it is in this world. Some people care about the truth, and some don't. The former can't force the latter to care, so they do the best they can to ensure the truth is not obscured by those who don't care about it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
Hey Steve, I've been following this back and forth, for awhile. In terms of how you like to interact here, which I think mirrors your daily life and work, congenial, comes to mind. You and I could probably go to lunch and not mention TM, or any of the FFL topics, and still have plenty to yak about, and have a good time. I enjoy not always winding everything out, too. On the other hand, it was my business and skill for many years, to ensure clarity and understanding regarding the design, development, and transfer of very technical knowledge, to engineers and technicians, so that satellites, lasers, large phone switches, and data centers, for example, didn't fuck up. As a result, I can determine, when I want to put the effort into it, now that I don't *have* to, whether or not someone is being illogical, exaggerating, skewing material, has a hidden agenda, etc. Over so many years of analysis, it becomes obvious. Judy has a very consistent approach here. She is intent on unraveling the writing of those who are professing to say one thing, and in fact, through the mechanisms I referred to earlier, are saying something quite different. Further, if someone is simply expressing something, is there integrity in the expression? We do not have the luxury here to evaluate someone's body language and expressions here. It is all expressed through writing. So, the interactions between us are sometimes less than congenial, because there is no other way to further the thoughts expressed, sometimes, than to take exception. In everyday interaction, a raised eyebrow, or quick joke may suffice to move a conversation along, but here, with writing as the only tool, everything must be spelled out. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: Bless you Judy. I am going to take a nod from the Share playbook and offer you compassion. You'll have to find someone else to play with tonight. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: sure Judy. Carry on with your truth campaign. as Curtis aptly pointed out: for someone to constantly declare how dedicated to truth they are, is not unlike the magician telling everyone repeatedly how this is a plain, ordinary deck with which I am going to perform this trick. Not if the person is in fact dedicated to truth, unlike the magician. Curtis isn't, you aren't (as I just got done noting), Barry obviously isn't. So it isn't at all surprising that the three of you would be anxious to portray a truth-teller as a deceiver, is it? Can I assume you're afraid to answer my question, Stevie? And that's you in a nutshell, isn't Judy. You can fill in the blank, (as you do), Which blank would this be, Stevie? with whomever you determine to be the liar of the hour, or the day. Usually there is no shortage of candidates. Actually they don't change much from week to week, Stevie. And that, pretty much is how you spend your posts here. And that what, Stevie? Your writing is pretty incoherent tonight. I don't think you quite got what I've been saying. But it's obvious you aren't happy about the truths I've been telling, Stevie--you know, like the one about your having blamed DrD for bringing up Barry's brother's suicide when it was actually Barry who did that. And another truth is that you've never retracted your accusation nor apologized to DrD for it. I'm truly sorry that it makes you so uncomfortable, Stevie, but them's the breaks. And I am glad you have something to aspire towards. Perhaps someone here will take up your cause and make a nomination. I think it would make for a fascinating vetting process. And yikes. Could it be that you could be a possible candidate for the two different awards that have shown up now. Oh, Stevie, you've already forgotten what I said in my earlier post, and you've even quoted it below. See if you can find it. A little practice exercise for you. but this is how you choose to spend your life force, so I hope is gratifying for you. Not being concerned about the truth, you probably aren't aware that there are many people who have dedicated their lives to the truth, sometimes even *sacrificed* their lives to the truth. Truth and truth-telling have generally been highly regarded throughout history, something to strive for. http://www.ridenhour.org/prizes_truth_telling.html (I wouldn't consider myself to come close to deserving such a prize because my efforts have been so limited.) But there are always those who can't see the importance of truth, who find it inconvenient
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: Bless you Judy. I am going to take a nod from the Share playbook and offer you compassion. Your eyesight is better than mine. I have never seen compassion from Share. She, instead, chooses to view me as arrogant. Are deprecating labels another form of open-heartedness? Emily might have an opinion on this as well. (Emily, feel free to ignore this.) You'll have to find someone else to play with tonight. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: sure Judy. Carry on with your truth campaign. as Curtis aptly pointed out: for someone to constantly declare how dedicated to truth they are, is not unlike the magician telling everyone repeatedly how this is a plain, ordinary deck with which I am going to perform this trick. Not if the person is in fact dedicated to truth, unlike the magician. Curtis isn't, you aren't (as I just got done noting), Barry obviously isn't. So it isn't at all surprising that the three of you would be anxious to portray a truth-teller as a deceiver, is it? Can I assume you're afraid to answer my question, Stevie? And that's you in a nutshell, isn't Judy. You can fill in the blank, (as you do), Which blank would this be, Stevie? with whomever you determine to be the liar of the hour, or the day. Usually there is no shortage of candidates. Actually they don't change much from week to week, Stevie. And that, pretty much is how you spend your posts here. And that what, Stevie? Your writing is pretty incoherent tonight. I don't think you quite got what I've been saying. But it's obvious you aren't happy about the truths I've been telling, Stevie--you know, like the one about your having blamed DrD for bringing up Barry's brother's suicide when it was actually Barry who did that. And another truth is that you've never retracted your accusation nor apologized to DrD for it. I'm truly sorry that it makes you so uncomfortable, Stevie, but them's the breaks. And I am glad you have something to aspire towards. Perhaps someone here will take up your cause and make a nomination. I think it would make for a fascinating vetting process. And yikes. Could it be that you could be a possible candidate for the two different awards that have shown up now. Oh, Stevie, you've already forgotten what I said in my earlier post, and you've even quoted it below. See if you can find it. A little practice exercise for you. but this is how you choose to spend your life force, so I hope is gratifying for you. Not being concerned about the truth, you probably aren't aware that there are many people who have dedicated their lives to the truth, sometimes even *sacrificed* their lives to the truth. Truth and truth-telling have generally been highly regarded throughout history, something to strive for. http://www.ridenhour.org/prizes_truth_telling.html (I wouldn't consider myself to come close to deserving such a prize because my efforts have been so limited.) But there are always those who can't see the importance of truth, who find it inconvenient and annoying, not worth the effort; and even those who believe truth just gets in the way of their needs and desires and whims. And sometimes, of course, such people are just cowards who *fear* the truth. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: I wonder if anyone even reads those rebuttals. But I suppose they are gratifying to you. Right, the point is to get the truth on the record. I mean, for example, I certainly wouldn't expect you to retract and apologize for accusing DrD of bringing up Barry's brother's suicide when, as I pointed out in one of those posts, it was actually Barry himself who had done so. But that error--blaming DrD for Barry's own behavior-- can't be allowed to stand unrefuted. That's just the way it is in this world. Some people care about the truth, and some don't. The former can't force the latter to care, so they do the best they can to ensure the truth is not obscured by those who don't care about it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
Thank you Jim. A couple things come to mind. (as I am here at work, getting things in order so that I can go on vacation tomorrow with a somewhat unfettered mind) I am not sure if I have as much invested in this site as Judy. On the other hand, I do tend to trust my judgments, which many times are snap judgements. And it may be that when I take the time, to look more closely at something, (as I did recently at Judy's prodding), such as whether Robin was being truthful when he said he didn't strike someone, (and the context), then it may be that I modify my position some. But in that exact example a lot of effort was expended for a pretty small adjustment. I think the main complaint I hear about me is that I am too emotional in my judgments. Perhaps I am. On the other hand, it is always nice to have the real world to help you keep score on things. I will read over what you've written and see if anything else comes to mind. But I just don't know if I can come around to seeing Judy in a different light, than what I do. I'll try to keep an open mind. Thanks for your feedback. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: Hey Steve, I've been following this back and forth, for awhile. In terms of how you like to interact here, which I think mirrors your daily life and work, congenial, comes to mind. You and I could probably go to lunch and not mention TM, or any of the FFL topics, and still have plenty to yak about, and have a good time. I enjoy not always winding everything out, too. On the other hand, it was my business and skill for many years, to ensure clarity and understanding regarding the design, development, and transfer of very technical knowledge, to engineers and technicians, so that satellites, lasers, large phone switches, and data centers, for example, didn't fuck up. As a result, I can determine, when I want to put the effort into it, now that I don't *have* to, whether or not someone is being illogical, exaggerating, skewing material, has a hidden agenda, etc. Over so many years of analysis, it becomes obvious. Judy has a very consistent approach here. She is intent on unraveling the writing of those who are professing to say one thing, and in fact, through the mechanisms I referred to earlier, are saying something quite different. Further, if someone is simply expressing something, is there integrity in the expression? We do not have the luxury here to evaluate someone's body language and expressions here. It is all expressed through writing. So, the interactions between us are sometimes less than congenial, because there is no other way to further the thoughts expressed, sometimes, than to take exception. In everyday interaction, a raised eyebrow, or quick joke may suffice to move a conversation along, but here, with writing as the only tool, everything must be spelled out. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: Bless you Judy. I am going to take a nod from the Share playbook and offer you compassion. You'll have to find someone else to play with tonight. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: sure Judy. Carry on with your truth campaign. as Curtis aptly pointed out: for someone to constantly declare how dedicated to truth they are, is not unlike the magician telling everyone repeatedly how this is a plain, ordinary deck with which I am going to perform this trick. Not if the person is in fact dedicated to truth, unlike the magician. Curtis isn't, you aren't (as I just got done noting), Barry obviously isn't. So it isn't at all surprising that the three of you would be anxious to portray a truth-teller as a deceiver, is it? Can I assume you're afraid to answer my question, Stevie? And that's you in a nutshell, isn't Judy. You can fill in the blank, (as you do), Which blank would this be, Stevie? with whomever you determine to be the liar of the hour, or the day. Usually there is no shortage of candidates. Actually they don't change much from week to week, Stevie. And that, pretty much is how you spend your posts here. And that what, Stevie? Your writing is pretty incoherent tonight. I don't think you quite got what I've been saying. But it's obvious you aren't happy about the truths I've been telling, Stevie--you know, like the one about your having blamed DrD for bringing up Barry's brother's suicide when it was actually Barry who did that. And another truth is that you've never retracted your accusation nor apologized to DrD for it. I'm truly sorry that it makes you so uncomfortable, Stevie, but them's the
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
Thank you Ann, for your reply. And to borrow again from the Share playbook, regarding differences of opinion, The world is a crazy and fun place, (to paraphrase) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: Bless you Judy. I am going to take a nod from the Share playbook and offer you compassion. Your eyesight is better than mine. I have never seen compassion from Share. She, instead, chooses to view me as arrogant. Are deprecating labels another form of open-heartedness? Emily might have an opinion on this as well. (Emily, feel free to ignore this.) You'll have to find someone else to play with tonight. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: sure Judy. Carry on with your truth campaign. as Curtis aptly pointed out: for someone to constantly declare how dedicated to truth they are, is not unlike the magician telling everyone repeatedly how this is a plain, ordinary deck with which I am going to perform this trick. Not if the person is in fact dedicated to truth, unlike the magician. Curtis isn't, you aren't (as I just got done noting), Barry obviously isn't. So it isn't at all surprising that the three of you would be anxious to portray a truth-teller as a deceiver, is it? Can I assume you're afraid to answer my question, Stevie? And that's you in a nutshell, isn't Judy. You can fill in the blank, (as you do), Which blank would this be, Stevie? with whomever you determine to be the liar of the hour, or the day. Usually there is no shortage of candidates. Actually they don't change much from week to week, Stevie. And that, pretty much is how you spend your posts here. And that what, Stevie? Your writing is pretty incoherent tonight. I don't think you quite got what I've been saying. But it's obvious you aren't happy about the truths I've been telling, Stevie--you know, like the one about your having blamed DrD for bringing up Barry's brother's suicide when it was actually Barry who did that. And another truth is that you've never retracted your accusation nor apologized to DrD for it. I'm truly sorry that it makes you so uncomfortable, Stevie, but them's the breaks. And I am glad you have something to aspire towards. Perhaps someone here will take up your cause and make a nomination. I think it would make for a fascinating vetting process. And yikes. Could it be that you could be a possible candidate for the two different awards that have shown up now. Oh, Stevie, you've already forgotten what I said in my earlier post, and you've even quoted it below. See if you can find it. A little practice exercise for you. but this is how you choose to spend your life force, so I hope is gratifying for you. Not being concerned about the truth, you probably aren't aware that there are many people who have dedicated their lives to the truth, sometimes even *sacrificed* their lives to the truth. Truth and truth-telling have generally been highly regarded throughout history, something to strive for. http://www.ridenhour.org/prizes_truth_telling.html (I wouldn't consider myself to come close to deserving such a prize because my efforts have been so limited.) But there are always those who can't see the importance of truth, who find it inconvenient and annoying, not worth the effort; and even those who believe truth just gets in the way of their needs and desires and whims. And sometimes, of course, such people are just cowards who *fear* the truth. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: I wonder if anyone even reads those rebuttals. But I suppose they are gratifying to you. Right, the point is to get the truth on the record. I mean, for example, I certainly wouldn't expect you to retract and apologize for accusing DrD of bringing up Barry's brother's suicide when, as I pointed out in one of those posts, it was actually Barry himself who had done so. But that error--blaming DrD for Barry's own behavior-- can't be allowed to stand unrefuted. That's just the way it is in this world. Some people care about the truth, and some don't. The former can't force the latter to care, so they do the best they can to ensure the
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: sure Judy. Carry on with your truth campaign. as Curtis aptly pointed out: for someone to constantly declare how dedicated to truth they are, is not unlike the magician telling everyone repeatedly how this is a plain, ordinary deck with which I am going to perform this trick. but this is how you choose to spend your life force, so I hope is gratifying for you. And how do you see yourself spending your life force Steve? Why don't you ask that question to my family, to my employees, or to the local media who have made it point to compare our business to places like Nordstroms or Ritz Carlton as an example of of a (small) company that offers superior customer service. Oh, so you focus your energies on business. I knew someone like that once - he was my father. How can you fault anyone for caring about truth, whether you believe that particular person is misguided or off base or not? Yow Ann. I'm not going to go along with this. I do feel a need to speak out if I feel a person is misguided. Don't you? Go along with what? Read my question again, I think you didn't understand it for some reason. You might find we actually agree on this one. How come you can sit there and make these mocking noises when your greatest contribution here appears to be belittling others? Sort of one sided, I think. But I can live that assessment, if that is how you see things. This is what I like about you Steve. Even though it is self evident that it is one sided ( it is, after all, just my viewpoint and that would make it singular) you come across as a nice guy. (Share, was that belittling of me?) Who do you perceive yourself to be that you can afford to jibber away in the corner laughing and scorning others who take umbrage at lies, manipulation s and the conscious twisting of true things? Ann, remember, opinions are like a-holes. Everyone has one, and most of them stink. I include myself in this category, but I wonder if you do as well? I don't think your answer went anywhere near my question but, in a strange way, you answered it completely, perhaps inadvertently. When did you decide life was not worth living well or deeply? You seem pretty all knowing Ann. Why don't you tell me? Ah, the cutting jab. Well, I have no idea when you stopped or if you ever were committed to such things but it doesn't appear as if you have considered it much. Share, take it away... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: I wonder if anyone even reads those rebuttals. But I suppose they are gratifying to you. Right, the point is to get the truth on the record. I mean, for example, I certainly wouldn't expect you to retract and apologize for accusing DrD of bringing up Barry's brother's suicide when, as I pointed out in one of those posts, it was actually Barry himself who had done so. But that error--blaming DrD for Barry's own behavior-- can't be allowed to stand unrefuted. That's just the way it is in this world. Some people care about the truth, and some don't. The former can't force the latter to care, so they do the best they can to ensure the truth is not obscured by those who don't care about it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
Steve, have a wonderful few days off. Forget about all this FFL stuff and enjoy your family and your time away. I am sure you work very hard so take this time to revel in the fruits of your labours. Safe travels. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: Thank you Jim. A couple things come to mind. (as I am here at work, getting things in order so that I can go on vacation tomorrow with a somewhat unfettered mind) I am not sure if I have as much invested in this site as Judy. On the other hand, I do tend to trust my judgments, which many times are snap judgements. And it may be that when I take the time, to look more closely at something, (as I did recently at Judy's prodding), such as whether Robin was being truthful when he said he didn't strike someone, (and the context), then it may be that I modify my position some. But in that exact example a lot of effort was expended for a pretty small adjustment. I think the main complaint I hear about me is that I am too emotional in my judgments. Perhaps I am. On the other hand, it is always nice to have the real world to help you keep score on things. I will read over what you've written and see if anything else comes to mind. But I just don't know if I can come around to seeing Judy in a different light, than what I do. I'll try to keep an open mind. Thanks for your feedback. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: Hey Steve, I've been following this back and forth, for awhile. In terms of how you like to interact here, which I think mirrors your daily life and work, congenial, comes to mind. You and I could probably go to lunch and not mention TM, or any of the FFL topics, and still have plenty to yak about, and have a good time. I enjoy not always winding everything out, too. On the other hand, it was my business and skill for many years, to ensure clarity and understanding regarding the design, development, and transfer of very technical knowledge, to engineers and technicians, so that satellites, lasers, large phone switches, and data centers, for example, didn't fuck up. As a result, I can determine, when I want to put the effort into it, now that I don't *have* to, whether or not someone is being illogical, exaggerating, skewing material, has a hidden agenda, etc. Over so many years of analysis, it becomes obvious. Judy has a very consistent approach here. She is intent on unraveling the writing of those who are professing to say one thing, and in fact, through the mechanisms I referred to earlier, are saying something quite different. Further, if someone is simply expressing something, is there integrity in the expression? We do not have the luxury here to evaluate someone's body language and expressions here. It is all expressed through writing. So, the interactions between us are sometimes less than congenial, because there is no other way to further the thoughts expressed, sometimes, than to take exception. In everyday interaction, a raised eyebrow, or quick joke may suffice to move a conversation along, but here, with writing as the only tool, everything must be spelled out. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: Bless you Judy. I am going to take a nod from the Share playbook and offer you compassion. You'll have to find someone else to play with tonight. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: sure Judy. Carry on with your truth campaign. as Curtis aptly pointed out: for someone to constantly declare how dedicated to truth they are, is not unlike the magician telling everyone repeatedly how this is a plain, ordinary deck with which I am going to perform this trick. Not if the person is in fact dedicated to truth, unlike the magician. Curtis isn't, you aren't (as I just got done noting), Barry obviously isn't. So it isn't at all surprising that the three of you would be anxious to portray a truth-teller as a deceiver, is it? Can I assume you're afraid to answer my question, Stevie? And that's you in a nutshell, isn't Judy. You can fill in the blank, (as you do), Which blank would this be, Stevie? with whomever you determine to be the liar of the hour, or the day. Usually there is no shortage of candidates. Actually they don't change much from week to week, Stevie. And that, pretty much is how you spend your posts here. And that what, Stevie? Your writing is pretty incoherent tonight. I don't think you quite got what I've been saying. But it's
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: sure Judy. Carry on with your truth campaign. as Curtis aptly pointed out: for someone to constantly declare how dedicated to truth they are, is not unlike the magician telling everyone repeatedly how this is a plain, ordinary deck with which I am going to perform this trick. but this is how you choose to spend your life force, so I hope is gratifying for you. And how do you see yourself spending your life force Steve? Why don't you ask that question to my family, to my employees, or to the local media who have made it point to compare our business to places like Nordstroms or Ritz Carlton as an example of of a (small) company that offers superior customer service. Oh, so you focus your energies on business. I knew someone like that once - he was my father. Ann, you've got to be kidding. I am a householder, I have responsibilities to my family and my employees. I have a job like most other people. I attempt to do it well. Your dad was a business titan. I am a business small fry, and my business is a means to an end. But I take pride in it, as do my the other employees. Are you trying to read some kind of obsession into this? How can you fault anyone for caring about truth, whether you believe that particular person is misguided or off base or not? Yow Ann. I'm not going to go along with this. I do feel a need to speak out if I feel a person is misguided. Don't you? Go along with what? Read my question again, I think you didn't understand it for some reason. You might find we actually agree on this one. How come you can sit there and make these mocking noises when your greatest contribution here appears to be belittling others? Sort of one sided, I think. But I can live that assessment, if that is how you see things. This is what I like about you Steve. Even though it is self evident that it is one sided ( it is, after all, just my viewpoint and that would make it singular) you come across as a nice guy. (Share, was that belittling of me?) Who do you perceive yourself to be that you can afford to jibber away in the corner laughing and scorning others who take umbrage at lies, manipulation s and the conscious twisting of true things? Ann, remember, opinions are like a-holes. Everyone has one, and most of them stink. I include myself in this category, but I wonder if you do as well? I don't think your answer went anywhere near my question but, in a strange way, you answered it completely, perhaps inadvertently. When did you decide life was not worth living well or deeply? You seem pretty all knowing Ann. Why don't you tell me? Ah, the cutting jab. Well, I have no idea when you stopped or if you ever were committed to such things but it doesn't appear as if you have considered it much.Ann, I guess I'll have to revert to a trite phrase. I simply try to live in the moment, and enjoy the moment. Not always easy, but I don't really know a better way. Share, take it away... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: I wonder if anyone even reads those rebuttals. But I suppose they are gratifying to you. Right, the point is to get the truth on the record. I mean, for example, I certainly wouldn't expect you to retract and apologize for accusing DrD of bringing up Barry's brother's suicide when, as I pointed out in one of those posts, it was actually Barry himself who had done so. But that error--blaming DrD for Barry's own behavior-- can't be allowed to stand unrefuted. That's just the way it is in this world. Some people care about the truth, and some don't. The former can't force the latter to care, so they do the best they can to ensure the truth is not obscured by those who don't care about it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
Thank you Ann. This is rough coming in here and tying this up this stuff. At least the Sprint bill was manageable at $568.00. (family gets included though) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: Steve, have a wonderful few days off. Forget about all this FFL stuff and enjoy your family and your time away. I am sure you work very hard so take this time to revel in the fruits of your labours. Safe travels. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: Thank you Jim. A couple things come to mind. (as I am here at work, getting things in order so that I can go on vacation tomorrow with a somewhat unfettered mind) I am not sure if I have as much invested in this site as Judy. On the other hand, I do tend to trust my judgments, which many times are snap judgements. And it may be that when I take the time, to look more closely at something, (as I did recently at Judy's prodding), such as whether Robin was being truthful when he said he didn't strike someone, (and the context), then it may be that I modify my position some. But in that exact example a lot of effort was expended for a pretty small adjustment. I think the main complaint I hear about me is that I am too emotional in my judgments. Perhaps I am. On the other hand, it is always nice to have the real world to help you keep score on things. I will read over what you've written and see if anything else comes to mind. But I just don't know if I can come around to seeing Judy in a different light, than what I do. I'll try to keep an open mind. Thanks for your feedback. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: Hey Steve, I've been following this back and forth, for awhile. In terms of how you like to interact here, which I think mirrors your daily life and work, congenial, comes to mind. You and I could probably go to lunch and not mention TM, or any of the FFL topics, and still have plenty to yak about, and have a good time. I enjoy not always winding everything out, too. On the other hand, it was my business and skill for many years, to ensure clarity and understanding regarding the design, development, and transfer of very technical knowledge, to engineers and technicians, so that satellites, lasers, large phone switches, and data centers, for example, didn't fuck up. As a result, I can determine, when I want to put the effort into it, now that I don't *have* to, whether or not someone is being illogical, exaggerating, skewing material, has a hidden agenda, etc. Over so many years of analysis, it becomes obvious. Judy has a very consistent approach here. She is intent on unraveling the writing of those who are professing to say one thing, and in fact, through the mechanisms I referred to earlier, are saying something quite different. Further, if someone is simply expressing something, is there integrity in the expression? We do not have the luxury here to evaluate someone's body language and expressions here. It is all expressed through writing. So, the interactions between us are sometimes less than congenial, because there is no other way to further the thoughts expressed, sometimes, than to take exception. In everyday interaction, a raised eyebrow, or quick joke may suffice to move a conversation along, but here, with writing as the only tool, everything must be spelled out. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: Bless you Judy. I am going to take a nod from the Share playbook and offer you compassion. You'll have to find someone else to play with tonight. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: sure Judy. Carry on with your truth campaign. as Curtis aptly pointed out: for someone to constantly declare how dedicated to truth they are, is not unlike the magician telling everyone repeatedly how this is a plain, ordinary deck with which I am going to perform this trick. Not if the person is in fact dedicated to truth, unlike the magician. Curtis isn't, you aren't (as I just got done noting), Barry obviously isn't. So it isn't at all surprising that the three of you would be anxious to portray a truth-teller as a deceiver, is it? Can I assume you're afraid to answer my question, Stevie? And that's you in a nutshell, isn't Judy. You can fill in the blank, (as you do), Which blank would this be, Stevie? with whomever you determine to be the liar of the hour, or the day. Usually there is no
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: First and second, more bloopers from our little Stevie. Third, Maharishi and Robin. Is this a way of getting round the post limit? Moderator!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
On 7/4/13 11:05 PM, salyavin808 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: First and second, more bloopers from our little Stevie. Third, Maharishi and Robin. Is this a way of getting round the post limit? Moderator! Shouldn't be too hard Salyavin baby, recall your reductionistic, obfuscatory retardedness that we have talked about? It's the opposite of it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: On 7/4/13 11:05 PM, salyavin808 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: First and second, more bloopers from our little Stevie. Third, Maharishi and Robin. Is this a way of getting round the post limit? Moderator! Shouldn't be too hard Salyavin baby, recall your reductionistic, obfuscatory retardedness that we have talked about? It's the opposite of it. Oh right, that's cleared that up then...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
On 7/5/13 12:09 AM, salyavin808 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: On 7/4/13 11:05 PM, salyavin808 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: First and second, more bloopers from our little Stevie. Third, Maharishi and Robin. Is this a way of getting round the post limit? Moderator! Shouldn't be too hard Salyavin baby, recall your reductionistic, obfuscatory retardedness that we have talked about? It's the opposite of it. Oh right, that's cleared that up then... No salyavin baby - not if you have come back that quickly. Remember - this is your impulsiveness arising out of your reductionistic, obfuscatory retardedness. Give it a few days and you will get it - you need to trust the process.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: First and second, more bloopers from our little Stevie. Third, Maharishi and Robin. Is this a way of getting round the post limit? Moderator! Basically, yes. And, if you think I'm going to micromanage the content of posts in order to stop it, you need to put down that crack pipe.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: First and second, more bloopers from our little Stevie. Third, Maharishi and Robin. Is this a way of getting round the post limit? Moderator! Basically, yes. And, if you think I'm going to micromanage the content of posts in order to stop it, you need to put down that crack pipe. LOL, it was more for Judy's teasification than anything else but I know what you mean - I wouldn't read them if you paid me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: First and second, more bloopers from our little Stevie. Third, Maharishi and Robin. Is this a way of getting round the post limit? Moderator! Basically, yes. And, if you think I'm going to micromanage the content of posts in order to stop it, you need to put down that crack pipe. I think there is someone else who constantly uses this respond to multiple posts and posters technique as well (Hi Share) but I am pretty sure salyavin was being unserious here. As usual, I liked your response though.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
On Jul 5, 2013, at 3:54 AM, salyavin808 fintlewoodle...@mail.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: First and second, more bloopers from our little Stevie. Third, Maharishi and Robin. Is this a way of getting round the post limit? Moderator! Basically, yes. And, if you think I'm going to micromanage the content of posts in order to stop it, you need to put down that crack pipe. LOL, it was more for Judy's teasification than anything else but I know what you mean - I wouldn't read them if you paid me. Judy's Teasification salyavin baby? LOL - there is something about her that causes grown men like you to act like retards. This is your fourth post on it you fucking idiot. News flash - Judy is essentially unteasifiable. Look at Barry - 20 years and he is still trying, is there a lesson you think? Is this something your reductionistic, obfuscatory, impulsive brain can wrap around?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
salyavin, I like when people make up words like teasification. And IMHO it's sad if Ravi is right and Judy is unteasible. Sometimes I like it when someone makes me laugh at myself. Anyway, I've enjoyed your humor recently but wish you liked crop circles more. I think they're beautiful. PS I wonder if Ravi was being ironic when he lambasted you for writing FOUR posts on one topic. From: salyavin808 fintlewoodle...@mail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, July 5, 2013 5:54 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: First and second, more bloopers from our little Stevie. Third, Maharishi and Robin. Is this a way of getting round the post limit? Moderator! Basically, yes. And, if you think I'm going to micromanage the content of posts in order to stop it, you need to put down that crack pipe. LOL, it was more for Judy's teasification than anything else but I know what you mean - I wouldn't read them if you paid me.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
On Jul 5, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com wrote: salyavin, I like when people make up words like teasification. And IMHO it's sad if Ravi is right and Judy is unteasible. Sometimes I like it when someone makes me laugh at myself. Anyway, I've enjoyed your humor recently but wish you liked crop circles more. I think they're beautiful. PS I wonder if Ravi was being ironic when he lambasted you for writing FOUR posts on one topic. It was a bait - to see if salyavin can control his impulsive, salivating nature. I'm still waiting. From: salyavin808 fintlewoodle...@mail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, July 5, 2013 5:54 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: First and second, more bloopers from our little Stevie. Third, Maharishi and Robin. Is this a way of getting round the post limit? Moderator! Basically, yes. And, if you think I'm going to micromanage the content of posts in order to stop it, you need to put down that crack pipe. LOL, it was more for Judy's teasification than anything else but I know what you mean - I wouldn't read them if you paid me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
re: Sometimes I like it when someone makes me laugh at myself. Sometimes Share? When don't you like it? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: salyavin, I like when people make up words like teasification. And IMHO it's sad if Ravi is right and Judy is unteasible. Sometimes I like it when someone makes me laugh at myself. Anyway, I've enjoyed your humor recently but wish you liked crop circles more. I think they're beautiful. PS I wonder if Ravi was being ironic when he lambasted you for writing FOUR posts on one topic. From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, July 5, 2013 5:54 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: First and second, more bloopers from our little Stevie. Third, Maharishi and Robin. Is this a way of getting round the post limit? Moderator! Basically, yes. And, if you think I'm going to micromanage the content of posts in order to stop it, you need to put down that crack pipe. LOL, it was more for Judy's teasification than anything else but I know what you mean - I wouldn't read them if you paid me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: salyavin, I like when people make up words like teasification. And IMHO it's sad if Ravi is right and Judy is unteasible. Sometimes I like it when someone makes me laugh at myself. Anyway, I've enjoyed your humor recently but wish you liked crop circles more. I think they're beautiful. Hey, I **love** crop circles! I just seriously doubt they are made by the Space Brothers. Especially when the people who do build them have their own website. PS I wonder if Ravi was being ironic when he lambasted you for writing FOUR posts on one topic. I think you need self awareness before you can do irony. PS I *can't* believe teasification isn't a proper word... From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, July 5, 2013 5:54 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: First and second, more bloopers from our little Stevie. Third, Maharishi and Robin. Is this a way of getting round the post limit? Moderator! Basically, yes. And, if you think I'm going to micromanage the content of posts in order to stop it, you need to put down that crack pipe. LOL, it was more for Judy's teasification than anything else but I know what you mean - I wouldn't read them if you paid me.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
On Jul 5, 2013, at 10:03 AM, salyavin808 fintlewoodle...@mail.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: salyavin, I like when people make up words like teasification. And IMHO it's sad if Ravi is right and Judy is unteasible. Sometimes I like it when someone makes me laugh at myself. Anyway, I've enjoyed your humor recently but wish you liked crop circles more. I think they're beautiful. Hey, I **love** crop circles! I just seriously doubt they are made by the Space Brothers. Especially when the people who do build them have their own website. PS I wonder if Ravi was being ironic when he lambasted you for writing FOUR posts on one topic. I think you need self awareness before you can do irony. Yep - Four it is. And we get to see the spiritual salyavin - hilarious :-). PS I *can't* believe teasification isn't a proper word... From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, July 5, 2013 5:54 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: First and second, more bloopers from our little Stevie. Third, Maharishi and Robin. Is this a way of getting round the post limit? Moderator! Basically, yes. And, if you think I'm going to micromanage the content of posts in order to stop it, you need to put down that crack pipe. LOL, it was more for Judy's teasification than anything else but I know what you mean - I wouldn't read them if you paid me.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
I hope you are rooting for Murray now salivating puppy. On Jul 5, 2013, at 10:14 AM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com wrote: On Jul 5, 2013, at 10:03 AM, salyavin808 fintlewoodle...@mail.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: salyavin, I like when people make up words like teasification. And IMHO it's sad if Ravi is right and Judy is unteasible. Sometimes I like it when someone makes me laugh at myself. Anyway, I've enjoyed your humor recently but wish you liked crop circles more. I think they're beautiful. Hey, I **love** crop circles! I just seriously doubt they are made by the Space Brothers. Especially when the people who do build them have their own website. PS I wonder if Ravi was being ironic when he lambasted you for writing FOUR posts on one topic. I think you need self awareness before you can do irony. Yep - Four it is. And we get to see the spiritual salyavin - hilarious :-). PS I *can't* believe teasification isn't a proper word... From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, July 5, 2013 5:54 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: First and second, more bloopers from our little Stevie. Third, Maharishi and Robin. Is this a way of getting round the post limit? Moderator! Basically, yes. And, if you think I'm going to micromanage the content of posts in order to stop it, you need to put down that crack pipe. LOL, it was more for Judy's teasification than anything else but I know what you mean - I wouldn't read them if you paid me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: salyavin, I like when people make up words like teasification. And IMHO it's sad if Ravi is right and Judy is unteasible. Sometimes I like it when someone makes me laugh at myself. I have yet to see it. Usually when I hope to see that you start shouting arrogant and get all pouty instead. Anyway, I've enjoyed your humor recently but wish you liked crop circles more. I think they're beautiful. PS I wonder if Ravi was being ironic when he lambasted you for writing FOUR posts on one topic. From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, July 5, 2013 5:54 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: First and second, more bloopers from our little Stevie. Third, Maharishi and Robin. Is this a way of getting round the post limit? Moderator! Basically, yes. And, if you think I'm going to micromanage the content of posts in order to stop it, you need to put down that crack pipe. LOL, it was more for Judy's teasification than anything else but I know what you mean - I wouldn't read them if you paid me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
unwhatable? Is there something else you're trying to say? (-: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: Judy's Teasification salyavin baby? LOL - there is something about her that causes grown men like you to act like retards. This is your fourth post on it you fucking idiot. News flash - Judy is essentially unteasifiable. Look at Barry - 20 years and he is still trying, is there a lesson you think? Is this something your reductionistic, obfuscatory, impulsive brain can wrap around?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
Sorry for the typo - untaseable it is. She can fucking tase you but she can't be tased back. On 7/5/13 3:25 PM, seventhray27 wrote: unwhatable? Is there something else you're trying to say? (-: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: Judy's Teasification salyavin baby? LOL - there is something about her that causes grown men like you to act like retards. This is your fourth post on it you fucking idiot. News flash - Judy is essentially unteasifiable. Look at Barry - 20 years and he is still trying, is there a lesson you think? Is this something your reductionistic, obfuscatory, impulsive brain can wrap around?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
that wasn't what I was referring to, but it'll have to do. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: Sorry for the typo - untaseable it is. She can fucking tase you but she can't be tased back. On 7/5/13 3:25 PM, seventhray27 wrote: unwhatable? Is there something else you're trying to say? (-: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: Judy's Teasification salyavin baby? LOL - there is something about her that causes grown men like you to act like retards. This is your fourth post on it you fucking idiot. News flash - Judy is essentially unteasifiable. Look at Barry - 20 years and he is still trying, is there a lesson you think? Is this something your reductionistic, obfuscatory, impulsive brain can wrap around?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
I go away for a day and you children are all acting up again? I thought I left you swanson's frozen dinners, hungry man size, sour cream and onion mix, and chips, pop ups (a few boxes in the freezers), all the netflix you can watch, the lawn cut, the dishes done and tons of paper plates, plastic cutlery and napkins you can throw away, and Ravi, all the Ramen noodles, I mean Maggi noodles masala you can eat...Steve, your fried Ravioli things in a nice 3 pound bag in the freezer, the rest of you, blueberries. Emily, welcome again to the nut house farm thing as Share or Ann refers to this as.. or as some call it, Uncle Tantra's Judy Expo, or all about Robin and the Maharishi. How they helped form the crop circle culture dance party. Who is Vedic Alex? What is the name of the guy who started this thread? I don't give a damn. There. Emotion. Good night. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: that wasn't what I was referring to, but it'll have to do. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: Sorry for the typo - untaseable it is. She can fucking tase you but she can't be tased back. On 7/5/13 3:25 PM, seventhray27 wrote: unwhatable? Is there something else you're trying to say? (-: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: Judy's Teasification salyavin baby? LOL - there is something about her that causes grown men like you to act like retards. This is your fourth post on it you fucking idiot. News flash - Judy is essentially unteasifiable. Look at Barry - 20 years and he is still trying, is there a lesson you think? Is this something your reductionistic, obfuscatory, impulsive brain can wrap around?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
My goodness you've had a busy week, Judy. Time to holster that gun, dontcha think? You've gone into overtime shooting down lies and bloopers, and whoppers, and ooopsies like we haven't seen in a long time. I'd say you're 49 for 49 for uncovering Barry's lies, my lies, Share's lies, Susan's lies, Xeno's lies. Oh, and some good mind reading as pertains to the schism book. I hope Robin appreciates the extra work. Who's this last bullet gonna be for? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: First and second, more bloopers from our little Stevie. Third, Maharishi and Robin. 348918 Opsie, Stevie, I suspect Ann was referring to the assertion that you carefully snipped, most likely because by the time you wrote this you realized your error. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 wrote: (snip) glad for the clarification Jim and for letting us know how above board and honorable you are for bringing a family member's suicide into the discussion here. Get the timeline and the events here straight Steve. Go back and have a look. Read what Barry has had to say about Jim and Jim's brother now and many posts ago and then draw some reasonable conclusions. Figure out which bandwagon you want to leap on before you do so. DrD did not bring Barry's brother's suicide into the discussion here. Barry did (post #348743). 348875 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: Quite interesting. I know others will say why even bother with something over thirty years old, but some of this (beginning on page 289) directly contradicts many of Robin's avowed claims. Sad really. Gee, Stevie, I guess I need to repeat what I told you awhile back: It would be in your best interests not even to *try* to understand the controversies that go on here, let alone comment on them, because you almost invariably get them wrong. It's partly because you can't be bothered to read the posts with attention, but even if you did, I'm very dubious you would have anything but confusion to contribute. Judy always trots out the article of faith that Maharishi secretly supported Robin. Sort of blows that up, doesn't it? Judy has only *speculated* to that effect. See how you got that wrong? And no, the book chapter doesn't blow that up in any case. You might want to look up the word secretly in Mr. Dictionary. 348930 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: As understand it, MMY said that Robin Carlson's experiences of Unity (book says Cosmic Consciousness) were valid and asked him to describe them. Actually Robin described his experiences to Maharishi, who then said they were valid. And they were most definitely both talking about Unity, not just CC. Robin took this as a personal declaration of his own full enlightenment and, like others have done, refused to go and be viable in society, but instead got full of himself. Actually he went and became quite viable in society, thank you very much. When the course he was on was over, he went back to Canada to teach and supported himself doing so for some years. And until things began to go wrong seven or so years later, his students (mostly TM initiators) were extremely enthusiastic about what he taught them. MMY not wanting to comment in public on Robin's enlightenment is no more significant than him not wanting to comment on MY enlightenment: it's not his place to micromanage arbitrary people's states of consciousness. Well, that's true, at least publicly. He did comment on it during the course Robin was on, even asked him to wait for a few days to describe it until the video cameras were up and running so they could get his comments on tape. (Who knows where that tape is now...) But the larger point is that Robin never got any signals that Maharishi disapproved of what he was doing until his campaign at MIU--and Maharishi had been keeping close tabs on him after he set up shop in Canada. His whole teaching gig was based on the assumption (Robin's and his students') that he was in Unity. It's mysterious, to say the least, why Maharishi wouldn't have sent word that Robin should stop claiming he was in Unity if Maharishi didn't think he *was* in Unity, especially given that Robin was working with all these TM initiators. Why wasn't Maharishi concerned about the purity of the teaching his own initiators were getting if it was coming from someone he thought was deluded or lying? (Lawson, I can't help myself. How many times have you read the name Carlsen and yet still keep spelling it Carlson?)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two for Stevie, one for Lawson
I wonder if anyone even reads those rebuttals. But I suppose they are gratifying to you. This is the image that always comes to mind. http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2008/un_moments/un_moments_khrus\ hchev.jpg http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2008/un_moments/un_moments_khru\ shchev.jpg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 wrote: My goodness you've had a busy week, Judy. Time to holster that gun, dontcha think? You've gone into overtime shooting down lies and bloopers, and whoppers, and ooopsies like we haven't seen in a long time. I'd say you're 49 for 49 for uncovering Barry's lies, my lies, Share's lies, Susan's lies, Xeno's lies. Oh, and some good mind reading as pertains to the schism book. I hope Robin appreciates the extra work. Who's this last bullet gonna be for? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: First and second, more bloopers from our little Stevie. Third, Maharishi and Robin. 348918 Opsie, Stevie, I suspect Ann was referring to the assertion that you carefully snipped, most likely because by the time you wrote this you realized your error. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 wrote: (snip) glad for the clarification Jim and for letting us know how above board and honorable you are for bringing a family member's suicide into the discussion here. Get the timeline and the events here straight Steve. Go back and have a look. Read what Barry has had to say about Jim and Jim's brother now and many posts ago and then draw some reasonable conclusions. Figure out which bandwagon you want to leap on before you do so. DrD did not bring Barry's brother's suicide into the discussion here. Barry did (post #348743). 348875 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: Quite interesting. I know others will say why even bother with something over thirty years old, but some of this (beginning on page 289) directly contradicts many of Robin's avowed claims. Sad really. Gee, Stevie, I guess I need to repeat what I told you awhile back: It would be in your best interests not even to *try* to understand the controversies that go on here, let alone comment on them, because you almost invariably get them wrong. It's partly because you can't be bothered to read the posts with attention, but even if you did, I'm very dubious you would have anything but confusion to contribute. Judy always trots out the article of faith that Maharishi secretly supported Robin. Sort of blows that up, doesn't it? Judy has only *speculated* to that effect. See how you got that wrong? And no, the book chapter doesn't blow that up in any case. You might want to look up the word secretly in Mr. Dictionary. 348930 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: As understand it, MMY said that Robin Carlson's experiences of Unity (book says Cosmic Consciousness) were valid and asked him to describe them. Actually Robin described his experiences to Maharishi, who then said they were valid. And they were most definitely both talking about Unity, not just CC. Robin took this as a personal declaration of his own full enlightenment and, like others have done, refused to go and be viable in society, but instead got full of himself. Actually he went and became quite viable in society, thank you very much. When the course he was on was over, he went back to Canada to teach and supported himself doing so for some years. And until things began to go wrong seven or so years later, his students (mostly TM initiators) were extremely enthusiastic about what he taught them. MMY not wanting to comment in public on Robin's enlightenment is no more significant than him not wanting to comment on MY enlightenment: it's not his place to micromanage arbitrary people's states of consciousness. Well, that's true, at least publicly. He did comment on it during the course Robin was on, even asked him to wait for a few days to describe it until the video cameras were up and running so they could get his comments on tape. (Who knows where that tape is now...) But the larger point is that Robin never got any signals that Maharishi disapproved of what he was doing until his campaign at MIU--and Maharishi had been keeping close tabs on him after he set up shop in Canada. His whole teaching gig was based on the assumption (Robin's and his students') that he was in Unity. It's mysterious, to say the least, why Maharishi wouldn't have sent word that Robin should stop claiming he was in Unity if Maharishi didn't think he *was* in Unity, especially given that Robin was working with all these TM initiators. Why wasn't Maharishi concerned
