Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The game is afoot again

2014-01-07 Thread Richard J. Williams
On 1/6/2014 9:49 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:

  I don't care how many women Maharishi slept with,
  his method of teaching TM was a work of genius.
 
Who or how many women MMY has slept with has nothing to do with whether 
or not TM works - it's all up to the individual. In fact, MMY has 
nothing to do with transcending in TM.

Confusion arises from erroneously identifying words, objects, and ideas
with one another; knowledge of the cries of all creatures comes through
perfect discipline of the distinctions between them. - Y.S. 3.17


Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The game is afoot again

2014-01-07 Thread doctordumbass
Who or how many women MMY has slept with has nothing to do with whether 
 or not TM works - it's all up to the individual. In fact, MMY has 
 nothing to do with transcending in TM.
 
 Confusion arises from erroneously identifying words, objects, and ideas
 with one another; knowledge of the cries of all creatures comes through
 perfect discipline of the distinctions between them. - Y.S. 3.17

Thanks Richard - An excellent point. All of the emphasis on the technique's 
founder probably has to do with
TM's recent revival, and that many people experienced Maharishi personally. Who 
knows, perhaps there were articles written about Thomas Edison's 
transgressions, when his light-bulb first became popular?

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The game is afoot again

2014-01-07 Thread authfriend
Whoever said the number of women MMY slept with has anything to do with whether 
TM works?? I must have missed that.
 
  Who or how many women MMY has slept with has nothing to do with whether 
 or not TM works - it's all up to the individual. In fact, MMY has 
 nothing to do with transcending in TM.
 
 Confusion arises from erroneously identifying words, objects, and ideas
 with one another; knowledge of the cries of all creatures comes through
 perfect discipline of the distinctions between them. - Y.S. 3.17

Thanks Richard - An excellent point. All of the emphasis on the technique's 
founder probably has to do with
TM's recent revival, and that many people experienced Maharishi personally. Who 
knows, perhaps there were articles written about Thomas Edison's 
transgressions, when his light-bulb first became popular? 



Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The game is afoot again

2014-01-06 Thread Share Long
Or turq it could be that the writer is simply being a creative artist and 
playing with the material, the character. OTOH, I've read several authors who 
say that at some point they really don't have much to say about how a character 
acts, that it's as if the character has its own life, its own internal 
integrity, its own path of unfolding. And the writer simply records, sort of 
going along for the ride!




On Monday, January 6, 2014 6:46 AM, TurquoiseB turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote:
 
  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Just finished watching the second episode in the new series of Sherlock and I 
 can inform FFLifers it was the most self-indulgent pile of crap I've ever 
 witnessed on TV. Two-thirds of the story was devoted to Sherlock and Watson's 
 relationship with some cringe-worthy attempts at humour and generous dollops 
 of mawkish buddy-bonding. The third segment devoted to an actual attempt at 
 crime-solving was leaden and unconvincing. 
  You have been warned - ignore any favourable reviews.. 

I see that you're not alone in feeling this way, given some of the reviews. But 
I think you've missed the *cause* of why you feel that way. This episode was 
not cringe-worthy but cringe-inducing. Many people get supremely 
uncomfortable watching social awkwardness and ineptness, even if it's just on a 
TV screen. 

I have no idea why the creators of Sherlock chose to create an entire hour 
and a half of social discomfort. Maybe it was a lapse, maybe it ties into some 
future plot point in their long game. Dunno. I thought parts of it were OK, 
and that some of the funny parts were, in fact, funny. Others, not so much. I'm 
not sure how this episode will tie into the rest of the series, or even if it 
will. It seemed to be an attempt to humanize someone who even describes 
*himself* as a high-functioning sociopath. 

It's not as if the episode was written by someone without a track record. The 
fellow who wrote it also wrote The Reichenbach Fall (last season's final 
episode, which was strong) and The Blind Banker (which wasn't one of my 
faves). Maybe they did it for a lark. Then again, maybe the creators went this 
route simply to fuck with the audience and show them how attached *they* had 
become to the high-functioning sociopath, and how uncomfortable they get when 
he changes, even a little. 





Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The game is afoot again

2014-01-06 Thread Bhairitu

Never fear, Helix will soon be here. ;-)

First 15 minutes is on Syfy.com


On 01/06/2014 04:46 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:


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

 Just finished watching the second episode in the new series of 
Sherlock and I can inform FFLifers it was the most self-indulgent pile 
of crap I've ever witnessed on TV. Two-thirds of the story was devoted 
to Sherlock and Watson's relationship with some cringe-worthy attempts 
at humour and generous dollops of mawkish buddy-bonding. The third 
segment devoted to an actual attempt at crime-solving was leaden and 
unconvincing.

 You have been warned - ignore any favourable reviews..

*/I see that you're not alone in feeling this way, given some of the 
reviews. But I think you've missed the *cause* of why you feel that 
way. This episode was not cringe-worthy but cringe-inducing. Many 
people get supremely uncomfortable watching social awkwardness and 
ineptness, even if it's just on a TV screen.


I have no idea why the creators of Sherlock chose to create an 
entire hour and a half of social discomfort. Maybe it was a lapse, 
maybe it ties into some future plot point in their long game. Dunno. 
I thought parts of it were OK, and that some of the funny parts were, 
in fact, funny. Others, not so much. I'm not sure how this episode 
will tie into the rest of the series, or even if it will. It seemed to 
be an attempt to humanize someone who even describes *himself* as a 
high-functioning sociopath.


It's not as if the episode was written by someone without a track 
record. The fellow who wrote it also wrote The Reichenbach Fall 
(last season's final episode, which was strong) and The Blind 
Banker (which wasn't one of my faves). Maybe they did it for a lark. 
Then again, maybe the creators went this route simply to fuck with the 
audience and show them how attached *they* had become to the 
high-functioning sociopath, and how uncomfortable they get when he 
changes, even a little. /*








Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The game is afoot again

2014-01-06 Thread Share Long
OTOH, turq, these TV shows, forums, etc. just might be an easier way for people 
to burn off some negative karma. 





On Monday, January 6, 2014 7:29 AM, TurquoiseB turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote:
 
  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:

 Or turq it could be that the writer is simply being a creative artist and 
 playing with the material, the character. OTOH, I've read several authors who 
 say that at some point they really don't have much to say about how a 
 character acts, that it's as if the character has its own life, its own 
 internal integrity, its own path of unfolding. And the writer simply records, 
 sort of going along for the ride!

Whatever. It could be just that -- a change-up pitch thrown out to confuse 
the batter. 

It IS interesting, however, to see all the critical reaction -- some of it 
near-hysterical -- to nothing more than showing narcissistic, sociopathic 
Sherlock Holmes, master of Being In Control, acting like a bumbling oaf and 
being stumped by a rather simple plot. (Heck, even *I* figured out what was up 
and who the villain was as soon as the wedding party began.)

Audiences who hero-worship are notoriously fickle when someone presents a hero 
they've fixated on as infallible and always in control as...uh...fallible 
and...uh...not. We saw this in one of Clint Eastwood's early roles, in The 
Beguiled. Audiences had by then gotten used to seeing the always in control 
Clint -- as Rowdy Yates in Rawhide, as the Man With No Name in A Fistful Of 
Dollars, and For A Few Dollars More and The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly, 
as the stand-up guy in Hang 'Em High and Coogan's Bluff, and as a war hero 
in Kelly's Heroes. Then comes The Beguiled, and he not only loses out, he 
loses to a house full of women. The movie BOMBED at the box office. People 
HATED it. It was as if they weren't about to allow someone they had projected 
all their hero fantasies onto to ever become anything but. 

I would suggest that the same thing is going on for some of these people 
freaking out at seeing Sherlock Holmes bumble his way through trying to act 
like a human being for once. They just won't stand for it. It's almost as if 
they're like TMers worshiping a narcissopath they'd put up on a pedestal for 
being even more stuck in his head they they are and freaking out when he's 
revealed as rather less than heroic.  :-)

It's also interesting to see that the meanest and nastiest of the mean, nasty 
reviews of this episode come from women. It's like listening to guys who have 
been forced by their girlfriends to watch a chick flick going on and on about 
how horrible it was. :-)

All in all, I didn't think it was a terribly strong episode, but there have 
been weak episodes in this series before, and it's not only survived but 
prospered in spite of the occasional lapse. I suspect it will again. It may 
even turn out that the friendship for Watson that Holmes has been forced to 
admit in this episode will become crucial in the next episode, and thus this 
whole episode is a set-up. 

Who knows? It's just a TV show. 

Just like FFL is just an Internet chat room. Who could possibly get their 
panties in a twist over something said in an Internet chat room?   :-)

 On Monday, January 6, 2014 6:46 AM, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote:
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
 
  Just finished watching the second episode in the new series of Sherlock and 
  I can inform FFLifers it was the most self-indulgent pile of crap I've ever 
  witnessed on TV. Two-thirds of the story was devoted to Sherlock and 
  Watson's relationship with some cringe-worthy attempts at humour and 
  generous dollops of mawkish buddy-bonding. The third segment devoted to an 
  actual attempt at crime-solving was leaden and unconvincing. 
   You have been warned - ignore any favourable reviews.. 
 
 I see that you're not alone in feeling this way, given some of the reviews. 
 But I think you've missed the *cause* of why you feel that way. This episode 
 was not cringe-worthy but cringe-inducing. Many people get supremely 
 uncomfortable watching social awkwardness and ineptness, even if it's just on 
 a TV screen. 
 
 I have no idea why the creators of Sherlock chose to create an entire hour 
 and a half of social discomfort. Maybe it was a lapse, maybe it ties into 
 some future plot point in their long game. Dunno. I thought parts of it 
 were OK, and that some of the funny parts were, in fact, funny. Others, not 
 so much. I'm not sure how this episode will tie into the rest of the series, 
 or even if it will. It seemed to be an attempt to humanize someone who even 
 describes *himself* as a high-functioning sociopath. 
 
 It's not as if the episode was written by someone without a track record. The 
 fellow who wrote it also wrote The Reichenbach Fall (last season's final 
 episode, which was strong) and The Blind Banker (which wasn't one of my 
 faves). Maybe they did it for a lark. Then again, 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The game is afoot again

2014-01-04 Thread Bhairitu
Maybe it would be more popular in the US if Sherlock investigated a clan 
of bayoubillies. :-D


And I have never seen Elementary.  I have enough problem with what the 
idiots running Hollywood do to TV.


On 01/03/2014 07:21 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote:


The BBC Sherlock is a worldwide hit but I read that the USA is *not* 
so enamoured and viewing figures there are quite low.



I love the original Holmes tales (though Poe's Dupin is the original 
and the best) so I enjoy this modern updating but the series does 
strike me as a bit smug and self-congratulatory. Too much style over 
substance perhaps? Still, there are classy moments and I never miss an 
episode.



IMHO Jeremy Brett's Holmes is the best-ever representation. 
Astonishing performance. Truly brilliant. Popular entertainment as 
high art!



My fave Holmes story was The Adventure of the Copper Beeches. A key 
plot element is the auburn hair of the central character. A young 
woman applying for the job of a governess is offered excellent wages 
thanks to her red hair. Is the employer a sexual fetishist? Is 
something sleazy going on? Because Holmes is asexual the Copper 
Beeches plot adds an element of sexual frisson which is all the more 
effective thanks to the background of period respectability and decorum.



On a side note: we Brits call the Sherlock period Edwardian. When we 
use labels like Victorian or Edwardian do Yanks (or Europeans for 
that matter) refer to it by some other designation?  After all, Ed and 
Vicky were not *your* sovereigns. (Though you are always welcome to 
rejoin the club and become loyal subjects of Liz II.)



I've never seen US series Elementary - would you recommend that?







Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The game is afoot again

2014-01-04 Thread authfriend
Victorian and Edwardian are both pretty much standard here. Also 
Georgian, Regency, and Stuart periods, and before that, of course, 
Elizabethan and Tudor.
 On a side note: we Brits call the Sherlock period Edwardian. When we use 
labels like Victorian or Edwardian do Yanks (or Europeans for that matter) 
refer to it by some other designation?