Duv Threatening: “..get him my best shots, I'll tear him a new one”. How Duv expresses himself here on FFL is between him and Rick Archer as the owner of FairfieldLife at Yahoo-groups and the yahoo-groups guidelines. I however, am all in favor of Rick's simply enforcing the Yahoo-groups guidelines on the membership writing here. Yes, writers should certainly be held accountable to the yahoo-groups guidelines for the larger benefit and safety of the whole group. -JaiGuruYou
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote : And, Duv name-calling and threatening, poor Anartaxius here? Duv adding, “..and no way Taxi changes even if God appears before him and tells him to shape up.” -Possibly some truth to that. (Mythical trolls are known to be thicker skinned but can have tender hearts underneath) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote : Dear MJ you are making a large assumption and possibly a transference of something in your thinking on to me. I have not problem with Duv here and what he writes here. I often appreciate what he has to contribute here. However 'how' he says it affects us all if it is in violation of the yahoo-groups guidelines. He is certainly free to speak his mind on FFL so long as it is within the boundaries of the yahoo-groups guidelines. That has nothing to do with me. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mjackson74@...> wrote : you've got a lot of fans here Duv, and most of 'em proly want you to go for it, but are too afraid to say so for fear of gettin' whupped up on by Buck and the FFL police. From: Duveyoung <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2015 5:31 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Astrology Science? Anyone want me to smack Anartaxius around a little? I usually just post my stuff and then forgive all the trolls, but Anartaxius seems to be asking for it. Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuttttt, it's so much work to rub someone's nose in their own doo-doo, and I'm not up for it unless I can get a mob assembled here that wants me to give Mr. A a major fucking correction about his FFL posting morals. Buuuuuuuuuuuuuutt, I don't have any fans here, so this ain't going to happen, and no way Taxi changes even if God appears before him and tells him to shape up. Okay, I'll put a number on it. If I get five others here to publicly encourage me to get him my best shots, I'll tear him a new one. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote : On Thursday, May 28, 2015 11:14 PM, Duveyoung <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Anartaxius, you ignorant slut. So, in replying to my criticism you are consorting with prostitutes and those of dim and unlearned intelligence? Seems like a good fit. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote : On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 10:44 PM, Duveyoung <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Seems to me that since a single photon of light hitting a dark-conditioned retina can trigger a change in the flow of consciousness -- a single photon could possibly be a tipping point's "final straw" and so, an infant's-personality-that's-ever-so-fragile could thereby get hard-wired into a "something or other." I think we discussed this point some weeks ago. a single photon of light likely, on the basis of experiment, can affect the retina of the eye, but it is not an event the becomes conscious because the impulse does not get any further than this in the nervous system. I used "dark-conditioned retina" which I believe DOES send a full message to the brain about a single photon, but one or a dozen, so what? The evidence is that a very small amount of light can be registered in consciousness -- which could be a tipping point experience. EMPHASIS ON "COULD." The issue is whether such an event in consciousness could be some sort of keystone in an upside down pyramid -- we know the concept "tipping point" is valid, and we know the infant is "brand new" and ready for "imprinting like a baby bird" MAYBE. See the word "maybe" there? Yes, but belief is not evidence. And the evidence of the experiments shows that while it is likely a single photon could affect the retina, considerably more photons are required for the signal to get sent from the retina further up the processing chain. There is a difference between a 'small amount of light' and a single photon. So far there has never been an experimental result where a single photon was noticed. In fact scientifically 'an event in consciousness' is undefined because there is no scientific definition of consciousness. I am aware of the 'tipping point' concept (the writings of Malcolm Gladwell), but if there is no evidence that a single photon can have effects to the extent you would like to believe. You seem to be looking for some frail excuse to have jyotish somehow work even when your own experience demonstrates it failed. Now if you had an infant just at birth, don't you think all the activity surrounded by the birth would have a much much larger impact on the child's experience? We encounter things all life long that appear to tip us in one direction or another. And many things that have more mass and energy than a single photon impact us everyday so looking for the tiniest, least effective impact to be the tipping point seems like a wasted opportunity and clearly on the borderlands of irrationality. Of course, it's hard to imagine a research scenario that could measure such thing. But I mention this as a viable concept for this discussion, because of the research on the "dirty water that is purified by radiation" -- "purified" means anything-not-water gets separated out. I'll link below to the research, as I have done several times here at FFL, You did not link to the research, you linked to a YouTube video. That is not scientific research. Pollack supposedly published this research in a low quality on-line journal called Water, but it turns out, what was uploaded was not a scientific paper, but a page listing the table of contents of his book, purchasable elsewhere. So no published research at all, just advertising. This is the abstract for the article, which is not an abstract for research but a sales pitch: So what? Do I need to do a Steve-Martin-EXCUSE ME? for using "research?" Give me a break -- it's clear that the "error" you underline is not germane to the discussion -- do you admit this? Are you not just a little bit happy to get in here and show me up as a less-than-top-notch-thinker? Aaaaaand, if I'm not top-notch, who the fuck are you to try to rub my nose in it? Is someone smarter than you chafing your ass and I'm the only one you can take it out on? Do you go around besting children at trivia games or what? Your attitude belongs on a PhD orals-exam -- not here at FFL for Christ's sake. You seem to be attracted to bad science. If you are using 'research' to support your contention, then certainly it is germane to the discussion. In the manner of your reply you seem to be underlining the words 'less-than-top-notch thinker' with a broad brush. We do have such conversations on FFL all the time. You are just not here very often. The video shows that research was done and that there's probably some paperwork to back it up. Did I say I have PROOF? The video SUGGESTS that light somehow helps water to purify. It shows actual experiments being conducted. The guy is legit, credentialed, and what the video shows is very interesting, and I think it needs more follow up. These are concepts that fit into this conversation -- it doesn't matter if the concepts are being promoted by a book-selling professor. I maintain that jyotish is tantalizingly supported by this video in that every cell in the human body is being irradiated constantly by a host of waves of every ilk. It seems to me that some of the surfaces found in the body will be thereby helped to purify themselves and keep functions at peak performance. Light matters at a very subtle level IT SEEMS. The video implies research was done, it doesn't mean that research is any good, or that the scientist was able to publish his results in a journal, which I conclude after a search, he was unable to do, and he picked a low quality journal that does not appear to have any kind of peer review by fellow scientists. And there are crackpots that have credentials, but whose work is considered useless by his/her peers. You have not specified here how water is purified. Water by itself is pure. On Earth most water has dissolved minerals, and various kinds of particulates, and micro-organisms. Sometimes bigger things too, like fish. Most of this can be filtered out. Ultraviolet radiation can kill micro-organisms, and there are various ways to filter out particulates and chemicals such as distillation and reverse osmosis, cation and anion exchange resins and so forth. Having experienced jyotish failing so badly, what possible reason could you have for wanting it to somehow work? It has a ridiculous concept, no experimental proof, unexplained influences. It is a theory for the garbage heap from more ignorant times. At best it is a psychological crutch for the gullible. 'The following paragraphs are reproduced from the website of the publisher [1]. Professor Pollack takes us on a fantastic voyage through water, showing us a hidden universe teeming with physical activity that provides answers so simple that any curious person can understand. In conversational prose, Pollack lays a simple foundation for understanding how changes in water’s structure underlie most energetic transitions of form and motion on earth.' The citation footnote [1] in the abstract did not refer to any information either, not being a link or reference to anything else on the page. So I'm a lousy student. I didn't use footnotes. FUCK YOU. Google this shit yourself -- it's got to be out there. I couldn't find it, and I did 'Google this shit'. It is evident you are a lousy student. Not that that's a proof of astrology's main axiom, but that that indicates that light is VERY impacting at the subtlest of levels. There is very very much proof about instant printing. We see birds immediately attach "that's my parent" to anything that moves when it is first born. We know this kind of global psychological "hardening" is seen across the biological spectrum. Us human beings too? Why not? We know that trauma can do this. Why not the first light that floods the newborn's eye? I paid good bucks to eleven jyotishi-types. Nothing came true, no one "nailed me," I was never warned about something, and no insights into what I'd been in the past, and they all majorly disagreed with each other. And all of them were consulted EXACTLY WHEN I NEEDED ADVICE THE MOST -- my life troubles during that time were the WORST of my life, but no jyotish person warned or saw this. So don't try to sell me any more jyotish, but don't toss it out with the western astrology bathwater. I think the "light is synchronous" (not causal) concept has traction. It's just that science is not up to examining it, and probably won't be for another 100 years. A good experiential observation that jyotish/astrology is hokum. "Hokum" -- this is merely name calling. With one word you dismiss 10,000 years of belief and practice that was so revered that father taught son for thousands of years to MEMORIZE the ved verses about the concepts. Shame the fuck on you. We don't know. We don't know. Why do you have such certainty in the face of such a paucity of good research by modern science on these concepts? YOU DON'T KNOW. All you're saying is "it's stupid, man, and so are you if you believe it." That's your tone......don't deny it. This is the rotten core of FFL -- putting down anyone who is in the least flawed instead of advancing an argument for clarity's sake. Hokum is name calling, but it is also descriptive, as it is a synonym for 'nonsense'. A Population believing something that is wrong for 10,000 years still means it's wrong. It is just is evidence that delusion is persistent and contagious. There is such a thing as common sense. If I told you I could throw a bowling ball into orbit around the Earth with my right arm, and that thousands of people believe I could do this because I wrote it in the 'Book of the Bowling Ball' which has the status of scripture, would you believe me? Just because somebody wrote something down, or told a story that was orally transmitted for many generations doesn't mean a thing unless it can be demonstrated it has some genuine effect. You can dismiss any amount of belief if you can show it is wrong. And there may be simple reasons why something is likely to be wrong, so it is not always necessary to engage in long precise experiments. For those things important to oneself, you have to find out for yourself, rather than taking someone's word for it. Pollack has tenure at the U. of Washington. He published that ad of his in his own journal. He is editor of the journal in which his supposed research was supposedly published but wasn't. He was too lazy to publish a paper even in his own journal. That alone is enough to cast suspicion. He seems to be a lonely island in the world of science as far as his water ideas. I do think you are stupid to believe these things. Why are they important to you? You seem to be rather volatile; that does not help with rational thinking. As for what I know, the only thing I know for sure is there is existence. The details are hypotheses awaiting refutation, for basically science tries to prove its ideas wrong. Those that survive the process get to live for another day, at least for now. You might do better over on the Peak, there is less rationality there, but you probably could not get away with writing this way over there.