[FairfieldLife] E-dawn -- you've got beerability (Re: If you had to be)
E-dawn, Here's a simple solution: contact Rick -- who has integrity up the yinyang -- and reveal your true identity to him. Then Rick can report one simple fact: that you're not Jim, and then Barry will be a fool if he asserts it again. Or,not. I'm okay with not knowing your true status, and I'm okay with you tossing your "past" aside -- as if it never happened, cuz unlike Barry, I think it's an "okay strategy" to move to a deeper intimacy here. Those who would hold your feet to the fire of your past are not cutting you a break that virtually all of us have taken as a birthright. Who hasn't fudged a resume? Who doesn't have a bigass list of personal things they'd never reveal here with the trolls sniping at anything? Who hasn't spruced up for a first-date and never mentioned the "small errors" of one's past? We all mold our image -- why? -- well, herein, I'm willing to say that it's to set folks at ease such that we can discuss other issues without previous discussions impacting the NOW. As I've posted here, I've come to know each mind such that I see their rock beneath the bulge in the river's surface. There's a steady flowing of ideation over the beneath-the-surface "core person" that I "feel" when a post arrives. The concepts flow, but the person holds steady. And, this has changed me. Now that I know "everyone at the party," I can spot where I can get a good conversation going. If I held the past against those who have pissed me off, I'd only be talking to myself...hell, not even me, cuz I piss me off every day. I was so fucking wrong about soo many here for the first year I was here. Miss not that though recently I called Turq an odious clod, I'd drive quite a few miles to have a beer with him. This wouldn't be possible if I decided to always have our past on the table between us. Yeah, there's those I've vowed to not interact with; the War Monger wrote about my sexuality the other day, and for me to respond to it as if I "HAD TO PROTECT MY IMAGE HERE," would be ludicrous, because, since I know the minds here, I'm projecting that those minds know me well enough also such that the validity of anything said about me will be immediately known for the most part. So, if you are Jim, it's okay to not be Jim. Who here wants to be what they were even five years ago? Your posting here has necessarily evolved you as I have been, and I trust that that process will serve all of us as time passes. Not that that process is absolute. The ego of each of us has scraped a deep furrow as our line in the sand before us, and filling it back up is a gritty humble pie upon which to dine. How long this process will take to get, say, Nab to "let his hair down and laugh about all of it in a pub with, say, Curtis," may be years more of posting, but, hey, maybe at any second Nab'll toggle-snap out of his obsessive sand-line drawing, but, either way, I'm willing to wait. Curtis, I'm certain, would have a beer with Nab right now.Nab?...you? Maybe a soft drink instead would make the meeting more acceptable? As for Barry or Judy dumping their past, hey, I'm not a betting person, but I'd put bucks down that Nab'll change before they'll drop their jousting. If either of them toggled, what a fish out of water the other would be to keep trying to swim in a river that's suddenly dried up. If Judy simply stopped from her side, she'd rocket upwards in everyone's appraisal of her, right? It would be, like, the biggest thing that ever happened here, right? The power to amaze and model for us is in their hands, we'd all be deeply bowing to whomever found the ego strength to stop the war, yet there that "siddhi" sits -- like a million bucks being ignored on a table around which folks are complaining about poverty. Nab, Barry, Judy, Shemp, Off -- keep posting. What does FFL look like ten years from now when all of us are seeing the scythe wielder's approach? Let's change the name: from now on this is FairFieldLifeboat. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: > > > > correct L.Shaddai-- definitely a group of little boys and > > girls with Barry as the ringleader, playing out their school > > yard routine, over and over again, including Vaj. > > ... > > isn't there something just plain wrong with that picture?? > > Jim gets a little panicky when the only person > on the forum who still claims to believe that > ed11 isn't Jim has posted out for the week, and > can't step in to defend him. :-) > > Me, I'll allow him to rant however he wants. I > don't quite understand what he *gets* out of > this pretending-to-be-a-woman thang, but it > obviously gets him off on some level. Maybe > it's one of those guru-bhakti gay things. > Whatever. I wish him well with it. > > What I don't quite understand is how in *his* > mind he resolv
[FairfieldLife] E-dawn -- you've got beerability (Re: If you had to be)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: >> yada yada yada :) You suggested a way to falsify the claim that Jim is Dawn. But it seems a bit weak on several fronts. And as curtis has pointed out, we need a shitload of various falsification tests to well test a thory. So list 20 doable falsification tests that could be done (with out excessive time or expense). If all instances thus far point to Jim being Dawn, then that hardly establishes that Jim is Dawn. Hume's problem of induction and all. We need just find one case where Jim is not Dawn to establish that Not all instances of Jim are = Dawn.
[FairfieldLife] E-dawn -- you've got beerability (Re: If you had to be)
Duveyoung wrote: > If Judy simply stopped from her side, she'd > rocket upwards in everyone's appraisal of her... > Wrong. Judy is NOT going to stop protesting against Barry lying about her. Are you nuts or something? What you wrote doesn't even make any sense - why would Judy want to do that? You've just put yourself on Barry's side, so I hope Judy flogs you real good. Apparently you are just like Barry - you can't, or won't, even read the messages that have been already posted. Don't you have any sense of fairness? I guess not - liars all of you, for not blasting Barry. You suck as a debater, Edg. From: Judy Stein Subject: Challenge to Judy Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: November, 1 Nov 1994 http://tinyurl.com/czdama Barry Wright writes: > You seem to be one of the main proponents of the > "TM is the fastest, most effective technique on > the planet to enable anyone, anywhere to become > enlightened" school of thought. Even if I have > misread you and that is not true, you should be > able to answer a simple question for me... From: Judy Stein Subject: Barry gets it wrong again Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: November 13, 1994 http://tinyurl.com/dyb3af Whatever Barry is having, it seems to have had a rather negative impact either on his ability to read, or on his ability to tell the truth...
Re: [FairfieldLife] E-dawn -- you've got beerability (Re: If you had to be)
Frankly I have experienced as of yet no original or valuable group contribution from Dawn so I fail to see why anyone should care whether Dawn is Jim or not. At least Jim was controversial, whereas Dawn is merely a pundit for Maharishi. And patently uninspired. - Original Message - From: "Duveyoung" To: Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 9:44 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] E-dawn -- you've got beerability (Re: If you had to be) > E-dawn, > > Here's a simple solution: contact Rick -- who has integrity up the > yinyang -- and reveal your true identity to him. Then Rick can report one > simple fact: that you're not Jim, and then Barry will be a fool if he > asserts it again. > > Or,not. > > I'm okay with not knowing your true status, and I'm okay with you tossing > your "past" aside -- as if it never happened, cuz unlike Barry, I think > it's an "okay strategy" to move to a deeper intimacy here. > > Those who would hold your feet to the fire of your past are not cutting > you a break that virtually all of us have taken as a birthright. Who > hasn't fudged a resume? Who doesn't have a bigass list of personal things > they'd never reveal here with the trolls sniping at anything? Who hasn't > spruced up for a first-date and never mentioned the "small errors" of > one's past? We all mold our image -- why? -- well, herein, I'm willing to > say that it's to set folks at ease such that we can discuss other issues > without previous discussions impacting the NOW. > > As I've posted here, I've come to know each mind such that I see their > rock beneath the bulge in the river's surface. There's a steady flowing > of ideation over the beneath-the-surface "core person" that I "feel" when > a post arrives. The concepts flow, but the person holds steady. > > And, this has changed me. > > Now that I know "everyone at the party," I can spot where I can get a good > conversation going. If I held the past against those who have pissed me > off, I'd only be talking to myself...hell, not even me, cuz I piss me off > every day. I was so fucking wrong about soo many here for the > first year I was here. Miss not that though recently I called Turq an > odious clod, I'd drive quite a few miles to have a beer with him. This > wouldn't be possible if I decided to always have our past on the table > between us. > > Yeah, there's those I've vowed to not interact with; the War Monger wrote > about my sexuality the other day, and for me to respond to it as if I "HAD > TO PROTECT MY IMAGE HERE," would be ludicrous, because, since I know the > minds here, I'm projecting that those minds know me well enough also such > that the validity of anything said about me will be immediately known for > the most part. > > So, if you are Jim, it's okay to not be Jim. Who here wants to be what > they were even five years ago? Your posting here has necessarily > evolved you as I have been, and I trust that that process will serve all > of us as time passes. > > Not that that process is absolute. The ego of each of us has scraped a > deep furrow as our line in the sand before us, and filling it back up is a > gritty humble pie upon which to dine. How long this process will take to > get, say, Nab to "let his hair down and laugh about all of it in a pub > with, say, Curtis," may be years more of posting, but, hey, maybe at any > second Nab'll toggle-snap out of his obsessive sand-line drawing, but, > either way, I'm willing to wait. Curtis, I'm certain, would have a beer > with Nab right now.Nab?...you? Maybe a soft drink instead would make > the meeting more acceptable? > > As for Barry or Judy dumping their past, hey, I'm not a betting person, > but I'd put bucks down that Nab'll change before they'll drop their > jousting. If either of them toggled, what a fish out of water the other > would be to keep trying to swim in a river that's suddenly dried up. If > Judy simply stopped from her side, she'd rocket upwards in everyone's > appraisal of her, right? It would be, like, the biggest thing that ever > happened here, right? The power to amaze and model for us is in their > hands, we'd all be deeply bowing to whomever found the ego strength to > stop the war, yet there that "siddhi" sits -- like a million bucks being > ignored on a table around which folks are complaining about poverty. > > Nab, Barry, Judy, Shemp, Off -- keep posting. > > What does FFL l
