[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior

[Duveyoung]

Rough Edges.  

Hee hee.

Edg


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Other than a few personal battles here, I think you will find this an
> interesting, safe place to post.  I haven't seen anyone getting what
> they don't give here.  You set the tone by how you write and how you
> respond.  You can get into bickering wars but you can also ignore them
> and interact with people who nourish you.
> 
> You might find over time that some of the most intense posters have a
> valuable POV that makes the rough edges worth it.  Or perhaps not. 
> But either way it is up to you to set the tone of how you want to
> interact here.  Many people here are  ready to be kind and supportive.
>  I hope you find them and enjoy this resource.   I don't find ex-Tmers
> to be more negative than anyone else.  It may not be as fluffy soft as
> the bunny crew, but there is plenty of heart on this board.  Good luck! 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter
>  wrote:
> >
> > 
> >  
> >   I speak as someone new to FFL who mostly lurks. I sometimes feel
> to share in a discussion but know that if I do, someone's sure to
> throw shit at me, and it just isn't worth it. I think a lot of women
> feel that way. It's why few women participate in this forum. 
> >
> >   As far as someone's suggestion that we just read the people we
> like and ignore the rest, it takes a long time for new people to
> figure out who is who in the forum. It's easier to just get up and
> leave. That causes FFL to become a rather incestuous little group,
> unleavened by fresh viewpoints.
> >
> >   And where does it leave the new visitors, often people
> disillusioned or questioning TM, looking for a safe place to talk
> about and share experiences? They can't do it at Fairfield Life,
> unless they want to be fried and eaten for breakfast. And who wants
> that damage to their tender feeling level, when they're already
> working through enough shit from their confusing years in the movement? 
> >
> >   Sure, new people could put up a shield and get tough, but a lot of
> us don't want to. Certainly most women don't want to do that. We value
> the intelligence and sensitivity of our feelings, and don't choose to
> participate in forums where they are dealt with violently. So we visit
> a while and move on. But where are we to go? Where can we go to talk
> and explore spiritual issues, if not in a chatroom supposedly devoted
> to spirituality? 
> >
> >   I do understand how a chatroom of predominantly ex-TMers can
> become negative. For years we taught to "never entertain negativity,"
> and the strain of that was enormous. We had to tippy-toe around and
> watch our words and manner, fake smiles on our faces, or we would
> likely get kicked out of the dome for a simple offhanded remark. It
> was like living surveilled by the Gestapo. People subjected year after
> year to that level of thought-and-speech monitoring are going to crack
> eventually. When we did crack, we did it in an eruption of forbidden
> expletives. For my part, I've been heartily using swear words ever
> since I left the movement 20 years ago. Every time I use one, it's a
> statement of independence and individuality. I hate the extremeness of
> the movement in demanding sweetness and light from its members,
> regardless of how they are feeling. 
> >
> >   But I also know that the other extreme is no better. To let
> ourselves turn into despairing, hating monsters on account of our
> abused past is a mistake. It hurts us personally, and our get-even
> attitude gets taken out on our undeserving fellow victims. In just the
> sort of attacks people make on each other sometimes here. 
> >
> >   I don't think personal attacks ever should be permitted in a forum
> that courts independent thought, vulnerability of expression and
> sincere sharing of experiences -- the sort of things that would help
> all of us heal the years we spent as victims. 
> >
> >   I do think we should be permitted to use swear words -- why the
> hell not, after all that we've been through? But even then, it's smart
> to self-monitor and keep it fairly decent. A post that's 90 percent
> full of barf and dogshit is going to turn off sensitive readers,
> certainly women like me, who would otherwise participate in FFL.
> >
> >   Someone wrote that the existing rules are already there, they just
> need enforcing. Yeah, I think they do. Rick doesn't want to play the
> policeman, but that's part of the role of a moderator, isn't it?
> Sometimes policemen are needed in this world, as a necessary evil. If
> people can't self-regulate in a moment of rage, a rule-enforcing
> moderator provides a safety valve to stop a damaging post from going
> through. If it saves the feeling level of the group, and helps promote
> a higher level of discussion, isn't it worth the small pinch of
> rule-enforcement? I don't think Rick should have to rea

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pelagian, an online comic

[Duveyoung]

Hey Dad -- you should be proud -- that's first class stuff sonny's
putting out there.  Real proud.

Thanks for shining a light on us.

Edg

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Not *just* because he's my son, although that's certainly part of the 
> equation, let me recommend a new online comic (or graphic novella) 
> authored and illustrated by Isham Reavis.
> 
> This part of the story begins at http://pelagiancomic.com/001.html
> and if you click on the "Next" button (and the next, and the next, 
> and the next . . .) it will take you through the story as it 
> progresses.  Three new pages each week, Monday, Wednesday and 
> Friday.  There is more of the story that preceeds (sp?) where this 
> episode begins but that'll come later, whether in the archives or 
> wherever.
> 
> Although the site just went up, and the archives and other parts of 
> the site are not fully up and running just yet, click on "Cast" 
> before you go any farther so you get the basic characters and dynamic 
> he's exploring.
> 
> His brief commentary at the bottom of each page is (IMO) emminently 
> worth the price of admission, and then some; it's free.  An example 
> of his writing style, taken from one of those comments is below.  
> Enjoy.
> 
> Marek
> 
> "I've noticed that I consistently perceive words written down as 
> being more dour and unfriendly in tone than words spoken in my 
> presence. I suspect the lack of vocal inflection and nonverbal cues 
> is to blame, but: now that I am writing words which others will come 
> across, I worry that I will fall prey to the same phenomenon. So as a 
> favor, when in doubt, please imagine that my words are being spoken 
> in a cheerful, somewhat naive tone - by a fat, talking baby, perhaps. 
> Overly precocious and wise beyond its brief span, but with it's 
> goodwill and optimism untrimmed by life's harsh lathe."
>

[FairfieldLife] NEW IDEA!!!! (VOTE to change the rules and VOTE to ban two posters )

[Duveyoung]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, billy jim 
   "THEREFORE: I PRPOSE that I, Empty Bill, also be banned from FFL
for not less that 30 days for vicious and flagrant mockery of other
posters and for deliberate attempts to insult the claims and
propositions of fellow FFL members."


Edg:  Noo!  I am Spartacus!  Ban me!

How about we each post a black list that is always at the end of any
of our posts.  If I put someone on my list, then that someone will get
dumped if they write to me.  Thus, each person here will have a
personal but public "don't tread on me" warning sign.   Then if a
troll on my list writes to me, he's banned.  Same deal for me if I
attack back.  I must abide by my own black list...no communication.

Since each black list would be always "there," it would be obvious if
the rule is broken.

I like this idea!

Edg

[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior

[lurkernomore20002000]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 We can all ignore what we want and I think
> the people who attract foul language have pretty thick skin.  I don't
> see anyone getting dogged out without supporters jumping in.

Lurky's POV.

Here's the risk. You change the formula of coke, because this is what 
people say they want in interviews.  But things don't always play out 
that way (Marketing Myopia -Harvard Case Study)  You change the rules 
to conform to what Bronte thinks is more desireable, and what happens-
 - Bronte posts for a week and then moves on.  Maybe checks in a 
little more often than she does now. You get some nice dialogue 
centering on "experiences", and then interest trails off.  Heaven is 
nice, but as I understand it, it gets kinda dull.  We are in middle 
earth where good and evil hold sway.  Where karma plays out.  So the 
FFL is imperfect?  What else is new.  So, WTF is wrong with some GD 
SELF DISCIPLINE.  IGNORE the "trolls" as people like to call them.  35 
posts a week means that people must AT LEAST be more disciplined in 
what they post. 

lurky 
> 

>

[FairfieldLife] VOTE to change the rules and VOTE to ban two posters (was Re: Civil Speech and Behavior)

[billy jim]

Proposal to FFL members –   
  Rather than endlessly discuss what we all know to be “all to true”, let’s 
vote to make a deliberate and permanent change in the mode of discussion here 
on FFL. What I am proposing below is not an attempt at humor but is dead 
serious: I am proposing to ban two members from the forum for 30 days. 
   
  To recall Bronte’s message:
   
  Bronte:
  And who wants that damage to their tender feeling level, when they're already 
working through enough shit from their confusing years in the movement?
   
  Certainly most women don't want to do that. We value the intelligence and 
sensitivity of our feelings, and don't choose to participate in forums where 
they are dealt with violently.
   
  To let ourselves turn into despairing, hating monsters on account of our 
abused past is a mistake. It hurts us personally, and our get-even attitude 
gets taken out on our undeserving fellow victims.
   
  I don't think personal attacks ever should be permitted in a forum that 
courts independent thought, vulnerability of expression and sincere sharing of 
experiences -- the sort of things that would help all of us heal the years we 
spent as victims.
   
  I do think we should be permitted to use swear words -- why the hell not, 
after all that we've been through? But even then, it's smart to self-monitor 
and keep it fairly decent. A post that's 90 percent full of barf and dogshit is 
going to turn off sensitive readers, certainly women like me, who would 
otherwise participate in FFL
   
  Sometimes policemen are needed in this world, as a necessary evil. If people 
can't self-regulate in a moment of rage, a rule-enforcing moderator provides a 
safety valve to stop a damaging post from going through. If it saves the 
feeling level of the group, and helps promote a higher level of discussion, 
isn't it worth the small pinch of rule-enforcement? I don't think Rick should 
have to read and "judge on" every post. He has no time for that.
   
  Vaj:
  As long as there are trolls--and many of the so-called trolls here are (I 
feel) important voices--the delicate voices will not speak. Given the 
moderation style here, I guess you should get used to never hearing all these 
wonderful people that really were the crowning beauty of the TMO.
   
   
  Empty Bill:
   
  After reading Bronte's victim statement, I PROPOSE to Rich Archer and all of 
the “incestuous little group members” here on FFL that we vote to elect Bronte 
Baxter as (êîìèññàð) “commissar” for all acts of speech or communication, in 
any form, here on FFL. Bronte should act as a moderator for assaying the 
“feeling-level” of the various posts here on FFL. This could be a special 
“speech police patrol” position helping to guarantee that no FFL member be 
subjected to independent speech acts which could potentially endanger their 
self-reference and re-victimize them. 
   
  Furthermore, I propose that the following people assist Bronte Baxter as 
sensitivity monitors in the important role of “speech commissar”:
   
  Judy Stein: Since Judy is another female she can verify that delicate, female 
feeling-levels might be violated by allowing despairing, hate-monsters to 
freely post their claims here on FFL. This will spare Bronte Baxter from the 
burden of having to claim executive privilege in declaring which posts are 
improper (in either form or ideological content). As a well-known disputant in 
many argumentative threads, Judy has demonstrated that she appreciates reasoned 
argumentation. This also means that Judy is unlikely to attempt to delete a 
members right to post simply because they call her a “moron” (as happened 
previously on FFL).  Judy is also willing to use the word “fuck” upon occasion, 
which will spare both females from accusations of prudishness.  
   
  Vajranath: is a breath of fresh air from the usual corpse-stench, 
male-dominated, hate-speech vomit here on FFL. Vajranath brings a rare male 
sensitivity to female defined and emotionally based “vulnerabilities of 
expression”.  He also rarely uses the word “fuck” in his posts, even when 
addressed in a confrontational way. Vaj will make a fine representative of 
polite, reasoned argumentation for the ignorant, raging men who are too 
pathetically immature to post sensitive, understanding comments here on FFL. 
   
   
  FURTHERMORE: 
   
  I PROPOSE that Dr. Peter Sutphen be banned from FFL for not less than 30 days 
for demonstrating (what some members of FFL consider) a flagrant misuse of his 
professional judgment. 
   
  I PRPOSE that I, Empty Bill, also be banned from FFL for not less that 30 
days for vicious and flagrant mockery of other posters and for deliberate 
attempts to insult the claims and propositions of fellow FFL members.
   
  THEREFORE:
   
  VOTE to install Bronte Baxter for “FFL commissar”, along with Judy Stein and 
Vajranath for sensitivity monitors. 
   
  VOTE to BAN me. It is my only hope. And Bronte, please forgive me for all the

[FairfieldLife] Re: yagya and jyotish testimonials

[qntmpkt]

--
No financial interest.  I just sent in $715 for a Mother Divine yagya 
in October.  The group facilitors - Ken and Janet Krumpe - act as 
intermediaries for transferring the $ from Hawaii to India, saving 
sponsors like myself from the trouble of sending the $ to India. (which 
I don't like since, although Western Union is reliable, they tack on a 
hefty fee).
  I realize there are a lot of Yagya skeptics and I appreciate their 
healthy skepticism since this will spur me on to finding some tangible 
evidence of the benefits of yagyas.  First step is to closely observe 
any unusual happenings around the time of the yagya, such as 1. 
extraordinary instances of synchronicity, 2. visions of pundits in the 
dream state, or any unusual dreams 3. in general, anything out of the 
ordinary; OTOH this could be a contra-indication since "good" could 
simply be nothing happening at all -- as opposed to getting run over by 
a truck. But in this case the evidence would be lacking.


- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shukra69" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Very appealing website. Do you have any personal experience rather
> than posting those of others? Do you have any financial interest in
> this group yourself?
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "tertonzeno"  
wrote:
> >
> > http://www.expertvedicastrology.com/index.php?pr=Testimonials
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior

[curtisdeltablues]

Other than a few personal battles here, I think you will find this an
interesting, safe place to post.  I haven't seen anyone getting what
they don't give here.  You set the tone by how you write and how you
respond.  You can get into bickering wars but you can also ignore them
and interact with people who nourish you.

You might find over time that some of the most intense posters have a
valuable POV that makes the rough edges worth it.  Or perhaps not. 
But either way it is up to you to set the tone of how you want to
interact here.  Many people here are  ready to be kind and supportive.
 I hope you find them and enjoy this resource.   I don't find ex-Tmers
to be more negative than anyone else.  It may not be as fluffy soft as
the bunny crew, but there is plenty of heart on this board.  Good luck! 


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
>  
>   I speak as someone new to FFL who mostly lurks. I sometimes feel
to share in a discussion but know that if I do, someone's sure to
throw shit at me, and it just isn't worth it. I think a lot of women
feel that way. It's why few women participate in this forum. 
>
>   As far as someone's suggestion that we just read the people we
like and ignore the rest, it takes a long time for new people to
figure out who is who in the forum. It's easier to just get up and
leave. That causes FFL to become a rather incestuous little group,
unleavened by fresh viewpoints.
>
>   And where does it leave the new visitors, often people
disillusioned or questioning TM, looking for a safe place to talk
about and share experiences? They can't do it at Fairfield Life,
unless they want to be fried and eaten for breakfast. And who wants
that damage to their tender feeling level, when they're already
working through enough shit from their confusing years in the movement? 
>
>   Sure, new people could put up a shield and get tough, but a lot of
us don't want to. Certainly most women don't want to do that. We value
the intelligence and sensitivity of our feelings, and don't choose to
participate in forums where they are dealt with violently. So we visit
a while and move on. But where are we to go? Where can we go to talk
and explore spiritual issues, if not in a chatroom supposedly devoted
to spirituality? 
>
>   I do understand how a chatroom of predominantly ex-TMers can
become negative. For years we taught to "never entertain negativity,"
and the strain of that was enormous. We had to tippy-toe around and
watch our words and manner, fake smiles on our faces, or we would
likely get kicked out of the dome for a simple offhanded remark. It
was like living surveilled by the Gestapo. People subjected year after
year to that level of thought-and-speech monitoring are going to crack
eventually. When we did crack, we did it in an eruption of forbidden
expletives. For my part, I've been heartily using swear words ever
since I left the movement 20 years ago. Every time I use one, it's a
statement of independence and individuality. I hate the extremeness of
the movement in demanding sweetness and light from its members,
regardless of how they are feeling. 
>
>   But I also know that the other extreme is no better. To let
ourselves turn into despairing, hating monsters on account of our
abused past is a mistake. It hurts us personally, and our get-even
attitude gets taken out on our undeserving fellow victims. In just the
sort of attacks people make on each other sometimes here. 
>
>   I don't think personal attacks ever should be permitted in a forum
that courts independent thought, vulnerability of expression and
sincere sharing of experiences -- the sort of things that would help
all of us heal the years we spent as victims. 
>
>   I do think we should be permitted to use swear words -- why the
hell not, after all that we've been through? But even then, it's smart
to self-monitor and keep it fairly decent. A post that's 90 percent
full of barf and dogshit is going to turn off sensitive readers,
certainly women like me, who would otherwise participate in FFL.
>
>   Someone wrote that the existing rules are already there, they just
need enforcing. Yeah, I think they do. Rick doesn't want to play the
policeman, but that's part of the role of a moderator, isn't it?
Sometimes policemen are needed in this world, as a necessary evil. If
people can't self-regulate in a moment of rage, a rule-enforcing
moderator provides a safety valve to stop a damaging post from going
through. If it saves the feeling level of the group, and helps promote
a higher level of discussion, isn't it worth the small pinch of
rule-enforcement? I don't think Rick should have to read and "judge
on" every post. He has no time for that. But if someone observed an
attacking email and complained to him, he could put the sender on
suspension for a couple of weeks. How hard is that?  
>
>   The question here is if the "townspeople" of FFL want to have a

[FairfieldLife] Re: yagya and jyotish testimonials

[shukra69]

this page has taken on a rather startling transformation!

 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "tertonzeno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://www.expertvedicastrology.com/index.php?pr=Testimonials
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior

[Vaj]

On Sep 7, 2007, at 7:18 PM, Marek Reavis wrote:


Although I've been more in agreement with the POV of "moving on" and
not reading a post or poster I find offensive, after reading Ms.
Baxter's message below, I'm convinced that FFL is significantly
diminished if it mutes a voice like hers.

Thank you for writing; hopefully we can figure this out; it's
unfortunate that we have to "figure it out".



I agree. But if you really believe this, there has to be some kind of  
discrimination. Discrimination = moderation in the world of email  
lists. Otherwise FFL just becomes alt.meditation.transcendental-lite.


And honestly, it ain't that "lite", it's actually more "filling".

As long as there are trolls--and many of the so-called trolls here  
are (I feel) important voices--the delicate voices will not speak.  
Given the moderation style here, I guess you should get used to never  
hearing all these wonderful people that really were the crowning  
beauty of the TMO.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior

[Marek Reavis]

Although I've been more in agreement with the POV of "moving on" and 
not reading a post or poster I find offensive, after reading Ms. 
Baxter's message below, I'm convinced that FFL is significantly 
diminished if it mutes a voice like hers.

Thank you for writing; hopefully we can figure this out; it's 
unfortunate that we have to "figure it out".  

Marek

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
>  
>   I speak as someone new to FFL who mostly lurks. I sometimes feel 
to share in a discussion but know that if I do, someone's sure to 
throw shit at me, and it just isn't worth it. I think a lot of women 
feel that way. It's why few women participate in this forum. 
>
>   As far as someone's suggestion that we just read the people we 
like and ignore the rest, it takes a long time for new people to 
figure out who is who in the forum. It's easier to just get up and 
leave. That causes FFL to become a rather incestuous little group, 
unleavened by fresh viewpoints.
>
>   And where does it leave the new visitors, often people 
disillusioned or questioning TM, looking for a safe place to talk 
about and share experiences? They can't do it at Fairfield Life, 
unless they want to be fried and eaten for breakfast. And who wants 
that damage to their tender feeling level, when they're already 
working through enough shit from their confusing years in the 
movement? 
>
>   Sure, new people could put up a shield and get tough, but a lot 
of us don't want to. Certainly most women don't want to do that. We 
value the intelligence and sensitivity of our feelings, and don't 
choose to participate in forums where they are dealt with violently. 
So we visit a while and move on. But where are we to go? Where can we 
go to talk and explore spiritual issues, if not in a chatroom 
supposedly devoted to spirituality? 
>
>   I do understand how a chatroom of predominantly ex-TMers can 
become negative. For years we taught to "never entertain negativity," 
and the strain of that was enormous. We had to tippy-toe around and 
watch our words and manner, fake smiles on our faces, or we would 
likely get kicked out of the dome for a simple offhanded remark. It 
was like living surveilled by the Gestapo. People subjected year 
after year to that level of thought-and-speech monitoring are going 
to crack eventually. When we did crack, we did it in an eruption of 
forbidden expletives. For my part, I've been heartily using swear 
words ever since I left the movement 20 years ago. Every time I use 
one, it's a statement of independence and individuality. I hate the 
extremeness of the movement in demanding sweetness and light from its 
members, regardless of how they are feeling. 
>
>   But I also know that the other extreme is no better. To let 
ourselves turn into despairing, hating monsters on account of our 
abused past is a mistake. It hurts us personally, and our get-even 
attitude gets taken out on our undeserving fellow victims. In just 
the sort of attacks people make on each other sometimes here. 
>
>   I don't think personal attacks ever should be permitted in a 
forum that courts independent thought, vulnerability of expression 
and sincere sharing of experiences -- the sort of things that would 
help all of us heal the years we spent as victims. 
>
>   I do think we should be permitted to use swear words -- why the 
hell not, after all that we've been through? But even then, it's 
smart to self-monitor and keep it fairly decent. A post that's 90 
percent full of barf and dogshit is going to turn off sensitive 
readers, certainly women like me, who would otherwise participate in 
FFL.
>
>   Someone wrote that the existing rules are already there, they 
just need enforcing. Yeah, I think they do. Rick doesn't want to play 
the policeman, but that's part of the role of a moderator, isn't it? 
Sometimes policemen are needed in this world, as a necessary evil. If 
people can't self-regulate in a moment of rage, a rule-enforcing 
moderator provides a safety valve to stop a damaging post from going 
through. If it saves the feeling level of the group, and helps 
promote a higher level of discussion, isn't it worth the small pinch 
of rule-enforcement? I don't think Rick should have to read 
and "judge on" every post. He has no time for that. But if someone 
observed an attacking email and complained to him, he could put the 
sender on suspension for a couple of weeks. How hard is that?  
>
>   The question here is if the "townspeople" of FFL want to have a 
policeman, for their own security and greater freedom. Freedom in the 
long run: to talk deeper, more vulnerably, more sincerely than they 
presently can when they have to write each post with their guard up, 
or when they don't feel free to write at all. If the group does want 
this, Rick or someone else needs to step up to the plate. 
>
>   I belong to another chat room. It's about c

[FairfieldLife] Reminder: Announcement for Saturday's NeoHumanism and Comparative Mysticism

[PROUT News]

**
**
I know your schedule is busy, you have so much to do, though I wanted to
make sure through this heads-up to you that you're welcome to learn more and
to dialogue too.
**
*Announcement of Saturday, September 8 Event*

*PROUTist Universal of Southern California* is pleased to announce a public
event Saturday, September 8, in the San Fernando Valley.  *Mysticism,
Meditation and **NeoHumanism*  will
be presented by Maheshvarananda, a tantra yoga monk and director of the *PROUT
Research Institute of Venezuela* .  After his
initial talk he welcomes your questions about this new yet quite familiar
theme and can explain further how mysticism, tantra and social science blend
together to make for a healthier and stronger society.

*NeoHumanism*  is the social and
spiritual paradigm complementary to the *Progressive Utilization
Theory*,
*PROUT*.  Neohumanism elevates humanism to the greater realm of
universalism, the cult of love for all living beings of this
universe.  Through selfless service to humanity and embracing the world with
a Cosmic outlook humanity is led to new thresholds of excellence in every
realm of life, while dissolving the paradigms of dogma and superstition.

The Progressive Utilization Theory (*
PROUT
*) is a comprehensive economic and political philosophy offering a
progressive alternative to capitalism and communism.  While PROUT shares
much of the outlook and practical program of green, deep ecology, and
decentralist philosophies, it is more multi-faceted in its scope, and more
grounded in a spiritual worldview.  PROUT's intent is to foster the holistic
development of a liberated, unified and flourishing society.

Maheshvarananda is the founder and director of the *PROUT Research Institute
of Venezuela *, active in helping the Venezuela
movement for progressive socialism. The PROUT Research Institute is studying
different areas of concern within the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,
serving as consulting firm to the Venezuelan government, including to the
Ministry of Popular Economy on the efficacy PROUT concepts offer to the
operation of co-operatives.

*Broad Praise for PROUT and NeoHumanism
*

PROUT and NeoHumanism have received accolades from many people around the
world -- harbingers in their fields -- concerned with the wellbeing of
humanity.  Positively affecting the 'bottom line' is essential for any
enterprise, including the enterprise of life on Earth -- each and every
being. Integrating PROUT and NeoHumanism flourishes the wellbeing of
everyone and does indeed positively affect the bottom line.

Among those in praise of PROUT include presidents (*Hugo Chavez *and* Gyani
Singh*), futurists (*Johan Galtung *and* Sohail Inayatullah*),
economists (*Jaroslav
Vanek *and* Ravi Batra*), political analysts (*Howard Zinn *and* Noam
Chomsky*), liberation theologists (*Leonardo Boff *and* Frei Betto*),
activists (*Bette Hoover* and *Marcos Arruda*), new paradigm thinkers ( *Mark
Satin, Hazel Henderson *and* O.W. Markley*), socially responsible business
advocate (*Kit Bricca*), and more. This diversity of praise attests to
PROUT's broad relevance to those who are socially engaged. *
http://PraiseForPROUT.tophonors.com* 

*LOCATION*
The event will be in the San Fernando Valley at 8555 Haskell, North Hills,
CA, near Sepulveda  between Roscoe and Nordhoff, close to the 405, near
Galpin Ford, held between 5 and 7pm with group meditation available at 8pm.
You can learn more about the event here:
http://NeoHumanismTalk.latest-info.com
 where you can also find a
map.

When you arrive, *say* "*Satya Sent Me!* ", with a smile, of course. *:-)*

*PROUTist Universal of Southern California*

http://PROUTistUniversal.Latest-Info.com

Where you can find further classes in both NeoHumanism and PROUT

Classes are also available in Tantra, Tantra Psychology and Metaphysical
Mysticism:
*http://Learn.to/TantraPsychology* 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Civil Speech and Behavior

[Bronte Baxter]

 
  I speak as someone new to FFL who mostly lurks. I sometimes feel to share in 
a discussion but know that if I do, someone's sure to throw shit at me, and it 
just isn't worth it. I think a lot of women feel that way. It's why few women 
participate in this forum. 
   
  As far as someone's suggestion that we just read the people we like and 
ignore the rest, it takes a long time for new people to figure out who is who 
in the forum. It's easier to just get up and leave. That causes FFL to become a 
rather incestuous little group, unleavened by fresh viewpoints.
   
  And where does it leave the new visitors, often people disillusioned or 
questioning TM, looking for a safe place to talk about and share experiences? 
They can't do it at Fairfield Life, unless they want to be fried and eaten for 
breakfast. And who wants that damage to their tender feeling level, when 
they're already working through enough shit from their confusing years in the 
movement? 
   
  Sure, new people could put up a shield and get tough, but a lot of us don't 
want to. Certainly most women don't want to do that. We value the intelligence 
and sensitivity of our feelings, and don't choose to participate in forums 
where they are dealt with violently. So we visit a while and move on. But where 
are we to go? Where can we go to talk and explore spiritual issues, if not in a 
chatroom supposedly devoted to spirituality? 
   
  I do understand how a chatroom of predominantly ex-TMers can become negative. 
For years we taught to "never entertain negativity," and the strain of that was 
enormous. We had to tippy-toe around and watch our words and manner, fake 
smiles on our faces, or we would likely get kicked out of the dome for a simple 
offhanded remark. It was like living surveilled by the Gestapo. People 
subjected year after year to that level of thought-and-speech monitoring are 
going to crack eventually. When we did crack, we did it in an eruption of 
forbidden expletives. For my part, I've been heartily using swear words ever 
since I left the movement 20 years ago. Every time I use one, it's a statement 
of independence and individuality. I hate the extremeness of the movement in 
demanding sweetness and light from its members, regardless of how they are 
feeling. 
   
  But I also know that the other extreme is no better. To let ourselves turn 
into despairing, hating monsters on account of our abused past is a mistake. It 
hurts us personally, and our get-even attitude gets taken out on our 
undeserving fellow victims. In just the sort of attacks people make on each 
other sometimes here. 
   
  I don't think personal attacks ever should be permitted in a forum that 
courts independent thought, vulnerability of expression and sincere sharing of 
experiences -- the sort of things that would help all of us heal the years we 
spent as victims. 
   
  I do think we should be permitted to use swear words -- why the hell not, 
after all that we've been through? But even then, it's smart to self-monitor 
and keep it fairly decent. A post that's 90 percent full of barf and dogshit is 
going to turn off sensitive readers, certainly women like me, who would 
otherwise participate in FFL.
   
  Someone wrote that the existing rules are already there, they just need 
enforcing. Yeah, I think they do. Rick doesn't want to play the policeman, but 
that's part of the role of a moderator, isn't it? Sometimes policemen are 
needed in this world, as a necessary evil. If people can't self-regulate in a 
moment of rage, a rule-enforcing moderator provides a safety valve to stop a 
damaging post from going through. If it saves the feeling level of the group, 
and helps promote a higher level of discussion, isn't it worth the small pinch 
of rule-enforcement? I don't think Rick should have to read and "judge on" 
every post. He has no time for that. But if someone observed an attacking email 
and complained to him, he could put the sender on suspension for a couple of 
weeks. How hard is that?  
   
  The question here is if the "townspeople" of FFL want to have a policeman, 
for their own security and greater freedom. Freedom in the long run: to talk 
deeper, more vulnerably, more sincerely than they presently can when they have 
to write each post with their guard up, or when they don't feel free to write 
at all. If the group does want this, Rick or someone else needs to step up to 
the plate. 
   
  I belong to another chat room. It's about caring for rabbits. It's a nice 
place, and this is the policy on flames -- enforced and taken seriously:
   
  FLAME POLICY
   
  EtherBun is an unmoderated listserve. However, because we want EtherBun to be 
a happy place, the list owner and the EtherBun Advisory Committee insist that 
there will be NO FLAMING, EVER. A flame is defined as a personally insulting or 
derogatory post. Strong opinions, healthy disagreement and civil discussion are 
welcome on EtherBun, but flaming will not be toler

[FairfieldLife] The Pelagian, an online comic

[Marek Reavis]

Not *just* because he's my son, although that's certainly part of the 
equation, let me recommend a new online comic (or graphic novella) 
authored and illustrated by Isham Reavis.

This part of the story begins at http://pelagiancomic.com/001.html
and if you click on the "Next" button (and the next, and the next, 
and the next . . .) it will take you through the story as it 
progresses.  Three new pages each week, Monday, Wednesday and 
Friday.  There is more of the story that preceeds (sp?) where this 
episode begins but that'll come later, whether in the archives or 
wherever.

Although the site just went up, and the archives and other parts of 
the site are not fully up and running just yet, click on "Cast" 
before you go any farther so you get the basic characters and dynamic 
he's exploring.

His brief commentary at the bottom of each page is (IMO) emminently 
worth the price of admission, and then some; it's free.  An example 
of his writing style, taken from one of those comments is below.  
Enjoy.

Marek

"I've noticed that I consistently perceive words written down as 
being more dour and unfriendly in tone than words spoken in my 
presence. I suspect the lack of vocal inflection and nonverbal cues 
is to blame, but: now that I am writing words which others will come 
across, I worry that I will fall prey to the same phenomenon. So as a 
favor, when in doubt, please imagine that my words are being spoken 
in a cheerful, somewhat naive tone - by a fat, talking baby, perhaps. 
Overly precocious and wise beyond its brief span, but with it's 
goodwill and optimism untrimmed by life's harsh lathe."

Re: [FairfieldLife] Civil Speech and Behavior

[Bhairitu]

Rick Archer wrote:
> We reached a consensus on the excessive posting issue and all but a few
> rebels have appreciated and adhered to the guideline. How about if we reach
> a similar consensus regarding abusive language? I’d like to hear some
> feedback on how people feel about this sort of behavior, either observing it
> in others, being the brunt of it, or even dishing it out? Do you actually
> feel better after verbally abusing someone, or does it leave you feeling
> polluted? If I were to mandate behavioral guidelines, it would violate the
> democratic, community spirit I’ve tried to establish on FFL. But if we can
> collectively agree upon some basic standards of respect and decency, perhaps
> we’ll all feel motivated to live up to them. Also, I won’t be playing the
> “heavy” if I have to ban someone for a week for violating something we have
> all agreed to.
What usually happens in groups where people want "civil discussion" and 
create rules so, they are usually the first ones to break them.  :)   I 
think you already have some some language regarding civil discussion in 
the guidelines.  I would suggest just using discretion and not a bunch 
of rules.  Some people like rules and I don't know why.  The more 
evolved you are the less rules mean.  Perhaps though there are some who 
still need training wheels to make it through this world. :)



To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Survey

[boo_lives]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  
> > Well, he got 87 people to cough up $1 million to
> > spend a month in the same
> > building with him, interacting with him personally
> > by video a couple of
> > times.
> 
> Are you half-joking, or did the 87 really get to see
> Maharishi only through a few videos? If so, the
> movement has reached a new height in scamming it's
> own. 

With all the raja and rajini courses I think the number is now over
100 who've given a $1 million.  A review of public tmo finances show
it has raised about $150 million just from the US in the past 4-5 yrs.
 I think that's the number that MMY cares about, even as total # of
TBs decline.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior

[tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis]

The basis of civility is to allow the perceived other the same thing
that every one seems to want. Allow other the same freedom you demand
for yourself without insisting you are absolutely perfectly right and
have the perfect Truth. You are free to say what you will. I am free
to respond and state my POV or my take. It only gets nasty here when
ownership of what is RIGHT comes into the view. So What!. They are
free to say what they will and I am free to ignore them. I download
all of the postings via email and then immediately sort them by
poster. Like Barry and others my read time is down to about 10 to 20%
of the traffic. Some have nothing to say that interest me so why
bother. If a miracle happens then someone else will surely pick up on
it and I will read it in another posters reply. Works for me. Civility
comes out of mutual respect and a desire to form a community. Lacking
those two essential elements civil speech and behavior are not going
to happen and can not be legislated. If there are some posters here
who are not interested in mutual respect and a desire to form
community it might be a suggestion to move on. We can determine who is
willing and who is not. The group Conscience will know and the group
will figure out how to handle it.
Tom

[FairfieldLife] Perfect Madness

[tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis]

>From the book of the above name subtitled: From Awakening to
Enlightenment by Donna Lee Gorrell (daughter of THE famous jazz
musician of the same last name)

from the top of the first para of the intro.

I was naive when my spiritual journey began, I wanted growth without
change, wisdom without experience, security without sacrifice, and
life without death. I wanted to swim in the waters of eternity without
getting wet. Instead, I found myself immersed in unfathomable darkness
with no trace of where I'd been and no glimmer of where to go, lost in
the void of my own mind and convinced I was going crazy. I had no way
of knowing I was on the path to enlightenment.

third para:
We find ourselves slipping deeper into uncharted layers of
consciousness. Our comfort zone of sameness feels violated. One moment
our mind is flooded with understanding; the next on the brink of
insanity. Self-doubt permeates our being, and we experience symptoms
paralleling mental illness, even borderline psychosis. We wonder if
the only difference between insanity and sanity lies in the ability to
BE crazy without ACTING crazy.

TomT:
Seems to be describing some of the posters here. Enjoy., Tom

[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior

[Richard J. Williams]

> How many folks don't post because of trolls?
>
You failed to define what a troll is.

Exactly who are you calling a troll? I've been posting 
here since message number 724. You are supposed to read 
the messages here BEFORE you post your own, Sir.

A Total Knowledge Base:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/724

The term 'Internet Troll' is frequently abused to slander 
opponents in heated debates and is frequently misapplied 
by those who are ignorant of Internet etiquette.

Read more: 

Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
From: Willytex
Date: Thurs, Sep 8 2005 11:32 pm
Subject: TMer Troll Alert!
http://tinyurl.com/2f4dln

Willytex is a troll and chronic, vicious, compulsive liar.  
Nothing he says is to be trusted. 

Read more:

Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental, alt.meditation
From: Judy Stein
Date: Tues, May 2 2006 7:10 pm
Subject: Re: Maharishi Punkers
http://tinyurl.com/22w72y

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ghandi on Women

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning  wrote:
> >
> > In one of his major biographies, it talked about him sleeping 
> > with two you virgins -- age 12 or so. The would lie on either 
> > side of him, facing the foot of the bet, while he faced the 
> > head. To rejuvinate him, to gain energy.  nothing erotic 
> > involved. 
> 
> Funny how that line never works for me when the cops bust in.
> 
> "Just rejuvinat'n officer, nut'n erotic involved, that's the ticket!

Interestingly enough, for all you dirty-minded 
people :-), there is a strong possibility that
he really *was* just sleeping between them, and
never touched them. I've heard of the same thing
in Tantric traditions. It's an energy thang, not
a sexual one (except in the sense that it's the
difference in the sexes that "triggers" the 
energy exchange between young women and old man).
It has to do with the dream body and with the
proximity of auric energy.

Given the rest of his life, I'd give Gandhi the
benefit of a doubt on this one.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior

[Duveyoung]

How many folks don't post because of trolls?  How many of these
"almost posters" would be wonderful online thinkers if they weren't
"sensitive" to troll attacks?  1000 members here...could be many who
lurk but do not post because of troll fears.  Maybe those sensitive to
attacks are just the very sort of persons who could be "delicate"
enough to help us explore the gentle nuances that trolls are generally
incapable of appreciating.  We may not know what we're missing -- whom
have the trolls have "scared off?"

I've gone dark and I've gone light.  Not being obviously enlightened,
I'm identifying with both sides of me when they "hold sway," but I
think I'm "safely" detached from most of my words, just because I
write for hours every day and I am, ahem, well, I feel I am an artist
with them and that I'm trying for cognitive and emotional "effects" in
the minds of readers.  I'm not screaming my lungs out and stomping
baby ducks under my desk when I type the words, ya know?  I have a
common real world life without rants and fist fights and constant
skirmishing.  

Here, I'm forced to be a gladiator even if I merely want to talk about
gladiolas.

My use of swear words and emotionally triggering concepts is done
purposefully.  I have bigass feelings when I'm attacked in public, and
when the other posters here are merely mildly amused at my distress
when I am slandered, well, I feel I have to show them how easily they
too can be offended by language and symbols.  That's what I'm talking
about:  the overt attempts by trolls to produce negative feelings
inside nervous systems.  If others are too "scarred and calloused" by
this long-allowed-here abuse to recognize my travail, then maybe my
over the top responses to trolls can reawaken in the passive-types a
sense of how much trolls are guilty of a vile and arbitrary effrontery
if I parody, indulge and use the same "weaponry."  I think of myself
as a "good guy," so yeah, I'm cringing when I click on the send button
knowing what a foul mouthed angsty mess of puke I have sent.

But I'm fighting fire with fire.  As a true believer for decades, I
know the cost of being passive when trolls and bureaucrats get away
with, well, EVERYTHING.  Not me anymore.  If you want to lay down in
life and, in some twisted sense of being democratic, let trolls
besmirch every sort of goodness that could happen here, well, don't
expect me to think you're "being fair."  I see you being "me" when I
was taking it up the yin and preventing myself from letting my yang
have at the rapists.  

In the real world, these trolls would not have the guts to say a
single one of their crappy thoughts aloud without risking a broken
nose.  Me neither, but here, I'm expected to let any skank or simp
spit on me and my mind and my concepts with ad hominems and gross
aggravations.  And, if I don't lay down for this abuse and if I don't
have a smug smile of beyondness when trolls attack, then I'm not being
a gentleman, and I'M THE ONE SPOILING THE ATMOSPHERE HERE?

Now that's funny!

In the film, Johnny Dangerously they have this character who is
constantly swearing but he cannot speak English very well, so he's
saying things like "fargin ice holes" and "cork suckers."  Very funny
stuff actually.  But let me tell you, if only swear words are
forbidden, why I and any troll can run circles around that intent and
attack back without the least need for a $*%# or a &[EMAIL PROTECTED]  

I don't even need to speak real English to get my point across.

"Judas ewe pig or ant slug. Eye swill sew stump yon yule aft jew tack
meat."

I don't have to sepll crroctly eether.  No end to the ways to cheat
any system.  THAT'S what the trolls know.  They can get folks angry no
matter the rules.

That's why we need a priest or warden or cop to see the EMOTIONAL
crime no matter the garb or packaging.

I volunteer to be the cop.  And let's what happens. If I abuse my
role, then I'm tossed.  But if Fairfield Life becomes an Eden of
Conceptual Delights, if posters come forward with their hearts on
their sleeves, I'll consider it a victory.

Again, who here would post a love poem or pictures of their families
etc.?  Who would put their precious parts on display here?

I would if there was a good cop on the corner bracing the punks
against the wall and letting them know what for and how to conduct
themselves in our decent neighborhood.

Edg

Re: [FairfieldLife] Civil Speech and Behavior

[MDixon6569]

 
In a message dated 9/6/07 9:36:39 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

We reached a consensus on the excessive posting issue and  all but a few 
rebels have appreciated and adhered to the guideline. How about  if we reach a 
similar consensus regarding abusive language? I’d like to hear  some feedback 
on 
how people feel about this sort of behavior, either observing  it in others, 
being the brunt of it, or even dishing it out? Do you actually  feel better 
after verbally abusing someone, or does it leave you feeling  polluted? If I 
were 
to mandate behavioral guidelines, it would violate the  democratic, community 
spirit I’ve tried to establish on FFL. But if we can  collectively agree upon 
some basic standards of respect and decency, perhaps  we’ll all feel 
motivated to live up to them. Also, I won’t be playing the  “heavy” if I have 
to ban 
someone for a week for violating something we have  all agreed to.


Go for it Rick!



** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at 
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior

[mainstream20016]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We reached a consensus on the excessive posting issue and all but a few
> rebels have appreciated and adhered to the guideline. How about if we reach
> a similar consensus regarding abusive language? I'd like to hear some
> feedback on how people feel about this sort of behavior, either observing it
> in others, being the brunt of it, or even dishing it out? Do you actually
> feel better after verbally abusing someone, or does it leave you feeling
> polluted? If I were to mandate behavioral guidelines, it would violate the
> democratic, community spirit I've tried to establish on FFL. But if we can
> collectively agree upon some basic standards of respect and decency, perhaps
> we'll all feel motivated to live up to them. Also, I won't be playing the
> "heavy" if I have to ban someone for a week for violating something we have
> all agreed to.
> 
Thanks for offering to consider ways to improve FFL. Happy Birthday, FFL !
Respect and decency are wonderful, and although those qualities are lacking in 
many 
posts,   I think the 35 - post per week limit has helped tremendously to 
improve the tone 
and quailty of discussion. I don't relish the idea of seeing debate on whether 
a poster 
deserves to be banned, should be banned, shouldn't have been banned, would have 
been 
banned had 'fair' decision-making been employed, yada, yada, yada Such 
debate is 
inevitable with a subjective standard, and that debate would raise the 'noise' 
level and be 
counter-productive. Thank you for instituting the 35-post per week limit, but 
please 
refrain from instituting subjective means of determining decency, respect, or 
abuse.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Ghandi on Women

[MDixon6569]

 
In a message dated 9/6/07 5:52:17 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


If  by strength is meant moral power, then woman is immeasurably  man's
superior. 

Has she not greater intuition, is she not more  self-sacrificing, has
she not greater powers of endurance, has she not  greater courage? 

Without her, man would not be. If non-violence is the  law of our
being, the future is with women.



Not if she devours her young.



** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at 
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ghandi on Women

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning  wrote:
> >
> > In one of his major biographies, it talked about him sleeping with two
> > you virgins -- age 12 or so. The would lie on either side of him,
> > facing the foot of the bet, while he faced the head. To rejuvinate
> > him, to gain energy.  nothing erotic involved. 
> 
> Funny how that line never works for me when the cops bust in.
> 
> "Just rejuvinat'n officer, nut'n erotic involved, that's the ticket!
> 

Yeah, but that could be because they were the police chief's daughters.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior

[curtisdeltablues]

I am not a fan of banning foul language but I also didn't dig the
insulting "Slut" title.  At first I was going to change it before
posting on it but then I remembered the SNL reference from Dan A,
"Jane you ignorant slut". so I left it alone.  But any of us can
change the title on personally insulting titles when we respond, and I
think next time I will.  But as far as what is written below the
title, I vote, let it rip.  We can all ignore what we want and I think
the people who attract foul language have pretty thick skin.  I don't
see anyone getting dogged out without supporters jumping in.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We reached a consensus on the excessive posting issue and all but a few
> rebels have appreciated and adhered to the guideline. How about if
we reach
> a similar consensus regarding abusive language? I'd like to hear some
> feedback on how people feel about this sort of behavior, either
observing it
> in others, being the brunt of it, or even dishing it out? Do you
actually
> feel better after verbally abusing someone, or does it leave you feeling
> polluted? If I were to mandate behavioral guidelines, it would
violate the
> democratic, community spirit I've tried to establish on FFL. But if
we can
> collectively agree upon some basic standards of respect and decency,
perhaps
> we'll all feel motivated to live up to them. Also, I won't be
playing the
> "heavy" if I have to ban someone for a week for violating something
we have
> all agreed to.
> 
> 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
> Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.8/993 - Release Date: 9/6/2007
> 3:18 PM
>

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of TurquoiseB
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 3:12 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior

 

The easiest way -- and in my opinion the most effec-
tive way -- to deal with people whose language or 
whose intent or whose actions or opinions piss you 
off is to IGNORE THEM. If they've established a 
history of getting under your skin, JUST DON'T
LET THEM. 

This is what I do, and have suggested several times as a solution. 

I like this suggestion from New Morning: “I do however support, in the
guidelines, a ban on profanities hurled
against someone. But not used for emphasis -- ocassionally. Thus "You
F*ckhead!" would be against the guidelines. "Thats f*cking awsome" --
used occasionally, would be OK.”

What do others think of this? Part of the issue is, where do we draw the
line? If one of our participants were black, and others were hurling racial
slurs at him, I think we would all agree that those people should be
censored or banned. Same with gay bashing. These are now social taboos in
our culture. But insulting people individually is not taboo, just poor
manners. How civil do we want our little FFL society to be? Some valuable
contributors have left because of the incivility. 

You say, “I would *not* advise any form of
"moral guidelines" here, because they would be subjec-
tive and by definition imposed upon those who don't
agree with them, and they would force Rick or the
other moderators to become "cops." I would not wish
that on them.”

And I keep expressing the same sentiment. 

You also made the point that one can be nastier without using expletives
than another might be in using them. Bob Brigante responded to my initial
post in this thread with, “Piss off, you idiot.” However Bob meant it, I
interpreted that as a friendly, funny response.

Taking any sort of action on this issue requires a subjective judgment, and
I just don’t know if my subjectivity is objective enough to do that. I’m
willing to try something, if there’s a consensus, but so far I don’t think
there is.


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.8/993 - Release Date: 9/6/2007
3:18 PM
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Indian state of Kerala maybe not so well off

[shukra69]

but all that good education also makes them ABLE to get jobs abroad

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/world/asia/07migrate.html
> 
> "TRIVANDRUM, India — This verdant swath of southern Indian coastline 
> is a famously good place to be poor. People in the state of Kerala 
> live nearly as long as Americans do, on a sliver of the income. They 
> read at nearly the same rates. 
> 
> With leftist governments here in the state capital spending heavily 
> on health and schools, a generation of scholars has celebrated 
> the "Kerala model" as a humane alternative to market-driven 
> development, a vision of social equality in an unequal capitalist 
> world. But the Kerala model is under attack, one outbound worker at a 
> time. 
> 
> Plagued by chronic unemployment, more Keralites than ever work 
> abroad, often at sun-scorched jobs in the Persian Gulf that pay about 
> $1 an hour and keep them from their families for years. The cash 
> flowing home now helps support nearly one Kerala resident in three. 
> That has some local scholars rewriting the Kerala story: far from 
> escaping capitalism, they say, this celebrated corner of the 
> developing world is painfully dependent on it. 
> 
> "Remittances from global capitalism are carrying the whole Kerala 
> economy," said S. Irudaya Rajan, a demographer at the Center for 
> Development Studies, a local research group. "There would have been 
> starvation deaths in Kerala if there had been no migration. The 
> Kerala model is good to read about but not practically applicable to 
> any part of the world, including Kerala." 
> 
> more...
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ghandi on Women

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In one of his major biographies, it talked about him sleeping with two
> you virgins -- age 12 or so. The would lie on either side of him,
> facing the foot of the bet, while he faced the head. To rejuvinate
> him, to gain energy.  nothing erotic involved. 

Funny how that line never works for me when the cops bust in.

"Just rejuvinat'n officer, nut'n erotic involved, that's the ticket!



  
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not taking any advise about women from a guy who slept with his
> > > underage nieces to "keep him warm".
> > > 
> > > In my experience each of those qualities are found less or more in
> > > each individual sex on a case by case basis.  Gandhi knew peanuts
> > > about women.  (pun intended)
> >  
> >  FROM:
> > 
> > The Mahatma and his 'girls'
> > Author : Arvind Kala
> > Publication : Free Press Journal
> > Date : January 12, 1997
> > 
> > http://www.hvk.org/articles/0197/0041.html
> >  
> > Bal Thackeray's sarcasm about Mahatma Gandhi being in the company
> > of young girls in the twilight of his life has created a mini
> > political storm, but his comment is based on history. In fact,
> > Gandhi's life-long quest to eliminate all sexual desire from his
> > being prompted him to try experiments which even troubled his
> > followers. For instance, while touring Noakhali to calm
> > Hindu-Muslim communal passions, Gandhi shared his bed every night
> > with his 19-year-old great-niece and constant companion, Manu.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior

[new . morning]

I use a similar heuristic as you in sorting through posts. Some people
I read >90% of their posts, Some <10% -- usually only indirectly --
that is, I may read them if they show up unsnipped in someone elses
posts. Some are 50/50. And I may read everything on an interesting
thread. For example, I would read what Shemp writes on a movie thread,
but I ignore most of his other posts. 

A thought extension (and maybe you said this and I missed it): Beyond
just ignoring someone, explicitly post your lists, perhaps as
"percentages lists" (x y and z are on my >90% list) -- stating rough
estimated percentages are useful because usually I don't read
everything / nothing of any particular person. And some are 50/50. Its
not black and white. And of course if someone is not even on your
list, positive or negative, clearly they did not register much in your
awareness.

"Favorites" are no necessaraly an applauding confirmation of someones
posts. I often read some people (50% of the time) because they create
such interesting nuances of logical errors, cognitive dissonance (in
me) and cognitive errors -- they they spur me to write something that
is clarifying -- to me -- "Y"MMV.  

Lists provide feedback to people. If someone is on a mjority of
peoples >10% list, it may cause them to ponderm and reconsidr their
style and content more. >90% may encourage good posts.

Here is my quick list, off the top of my head, -- I may extend and
revise it later. 

100%
Dana

>90 %
Rick
Marek
Curtis
Empty Bill (80%)
Mark M.
LB
Phil G.

> 70%
Judy
Barry
Edg
Sal
Ken H.
Alex
Cliff


50%
Vaj
Bob B.
Bhairtu
Do.Flex
Jim F.
Peter
Rory
Tom
Dixon
Card

>10%
Shemp
Off
Nab
RW
Goodman
Gimbel
BillyG.
Peter K. (never)
Jeff Cook
Leeds
Ron





--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > We reached a consensus on the excessive posting issue and 
> > all but a few rebels have appreciated and adhered to the 
> > guideline. How about if we reach a similar consensus 
> > regarding abusive language? I'd like to hear some feedback 
> > on how people feel about this sort of behavior, either 
> > observing it in others, being the brunt of it, or even 
> > dishing it out? Do you actually feel better after verbally 
> > abusing someone, or does it leave you feeling polluted? If 
> > I were to mandate behavioral guidelines, it would violate 
> > the democratic, community spirit I've tried to establish 
> > on FFL. But if we can collectively agree upon some basic 
> > standards of respect and decency, perhaps we'll all feel 
> > motivated to live up to them. Also, I won't be playing the
> > "heavy" if I have to ban someone for a week for violating 
> > something we have all agreed to.
> 
> I'll weigh in on this one, gladly.
> 
> This little break I just took from FFL taught me 
> a lot. I was moving, and thus didn't have much 
> time *to* read things here, so I got more discrim-
> inative about it. Because I like to read posts in
> the order in which they are made, not in threads,
> I still like reading via the Web reader. But now
> I go straight to the 'Messages' page, and just
> scan down the list. And I find myself, after two
> years or so here, "voting" not only with my Next 
> key but by never clicking on many messages in the 
> first place.
> 
> There are about six posters here whom I have learned
> I will *never* hear anything useful from. So why
> bother? There are another six whom I read every word
> they write. The rest I just scan the first few lines
> and see if it's about a subject that interests me and
> then react accordingly. As a result, my FFL reading 
> experience now takes me about five or ten minutes to 
> complete. No muss, no fuss, and no more getting lured
> into draining discussions with vibe vampires who are
> cruising for attention.
> 
> As for the issue of "bad language," as a writer I
> plead guilty to using it *intentionally* from time
> to time to create a kind of Tantric cognitive dis-
> sonance in the reader. For example, in the middle of
> a glowing passage about some cool spiritual exper-
> ience I'll throw in the adjective fuckin'. There is
> a very real purpose in my doing this; the word is
> NOT incompatible with the experience, and only the
> belief that it IS somehow incompatible with higher
> spiritual experience is IMO one of the reasons that
> a lot of people aren't *having* higher experiences.
> They have convinced themselves that some things and
> some words are incompatible with enlightenment. Well, 
> nothing is, as far as I can tell.
> 
> As for the "offending Subject header" that someone
> was wailing about here, it was *clearly* a joke, a
> reference to the olde Saturday Night Live skit with
> Dan Ackroyd and "Jane, you ignorant slut" bantering
> back and forth. To pretend to be uptight about that
> is IMO to prove once and for all that one either has
> no sense of humor or one is able to pretend not to
> have one

RE: [FairfieldLife] Judy you ignorant slut -- (Re: An Inspiring Visit to Baba Muktananda)

[Peter]

--- Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of off_world_beings
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 7:12 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Judy you ignorant slut --
> (Re: An Inspiring Visit
> to Baba Muktananda)
> 
> (And why haven't you been banned by Rick? )
> 
> I’m very reluctant to ban people for anything other
> than overposting, which
> is simple to judge, but I didn’t like the title of
> this thread when it
> showed up. My mother probably deserves the credit,
> but I’m just not
> comfortable with people speaking to one another as
> abusively as we often do
> here. If everything is really one’s own Self, then
> against whom are we
> railing?

You guys do know that the thread name is a famous line
from a SNL skit, yes? You ignorant sluts




> 
> 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
> Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.8/993 -
> Release Date: 9/6/2007
> 3:18 PM
>  
> 



   

Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's 
Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. 
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222

[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm all for rules
> 
> I knew if I upped the heat in the kitchen something would budge.
> 
> Rick -- you rejected my offering to impose an "oath" of "good
> manners;" you said you didn't want to be a morality cop.
> 
> "Jane you ignorant slut" is a standard SNL line everyone knows, 
right?>>

No you were not. 
You're like that white guy that claims he only uses the word "nigger" 
to mean "stupid person", and that he is not a racist, and everyone 
should just accept whatever usage anyone cares to make up about words.

Bitch' is not a poetical word, it is a degradation of women when used 
the way you used it, and most women hate it, and would only use it 
themselves in anger or hate. Maybe Judy doesn't care, but I do 
because I know why you use it. Because you attack the person, instead 
of the argument they are making, and that is offensive to me.

(But you are correct, I was arrested a couple of times at an early 
age, but unlike the other 'boys' here, my development was not 
arrested as you say. It escaped the male-bonding mind cops) 

OffWorld


>  I was doing satire.  And the word "bitch" is one of the most
> poetically used words today.  Judy is a fierce
> warrior-warrioress-whatever.  She's in with mostly boys (all 
arrested
> in their developments at early ages) here and smacking them right 
and
> left like she was as immune to karma as Mary Poppins, and I just 
felt
> she should get some smacks back.  She wages battles for years, and 
you
> do not tell her to back off the negative, abusive, demeaning 
attitude,
> and then, she, emboldened by the group passivity here, came at me 
for
> no offense other than that I was following your "no abuse" rules
> regarding Turq posts -- some of which thoroughly challenged my POVs.
> 
> If you've changed your stance, maybe you could tell us how that
> transition came about.  Sorry, sorta, if it was in fact my rude
> attempts to amp it all up and make it ridiculous enough to get folks
> to move on this issue of "abusive trolls" here.  Slick as they are
> with lingo, trolls're all in emperor's togs when it comes to anyone
> here seeing their energy, their reckless disregard for the tender
> feeling level, their almost vampire-like feasting on any dissonance
> they can stir up, their sheer psychic vandalism.
> 
> I've contributed many a piece here that was holy in intent. Trying 
to
> lay a little imagination down and take a risk here or there, open 
up a
> bit, and yet, who can do anything subtle and ritammy when fire alarm
> emotions are being toggled by stalking, insult-zombic, creepazoid
> terrorists with kill-me-and-be-reduced-to-my-level divisive-bombs
> strapped to their souls daring us all to boot them out of this small
> universe and thus show the same impotency that these feral marauders
> feel every second of their miserable existences.
> 
> I mean, Ron is, like, HOLY compared to Judy.  He's posting his 
heart,
> but Judy's posting her gall bladder -- hence her dark bile ink.
> 
> Turq posted like he was Hemmingway wandering an ancient town covered
> with moss and dripping with culture, and some troll up and calls 
him a
> drunk.  I mean, what the hell is that shit, Rick?
> 
> We all have egos that could soar to incredibility if we weren't all
> armed to the teeth with shotguns aimed at anything that moves in the
> heavens and calling it ready-to-roast duck no matter if swan or 
angel
> crashes dead but sometimes only wounded at their feet.
> 
> Yeah, gimme some rules.
> 
> Edg
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > We reached a consensus on the excessive posting issue and all but 
a few
> > rebels have appreciated and adhered to the guideline. How about if
> we reach
> > a similar consensus regarding abusive language? I'd like to hear 
some
> > feedback on how people feel about this sort of behavior, either
> observing it
> > in others, being the brunt of it, or even dishing it out? Do you
> actually
> > feel better after verbally abusing someone, or does it leave you 
feeling
> > polluted? If I were to mandate behavioral guidelines, it would
> violate the
> > democratic, community spirit I've tried to establish on FFL. But 
if
> we can
> > collectively agree upon some basic standards of respect and 
decency,
> perhaps
> > we'll all feel motivated to live up to them. Also, I won't be
> playing the
> > "heavy" if I have to ban someone for a week for violating 
something
> we have
> > all agreed to.
> > 
> > 
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
> > Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.8/993 - Release Date: 
9/6/2007
> > 3:18 PM
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior

[Vaj]

On Sep 7, 2007, at 4:18 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Jane you ignorant slut" is a standard SNL line everyone
> knows, right? I was doing satire.

And, let's face it...we've all seen the photograph
she posted here. This woman couldn't be a slut if
she tried. She could offer to pay people $1000 a
pop to have sex with her and still never accumulate
enough of them to qualify as a "slut."



What an insensitive thing to say! Did you ever stop and think that  
maybe she looked better before the accident?


No, it was clear from the get go that Edg was playin' with the old  
SNL line in a clever parody. I thought it was pretty fuckin' goddamn  
clever.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Turq posted like he was Hemmingway wandering an ancient town 
> covered with moss and dripping with culture, and some troll 
> up and calls him a drunk. I mean, what the hell is that shit, 
> Rick?

Jealousy.

Those who have convinced themselves that they
can't be spiritual while enjoying the occasional
glass of wine are *intensely* jealous of those
who can.

It's the same Protestant thang you see in celibates
who rail about everyone around them thinking about
sex all the time. It's *them* who are thinking of
the things they've denied themselves, not the 
people they're dumping on.

No biggie, Edg. Get *used* to it if you're going
to continue writing about your spiritual experiences.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Jane you ignorant slut" is a standard SNL line everyone 
> knows, right? I was doing satire.  

And, let's face it...we've all seen the photograph
she posted here. This woman couldn't be a slut if
she tried. She could offer to pay people $1000 a 
pop to have sex with her and still never accumulate 
enough of them to qualify as a "slut."

Not only satire, *obvious* satire. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Civil Speech and Behavior

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We reached a consensus on the excessive posting issue and 
> all but a few rebels have appreciated and adhered to the 
> guideline. How about if we reach a similar consensus 
> regarding abusive language? I'd like to hear some feedback 
> on how people feel about this sort of behavior, either 
> observing it in others, being the brunt of it, or even 
> dishing it out? Do you actually feel better after verbally 
> abusing someone, or does it leave you feeling polluted? If 
> I were to mandate behavioral guidelines, it would violate 
> the democratic, community spirit I've tried to establish 
> on FFL. But if we can collectively agree upon some basic 
> standards of respect and decency, perhaps we'll all feel 
> motivated to live up to them. Also, I won't be playing the
> "heavy" if I have to ban someone for a week for violating 
> something we have all agreed to.

I'll weigh in on this one, gladly.

This little break I just took from FFL taught me 
a lot. I was moving, and thus didn't have much 
time *to* read things here, so I got more discrim-
inative about it. Because I like to read posts in
the order in which they are made, not in threads,
I still like reading via the Web reader. But now
I go straight to the 'Messages' page, and just
scan down the list. And I find myself, after two
years or so here, "voting" not only with my Next 
key but by never clicking on many messages in the 
first place.

There are about six posters here whom I have learned
I will *never* hear anything useful from. So why
bother? There are another six whom I read every word
they write. The rest I just scan the first few lines
and see if it's about a subject that interests me and
then react accordingly. As a result, my FFL reading 
experience now takes me about five or ten minutes to 
complete. No muss, no fuss, and no more getting lured
into draining discussions with vibe vampires who are
cruising for attention.

As for the issue of "bad language," as a writer I
plead guilty to using it *intentionally* from time
to time to create a kind of Tantric cognitive dis-
sonance in the reader. For example, in the middle of
a glowing passage about some cool spiritual exper-
ience I'll throw in the adjective fuckin'. There is
a very real purpose in my doing this; the word is
NOT incompatible with the experience, and only the
belief that it IS somehow incompatible with higher
spiritual experience is IMO one of the reasons that
a lot of people aren't *having* higher experiences.
They have convinced themselves that some things and
some words are incompatible with enlightenment. Well, 
nothing is, as far as I can tell.

As for the "offending Subject header" that someone
was wailing about here, it was *clearly* a joke, a
reference to the olde Saturday Night Live skit with
Dan Ackroyd and "Jane, you ignorant slut" bantering
back and forth. To pretend to be uptight about that
is IMO to prove once and for all that one either has
no sense of humor or one is able to pretend not to
have one *for the express purpose of dumping on 
someone*. 

The latter is the real issue.

Some people use this forum and the other posters on
it the way they'd use a punching bag, as a release 
for their tensions, their stress, their frustrations 
in life, and their general level of unhappiness and 
unfulfilment. These people are in PAIN, man. It just 
*reeks* off of them. And while part of me can feel 
compassion for someone who has to live with that 
level of PAIN, another part of me resents their 
attempts at self-medication by spreading the PAIN 
around and trying to make other people feel it, too.

There are people here who seemingly LIVE to make 
others feel their PAIN. Who CARES what language they
use when doing it? It's the INTENT that is the issue,
not whether they do it in flamboyant Oscar Wilde
prose or gutter language. 

These peoples' intent is to HURT, to make someone 
else feel bad -- about themselves, about their actions
and thoughts and opinions, about everything. It's just
the clearest and most obvious INTENT I've ever come
across, especially when the behavior is repeated for
weeks and months and years and in some cases, decades.
That is just what these people DO. It appears to be
all that they CAN do, because the people who do it
the most often *also* rarely contribute anything 
original or creative themselves. Hurting people is
their form *of* creativity and self expression.

I'm tired of it. I'm voting with my discrimination
and my Next key. I would *not* advise any form of
"moral guidelines" here, because they would be subjec-
tive and by definition imposed upon those who don't
agree with them, and they would force Rick or the
other moderators to become "cops." I would not wish
that on them.

The easiest way -- and in my opinion the most effec-
tive way -- to deal with people whose language or 
whose intent or whose actions or opinions piss you 
off is to IGNORE THEM. I

[FairfieldLife] Re: Happy Birthday FFL

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Also we rented an old mansion on Queen Anne Hill as the band house and 
> many folks including the Grateful Dead came to visit.  If you've seen 
> the Elvis Seattle World's Fair movie the scene of the fairgrounds and 
> Space Needle was taken from the balcony of the house.  We got the 
> mansion because the owner wanted to tear it down and put a condo 
> there. He figured letting a rock group rent it would get the neighbors
> up in arms and he could get his condo.  He did.  :)

Fun times, eh? I lived in a similar slightly dilapidated
mansion in Riverside for a couple of years during college.
It belonged to the editor of the local newspaper, and he
was trying to get it rezoned for business so he could
tear it down and build something profitable on the same
land, so he let about half a dozen of us hippies live
there for a total rent of 50 bucks a month. 

It worked like a charm, we got almost two years of cheap
living space out of the deal, and when the zoning permit
came through he gave us a month to get out of the house.
Since it was going to be torn down anyway, we had a big
party at the end at which every guest was issued a sledge
hammer, and got to whack away at the walls and whatever
they wanted to destroy, just for the fun of it. I walked
away with a small fortune in stained-glass windows from
the place, that would have just been bulldozed if I'd
have left them there.