[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey Turq,
> > > After Feste and I showed Judy that my interpretation of Hamlet 
> > > was not based on a "gross misreading" of a line, she kinda went 
> > > silent for more than a week.  Is that her usual practice when 
> > > defeated in an argument after crowing about how much she loves 
> > > engagement?
> 

> > It is, but she usually claims that she "was away
> > on vacation" or something like that.
> 
> I do not, and Barry (and anyone else who has followed
> my posts) knows it.

And then there was the time on a.m.t. she got 
so upset at Shemp that she claimed that she was
"leaving the newsgroup." THAT one lasted only
long enough to distract people from the argu-
ment she was running out on, and refocus on
the fact that she stalked off the group in a
snit and then returned miraculously less than
24 hour later.  :-)  :-)  :-)

You'll see lots of dodges and techniques if 
you keep "discussing things" with Judy, Angela.
Just keep one thing in mind...Judy always wins.

That's how she'll interpret it, anyway. It won't
matter if everyone on the forum agrees with you
on some point...in HER mind, Judy will have not
only "won" but "devastated" you.

And then she'll pretend to leave town for a few days...

:-)

[FairfieldLife] Running Out of Time?

[John]

To All:

Here's an interesting food for thought:

Is Time Literally Slowing Down and Disappearing From the Universe? 
POSTED: Thursday, January 03, 2008
FROM BLOG: The Daily Galaxy: News from Planet Earth & Beyond - The 
Daily Galaxy is an eclectic multimedia presentation of fascinating 
news and goings on from around the world.
 
The following blog post is from an independent writer and is not 
connected with Reuters News. The opinions and views expressed herein 
are those of the author and are not endorsed by Reuters.com. 
 


 Remember a little thing called the space-time continuum? Well what 
if the time part of the equation was literally running out? New 
evidence is suggesting that time is slowly disappearing from our 
universe, and will one day vanish completely. This radical new theory 
may explain a cosmological mystery that has baffled scientists for 
years. 

Scientists previously have measured the light from distant exploding 
stars to show that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. 
They assumed that these supernovae are spreading apart faster as the 
universe ages. Physicists also assumed that a kind of anti-
gravitational force must be driving the galaxies apart, and started 
to call this unidentified force "dark energy".

However, to this day no one actually knows what dark energy is, or 
where it comes from. Professor Jose Senovilla, and his colleagues at 
the University of the Basque Country in Bilbao, Spain, have proposed 
a mind-bending alternative. They propose that there is no such thing 
as dark energy at all, and we're looking at things backwards. 
Senovilla proposes that we have been fooled into thinking the 
expansion of the universe is accelerating, when in reality, time 
itself is slowing down. At an everyday level, the change would not be 
perceptible. However, it would be obvious from cosmic scale 
measurements tracking the course of the universe over billions of 
years. The change would be infinitesimally slow from a human 
perspective, but in terms of the vast perspective of cosmology, the 
study of ancient light from suns that shone billions of years ago, it 
could easily be measured

The team's proposal, which will be published in the journal Physical 
Review D, dismisses dark energy as fiction. Instead, Prof Senovilla 
says, the appearance of acceleration is caused by time itself 
gradually slowing down, like a clock with a run-down battery.

"We do not say that the expansion of the universe itself is an 
illusion," he explains. "What we say it may be an illusion is the 
acceleration of this expansion - that is, the possibility that the 
expansion is, and has been, increasing its rate."

If time gradually slows "but we naively kept using our equations to 
derive the changes of the expansion with respect of 'a standard flow 
of time', then the simple models that we have constructed in our 
paper show that an "effective accelerated rate of the expansion" 
takes place."

Currently, astronomers are able to discern the expansion speed of the 
universe using the so-called "red shift" technique. This technique 
relies on the understanding that stars moving away appear redder in 
color than ones moving towards us. Scientists look for supernovae of 
certain types that provide a sort of benchmark. However, the accuracy 
of these measurements depends on time remaining invariable throughout 
the universe. If time is slowing down, according to this new theory, 
our solitary time dimension is slowly turning into a new space 
dimension. Therefore the far-distant, ancient stars seen by 
cosmologists would from our perspective, look as though they were 
accelerating.

"Our calculations show that we would think that the expansion of the 
universe is accelerating," says Prof Senovilla. The theory bases it's 
idea on one particular variant of superstring theory, in which our 
universe is confined to the surface of a membrane, or brane, floating 
in a higher-dimensional space, known as the "bulk". In billions of 
years, time would cease to be time altogether.

"Then everything will be frozen, like a snapshot of one instant, 
forever," Senovilla told New Scientist magazine. "Our planet will be 
long gone by then."

Though radical and in many way unprecedented, these ideas are not 
without support. Gary Gibbons, a cosmologist at Cambridge University, 
say the concept has merit. "We believe that time emerged during the 
Big Bang, and if time can emerge, it can also disappear - that's just 
the reverse effect." 

Posted by Rebecca Sato

[FairfieldLife] The Iowa caucus as seen over coffee, from Spain

[TurquoiseB]

Interesting -- a veritable vision of things to come.

On the Democratic side, even though I don't think it's
going to make a *bit* of difference who is President,
I'm pleased as punch to see Hillary soundly trounced by
Obama and Edwards. That should teach her a few things,
not only about her image, but about her voting record
and allegiances to Big Money.

On the Republican side...well, that's more than a little
scary. The media are portraying it as a total mobilization
of the evangelical Christian Right that got Huckabee the
nod. That and his own shameless pandering to those...uh...
people. 

If the rest of the campaign goes like this, the election 
could turn into a really interesting showdown between a 
highly motivated and highly insane Christian Right and 
the more moderate and sane folks in America, most of 
whom are too lazy and complacent to even vote. (Remember,
America has the *lowest* voter turnout in its major 
elections of any democratic nation on the planet.)

Fanatics are easily motivated. All that is usually 
needed is for someone they trust as an "authority" to
tell them what to do. So if the leaders of the Christian
Right start to swing behind one of their own (Huckabee),
they could get enough voters to the polls that the
Republicans wouldn't even have to *bother* to rig the
voting machines or come up with an excuse to cancel
the elections.  :-)

The non-fanatical and sane but essentially lazy and too
self-involved to actually vote are a tougher group to
mobilize. It'll be like pulling teeth to get them out
to the polls.

Anyway, I'm sure not going to bother to follow the sick-
ening campaign rhetoric or the ads or the speeches from
over here Away From It All, and I commiserate with those
of you who are going to have no choice but to follow it
all as you click on your TVs or pick up your newspapers.
It promises to be ten more months of mudslinging and
posturing and empty promises and talk, talk, talk. 

I hope for your sakes that there is some outcome to
all the talk, talk, talk that makes you feel good, at
least for a few minutes. But I have to say that given
this first exercise in "democracy," American style, I
see little to be hopeful about. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Does Hillary -- McCain

[Louis McKenzie]

Huckaby won Iowa for the repubs  good choice Iowa.  Barak Obama won Iowa WOOO 
HOOO! not decisive but a great start.   If he wins all the way up to super 
Tuesday and wins super Tuesday even 3 states he will be well on his way.  They 
will have to have him begin to use thin bullet proofed vest.be careful of 
car bombs, exploding airplanes and what ever other diabolic thing that can be 
thought of and IF he makes it through to November 2008 after all that HELLO MR. 
PRESIDENT.  As the first African American Flyer and First student sidha flyer 
of MIU I will be ELATED TO SEE the first full fledged African American 
President, the second African American President


- Original Message 
From: Richard J. Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2008 8:47:39 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Does Hillary -- McCain

boo wrote:
> I've seen the light - Peter is right, McCain may have 
> the best shot at the repub nomination.  All the others 
> are making such fools of themselves while he sits quietly 
> on the outside.  Big money wants giuliani, romney or 
> mccain to be the nominee and right now mccain is looking 
> the least offensive.
>
>From the Boston Globe:

Commander-in-chief: Does he have the knowledge and judgment 
to capably direct, and improve, the US military?

McCain-9 Giuliani-7 Thompson-6 Romney-5 Huckabee-3 Paul-2

McCain was a war hero; as senator he's become an authority 
on military preparedness and foreign affairs. Giuliani showed
commander-in-crisis qualities after the Sept. 11, 2001, 
attacks. Romney has administrative experience but no foreign 
policy or military experience. Ditto with Huckabee, who has 
made gaffes proving it.

'Rating the GOP field'
By Todd Domke
Boston Globe, January 3, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/3d82fk



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




  

Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jan 4, 2008, at 2:05 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:


You'll see lots of dodges and techniques if
you keep "discussing things" with Judy, Angela.
Just keep one thing in mind...Judy always wins.


Everyone on the forum doesn't.  I don't like getting in the middle of  
these silly things, but Judy pegged Angela--a thoroughly unpleasant  
character, or something like that.  And you're playing along doesn't  
say much, Barry.  You're better than that.


Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Choices

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote:
> >
> > Wouldn't it be interesting if Americans chose between a black 
> > Muslim and a white Baptist minister for president?
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be nice if xenophobic bigots, racists and outright 
> liars like Dixon would crawl back under their rocks.
> 
> Obama has never been a Muslim:
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
> 
> CNN Debunks False Obama 'Madrassa' Smear:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pMgsbMcpOE

See what I was talking about in my earlier reply
to MDixon's post in which I talked about labels?

John gets upset about one label and responds by
trying to apply three more to MDixon -- "xeno-
phobic bigot," "racist," and "liar."

[FairfieldLife] Re: Iowa Wrap Up - Bad omen for the GOP

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> 
>  Iowa Wrap Up
> 
> Total Voter Turnout (approximate)
> 
> 356,000
> 
> Percentage of total vote
> 
> 24.5% Obama
> 20.5% Edwards
> 19.8% Clinton
> 11.4% Huckabee (R)
> 
> http://www.groupnewsblog.net/2008/01/iowa-wrap-up.html

I was one of those unexpected people who showed up last night. I
hadn't planned on going because I'm not enthusiastic about any of the
candidates. But, it bugs me that the media is trying to direct this
into an Obama vs. Hillary race when Edwards has the best chance of
winning in November. 

I fully expected to sit in an inviable Edwards group and switch to
Hillary. But, in my precinct, Hillary wasn't even viable, and we ended
up with one hold-out for Hillary, 24 for Edwards, and 23 for Obama.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Spiritual Practice (teaching) Since Starting TM

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > >  and never do any of the
> > > > > WORK of expanding and maintaining an organization,
> > > > > and then expect to be treated like they're "more
> > > > > evolved" than the peons who actually DO the work.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'm betting that you're one of the latter, and 
> > > > > that you'll blow off the answers to questions 1-8
> > > > > above, rather than admit that you NEVER did any
> > > > > of the WORK of being a TM teacher.
> > > > 
> > > > Happy now ?
> > > 
> > > I'm satisfied with your claims. Whether they
> > > are true or not only you can say, but I bear
> > > in mind that you still believe that you would
> > > be admitted to a TMO flying hall, which means
> > > that you are prepared to lie about your involve-
> > > ment with Benjamin Creme and the other teachers
> > > you are on record here as having seen over the
> > > years. If you're willing to lie about that,
> > > what else?
> > > 
> > > But if it's true, good for you. It makes you 
> > > a blowhard with experience, as opposed to just
> > > a blowhard.  :-)
> > 
> > Translation: Boy, I screwed up big-time. But I
> > can't possibly *admit* such a thing, so perhaps
> > there's some way I can twist things around to make
> > it seem as though I might have been right all
> > along.
> 
> Exactly. I doubt this fellow will ever graciously admit that he made 
> a mistake - would have been too much for an oversized ego I suppose.

IF I made a mistake about your past involvement
with the TM movement, then I did. No biggie. I've
only got your current persona to bounce off of,
not the one from decades ago, before you started
believing that sitting on your butt doing your
TM program made you better than people who have 
lives.

But I think that we on this forum are well within
our rights to "consider the source" when dealing
with claims from you. 

You have stated often that you see no problem with 
you being admitted to any official TMO flying hall.
As has been pointed out to you often, admittance
requires a "screening" during which you will be
asked whether you have been involved with or have
seen spiritual teachers other than Maharishi. 

You have. That's a given. 

You don't think there would be any problem with
being admitted to a TMO flying hall. That's also
a given, stated by you many times.

To me that says that you are willing to lie about
your involvement with these other teachers to get
into the flying halls. Right?

Therefore, although I think that there is some
*possibility* that what you claim about your 
experience teaching and doing the work that kept
the TMO going for so many years until it learned
that it could bring in even more money by badger-
ing the TM faithful and scaring them into giving
them money for nothing could be true, there is 
also an equal possibility that for you relating 
your "experience" of teaching might just be one 
more thing you have no qualms about lying about.

But, as I said before, if you actually did put
your butt on the line instead of just sitting on
it, good for you. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy...l.et's see how little you know............was//Ron Paul: both sides n

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sorry, not gonna argue about Ron Paul with you.

Wow.

It really IS a new year, with the dawn of new hope.

There is someone on the planet that even Judy Stein
won't argue with. At least on one subject.

:-)

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Horsfield" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >  I am glad that more folks are looking into Ron Paul. He's 
> > > > certainly very unusual and at first glance his positions seem 
> > > > simplistic... like his solution to Iraq "just come home".
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > > FWIW, the more I learn about Ron Paul's positions,>>
> > 
> > Such as?
> > What positions of RP's are you blowing out of proportion? and 
> > distorting for your own prejudices?
> > 
> > You, (like Curtis' with the recent Dec. 29 annihilation by the 
> > Shotokan) have nothing of substance to argue with. 
> > 
> > Bring it on.
> > What is it that you disagree with with Ron Paul?
> >  Looks to me like you are just another manipulator of truth.
> > 
> > OffWorld
> > 
> > 
> > > the less appealing (understatement) I find him. >>
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Shotokan dominates UFC

[Louis McKenzie]

Has anyone seen or heard from William Jones lately?


- Original Message 
From: off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 4, 2008 3:02:11 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Shotokan dominates UFC

No, I mean the fight where he mashed him up with Shotokan moves, then 
merely finished him technically with moves that are not viable in a 
real fight in the real world.

You will see him dominate with Shotokan more and more as he gets 
closer to the goal, but you wouldn't percieve that Curtis, because 
you are clearly inexperienced.

He would have lost without his Shotokan training in this fight, and 
you know it Curtis.

OffWorld


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You, (like Curtis' with the recent Dec. 29 annihilation by the 
> > Shotokan) have nothing of substance to argue with. 
> > 
> 
> Do you mean the fight where Lyoto failed to stop the fight with
> magical Shotokan strikes and eventually used a Jiu jitsu choke to
> finally finish a fight instead of having it go to a decision...that
> fight?  I guess he has learned more than you have about the place 
for
> his strikes, to set up a finishing hold.
>  
> http://mmafightvideos.blogspot.com/2007/12/ufc-79-streaming-video-
lyoto-machida-vs.html
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Horsfield" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >  I am glad that more folks are looking into Ron Paul. He's 
> > > > certainly very unusual and at first glance his positions seem 
> > > > simplistic... like his solution to Iraq "just come home".
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > > FWIW, the more I learn about Ron Paul's positions,>>
> > 
> > Such as?
> > What positions of RP's are you blowing out of proportion? and 
> > distorting for your own prejudices?
> > 
> > You, (like Curtis' with the recent Dec. 29 annihilation by the 
> > Shotokan) have nothing of substance to argue with. 
> > 
> > Bring it on.
> > What is it that you disagree with with Ron Paul?
> >  Looks to me like you are just another manipulator of truth.
> > 
> > OffWorld
> > 
> > 
> > > the less appealing (understatement) I find him. >>
> >
>




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




  

Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[FairfieldLife] Re: Shotokan dominates UFC

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Louis McKenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Has anyone seen or heard from William Jones lately?

Still dead:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Jones_(philologist)

:-)

> - Original Message 
> From: off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, January 4, 2008 3:02:11 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Shotokan dominates UFC
> 
> No, I mean the fight where he mashed him up with Shotokan moves, then 
> merely finished him technically with moves that are not viable in a 
> real fight in the real world.
> 
> You will see him dominate with Shotokan more and more as he gets 
> closer to the goal, but you wouldn't percieve that Curtis, because 
> you are clearly inexperienced.
> 
> He would have lost without his Shotokan training in this fight, and 
> you know it Curtis.
> 
> OffWorld
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > > You, (like Curtis' with the recent Dec. 29 annihilation by the 
> > > Shotokan) have nothing of substance to argue with. 
> > > 
> > 
> > Do you mean the fight where Lyoto failed to stop the fight with
> > magical Shotokan strikes and eventually used a Jiu jitsu choke to
> > finally finish a fight instead of having it go to a decision...that
> > fight?  I guess he has learned more than you have about the place 
> for
> > his strikes, to set up a finishing hold.
> >  
> > http://mmafightvideos.blogspot.com/2007/12/ufc-79-streaming-video-
> lyoto-machida-vs.html
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Horsfield" 
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >  I am glad that more folks are looking into Ron Paul. He's 
> > > > > certainly very unusual and at first glance his positions seem 
> > > > > simplistic... like his solution to Iraq "just come home".
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > FWIW, the more I learn about Ron Paul's positions,>>
> > > 
> > > Such as?
> > > What positions of RP's are you blowing out of proportion? and 
> > > distorting for your own prejudices?
> > > 
> > > You, (like Curtis' with the recent Dec. 29 annihilation by the 
> > > Shotokan) have nothing of substance to argue with. 
> > > 
> > > Bring it on.
> > > What is it that you disagree with with Ron Paul?
> > >  Looks to me like you are just another manipulator of truth.
> > > 
> > > OffWorld
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > the less appealing (understatement) I find him. >>
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  

> Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. 
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Iowa Wrap Up - Bad omen for the GOP

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> >  Iowa Wrap Up
> > 
> > Total Voter Turnout (approximate)
> > 
> > 356,000
> > 
> > Percentage of total vote
> > 
> > 24.5% Obama
> > 20.5% Edwards
> > 19.8% Clinton
> > 11.4% Huckabee (R)
> > 
> > http://www.groupnewsblog.net/2008/01/iowa-wrap-up.html
> 
> I was one of those unexpected people who showed up last night. I
> hadn't planned on going because I'm not enthusiastic about any
> of the candidates. But, it bugs me that the media is trying to 
> direct this into an Obama vs. Hillary race when Edwards has the 
> best chance of winning in November.

Much as I like Edwards, I'm not sure he does have
the best chance. One big reason is the same factor
that is leading the media to make this an Obama vs.
Hillary race--the media just doesn't like Edwards.
And it *really* doesn't like Hillary, so it wants
to see her beaten decisively by its favorite, Obama,
and then to see him win the election.

The other big reason is that Obama's huge win in 
the caucuses last night has solidified his "aura"
(which was already appealing to many moderate
Republicans who would be unlikely to even consider
voting for Edwards or Hillary in the election.)

We keep being warned that Iowa isn't determinative,
but I suspect in this case it will be. It wasn't
at all clear before last night that Obama's aura
would be powerful enough for him to beat both
Edwards and Hillary by so wide a margin, given the
relatively minor differences in their positions.
I think that's going to be extremely difficult for
either of them to overcome. If he has a similar win
in New Hampshire, that'll be the ball game.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Choices

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Wouldn't it be interesting if Americans chose between a black Muslim
and a  
> white Baptist minister for president?


Wouldn't it be nice if xenophobic bigots, racists and outright liars
like Dixon would crawl back under their rocks.

Obama has never been a Muslim:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

CNN Debunks False Obama 'Madrassa' Smear:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pMgsbMcpOE

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[Sal Sunshine]

Oops, this is the part of the message I meant to copy--for some  
reason that's not what happened.



On Jan 4, 2008, at 2:05 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:

That's how she'll interpret it, anyway. It won't
matter if everyone on the forum agrees with you
on some point...in HER mind, Judy will have not
only "won" but "devastated" you.




Everyone on the forum doesn't.  I don't like getting in the middle of  
these silly things, but Judy pegged Angela--a thoroughly unpleasant  
character, or something like that.  And you're playing along doesn't  
say much, Barry.  You're better than that.


Sal

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Choices

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Wouldn't it be interesting if Americans chose between a black 
> Muslim and a white Baptist minister for president?

Indeed it would.

Would Americans be intelligent enough to drop
the labels and see it as a race between two men?

Not likely.

Not any more likely than Fairfield Life is to
get past labels like "TMer" vs. "anti-TMer" or
"evolved" vs. "unevolved" or "enlightened" vs.
"unenlightened" or "atheist" vs. "believer in
God" or even "lying to others" vs. "lying to 
oneself." Labels are a way of pretending that 
complex situations (or people) can be described 
in...uh...black and white.

Americans are *addicted* to labels. They buy
products based on the labels, and they buy
politicians based on the label. And then they
complain when the reality of what they've bought
doesn't quite match up with the claims on the 
label.

What I'm waiting for now, as a somewhat dispas-
sionate observer (I gave up on America long ago
as anything but entertainment), is the *new*
labels that their opponents are going to try to
affix to these two men, and to the others who
are still in the race. I suspect that some of
the labels are going to get very ugly indeed.

In my rather radical opinion, politics should 
be label-free, to the extent of being *political
party* free. Parties are just another way of
trying to label a product to make a complex sit-
uation look simple. I'd love to see a democracy
that just had a big jumble of candidates in a
political race, with "party affiliations" not
only not used, but rendered illegal.

Each candidate would have to stand on his or
her *own* record, establish his or her *own*
credibility, make public his or her *own* beliefs
and policies. They'd get no "boost" from other
candidates or from the party they're supposedly
part of.

The only drawback I can see to this idea is the
one that will prevent it ever happening in real
life. Voters would actually have to learn to think.

[FairfieldLife] Choices

[MDixon6569]

Wouldn't it be interesting if Americans chose between a black Muslim and a  
white Baptist minister for president?



**Start the year off right.  Easy ways to stay in shape. 
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp0030002489

[FairfieldLife] Iowa Wrap Up - Bad omen for the GOP

[do.rflex]

 Iowa Wrap Up

Total Voter Turnout (approximate)

356,000

Percentage of total vote

24.5% Obama
20.5% Edwards
19.8% Clinton
11.4% Huckabee (R)

http://www.groupnewsblog.net/2008/01/iowa-wrap-up.html 

[FairfieldLife] Classic quote from Maharishi - c1968

[do.rflex]

"There is nothing in the cosmos, either in the material plane or in
the spiritual plane which cannot be directly cognized. Vedas provide a
direct method of direct cognition of material existence in this
unlimited cosmos and also they provide a direct technique to cognize
that which is evenly permeating the entire physical structure of the
cosmos. That all pervading reality, Almighty God."

~~  Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, The Vedas: Source of the Subtle Science -
c1968 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> On Jan 4, 2008, at 2:05 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
> 
> > You'll see lots of dodges and techniques if
> > you keep "discussing things" with Judy, Angela.
> > Just keep one thing in mind...Judy always wins.
> 
> Everyone on the forum doesn't.  I don't like getting in 
> the middle of these silly things, but Judy pegged Angela--
> a thoroughly unpleasant character, or something like that.  
> And you're playing along doesn't say much, Barry.  You're 
> better than that.

Read between the lines, Sal. I don't think 
much of Angela, either, and what I do think 
about her tends to EQUATE her with Judy, not 
distinguish herself from Judy.

They're like clones in my eyes. BOTH are 
*heavily* attached to their own beliefs, to
the point that they feel compelled to argue
for them incessantly (as if beliefs could
*ever* be "proved" either "right" or "wrong"). 
BOTH seem to feel equally compelled to "win" 
these endless arguments. BOTH tend to view 
their own self *in terms of* these beliefs 
that they argue about incessantly; their 
beliefs have become their "self-applied 
labels." 

Yes, there is a difference in the rigorous-
ness *with which* these two compulsively argue
and compulsively claim to "win." Judy thinks
that if she appeals to authority enough times,
people will believe that *she* has some. Angela
tends to believe more in the "authority of self,"
meaning that if she believes it and says it 
enough times, people will believe it's true.

My post was meant to tweak Judy, Sal, not to
support Angela. It worked. She went from having
a total of posts this week 20 or more under mine
to being several posts over my total in a matter
of hours. She's so easy.  :-)

Like you, I don't buy much of what Angela says
just because she says it. I don't buy *any* of
what Judy says just because she says it. IMO,
she lies just as much as the people she calls
"liars," only in her case she lies to herself.

Bottom line is that I'm not a big fan of *either*
compulsive arguer. I "cast my vote" on the whole
Hamlet thang early on, by comparing it to the
YouTube clip of the two dueling penises. That is
still how I see it -- a total waste of time, 
except to laugh at.

Wasting more time analyzing who is "winning" in
such a colossal waste of time seems to me an even
more egregious waste of time. One glow-in-the-dark
penis uses this style of argument to prove herself
"right" and (even more important) prove the other
person "wrong." The *other* glow-int-the-dark 
penis uses a different style of argument to try
to accomplish the same thing. But they're both 
just swingin' dicks in an ego contest in my book.

The *only* thing that interests me in such situations
is making fun of one or the other or both parties to
see if any of the fun I can poke at them can get them
to step back and see for *themselves* that all that's
going on is a swingin' dickfest.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Choices

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Wouldn't it be interesting if Americans chose between a black 
> > > Muslim and a white Baptist minister for president?
> > 
> > 
> > Wouldn't it be nice if xenophobic bigots, racists and outright 
> > liars like Dixon would crawl back under their rocks.
> > 
> > Obama has never been a Muslim:
> > http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
> > 
> > CNN Debunks False Obama 'Madrassa' Smear:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pMgsbMcpOE
> 
> See what I was talking about in my earlier reply
> to MDixon's post in which I talked about labels?
> 
> John gets upset about one label and responds by
> trying to apply three more to MDixon -- "xeno-
> phobic bigot," "racist," and "liar."


Dixon has demonstrated that those labels are accurate.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Jan 3, 2008, at 3:37 PM, authfriend wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey Turq,
> > > After Feste and I showed Judy that my interpretation of Hamlet 
> > > was not based on a "gross misreading" of a line, she kinda 
> > > went silent for more than a week. Is that her usual practice 
> > > when defeated in an argument after crowing about how much she 
> > > loves engagement?
> >
> > You're quite an asshole, Angela.
> 
> 
> Yes, but how do you really feel about her Judy?
> 
> Jesus!, couldn't this have been left for your therapist?


Vaj, you forget -- therapists don't argue, they just
listen. How much fun would it be for a compulsive 
arguer to see one?

I think what's going on here is that Judy has never
encountered anyone before who is as compulsive about
claiming to have "won" one of these silly arguments
as she is.

She's reacting to Angela the same way we react to Judy.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Choices

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Wouldn't it be interesting if Americans chose between a black 
> > > Muslim and a white Baptist minister for president?
> > 
> > 
> > Wouldn't it be nice if xenophobic bigots, racists and outright 
> > liars like Dixon would crawl back under their rocks.
> > 
> > Obama has never been a Muslim:
> > http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
> > 
> > CNN Debunks False Obama 'Madrassa' Smear:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pMgsbMcpOE
> 
> See what I was talking about in my earlier reply
> to MDixon's post in which I talked about labels?
> 
> John gets upset about one label and responds by
> trying to apply three more to MDixon -- "xeno-
> phobic bigot," "racist," and "liar."

However, the label "liar" in this case at least
has the virtue of being unequivocally factually
accurate.

It's bad enough, if understandable after 9/11,
that the label applied by the liar even carries
a smear value.

But what's truly amazing is that after the
Democrat has been campaigning for 11 months,
this label is still credible enough among many
to be used as a smear against him. It'll be
interesting to see how long it will be before
Republicans have to stop using it because it's
too widely recognized as a lie.

It would also be interesting to know what
percentage of Europeans realize it's a lie at
this point. I'll bet the percentage is a lot
higher than it is in the U.S.

And you'd *think* that expatriate Americans
who have fled the U.S. because of, among
other things, their disgust at the level of
willful political ignorance among their
countrymen would be at least as well informed
as the Europeans, but I guess there are always
exceptions.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Iowa caucus as seen over coffee, from Spain -- correction

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If the rest of the campaign goes like this, the election 
> could turn into a really interesting showdown between a 
> highly motivated and highly insane Christian Right and 
> the more moderate and sane folks in America, most of 
> whom are too lazy and complacent to even vote. (Remember,
> America has the *lowest* voter turnout in its major 
> elections of any democratic nation on the planet.)

Correction: the USA is not currently the lowest;
it's ranked at 139th. 

This means that there are a few countries like 
Pakistan, Nigeria, Chad, and Sudan that have even
lower voter turnouts for elections.

I rest my case about the talk, talk, talk but do
nothing nature of the United States. According to
international statistics, half of its people can't
stop talk, talk, talking long enough to even vote.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Candidate's Caucus Speeches

[Marek Reavis]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 **snip**
> 
> Edwards did something that I consider rather dumb. He pulled a 36 hour
> sleepless marathon leading up to caucus night, holding little meetings in
> the middle of the night and bigger ones throughout the day. By tonight he
> looked and sounded pretty fried. Obama stayed on a pretty good sleep
> schedule, played basketball with aids this morning, and was out to dinner
> with his family when the news came that he was projected to win. This thing
> is a marathon, not a sprint. Burn yourself out at any point and you run the
> risk of giving a lackluster speech that may haunt you, getting the flu, etc.
> 
**end**

Edwards didn't have much choice except to do that type of marathon because it 
was 
so important that he pull out a win in Iowa.  And I thought that his 
post-caucus 
speech (not a concession speech at all) was fine.  Obama had the easier 
position from 
which to give a speech, obviously, but it still had a sense of being a defining 
moment 
in the campaign and possibly American history.  He was perfectly situated to 
give a 
great speech and he clearly did so.  I was impressed.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> On Jan 4, 2008, at 2:05 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
> 
> > You'll see lots of dodges and techniques if
> > you keep "discussing things" with Judy, Angela.
> > Just keep one thing in mind...Judy always wins.
> 
> Everyone on the forum doesn't.  I don't like getting in the middle of  
> these silly things, but Judy pegged Angela--a thoroughly unpleasant  
> character, or something like that.  


FWIW, I consider Angela an apparent frustrated schoolmarm.


> And you're playing along doesn't  
> say much, Barry.  You're better than that.
> 
> Sal
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[Angela Mailander]

Well, Turq, maybe I shouldn't have been so polite about her gross misreading of 
Hamlet as a "family drama."  Family drama is a modern TV genre, and far from 
Shakespeare, but it does say a lot about Judy  to have  interpreted it that 
way.  The critic always sees himself. 

- Original Message 
From: Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 4, 2008 7:46:09 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy









  




Oops, this is the part of the message I meant to copy--for some reason that's 
not what happened.




On Jan 4, 2008, at 2:05 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:


That's how she'll interpret it, anyway. It won't
matter if everyone on the forum agrees with you
on some point...in HER mind, Judy will have not
only "won" but "devastated" you.


 
Everyone on the forum doesn't.  I don't like getting in the middle of these 
silly things, but Judy pegged Angela--a thoroughly unpleasant character, or 
something like that.  And you're playing along doesn't say much, Barry.  You're 
better than that.


Sal


 Sal

 



  























Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Candidate's Caucus Speeches

[boo_lives]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Can't help but comment on tonight's speeches.  Edwards was good,
Clinton was 
> better (IMO) and very gracious, and Huckabee was really excellent
and presented 
> himself as a very good, compassionate and intelligent man, sincerely
so, I really liked 
> him.

I thought Clinton's totally lacked energy and enthusiasm and didn't
come close to Edward's and Obama's in capturing the democratic mood at
this point 7 yrs into Bush/Cheney.  Huckabee's talk could be summed up
by his slogan banner shown behind him "I Like Mike" - good for a high
school student council race but not leader of the world's only
superpower.  As far as his compassion, he ran ads in Iowa critizing
Romney for not executing more people while governor.  This of course
is his attempt to deflect criticism of his pardoning a serial rapist
who went out and killed/raped again - he released the guy based on
insane clinton conspiracy rumors (clinton having put the guy away). 


> But Obama totally hit it out of the park.  He gave a deeply
inspiring presentation and 
> his oratorical skills, commenting as an admiring practitioner of the
craft, absolutely 
> eclipsed all others, even someone as practised as Edwards is.  I
think it's entirely 
> possible that he fundamentally changed the campaign; he certainly
did so for me.  He 
> seems to be a fine character.  Gorgeous family.  Money in the bank.
 Looking forward 
> to New Hampshire and South Carolina.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[Angela Mailander]

No, I believe she pegged me as "quite an asshole," which I much prefer to "a 
thoroughly unpleasant character."  The trouble with pegging is too obvious to 
discuss.  


- Original Message 
From: Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 4, 2008 7:43:17 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy









  




On Jan 4, 2008, at 2:05 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:

You'll see lots of dodges and techniques if 
 you keep "discussing things" with Judy, Angela.
 Just keep one thing in mind...Judy always wins.
 

Everyone on the forum doesn't.  I don't like getting in the middle of these 
silly things, but Judy pegged Angela--a thoroughly unpleasant character, or 
something like that.  And you're playing along doesn't say much, Barry.  You're 
better than that.

 Sal

 



  























Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Iowa Wrap Up - Bad omen for the GOP

[Peter]

--- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"
> 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"
>  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  Iowa Wrap Up
> > > 
> > > Total Voter Turnout (approximate)
> > > 
> > > 356,000
> > > 
> > > Percentage of total vote
> > > 
> > > 24.5% Obama
> > > 20.5% Edwards
> > > 19.8% Clinton
> > > 11.4% Huckabee (R)
> > > 
> > >
>
http://www.groupnewsblog.net/2008/01/iowa-wrap-up.html
> > 
> > I was one of those unexpected people who showed up
> last night. I
> > hadn't planned on going because I'm not
> enthusiastic about any
> > of the candidates. But, it bugs me that the media
> is trying to 
> > direct this into an Obama vs. Hillary race when
> Edwards has the 
> > best chance of winning in November.
> 
> Much as I like Edwards, I'm not sure he does have
> the best chance. One big reason is the same factor
> that is leading the media to make this an Obama vs.
> Hillary race--the media just doesn't like Edwards.
> And it *really* doesn't like Hillary, so it wants
> to see her beaten decisively by its favorite, Obama,
> and then to see him win the election.
> 
> The other big reason is that Obama's huge win in 
> the caucuses last night has solidified his "aura"
> (which was already appealing to many moderate
> Republicans who would be unlikely to even consider
> voting for Edwards or Hillary in the election.)
> 
> We keep being warned that Iowa isn't determinative,
> but I suspect in this case it will be. It wasn't
> at all clear before last night that Obama's aura
> would be powerful enough for him to beat both
> Edwards and Hillary by so wide a margin, given the
> relatively minor differences in their positions.
> I think that's going to be extremely difficult for
> either of them to overcome. If he has a similar win
> in New Hampshire, that'll be the ball game.

and the national election for the Democrats. When
McCain finally pulls through for the Republicans in
New Hampshire and South Carolina. When Americans are
faced with Obama and McCain they will choose McCain
because of his experience and moderate Republican
position. Obama does not have enough
experiencenext time! And Huckabee is just an Iowa
fluke. (a sort of statistical fiche found swimming in
computers)





> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 



  

Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Yes, there is a difference in the rigorous-
> ness *with which* these two compulsively argue
> and compulsively claim to "win." Judy thinks
> that if she appeals to authority enough times,
> people will believe that *she* has some. Angela
> tends to believe more in the "authority of self,"
> meaning that if she believes it and says it 
> enough times, people will believe it's true.

Great example of Barry's style of "analysis":
words put together in ways that sound impressive
but bear absolutely no relationship to reality.
For Barry, his carefully honed words *are* the
reality.

> My post was meant to tweak Judy, Sal, not to
> support Angela. It worked. She went from having
> a total of posts this week 20 or more under mine
> to being several posts over my total in a matter
> of hours. She's so easy.  :-)

Actually, she was under Barry's total because she
had been out of town and had had the chance to make
only two posts between Saturday and when she
returned late Wednesday night (as Barry knows).
So she made a lot of posts yesterday because a lot had
accumulated that she wanted to respond to, not because
of Barry's fantasized "tweaking."


> The *only* thing that interests me in such situations
> is making fun of one or the other or both parties to
> see if any of the fun I can poke at them can get them
> to step back and see for *themselves* that all that's
> going on is a swingin' dickfest.

That's what arguments *are*, Barry. Those who have big
dicks enjoy swinging them at each other. Those who
don't try to make the best of their lack by pretending
they aren't impressed by or envious of the weaponry
on display. But nobody else is fooled.

[FairfieldLife] Ron Paul wins Jefferson County, grabs 10% in Iowa

[off_world_beings]

Ron Paul wins Jefferson County, grabs 10% in Iowa

This is a great result for Ron Paul, thanks Fairfield !

He is only 3% behind McCain and Thompson in a state where those 2 
names are household names.

Huckabee, the fundie, will not do well in NH, Romney may do ok, 
McCain and Thompson may do well, but Ron Paul was supposed to only 
get less than 4% in Iowa according to all the polls, and in NH he is 
supposed to only get 9%. 

With all the media hype about how he could not win, this is an 
amazing result in the bible-belt for Ron Paul.

Thanks for voting Ron Paul Fairfield !

Obama did well, but considering he is from an adjacent state, it is 
not as good as might be, although, I hopw he wins.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Abortion (Re: Brasscheck TV video on9/11)

[Duveyoung]

Richard challenges us to define words carefully.  He says it would be
hypocritical of me to be "against wars-that-kill-babies" if I am not
equally intense about the "killing of babies-in-wombs."

He would be right if the word "baby" is defined differently than I
would define it.

What's a baby?

A zygote is the first complete cell formed from the union of egg and
sperm -- as it splits itself into more cells, it is then called an
embryo.  Richard would contend that somewhere in this process a "soul
is born," and I would suspect that the zygote's single cell is enough
for Richard to claim that "a life has been started."

But a zygote isn't a "baby" by almost every definition of the word. 
The zygote has no brain, no senses, no memories, no thoughts, no
feelings, no nuttin' that we'd normally call "babyish."

Richard would have us think that any potential by a zygote MUST be
allowed to be realized, MUST be allowed to manifest, or, what?, er,
"the will of God has been thwarted?"  Something like that probably.

Of course, God sees to it that spontaneous abortions occur by the
millions every year -- science tells us this.  So, if Richard's
definition of "baby" is true, then God is a mass murderer whose tally
exceeds the totals of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, et al.  

To me, since Christ and Krishna both agree that even rocks have
consciousness, then it's not logical to think that a zygote has no
consciousness (if we can agree what "has" means.)  Ramana Maharshi
teaches that consciousness has the zygote not the other way around --
just as in a dream one may have a zygote or baby be "manifest."  So,
yes, the zygote cannot be found except that consciousness enwraps it,
associates with it, IS IT.  But this is true of rocks too, so a zygote
cannot logically make a case for its consciousness being "special and
deserving more to be manifest in the Dream-called-Maya.

I will agree with the "will of God" concept to the deepest degree, and
that means we should get out of the dream and allow it to continue
with only God doing the doing, and so any act of will by the meat
robot that is out of sync with God's will can be seen as, well,
"murder."  If we change the dream to suit the meat robot instead of
the grand drama of Maya, then we've murdered God's plan for
manifestation.  Thus in principal, we're all murderers if we are not
enlightened, and it doesn't matter if we've stopped a zygote from
growing up to be a baby or if we've kicked a rock ten feet from where
God put it in the first place -- same "sin."

Back to reality now: when a zygote grows to be an exceedingly complex
system of cells that have tissues and organs, it becomes emotionally
beguiling to begin to call the embryo, after eight weeks, a fetus, and
a fetus looks like a tiny three inch long baby.  A baby that can kick,
suck its thumb, and listen to its own heart beating.  This is where I
get emotional about abortion.  I think that at this point, I'm
struggling not to grant this being full human rights -- partial birth
abortions at this stage just entirely shock me with the utter
brutality of the act.  Yet, up until the 12th week, most states allow
abortions.  Score one for Richard if this is his travail also, and he
recognizes that zygotes and embryos are not "ensouled yet."  But, it
seems Richard DOES think zygotes are babies.

Spiritually speaking, my dogma says a fetus only becomes a baby when
it takes its first breath -- then the soul enters the body.  To me
this is a convenient myth, yet I believe it. Believe -- not know.  

All this said, those zygotes that did make it all the way to "baby"
and are born and living surely deserve any rights and privileges that
Richard would grant to the "babies in the womb."  Surely Richard and I
and everyone would be nutzoid if anyone wanted to "carpet bomb" a
zygote, yet, those very zygotes would not be given such protection by
Richard if those zygotes are Iraqi children who are unlucky enough to
have oil under their feet.  This is where Richard fails so
egregiously: his support of zygotes becomes a straw dog of "abortion
must be dealt with as much as warfare" that we see is not truly a
deeply held axiom of morality to him.

Richard, you are supporting the killing of fully formed zygotes for
oil, and any cry for the beloved zygotes in wombs is, from you lips, a
hideous malformation of your psyche at best or a mindfully murderous
racism attempting to divert criticism about war-mongering to other
issues.  Either way, Richard, you need help desperately to get harmony
with the dissonances in your nervous system.  Inside you is a "Turq
and Judy show" that never ends, and to you, methinks, it feels normal,
but to me, I cannot imagine living inside your brain with such a
battle going on. You must be miserable with the tensions.  

If anyone out there prays, pray for Richard, who is, after all, a
zygote who made it and should not be carpet bombed for anything under
his feet.

Edg







--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nabluso

[FairfieldLife] Re: Choices

[boo_lives]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Wouldn't it be interesting if Americans chose between a black Muslim
and a  
> white Baptist minister for president?

Obama isn't a muslim and never was, you idiot!!!  dixon doesn't even
have a basic knowledge of the facts in geopolitics.

[FairfieldLife] I wanna grow and be just like Juno

[shempmcgurk]

Sorry to be redundant about "Juno" but you all need to go see the movie 
of the year.  Saw it on Wednesday and then went back to see it on 
Thursday.

Read what Roger Ebert says about it:

http://tinyurl.com/2854tj

And you can visit the "official" web site.  Greatest sound track, 
coolest web site for a movie:

http://www.foxsearchlight.com/juno/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> No, I believe she pegged me as "quite an asshole," which I much 
prefer to "a thoroughly unpleasant character."

I pegged you as "quite an asshole" as well as "a
thoroughly unpleasant individual," actually.

> The trouble with pegging is too obvious to discuss.

You mean, like this kind of pegging?

"After Feste and I showed Judy that my interpretation
of Hamlet was not based on a 'gross misreading' of a
line, she kinda went silent for more than a week. Is
that her usual practice when defeated in an argument
after crowing about how much she loves engagement?"

Note that Angela doesn't seem to have responded to
either my reply to the above pegging, or to my repost--
headed with her name--demonstrating the absurdity of
her claim to have defeated me concerning her gross
misreading of the "Hamlet" line, as well as her
claim that I "went silent" about it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ron Paul wins Jefferson County, grabs 10% in Iowa

[boo_lives]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Ron Paul wins Jefferson County, grabs 10% in Iowa
> 
> This is a great result for Ron Paul, thanks Fairfield !
> 
> He is only 3% behind McCain and Thompson in a state where those 2 
> names are household names.
> 
> Huckabee, the fundie, will not do well in NH, Romney may do ok, 
> McCain and Thompson may do well, but Ron Paul was supposed to only 
> get less than 4% in Iowa according to all the polls, and in NH he is 
> supposed to only get 9%. 
> 
> With all the media hype about how he could not win, this is an 
> amazing result in the bible-belt for Ron Paul.
> 
> Thanks for voting Ron Paul Fairfield !
> 
> Obama did well, but considering he is from an adjacent state, it is 
> not as good as might be, although, I hopw he wins.
> 
> OffWorld
>
I like that Ron Paul is sticking it to all the fake conservative
republicans out there and he personally seems to have integrity, but
the fact is that he finished 5th in Iowa and even in the most
libertarian state in the US, NH, he will finished 3rd at best and
probably lower.  Then it's on to the pro-war South where he'll get
creamed.  Consistently finishing out of the top 3 is not good.

I'm all for Paul continuing on till the end, but when I talk to his
supporters here in ffld, they're good on basic libertarian principles
but are often in cuckoo land when it comes to the facts of things like
the federal reserve, the budget, the tax system, and certain
historical events.  I like that Paul has enthusiastic supporters in
ffld but when they don't get that he doesn't really have a chance to
win this year, they remind me of naive Hagelin supporters of the past.

[FairfieldLife] Lyoto ........//was Judy...l.et's see how little

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Lyoto is a great fighter with great skills, but I
> don't see any specific Shotokan skills giving him any
> wins. Off, what specific Shotokan skills did you see
> and when that allowed him to win the fight? His kicks
> were blocked except for one that did little damage. He
> had few fist strikes that did anything. What I saw was
> a guy with a great sense of body position who won a
> ground fight with "ground and pound" strikes and
> eventually slipped in a nice choke and his opponent
> tapped out. Also his opponent seemed rather lost on
> the bottom and did next to nothing. Was there a fix
> in? It made me think!>>

He was hitting him wiht kicks and punches, and that shook him and 
demoralised him, especially since this guy expected to be strong in 
that regard, but yes he also dominated on the floor, and that says 
something for JuJitsu, but his real skills are being smart, accurate, 
and fast which all come from a Shotokan background since 5 years old, 
and he would not stand a chance against this guy without that, even 
if he was expert in JyuJitsu

But yea, kudos to jyu jyitsu in a competition like UFC where reality 
is abandoned for a good show.

OffWorld


> 
> --- curtisdeltablues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> 
> > > You, (like Curtis' with the recent Dec. 29
> > annihilation by the 
> > > Shotokan) have nothing of substance to argue with.
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > Do you mean the fight where Lyoto failed to stop the
> > fight with
> > magical Shotokan strikes and eventually used a Jiu
> > jitsu choke to
> > finally finish a fight instead of having it go to a
> > decision...that
> > fight?  I guess he has learned more than you have
> > about the place for
> > his strikes, to set up a finishing hold.
> >   
> >
> http://mmafightvideos.blogspot.com/2007/12/ufc-79-streaming-video-
lyoto-machida-vs.html
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
> > off_world_beings 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
> >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Brian
> > Horsfield" 
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >  I am glad that more folks are looking into
> > Ron Paul. He's 
> > > > > certainly very unusual and at first glance his
> > positions seem 
> > > > > simplistic... like his solution to Iraq "just
> > come home".
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > FWIW, the more I learn about Ron Paul's
> > positions,>>
> > > 
> > > Such as?
> > > What positions of RP's are you blowing out of
> > proportion? and 
> > > distorting for your own prejudices?
> > > 
> > > You, (like Curtis' with the recent Dec. 29
> > annihilation by the 
> > > Shotokan) have nothing of substance to argue with.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Bring it on.
> > > What is it that you disagree with with Ron Paul?
> > >  Looks to me like you are just another manipulator
> > of truth.
> > > 
> > > OffWorld
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > the less appealing (understatement) I find him.
> > >>
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>   
__
__
> Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Michelle v. Hillary

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Anyone seen Michelle Obama interviewed?  Once you see and hear her, 
you 
> kinda want HER to be president.  Much more charisma than Hillary, 
maybe 
> even more than her husband.
>

Lots of plastic surgery, and stuff?

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/07/28/obama.jpg

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/20070215ebony.jpg

[FairfieldLife] Re: Candidate's Caucus Speeches

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "boo_lives" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Huckabee's talk could be summed up
> by his slogan banner shown behind him "I Like Mike" - good for a 
> high school student council race but not leader of the world's only
> superpower.  As far as his compassion, he ran ads in Iowa critizing
> Romney for not executing more people while governor.

Which is interesting, because Massachusetts doesn't
have a death penalty.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Choices

[MDixon6569]

 
In a message dated 1/4/08 9:10:48 A.M. Central Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Wouldn't  it be interesting if Americans chose between a black Muslim
and a 
>  white Baptist minister for president?

Obama isn't a muslim and never  was, you idiot!!! dixon doesn't even
have a basic knowledge of the facts in  geopolitics.



oh, this is so interesting. Some seem  very defensive of the  
assertion that Obama is (correct or not) a Muslim. Would that be an  
embarrassment if 
he were? A political liability? Now, who's the  xenophobe?   



**Start the year off right.  Easy ways to stay in shape. 
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp0030002489

RE: [FairfieldLife] Spiritually hot in FF 2008

[Rick Archer]

 

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of dhamiltony2k5
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 10:36 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Spiritually hot in FF 2008

 

> Touring of the saints,
> 
> Mother Meera in FF
> 
> 
> HYPERLINK
"http://www.mothermeera-fairfield.com/default.jsp"http://www.mothermeera-fai
rfield.com/default.jsp
>

Any dates set for Ammachi or Karunamayi in Iowa?

Karunamayi’s dates are set and on her website. Ammachi’s are not yet
confirmed. They may overlap.

 


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1208 - Release Date: 1/3/2008
3:52 PM
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well, Turq, maybe I shouldn't have been so polite about her 
> gross misreading of Hamlet as a "family drama."  Family drama 
> is a modern TV genre, and far from Shakespeare, but it does 
> say a lot about Judy  to have  interpreted it that way.  The 
> critic always sees himself. 

Possibly, but I'm not going to get lured into
a mêlée of swinging dicks...you guys could poke
somebody's eye out with all that waving.  :-)

The thing I think you're both ignoring is that
the plot of Hamlet, like all but one or two of
Shakespeare's plays, was *stolen* from other
sources. Shakespeare took existing material 
and reworked it; that's just what he *did*.

( I use the word "stolen" advisedly, in the sense
of T.S. Eliot's quote, "Mediocre writers borrow; 
great writers steal." )

>From Wikipedia: "Hamlet's sources probably include 
an Indo-European legend—preserved by a 13th-century 
chronicler, and retold by a 16th-century scholar—and 
a lost Elizabethan play known today as the Ur-Hamlet. 
Whatever its precise provenance, Shakespeare turned 
Hamlet into 'one of the most powerful and influential 
tragedies in the English language.'"

My point, Angela, is that BOTH of you AGREED at the
beginning of this tempest in a pisspot that any inter-
pretation of Shakespeare was OK, and then proceeded
to argue that your interpretation was superior. 

If that doesn't get my point across, here it is again,
in the language of the Bard himself:

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to keep
One's dick in its holster where it belongs,
Or to whip it out and create a sea of troubles,
And by opposing prove who the dick is? 

:-)

[FairfieldLife] Michelle v. Hillary

[shempmcgurk]

Anyone seen Michelle Obama interviewed?  Once you see and hear her, you 
kinda want HER to be president.  Much more charisma than Hillary, maybe 
even more than her husband.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Iowa Wrap Up - Bad omen for the GOP

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> 
> --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > We keep being warned that Iowa isn't determinative,
> > but I suspect in this case it will be. It wasn't
> > at all clear before last night that Obama's aura
> > would be powerful enough for him to beat both
> > Edwards and Hillary by so wide a margin, given the
> > relatively minor differences in their positions.
> > I think that's going to be extremely difficult for
> > either of them to overcome. If he has a similar win
> > in New Hampshire, that'll be the ball game.
> 
> and the national election for the Democrats. When
> McCain finally pulls through for the Republicans in
> New Hampshire and South Carolina. When Americans are
> faced with Obama and McCain they will choose McCain
> because of his experience and moderate Republican
> position.

Not sure of that, but McCain is the Republicans' only
chance for a genuine horse race if Obama wins the
Democratic nomination.

The media love McCain too, but what they like about
him isn't as evident to the voters as Obama's "aura."
Not sure what else to call it--it isn't just charisma,
although he's got a lot more of that than McCain
does. It's also his "change" theme, both in terms
of what he says and who he is, i.e., black. He's new
and different and attractive, whereas McCain is more
of the same, if on a higher level of competence and
integrity.

Obama probably wouldn't have a chance if we had just
had eight years of a reasonably competent Republican
administration. But the revulsion BushCo has inspired
combined with Obama's natural appeal, his freshness,
may well do the trick.

 Obama does not have enough
> experiencenext time! And Huckabee is just an Iowa
> fluke. (a sort of statistical fiche found swimming in
> computers)

Yes, Huckabee is a fluke. But it's still possible that
the Republicans will panic and go for Romney. That's
what Democrats are hoping for, anyway.

[FairfieldLife] Spiritually hot in FF 2008

[dhamiltony2k5]

> Touring of the saints,
> 
> Mother Meera in FF
> 
> 
> http://www.mothermeera-fairfield.com/default.jsp
>

Any dates set for Ammachi or Karunamayi in Iowa?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> 
> > The *only* thing that interests me in such situations
> > is making fun of one or the other or both parties to
> > see if any of the fun I can poke at them can get them
> > to step back and see for *themselves* that all that's
> > going on is a swingin' dickfest.
> 
> That's what arguments *are*, Barry. Those who have big
> dicks enjoy swinging them at each other. Those who
> don't try to make the best of their lack by pretending
> they aren't impressed by or envious of the weaponry
> on display. But nobody else is fooled.

There is really nothing I can say in response
to this that could be anywhere near as funny
as the fact that Judy actually said it.  :-)

I think I'm going to cut this quote out and 
keep it and post it every time she gets into
an argument with someone -- anyone -- on this
forum. I mean, in it she not only 1) agrees
with me that the arguments she lives for are
nothing but dick-swinging egocontests, she
2) agrees with me that her fundamental belief
is that her dick is bigger than anyone else's
and that therefore she will by definition "win" 
the dick-swinging egocontest, and that 3) any-
one who doesn't *agree* that she "won" the dick-
swinging egocontest is *envious* of her big dick.

This one's a classic, even for Judy Stein, even
better than her recent adulation of Big Nurse 
and the Wicked Witch of the West. Just for fun 
I'll repost my commentary on that one, even 
though her dick is not visible in the photo:

http://www.members.aol.com/tantricone/share/RoleModels.htm

:-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Candidate's Caucus Speeches

[Marek Reavis]

Boo_Lives, Clinton was in the hardest position, in some ways, since she was the 
front 
runner who got seriously trounced.  To project confidence and enthusiasm when 
you 
just fell on your face is a hard trick to pull off and I think that under those 
circumstances she did very well, re-casting the votes as a "victory for 
democrats" 
(which it was, of course, as the total votes cast indicate).

As far as Huckabee is concerned I have no illusions as to how his agendas would 
actually play out should he somehow manage to get elected; I was commenting on 
how he projected in his speech which I found to be very personable, very 
polished, 
and with genuine warmth and intelligence.  I found myself responding to him as 
a 
person and I think that type of personality and character will be very 
appealing to lots 
of voters.  In contrast, I found Romney to be perfectly blow-dried and packaged 
in his 
speech, almost Stepford-ish.  I think Huckabee might have more substantial legs 
than 
he's being given credit for.  McCain is too tired, I believe, to last past 
February 5 
without some substantial and unequivocal wins that don't seem likely to happen.

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "boo_lives" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" 
> wrote:
> >
> > Can't help but comment on tonight's speeches.  Edwards was good,
> Clinton was 
> > better (IMO) and very gracious, and Huckabee was really excellent
> and presented 
> > himself as a very good, compassionate and intelligent man, sincerely
> so, I really liked 
> > him.
> 
> I thought Clinton's totally lacked energy and enthusiasm and didn't
> come close to Edward's and Obama's in capturing the democratic mood at
> this point 7 yrs into Bush/Cheney.  Huckabee's talk could be summed up
> by his slogan banner shown behind him "I Like Mike" - good for a high
> school student council race but not leader of the world's only
> superpower.  As far as his compassion, he ran ads in Iowa critizing
> Romney for not executing more people while governor.  This of course
> is his attempt to deflect criticism of his pardoning a serial rapist
> who went out and killed/raped again - he released the guy based on
> insane clinton conspiracy rumors (clinton having put the guy away). 
> 
> 
> > But Obama totally hit it out of the park.  He gave a deeply
> inspiring presentation and 
> > his oratorical skills, commenting as an admiring practitioner of the
> craft, absolutely 
> > eclipsed all others, even someone as practised as Edwards is.  I
> think it's entirely 
> > possible that he fundamentally changed the campaign; he certainly
> did so for me.  He 
> > seems to be a fine character.  Gorgeous family.  Money in the bank.
>  Looking forward 
> > to New Hampshire and South Carolina.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ron Paul is Scary, But Those That Cheer Him Are Even Scarier by Earl Ofari H

[do.rflex]

I think the American people have had their fill of extremists and
weirdos. Ron Paul doesn't have a rat's ass of a chance of winning the
presidency.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "oneradiantbeing"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ron Paul is Scary, But Those That Cheer Him Are Even Scarier - by 
> Earl Ofari Hutchinson / Posted January 3, 2008 | 10:57 AM (EST) 
> 
> 
> The scariest thing about no hope GOP presidential contender Ron Paul 
> is not his fringe, odd ball racial views. It's not that he polls in 
> single digits in all national polls and has zilch of a chance to get 
> the nomination. It's not that at times the GOP candidates sound just 
> as racially isolationist as he does. It's certainly not that he will 
> wow a national audience with his trademark shoot-from-the-lip zingers 
> even if ABC and Fox recants in a moment of compassion and dumps him 
> back in a seat in their January 6 televised GOP New Hampshire 
> presidential debate. 
> 
> The scariest thing about Paul is that even though only a few hard 
> core Paul backers will waste a vote on him, millions more seem to 
> agree that his off beat views, especially on race matters, make 
> sense. They even stand logic as high as it get can go on its head to 
> defend their leader against all comers. That's especially true when 
> it comes to Paul's views on race and ethnic politics. That's not a 
> small point given the open but more often sneaky role that race and 
> ethnicity will increasingly play in the presidential derby. 
> Democratic presidential contenders Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, 
> John Edwards and Bill Richardson have pulled out all stops to woo and 
> court blacks, Latinos and Asian voters. They have made poverty, 
> affordable health care, immigration reform, and job protections the 
> linchpins of their campaigns. 
> 
> Paul and the GOP candidates have done just the opposite. They duck, 
> dodge, and deny racial issues. The only departure from their racial 
> blind eye is to fan anti-immigrant flames. Paul has gone one better. 
> In an ad, he demanded that students from alleged terrorist countries 
> should be denied visas into the U.S. Paul offered not a shred of 
> proof that there are hordes of students pouring into America to 
> commit terrorist acts. The ad was more than just a cheap ploy to fan 
> terrorism fears. This reinforced the worst in racial and religious 
> stereotyping and negative typecasting. The stereotype is that any one 
> in America with a non-white face and is a Muslim is a terrorist.
> 
> Then there's Paul's now infamous slavery quip that he made on Meet 
> the Press. Paul claimed the Civil War was an unnecessary bloodbath 
> that could and should have been avoided. All Lincoln had to do was 
> buy the slaves. Other slave promoting countries, asserts Paul, didn't 
> fight wars and they ended slavery peacefully. Paul's historical 
> dumbness would have been laughable except for four things. One, he 
> was dead wrong. Lincoln twice made offers to the slave owners to buy 
> the slaves. They turned him down flat. The countries that freed the 
> slaves without war, presumably France and England, unlike the U.S., 
> did not practice slavery in their countries. And France did fight a 
> war-- Napoleon's ill-fated invasion of Haiti to put down the slave 
> revolt there. 
> 
> Two, he's running for president and has a national platform to spout 
> his wrong-headed views (Meet the Press!). Three, he's done and said 
> stuff like this many times before. Among the choice Paulisms are that 
> blacks are criminally inclined, political dumb bells, and chronic 
> welfare deadbeats. There was also the alleged Paul hobnob with a 
> noted white supremacist. Here's what Paul on his campaign website 
> ronpaul2008.com has to say about race. In fact he even highlights 
> this as "Issue: Racism" on the site. "Government as an institution is 
> particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry." In other words, the 1954 
> landmark Supreme Court's Brown vs. Board of education school 
> desegregation decision, the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts, the 1965 
> Voting Rights Act, and legions of court decisions and state laws that 
> bar discrimination are worthless. Worse, says Paul, they actually 
> promote bigotry by dividing Americans into race and class. 
> 
> Paul's cure for racial bigotry is to change people's hearts. Whew!! 
> The ghosts of Barry Goldwater, Strom Thurmond, the unreconstructed 
> George Wallace, and packs of Southern States Righters and Citizens 
> Councils big shots would lustily cheer Paul on that one. They railed 
> for decades against the federal government's lift of even the tiniest 
> finger to protect black rights and lives. Their stock line was that 
> race relations can only change when hearts change. If we waited for 
> that to happen the "whites only" signs would still be dangling 
> prominently from every toilet and school house door in the South. 
> 
> Paul's views are a corn ball blend

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[mrfishey2001]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

"Well, Turq, maybe I shouldn't have been so polite about her gross 
misreading of Hamlet as a "family drama."  Family drama is a modern 
TV genre, and far from Shakespeare, but it does say a lot about 
Judy  to have  interpreted it that way.  The critic always sees 
himself." 

-

Shakespeare is not given to family drama? My God madam, you can't be 
serious. It's the entire canon.

-

[FairfieldLife] Re: Lyoto ........//was Judy...l.et's see how little

[curtisdeltablues]

> He was hitting him wiht kicks and punches, and that shook him and 
> demoralised him, especially since this guy expected to be strong in 
> that regard, but yes he also dominated on the floor, and that says 
> something for JuJitsu, but his real skills are being smart, accurate, 
> and fast which all come from a Shotokan background since 5 years old, 
> and he would not stand a chance against this guy without that, even 
> if he was expert in JyuJitsu
> 
> But yea, kudos to jyu jyitsu in a competition like UFC where reality 
> is abandoned for a good show.
> 

Well I take it back Off.  Your position has evolved due to evidence.
So we can both enjoy the rise of an excellent fighter with well
rounded skills.  

There are plenty of "real" fights on the Internet too, do a search. 
You'll find that people tend to use what they were trained in and
there are plenty of wrestlers out there ready to take you to the
ground.  Same with bar fights I have seen, it is about even what
skills people use, ground fighting or punching.  I've seen plenty of
fights end with one person throwing another person down with a Judo
move.  With so many kids growing up with UFC exposure you see more Jiu
Jitsu moves.  Just the other night on Tila Tequila's "reality" show
two guys went at it and the guy put a guillotine choke on the other
guy as naturally as any UFC fight.  It seemed to work pretty well. 
(Did I just reveal my extremely juvenile TV viewing habits? Oh my!) 



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter  
> wrote:
> >
> > Lyoto is a great fighter with great skills, but I
> > don't see any specific Shotokan skills giving him any
> > wins. Off, what specific Shotokan skills did you see
> > and when that allowed him to win the fight? His kicks
> > were blocked except for one that did little damage. He
> > had few fist strikes that did anything. What I saw was
> > a guy with a great sense of body position who won a
> > ground fight with "ground and pound" strikes and
> > eventually slipped in a nice choke and his opponent
> > tapped out. Also his opponent seemed rather lost on
> > the bottom and did next to nothing. Was there a fix
> > in? It made me think!>>
> 
> He was hitting him wiht kicks and punches, and that shook him and 
> demoralised him, especially since this guy expected to be strong in 
> that regard, but yes he also dominated on the floor, and that says 
> something for JuJitsu, but his real skills are being smart, accurate, 
> and fast which all come from a Shotokan background since 5 years old, 
> and he would not stand a chance against this guy without that, even 
> if he was expert in JyuJitsu
> 
> But yea, kudos to jyu jyitsu in a competition like UFC where reality 
> is abandoned for a good show.
> 
> OffWorld
> 
> 
> > 
> > --- curtisdeltablues 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > > You, (like Curtis' with the recent Dec. 29
> > > annihilation by the 
> > > > Shotokan) have nothing of substance to argue with.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Do you mean the fight where Lyoto failed to stop the
> > > fight with
> > > magical Shotokan strikes and eventually used a Jiu
> > > jitsu choke to
> > > finally finish a fight instead of having it go to a
> > > decision...that
> > > fight?  I guess he has learned more than you have
> > > about the place for
> > > his strikes, to set up a finishing hold.
> > >   
> > >
> > http://mmafightvideos.blogspot.com/2007/12/ufc-79-streaming-video-
> lyoto-machida-vs.html
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
> > > off_world_beings 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
> > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Brian
> > > Horsfield" 
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  I am glad that more folks are looking into
> > > Ron Paul. He's 
> > > > > > certainly very unusual and at first glance his
> > > positions seem 
> > > > > > simplistic... like his solution to Iraq "just
> > > come home".
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > FWIW, the more I learn about Ron Paul's
> > > positions,>>
> > > > 
> > > > Such as?
> > > > What positions of RP's are you blowing out of
> > > proportion? and 
> > > > distorting for your own prejudices?
> > > > 
> > > > You, (like Curtis' with the recent Dec. 29
> > > annihilation by the 
> > > > Shotokan) have nothing of substance to argue with.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Bring it on.
> > > > What is it that you disagree with with Ron Paul?
> > > >  Looks to me like you are just another manipulator
> > > of truth.
> > > > 
> > > > OffWorld
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > the less appealing (understatement) I find him.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 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
> > > 
> > > 
> > > mailto:[EMAIL P

[FairfieldLife] Ron Paul is Scary, But Those That Cheer Him Are Even Scarier by Earl Ofari Hutch

[oneradiantbeing]

Ron Paul is Scary, But Those That Cheer Him Are Even Scarier - by 
Earl Ofari Hutchinson / Posted January 3, 2008 | 10:57 AM (EST) 


The scariest thing about no hope GOP presidential contender Ron Paul 
is not his fringe, odd ball racial views. It's not that he polls in 
single digits in all national polls and has zilch of a chance to get 
the nomination. It's not that at times the GOP candidates sound just 
as racially isolationist as he does. It's certainly not that he will 
wow a national audience with his trademark shoot-from-the-lip zingers 
even if ABC and Fox recants in a moment of compassion and dumps him 
back in a seat in their January 6 televised GOP New Hampshire 
presidential debate. 

The scariest thing about Paul is that even though only a few hard 
core Paul backers will waste a vote on him, millions more seem to 
agree that his off beat views, especially on race matters, make 
sense. They even stand logic as high as it get can go on its head to 
defend their leader against all comers. That's especially true when 
it comes to Paul's views on race and ethnic politics. That's not a 
small point given the open but more often sneaky role that race and 
ethnicity will increasingly play in the presidential derby. 
Democratic presidential contenders Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, 
John Edwards and Bill Richardson have pulled out all stops to woo and 
court blacks, Latinos and Asian voters. They have made poverty, 
affordable health care, immigration reform, and job protections the 
linchpins of their campaigns. 

Paul and the GOP candidates have done just the opposite. They duck, 
dodge, and deny racial issues. The only departure from their racial 
blind eye is to fan anti-immigrant flames. Paul has gone one better. 
In an ad, he demanded that students from alleged terrorist countries 
should be denied visas into the U.S. Paul offered not a shred of 
proof that there are hordes of students pouring into America to 
commit terrorist acts. The ad was more than just a cheap ploy to fan 
terrorism fears. This reinforced the worst in racial and religious 
stereotyping and negative typecasting. The stereotype is that any one 
in America with a non-white face and is a Muslim is a terrorist.

Then there's Paul's now infamous slavery quip that he made on Meet 
the Press. Paul claimed the Civil War was an unnecessary bloodbath 
that could and should have been avoided. All Lincoln had to do was 
buy the slaves. Other slave promoting countries, asserts Paul, didn't 
fight wars and they ended slavery peacefully. Paul's historical 
dumbness would have been laughable except for four things. One, he 
was dead wrong. Lincoln twice made offers to the slave owners to buy 
the slaves. They turned him down flat. The countries that freed the 
slaves without war, presumably France and England, unlike the U.S., 
did not practice slavery in their countries. And France did fight a 
war-- Napoleon's ill-fated invasion of Haiti to put down the slave 
revolt there. 

Two, he's running for president and has a national platform to spout 
his wrong-headed views (Meet the Press!). Three, he's done and said 
stuff like this many times before. Among the choice Paulisms are that 
blacks are criminally inclined, political dumb bells, and chronic 
welfare deadbeats. There was also the alleged Paul hobnob with a 
noted white supremacist. Here's what Paul on his campaign website 
ronpaul2008.com has to say about race. In fact he even highlights 
this as "Issue: Racism" on the site. "Government as an institution is 
particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry." In other words, the 1954 
landmark Supreme Court's Brown vs. Board of education school 
desegregation decision, the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts, the 1965 
Voting Rights Act, and legions of court decisions and state laws that 
bar discrimination are worthless. Worse, says Paul, they actually 
promote bigotry by dividing Americans into race and class. 

Paul's cure for racial bigotry is to change people's hearts. Whew!! 
The ghosts of Barry Goldwater, Strom Thurmond, the unreconstructed 
George Wallace, and packs of Southern States Righters and Citizens 
Councils big shots would lustily cheer Paul on that one. They railed 
for decades against the federal government's lift of even the tiniest 
finger to protect black rights and lives. Their stock line was that 
race relations can only change when hearts change. If we waited for 
that to happen the "whites only" signs would still be dangling 
prominently from every toilet and school house door in the South. 

Paul's views are a corn ball blend of libertarianism, know-nothing 
Americanism, and ultra conservative laissez faire limited government. 
This marks him as a type A American political quirk.

Now there's the fourth reason not to laugh at Paul. And this is 
really what makes him scary. There are apparently millions that don't 
see a darn thing wrong with any of this and pillory anyone who does. 
They are even scarier than him. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
wrote:
> > 
> > > The *only* thing that interests me in such situations
> > > is making fun of one or the other or both parties to
> > > see if any of the fun I can poke at them can get them
> > > to step back and see for *themselves* that all that's
> > > going on is a swingin' dickfest.
> > 
> > That's what arguments *are*, Barry. Those who have big
> > dicks enjoy swinging them at each other. Those who
> > don't try to make the best of their lack by pretending
> > they aren't impressed by or envious of the weaponry
> > on display. But nobody else is fooled.
> 
> There is really nothing I can say in response
> to this that could be anywhere near as funny
> as the fact that Judy actually said it.  :-)
> 
> I think I'm going to cut this quote out and 
> keep it and post it every time she gets into
> an argument with someone -- anyone -- on this
> forum. I mean, in it she not only 1) agrees
> with me that the arguments she lives for are
> nothing but dick-swinging egocontests, she
> 2) agrees with me that her fundamental belief
> is that her dick is bigger than anyone else's
> and that therefore she will by definition "win" 
> the dick-swinging egocontest, and that 3) any-
> one who doesn't *agree* that she "won" the dick-
> swinging egocontest is *envious* of her big dick.

Actually, I'm in agreement with Barry only on
(1), which, as I noted, is a given anyway.

Barry made up (2) and (3) out of whole cloth
(pretty much proving my point).

[FairfieldLife] Re: Michelle v. Hillary

[Marek Reavis]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  
> wrote:
> >
> > Anyone seen Michelle Obama interviewed?  Once you see and hear her, 
> you 
> > kinda want HER to be president.  Much more charisma than Hillary, 
> maybe 
> > even more than her husband.
> >
> 
> Lots of plastic surgery, and stuff?
> 
> http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/07/28/obama.jpg
> 
> http://nymag.com/daily/intel/20070215ebony.jpg
>
**

Hardly.  Did you see her in that little blue dress when she took the 
stage with Barack and their two kids?  She looks great, she's 
intelligent, well spoken, very clear and projects true warmth.  One of 
the commentators last night, speaking about her and their daughters, 
pointed out how classy his family was.  She's a 21st Century Jackie 
Kennedy (IMO); lots of star power and well suited for the White House.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, Turq, maybe I shouldn't have been so polite about her 
> > > gross misreading of Hamlet as a "family drama."  Family drama 
> > > is a modern TV genre, and far from Shakespeare, but it does 
> > > say a lot about Judy  to have  interpreted it that way.  The 
> > > critic always sees himself. 
> > 
> > Possibly, but I'm not going to get lured into
> > a mêlée of swinging dicks...you guys could poke
> > somebody's eye out with all that waving.  :-)
> > 
> > The thing I think you're both ignoring is that
> > the plot of Hamlet, like all but one or two of
> > Shakespeare's plays, was *stolen* from other
> > sources. Shakespeare took existing material 
> > and reworked it; that's just what he *did*.
> > 
> > ( I use the word "stolen" advisedly, in the sense
> > of T.S. Eliot's quote, "Mediocre writers borrow; 
> > great writers steal." )
> > 
> > From Wikipedia: "Hamlet's sources probably include 
> > an Indo-European legend—preserved by a 13th-century 
> > chronicler, and retold by a 16th-century scholar—and 
> > a lost Elizabethan play known today as the Ur-Hamlet. 
> > Whatever its precise provenance, Shakespeare turned 
> > Hamlet into 'one of the most powerful and influential 
> > tragedies in the English language.'"
> > 
> > My point, Angela, is that BOTH of you AGREED at the
> > beginning of this tempest in a pisspot that any inter-
> > pretation of Shakespeare was OK, and then proceeded
> > to argue that your interpretation was superior. 
> > 
> > If that doesn't get my point across, here it is again,
> > in the language of the Bard himself:
> > 
> > Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to keep
> > One's dick in its holster where it belongs,
> > Or to whip it out and create a sea of troubles,
> > And by opposing prove who the dick is? 
> > 
> > :-)
> 
> Barry says as he waves his dick.

Whereas John turned his over to his 
dominatrix Judy long ago.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
>  wrote:
> >
> > Well, Turq, maybe I shouldn't have been so polite about her 
> > gross misreading of Hamlet as a "family drama."  Family drama 
> > is a modern TV genre, and far from Shakespeare,

Actually, "family drama" has been around as long as
drama has.

 but it does 
> > say a lot about Judy  to have  interpreted it that way.  The 
> > critic always sees himself. 
> 
> Possibly, but I'm not going to get lured into
> a mêlée of swinging dicks...you guys could poke
> somebody's eye out with all that waving.  :-)
> 
> The thing I think you're both ignoring is that
> the plot of Hamlet, like all but one or two of
> Shakespeare's plays, was *stolen* from other
> sources. Shakespeare took existing material 
> and reworked it; that's just what he *did*.

We're both aware of that, Barry. The specifics
just happen to be irrelevant to the discussion
we were having.

 
> My point, Angela, is that BOTH of you AGREED at the
> beginning of this tempest in a pisspot that any inter-
> pretation of Shakespeare was OK, and then proceeded
> to argue that your interpretation was superior.

Well, actually, no, we didn't. I called Angela's
attention to Ken Wilber's comment (in a different
context) that there was no one "correct" interpretation
of "Hamlet," but there were a million wrong ones
(e.g., "Hamlet" is not a play about a picnic in
Hawaii).

That, of course, doesn't mean that all "non-wrong"
interpretations are equally as "good."

And because you're just fantasizing about our
discussion, not having read any of it, you've
made an even bigger mistake: I never claimed
Angela's interpretation was "wrong." I don't
think it's a *good* interpretation--one based
on what's actually in the play rather than one
imposed on the play, which is my criterion for
a "good" interpretation--but that's quite
different.

What I said was *wrong* was her reading of a
single line, which is as wrong as would be an
interpretation of the entire play that maintains
it's about a picnic in Hawaii.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
>  wrote:
> >
> > Well, Turq, maybe I shouldn't have been so polite about her 
> > gross misreading of Hamlet as a "family drama."  Family drama 
> > is a modern TV genre, and far from Shakespeare, but it does 
> > say a lot about Judy  to have  interpreted it that way.  The 
> > critic always sees himself. 
> 
> Possibly, but I'm not going to get lured into
> a mêlée of swinging dicks...you guys could poke
> somebody's eye out with all that waving.  :-)
> 
> The thing I think you're both ignoring is that
> the plot of Hamlet, like all but one or two of
> Shakespeare's plays, was *stolen* from other
> sources. Shakespeare took existing material 
> and reworked it; that's just what he *did*.
> 
> ( I use the word "stolen" advisedly, in the sense
> of T.S. Eliot's quote, "Mediocre writers borrow; 
> great writers steal." )
> 
> From Wikipedia: "Hamlet's sources probably include 
> an Indo-European legend—preserved by a 13th-century 
> chronicler, and retold by a 16th-century scholar—and 
> a lost Elizabethan play known today as the Ur-Hamlet. 
> Whatever its precise provenance, Shakespeare turned 
> Hamlet into 'one of the most powerful and influential 
> tragedies in the English language.'"
> 
> My point, Angela, is that BOTH of you AGREED at the
> beginning of this tempest in a pisspot that any inter-
> pretation of Shakespeare was OK, and then proceeded
> to argue that your interpretation was superior. 
> 
> If that doesn't get my point across, here it is again,
> in the language of the Bard himself:
> 
> Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to keep
> One's dick in its holster where it belongs,
> Or to whip it out and create a sea of troubles,
> And by opposing prove who the dick is? 
> 
> :-)


Barry says as he waves his dick.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[TurquoiseB]

> > > Barry says as he waves his dick.
> > 
> > Whereas John turned his over to his 
> > dominatrix Judy long ago.  :-)
> 
> Those of us who recognize like Judy does that you're a phony, Barry,
> can necessarily expect to become a similar target of your paranoid
> ego. You just don't realize how much power you give Judy and how
> transparent you are. It's kind of pathetic to watch you try to dance
> out of the pickle you've created for yourself with her specifically.

Pickle? Is *that* what you use for a dick since 
you turned yours over to Judy?

Knowing you, it's probably a baby gherkin. :-)

But, since you don't even have the creativity 
to invent your *own* putdown, and have to borrow
one of your dominatrix's, allow me to call you 
on it.

A phony WHAT, John?

What is it you claim I am pretending to be that
I am not.

I'll wait while you email her for an answer.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[mrfishey2001]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mrfishey2001" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander 
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > "Well, Turq, maybe I shouldn't have been so polite about her 
gross 
> > misreading of Hamlet as a "family drama."  Family drama is a 
modern 
> > TV genre, and far from Shakespeare, but it does say a lot about 
> > Judy  to have  interpreted it that way.  The critic always sees 
> > himself." 
> > 
> > -
> > 
> > Shakespeare is not given to family drama? My God madam, you
> > can't be serious. It's the entire canon.
> 
> Well, he did do some plays that were more
> historical than family-oriented, although
> families were certainly involved.
> 
> (The notion that family drama only became
> popular with television is rather charming in
> its cluelessness, though!)
> 
> I think Angela has realized where I'm going
> to go when I address her overall interpretation
> and is attempting a preemptive strike because
> she knows it's a powerful argument.

-

History, family and power were inseparable in the Elizabethan 
Period. So yes, it would be difficult to write about one without 
implicating the others. 

I believe this person actually instructed at the university level – 
is this correct? Frightening!! 

---

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > > > > Barry says as he waves his dick.
> > > > 
> > > > Whereas John turned his over to his 
> > > > dominatrix Judy long ago.  :-)
> > > 
> > > Those of us who recognize like Judy does that you're a phony, Barry,
> > > can necessarily expect to become a similar target of your paranoid
> > > ego. You just don't realize how much power you give Judy and how
> > > transparent you are. It's kind of pathetic to watch you try to dance
> > > out of the pickle you've created for yourself with her specifically.
> > 
> > Pickle? Is *that* what you use for a dick since 
> > you turned yours over to Judy?
> > 
> > Knowing you, it's probably a baby gherkin. :-)
> > 
> > But, since you don't even have the creativity 
> > to invent your *own* putdown, and have to borrow
> > one of your dominatrix's, allow me to call you 
> > on it.
> > 
> > A phony WHAT, John?
> > 
> > What is it you claim I am pretending to be that
> > I am not.
> > 
> > I'll wait while you email her for an answer.  :-)
> 
> A phony human being...

Wow. Does that make me an alien, like Off?

> a fake...

A fake WHAT, John. 

> a fraud...

A fraudulent WHAT, John. You're not getting it.

> a poseur. 

A poseur as WHAT, John.

Even AFTER emailing Judy for the answer, you're
not getting it. Some time back you picked up one
of Judy's buzz phrases that she uses to put me
down and started repeating it yourself, without
realizing that IT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING.

The whole reason for calling someone a "phony"
or a "fraud" is that they are pretending to be
something that they are not. I don't pretend to
be ANYTHING. 

I just come on this forum and write. I don't 
write AS anything, just as myself...whatever pops
into my mind at the time. I'm not posing as any-
thing or trying to be anything; I just write, and
let everyone come up with their OWN ideas about me.

Hell, I've even been gracious enough recently to 
agree with Off when he called me a fool, because 
I am. So are you, and so is Judy, but I don't see
you admitting it. 

I think what you're trying to say is that you don't 
LIKE the things that pop into my mind. 

THAT is a perfectly valid thing to say. But to use
a putdown phrase just because your dominatrix used
it, and without even *getting* that it doesn't 
mean anything? That's pretty wussy, John.

[FairfieldLife] Ted Rall Comic

[Marek Reavis]

http://www.gocomics.com/rallcom/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Choices

[boo_lives]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 1/4/08 9:10:48 A.M. Central Standard Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> Wouldn't  it be interesting if Americans chose between a black Muslim
> and a 
> >  white Baptist minister for president?
> 
> Obama isn't a muslim and never  was, you idiot!!! dixon doesn't even
> have a basic knowledge of the facts in  geopolitics.
> 
> oh, this is so interesting. Some seem  very defensive of the  
> assertion that Obama is (correct or not) a Muslim. Would that be an
 embarrassment if 
> he were? A political liability? Now, who's the  xenophobe?   

What do mean "correct or not" - this is not some open question,
Obama's life history is well known.  Just because some people believe
the earth is flat doesn't make it an issue.  

The only embarrassment is that you're so blind to facts that you
actually believe that some secret muslim group has been manipulating
Obama's life since birth to make it look like he's been raised a
christian since birth and an active member of his christian church as
an adult, but once they succeed in their nefarious plans to put him in
the White House they will reveal that he is actually a brainwashed
manchurian candidate who only thinks he's a christian but is actually
a jihadist at heart -- yes dixon you're so right, all us naive
democrats will look so stupid then!!!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Choices

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 1/4/08 9:10:48 A.M. Central Standard Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> Wouldn't  it be interesting if Americans chose between a black
> Muslim and a white Baptist minister for president?
> 
> Obama isn't a muslim and never  was, you idiot!!! dixon doesn't even
> have a basic knowledge of the facts in  geopolitics.
> 
> oh, this is so interesting. Some seem  very defensive
> of the assertion that Obama is (correct or not) a Muslim. Would 
> that be an  embarrassment if he were? A political liability? Now,
> who's the  xenophobe?

The Muslim label is worse than xenophobic if the
labeler is aware (as you are) that Obama isn't a
Muslim, because then it's a purely cynical ploy
to appeal to xenophobes who are too ignorant to
realize it's a lie (in whose eyes being a Muslim
*would* be a political liability).

The "embarrassment," though, belongs solely to the
unscrupulous cynics like yourself. And *especially*
to you, since you obviously set this up so you could
suggest that those who found the labeling (as opposed
to the label itself) offensive were xenophobic.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mrfishey2001" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander 
>  wrote:
> 
> "Well, Turq, maybe I shouldn't have been so polite about her gross 
> misreading of Hamlet as a "family drama."  Family drama is a modern 
> TV genre, and far from Shakespeare, but it does say a lot about 
> Judy  to have  interpreted it that way.  The critic always sees 
> himself." 
> 
> -
> 
> Shakespeare is not given to family drama? My God madam, you
> can't be serious. It's the entire canon.

Well, he did do some plays that were more
historical than family-oriented, although
families were certainly involved.

(The notion that family drama only became
popular with television is rather charming in
its cluelessness, though!)

I think Angela has realized where I'm going
to go when I address her overall interpretation
and is attempting a preemptive strike because
she knows it's a powerful argument.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Spiritually hot in FF 2008

[dhamiltony2k5]

Touring of the saints,
> > 
> > Mother Meera in FF
> > 
> > 
> > http://www.mothermeera-fairfield.com/default.jsp
> >


Karunamayi

in Fairfield,
June 30th-July 3rd.

http://www.karunamayi.org/tour/2008Fairfield.shtml

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Well, Turq, maybe I shouldn't have been so polite about her 
> > > > gross misreading of Hamlet as a "family drama."  Family drama 
> > > > is a modern TV genre, and far from Shakespeare, but it does 
> > > > say a lot about Judy  to have  interpreted it that way.  The 
> > > > critic always sees himself. 
> > > 
> > > Possibly, but I'm not going to get lured into
> > > a mêlée of swinging dicks...you guys could poke
> > > somebody's eye out with all that waving.  :-)
> > > 
> > > The thing I think you're both ignoring is that
> > > the plot of Hamlet, like all but one or two of
> > > Shakespeare's plays, was *stolen* from other
> > > sources. Shakespeare took existing material 
> > > and reworked it; that's just what he *did*.
> > > 
> > > ( I use the word "stolen" advisedly, in the sense
> > > of T.S. Eliot's quote, "Mediocre writers borrow; 
> > > great writers steal." )
> > > 
> > > From Wikipedia: "Hamlet's sources probably include 
> > > an Indo-European legend—preserved by a 13th-century 
> > > chronicler, and retold by a 16th-century scholar—and 
> > > a lost Elizabethan play known today as the Ur-Hamlet. 
> > > Whatever its precise provenance, Shakespeare turned 
> > > Hamlet into 'one of the most powerful and influential 
> > > tragedies in the English language.'"
> > > 
> > > My point, Angela, is that BOTH of you AGREED at the
> > > beginning of this tempest in a pisspot that any inter-
> > > pretation of Shakespeare was OK, and then proceeded
> > > to argue that your interpretation was superior. 
> > > 
> > > If that doesn't get my point across, here it is again,
> > > in the language of the Bard himself:
> > > 
> > > Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to keep
> > > One's dick in its holster where it belongs,
> > > Or to whip it out and create a sea of troubles,
> > > And by opposing prove who the dick is? 
> > > 
> > > :-)
> > 
> > Barry says as he waves his dick.
> 
> Whereas John turned his over to his 
> dominatrix Judy long ago.  :-)


Those of us who recognize like Judy does that you're a phony, Barry,
can necessarily expect to become a similar target of your paranoid
ego. You just don't realize how much power you give Judy and how
transparent you are. It's kind of pathetic to watch you try to dance
out of the pickle you've created for yourself with her specifically.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > Barry says as he waves his dick.
> > > 
> > > Whereas John turned his over to his 
> > > dominatrix Judy long ago.  :-)
> > 
> > Those of us who recognize like Judy does that you're a phony, Barry,
> > can necessarily expect to become a similar target of your paranoid
> > ego. You just don't realize how much power you give Judy and how
> > transparent you are. It's kind of pathetic to watch you try to dance
> > out of the pickle you've created for yourself with her specifically.
> 
> Pickle? Is *that* what you use for a dick since 
> you turned yours over to Judy?
> 
> Knowing you, it's probably a baby gherkin. :-)
> 
> But, since you don't even have the creativity 
> to invent your *own* putdown, and have to borrow
> one of your dominatrix's, allow me to call you 
> on it.
> 
> A phony WHAT, John?
> 
> What is it you claim I am pretending to be that
> I am not.
> 
> I'll wait while you email her for an answer.  :-)


A phony human being, a fake, a fraud, a poseur. I've never seen anyone
go to such lengths to protect an ego facade as you, Barry.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, Turq, maybe I shouldn't have been so polite about her 
> > > gross misreading of Hamlet as a "family drama."  Family drama 
> > > is a modern TV genre, and far from Shakespeare,
> 
> Actually, "family drama" has been around as long as
> drama has.
> 
> > > but it does 
> > > say a lot about Judy  to have  interpreted it that way.  The 
> > > critic always sees himself. 
> > 
> > Possibly, but I'm not going to get lured into
> > a mêlée of swinging dicks...you guys could poke
> > somebody's eye out with all that waving.  :-)
> > 
> > The thing I think you're both ignoring is that
> > the plot of Hamlet, like all but one or two of
> > Shakespeare's plays, was *stolen* from other
> > sources. Shakespeare took existing material 
> > and reworked it; that's just what he *did*.
> 
> We're both aware of that, Barry. The specifics
> just happen to be irrelevant to the discussion
> we were having.
> 
>  
> > My point, Angela, is that BOTH of you AGREED at the
> > beginning of this tempest in a pisspot that any inter-
> > pretation of Shakespeare was OK, and then proceeded
> > to argue that your interpretation was superior.
> 
> Well, actually, no, we didn't. I called Angela's
> attention to Ken Wilber's comment (in a different
> context) that there was no one "correct" interpretation
> of "Hamlet," but there were a million wrong ones
> (e.g., "Hamlet" is not a play about a picnic in
> Hawaii).
> 
> That, of course, doesn't mean that all "non-wrong"
> interpretations are equally as "good."
> 
> And because you're just fantasizing about our
> discussion, not having read any of it, you've
> made an even bigger mistake: I never claimed
> Angela's interpretation was "wrong." I don't
> think it's a *good* interpretation--one based
> on what's actually in the play rather than one
> imposed on the play, which is my criterion for
> a "good" interpretation--but that's quite
> different.
> 
> What I said was *wrong* was her reading of a
> single line, which is as wrong as would be an
> interpretation of the entire play that maintains
> it's about a picnic in Hawaii.

Could you go into a little more detail, Judy?
I think I missed the part where you whip out
a tape measure and yell "I WON!!!"

:-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Choices

[Duveyoung]

Obama is a Muslim to "some extent."  Obviously he's a thinker and has
explored his spiritual roots to some degree, and that means that some
morals were first "driven home to him" -- willy nilly -- by Muslim
dogma.  To me it doesn't make any difference if he learned "thou shalt
not kill" from a particular dogma -- truth is truth.

I would guess that most of the Muslim world expects things to get
better if Obama is elected.  That makes him a "sorta Muslim" in many
eyes, so the label does stick to Obama depending on whose POV one
looks at him through.

I want Obama to hail his roots and assure us all that this is a great
start for a dialog between the cultures in that he, as President,
could be expected to at least hear them out without prejudice.  It
will take the wind out of the sails of many terrorists at least.

Edg

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote:
> >
> >  
> > In a message dated 1/4/08 9:10:48 A.M. Central Standard Time,  
> > boo_lives@ writes:
> > 
> > Wouldn't  it be interesting if Americans chose between a black
> > Muslim and a white Baptist minister for president?
> > 
> > Obama isn't a muslim and never  was, you idiot!!! dixon doesn't even
> > have a basic knowledge of the facts in  geopolitics.
> > 
> > oh, this is so interesting. Some seem  very defensive
> > of the assertion that Obama is (correct or not) a Muslim. Would 
> > that be an  embarrassment if he were? A political liability? Now,
> > who's the  xenophobe?
> 
> The Muslim label is worse than xenophobic if the
> labeler is aware (as you are) that Obama isn't a
> Muslim, because then it's a purely cynical ploy
> to appeal to xenophobes who are too ignorant to
> realize it's a lie (in whose eyes being a Muslim
> *would* be a political liability).
> 
> The "embarrassment," though, belongs solely to the
> unscrupulous cynics like yourself. And *especially*
> to you, since you obviously set this up so you could
> suggest that those who found the labeling (as opposed
> to the label itself) offensive were xenophobic.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jan 4, 2008, at 9:24 AM, Angela Mailander wrote:

No, I believe she pegged me as "quite an asshole," which I much  
prefer to "a thoroughly unpleasant character."  The trouble with  
pegging is too obvious to discuss.


Here are the exact words, Angela:

In the fourth place, you know I've come back and have
made a bunch of short posts, so your addressing your
nasty question to Barry instead of to me really shows
what a thoroughly unpleasant individual you are.
And you have the nerve to complain about other people
being insulting!

Do you ever bother to actually read any posts before you comment?

Sal

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[Angela Mailander]

I don't have time to respond to all the issues in detail, and will when I can, 
but ,apparently, I don't get all the posts.  I do read all that I get.  

- Original Message 
From: Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 4, 2008 11:57:30 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy









  




On Jan 4, 2008, at 9:24 AM, Angela Mailander wrote:

No, I believe she pegged me as "quite an asshole," which I much prefer to "a 
thoroughly unpleasant character."  The trouble with pegging is too obvious to 
discuss.  


Here are the exact words, Angela:


In the fourth place, you know I've come back and have
made a bunch of short posts, so your addressing your
nasty question to Barry instead of to me really shows
what a thoroughly unpleasant individual you are.
And you have the nerve to complain about other people
being insulting!


Do you ever bother to actually read any posts before you comment?



Sal

 



  























Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hey Turq,
> > > > After Feste and I showed Judy that my interpretation of
> > > > Hamlet was not based on a "gross misreading" of a line,
> > > > she kinda went silent for more than a week.  Is that her 
> > > > usual practice when defeated in an argument after crowing 
> > > > about how much she loves engagement?
> 
> > > It is, but she usually claims that she "was away
> > > on vacation" or something like that.
> > 
> > I do not, and Barry (and anyone else who has followed
> > my posts) knows it.
> 
> And then there was the time on a.m.t. she got 
> so upset at Shemp that she claimed that she was
> "leaving the newsgroup." THAT one lasted only
> long enough to distract people from the argu-
> ment she was running out on, and refocus on
> the fact that she stalked off the group in a
> snit and then returned miraculously less than
> 24 hour later.  :-)  :-)  :-)

Um, here we have not technically a lie, but a
very deliberate attempt to mislead, piled on
top of the previous series of lies.

As Barry knows, I came back *only* to deal with
the inevitable attacks on me from Barry and Shemp
and a few others that would take place the minute
they thought I wasn't going to be reading them.
I stayed out of virtually all substantive
discussions for over a year.

And I didn't "run out on" anything. There were
no longer any actual arguments being made, just
extraordinarily ugly displays of lack of
compassion for the needs of low-income people
(which we've seen here from Shemp; Delia, whom
we met briefly a couple of weeks ago, more than
matched Shemp for ugliness in this area).

> You'll see lots of dodges and techniques if 
> you keep "discussing things" with Judy, Angela.

Translation: Barry considers straightforward
logic and close analysis to be "dodges and
techniques," since he's incapable of dealing
with either.

> Just keep one thing in mind...Judy always wins.

Translation: Barry always gets beaten when he
tries to argue with Judy (or much of anybody
else--even Shemp!--for that matter).

> That's how she'll interpret it, anyway. It won't
> matter if everyone on the forum agrees with you
> on some point...in HER mind, Judy will have not
> only "won" but "devastated" you.
> 
> And then she'll pretend to leave town for a few days...

I never "pretend" to leave town (nor, as Barry
knows, do I have a tendency to run out on 
arguments).

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[Angela Mailander]

We agreed that some interpretations are off the mark.  That Hamlet is not about 
a picnic in Hawaii, was the example given.  The full title of the play 
(regardless of where Shakespeare stole his material) is "The Tragedy of Hamlet, 
Prince of Denmark.  To interpret it as a "family drama" is to miss both the 
tragedy and the fact that the main character is a prince which  makes it very 
different from mere family matters.  Tragedy and drama are literary genres.  To 
call Hamlet a family drama is a category mistake--I believe I'm repeating 
myself. 

- Original Message 
From: do.rflex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 4, 2008 10:58:48 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy









  



--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED] .> wrote:

>

> --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Angela Mailander

>  wrote:

> >

> > Well, Turq, maybe I shouldn't have been so polite about her 

> > gross misreading of Hamlet as a "family drama."  Family drama 

> > is a modern TV genre, and far from Shakespeare, but it does 

> > say a lot about Judy  to have  interpreted it that way.  The 

> > critic always sees himself. 

> 

> Possibly, but I'm not going to get lured into

> a mêlée of swinging dicks...you guys could poke

> somebody's eye out with all that waving.  :-)

> 

> The thing I think you're both ignoring is that

> the plot of Hamlet, like all but one or two of

> Shakespeare' s plays, was *stolen* from other

> sources. Shakespeare took existing material 

> and reworked it; that's just what he *did*.

> 

> ( I use the word "stolen" advisedly, in the sense

> of T.S. Eliot's quote, "Mediocre writers borrow; 

> great writers steal." )

> 

> From Wikipedia: "Hamlet's sources probably include 

> an Indo-European legend—preserved by a 13th-century 

> chronicler, and retold by a 16th-century scholar—and 

> a lost Elizabethan play known today as the Ur-Hamlet. 

> Whatever its precise provenance, Shakespeare turned 

> Hamlet into 'one of the most powerful and influential 

> tragedies in the English language.'"

> 

> My point, Angela, is that BOTH of you AGREED at the

> beginning of this tempest in a pisspot that any inter-

> pretation of Shakespeare was OK, and then proceeded

> to argue that your interpretation was superior. 

> 

> If that doesn't get my point across, here it is again,

> in the language of the Bard himself:

> 

> Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to keep

> One's dick in its holster where it belongs,

> Or to whip it out and create a sea of troubles,

> And by opposing prove who the dick is? 

> 

> :-)



Barry says as he waves his dick.






  























Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Michelle v. Hillary

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 
 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Anyone seen Michelle Obama interviewed?  Once you see and hear 
her, 
> > you 
> > > kinda want HER to be president.  Much more charisma than 
Hillary, 
> > maybe 
> > > even more than her husband.
> > >
> > 
> > Lots of plastic surgery, and stuff?
> > 
> > http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/07/28/obama.jpg
> > 
> > http://nymag.com/daily/intel/20070215ebony.jpg
> >
> **
> 
> Hardly.  Did you see her in that little blue dress when she took 
the 
> stage with Barack and their two kids?  She looks great, she's 
> intelligent, well spoken, very clear and projects true warmth.  One 
of 
> the commentators last night, speaking about her and their 
daughters, 
> pointed out how classy his family was.  She's a 21st Century Jackie 
> Kennedy (IMO); lots of star power and well suited for the White 
House.


Jackie Kennedy was the first thing I thought of when I saw her 
interviewed.  Beauty, warmth, and confidence...and a Harvard law 
grad, to boot.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> A poseur as WHAT, John.
> 
> Even AFTER emailing Judy for the answer,

(John didn't email me for any "answer." Barry's
lying.)

 you're
> not getting it. Some time back you picked up one
> of Judy's buzz phrases that she uses to put me
> down and started repeating it yourself,

Barry, it's a word that comes readily to the mind
of anyone who has watched your performance on
electronic forums for any length of time.

 without
> realizing that IT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING.

Oh, yes, it does.

> The whole reason for calling someone a "phony"
> or a "fraud" is that they are pretending to be
> something that they are not. I don't pretend to
> be ANYTHING.

Actually, that's an excellent summary statement
of your pretense: you pretend not to be anything.

What you don't realize--but what is obvious to
anyone else who is paying attention--is how thin
that pretense is, because you make it into a very
considerable "something" in itself and expect to
get admiring credit for it.

The genuinely unpretentious don't tend to make a
huge point of how unpretentious they are.

(I'm reminded of the joke whose punchline is,
"Look who thinks he's nothing!")

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[TurquoiseB]

John, having picked on you unnecessarily, now I'll
say the things I really wanted to say about the
buzzphrase you picked up from Judy, "phony."

> > > But, since you don't even have the creativity 
> > > to invent your *own* putdown, and have to borrow
> > > one of your dominatrix's, allow me to call you 
> > > on it.
> > > 
> > > A phony WHAT, John?
> > > 
> > > What is it you claim I am pretending to be that
> > > I am not.
> > > 
> > > I'll wait while you email her for an answer.  :-)
> > 
> > A phony human being...
> 
> Wow. Does that make me an alien, like Off?
> 
> > a fake...
> 
> A fake WHAT, John. 
> 
> > a fraud...
> 
> A fraudulent WHAT, John. You're not getting it.
> 
> > a poseur. 
> 
> A poseur as WHAT, John.
> 
> Even AFTER emailing Judy for the answer, you're
> not getting it. Some time back you picked up one
> of Judy's buzz phrases that she uses to put me
> down and started repeating it yourself, without
> realizing that IT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING.
> 
> The whole reason for calling someone a "phony"
> or a "fraud" is that they are pretending to be
> something that they are not. I don't pretend to
> be ANYTHING. 
> 
> I just come on this forum and write. I don't 
> write AS anything, just as myself...whatever pops
> into my mind at the time. I'm not posing as any-
> thing or trying to be anything; I just write, and
> let everyone come up with their OWN ideas about me.
> 
> Hell, I've even been gracious enough recently to 
> agree with Off when he called me a fool, because 
> I am. So are you, and so is Judy, but I don't see
> you admitting it. 
> 
> I think what you're trying to say is that you don't 
> LIKE the things that pop into my mind. 
> 
> THAT is a perfectly valid thing to say. But to use
> a putdown phrase just because your dominatrix used
> it, and without even *getting* that it doesn't 
> mean anything? That's pretty wussy, John.

John, to *want* to be a "phony" anything, one
has to believe that one is already something.

Something fixed, something that will still be
part of one's self description tomorrow. 

I have no such illusions. Right here, right 
now, I am this particular self, and think about 
myself what it thinks about its self. Tomorrow
I'll think totally different things about my
self, because it'll be a different self think-
ing those things.

I don't feel a need to "protect" ANY particular
view of myself. I don't feel a need to *project*
any particular view of myself. That's something
that people who BELIEVE their own self descrip-
tions do. 

I don't believe any of mine. They come, they go,
and not one of them is me. Or, saying it another
way, ALL of them are me, in the moment, AS they 
come and go, but none of them are completely "me." 

Look at the post Judy just made, the one I knew
she would have to make defending her view of what
happened when she declared that she was "leaving
alt.meditation.transcendental." That post is all
ABOUT defending a particular view of her self. 
It's a view she has been wearing, obviously, for
some time now, and she gets VERY uptight when any-
one presents her with a *different* view of her
self. 

Look at you, defending your self so strongly when
I suggest that you're not only "gherkin off," but
doing it with someone else's pickle.  :-)

Life's a lot easier without a fixed sense of self,
dude. If there is nothing you can "count on" as
a self description that lasts more than a week,
what is there to "defend" if someone presents a 
different view of that self? 

Feeling that one has to "defend" one's view of 
one's self implies to me *attachment* to that view,
*attachment* to that self. The person getting all
defensive is arguing that his or her view of his
or her self at that particular moment IS fixed.
It's "true." And any other description of that same
self is a "lie." 

THAT is what being a "phony" is, John. It's feeling
that one has to "protect" or "defend" something 
that has no existence. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't have time to respond to all the issues in detail, and will 
when I can, but ,apparently, I don't get all the posts.  I do read 
all that I get.

You did read the one Sal quotes from, because it began
with my saying you were "quite an asshole," which you
subsequently quoted.

Funny you didn't get the one that followed immediately,
the repost--with your name in the subject heading--of
my earlier response to your defense of your gross
misreading of "Taint not thy mind."


> - Original Message 
> From: Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, January 4, 2008 11:57:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy
> 
> On Jan 4, 2008, at 9:24 AM, Angela Mailander wrote:
> 
> No, I believe she pegged me as "quite an asshole," which I much 
prefer to "a thoroughly unpleasant character."  The trouble with 
pegging is too obvious to discuss.  
> 
> Here are the exact words, Angela:
> 
> In the fourth place, you know I've come back and have
> made a bunch of short posts, so your addressing your
> nasty question to Barry instead of to me really shows
> what a thoroughly unpleasant individual you are.
> And you have the nerve to complain about other people
> being insulting!
> 
> Do you ever bother to actually read any posts before you comment?

Re: [FairfieldLife] I wanna grow and be just like Juno

[Vaj]

Have you ever seen her in the classic TV series "Trailer Park Boys"?  
It used to be on BBC America till it got pulled for having full  
frontal nudity (prudish Americans!). It was actually filmed in Nova  
Scotia where she's from. Most seasons are now out on DVD.



On Jan 4, 2008, at 10:08 AM, shempmcgurk wrote:

Sorry to be redundant about "Juno" but you all need to go see the  
movie

of the year. Saw it on Wednesday and then went back to see it on
Thursday.

Read what Roger Ebert says about it:

http://tinyurl.com/2854tj

And you can visit the "official" web site. Greatest sound track,
coolest web site for a movie:

http://www.foxsearchlight.com/juno/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jan 4, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Angela Mailander wrote:

I don't have time to respond to all the issues in detail, and will  
when I can, but ,apparently, I don't get all the posts.  I do read  
all that I get.


Come on, Angela, that one's getting a bit tired.  It's right up there  
with not being able to access the website, but only at certain times  
it seems.




Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> John, to *want* to be a "phony" anything, one
> has to believe that one is already something.

No, one has to want *others* to believe one is
already something. (Self-deception may or may not
be part of it as well, but one rarely "wants" to
be a phony to oneself.)

> Something fixed, something that will still be
> part of one's self description tomorrow. 
> 
> I have no such illusions.

How about tomorrow, will you have such illusions
then?

No?

How about next month, or next year? Ten years
from now? When you're 80? On your deathbed?


> I don't feel a need to "protect" ANY particular
> view of myself. I don't feel a need to *project*
> any particular view of myself. That's something
> that people who BELIEVE their own self descrip-
> tions do. 

Says Barry, busily protecting and projecting
his particular view of himself as someone who
doesn't BELIEVE any of his self-descriptions.

 That's something
> that people who BELIEVE their own self descrip-
> tions do. 
> 
> I don't believe any of mine. They come, they go,
> and not one of them is me.

Except for your self-description as a person
who believes none of his self-descriptions.

 Or, saying it another
> way, ALL of them are me, in the moment, AS they 
> come and go, but none of them are completely "me."

Except for your self-description as a person
who believes none of his self-descriptions.

> Look at the post Judy just made, the one I knew
> she would have to make defending her view of what
> happened when she declared that she was "leaving
> alt.meditation.transcendental." That post is all
> ABOUT defending a particular view of her self.

Well, no, actually it was a summary of the *facts
of what transpired on alt.m.t* that you
deliberately misrepresented.

> Life's a lot easier without a fixed sense of self,
> dude. If there is nothing you can "count on" as
> a self description that lasts more than a week,
> what is there to "defend" if someone presents a 
> different view of that self?

How about a self-description that one is a person
who believes none of one's self-descriptions?

> Feeling that one has to "defend" one's view of 
> one's self implies to me *attachment* to that view,
> *attachment* to that self. The person getting all
> defensive is arguing that his or her view of his
> or her self at that particular moment IS fixed.
> It's "true." And any other description of that same
> self is a "lie."

Except for the self-description that one is a
person who believes none of one's self-descriptions.

> THAT is what being a "phony" is, John. It's feeling
> that one has to "protect" or "defend" something 
> that has no existence.

Funny how forcefully you defend it, then.

Thanks for the extended, brilliantly delineated
example of your phoniness, Barry. Couldn't possibly
ask for a better one.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[Angela Mailander]

When I joined this group, there was a battle ongoing between Judy and Turq.  I 
almost decided to opt out of a group in which such stuff went on, but then 
decided what the hell, dick-waving can be fun.  My point is, though, that at 
that time, I was an impartial observer, and the person who came off as 
thoroughly unpleasant wasn't Turq.  

- Original Message 
From: do.rflex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 4, 2008 11:30:53 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy









  



--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED] .> wrote:

>

> --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "do.rflex"  wrote:

> >

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

> > >

> > > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Angela Mailander

> > >  wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Well, Turq, maybe I shouldn't have been so polite about her 

> > > > gross misreading of Hamlet as a "family drama."  Family drama 

> > > > is a modern TV genre, and far from Shakespeare, but it does 

> > > > say a lot about Judy  to have  interpreted it that way.  The 

> > > > critic always sees himself. 

> > > 

> > > Possibly, but I'm not going to get lured into

> > > a mêlée of swinging dicks...you guys could poke

> > > somebody's eye out with all that waving.  :-)

> > > 

> > > The thing I think you're both ignoring is that

> > > the plot of Hamlet, like all but one or two of

> > > Shakespeare' s plays, was *stolen* from other

> > > sources. Shakespeare took existing material 

> > > and reworked it; that's just what he *did*.

> > > 

> > > ( I use the word "stolen" advisedly, in the sense

> > > of T.S. Eliot's quote, "Mediocre writers borrow; 

> > > great writers steal." )

> > > 

> > > From Wikipedia: "Hamlet's sources probably include 

> > > an Indo-European legend—preserved by a 13th-century 

> > > chronicler, and retold by a 16th-century scholar—and 

> > > a lost Elizabethan play known today as the Ur-Hamlet. 

> > > Whatever its precise provenance, Shakespeare turned 

> > > Hamlet into 'one of the most powerful and influential 

> > > tragedies in the English language.'"

> > > 

> > > My point, Angela, is that BOTH of you AGREED at the

> > > beginning of this tempest in a pisspot that any inter-

> > > pretation of Shakespeare was OK, and then proceeded

> > > to argue that your interpretation was superior. 

> > > 

> > > If that doesn't get my point across, here it is again,

> > > in the language of the Bard himself:

> > > 

> > > Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to keep

> > > One's dick in its holster where it belongs,

> > > Or to whip it out and create a sea of troubles,

> > > And by opposing prove who the dick is? 

> > > 

> > > :-)

> > 

> > Barry says as he waves his dick.

> 

> Whereas John turned his over to his 

> dominatrix Judy long ago.  :-)



Those of us who recognize like Judy does that you're a phony, Barry,

can necessarily expect to become a similar target of your paranoid

ego. You just don't realize how much power you give Judy and how

transparent you are. It's kind of pathetic to watch you try to dance

out of the pickle you've created for yourself with her specifically.






  























Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Iowa caucus as seen over coffee, from Spain -- correction

[Bhairitu]

TurquoiseB wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   
>> If the rest of the campaign goes like this, the election 
>> could turn into a really interesting showdown between a 
>> highly motivated and highly insane Christian Right and 
>> the more moderate and sane folks in America, most of 
>> whom are too lazy and complacent to even vote. (Remember,
>> America has the *lowest* voter turnout in its major 
>> elections of any democratic nation on the planet.)
>> 
>
> Correction: the USA is not currently the lowest;
> it's ranked at 139th. 
>
> This means that there are a few countries like 
> Pakistan, Nigeria, Chad, and Sudan that have even
> lower voter turnouts for elections.
>
> I rest my case about the talk, talk, talk but do
> nothing nature of the United States. According to
> international statistics, half of its people can't
> stop talk, talk, talking long enough to even vote.
People here feel helpless because more and more the big corporations run 
everything.  I've talked to young people lately that probably would be 
happy if General Electric ran everything (they seem to be trying to).  
It is a nation of "lost souls."  We'll see how they are in a couple of 
months which is the time period that many economists feel the "shit will 
hit the fan."  Folks ran up their credit cards even more at Christmas 
time but they were just following the example of the Bush administration.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> John, having picked on you unnecessarily, now I'll
> say the things I really wanted to say about the
> buzzphrase you picked up from Judy, "phony."
> 
> > > > But, since you don't even have the creativity 
> > > > to invent your *own* putdown, and have to borrow
> > > > one of your dominatrix's, allow me to call you 
> > > > on it.
> > > > 
> > > > A phony WHAT, John?
> > > > 
> > > > What is it you claim I am pretending to be that
> > > > I am not.
> > > > 
> > > > I'll wait while you email her for an answer.  :-)
> > > 
> > > A phony human being...
> > 
> > Wow. Does that make me an alien, like Off?
> > 
> > > a fake...
> > 
> > A fake WHAT, John. 
> > 
> > > a fraud...
> > 
> > A fraudulent WHAT, John. You're not getting it.
> > 
> > > a poseur. 
> > 
> > A poseur as WHAT, John.
> > 
> > Even AFTER emailing Judy for the answer, you're
> > not getting it. Some time back you picked up one
> > of Judy's buzz phrases that she uses to put me
> > down and started repeating it yourself, without
> > realizing that IT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING.
> > 
> > The whole reason for calling someone a "phony"
> > or a "fraud" is that they are pretending to be
> > something that they are not. I don't pretend to
> > be ANYTHING. 
> > 
> > I just come on this forum and write. I don't 
> > write AS anything, just as myself...whatever pops
> > into my mind at the time. I'm not posing as any-
> > thing or trying to be anything; I just write, and
> > let everyone come up with their OWN ideas about me.
> > 
> > Hell, I've even been gracious enough recently to 
> > agree with Off when he called me a fool, because 
> > I am. So are you, and so is Judy, but I don't see
> > you admitting it. 
> > 
> > I think what you're trying to say is that you don't 
> > LIKE the things that pop into my mind. 
> > 
> > THAT is a perfectly valid thing to say. But to use
> > a putdown phrase just because your dominatrix used
> > it, and without even *getting* that it doesn't 
> > mean anything? That's pretty wussy, John.
> 
> John, to *want* to be a "phony" anything, one
> has to believe that one is already something.
> 
> Something fixed, something that will still be
> part of one's self description tomorrow. 
> 
> I have no such illusions. Right here, right 
> now, I am this particular self, and think about 
> myself what it thinks about its self. Tomorrow
> I'll think totally different things about my
> self, because it'll be a different self think-
> ing those things.
> 
> I don't feel a need to "protect" ANY particular
> view of myself. I don't feel a need to *project*
> any particular view of myself. That's something
> that people who BELIEVE their own self descrip-
> tions do. 
> 
> I don't believe any of mine. They come, they go,
> and not one of them is me. Or, saying it another
> way, ALL of them are me, in the moment, AS they 
> come and go, but none of them are completely "me." 
> 
> Look at the post Judy just made, the one I knew
> she would have to make defending her view of what
> happened when she declared that she was "leaving
> alt.meditation.transcendental." That post is all
> ABOUT defending a particular view of her self. 
> It's a view she has been wearing, obviously, for
> some time now, and she gets VERY uptight when any-
> one presents her with a *different* view of her
> self. 
> 
> Look at you, defending your self so strongly when
> I suggest that you're not only "gherkin off," but
> doing it with someone else's pickle.  :-)
> 
> Life's a lot easier without a fixed sense of self,
> dude. If there is nothing you can "count on" as
> a self description that lasts more than a week,
> what is there to "defend" if someone presents a 
> different view of that self? 
> 
> Feeling that one has to "defend" one's view of 
> one's self implies to me *attachment* to that view,
> *attachment* to that self. The person getting all
> defensive is arguing that his or her view of his
> or her self at that particular moment IS fixed.
> It's "true." And any other description of that same
> self is a "lie." 
> 
> THAT is what being a "phony" is, John. It's feeling
> that one has to "protect" or "defend" something 
> that has no existence.


This all just adds icing to your fake cake, Barry - an elaborate dance
whereby the dance itself represents your ego. It's a defense
mechanism, a further expression of the only thing you have to offer -
a desperate attempt to keep up the appearance that you are right and
everyone else who sees through your act is wrong. 

That's just about all you ever do, Barry - attempt to maintain that
false appearance. The real you is hidden under all of that nonsense.

[FairfieldLife] Re: I wanna grow and be just like Juno

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Have you ever seen her in the classic TV series "Trailer Park 
Boys"?  





No, I haven't but since seeing "Juno" I'm loading up anything she's 
in on DVDs onto my Netflix queue.  Apparently "Hard Candy" in which 
she stars is supposed to be very good, too.






> It used to be on BBC America till it got pulled for having full  
> frontal nudity (prudish Americans!). It was actually filmed in 
Nova  
> Scotia where she's from. Most seasons are now out on DVD.
> 
> 
> On Jan 4, 2008, at 10:08 AM, shempmcgurk wrote:
> 
> > Sorry to be redundant about "Juno" but you all need to go see 
the  
> > movie
> > of the year. Saw it on Wednesday and then went back to see it on
> > Thursday.
> >
> > Read what Roger Ebert says about it:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/2854tj
> >
> > And you can visit the "official" web site. Greatest sound track,
> > coolest web site for a movie:
> >
> > http://www.foxsearchlight.com/juno/
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ron Paul is Scary, But Those That Cheer Him Are Even Scarier by Earl Ofari H

[aztjbailey]

I agree with this:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the American people have had their fill of extremists and
> weirdos. Ron Paul doesn't have a rat's ass of a chance of winning 
the
> presidency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "oneradiantbeing"
>  wrote:
> >
> > Ron Paul is Scary, But Those That Cheer Him Are Even Scarier - by 
> > Earl Ofari Hutchinson / Posted January 3, 2008 | 10:57 AM (EST) 
> > 
> > 
> > The scariest thing about no hope GOP presidential contender Ron 
Paul 
> > is not his fringe, odd ball racial views. It's not that he polls 
in 
> > single digits in all national polls and has zilch of a chance to 
get 
> > the nomination. It's not that at times the GOP candidates sound 
just 
> > as racially isolationist as he does. It's certainly not that he 
will 
> > wow a national audience with his trademark shoot-from-the-lip 
zingers 
> > even if ABC and Fox recants in a moment of compassion and dumps 
him 
> > back in a seat in their January 6 televised GOP New Hampshire 
> > presidential debate. 
> > 
> > The scariest thing about Paul is that even though only a few hard 
> > core Paul backers will waste a vote on him, millions more seem to 
> > agree that his off beat views, especially on race matters, make 
> > sense. They even stand logic as high as it get can go on its head 
to 
> > defend their leader against all comers. That's especially true 
when 
> > it comes to Paul's views on race and ethnic politics. That's not 
a 
> > small point given the open but more often sneaky role that race 
and 
> > ethnicity will increasingly play in the presidential derby. 
> > Democratic presidential contenders Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, 
> > John Edwards and Bill Richardson have pulled out all stops to woo 
and 
> > court blacks, Latinos and Asian voters. They have made poverty, 
> > affordable health care, immigration reform, and job protections 
the 
> > linchpins of their campaigns. 
> > 
> > Paul and the GOP candidates have done just the opposite. They 
duck, 
> > dodge, and deny racial issues. The only departure from their 
racial 
> > blind eye is to fan anti-immigrant flames. Paul has gone one 
better. 
> > In an ad, he demanded that students from alleged terrorist 
countries 
> > should be denied visas into the U.S. Paul offered not a shred of 
> > proof that there are hordes of students pouring into America to 
> > commit terrorist acts. The ad was more than just a cheap ploy to 
fan 
> > terrorism fears. This reinforced the worst in racial and 
religious 
> > stereotyping and negative typecasting. The stereotype is that any 
one 
> > in America with a non-white face and is a Muslim is a terrorist.
> > 
> > Then there's Paul's now infamous slavery quip that he made on 
Meet 
> > the Press. Paul claimed the Civil War was an unnecessary 
bloodbath 
> > that could and should have been avoided. All Lincoln had to do 
was 
> > buy the slaves. Other slave promoting countries, asserts Paul, 
didn't 
> > fight wars and they ended slavery peacefully. Paul's historical 
> > dumbness would have been laughable except for four things. One, 
he 
> > was dead wrong. Lincoln twice made offers to the slave owners to 
buy 
> > the slaves. They turned him down flat. The countries that freed 
the 
> > slaves without war, presumably France and England, unlike the 
U.S., 
> > did not practice slavery in their countries. And France did fight 
a 
> > war-- Napoleon's ill-fated invasion of Haiti to put down the 
slave 
> > revolt there. 
> > 
> > Two, he's running for president and has a national platform to 
spout 
> > his wrong-headed views (Meet the Press!). Three, he's done and 
said 
> > stuff like this many times before. Among the choice Paulisms are 
that 
> > blacks are criminally inclined, political dumb bells, and chronic 
> > welfare deadbeats. There was also the alleged Paul hobnob with a 
> > noted white supremacist. Here's what Paul on his campaign website 
> > ronpaul2008.com has to say about race. In fact he even highlights 
> > this as "Issue: Racism" on the site. "Government as an 
institution is 
> > particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry." In other words, the 
1954 
> > landmark Supreme Court's Brown vs. Board of education school 
> > desegregation decision, the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts, the 
1965 
> > Voting Rights Act, and legions of court decisions and state laws 
that 
> > bar discrimination are worthless. Worse, says Paul, they actually 
> > promote bigotry by dividing Americans into race and class. 
> > 
> > Paul's cure for racial bigotry is to change people's hearts. 
Whew!! 
> > The ghosts of Barry Goldwater, Strom Thurmond, the 
unreconstructed 
> > George Wallace, and packs of Southern States Righters and 
Citizens 
> > Councils big shots would lustily cheer Paul on that one. They 
railed 
> > for decades against the federal government's 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[Angela Mailander]

Had guests for lunch, but I'm all here now.  I did have trouble accessing the 
site, and it seems I don't get all the posts.  

- Original Message 
From: Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 4, 2008 12:52:12 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy









  




On Jan 4, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Angela Mailander wrote:

I don't have time to respond to all the issues in detail, and will when I can, 
but ,apparently, I don't get all the posts.  I do read all that I get.

Come on, Angela, that one's getting a bit tired.  It's right up there with not 
being able to access the website, but only at certain times it seems.   
  

Sal

 



  























Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

[FairfieldLife] That Debbil Librul Media

[authfriend]

Excerpt from a blog post by an evangelical on
the lessons he's learned working on the 
Huckabee primary campaign:

The Mainstream Media Ain't So Bad -- Many [right-wing--JS] bloggers 
(including me) have a knee-jerk reaction to the mainstream media. 
We "just know" they have a liberal bias and that they can't be 
trusted to report accurately on Republicans and conservatives. If my 
experience is any indication, then most of what we know is "just 
wrong." 

My job wasn't to spin the press but to present the facts for the 
Huckabee campaign's side of the story. I expected that I'd have the 
toughest time with the professional journalists but most of the 
reporters that I dealt with (especially Michael Luo of the New York 
Times and Jonathan Martin of Politico) were quite fair and always 
professional. Even when their coverage was cringe-inducing I rarely 
could fault them for being inaccurate or putting their own biases 
ahead of the facts.

Unfortunately, the same can not be said of the conservative media.

My rapid response list included a broad range of journalists, 
pundits, and bloggers and variety of outlets--everything from The New 
York Times to HotAir. Often they would ask me to clarify statements 
made by the Governor, defend claims made by the campaign, or offer 
evidence on a point of contention. Almost always the mainstream media 
from the "liberal" outlets were more fair and balanced than were the 
ones from the "conservative" side of the media. 

Some conservative outlets, of course, were notably fair and accurate. 
Although he never pulled his punches, Jim Geraghty at NRO's The 
Campaign Spot always let me present a rebuttal to the claims of other 
campaigns. The same can be said for NRO's Byron York, one of the few 
conservative reporter/pundits that seemed more concerned about 
getting the facts straight than he was in shoring up the conventional 
wisdom of the GOP establishment.

But while there were a few other exceptions that I could praise 
(e.g., Terry Eastland from The Weekly Standard, Phillip Klein and 
Jennifer Rubin from The American Spectator, the guys at RedState), 
far too many of the conservative outlets refused to present any 
evidence that conflicted with their typical anti-Huckabee narrative. 

I even sent out personal emails to a number of prominent pundits and 
bloggers who had criticized Huckabee for being insufficiently 
conservative. I told them that if they would send me a list of their 
grievances I'd provide a personal response from the campaign 
addressing their concern. My only condition was that they would post 
the exchange in its entirety. Not one of them took me up on my offer. 

As a campaign staffer, I found such behavior frustrating. But as a 
consumer of conservative media I found it infuriating. There are a 
number of pundits, bloggers, reporters, and radio hosts that I will 
never trust again to be "fair and balanced." 

(To clarify my last point, let me say that I had only one expectation 
from my fellow conservatives: that they apply the same standard to 
every candidate. I had no problem with a conservative pundit bashing 
Governor Huckabee for raising the sales tax by a penny in Arkansas…as 
long as they also bashed Governor Romney for raising "fees" in 
Massachusetts. I had no problem with their complaints that Governor 
Huckabee wanted to establish diplomatic relations with Iran…as long 
as they hammered Mayor Giuliani for the same sin. Very few even made 
an attempt to be consistent in their criticism. That was what I found 
so disappointing.)

http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/004158.html

The whole post is lengthy but pretty interesting.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We have doctoral committees that pass judgment on the likes of me to
determine whether or not we're qualified--I passed with straight A's
except for one B from a guy who said he'd never given an A to a woman
and never would.  Are you qualified to judge?


One doesn't need a doctoral degree to be able to see when someone is
full of shit with their claims and responses.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[Angela Mailander]

Guests are not a problem.  Guests are a joy always.  And I love to cook.  So it 
wasn't a problem, it was a priority.  

- Original Message 
From: do.rflex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 4, 2008 2:05:21 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy









  



--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Angela Mailander

 wrote:

>

> Had guests for lunch, but I'm all here now.  I did have trouble

accessing the site, and it seems I don't get all the posts.  



Funny, nobody else seems to have that problem.






  























Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[Angela Mailander]

OK, you win.  In your eyes, I am not qualified to teach at the university 
level.  

- Original Message 
From: do.rflex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 4, 2008 2:09:10 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy









  



--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Angela Mailander

 wrote:

>

> We have doctoral committees that pass judgment on the likes of me to

determine whether or not we're qualified--I passed with straight A's

except for one B from a guy who said he'd never given an A to a woman

and never would.  Are you qualified to judge?



One doesn't need a doctoral degree to be able to see when someone is

full of shit with their claims and responses.






  























Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

[FairfieldLife] What do they learn?

[lisa_pendarvis]

I would be interested to hear what people learn by way of meditation. If
they come to learn all kinds of different things then what could be said
to be perhaps the most profound and illuminating thing which they learn,
and as to how that comes to help shape their lives and understanding.



Lisa.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[Richard J. Williams]

John wrote:
> A phony human being, a fake, a fraud, a poseur. 
>
This is sweet - John misses Barry, Judy and Richard 
on Usenet. Now I REALLY AM the only TMer over there!

alt.meditation.transcendental
http://tinyurl.com/ywalg8

Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
From: John Manning 
Date: Wed, Dec 8 2004 3:00 pm
Subject: Re: OT: John Manning - in case you are interested

Willytex, the drug addled troll who claims to have gotten 
'enlightened' with psylocybin slipped into his taco by 
none other than Don Juan.

Really. That's what he wrote:

Forum: alt.meditation.transcendental
Thread: Some Fly Agaric
Subject: Soma: the divine mushroom of immortality.
Author: willytex
Date: 06/20/2002

FROM WILLY'S POST:

"...However, that being said, nothing can compare with 
the psylocibin I ingested down in Mexico with Don Juan 
back in '71! That's when I realized the inter-dependence 
of all things; I saw and talked to God and His wife and 
His Son, and I realized that creation is a family affair; 
I got enlightened on the spot at the exact center of the 
universe. 

Now I don't need scriptures, gurus, drugs, meditation, 
sleep, or even feedback anymore, because I'm solo 
auditing, constantly, and in communication with the 
Demi-urge on a daily basis. However, I still meditate 
because that's just what intelligent people do."

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Had guests for lunch, but I'm all here now.  I did have trouble
accessing the site, and it seems I don't get all the posts.  


Funny, nobody else seems to have that problem.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jan 4, 2008, at 1:50 PM, Angela Mailander wrote:

Had guests for lunch, but I'm all here now.  I did have trouble  
accessing the site, and it seems I don't get all the posts.


How convenient.  Interesting that you're the only one with all of  
these problems.


Sal

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[Angela Mailander]

We have doctoral committees that pass judgment on the likes of me to determine 
whether or not we're qualified--I passed with straight A's except for one B 
from a guy who said he'd never given an A to a woman and never would.  Are you 
qualified to judge?

- Original Message 
From: mrfishey2001 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 4, 2008 12:09:59 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy









  



--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]> 

wrote:

>

> --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "mrfishey2001" 

>  wrote:

> >

> > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Angela Mailander 

> >  wrote:

> > 

> > "Well, Turq, maybe I shouldn't have been so polite about her 

gross 

> > misreading of Hamlet as a "family drama."  Family drama is a 

modern 

> > TV genre, and far from Shakespeare, but it does say a lot about 

> > Judy  to have  interpreted it that way.  The critic always sees 

> > himself." 

> > 

> > -

> > 

> > Shakespeare is not given to family drama? My God madam, you

> > can't be serious. It's the entire canon.

> 

> Well, he did do some plays that were more

> historical than family-oriented, although

> families were certainly involved.

> 

> (The notion that family drama only became

> popular with television is rather charming in

> its cluelessness, though!)

> 

> I think Angela has realized where I'm going

> to go when I address her overall interpretation

> and is attempting a preemptive strike because

> she knows it's a powerful argument.



 -



History, family and power were inseparable in the Elizabethan 

Period. So yes, it would be difficult to write about one without 

implicating the others. 



I believe this person actually instructed at the university level – 

is this correct? Frightening! ! 



 ---






  























Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

[FairfieldLife] ATT: ANGELA (was: Re: Question to Turq abt Judy)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We agreed that some interpretations are off the mark.  That Hamlet 
is not about a picnic in Hawaii, was the example given.  The full 
title of the play (regardless of where Shakespeare stole his 
material) is "The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark.  To interpret 
it as a "family drama" is to miss both the tragedy and the fact that 
the main character is a prince which  makes it very different from 
mere family matters.

Sorry, but that's absurd. Royals have family dramas
just as much as "commoners" do. For a contemporary
example, see:

"Family drama: The British royals may have weathered
centuries of scandal, but their dynasty keeps on
rolling along" by Michael Korda

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/050418/18royals.htm

And family drama--including among royals--can
certainly be tragic, as in Diana's death. These
categories aren't mutually exclusive.

> Tragedy and drama are literary genres.  To call Hamlet a family 
drama is a category mistake--I believe I'm repeating myself.

Obviously you have no idea what the term
"category mistake" means. Look it up, please. A
category mistake would be to say, for example, 
that Tuesday is in the key of E-flat, or that
"Hamlet" is high in calories.

What you mean to say is that you think I've put
"Hamlet" in the wrong literary category. But that
isn't the case either.

Second, you're just quibbling. My point was that
"Hamlet" is primarily (not exclusively) about a
(tragic) drama within a (royal) family, as opposed
to a philosophical discourse on the nature of
enlightenment.

The basic difference between our approaches is
that you view "Hamlet" as a written work, as
words on a page to be studied like a literary
novel or a treatise or an epic poem, whereas I
view it as a work of theater, as words spoken
by actors on a stage to an audience. That
involves vastly different dynamics, and is a
significant factor in the appropriateness of
various interpretations.

(I spent many years working in professional
theater--including on productions of "Hamlet"--
so I don't so much "read" the play as envision
it being enacted, "hearing" the actors portray
the characters and communicate their travails
to the audience.)

You're trying to do an end run around this
basic difference by suggesting that the term
"family drama" can only refer to something akin
to soap opera, which is of course not at all
how I was using it.

I'll have more to say on this later on.

RE: [FairfieldLife] What do they learn?

[Rick Archer]

 

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of lisa_pendarvis
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 2:35 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] What do they learn?

 

I would be interested to hear what people learn by way of meditation. If
they come to learn all kinds of different things then what could be said to
be perhaps the most profound and illuminating thing which they learn, and as
to how that comes to help shape their lives and understanding.

Welcome Lisa, a lot of topics are discussed on this board, but we all have a
meditation background. That may not be obvious at first, but stick around
and you’ll see some serious responses to your question. Feel free to follow
up with more specific questions, and those may stir up discussions as well.

Rick (the moderator, who seldom moderates)


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1208 - Release Date: 1/3/2008
3:52 PM
 

[FairfieldLife] Concise Summary of Mike Huckabee's Positions

[oneradiantbeing]

Concise Summary of Mike Huckabee's Positions
Thom Hartmann Radio Show  


 The Southern Baptist Reverend Mike Huckabee speaks:

 Certainly good day for America when Roe v. Wade is repealed. (May 
2007)
 Embryonic stem cell research creates life to end a life. (May 2007)
 Pro-life and pro-death penalty, & sees them as far different. (Jan 
2007)
 Signed legislation outlawing same-sex marriage in Arkansas. (Dec 
2006)

 No civil unions; only one-man-one-woman marriage. (Nov 2002)
 Respect gay couples but no gay adoptions. (Jan 2007)
 Gay tolerance reflects lack of fixed societal standards. (Jun 2007)
 Wal-Mart is case study in genius of American marketplace. (Jan 2007)

 Death penalty is necessary part of criminal justice system. (Sep 
2007)
 Opposes "hate crimes" legislation. (Sep 2007)
 Does not believe in evolution. (May 2007)
 Ending school prayer was one step in society's moral decay. (Jun 
2007)

 Support displaying the Ten Commandments in public schools. (Nov 2002)
 Guaranteed medical care not government's responsibility. (Nov 2002)
 No additional AIDS spending; cancer & vascular victims first. (Nov 
1992)
 Ban smoking in all public places. (Nov 1992)

 Isolate carriers of this plague of AIDS. (Nov 1992)
 No "sexual orientation" in Employment Non-Discrimination Act. (Sep 
2007)
 George W. Bush has done a magnificent job. (Jan 2007)
 Stay in Iraq because we're winning; we lose if we walk away. (Dec 
2007)


In contrast, here is the "On The Issues" web page for Barack Obama:


http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm

[FairfieldLife] Re: What do they learn?

[lisa_pendarvis]

Hi, well, higher states of consciousness are mentioned, so perhaps 
you could tell me about them and what it is like and what it reveals 
and how one gets in and out of that state of conconsciousness.

Lisa.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  
> 
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of lisa_pendarvis
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 2:35 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] What do they learn?
> 
>  
> 
> I would be interested to hear what people learn by way of 
meditation. If
> they come to learn all kinds of different things then what could be 
said to
> be perhaps the most profound and illuminating thing which they 
learn, and as
> to how that comes to help shape their lives and understanding.
> 
> Welcome Lisa, a lot of topics are discussed on this board, but we 
all have a
> meditation background. That may not be obvious at first, but stick 
around
> and you'll see some serious responses to your question. Feel free 
to follow
> up with more specific questions, and those may stir up discussions 
as well.
> 
> Rick (the moderator, who seldom moderates)
> 
> 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1208 - Release Date: 
1/3/2008
> 3:52 PM
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I did have trouble with the site.  That is no longer the case.  I
apparently still do not get all the posts.  Had I gotten the one from
Judy, I would have responded to it directly.  This is too petty for
me, so bye for now. 


I'd say it's too honest for you. Nobody wants to pretend along with you.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Turq abt Judy

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jan 4, 2008, at 3:41 PM, Angela Mailander wrote:

I thought you said the thought of me teaching at university was  
"scary?"  Maybe I'm hallucinating.  The dishonest part is your  
projection.  As for my being full of shit, some folks think so,  
others don't.


Here's the quote I believe you're referring to, Angela, from  
mrfishey2001.  And I doubt you're hallucinating, just being  
incredibly sloppy and/or stubborn.


History, family and power were inseparable in the Elizabethan
Period. So yes, it would be difficult to write about one without
implicating the others.

I believe this person actually instructed at the university level –
is this correct? Frightening!!

Sal