[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> I'd rather discuss the new, cutting edge stuff coming out at events  
> like Mind and Life 18 or the Harvard conference last weekend, than  
> lament over your spilt milk again!
> 
> Of course should something eventually come out on TM that is  
> reputable, worthwhile and new--sure I'd love to hear it. I'm 
> just not holding my breath on that one. The same old relaxation 
> response findings just aren't that exciting for those of us 
> interested in higher states of consciousness.

An interesting parallel to the thousands who,
unlike some who found Maharishi's talks brilliant
and incisive, moved on to some other teacher who
didn't recycle the same mind-pablum ad absurdum.
Interestingly enough, the ones who never tired
of Maharishi saying the same old things are the
ones who still claim to find the "TM science" 
believable. 

It's just like kids, in a way. Some like to hear
the same old bedtime stories read to them over 
and over and over. Others edit the same old 
stories and try to find new ways to tell them 
and new ways to sell them and think of that as 
being "creative." Yet others grow up to write 
their own stories. Call me silly, but I'm going 
to reserve the word "creative" for those who 
actually create something new.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Discovered: 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas

[bob_brigante]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "shempmcgurk" 
wrote:
>
> Discovered: 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas
>
> James Lewis
>
> Good news for America undermines the green energy agenda. The Wall
Street Journal reports a huge new discovery of natural gas --- a fossil
fuel so clean even liberals can stand it.
>

*

Natural gas is not regarded as favorable for global warming concerns:

"The picture is not all rosy though. Relative to other fuels, it is
clean-burning. But because of our insatiable appetite for energy, the
burning of natural gas is a significant contributor to global warming.
Historically, natural gas use has produced about 10% of the greenhouse
gases that contribute to global warming. Now, emissions from the burning
of natural gas represent over 20% of the annual US carbon dioxide
emissions. Annually, the burning of natural gas in the US produces
almost 1,200 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, more than the TOTAL
carbon dioxide emissions from ALL sources of all but three other
countries in the world: China, Russia, and Japan.


http://www.lowimpactliving.com/pages/your-impacts/natural-gas1

[FairfieldLife] Discovered: 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas

[shempmcgurk]

Discovered: 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas

James Lewis

Good news for America undermines the green energy agenda. The Wall Street 
Journal reports a huge new discovery of natural gas --- a fossil fuel so clean 
even liberals can stand it. 


"CADDO PARISH, La. -- A massive natural-gas discovery here in northern 
Louisiana heralds a big shift in the nation's energy landscape. After an era of 
declining production, the U.S. is now swimming in natural gas."  


"Even conservative estimates suggest the Louisiana discovery -- known as the 
Haynesville Shale, for the dense rock formation that contains the gas -- could 
hold some 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That's the equivalent of 33 
billion barrels of oil, or 18 years' worth of current U.S. oil production. Some 
industry executives think the field could be several times that size.


... Huge new fields also have been found in Texas, Arkansas and Pennsylvania. 
One industry-backed study estimates the U.S. has more than 2,200 trillion cubic 
feet of gas waiting to be pumped, enough to satisfy nearly 100 years of current 
U.S. natural-gas demand."


Good news, right? It's good for consumers, it's good for the country and the 
economy, and it's good for the world's resources. It's a great compliment to 
those who have worked hard for the technical advances that made this discovery 
possible. It shows (again!) that better exploration techniques pay off in huge 
new discoveries. A dollar invested in natural gas exploration pays off a heck 
of a lot more than the same dollar in Green Fantasyland. 


But ... it's bad for the Fear Industry ... it's bad for our media airheads, who 
have to think of whole new scare headlines ... it's bad for the Green Doom 
Brigade ... it's bad for that brilliant new all-electrical vehicle ... it's 
terrible for Governor Arnie's vision of a Hydrogen Economy for California ... 
and it's very upsetting to all the suckers who have fallen for the global 
warming scam. 


Bottom line: Good for real people, bad for Greenophobiacs. 


I'll take that tradeoff. 

[FairfieldLife] New Crop Circle, Clatford, Wiltshire, 4th May 2009

[nablusoss1008]

 

  

Clatford, nr Manton, Wiltshire. Reported 4th May.
Map Ref: LOCATION

This Page has been accessed
  [Hit Counter]

Updated Sunday 4th May  2009
     AERIAL SHOTS GROUND
SHOTS
 
DIAGRAMS
  FIELD
REPORTS
 
COMMENTS
 
ARTICLES





Images Olivier Morel  (WCCSG) Copyright 2009


  

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST CROP CIRCLE CONNECTOR DVD






Image Annemieke Witteveen  Copyright 2009

  
Make a donation to keep the web site alive... Thank you



FOR VISITING THE CROP CIRCLES.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

[grate . swan]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > The physiological/neurological research on TM has always been interesting 
> > and legit because its just a straight measure of brain wave activity. The 
> > problem has come in when there is an attempt to correlate these measure 
> > with complex psychological traits. The worst is when you see a degree of 
> > hemispheric coherence at some frequency and someone claims that this 
> > "means" that TM allows you to use more of your brain and therefore you are 
> > "better" at something than someone who doesn't have this coherence. The 
> > politics of consciousness enter when the non-scientists or the either 
> > deceptive/naive scientists make very self-serving statements regarding the 
> > research. This was non-physiological, but it is like the latest research 
> > that, according to the TMO, shows that TM reduces the symptoms of ADHD. 
> > Even the TM "scientist" David Orme-Johnson claimed this and it is just 
> > patently false. The design of the study does not allow you to conclude this 
> > at all, primarily
> >  because there was no control group and each subject functioned as there 
> > own control. If you know anything about research design, such a study 
> > essentially tells you nothing other than a bunch of students over x amount 
> > of time had a lessening of their ADHD symptoms. Why this lessening 
> > occurred, which is the most important question, can not be concluded 
> > because no variables have been controlled. I would love to ask David, why 
> > he believes you can conclude that TM is the one variable that "caused" 
> > these results when not a single variable has been controlled.   
> > 
> 
> 
> A vaguely related thought on research and  claims -- in our lives. People 
> make a lot of claims, here and everywhere. For example some may claim that if 
> an age difference between beer drinkers is to wide, the younger is quite 
> subject to corruption, disruption, and even severe discombobulation. Yet, 
> this is only a claim. Perhaps based on observation of a small sample of 
> people. Hardly epistimologically strong.
> 
> Perhaps we should run an experiment. Gather 200 women under 30. let 100 b a 
> control group. Have Turq talk to the other 100 of them -- individually - or 
> possibly in groups not > 3, over a beer. Let the dialogue take its course. 
> That is, some will end in 5 minutes, some may carry on. Even for some time. 
> Beyond breakfast.  
> 
> Then test all 200 women. See if there is a statistically significant 
> difference between the control and "dosed' groups -- in psychological trauma, 
> adoption of false ideas as beliefs (aka "been snowed", erratic behavior, 
> problems with subsequent relations, a social closing up -- increased anxiety 
> or fear of meeting new people, lower grades (if students), loss of job or 
> diminishment of income,  poorer athletic ability, degraded memory and 
> cognitive function, higher blood pressure, different brain waves, depression, 
> anxiety, etc. 

And of course we would need to test for positive effects. Its an open question. 
Some women may benefit from the Turq interaction, others may not. 

However, just testing the Turq dosage may hide various factors. Maybe Turq is 
charming, maybe hes toxic. The test may tell us more about him than a 
generalization to wide-age gapped relations. Since, Curtis is nearby in Italy, 
for the cause of science, perhpas he could join the doser group. Perhaps Card 
could pry himself away from Finland and fly to sunny Spain. And for extra 
extreme shock dosage, perhaps Nabs would descend from his level and 
participate.  Getting some variation in the doser group would strengthen the 
experiment greatly. 

> 
> Until such evidence is forthcoming, it would appear prudent to take claims 
> about the deleterious effects of such age-gapped dialogs as simply 
> speculation, dreaming or fantasy. 
> 
> Regardless, in the name of science, I sugggest we all send Turq $50 to fund 
> such research.
>

[FairfieldLife] End of Ameica ---------- was/// Repugs Defend Off Shore Tax Havens

[off_world_beings]

This is the one issue, above all, that, if I were American, I would
defend Obama at all costs on this issue.

This issue, infects progress like a viral swine flu from hell,
destroying any chance of America becoming what it could be.

This one issue fuels wars, the military industrial complex ( ie.
non-American, non-civilization ) , economic instability, and pollution
of the world, world poverty and disease, and all the karma that will
come with it   karma that will come like like freight train from the
firey mouth of Armagiddeon --  more than any other issue on the planet.

This one issue is the greatest threat against America, of all time. It
is a poison of massive proportions, and it will destroy America, and in
turn, it will destory the world.

This is the most important issue -- in the surface world --  of our
time.

The poison that issues from this problem is without precedent -- ie. a
great superpower that protects satanic malpractices in other countries,
that it would not remotely even dream of tolerating in its own realm (
find out where the swine flu originated in Mexico -- HINT: No, not a
Mexican company)

America: The dream of that shining city on a hill, lives and dies with
this issue, above all others.

Obama will try but I fear he will fail against the intransigent
ignrorance that has taken hold of the planet.

Find the ture, and fearless, purity of being inside yourself, because it
may not persist in this transitory place that you call the world.



OffWorld




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "do.rflex" 
wrote:
>
>
>
> ~~~   Big Corporations Skip Out on Taxes   ~~~
>
>
> --Morgan Stanley, for instance, boasts 273 subsidiaries
> in tax havens, with 158 in the Cayman Islands alone.
> Citigroup's got 427, with 90 in the Cayman Islands, and
> 59 of Bank of America's tax-haven subsidiaries are there
> as well...
>
> But the amount Obama's plan would reportedly save is a
> far cry from the estimated $1 trillion the United
> States loses to offshore tax havens over a ten-year
> period.---
>
>
> President Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner announced on
Monday a crackdown on offshore tax havens that could produce $210
billion in new tax revenue over the next decade.
>
> The White House will face opposition to the proposal from the business
community and Congress. Before the announcement, a Republican leadership
staffer circulated an email citing a Bloomberg report saying the
proposal "would be the biggest tax increase on U.S. corporations since
1986." And Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell (Ken.) said later on Monday
that he could not endorse Obama's plan since it "gives preferential
treatment to foreign companies at the expense of U.S.-based companies."
>
> But the amount Obama's plan would reportedly save is a far cry from
the estimated $1 trillion the United States loses to offshore tax havens
over a ten-year period.
>
> A 2008 Senate report (PDF) estimated that "the United States loses an
estimated $100 billion in tax revenues due to offshore tax abuses" every
year.
>
> In January, the Government Accountability Office issued a report (PDF)
that found that 83 of the 100 largest publicly traded U.S. corporations
reported subsidiaries in countries listed as tax havens or "financial
privacy jurisdictions."
>
> Many of those corporations are beneficiaries of billions in taxpayer
dollars under the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Morgan Stanley, for
instance, boasts 273 subsidiaries in tax havens, with 158 in the Cayman
Islands alone. Citigroup's got 427, with 90 in the Cayman Islands, and
59 of Bank of America's tax-haven subsidiaries are there as well.
>
> The GAO found 18,857 businesses are registered at just one address in
the Cayman Islands -- the "Ugland House." The report said that "Ugland
House registered entities included investment funds, structured-finance
vehicles, and entities associated with other corporate activities."
>
> The Treasury Department pooh-poohed the GAO's list of countries
because there is no agreed-upon definition of a tax haven. "Even though
coming up with a list of countries has significant appeal, any list of
countries is likely to be under-inclusive as well as over-inclusive,"
the Treasury wrote. "Moreover, because any such list is likely to be
regarded as a blacklist and may be used as the basis for the imposition
of sanctions or other negative measures, such a list may inappropriately
negatively affect our economic and other relations with listed
countries."
>
> On tax day, April 15, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group issued a
report with a state-by-state breakdown of the cost to taxpayers of
corporate tax evasion in offshore havens.
>
>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/04/republicans-defend-tax-ha_n_195\
617.html

>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

[grate . swan]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > The physiological/neurological research on TM has always been interesting 
> > and legit because its just a straight measure of brain wave activity. The 
> > problem has come in when there is an attempt to correlate these measure 
> > with complex psychological traits. The worst is when you see a degree of 
> > hemispheric coherence at some frequency and someone claims that this 
> > "means" that TM allows you to use more of your brain and therefore you are 
> > "better" at something than someone who doesn't have this coherence. The 
> > politics of consciousness enter when the non-scientists or the either 
> > deceptive/naive scientists make very self-serving statements regarding the 
> > research. This was non-physiological, but it is like the latest research 
> > that, according to the TMO, shows that TM reduces the symptoms of ADHD. 
> > Even the TM "scientist" David Orme-Johnson claimed this and it is just 
> > patently false. The design of the study does not allow you to conclude this 
> > at all, primarily
> >  because there was no control group and each subject functioned as there 
> > own control. If you know anything about research design, such a study 
> > essentially tells you nothing other than a bunch of students over x amount 
> > of time had a lessening of their ADHD symptoms. Why this lessening 
> > occurred, which is the most important question, can not be concluded 
> > because no variables have been controlled. I would love to ask David, why 
> > he believes you can conclude that TM is the one variable that "caused" 
> > these results when not a single variable has been controlled.   
> > 
> 
> 
> A vaguely related thought on research and  claims -- in our lives. People 
> make a lot of claims, here and everywhere. For example some may claim that if 
> an age difference between beer drinkers is to wide, the younger is quite 
> subject to corruption, disruption, and even severe discombobulation. Yet, 
> this is only a claim. Perhaps based on observation of a small sample of 
> people. Hardly epistimologically strong.
> 
> Perhaps we should run an experiment. Gather 200 women under 30. let 100 b a 
> control group. Have Turq talk to the other 100 of them -- individually - or 
> possibly in groups not > 3, over a beer. Let the dialogue take its course. 
> That is, some will end in 5 minutes, some may carry on. Even for some time. 
> Beyond breakfast.  
> 
> Then test all 200 women. See if there is a statistically significant 
> difference between the control and "dosed' groups -- in psychological trauma, 
> adoption of false ideas as beliefs (aka "been snowed", erratic behavior, 
> problems with subsequent relations, a social closing up -- increased anxiety 
> or fear of meeting new people, lower grades (if students), loss of job or 
> diminishment of income,  poorer athletic ability, degraded memory and 
> cognitive function, higher blood pressure, different brain waves, depression, 
> anxiety, etc. 
> 
> Until such evidence is forthcoming, it would appear prudent to take claims 
> about the deleterious effects of such age-gapped dialogs as simply 
> speculation, dreaming or fantasy. 
> 
> Regardless, in the name of science, I sugggest we all send Turq $50 to fund 
> such research.
>


If the experimental design was done well, a number of other interesting 
phenomenon could be studied. In addition to the 200 / woman Turq experiment -- 
we of course should do the same with a other sexes and sexual preferences. 

However, beyond that, taking 200 random bystanders, 100 would be the control 
group and not exposed, 100 others would be exposed to the Turq experiment. And 
the reactions would be compared to see if they are significantly different -- 
along a number of psychological and emotional scales. To add to the diversity, 
the Turq sample could include not only wide-age gaps, but should include some 
differentiation along the lines of polyamorous, interracial, wide gaps in 
social stratas and education levels, nationalities and wealth -- and see if 
some sub groups are more prone to damage form beer-initiated conversations. And 
see the reaction of the observers. Count how many heads explode (few if any I 
would guess). 

Of course to get statistical significance in some of the subgroups, we may need 
to increase the sample size. 200-500 perhaps. 



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Compersion, Polyamory and Spanish Rights to Nudity

[lurkernomore20002000]

Nice riff.  I could do without the last paragraph.  Don't think it applies.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> Hey, put me into any party you're at and let's see who can entertain the 
> crowd better. You want a dick swinging contest, I'm there!
> 
> Allow me to brag.  I can make anyone laugh until they beg me to stop so that 
> they can catch their breath.  In crowds, I can be found singing, dancing, 
> and/or being the clown, or I can do intense drill-down to 
> who-we-are-right-now toe to toe tete e tetes.  
> 
> I can beat anyone at Trivial Pursuit.  Give me a piano, and I'll get your 
> toes tapping.  I know how to get a person to open up and share, and I know 
> how to trade quips in a locker room.
> 
> Crowds -- me loves 'em.  I'm the perfect party guest.
> 
> But that's not having relationships.  Joking with someone over coffee in a 
> cafe is child's play.  Being the life of a party in no way assures you can be 
> the life of your life.  
> 
> What you call a relationship is a joke.  A dance of masks.
> 
> The only relationship worth having is with someone who really knows all your 
> shit -- the good shit, the bad shit.  Otherwise, you're protecting yourself 
> from someone discovering your psychological twists.  
> 
> Comfort is the basis of true love.
> 
> And thankfully, I have that in my life.  I have someone who knows me and I 
> know her, and with no wool being pulled over anyone's eyes, the expansiveness 
> of existence awes.  When any subject, any issue can be creatively entertained 
> by two minds at once without fear scrambling the interceptor jets, it's 
> priceless.
> 
> Shallow relationships -- who doesn't have them? but woe onto those who solely 
> have shallow relationships.  
> 
> It takes years to get to know someone. It simply cannot happen overnight. 
> Instantly one can be attracted to another's energy and presentation, but it 
> takes years to validate the knee-jerk intuition.
> 
> As for FFL relationships, I cannot say that there really are any here of 
> note.  I think Marek and I could hit it off instantly, but what would he 
> think of me a year from now after he found out about, you know, the parts of 
> me that I haven't been revealing here?  Only time can tell me the answer to 
> this question.  
> 
> You and Curtis might be pals for the nonce, but only years would tell us if 
> there was anything deep about your mutual attraction.
> 
> If you want to prove you have a friend, borrow five bucks from him and then 
> refuse to pay it back on some pretext.  See if your so-called relationship 
> can survive that.  If it can, I'll be inclined to be impressed.  
> 
> For you, Turq, I'd say the highest relationship you've ever had is with your 
> dogs.  I hope that eventually they'll nurture your heart with their 
> unconditional love.  One can hope anyway.  
> 
> Edg
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> > >
> > > GAWD you are such a shallow fuck that you can be an 
> > > apologist for polyamory and seemingly be unaware of the 
> > > challenges.  Have you ever had an intimate relationship?  
> > > Don't you know how much time it takes?  
> > 
> > Edg, you keep repeating this as if it were
> > a truism.
> > 
> > Have you ever considered that the reason it
> > takes YOU so much time and work to maintain 
> > a relationship is because you're basically 
> > an unlovable fuck? 
> > 
> > For some of us, once past the hurdle of 
> > finding someone we get along with without
> > a lot of drama and angst, things go pretty
> > smoothly. My bet is that for most people
> > here, who don't strike me as being as needy 
> > and as judgmental as you are, things went 
> > more smoothly for them, too.
> > 
> > I mean, how many people get along with you 
> > *here* on FFL? If I were you I'd consider
> > the possibility that the reason relationships 
> > take so much time and work for you has more 
> > to do with YOU than it does the nature of 
> > relationships. Just sayin'...
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Dollhouse: episode 11 -- Briar Rose (or, Joss explains "predation")

[lurkernomore20002000]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> But I won't make the same mistake because
> I have less time on my hands than you do.
> I've got young women to screw and evil to
> spread, and all that you have on your agenda
> is to write purple prose that no one reads
> and ride your tricycle.

Now, I did get a good laugh from this.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Compersion, Polyamory and Spanish Rights to Nudity

[lurkernomore20002000]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> I mean, how many people get along with you
> *here* on FFL? If I were you I'd consider
> the possibility that the reason relationships
> take so much time and work for you has more
> to do with YOU than it does the nature of
> relationships. Just sayin'...
>
Now that is kinda funny

[FairfieldLife] Re: Dollhouse: episode 11 -- Briar Rose (or, Joss explains "predation")

[lurkernomore20002000]

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

> And, my babe is laughing herself sick here that ... I was
some sort of Peter
> Principle .

Food for thought here.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

[grate . swan]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter  wrote:
>
> 
> The physiological/neurological research on TM has always been interesting and 
> legit because its just a straight measure of brain wave activity. The problem 
> has come in when there is an attempt to correlate these measure with complex 
> psychological traits. The worst is when you see a degree of hemispheric 
> coherence at some frequency and someone claims that this "means" that TM 
> allows you to use more of your brain and therefore you are "better" at 
> something than someone who doesn't have this coherence. The politics of 
> consciousness enter when the non-scientists or the either deceptive/naive 
> scientists make very self-serving statements regarding the research. This was 
> non-physiological, but it is like the latest research that, according to the 
> TMO, shows that TM reduces the symptoms of ADHD. Even the TM "scientist" 
> David Orme-Johnson claimed this and it is just patently false. The design of 
> the study does not allow you to conclude this at all, primarily
>  because there was no control group and each subject functioned as there own 
> control. If you know anything about research design, such a study essentially 
> tells you nothing other than a bunch of students over x amount of time had a 
> lessening of their ADHD symptoms. Why this lessening occurred, which is the 
> most important question, can not be concluded because no variables have been 
> controlled. I would love to ask David, why he believes you can conclude that 
> TM is the one variable that "caused" these results when not a single variable 
> has been controlled.   
> 


A vaguely related thought on research and  claims -- in our lives. People make 
a lot of claims, here and everywhere. For example some may claim that if an age 
difference between beer drinkers is to wide, the younger is quite subject to 
corruption, disruption, and even severe discombobulation. Yet, this is only a 
claim. Perhaps based on observation of a small sample of people. Hardly 
epistimologically strong.

Perhaps we should run an experiment. Gather 200 women under 30. let 100 b a 
control group. Have Turq talk to the other 100 of them -- individually - or 
possibly in groups not > 3, over a beer. Let the dialogue take its course. That 
is, some will end in 5 minutes, some may carry on. Even for some time. Beyond 
breakfast.  

Then test all 200 women. See if there is a statistically significant difference 
between the control and "dosed' groups -- in psychological trauma, adoption of 
false ideas as beliefs (aka "been snowed", erratic behavior, problems with 
subsequent relations, a social closing up -- increased anxiety or fear of 
meeting new people, lower grades (if students), loss of job or diminishment of 
income,  poorer athletic ability, degraded memory and cognitive function, 
higher blood pressure, different brain waves, depression, anxiety, etc. 

Until such evidence is forthcoming, it would appear prudent to take claims 
about the deleterious effects of such age-gapped dialogs as simply speculation, 
dreaming or fantasy. 

Regardless, in the name of science, I sugggest we all send Turq $50 to fund 
such research. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

[grate . swan]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter  wrote:
>
> 
> The physiological/neurological research on TM has always been interesting and 
> legit because its just a straight measure of brain wave activity. The problem 
> has come in when there is an attempt to correlate these measure with complex 
> psychological traits. The worst is when you see a degree of hemispheric 
> coherence at some frequency and someone claims that this "means" that TM 
> allows you to use more of your brain and therefore you are "better" at 
> something than someone who doesn't have this coherence. The politics of 
> consciousness enter when the non-scientists or the either deceptive/naive 
> scientists make very self-serving statements regarding the research. This was 
> non-physiological, but it is like the latest research that, according to the 
> TMO, shows that TM reduces the symptoms of ADHD. Even the TM "scientist" 
> David Orme-Johnson claimed this and it is just patently false. The design of 
> the study does not allow you to conclude this at all, primarily
>  because there was no control group and each subject functioned as there own 
> control. If you know anything about research design, such a study essentially 
> tells you nothing other than a bunch of students over x amount of time had a 
> lessening of their ADHD symptoms. Why this lessening occurred, which is the 
> most important question, can not be concluded because no variables have been 
> controlled. I would love to ask David, why he believes you can conclude that 
> TM is the one variable that "caused" these results when not a single variable 
> has been controlled.   
> 
>

Your points are well taken. And I cringe at sloppy research cast as something 
else. 

However, epistimologically, in day to day life, most of us live in pretty muddy 
and murky waters. We all do self-control, single subject experiments all the 
time. And we actually believe some of them. You eat a food, take a drug, do a 
meditation method, read a book and make (tentative) conclusions about the value 
to you -- and possibly others. It may be only a bit better than 50:50 (if its a 
yes/no type question) odds but 55:45 is better than random. We tend to muddle 
through this way. Did you start TM or any other methods because of the 
scientific research? Perhaps. But the real deal was trying it for yourself. If 
you felt better, you continued, if worse didn't. Better or worse than what? 
your single subject self-controlled "past experience". 

I suppose even ad hoc, informal experiments, with more than a single subject, 
even if self-controlled can tell you something. Like a focus group used widely 
in marketing -- it's not statistically valid, but you get a feel if the thing, 
idea, concept, has any juice to it. 

I would rather see a self-controlled experiment over no experiment. As a 
preliminary / experimental basis, it may provide enough juice to warrant or 
inspire more rigorous research. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guy who lives off sun coming to ff august 23

[shempmcgurk]

I would hardly call any of the so-called doctors or scientists that observed 
him impartial.  "What the bleep..." participant?  Ayur Veda doctor?  These guys 
all have a stake in having that guy be successful in his fast.

I don't believe it for a second.






--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=72872132228
>  
> 
> Solar Healing Lecture with Hira Ratan Manek
> 
> Living off the Energy of our Sun
> 
> Host:
> Andy Toepel
> 
> Type:
>   Education -
>  Lecture
> 
> Network:
> Global
>  
> 
> Date:
> Sunday, August 23, 2009
> 
> Time:
> 12:00pm - 12:05pm
> 
> Location:
> Fairfield, IA
> 
> City/Town:
> Fairfield, IA
> 
> Description
> 
> HRM studies the art of living off of sun light. Gladys Gonzales contacted
> him and asked him to come to Fairfield, IA. His response was that if we can
> get a min of 100 folks to attend he would be happy to. He'd be doing this
> sometime in August, the exact date has not been determined yet.
> Here's a nice description of his life from www.solarhealing.com
> 
> Hira Ratan Manek was born on 12th of September 1937 in Bodhavad, India, was
> raised in Calicut, Kerala, India, where he had his Mechanical Engineering
> degree from the University of Kerala. After graduation, he joined the family
> shipping and spice trading business and continued working there until he
> retired in 1992.
> 
> After he retired, he began to research and study the ancient practice of sun
> gazing in which he had been interested in since his childhood. This method
> was an old but forgotten method, which had been practiced, in the ancient
> times in many different parts of the world. (see Sun Gazing - History)
> 
> 
> After working on this method for 3 years, he was able to re-discover the
> secrets of sun gazing. During his study, he was mainly inspired from the
> teachings of Lord Mahavir of Jains, who was also practicing this method two
> thousand and six hundred years ago. Other inspirations for sungazing came
> from ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Native Americans. 
> 
> Since June 18th, 1995, HRM has and continues to live only on sun energy and
> water. Occasionally, for hospitality and social purposes, he drinks tea,
> coffee and buttermilk. Until now, he had three strict fastings, during which
> he had just sun energy and only water and was under the control and
> observation of various science and medical teams. 
> 
> The first of these fasting lasted for 211 days during 1995-96 in Calicut,
> India directed by Dr. C.K. Ramachandran, a medical expert on allopathy and
> ayurvedic medicine. 
> 
> This was followed by a 411 day fast from 2000-2001 in Ahmedabad, India
> directed by an International team of 21 medical doctors and scientists led
> by Dr. Sudhir Shah (Dr. Shah's synopsis report) and Dr. K. K. Shah, the
> acting President of Indian Medical Association at that time. Dr. Maurie D.
> Pressman, MD also describes his experience with HRM in an article he wrote
> and later joined the team for the next observation on HRM.
> 
> After the excitement of the findings at Ahmadabad, HRM was invited to Thomas
> Jefferson University and University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia where he
> underwent a 130 day observation period. This Science/Medical Team wanted to
> observe and examine his retina, pineal gland and brain, therefore this
> observation team was led by Dr. Andrew B. Newberg, a leading authority on
> the brain and also featured in the recent movie "What the Bleep Do We Know",
> and by Dr. George C. Brenard, the leading authority on the pineal gland.
> Initial results found that the gray cells in HRM's brain are regenerating.
> 700 photographs have been taken where the neurons were reported to be active
> and not dying. Furthermore, the pineal gland was expanding and not shrinking
> which is typically what happens after mid fifties and its maximum average
> size is about 6 x 6 mm, however for HRM, it has been measured to be at 8 x
> 11 mm.
> 
> There have been many other sungazers who have achieved similar results and
> have volunteered to be tested, however due to lack of funding and other
> lifestyle restrictions the results have not been documented. The uniqueness
> of HRM is that he has surrendered his living body for observation and
> experiments to the scientific firmament for several extended periods of
> time. Although scientists and doctors have agreed that hunger is being
> reduced if not eliminated, due to the complexity of the various brain
> functions, they have not been able to explain how sungazing has such
> positive effects on the human mind or body, however more research is
> underway. 
> 
> In 2002 Hira Ratan Manek gave over 136 lectures in USA and has been invited
> by government agencies of many countries to help them understand this
> process at which point he established his International Headquarters in

[FairfieldLife] Re: True North

[bob_brigante]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Smith"  wrote:
>
> True North determined for the construction of Vastu homes is established by a 
> projection of the earth's axis to an imaginary point within the celestial 
> constellations. The north star is used as the reference point. Read this 
> article and tell me if you conclude that the reference point is not 
> consistent over time.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_celestial_pole
> 
> "The celestial poles do not remain permanently fixed against the background 
> of the stars. Because of a phenomenon known as the precession of the 
> equinoxes, the poles trace out circles on the celestial sphere, with a period 
> of about 25,700 years. The Earth's axis is also subject to other complex 
> motions which cause the celestial poles to shift slightly over cycles of 
> varying lengths; see nutation, polar motion and axial tilt. Finally, over 
> very long periods the positions of the stars themselves change, due to the 
> stars' proper motions."

***

In 14 thousand years, the new pole star will be Vega, but this will not change 
the longitude/lat lines on earth used in determining north on earth:

"The true north reference frame uses the latitude-longitude coordinates of the 
curved earth as the reference axes. 

http://home.netcom.com/~jsharry/truen.html

"True north is the direction along the earth's surface towards the geographic 
North Pole. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_north

Earth's north pole will still be its north pole regardless of what stars it 
points at as it wobbles, top-like:

http://www.glyphweb.com/esky/concepts/northerncelestialpole.html

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

[Peter]

The physiological/neurological research on TM has always been interesting and 
legit because its just a straight measure of brain wave activity. The problem 
has come in when there is an attempt to correlate these measure with complex 
psychological traits. The worst is when you see a degree of hemispheric 
coherence at some frequency and someone claims that this "means" that TM allows 
you to use more of your brain and therefore you are "better" at something than 
someone who doesn't have this coherence. The politics of consciousness enter 
when the non-scientists or the either deceptive/naive scientists make very 
self-serving statements regarding the research. This was non-physiological, but 
it is like the latest research that, according to the TMO, shows that TM 
reduces the symptoms of ADHD. Even the TM "scientist" David Orme-Johnson 
claimed this and it is just patently false. The design of the study does not 
allow you to conclude this at all, primarily
 because there was no control group and each subject functioned as there own 
control. If you know anything about research design, such a study essentially 
tells you nothing other than a bunch of students over x amount of time had a 
lessening of their ADHD symptoms. Why this lessening occurred, which is the 
most important question, can not be concluded because no variables have been 
controlled. I would love to ask David, why he believes you can conclude that TM 
is the one variable that "caused" these results when not a single variable has 
been controlled.   


--- On Mon, 5/4/09, dhamiltony2k5  wrote:

> From: dhamiltony2k5 
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian  voice in  MUM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, May 4, 2009, 9:24 PM
> 
> 
> Dear Doug,
> On a more pragmatic note:
> As you can see from the recent News bulletin included
> below. 
>  
> The mere fact that a peer reviewed Professional Journal
> accepts this type of research silently speaks with a
> mightier voice than all the critics on FFL.
>  
> One has to bust a gut to get published in one of these
> journals. One's work has to be impeccable and considered
> relevant by the your peers to even be considered.
>  
> Like any stable worthy of it's hard earned reputation,
> no professional Journal wants to be seen backing the wrong
> horse.
>  
> All love,
> 
> 
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > "For me the radical arguments like the ones you
> brought to my attention seem to pose either/or choices.
> Either the measurement of EEG alpha waves is an accurate
> indicator of higher states of consciousness or they are not.
> But I have learned to appreciate that the relative universe
> I have enjoyed for more than 60 years, is a limitless
> reservoir of infinite choice. I have often observed that a
> concept that our imaginations project as being
> 'either/or' is seamlessly integrated into a greater
> whole as new knowledge is gained and expands. 
> >  
> > For this reason, I conclude that all the scientific
> research on consciousness has some value. In its most
> elemental form it has a value in that it will take us to
> greater knowledge. But more pragmatically speaking, I
> believe that there will be an integration of everything that
> is being learned as the measurements of consciousness come
> together to give us an understanding that is greater than
> their collective technical components. 
> >  
> > On a final note, I believe it is myopically
> prejudicial for a critic to say of a brilliant scientist
> that he is clinging to his theory because his theory is what
> he wants to believe to be true. On the contrary, to my
> surprise the brilliant scientist that I have met here at
> Maharishi University of Management  our true seekers of
> knowledge, (are) ready, willing, and able to let the light
> of science illuminate their path." 
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To subscribe, send a message to:
> fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Or go to: 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 


  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

[dhamiltony2k5]

Dear Doug,
On a more pragmatic note:
As you can see from the recent News bulletin included below. 
 
The mere fact that a peer reviewed Professional Journal accepts this type of 
research silently speaks with a mightier voice than all the critics on FFL.
 
One has to bust a gut to get published in one of these journals. One's work has 
to be impeccable and considered relevant by the your peers to even be 
considered.
 
Like any stable worthy of it's hard earned reputation, no professional Journal 
wants to be seen backing the wrong horse.
 
All love,


> >
> 
> 
> "For me the radical arguments like the ones you brought to my attention seem 
> to pose either/or choices. Either the measurement of EEG alpha waves is an 
> accurate indicator of higher states of consciousness or they are not. But I 
> have learned to appreciate that the relative universe I have enjoyed for more 
> than 60 years, is a limitless reservoir of infinite choice. I have often 
> observed that a concept that our imaginations project as being 'either/or' is 
> seamlessly integrated into a greater whole as new knowledge is gained and 
> expands. 
>  
> For this reason, I conclude that all the scientific research on consciousness 
> has some value. In its most elemental form it has a value in that it will 
> take us to greater knowledge. But more pragmatically speaking, I believe that 
> there will be an integration of everything that is being learned as the 
> measurements of consciousness come together to give us an understanding that 
> is greater than their collective technical components. 
>  
> On a final note, I believe it is myopically prejudicial for a critic to say 
> of a brilliant scientist that he is clinging to his theory because his theory 
> is what he wants to believe to be true. On the contrary, to my surprise the 
> brilliant scientist that I have met here at Maharishi University of 
> Management  our true seekers of knowledge, (are) ready, willing, and able to 
> let the light of science illuminate their path." 
>

[FairfieldLife] True North

[Joe Smith]

True North determined for the construction of Vastu homes is established by a 
projection of the earth's axis to an imaginary point within the celestial 
constellations. The north star is used as the reference point. Read this 
article and tell me if you conclude that the reference point is not consistent 
over time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_celestial_pole

"The celestial poles do not remain permanently fixed against the background of 
the stars. Because of a phenomenon known as the precession of the equinoxes, 
the poles trace out circles on the celestial sphere, with a period of about 
25,700 years. The Earth's axis is also subject to other complex motions which 
cause the celestial poles to shift slightly over cycles of varying lengths; see 
nutation, polar motion and axial tilt. Finally, over very long periods the 
positions of the stars themselves change, due to the stars' proper motions."

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat May 02 00:00:00 2009
End Date (UTC): Sat May 09 00:00:00 2009
290 messages as of (UTC) Tue May 05 00:02:47 2009

40 nablusoss1008 
37 authfriend 
27 TurquoiseB 
20 ruthsimplicity 
13 sparaig 
13 Rick Archer 
13 Bhairitu 
10 dhamiltony2k5 
 9 bob_brigante 
 8 Vaj 
 8 Sal Sunshine 
 8 "grate.swan" 
 8 "Richard J. Williams" 
 7 off_world_beings 
 7 geezerfreak 
 7 Nelson 
 7 Duveyoung 
 6 shempmcgurk 
 6 lurkernomore20002000 
 5 enlightened_dawn11 
 4 satvadude108 
 4 cardemaister 
 4 "do.rflex" 
 3 raunchydog 
 3 William108 
 3 Alex Stanley 
 2 Tom 
 1 tkrystofiak 
 1 metoostill 
 1 drpetersutphen 
 1 Patrick Gillam 
 1 Mike Doughney 
 1 Mike Dixon 
 1 Dick Mays 
 1 "min.pige" 

Posters: 35
Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
=
Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
Standard Time (Winter):
US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

[dhamiltony2k5]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> Who are you quoting below?

Dear Rick,
Om, actually is un-important who it is saying it.  What the person is saying 
though is proly highly relevant as a description of what is going on here in 
FF.   Is an important journalism that is not much said here on FFL (or the BBC) 
that I brought over as a chronicle of FF.  

Criticism here does seems mighty one side-ed and not so much by way of an other 
side offered.  Yes, is a lot of cutting people off at their knees here and lots 
of other stuff.   

So, I was suspecting that there is some substantial thinking going on inside 
the TMmovement; hence, I sought it out from someone who I figured was doing 
that.  This one taken together with the aspects of those other three pastes in 
that other thread makes a pretty good honest take of things FF.

With best regards, 
-Doug in FF  


>  
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Utopian voice in MUM
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> an he's a real TM meditator. We'll have no more shit said about real
> meditators here. Okay. Be respectful.
> > 
> > Jai Guru Dev,
> > -Doug in FF
> >
> 
> 
> "For me the radical arguments like the ones you brought to my attention seem
> to pose either/or choices. Either the measurement of EEG alpha waves is an
> accurate indicator of higher states of consciousness or they are not. But I
> have learned to appreciate that the relative universe I have enjoyed for
> more than 60 years, is a limitless reservoir of infinite choice. I have
> often observed that a concept that our imaginations project as being
> 'either/or' is seamlessly integrated into a greater whole as new knowledge
> is gained and expands. 
> 
> For this reason, I conclude that all the scientific research on
> consciousness has some value. In its most elemental form it has a value in
> that it will take us to greater knowledge. But more pragmatically speaking,
> I believe that there will be an integration of everything that is being
> learned as the measurements of consciousness come together to give us an
> understanding that is greater than their collective technical components. 
> 
> On a final note, I believe it is myopically prejudicial for a critic to say
> of a brilliant scientist that he is clinging to his theory because his
> theory is what he wants to believe to be true. On the contrary, to my
> surprise the brilliant scientist that I have met here at Maharishi
> University of Management our true seekers of knowledge, (are) ready,
> willing, and able to let the light of science illuminate their path."  paste>
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Dollhouse: episode 11 -- Briar Rose (or, Joss explains "predation")

[enlightened_dawn11]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
> >
> > On May 4, 2009, at 11:46 AM, Duveyoung wrote:
> > 
> > > And, my babe is laughing herself sick here that anyone 
> > > would think I was drawn to weak women. When she and I 
> > > debate, the fur flies. I can't remember the last time 
> > > I resoundingly dominated in any debate about even the 
> > > smallest of issues. This woman's got moxie, mojo and  
> > > muscle -- stand back! Ahem, if anything, I'm guilty of 
> > > some sort of Peter Principle delusions in that I want 
> > > women a notch better than I actually can be said to 
> > > "deserve."
> > 
> > Is this the same "babe," Edg, that doesn't mind
> > you posting intimate details of  your relationship,
> > and who you claim is willing to have sex with you
> > anytime on a moment's notice?
> > 
> > Sure sounds like a winner, and I for one
> > agree with those who posted that she
> > most likely doesn't exist.  If she does,
> > have her post something under a pseudonym
> > that confirms what you previously
> > claimed about her, above.
> 
> While I agree with you about the likelihood
> of Edg's "babe" actually existing, Sal, I
> think you should lay off of him. 

no one living in fantasy land here...no sireee...they just make it up as they 
go along, completely unable to comprehend that Turq just got his ass handed to 
him by Edg, twice.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maddow on Possible Prosecution of BushCoTorture Policy Makers

[Nelson]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"  
wrote:
>
> do.rflex wrote:
> > Maddow on Possible Prosecution of BushCoTorture 
> > Policy Makers
> >
> In the future, everyone will be a war criminal 
> for fifteen minutes.
> 
> Read more:
> 
> 'Jon Stewart opines on Harry Truman and the A-bomb'
> TigerHawk, April 29, 2009 
> http://tinyurl.com/cddgsl
>
  Ever read "Charlie Wilson's war"?  It would seem that most of the people in 
DC don't know what is really going on there.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Dollhouse: episode 11 -- Briar Rose (or, Joss explains "predation")

[enlightened_dawn11]

in any case, he wouldn't be dating you, Sal, no matter how long you continue to 
carry the torch for him...as for the depth of Turq's relationships, if each was 
a pool of water, we wouldn't even get our toenails wet.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
>
> On May 4, 2009, at 4:57 PM, TurquoiseB wrote:
> 
> > While I agree with you about the likelihood
> > of Edg's "babe" actually existing, Sal, I
> > think you should lay off of him. I plan to.
> >
> > You see, Edg's little lecture really touched
> > me and made me completely rethink my life,
> > and I have resolved not to give him a hard
> > time again until I have achieved more deep
> > and meaningful romantic relationships than
> > he has had in his lifetime.
> >
> > Since he's only had two, it shouldn't take
> > me more than a week to surpass that number.
> > So what I'm aiming for to make it more inter-
> > esting for me is seeing whether I can find
> > three whose combined ages add up to less
> > than Edg's.
> >
> > :-)
> 
> His chronological age or his emotional one?
> 
> If the latter, you might have to start
> dating toddlers.
> 
> Sal
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On May 4, 2009, at 6:17 PM, sparaig wrote:
> 
> > I guess this is one of those "we agree to disagree" moments. To me,  
> > your oh-so-
> > cogent points sidestep what I say, and apparently you feel the same  
> > about what
> > *I* am saying. O well...
> 
> 
> I'm not sidestepping--that's your obsessive POV. But this has already  
> been broached by Ruth and I (and others) in the past. It's already  
> been explained ad nauseam. If you didn't get it before, it means you  
> either aren't listening, can't listen or just aren't able to hear it.  
> I'd rather discuss the new, cutting edge stuff coming out at events  
> like Mind and Life 18 or the Harvard conference last weekend, than  
> lament over your spilt milk again!
> 
> Of course should something eventually come out on TM that is  
> reputable, worthwhile and new--sure I'd love to hear it. I'm just not  
> holding my breath on that one. The same old relaxation response  
> findings just aren't that exciting for those of us interested in  
> higher states of consciousness.
>

As I said, we agree to disagree...

Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guy who lives off sun coming to ff august 23

[tkrystofiak]

An inquiring mind wanted to know... here is a reputed exchange with one of the 
scientists cited regarding Manek's fasting feats:

Dr Newberg,

I am an undergraduate student from the Skeptics Society of Cornell University. 
Recently I stumbled upon Manek's Solar Healing and I am keen to understand more 
about this extraordinary claim.
I hope you don't mind me asking you to confirm this statement in an article by 
India New England online newspaper, 

(link + quote)

Please let me know how much of this statement is accurate.

Thank you,
Arthur Lee
President of Skeptics Society 
Cornell University


Dear Arthur,

Thanks for your message. The statement in the article is not quite correct. I 
did do several brain scans on him during meditation (which has been a focus of 
my research) and I did studies on him before he began one of his fasting 
periods and then about 3 months later after he had been doing his fast. I did 
not actually follow him for the entire duration of his fasting perdiod of 130 
days so I cannot confirm or deny whether or not he actually fasted or whether 
he was able to derive any energy from the sun gazing (for this reason, I am not 
certain how to actually present the brain can results since I cannot confirm 
what he claims to do). I agree with you that it is a rather interesting claim. 
His brain scans were somewhat interesting from the perspective of what he did 
during meditation, but they would also not be able to confirm that he had done 
what he claimed, only that his brain does changes its activity patterns during 
meditation (this has been found during a number of related practices). I hope 
that this is helpful. 

Sincerely,
Andrew Newberg



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=72872132228
>  
> 
> Solar Healing Lecture with Hira Ratan Manek
> 
> Living off the Energy of our Sun
> 
> Host:
> Andy Toepel
> 
> Type:
>   Education -
>  Lecture
> 
> Network:
> Global
>  
> 
> Date:
> Sunday, August 23, 2009
> 
> Time:
> 12:00pm - 12:05pm
> 
> Location:
> Fairfield, IA
> 
> City/Town:
> Fairfield, IA
> 
> Description
> 
> HRM studies the art of living off of sun light. Gladys Gonzales contacted
> him and asked him to come to Fairfield, IA. His response was that if we can
> get a min of 100 folks to attend he would be happy to. He'd be doing this
> sometime in August, the exact date has not been determined yet.
> Here's a nice description of his life from www.solarhealing.com
> 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

[Vaj]

On May 4, 2009, at 6:17 PM, sparaig wrote:

> I guess this is one of those "we agree to disagree" moments. To me,  
> your oh-so-
> cogent points sidestep what I say, and apparently you feel the same  
> about what
> *I* am saying. O well...


I'm not sidestepping--that's your obsessive POV. But this has already  
been broached by Ruth and I (and others) in the past. It's already  
been explained ad nauseam. If you didn't get it before, it means you  
either aren't listening, can't listen or just aren't able to hear it.  
I'd rather discuss the new, cutting edge stuff coming out at events  
like Mind and Life 18 or the Harvard conference last weekend, than  
lament over your spilt milk again!

Of course should something eventually come out on TM that is  
reputable, worthwhile and new--sure I'd love to hear it. I'm just not  
holding my breath on that one. The same old relaxation response  
findings just aren't that exciting for those of us interested in  
higher states of consciousness.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> 
> On May 4, 2009, at 4:43 PM, sparaig wrote:

> > Again: when researchers don't comment directly on
> > research published in the past 2-3 years, you gotta
> > wonder what is up. Fact is, the TM findings don't
> > fit their pet theories so they ignore the findings.
> > Goes both ways, of course.
> 
> Lawson, you're obsessing. This has already been
> explained to you a number of times.

Your "explanations" have been consistently inadequate,
unresponsive, and unconvincing.

> The TM org has consistently put out crap research for
> decades. Just because they re-spin the same schtick
> once again, which had been previously dismissed using
> good, solid science, means legitimate scientists will
> not need to take it seriously.

They don't have to "take it seriously," but they are
obligated to evaluate the very latest research
regardless of whether they think it's crap and the
same as previous research they've "dismissed" (nice
scientific term there, Vaj). If it has the same flaws,
they have to *demonstrate* that, not take it for
granted.

Their case would be *stronger* if they could find the
same flaws they purported to find in the earlier
research, so that they avoid the opportunity to give
it a definitive one-two punch looks very odd indeed.


> And in case you haven't been listening, the Hindu,
> Tibetan and Zen Buddhist yogic explanations of the
> undermined of breath pauses in TM have been made in
> the last couple of months. These are well known  
> pitfalls.

Have been made by *you*. Big whoop. (Goodness knows
what you're actually trying to say here. Your syntax
always seems to get mangled when you're straining.)
That you have managed to dig up stuff about the
purported "pitfalls" of breath suspension and use it
as your latest hobbyhorse to disparage TM is really
not terribly impressive.


> Of course the good news is, some people are able to
> get good relaxation response consistently from TM,
> even if it doesn't promote higher states of
> consciousness demonstrably.

According to *your* standards. Again, big whoop.
Enough reliable, non-TB-like folks (including Peter
and Marek, among others) have described their 
experiences of higher consciousness to make your claim
that TM doesn't promote higher states questionable,
to say the least.

> And of course, even if he was a charlatan yogi,
> we do owe some respect to Mahesh Varma

But not enough to use the name by which he is known
throughout the world, while at the same time calling
him a charlatan.

[FairfieldLife] Repugs Defend Off Shore Tax Havens Against Obama Crackdown

[do.rflex]

~~~   Big Corporations Skip Out on Taxes   ~~~


--Morgan Stanley, for instance, boasts 273 subsidiaries 
in tax havens, with 158 in the Cayman Islands alone. 
Citigroup's got 427, with 90 in the Cayman Islands, and 
59 of Bank of America's tax-haven subsidiaries are there 
as well...

But the amount Obama's plan would reportedly save is a 
far cry from the estimated $1 trillion the United 
States loses to offshore tax havens over a ten-year 
period.---


President Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner announced on Monday a 
crackdown on offshore tax havens that could produce $210 billion in new tax 
revenue over the next decade.

The White House will face opposition to the proposal from the business 
community and Congress. Before the announcement, a Republican leadership 
staffer circulated an email citing a Bloomberg report saying the proposal 
"would be the biggest tax increase on U.S. corporations since 1986." And Senate 
GOP leader Mitch McConnell (Ken.) said later on Monday that he could not 
endorse Obama's plan since it "gives preferential treatment to foreign 
companies at the expense of U.S.-based companies."

But the amount Obama's plan would reportedly save is a far cry from the 
estimated $1 trillion the United States loses to offshore tax havens over a 
ten-year period.

A 2008 Senate report (PDF) estimated that "the United States loses an estimated 
$100 billion in tax revenues due to offshore tax abuses" every year.

In January, the Government Accountability Office issued a report (PDF) that 
found that 83 of the 100 largest publicly traded U.S. corporations reported 
subsidiaries in countries listed as tax havens or "financial privacy 
jurisdictions."

Many of those corporations are beneficiaries of billions in taxpayer dollars 
under the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Morgan Stanley, for instance, boasts 
273 subsidiaries in tax havens, with 158 in the Cayman Islands alone. 
Citigroup's got 427, with 90 in the Cayman Islands, and 59 of Bank of America's 
tax-haven subsidiaries are there as well.

The GAO found 18,857 businesses are registered at just one address in the 
Cayman Islands -- the "Ugland House." The report said that "Ugland House 
registered entities included investment funds, structured-finance vehicles, and 
entities associated with other corporate activities."

The Treasury Department pooh-poohed the GAO's list of countries because there 
is no agreed-upon definition of a tax haven. "Even though coming up with a list 
of countries has significant appeal, any list of countries is likely to be 
under-inclusive as well as over-inclusive," the Treasury wrote. "Moreover, 
because any such list is likely to be regarded as a blacklist and may be used 
as the basis for the imposition of sanctions or other negative measures, such a 
list may inappropriately negatively affect our economic and other relations 
with listed countries."

On tax day, April 15, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group issued a report 
with a state-by-state breakdown of the cost to taxpayers of corporate tax 
evasion in offshore havens.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/04/republicans-defend-tax-ha_n_195617.html

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dollhouse: episode 11 -- Briar Rose (or, Joss explains "predation")

[Sal Sunshine]

On May 4, 2009, at 4:57 PM, TurquoiseB wrote:


While I agree with you about the likelihood
of Edg's "babe" actually existing, Sal, I
think you should lay off of him. I plan to.

You see, Edg's little lecture really touched
me and made me completely rethink my life,
and I have resolved not to give him a hard
time again until I have achieved more deep
and meaningful romantic relationships than
he has had in his lifetime.

Since he's only had two, it shouldn't take
me more than a week to surpass that number.
So what I'm aiming for to make it more inter-
esting for me is seeing whether I can find
three whose combined ages add up to less
than Edg's.

:-)


His chronological age or his emotional one?

If the latter, you might have to start
dating toddlers.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On May 4, 2009, at 4:43 PM, sparaig wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On May 4, 2009, at 4:07 PM, sparaig wrote:
> >>
> >>> Again: you can't use studies from 25 years ago to refute research
> >>> done just 2-3
> >>> years ago unless you're willing to discuss the more recent
> >>> research's findings
> >>> explicitly and directly, which is something neither you nor the
> >>> researchers
> >>> you quote have actually done.
> >>
> >>
> >> Again, the reasons for this have already been pointed out to you in
> >> previous posts. Please consult the FFL archives. I'm afraid we have  
> >> to
> >> go with the good science in this case. These alpha coherence buzzings
> >> are common to all relaxation response meditation forms. I have new
> >> list of all these from the conference with HHDL this last weekend
> >> which Herbert Benson spoke at (real nice guy!), I'll post it when I
> >> get a chance.
> >>
> >
> > Again: when researchers don't comment directly on research published  
> > in the
> > past 2-3 years, you gotta wonder what is up. Fact is, the TM  
> > findings don't
> > fit their pet theories so they ignore the findings. Goes both ways,  
> > of course.
> 
> 
> Lawson, you're obsessing. This has already been explained to you a  
> number of times.
> 
> The TM org has consistently put out crap research for decades. Just  
> because they re-spin the same schtick once again, which had been  
> previously dismissed using good, solid science, means legitimate  
> scientists will not need to take it seriously. So you can wish and  
> lament all you want and pray on your thick copy of the TM research  
> "bible", but I'm afraid that ship has already sailed.
> 
> And in case you haven't been listening, the Hindu, Tibetan and Zen  
> Buddhist yogic explanations of the undermined of breath pauses in TM  
> have been made in the last couple of months. These are well known  
> pitfalls. Those who are experientially familiar with them via the TM  
> and TMSP program, and were able to move beyond them understand  
> directly what this means.
> 
> Of course the good news is, some people are able to get good  
> relaxation response consistently from TM, even if it doesn't promote  
> higher states of consciousness demonstrably. And of course, even if he  
> was a charlatan yogi, we do owe some respect to Mahesh Varma for at  
> least helping popularize meditation research. There's some truly  
> amazing new research going on right now in Buddhist, Christian and  
> Hindu meditation.
>


I guess this is one of those "we agree to disagree" moments. To me, your oh-so-
cogent points sidestep what I say, and apparently you feel the same about what
*I* am saying. O well...


Lawson

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

[Vaj]

On May 4, 2009, at 4:43 PM, sparaig wrote:


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



On May 4, 2009, at 4:07 PM, sparaig wrote:


Again: you can't use studies from 25 years ago to refute research
done just 2-3
years ago unless you're willing to discuss the more recent
research's findings
explicitly and directly, which is something neither you nor the
researchers
you quote have actually done.



Again, the reasons for this have already been pointed out to you in
previous posts. Please consult the FFL archives. I'm afraid we have  
to

go with the good science in this case. These alpha coherence buzzings
are common to all relaxation response meditation forms. I have new
list of all these from the conference with HHDL this last weekend
which Herbert Benson spoke at (real nice guy!), I'll post it when I
get a chance.



Again: when researchers don't comment directly on research published  
in the
past 2-3 years, you gotta wonder what is up. Fact is, the TM  
findings don't
fit their pet theories so they ignore the findings. Goes both ways,  
of course.



Lawson, you're obsessing. This has already been explained to you a  
number of times.


The TM org has consistently put out crap research for decades. Just  
because they re-spin the same schtick once again, which had been  
previously dismissed using good, solid science, means legitimate  
scientists will not need to take it seriously. So you can wish and  
lament all you want and pray on your thick copy of the TM research  
"bible", but I'm afraid that ship has already sailed.


And in case you haven't been listening, the Hindu, Tibetan and Zen  
Buddhist yogic explanations of the undermined of breath pauses in TM  
have been made in the last couple of months. These are well known  
pitfalls. Those who are experientially familiar with them via the TM  
and TMSP program, and were able to move beyond them understand  
directly what this means.


Of course the good news is, some people are able to get good  
relaxation response consistently from TM, even if it doesn't promote  
higher states of consciousness demonstrably. And of course, even if he  
was a charlatan yogi, we do owe some respect to Mahesh Varma for at  
least helping popularize meditation research. There's some truly  
amazing new research going on right now in Buddhist, Christian and  
Hindu meditation.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Dollhouse: episode 11 -- Briar Rose (or, Joss explains "predation")

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
>
> On May 4, 2009, at 11:46 AM, Duveyoung wrote:
> 
> > And, my babe is laughing herself sick here that anyone 
> > would think I was drawn to weak women. When she and I 
> > debate, the fur flies. I can't remember the last time 
> > I resoundingly dominated in any debate about even the 
> > smallest of issues. This woman's got moxie, mojo and  
> > muscle -- stand back! Ahem, if anything, I'm guilty of 
> > some sort of Peter Principle delusions in that I want 
> > women a notch better than I actually can be said to 
> > "deserve."
> 
> Is this the same "babe," Edg, that doesn't mind
> you posting intimate details of  your relationship,
> and who you claim is willing to have sex with you
> anytime on a moment's notice?
> 
> Sure sounds like a winner, and I for one
> agree with those who posted that she
> most likely doesn't exist.  If she does,
> have her post something under a pseudonym
> that confirms what you previously
> claimed about her, above.

While I agree with you about the likelihood
of Edg's "babe" actually existing, Sal, I
think you should lay off of him. I plan to.

You see, Edg's little lecture really touched 
me and made me completely rethink my life, 
and I have resolved not to give him a hard
time again until I have achieved more deep
and meaningful romantic relationships than 
he has had in his lifetime. 

Since he's only had two, it shouldn't take 
me more than a week to surpass that number. 
So what I'm aiming for to make it more inter-
esting for me is seeing whether I can find
three whose combined ages add up to less 
than Edg's.

:-)

[FairfieldLife] Survey says French excel at eating, sleeping

[bob_brigante]

Survey says French excel at eating, sleeping
Associated Press

PARIS — The French are living up to their image as lovers of food
and can add a new love to the mix — sleep — according to a
survey released today.

   [Quantcast]
In fact, the French excel at the two leisure activities, spending more
time at table and in bed than many other nations.
The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
looked at the use of leisure time among 18 of its 30 member countries.
Norwegians spend the most time at leisure, just over a quarter of their
day, while at the low end, Mexicans spend just 16 percent of their time
having fun.
The French still win in the sleeping and eating categories, spending on
average nearly 9 hours a day in bed. For the French, leisure continues
in the waking hours, with more than 2 hours a day spent eating and
drinking — nearly twice as much time at the table as Americans,
Canadians or Mexicans.
Americans also like their sleep, spending some 8.5 hours a day doing
just that.
Despite the moderate amount of time Americans spend eating each day
— about an hour and a quarter — U.S. obesity rates are the
highest in the 30-member OECD with 34 percent of the American population
with a Body Mass Index, or BMI, over the critical 30 mark. The lowest
obesity rates are found in Korea, followed by Japan, with less than 4
percent of the population with a BMI over 30.
The Koreans followed by the Japanese clock in at the low end of the
sleep spectrum, getting 7.8 hours a day with the Japanese not far
behind.
The profiles on the use of leisure time were constructed by the OECD
using 2006 data from the 18 member countries for which up to date
surveys on use of time were available.
Television ranks high among leisure activities in Japan — where it
takes up 55 percent of free time, compared to a low of 25 percent for
New Zealanders.
The Turks are the most sociable population. They spend more than 35
percent of their time entertaining, compared to an OECD average of 11
percent.

[FairfieldLife] Guy who lives off sun coming to ff august 23

[Rick Archer]

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=72872132228
 

Solar Healing Lecture with Hira Ratan Manek

Living off the Energy of our Sun

Host:
Andy Toepel

Type:
  Education -
 Lecture

Network:
Global
 

Date:
Sunday, August 23, 2009

Time:
12:00pm - 12:05pm

Location:
Fairfield, IA

City/Town:
Fairfield, IA

Description

HRM studies the art of living off of sun light. Gladys Gonzales contacted
him and asked him to come to Fairfield, IA. His response was that if we can
get a min of 100 folks to attend he would be happy to. He'd be doing this
sometime in August, the exact date has not been determined yet.
Here's a nice description of his life from www.solarhealing.com

Hira Ratan Manek was born on 12th of September 1937 in Bodhavad, India, was
raised in Calicut, Kerala, India, where he had his Mechanical Engineering
degree from the University of Kerala. After graduation, he joined the family
shipping and spice trading business and continued working there until he
retired in 1992.

After he retired, he began to research and study the ancient practice of sun
gazing in which he had been interested in since his childhood. This method
was an old but forgotten method, which had been practiced, in the ancient
times in many different parts of the world. (see Sun Gazing - History)


After working on this method for 3 years, he was able to re-discover the
secrets of sun gazing. During his study, he was mainly inspired from the
teachings of Lord Mahavir of Jains, who was also practicing this method two
thousand and six hundred years ago. Other inspirations for sungazing came
from ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Native Americans. 

Since June 18th, 1995, HRM has and continues to live only on sun energy and
water. Occasionally, for hospitality and social purposes, he drinks tea,
coffee and buttermilk. Until now, he had three strict fastings, during which
he had just sun energy and only water and was under the control and
observation of various science and medical teams. 

The first of these fasting lasted for 211 days during 1995-96 in Calicut,
India directed by Dr. C.K. Ramachandran, a medical expert on allopathy and
ayurvedic medicine. 

This was followed by a 411 day fast from 2000-2001 in Ahmedabad, India
directed by an International team of 21 medical doctors and scientists led
by Dr. Sudhir Shah (Dr. Shah's synopsis report) and Dr. K. K. Shah, the
acting President of Indian Medical Association at that time. Dr. Maurie D.
Pressman, MD also describes his experience with HRM in an article he wrote
and later joined the team for the next observation on HRM.

After the excitement of the findings at Ahmadabad, HRM was invited to Thomas
Jefferson University and University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia where he
underwent a 130 day observation period. This Science/Medical Team wanted to
observe and examine his retina, pineal gland and brain, therefore this
observation team was led by Dr. Andrew B. Newberg, a leading authority on
the brain and also featured in the recent movie "What the Bleep Do We Know",
and by Dr. George C. Brenard, the leading authority on the pineal gland.
Initial results found that the gray cells in HRM's brain are regenerating.
700 photographs have been taken where the neurons were reported to be active
and not dying. Furthermore, the pineal gland was expanding and not shrinking
which is typically what happens after mid fifties and its maximum average
size is about 6 x 6 mm, however for HRM, it has been measured to be at 8 x
11 mm.

There have been many other sungazers who have achieved similar results and
have volunteered to be tested, however due to lack of funding and other
lifestyle restrictions the results have not been documented. The uniqueness
of HRM is that he has surrendered his living body for observation and
experiments to the scientific firmament for several extended periods of
time. Although scientists and doctors have agreed that hunger is being
reduced if not eliminated, due to the complexity of the various brain
functions, they have not been able to explain how sungazing has such
positive effects on the human mind or body, however more research is
underway. 

In 2002 Hira Ratan Manek gave over 136 lectures in USA and has been invited
by government agencies of many countries to help them understand this
process at which point he established his International Headquarters in
Orlando, Florida. In 2003 HRM gave over 147 lectures in US, Canada,
Caribbean and UK and nearly 400 newspapers all around the world have
published articles on him. Additionally, many television channels have
broadcast stories about him and he was most recently interviewed by BBC
World Services. In December, 2003 HRM traveled to India for 4 months and
delivered 70 lectures to various cities such as Chennai, Pondicherry,
Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Baroda, Palitana, Kachchh, Jodhpur, Pali, Balotara,
Lucknow, Delhi, Chadigarh, and 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maddow on Possible Prosecution of BushCoTorture Policy Makers

[Richard J. Williams]

do.rflex wrote:
> Maddow on Possible Prosecution of BushCoTorture 
> Policy Makers
>
In the future, everyone will be a war criminal 
for fifteen minutes.

Read more:

'Jon Stewart opines on Harry Truman and the A-bomb'
TigerHawk, April 29, 2009 
http://tinyurl.com/cddgsl

[FairfieldLife] Maddow on Possible Prosecution of BushCoTorture Policy Makers

[do.rflex]

~ Obama says Justice Dept to decide about prosecution -


Rachel interviews Condoleeza Rice counselor Philip Zelikow

"America's fought a number of wars in our history including against 
unconventional enemies. This was an interrogation program however, for which 
there is no precedent in the history of the United States."

~~ Philip Zelikow

WATCH Part I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKzLChQ1p7k

Part II: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOy1YZ1acQg

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dollhouse: episode 11 -- Briar Rose (or, Joss explains "predation")

[Sal Sunshine]

On May 4, 2009, at 11:46 AM, Duveyoung wrote:

And, my babe is laughing herself sick here that anyone would think I  
was drawn to weak women.   When she and I debate, the fur flies.  I  
can't remember the last time I resoundingly dominated in any debate  
about even the smallest of issues.  This woman's got moxie, mojo and  
muscle -- stand back!  Ahem, if anything, I'm guilty of some sort of  
Peter Principle delusions in that I want women a notch better than I  
actually can be said to "deserve."


Is this the same "babe," Edg, that doesn't mind
you posting intimate details of  your relationship,
and who you claim is willing to have sex with you
anytime on a moment's notice?

Sure sounds like a winner, and I for one
agree with those who posted that she
most likely doesn't exist.  If she does,
have her post something under a pseudonym
that confirms what you previously
claimed about her, above.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On May 4, 2009, at 4:07 PM, sparaig wrote:
> 
> > Again: you can't use studies from 25 years ago to refute research  
> > done just 2-3
> > years ago unless you're willing to discuss the more recent  
> > research's findings
> > explicitly and directly, which is something neither you nor the  
> > researchers
> > you quote have actually done.
> 
> 
> Again, the reasons for this have already been pointed out to you in  
> previous posts. Please consult the FFL archives. I'm afraid we have to  
> go with the good science in this case. These alpha coherence buzzings  
> are common to all relaxation response meditation forms. I have new  
> list of all these from the conference with HHDL this last weekend  
> which Herbert Benson spoke at (real nice guy!), I'll post it when I  
> get a chance.
>

Again: when researchers don't comment directly on research published in the
past 2-3 years, you gotta wonder what is up. Fact is, the TM findings don't
fit their pet theories so they ignore the findings. Goes both ways, of course.


L.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

[Vaj]

On May 4, 2009, at 4:07 PM, sparaig wrote:

> Again: you can't use studies from 25 years ago to refute research  
> done just 2-3
> years ago unless you're willing to discuss the more recent  
> research's findings
> explicitly and directly, which is something neither you nor the  
> researchers
> you quote have actually done.


Again, the reasons for this have already been pointed out to you in  
previous posts. Please consult the FFL archives. I'm afraid we have to  
go with the good science in this case. These alpha coherence buzzings  
are common to all relaxation response meditation forms. I have new  
list of all these from the conference with HHDL this last weekend  
which Herbert Benson spoke at (real nice guy!), I'll post it when I  
get a chance.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

[sparaig]

Again: you can't use studies from 25 years ago to refute research done just 2-3
years ago unless you're willing to discuss the more recent research's findings 
explicitly and directly, which is something neither you nor the researchers 
you quote have actually done.

Lawson

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On May 4, 2009, at 12:19 PM, Rick Archer wrote:
> 
> > "For me the radical arguments like the ones you brought to my  
> > attention seem to pose either/or choices. Either the measurement of  
> > EEG alpha waves is an accurate indicator of higher states of  
> > consciousness or they are not. But I have learned to appreciate  
> > that the relative universe I have enjoyed for more than 60 years,  
> > is a limitless reservoir of infinite choice. I have often observed  
> > that a concept that our imaginations project as being 'either/or'  
> > is seamlessly integrated into a greater whole as new knowledge is  
> > gained and expands.
> >
> > For this reason, I conclude that all the scientific research on  
> > consciousness has some value. In its most elemental form it has a  
> > value in that it will take us to greater knowledge. But more  
> > pragmatically speaking, I believe that there will be an integration  
> > of everything that is being learned as the measurements of  
> > consciousness come together to give us an understanding that is  
> > greater than their collective technical components.
> >
> > On a final note, I believe it is myopically prejudicial for a  
> > critic to say of a brilliant scientist that he is clinging to his  
> > theory because his theory is what he wants to believe to be true.  
> > On the contrary, to my surprise the brilliant scientist that I have  
> > met here at Maharishi University of Management our true seekers of  
> > knowledge, (are) ready, willing, and able to let the light of  
> > science illuminate their path." 
> 
> 
> "Concluding anything about alpha is perilous."
> -Barbara Brown [EEG expert]
> 
> "Within a bandwidth
> of perhaps 2 Hz near this spectral
> peak, alpha frequencies frequently produce
> spontaneously moderate to large coherence
> (0.3�0.8 over large interelectrode distance
> (Nunez et al., 1997). The alpha coherence
> values reported in TM studies, as a trait
> in the baseline or during meditation, belong
> to this same range. Thus a global increase
> of alpha power and alpha coherence might
> not reflect a more �ordered� or �integrated�
> experience, as frequently claimed in TM literature
> 
> (...)
> 
> To summarize, alpha global increases and
> alpha coherence mostly over frontal electrodes
> are associated with TM practice when
> meditating compared to baseline (Morse,
> Martin, Furst, & Dubin, 1977). This global
> alpha increase is similar to that produced
> by other relaxation techniques. The passive
> absorption during the recitation of the
> mantra, as practiced in this technique, produces
> a brain pattern that suggests a decrease
> of processing of sensory or motor information
> and of mental activity in general. Because
> alpha rhythms are ubiquitous and functionally
> non-specific, the claim that alpha
> oscillations and alpha coherence are desirable
> or are linked to an original and higher
> state of consciousness seem quite premature."
> 
> 
> Antoine Lutz, John D. Dunne, and Richard J. Davidson
> The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness
> 
> When compared to appropriate controls, alpha amplitude actually  
> decreases during TM:
> 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com/msg152269.html
>

[FairfieldLife] Poland: Thanx, Jimi!

[cardemaister]

http://www.guitarworld.com/article/6346_guitar_players_converge_in_poland_to_play_quothey_joequot

http://tinyurl.com/cuoxjq

Re: [FairfieldLife] Utopian voice in MUM

[Vaj]

On May 4, 2009, at 12:19 PM, Rick Archer wrote:

"For me the radical arguments like the ones you brought to my  
attention seem to pose either/or choices. Either the measurement of  
EEG alpha waves is an accurate indicator of higher states of  
consciousness or they are not. But I have learned to appreciate  
that the relative universe I have enjoyed for more than 60 years,  
is a limitless reservoir of infinite choice. I have often observed  
that a concept that our imaginations project as being 'either/or'  
is seamlessly integrated into a greater whole as new knowledge is  
gained and expands.


For this reason, I conclude that all the scientific research on  
consciousness has some value. In its most elemental form it has a  
value in that it will take us to greater knowledge. But more  
pragmatically speaking, I believe that there will be an integration  
of everything that is being learned as the measurements of  
consciousness come together to give us an understanding that is  
greater than their collective technical components.


On a final note, I believe it is myopically prejudicial for a  
critic to say of a brilliant scientist that he is clinging to his  
theory because his theory is what he wants to believe to be true.  
On the contrary, to my surprise the brilliant scientist that I have  
met here at Maharishi University of Management our true seekers of  
knowledge, (are) ready, willing, and able to let the light of  
science illuminate their path." 



"Concluding anything about alpha is perilous."
-Barbara Brown [EEG expert]

"Within a bandwidth
of perhaps 2 Hz near this spectral
peak, alpha frequencies frequently produce
spontaneously moderate to large coherence
(0.3–0.8 over large interelectrode distance
(Nunez et al., 1997). The alpha coherence
values reported in TM studies, as a trait
in the baseline or during meditation, belong
to this same range. Thus a global increase
of alpha power and alpha coherence might
not reflect a more “ordered” or “integrated”
experience, as frequently claimed in TM literature

(...)

To summarize, alpha global increases and
alpha coherence mostly over frontal electrodes
are associated with TM practice when
meditating compared to baseline (Morse,
Martin, Furst, & Dubin, 1977). This global
alpha increase is similar to that produced
by other relaxation techniques. The passive
absorption during the recitation of the
mantra, as practiced in this technique, produces
a brain pattern that suggests a decrease
of processing of sensory or motor information
and of mental activity in general. Because
alpha rhythms are ubiquitous and functionally
non-specific, the claim that alpha
oscillations and alpha coherence are desirable
or are linked to an original and higher
state of consciousness seem quite premature."


Antoine Lutz, John D. Dunne, and Richard J. Davidson
The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness

When compared to appropriate controls, alpha amplitude actually  
decreases during TM:


http://www.mail-archive.com/fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com/msg152269.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: Compersion, Polyamory and Spanish Rights to Nudity

[Duveyoung]

Hey, put me into any party you're at and let's see who can entertain the crowd 
better. You want a dick swinging contest, I'm there!

Allow me to brag.  I can make anyone laugh until they beg me to stop so that 
they can catch their breath.  In crowds, I can be found singing, dancing, 
and/or being the clown, or I can do intense drill-down to who-we-are-right-now 
toe to toe tete e tetes.  

I can beat anyone at Trivial Pursuit.  Give me a piano, and I'll get your toes 
tapping.  I know how to get a person to open up and share, and I know how to 
trade quips in a locker room.

Crowds -- me loves 'em.  I'm the perfect party guest.

But that's not having relationships.  Joking with someone over coffee in a cafe 
is child's play.  Being the life of a party in no way assures you can be the 
life of your life.  

What you call a relationship is a joke.  A dance of masks.

The only relationship worth having is with someone who really knows all your 
shit -- the good shit, the bad shit.  Otherwise, you're protecting yourself 
from someone discovering your psychological twists.  

Comfort is the basis of true love.

And thankfully, I have that in my life.  I have someone who knows me and I know 
her, and with no wool being pulled over anyone's eyes, the expansiveness of 
existence awes.  When any subject, any issue can be creatively entertained by 
two minds at once without fear scrambling the interceptor jets, it's priceless.

Shallow relationships -- who doesn't have them? but woe onto those who solely 
have shallow relationships.  

It takes years to get to know someone. It simply cannot happen overnight. 
Instantly one can be attracted to another's energy and presentation, but it 
takes years to validate the knee-jerk intuition.

As for FFL relationships, I cannot say that there really are any here of note.  
I think Marek and I could hit it off instantly, but what would he think of me a 
year from now after he found out about, you know, the parts of me that I 
haven't been revealing here?  Only time can tell me the answer to this 
question.  

You and Curtis might be pals for the nonce, but only years would tell us if 
there was anything deep about your mutual attraction.

If you want to prove you have a friend, borrow five bucks from him and then 
refuse to pay it back on some pretext.  See if your so-called relationship can 
survive that.  If it can, I'll be inclined to be impressed.  

For you, Turq, I'd say the highest relationship you've ever had is with your 
dogs.  I hope that eventually they'll nurture your heart with their 
unconditional love.  One can hope anyway.  

Edg

 




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> >
> > GAWD you are such a shallow fuck that you can be an 
> > apologist for polyamory and seemingly be unaware of the 
> > challenges.  Have you ever had an intimate relationship?  
> > Don't you know how much time it takes?  
> 
> Edg, you keep repeating this as if it were
> a truism.
> 
> Have you ever considered that the reason it
> takes YOU so much time and work to maintain 
> a relationship is because you're basically 
> an unlovable fuck? 
> 
> For some of us, once past the hurdle of 
> finding someone we get along with without
> a lot of drama and angst, things go pretty
> smoothly. My bet is that for most people
> here, who don't strike me as being as needy 
> and as judgmental as you are, things went 
> more smoothly for them, too.
> 
> I mean, how many people get along with you 
> *here* on FFL? If I were you I'd consider
> the possibility that the reason relationships 
> take so much time and work for you has more 
> to do with YOU than it does the nature of 
> relationships. Just sayin'...
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Dollhouse: episode 11 -- Briar Rose (or, Joss explains "predation")

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > Since Edg is obviously in the midst of one
> > of his periodic meltdowns, with me as the
> > target, and since he lacks the balls to back
> > up any of his fantasies and speculations about
> > me with any facts, I'll do the same.
> 
> It wouldn't take balls, it would take precious time...

Yeah, like the time you spent writing this. 
And all the other posts you'll write ragging
on me this week and next week and the week
after that.

But I won't make the same mistake because 
I have less time on my hands than you do. 
I've got young women to screw and evil to
spread, and all that you have on your agenda 
is to write purple prose that no one reads 
and ride your tricycle. All in all, I'd say 
that I have a better deal goin' for me being 
Satan's minion than you have as a judgmental 
prude. :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Dollhouse: episode 11 -- Briar Rose (or, Joss explains "predation")

[Bhairitu]

TurquoiseB wrote:
> 
> Segue to the real "meat" of the episode, which centers
> around Agent Ballard's plans to break in to the Dollhouse
> to rescue Echo. Suffice it to say that we have now seen
> ten previous episodes that have established beyond a 
> shadow of a doubt that *he* has some pretty strong male
> chauvinist fantasies about becoming the handsome prince
> who rescues the poor damsel in distress. Suffice it to
> say that we in the audience know that *he* has some 
> equally strong fantasies about riding off into the
> sunset with Echo and living happily ever after.
>
> And so Agent Ballard, in an attempt to act out his "rescue"
> fantasy, tracks down the nerdy environmental engineer who
> designed the actual Dollhouse, and gave it a "zero foot-
> print" energy signature, so that it can remain hidden in
> the middle of a big city. This engineer is played by the
> great Alan Tudyk ( Wash on "Firefly" ) as an agoraphobic
> who lives in an apartment full of marijuana plants, and
> acts as if he has smoked far too many of them.
>
> Ballard drags him out of his refuge and forces him to
> show him the "back way" into the Dollhouse. He is ecstatic.
> His fantasies of rescuing the fair maiden are finally about
> to be fulfilled. Stealth happens, as the nerdy engineer
> disables the security cameras and tells Ballard where to
> find Echo. When he does, she is lying asleep in her coffin-
> like sleep chamber, just like...duh...Sleeping Beauty. 
>
> 
There may be a problem here with Turq's interpretation of the episode.  
Ballard may actually have another agenda in rescuing Echo which will be 
seen next week.  That was partly revealed in the preview.

The reason next weeks episode is the last of the season is because FOX 
ordered 13 episodes and 14 were produced.  FOX decided against playing 
episode 14 which is actually set in the future after an the apocalypse.
http://scifiwire.com/2009/04/will-fox-air-only-12-of-d.php

(There's actually a lot of articles on the 14th episode if you do a search).

[FairfieldLife] Re: Dollhouse: episode 11 -- Briar Rose (or, Joss explains "predation")

[Duveyoung]

Hee hee, glad you're getting your chain pulled.  Maybe it might
encourage you to look into a mirror.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> > >
> > > Pretty sleazy arguing.
> >
> > Sez the person who carefully snipped the
> > entire part of my post that I suspected
> > was most relevant to how *he* operates
> > and how *he* has tried to seduce women
> > all his life. I replace the snipped text
> > below, and highlight the part that Edg
> > carefully snipped; interesting that
> > that's the part he didn't want to
> > reappear, doncha think?
> >
> > And that's all the response he gets from me...
>
> I've changed my mind.
>
> Since Edg is obviously in the midst of one
> of his periodic meltdowns, with me as the
> target, and since he lacks the balls to back
> up any of his fantasies and speculations about
> me with any facts, I'll do the same.

It wouldn't take balls, it would take precious time, and spending my
time rereading your posts to find the best examples of your twisted
morals would only result in my being a bit more clear about my opinion
about you, but in no way would it help you out of your insanity, because
you'd simply ignore it.
>
> I think what's going on with Edg is *self*
> loathing. I think that the "predator" he is
> describing with such hatred is *himself*.

Of course I am a predator.  With 2/3rds of the world making less than
two dollars a day, what American isn't a predator?  Of course, in my
past, I've leveraged by putting my best foot forward, of course I've
deluded myself about being a White Knight from time to time, of course,
I've battled these egoic dynamics. Everyone does.

Except you.

You are content to be a pissant; whereas, the least pissantness in my
personality reddens my face.  I have a long way to go before I can high
hat anyone -- even you -- but IN PRINCIPLE I believe I am a logical
apologist for my moralist POV even though I know how often I fall short
of my values.  My spirit is willing but all too often I fall prey to the
calls of the flesh.   If I'm projecting on anyone, maybe I'm guilty as
charged, but at least I've got "it takes one to know one" going for me.

I see you.  Brother, peer, comrade!  Be careful what you say about me,
eh?  I battle my darkside, but you seek dark places to dwell and find
comfort that no one can see you clearly therein.  I'm over here lighting
matches and being agog at the reflection in my mirror.
>
> Think about it...this is the guy whose ego
> is so weak that he lashes out at anyone who
> refuses to take him seriously here on FFL.
> So how is *he* going to act when trying to
> attract women?

I don't even take me seriously.  I have failed and failed and failed,
but each failure moved me forwards towards the possibility of my being
truly humble about the human condition.  You come across as some sort of
bon vivant who has never been downtrodden as you prance through life on
the "steed" that is your acumen and intellect and (what there is of it)
heart.  What a sham.  You think you are the thinker of your own thoughts
-- that's how lost you are; that's how open to shock you are; that's how
vulnerable you are.  You buy into your own shit. Get some distance will
ya?

>
> I think that Edg has a lifelong history of
> doing *exactly* what he's accusing me of.
> I suspect that he is drawn to weak women
> whom he can attempt to "wow" with his sup-
> posed intellect, preferably weak women who
> feel that they are in need of "rescuing."
> Up steps brave, strong Edg, and "rescues"
> them. And then he expects eternal devotion
> in return.

For the record, I have never rescued a woman in my life.  I may have
intended to do so, I may have thought I would be heroic or cool if I had
saved someone, but I have never saved anyone who wasn't the actual saver
of their own self.  Free will and all that.  One has to have permission
from the downtrodden if one is going to "take away the downtrodden's
right to extricate themselves from their turmoil and thus bypass the
benefit from undergoing the exercise."  It is haughty to save someone
without their permission.

And, my babe is laughing herself sick here that anyone would think I was
drawn to weak women.   When she and I debate, the fur flies.  I can't
remember the last time I resoundingly dominated in any debate about even
the smallest of issues.  This woman's got moxie, mojo and muscle --
stand back!  Ahem, if anything, I'm guilty of some sort of Peter
Principle delusions in that I want women a notch better than I actually
can be said to "deserve."
>
> Now *that* is predation. *That* is sleazy.
> And I suspect that *that* is Edg Duveyoung.
>
> The reason he is able to go on and on theo-
> retically describing me and my actions is
> that he's just describing his *own*. Because
> he's never been able to attract any women
> without doing this stuff, he thinks

[FairfieldLife] Re: Concept showdown: Privacy Vs Tender Feeling Level

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
> wrote:
>  
> > Like you say, few people here care about it, so I don't
> > think those who are their acquaintices would have much
> > interest.  Unless you are a Barry groupie,or a Judy
> > groupie why would you care. Barry fires off pretty much
> > the same salvos every time, and Judy often drudges up
> > five to ten year old posts to make her points.
> 
> Not "often," *rarely*. Not much more often than Barry
> does, in fact.
> 
> See, if it were two *other* people engaged in constant
> argument, I'd want to get the gist of it before I tuned
> out.
> 
> Anybody who read, say, two weeks' worth of the exchanges
> between Barry and me would be aware that their primary
> feature is Barry lying and my exposing and correcting his
> lies.
> 
> Once it's become clear that Barry is a chronic and
> malicious liar, *then* it would make sense to tune out.
> 
> Too many folks here would prefer to avoid having to
> come to that conclusion, so they've tuned out
> prematurely.
>

Well, I think it's possible that natural selection favors
men, who are skillful liars...  :0

[FairfieldLife] Re: Dollhouse: episode 11 -- Briar Rose (or, Joss explains "predation")

[enlightened_dawn11]

yet ANOTHER FUN POST by MR. FUN himself!

as Authfriend so accurately put it, Turq takes FFL far more seriously than the 
rest of us do...

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> > >
> > > Pretty sleazy arguing.
> > 
> > Sez the person who carefully snipped the
> > entire part of my post that I suspected
> > was most relevant to how *he* operates
> > and how *he* has tried to seduce women
> > all his life. I replace the snipped text
> > below, and highlight the part that Edg
> > carefully snipped; interesting that
> > that's the part he didn't want to
> > reappear, doncha think?
> > 
> > And that's all the response he gets from me...
> 
> I've changed my mind.
> 
> Since Edg is obviously in the midst of one
> of his periodic meltdowns, with me as the
> target, and since he lacks the balls to back 
> up any of his fantasies and speculations about 
> me with any facts, I'll do the same.
> 
> I think what's going on with Edg is *self*
> loathing. I think that the "predator" he is
> describing with such hatred is *himself*.
> 
> Think about it...this is the guy whose ego
> is so weak that he lashes out at anyone who
> refuses to take him seriously here on FFL.
> So how is *he* going to act when trying to
> attract women?
> 
> I think that Edg has a lifelong history of
> doing *exactly* what he's accusing me of.
> I suspect that he is drawn to weak women 
> whom he can attempt to "wow" with his sup-
> posed intellect, preferably weak women who
> feel that they are in need of "rescuing."
> Up steps brave, strong Edg, and "rescues"
> them. And then he expects eternal devotion
> in return. 
> 
> Now *that* is predation. *That* is sleazy.
> And I suspect that *that* is Edg Duveyoung.
> 
> The reason he is able to go on and on theo-
> retically describing me and my actions is
> that he's just describing his *own*. Because
> he's never been able to attract any women
> without doing this stuff, he thinks that
> no other man can, either.
> 
> Edg, you got off on this tear because you
> completely misread a post of mine about 
> meeting a couple of interesting women. You
> "read into it" sleaze because that's how 
> YOU would have thought and how YOU would
> have acted in a similar situation. YOU 
> would have tried to "wise older guy" your
> way into their pants.
> 
> I didn't. I didn't ever even have the thought
> of doing so. And literally everyone on this
> forum told you this and told you that you
> were fantasizing. But you glommed onto this
> "predation" thing and aimed it at me and have
> refused to let it drop for *months* now. 
> 
> I'm tired of it. I think you are talking about
> YOUSELF, not me. I think that this is YOUR 
> act with women that you're going on about. 
> 
> It certainly isn't mine. I'm not attracted to
> weak women, and I've never had to use any
> particular "wiles" to get the strong ones to 
> be attracted to me. Either they are or they 
> aren't, and if they aren't, I never go out 
> of my way to change their minds about that.
> 
> Who *would* do something like that? Well duh...
> might it be the kind of guy who gets offended
> on a mere Internet chat board that people 
> aren't paying enough attention to him, and
> then either whines or intimidates or does 
> whatever he thinks is necessary to *get* 
> the attention he needs so badly? Could it 
> possibly be the guy who gets uptight when
> people here don't respond to him as if he
> were wise as the ages?
> 
> Edg, I think that YOU are the predator in 
> this scenario. And I think that you know it.
> 
> So lay off of me. It's YOURSELF that you 
> hate. Deal with that. 
> 
> Think back to every woman you were ever 
> involved with. Was there even ONE of them
> whom you didn't lure into thinking of you
> as their "protector" or "savior," and who
> you did your best to keep weak and dependent
> on you? My bet is no. 
> 
> If you dispute this, prove otherwise.
> 
> ( How does it feel, shithead? This is what
> you have been doing to me for months now,
> claiming things about me based on nothing
> more than supposition. Deal with it. )
>

RE: [FairfieldLife] Utopian voice in MUM

[Rick Archer]

Who are you quoting below?
 
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of dhamiltony2k5
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 10:23 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Utopian voice in MUM
 




an he's a real TM meditator. We'll have no more shit said about real
meditators here. Okay. Be respectful.
> 
> Jai Guru Dev,
> -Doug in FF
>


"For me the radical arguments like the ones you brought to my attention seem
to pose either/or choices. Either the measurement of EEG alpha waves is an
accurate indicator of higher states of consciousness or they are not. But I
have learned to appreciate that the relative universe I have enjoyed for
more than 60 years, is a limitless reservoir of infinite choice. I have
often observed that a concept that our imaginations project as being
'either/or' is seamlessly integrated into a greater whole as new knowledge
is gained and expands. 

For this reason, I conclude that all the scientific research on
consciousness has some value. In its most elemental form it has a value in
that it will take us to greater knowledge. But more pragmatically speaking,
I believe that there will be an integration of everything that is being
learned as the measurements of consciousness come together to give us an
understanding that is greater than their collective technical components. 

On a final note, I believe it is myopically prejudicial for a critic to say
of a brilliant scientist that he is clinging to his theory because his
theory is what he wants to believe to be true. On the contrary, to my
surprise the brilliant scientist that I have met here at Maharishi
University of Management our true seekers of knowledge, (are) ready,
willing, and able to let the light of science illuminate their path."  
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Compersion, Polyamory and Spanish Rights to Nudity

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> GAWD you are such a shallow fuck that you can be an 
> apologist for polyamory and seemingly be unaware of the 
> challenges.  Have you ever had an intimate relationship?  
> Don't you know how much time it takes?  

Edg, you keep repeating this as if it were
a truism.

Have you ever considered that the reason it
takes YOU so much time and work to maintain 
a relationship is because you're basically 
an unlovable fuck? 

For some of us, once past the hurdle of 
finding someone we get along with without
a lot of drama and angst, things go pretty
smoothly. My bet is that for most people
here, who don't strike me as being as needy 
and as judgmental as you are, things went 
more smoothly for them, too.

I mean, how many people get along with you 
*here* on FFL? If I were you I'd consider
the possibility that the reason relationships 
take so much time and work for you has more 
to do with YOU than it does the nature of 
relationships. Just sayin'...

[FairfieldLife] Two somewhat recently incarnated space elves and a monkey trip through the lokas

[Rick Archer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P4sF8DLkh4

&feature=player_embedded
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Quantum gods don't deserve your faith (?)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
ruthsimplicity  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
"authfriend"  wrote:

[Ruth wrote:]
> I'm snipping most of this because it is getting
> repetitive and tiresome.

Ruth means she's snipped a whole bunch of good
points she couldn't respond to. They weren't
"repetitive"; they refuted new points she had
made. I'm sure she does find it "tiresome" to
deal with such refutations, though.

> But Judy said:
> > 
> > So that's just an excuse, Ruth, for dismissing 
> > the criticisms as meaningless. They don't 
> > *prove* anything, but I never claimed they did, 
> > other than that not everyone thinks Nanda is an 
> > impressive exponent of the anti-Hindu/Hindutva 
> > perspective.
> 
> And I never disagreed with that.

The post wasn't addressed to you, Ruth.

> Who in the world has uniformly impressive 
> reviews? The Amazon reviews are totally 
> meaningless to me as anonymous reviews with no 
> indication of the reviewers bona fides, 
> especially as the reviews were ones and fives 
> only and especially given the subject of the 
> book. But I have said that over and over and
> you simply disagree.

As I said, if they were of a book whose thesis I
favored, they'd give me a bit of pause because of
the specific type of criticism. I don't dismiss
them as meaningless out of hand just because I
don't know who wrote them; that seems absurd to me. 
I'd want to find out more about the issues they 
raised. They aren't the rabid type of disagreement 
you'd expect to see from True Believers whose 
belief system, as Vaj disingenuously suggested, has 
been shaken by Nanda's book. They're thoughtful and
calm, disappointed rather than furiously upset.

I never intended for people to say to themselves,
Oh, this must be a terrible book because of those
reviews, merely to bear in mind that several
thoughtful readers found it unimpressive. You
weren't able to allow even that kind of tentative
mental reservation about her work.

And then your claim that you had "pointed out 
some of the problems" with the excerpts, when in
fact you just made a vague statement about them
having made some assumptions, without saying what
the assumptions were, and then argued a straw man
with the one that mentioned Western physicists.

Just a really shoddy performance.

> Whatever.  As I said before,  the homework that
> should be done is to read her book, maybe read
> some background material depending on the book
> and how it is sourced, and read what her peers
> have to say.  Anonymous Amazon reviews fall into
> the meaningless category when compared to the
> real work that needs to be done. 

The Amazon reviews should act as a *motivator* to
do this kind of work, rather than unquestioningly
accepting Vaj's wholehearted endorsement of Nanda.
That was the whole point, you see.

> Ruth
> > > In retrospect, this thread was an unnecessary 
> > > turn into a polarizing discussion.
> Judy
> > That's for sure. But as I said, you felt you 
> > just *had* to call the criticisms in question 
> > somehow.
> 
> Yeah, so what?  I wasn't even posting to disagree
> with you.
>   But you said:
> "Well, *of course*. I mean, Nanda is obviously
> *completely* objective and without any
> conceivable axe of her own to grind. So any
> critique of her criticism of TM is automatically
> suspect. That's just a given; we all know that."
> 
> This is a baiting response.

It was a sarcastic observation about your hypocrisy
in suggesting the reviewers might have "an axe to
grind" and if so could have nothing of interest to
say, when Nanda herself is furiously grinding her
own mammoth brace of axes. The tone of her writings
that I've read is anything but calm and objective,
quite unlike that of the Amazon reviewers. She's a
*polemicist*, for pete's sake.
 
> I never said Nanda was completely objective and
> never would.

You didn't say anything about her objectivity one
way or the other, while making a big deal about
the reviewers possibly not being objective.

> The topics she discusses are not objective.  You
> punched first my dear by misstating what I said.

I did not state in that response that you said
anything, and you know it. It was my sarcastic
version of what you wanted readers to think.

> Judy:
> > Perhaps you worded it poorly the first time 
> > through. Either way it's a rather grossly 
> > inaccurate description, and it was designed to 
> > belittle, if not dismiss completely, his 
> > critique.
> 
> Perhaps I did.  But I was not trying to belittle
> him.

I don't believe you, sorry. You misrepresented what
the blogger wrote, and everyone here knows your
disdain for phenomena like ESP.


> Ruth:
> > > but I can't evaluate them. To do so would be 
> > > intellectually dishonest.
> Judy: 
> > I think it's intellectually dishonest to 
> > claim you can't. You could start by reading the 
> > article by Nanda that he's critiquing; he links 
> > to it. It's not that long. You can verify his 
> > quotations from it 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fry at MUM

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter  wrote:
>
> 
> Vaj, I've noticed two types of longterm TMer's. There's the type you 
> describe, gray, washed-out, no will and then there are the vital ones that 
> look great. One difference I found between the two groups is that the 
> washed-out ones have become very passive (read tamasic) in that they "want to 
> get enlightened" but they don't do any thing other than spend hours 
> meditating and avoiding authentic contact with any other aspect of their 
> life. The other group might meditate long hours, but there is an authentic 
> engagement with the relative aspect of their life. They're present, engaged, 
> strong. They love life in both its relative and absolute qualities. They also 
> are not afraid. So many of the washed-out group are terrified of life. Having 
> sex...oh no!! Eating some meatoh no! Getting pissed-off at 
> some asshole...oh n! They are terrified of "getting stress" oh n! 
> True adharma. 


There's two types of people that I notice:

The first  is really happy and fun to be around. Interesting, engaged and 
engaging.

The other is really kinda depressing to be around...


L

[FairfieldLife] Utopian voice in MUM

[dhamiltony2k5]

  an he's a real TM meditator.  We'll have no more shit said about real 
meditators here.  Okay.  Be respectful.
> 
> Jai Guru Dev,
> -Doug in FF
>


"For me the radical arguments like the ones you brought to my attention seem to 
pose either/or choices. Either the measurement of EEG alpha waves is an 
accurate indicator of higher states of consciousness or they are not. But I 
have learned to appreciate that the relative universe I have enjoyed for more 
than 60 years, is a limitless reservoir of infinite choice. I have often 
observed that a concept that our imaginations project as being 'either/or' is 
seamlessly integrated into a greater whole as new knowledge is gained and 
expands. 
 
For this reason, I conclude that all the scientific research on consciousness 
has some value. In its most elemental form it has a value in that it will take 
us to greater knowledge. But more pragmatically speaking, I believe that there 
will be an integration of everything that is being learned as the measurements 
of consciousness come together to give us an understanding that is greater than 
their collective technical components. 
 
On a final note, I believe it is myopically prejudicial for a critic to say of 
a brilliant scientist that he is clinging to his theory because his theory is 
what he wants to believe to be true. On the contrary, to my surprise the 
brilliant scientist that I have met here at Maharishi University of Management  
our true seekers of knowledge, (are) ready, willing, and able to let the light 
of science illuminate their path."  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Concept showdown: Privacy Vs Tender Feeling Level

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
wrote:
 
> Like you say, few people here care about it, so I don't
> think those who are their acquaintices would have much
> interest.  Unless you are a Barry groupie,or a Judy
> groupie why would you care. Barry fires off pretty much
> the same salvos every time, and Judy often drudges up
> five to ten year old posts to make her points.

Not "often," *rarely*. Not much more often than Barry
does, in fact.

See, if it were two *other* people engaged in constant
argument, I'd want to get the gist of it before I tuned
out.

Anybody who read, say, two weeks' worth of the exchanges
between Barry and me would be aware that their primary
feature is Barry lying and my exposing and correcting his
lies.

Once it's become clear that Barry is a chronic and
malicious liar, *then* it would make sense to tune out.

Too many folks here would prefer to avoid having to
come to that conclusion, so they've tuned out
prematurely.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Dollhouse: episode 11 -- Briar Rose (or, Joss explains "predation")

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> >
> > Pretty sleazy arguing.
> 
> Sez the person who carefully snipped the
> entire part of my post that I suspected
> was most relevant to how *he* operates
> and how *he* has tried to seduce women
> all his life. I replace the snipped text
> below, and highlight the part that Edg
> carefully snipped; interesting that
> that's the part he didn't want to
> reappear, doncha think?
> 
> And that's all the response he gets from me...

I've changed my mind.

Since Edg is obviously in the midst of one
of his periodic meltdowns, with me as the
target, and since he lacks the balls to back 
up any of his fantasies and speculations about 
me with any facts, I'll do the same.

I think what's going on with Edg is *self*
loathing. I think that the "predator" he is
describing with such hatred is *himself*.

Think about it...this is the guy whose ego
is so weak that he lashes out at anyone who
refuses to take him seriously here on FFL.
So how is *he* going to act when trying to
attract women?

I think that Edg has a lifelong history of
doing *exactly* what he's accusing me of.
I suspect that he is drawn to weak women 
whom he can attempt to "wow" with his sup-
posed intellect, preferably weak women who
feel that they are in need of "rescuing."
Up steps brave, strong Edg, and "rescues"
them. And then he expects eternal devotion
in return. 

Now *that* is predation. *That* is sleazy.
And I suspect that *that* is Edg Duveyoung.

The reason he is able to go on and on theo-
retically describing me and my actions is
that he's just describing his *own*. Because
he's never been able to attract any women
without doing this stuff, he thinks that
no other man can, either.

Edg, you got off on this tear because you
completely misread a post of mine about 
meeting a couple of interesting women. You
"read into it" sleaze because that's how 
YOU would have thought and how YOU would
have acted in a similar situation. YOU 
would have tried to "wise older guy" your
way into their pants.

I didn't. I didn't ever even have the thought
of doing so. And literally everyone on this
forum told you this and told you that you
were fantasizing. But you glommed onto this
"predation" thing and aimed it at me and have
refused to let it drop for *months* now. 

I'm tired of it. I think you are talking about
YOUSELF, not me. I think that this is YOUR 
act with women that you're going on about. 

It certainly isn't mine. I'm not attracted to
weak women, and I've never had to use any
particular "wiles" to get the strong ones to 
be attracted to me. Either they are or they 
aren't, and if they aren't, I never go out 
of my way to change their minds about that.

Who *would* do something like that? Well duh...
might it be the kind of guy who gets offended
on a mere Internet chat board that people 
aren't paying enough attention to him, and
then either whines or intimidates or does 
whatever he thinks is necessary to *get* 
the attention he needs so badly? Could it 
possibly be the guy who gets uptight when
people here don't respond to him as if he
were wise as the ages?

Edg, I think that YOU are the predator in 
this scenario. And I think that you know it.

So lay off of me. It's YOURSELF that you 
hate. Deal with that. 

Think back to every woman you were ever 
involved with. Was there even ONE of them
whom you didn't lure into thinking of you
as their "protector" or "savior," and who
you did your best to keep weak and dependent
on you? My bet is no. 

If you dispute this, prove otherwise.

( How does it feel, shithead? This is what
you have been doing to me for months now,
claiming things about me based on nothing
more than supposition. Deal with it. )

[FairfieldLife] www.tinycult.com (was Re: Old Coke or New Coke?)

[authfriend]

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

> While I too miss the Old Nabby because he was
> almost unique here in presenting a cultist's
> view of the world without trying to pretend
> that it wasn't a cultist's view of the world,
> the New Nabby has advantages, too.
> 
> He's like the cult version of tinyurl:
> 
> http://www.tinycult.com/108werule 
> 
> Instead of just spewing TM propaganda, he posts
> a short link to it, one that one can click upon
> or not, depending on one's interest.
> 
> A *vast* improvement over, say, the person who
> has recently posted literally thousands of lines 
> of "explanation" for why her attempt to discredit
> a scientist who challenges the silly TM "quantum
> consciousness" dogma isn't the act of a cultist
> or a TM apologist.
> 
> Would that she could learn to use the tinycult
> service as well.  :-)

Several points:

--Notice that Barry is again attempting to keep
down the total of his Gotta Get Judy posts that
would show up in a search by not actually
mentioning my name.

--Folks are certainly capable of clicking on my
posts or not depending on their interest, just
as with Nabby's.

--And those who don't read them will conveniently
protect themselves from the knowledge that Barry's
description above is a blatant lie.

Or maybe it's not a lie per se. He hasn't actually
read the posts he describes; his characterization
is generated by what he *fantasizes* I would be
posting. And as we all know by now, Barry much
prefers to create his own reality than deal with
the world as it actually exists.

In any case, those who enjoy believing Barry's
wishful thinking is reality can continue to do so
by the simple expedient of not reading my posts,
just as he doesn't.

Life is *so* much simpler, and there's *so* much
less cognitive dissonance to contend with, if you
just follow Barry's example and avoid exposing
your beautiful mind to anything that might challenge
your beliefs.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Dollhouse: episode 11 -- Briar Rose (or, Joss explains "predation")

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> >
> >  below
> >
> > TurquoiseB wrote:
> > > My other point is, of course, related to a recent rant about
> > > the poor, helpless women whom Edg wants to "rescue" from the
> > > awful, dark strip joints in which they are misused by "pred-
> > > ators" such as myself.
> > >
> > > Pure fantasy.
> > >
> > > As much fantasy as Sleeping Beauty.
> > >
> > > And as insulting to women.
> > >
> > > Real women don't need "protecting" by men who prop up their
> > > sagging egos the same way they suck in their sagging bellies
> > > at the beach by fantasizing about "rescuing" them. That's a
> > > backhanded way of *demeaning* the women, a way of showing
> > > that the men who harbor such fantasies *don't believe* that
> > > women are capable of taking care of themselves. They "need"
> > > brave, strong men like Edg to stand up for them and fight
> > > dragons for them.
> >
> > > Now I ask you -- which is more of a "predation" fantasy?
> >
> > Pretty sleazy arguing.
> 
> Sez the person who carefully snipped the
> entire part of my post that I suspected
> was most relevant to how *he* operates
> and how *he* has tried to seduce women
> all his life. I replace the snipped text
> below, and highlight the part that Edg
> carefully snipped; interesting that
> that's the part he didn't want to
> reappear, doncha think?

He did you a favor by snipping it, because he had
very thoroughly demolished it and made you look a
fool for having written it in the first place.

Interesting (but not at all surprising) that you
snipped *all* of that from his post.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Compersion, Polyamory and Spanish Rights to Nudity

[Duveyoung]

below
TurquoiseB wrote:
> Polyamory exists everywhere, just very quietly
> in most places. It's more of a "taboo" in most
> places than being gay.

Why would that be?  H.anyone want to help Turq understand this
may be indicative of two million years of evolution of the human
species?  Two million years of tribe after tribe figuring out how humans
work and what makes sense?  But, geeze, Turq is okay with it, so to hell
with any acquired cultural wisdom handed down across the millennia.

Most people in most
> places these days can keep their negative
> thoughts about gay relationships to themselves,
> even if those thoughts are negative. But trot
> out a few people who have *genuinely* "open
> relationships," and who have managed to get
> beyond the jealousy thang, and the shit tends
> to hit the fan.

And, yeah, as Kali Yuga brings ever darker dynamics into manifestation,
we'll find you on the stump glorifying it as natural, advanced,
progressive, free..Quote from Turq of the future: "I've got my harem
of chimpanzee babes, and it's true love.  I love it when they groom me.
Ain't nothing like having three hawt Bonobos looking for ticks in my ass
crack. "

> I have *lived* at times in my life
> the lifestyle of polyamory, but without ever having
> a name for it and without ever thinking much about
> it. It was just what happened naturally.

Sounds like the same kind of story a pedophile would tell a ten year
old.  In no society on Earth can polyamory naturally manifest.  It is so
non-mainstream that virtually all denizens of any culture will have a
ton of dissonance to process if they attempt polyamory.  You don't just
fall into such an arrangement without incredibly dynamic emotions
arising.  And, since your dabbling in polyamory ended, your posing as
some sort of "experienced about such things" is laughable.

GAWD you are such a shallow fuck that you can be an apologist for
polyamory and seemingly be unaware of the challenges.  Have you ever had
an intimate relationship?  Don't you know how much time it takes?  It
takes a lifetime, and polyamory's biggest issue is how the group insures
that quality time is managed.  Those in a polyamory group may think they
love each other equally, but it will take decades to make that an actual
reality.   All newlyweds think they are in love too, but decades will
have to pass and a thousand milestones must be reached before that
becomes true.

> Just in case you're curious...all I am is curious.
> I am not really involved in their polyamory group,
> except as an occasional guest to meetings, and don't
> have any polyamorous goings-on in my life right now.
> Haven't since the 60s, in fact. Hell, for some time
> now I haven't had any romantic goings-on of *any*
> kind going on...that's what makes Edg's fantasies
> about me so amusing from my point of view. :-)

I don't fantasy about what you are.  You brag about your sleaze; I
merely underline how dangerously you flirt with psychological dynamics
that actually require asbestos gloves.  You think a relationship is a
snap when it is the hardest thing a human being can attempt.
>
> Love is just love. Attempts to quantify it and
> impose rules upon it are as silly as trying to
> quantify enlightenment and impose rules on it.

As usual, we find you making a statement about how something cannot be
pegged or bottled or handcuffed by some moralist control freak.  It is
so transparent when you espouse all manner of licentiousness without
responsibility.  Rules are for comfort not claustrophobia.  Good fences
make good neighbors.  But you, a non-parent, cannot see that.  You're
living in fear, dude.  Take a stand for something or you'll fall for
anything.

Edg

[FairfieldLife] Re: Texans show their true colors

[Richard J. Williams]

Bhairitu wrote:
> The Texas Socialist Republic! Always figured 
> Willy was a pinko skin deep. :-D
>
Apparently the Russians copied the historic Texas 
flag, which was first flown in Texas in 1839. The 
Russian flag was adopted in 1991, after the
breakup of the Soviet Union.

> More here:
> http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/1354288.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: Dollhouse: episode 11 -- Briar Rose (or, Joss explains "predation")

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
>  below
>
> TurquoiseB wrote:
> > My other point is, of course, related to a recent rant about
> > the poor, helpless women whom Edg wants to "rescue" from the
> > awful, dark strip joints in which they are misused by "pred-
> > ators" such as myself.
> >
> > Pure fantasy.
> >
> > As much fantasy as Sleeping Beauty.
> >
> > And as insulting to women.
> >
> > Real women don't need "protecting" by men who prop up their
> > sagging egos the same way they suck in their sagging bellies
> > at the beach by fantasizing about "rescuing" them. That's a
> > backhanded way of *demeaning* the women, a way of showing
> > that the men who harbor such fantasies *don't believe* that
> > women are capable of taking care of themselves. They "need"
> > brave, strong men like Edg to stand up for them and fight
> > dragons for them.
>
> > Now I ask you -- which is more of a "predation" fantasy?
>
> Pretty sleazy arguing.

Sez the person who carefully snipped the
entire part of my post that I suspected
was most relevant to how *he* operates
and how *he* has tried to seduce women
all his life. I replace the snipped text
below, and highlight the part that Edg
carefully snipped; interesting that
that's the part he didn't want to
reappear, doncha think?

And that's all the response he gets from me...


Real women don't need "protecting" by men who prop up their
sagging egos the same way they suck in their sagging bellies
at the beach by fantasizing about "rescuing" them. That's a
backhanded way of *demeaning* the women, a way of showing
that the men who harbor such fantasies *don't believe* that
women are capable of taking care of themselves. They "need"
brave, strong men like Edg to stand up for them and fight
dragons for them.

Yeah, right.

Joss Whedon understands the *reality* of such fantasies.
They are as much about "predation" as the men who rent
the "dolls" from the Dollhouse for sex. Or worse. The guys
who rent the dolls have no expectations of the women they
work out their fantasies on; they in fact expect the dolls to
forget them, just as they are programmed to do.

But the wannabee "handsome princes?" THEIR fantasies
revolve around the women they "rescue" being so grateful
for having been "saved" that they fall in love with them at
the first kiss, and ride away with them into the sunset to a
faraway magical land, where they all live happily ever
after.

Now I ask you -- which is more of a "predation" fantasy?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Dollhouse: episode 11 -- Briar Rose (or, Joss explains "predation")

[Duveyoung]

 below

TurquoiseB wrote:
> My other point is, of course, related to a recent rant about
> the poor, helpless women whom Edg wants to "rescue" from the
> awful, dark strip joints in which they are misused by "pred-
> ators" such as myself.
>
> Pure fantasy.
>
> As much fantasy as Sleeping Beauty.
>
> And as insulting to women.
>
> Real women don't need "protecting" by men who prop up their
> sagging egos the same way they suck in their sagging bellies
> at the beach by fantasizing about "rescuing" them. That's a
> backhanded way of *demeaning* the women, a way of showing
> that the men who harbor such fantasies *don't believe* that
> women are capable of taking care of themselves. They "need"
> brave, strong men like Edg to stand up for them and fight
> dragons for them.

> Now I ask you -- which is more of a "predation" fantasy?
>
Pretty sleazy arguing.  I have consistently defined predation as
"experience leverage misused." You could just as easily be hunting for
much younger men in your spider-sitting-in-a-web-cafe lifestyle.

There's no gender issue involved.  But you try to divert from the
debate's issue to make it look like I'm assuming women to be even less
able to fend off predators than men of similar life experience.

Women are probably better than men on most scales, so if anything, I
would say that men are more likely to be marauded by women -- all things
being equal.

Rescue another person? -- egoic delusion.   Philosophically there is no
other person to be found.

Emotionally, the other person's interpretations about "a rescue" cannot
be predicted in the least, so creating some sort of emotion inside the
mind of a rescued woman may be achievable by some grandiose act of
heroism, but any resultant emotions are sure to change.  A rescuer who
expects the rescued to be as if forever in a "thankful mode," is,
indeed, a control freak.  Physician heal thyself comes to mind;
projecting one's inner feeling of being a sleeping beauty onto another
is asking for trouble anon; better to try to wake oneself up first.

The dragons I do wish to fight are those who have a position of power
over others and use it for personal gain at the expense of others. 
Those born with giant brains, world class talent, rich parents, (the
types of power are endless) can be found leveraging that power without
regard for others.

E.G.:  The beautiful woman who has little else to offer may yet win the
hand of a man who would be far more happy and compatible with another
woman.  The man's inexperience with women in general will be his
disadvantage, and he'll weight "beauty" far more heavily than is
reasonable.  Thus, he opens himself to be marauded by someone leveraging
his addiction to beauty.

I don't think strippers are being marauded any more than men their age
are being "promised things" by others.  A young man taking an entry
level position in a large company may find himself far more abused -- in
terms of stress -- than the stripper is subjected to by her Mafioso
overlords.

What I object to is your romanticism -- yeah yours!

You're the one who thinks a girl can ride bareback on a wild pony
strewing her charms' flowers to the throngs of admirers who are cheering
her achievements in a dark realm.   Maybe one girl out of a thousand can
glide unscathed through such a milieu, but you'd tell almost any girl
that stripping is easy money for light work and everyone's happy to see
hersomething like that.

Fuck that shit.  You know the dangers of the world, and you make light
of them, so that your own marauding style is thereby seemingly all the
more innocuous by comparison.

Even you once believed in Sat Yuga -- if you walked down the street in
Sat Yuga, your auric emanations alone would be all it takes to have the
townfolks with pitchforks and torches mobbing your Frankensteinian
monster-personality.  You reek of dark malevolence but compare yourself
to Hitler instead of Mother Teresa, so that you can stand looking into a
mirror.

Edg









`

[FairfieldLife] DL in Eyes land?

[cardemaister]

http://tinyurl.com/cuqo3g

[FairfieldLife] www.tinycult.com (was Re: Old Coke or New Coke?)

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: shempmcgurk
> > > > 
> > > > Which Nabby do you prefer?
> > > > 
> > > > The Old Nabby who so haughtily looked down his nose at 
> > > > us and responded to our posts with the airs of the cult 
> > > > member that he is?
> > > > 
> > > > ...or...
> > > > 
> > > > The New Nabby who so haughtily looks down his nose at us 
> > > > and does NOT respond to our posts with the airs of the 
> > > > cult member that he is? 
> > > 
> > > I vote for the old Nabby. The new Nabby just posts links. 
> > > The old Nabby was as fun as a barrel of monkeys.
> > 
> > While I too miss the Old Nabby because he was
> > almost unique here in presenting a cultist's
> > view of the world without trying to pretend
> > that it wasn't a cultist's view of the world,
> > the New Nabby has advantages, too.
> > 
> > He's like the cult version of tinyurl:
> > 
> > http://www.tinycult.com/108werule 
> > 
> > Instead of just spewing TM propaganda, he posts
> > a short link to it, one that one can click upon
> > or not, depending on one's interest.
> > 
> > A *vast* improvement over, say, the person who
> > has recently posted literally thousands of lines 
> > of "explanation" for why her attempt to discredit
> > a scientist who challenges the silly TM "quantum
> > consciousness" dogma isn't the act of a cultist
> > or a TM apologist.
> > 
> > Would that she could learn to use the tinycult
> > service as well.  :-)
> 
> Hyah Unc, you don't have a "thing" about Judy...

I like Robin Williams because he makes
me laugh, too, but that doesn't mean I
have a "thing" for him. 

He's far too hairy, and the wrong sex. :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hybrids: more death rays than a cell tower?

[Nelson]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante  wrote:
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/automobiles/27EMF.html
> > 
> >
> 
> 
> I've got a novel solution!
> 
> Cut out the electrical part and just drive on the gasoline part!
>
 Some people would have problems with the emf issue but others could ignore it 
and, be glad to buy your used car cheap.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] www.tinycult.com (was Re: Old Coke or New Coke?)

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > > From: shempmcgurk
> > > 
> > > Which Nabby do you prefer?
> > > 
> > > The Old Nabby who so haughtily looked down his nose at 
> > > us and responded to our posts with the airs of the cult 
> > > member that he is?
> > > 
> > > ...or...
> > > 
> > > The New Nabby who so haughtily looks down his nose at us 
> > > and does NOT respond to our posts with the airs of the 
> > > cult member that he is? 
> > 
> > I vote for the old Nabby. The new Nabby just posts links. 
> > The old Nabby was as fun as a barrel of monkeys.
> 
> While I too miss the Old Nabby because he was
> almost unique here in presenting a cultist's
> view of the world without trying to pretend
> that it wasn't a cultist's view of the world,
> the New Nabby has advantages, too.
> 
> He's like the cult version of tinyurl:
> 
> http://www.tinycult.com/108werule 
> 
> Instead of just spewing TM propaganda, he posts
> a short link to it, one that one can click upon
> or not, depending on one's interest.
> 
> A *vast* improvement over, say, the person who
> has recently posted literally thousands of lines 
> of "explanation" for why her attempt to discredit
> a scientist who challenges the silly TM "quantum
> consciousness" dogma isn't the act of a cultist
> or a TM apologist.
> 
> Would that she could learn to use the tinycult
> service as well.  :-)
>

Hyah Unc, you don't have a "thing" about Judy...

L.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Old Coke or New Coke?

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of shempmcgurk
> Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 4:55 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Old Coke or New Coke?
>  
> Which Nabby do you prefer?
> 
> The Old Nabby who so haughtily looked down his nose at us and responded to
> our posts with the airs of the cult member that he is?
> 
> ...or...
> 
> The New Nabby who so haughtily looks down his nose at us and does NOT
> respond to our posts with the airs of the cult member that he is?
> I vote for the old Nabby. The new Nabby just posts links. The old Nabby was
> as fun as a barrel of monkeys.
>

I think the new Nabby might be happier...


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: TM movement Money Safe

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5"  wrote:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8028174.stm
>

Except that all the TM corporations in this country are non-profit except things
like MAPI which are *owned* by non-profit.

Don't think its the US tax system that the Movement has ever worried about.


L.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Spiritual Regeneration Movement

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5"  wrote:
>
> Wow what a galactic fight over position on google and youtube over maharishi 
> and guru dev!
> Goldstein is proly going to be up late over these.
> 
> 

The google tapes will eventually come down, but golly, its gone viral now.

You'll see them all on bittorrent within a few weeks or months.

Looking forward to it actually.

L

> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > An old initiator friend gathered old audios and videos of MMY and put this
> > site together to make them accessible and free.  Lots of old familiar gems. 
> >  
> >  
> > The site:
> >  
> > http://spiritualregenerationmovement.pbworks.com/
> >  
> > is done. I cannot post any more through google because they shut down that
> > service. In my opinion I got up 95% of the good tapes.
> >  
> > Please enjoy and pass it around. It Free! (it only took me 200 hours).
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Classic' Maharishi lectures on YouTube

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5"  wrote:
>
> Om Jeez, how about some Humbolt 1970 or 1971.
> 
> These newer late model ones by comparison, well...
>


There is a Humbolt 72 series online. You can hear MMY formulating what becomes
the checking notes (regardless of who actually wrote them).

Also, the talks with Buckminster FUller are online.


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] www.tinycult.com (was Re: Old Coke or New Coke?)

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> > From: shempmcgurk
> > 
> > Which Nabby do you prefer?
> > 
> > The Old Nabby who so haughtily looked down his nose at 
> > us and responded to our posts with the airs of the cult 
> > member that he is?
> > 
> > ...or...
> > 
> > The New Nabby who so haughtily looks down his nose at us 
> > and does NOT respond to our posts with the airs of the 
> > cult member that he is? 
> 
> I vote for the old Nabby. The new Nabby just posts links. 
> The old Nabby was as fun as a barrel of monkeys.

While I too miss the Old Nabby because he was
almost unique here in presenting a cultist's
view of the world without trying to pretend
that it wasn't a cultist's view of the world,
the New Nabby has advantages, too.

He's like the cult version of tinyurl:

http://www.tinycult.com/108werule 

Instead of just spewing TM propaganda, he posts
a short link to it, one that one can click upon
or not, depending on one's interest.

A *vast* improvement over, say, the person who
has recently posted literally thousands of lines 
of "explanation" for why her attempt to discredit
a scientist who challenges the silly TM "quantum
consciousness" dogma isn't the act of a cultist
or a TM apologist.

Would that she could learn to use the tinycult
service as well.  :-)