[FairfieldLife] Kings (raajas) unhappy??

[cardemaister]

An example of the use of abstract nouns (suffix -taa: artha_taa) from Michael 
Coulson's Sanskrit primer (modified transliteration):

raajñaaM tu caritaarthataapi duHkhottaraiva.

(Attempt at sandhi-vigraha:

raajñaam; tu carita-arthataa + api duHkha + uttaraa + eva.)

Coulson's translation:

but for kings, [even the state of being one whose aims
are effected* has as a consequence unhappiness:] even success
is attended with unhappiness

* carita-arthaa_taa: state of being one (-taa) whose aims (artha)
are effected (carita) -- card

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Judy Stein"  wrote:
> > 
> > Anyway, as I read Raunchy's post, I realized how angry
> > I still was. I've managed to repress that anger now
> > that Obama's in the White House so I can evaluate
> > what he's doing more objectively, but it doesn't take
> > much to bring it up again.
>
> Judy, Thank you for putting into words exactly how I feel 
> about the primary. It brought me to tears to know that you 
> understand completely how painful it was to have witnessed 
> such shameful, sexist, unrelenting, abuse of the first 
> American woman ever to make such a powerful and historic 
> bid for the presidency. 

And these are the women who claim not to 
be "running on emotion."

It's A YEAR LATER. And neither of them sees
anything the *least* bit odd about still
breaking into tears or into uncontrollable
bouts of anger about something that happened
to SOMEONE THEY NEVER MET.

But it's not the weepiness or the anger that
astounding me...it's the HOLDING ON TO IT.

I honestly don't understand how anyone who
has been meditating for 30+ years can do that.
It just doesn't compute. Did these women never 
heard Maharishi's "line through water" analogy?
Have they never *experienced* it? I suspect
that almost everyone else here has. We GET
OVER THINGS. Why don't you?

As for "What was done to Hillary," welcome to
politics. Stop being such a wuss. She isn't.
IMO *most* of what was said about Hillary
Clinton wasn't aimed at her at all. She's
a strong old bat; it wouldn't have affected
her. And unlike you two, she doesn't appear
to hold grudges; she's beyond it.

The sexist taunts at Hillary were designed
to make her *followers* crazy. And they worked
like a charm. Nothing loses a female politician
more votes than a bunch of women running around
screaming hysterically, "They're playing dirty
with my candidate," in a national election.
Are you DERANGED? Playing dirty is a *synonym*
for "national election."  

GET OVER IT, Raunchy. I really like you 
when you relax and your funny side comes out. 
But when you get into "grudge mode" you start 
*personifying* all the things you resent men
saying about women. You know...things like,
"They're ruled by their emotions," or "They
hold grudges for years, and cannot seem to
ever let go of them." And your response to
someone saying this is to DO WHAT THEY
SAY YOU DO, and keep doing it? Think 
this one through...

It's the same thing here at FFL. Judy postures
as a rational person, and yet LIVES for her
grudges and acting out on them. John Knapp
shows up here and posts and she loses it and
starts trashing him as if their history were
NOT history, and was yesterday. Same with 
Andrew Skolnick. Mention his name here, or the
website (http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/)
he created for Judy, and she goes ballistic,
*while* claiming that she sees the site as some
kind of "badge of honor." And she last interacted 
with Andrew NINE YEARS AGO. And this is 
to say nothing of her obsession with Vaj and 
myself.

And you, Raunch? You're going along fine, being
funny and writing your poetry, and someone men-
tions Hillary Clinton and you drop back into
"rant mode" and start acting out ALL of the
negative stereotypes any man ever had about any
woman. 

Here's a hint: If you really do care about ending
the negative things that men say about women, as
Willytex says, "DON'T FEED IT." How can you expect
men to "take you seriously" when you don't act in
a way that CAN be taken seriously? How can you
expect us to understand your anger at portrayals
of women as overly emotional and tending to hold
onto grudges for years when you act overly emotional
and hang onto grudges for years? It's like a child
saying, "I am NOT 'throwing a tantrum.' And I'm 
going to sit here and pout and hold my breath until
my face turns purple and until you stop saying that
about me."

Get the point?

What I don't think you understand is that a number
of us here LIKE you when you drop all this emotional
and samskaric attachment to things in the past and
just live in the present. The woman who does that
and is able to be funny is a delight. It's the one
who keeps throwing tantrums and claiming she isn't
doing it we laugh at, rather than with.

[FairfieldLife] Mantras and their Fertilizers: The Mechanics of TM

[scienceofabundance]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"  
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> So, let's review: in basic TM you get the single 
> seed sound and the fertilizer and you get the 
> simple instructions for the correct angle to 
> dive. You do NOT get any supposed 'nicknames of 
> the gods', or any esoteric metaphysics. 
> 
> 
I still don't see why the "single sound" [BTW, I never did get a single 
soundI must have received a special deal.] needs a fertilizer - a word that 
was the only answer ever given by TM teachers - as if repeating the same word 
over and over again would make the mechanics obvious.  

Could you explain your reasoning as to 1) why the fertilizer is needed; 2) how 
it works - rather than simply repeating the word "fertilizer"?  Repetition is 
not explanation (except maybe for some TM teachers:).

I have never been asked to discriminate among all the elements of my 
mantra/fertilizers - following your classification - when meditating (not that 
I could  anyway), so I meditate with the technique given and my combination of 
fertilizers with meanings and one meaningless sound. 

Can you explain your reasoning as to what effect the fertilizers - which have 
meaning - have on the technique of TM?  Since one of the principal 
repetitions/explanations of the TMO is the importance of a meaningless 
sound/mantra, the effects of using such a mantra with fertilizers that _have_ 
meaning needs some explanation to have your reasoning make sense. 

[Another piece of "information" that I recall hearing repeatedly in the TMO was 
that the TM technique consisted of 1) a mantra; and 2) a technique to use the 
mantra.  Based on your classification, my TM technique consists of 1) a mantra 
and some fertilizers; and 2) a technique to use these mantras/fertilizers. 
However, I definitely don't remember that description ever being given.]

Science

[FairfieldLife] Yet another great photo of Nancy...

[shempmcgurk]

Oh, sorry, that's Dorothy Hamill...

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of raunchydog
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:59 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

[mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 ]
> On Behalf Of authfriend
> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:44 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 

> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
> 
> Finally, I do think you owe her an apology for your
> initial comment about the two of us--that we wouldn't
> be criticizing Hillary, were she in the White House,
> for doing what Obama's been doing. That was way, way
> out of line, and it just reminds us of the kind of crap
> we had to put up with during the primary campaign.
> Can't apologize for that one 'cause I still see it that way. I don't know
> about you, but if Hillary were in there, making some of the same decisions
> Obama is making, Raunchy would be reacting very differently.
>

Rick, you could not be more wrong about me. I take my first amendment rights
as a citizen very seriously. If Hillary had voted against FISA in the
Senate, which Obama did and she did not, I would have had serious doubts
about her commitment to restore the constitution. If she had equivocated on
a woman's right to choose, which Obama has and she has not, I would have
been the first to call her a hypocrite and fight her tooth and nail. It is
essential in a healthy democracy that we hold elected officials accountable,
through petition, voting, and political activism, no matter who they are.

I am happy to give credit where credit is due. Today in his speech on
national security and terrorism Obama correctly pointed out that Bush had a
haphazard, ineffective policy from the git-go at Gitmo. They rounded up a
bunch of Al Qaeda but didn't know what to do with them. Obama made the case
that we can protect the country without abandoning the Constitution. He said
exactly what he needed to say, to give me hope that he might restore habeas
corpus. Now let's see if he follows through. If he doesn't, will you hold
him accountable? I will and you should as well.
Agreed, and well put.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hot...in a kinda academic, Sunday School sort of way...

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
>
> On May 21, 2009, at 3:24 PM, Ben wrote:
> 
> > is this nerd porn?
> 
> LOL...it's just Shemp...he's a
> Republican...need I say more?
> 
> Sal
>

Aw, you're just jealous...

[FairfieldLife] More hot pix of Nancy

[shempmcgurk]

  [nancy]   


...and some youtube's:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eCLNju3V-k


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgea3z-ehkk

[FairfieldLife] Amma's US retreats now open for registration

[fflmod]

http://www.amma.org/tours/amma-tours/n_america.html 
 
"Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no `you,' only 
love." 
 
- Amma  
 


  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hot...in a kinda academic, Sunday School sort of way...

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ben"  wrote:
>
> is this nerd porn?
>


For me it is.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy

[raunchydog]

Judy, Thank you for putting into words exactly how I feel about the primary. It 
brought me to tears to know that you understand completely how painful it was 
to have witnessed such shameful, sexist, unrelenting, abuse of the first 
American woman ever to make such a powerful and historic bid for the 
presidency. You are correct that it is not Hillary's loss that bothers me; it 
is how she lost that is so incredibly galling. I feel unimaginable disgust for 
supposed progressive lefties and Democrats who trashed her. They are 
hypocrites, ever last one of them. They pretend to value equal rights for women 
but they treated Hillary with less respect than they would a worm. Their 
behavior toward her is utterly unforgivable. 

Melissa McEwan at Shakesville's blogspot documented 89 instances of blatant 
sexist attacks on Hillary during the primary. I'm glad someone was keeping 
count, if only to serve as a reminder of the perils awaiting any woman brave 
enough to attempt a presidential run. If we don't learn from history, we are 
doomed to repeat it.

http://tinyurl.com/p4q7tt
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/05/hillary-sexism-watch-part-eighty.html

I don't expect anyone on FFLife to "get it." It's like date rape. No one 
empathizes with the woman or has any compassion for her. It's always, "she 
asked for it, she enjoyed it, she deserved it, get over it, stop whining, she 
was a whore anyway, she just wants to ruin his reputation, she must be a 
lesbian, or why didn't she just cross her legs?" 

Witness the abode of compassion on FFLife:

Rick: "Boo Hoo Hillary lost."

Robert babajii_99: "I am sorry the 'Girls got hurt'...But, girls are made to 
withstand more hurt than men." [This is the most ridiculous excuse for 
inflicting pain on a woman I have ever heard.] "And from what I understand, 
their orgasms are more intense as well...
Because they have twice as many nerve endings on their clitoris' As men have on 
their penis'" [Astounding! the most bizarrely prurient non sequiturs I have 
ever read.]

Barry: "It's OVER. Why aren't YOU over it? Hillary certainly is." [So says Mr. 
Sweetness and Light.]

Vaj: Why on earth would a successful meditator still have lingering destructive 
emotions months after the original stressor? ["He raped you, so what, get over 
it."] Isn't part of the TM model that unstressing will help with this kind of 
thing? Was she even angrier before she started meditating? After 30 years? I'm 
sorry, that's odd to me. It's not working. [Vaj's makes a gratuitous slam on TM 
in the guise of faux concern. How very "evolved" of him.]

Sal: "…this insanity still goes on, complete with ugly names for Obama's 
supporters and a mean-spirited set of attacks on the supporters as well as 
Obama himself that seems to veer at times precipitously close to a personal 
vendetta…" [Sal doesn't bother to back up anything she says and she either 
missed the point of Judy's post entirely or she just chimed in with Barry out 
of habit.] 

Barry: "Obama will laugh at her. But Judy, deciding that his laughter and 
compassionate silence at encountering Yet Another Crazy is sub-mission, will 
decide that she "won" the encounter." [Laughably, Barry's attack on Judy lets 
him "win"]

do.rflex: "Good laughs, Barry. I don't think she realizes what a small world 
she lives in in her head." [ad hominem attack and outright dismissal of Judy.]

Ben: [In response to Sal] "I think they are afraid of an actual articulate 
educated black man...just my theory" [Obviously Ben has bought into the false 
meme that you are a racist if you don't support Obama. If he had read Judy's 
post, he would have known how far afield his theory is.]

Ben brbenjaminassisi: "Hilary is a whore." [Thank you for such an erudite 
observation. I rest my case.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> It occurred to me last night as I was reading Raunchy's
> post #219365 that the emotional component is not so
> much a matter of Hillary having lost as of *how* she
> lost, how incredibly unfairly and viciously she was
> treated by Obama's supporters--in the lefty blogs, by
> the Democratic Party, by the media, and of course by
> the right wingers, not to mention some of the people
> on FFL. And it wasn't just Hillary who was treated
> this way, it was her supporters as well.
> 
> That left deep emotional scars (speaking of Barry's 
> Cockburn quotes about "tending to cause damage").
> 
> Obama himself wasn't the instigator of most of it,
> but he did almost nothing to try to stop or mitigate
> it and even encouraged it at times. That's awfully
> hard to forgive.
> 
> It's entirely possible she'd have lost anyway had the
> attitudes toward her been different. It would still
> have been painful for those who found her genuinely
> inspiring and Obama considerably less so, but nowhere
> near what it was in the context of what actually went
> on. One's favorite candidate isn't necessarily going
> to win even in the fai

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of authfriend
> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:44 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
>   
> Finally, I do think you owe her an apology for your
> initial comment about the two of us--that we wouldn't
> be criticizing Hillary, were she in the White House,
> for doing what Obama's been doing. That was way, way
> out of line, and it just reminds us of the kind of crap
> we had to put up with during the primary campaign.
> Can't apologize for that one 'cause I still see it that way. I don't know
> about you, but if Hillary were in there, making some of the same decisions
> Obama is making, Raunchy would be reacting very differently.
>

Rick, you could not be more wrong about me. I take my first amendment rights as 
a citizen very seriously. If Hillary had voted against FISA in the Senate, 
which Obama did and she did not, I would have had serious doubts about her 
commitment to restore the constitution. If she had equivocated on a woman's 
right to choose, which Obama has and she has not, I would have been the first 
to call her a hypocrite and fight her tooth and nail. It is essential in a 
healthy democracy that we hold elected officials accountable, through petition, 
voting, and political activism, no matter who they are.

I am happy to give credit where credit is due. Today in his speech on national 
security and terrorism Obama correctly pointed out that Bush had a haphazard, 
ineffective policy from the git-go at Gitmo. They rounded up a bunch of Al 
Qaeda but didn't know what to do with them. Obama made the case that we can 
protect the country without abandoning the Constitution. He said exactly what 
he needed to say, to give me hope that he might restore habeas corpus. Now 
let's see if he follows through. If he doesn't, will you hold him accountable? 
I will and you should as well.

[FairfieldLife] Re: New to this group?

[dhamiltony2k5]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
>
> On May 20, 2009, at 9:35 PM, dhamiltony2k5 wrote:
> 
> Om, around FF, these came in today earlier to my regular e-mail.
> >
> > Only the tip of the Iceberg but, for instance:
> >
> > 
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > We are really looking forward to this upcoming web event on Friday
> > entitled: The Hidden Depths of Spirit Repair.
> 
> Is this a joke?
> It sounds like the title of some kind
> of new-age soap-opera.
> 
> If it's real, I take back everything
> I ever said about the TMO being weird.
> 
> > But what goes on during the Spirit Repair process itself?
> 
> I have no idea, but I have a funny feeling
> it's going to involve the exchange of $$,
> with the exchange going only one way.
>

Well yes, 'round $20K (100 people x  $200) one evening stands.  Also with 
bookstore & $100 guided meditation CD's. 

Is a real deal experientially to some so evidently is worth it to some people.  
He visits couple of times a year to FF.   Public Library meeting room often 
packed full.  Is quite spiritual experience meeting in a way of meditation 
practice.

Was my experience too in going to see him in FF.  He's good.  A master in his 
way at helping people with their spiritual experiences.  That's okay.  Packaged 
little guy who can come alittle big headed.  But was very helpful to people in 
the context of everything.

Was all thus,
-D

[FairfieldLife] FCC warrantless inspection rights

[bob_brigante]

"You may not know it, but if you have a wireless router, a cordless phone, 
remote car-door opener, baby monitor or cellphone in your house, the FCC claims 
the right to enter your home without a warrant at any time of the day or night 
in order to inspect it. 

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/fcc-raid/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Subaru Prius in 2012?

[Nelson]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> Richard J. Williams wrote:
> > 
> >
> > But you're a special case: there are hardly
> > any refineries in California anymore and you
> > import almost all your fuel from the Middle
> > East. If Obama doesn't do something about the
> > economy, you won't have any money to buy a
> > new car and what you have will be spent on
> > just the fuel. If Obama can't win the war and
> > stabilize prices, you will have zero fuel
> > in California!
> >   
> 
> I have a bunch of refineries where I live.  Probably one of the 
> downsides to living here if they start leaking something toxic.  
> Probably most of the workers in this town work at the refineries.
> 
> And oh yes, a lot of them drive Priuses. 
> > 
> >
> > When I go out on the highway on a trip I
> > usually take my project car - a 1995
> > Cadillac Eldorado with the Northstar 32
> > valve V8. It gets over 24 MPG on premium
> > fuel and I'm comfortable and cool all the
> > way to Abilene. 
> >   
> 
> My 1998 Forester does 27 MPG on regular.  And I'm comfortable and cool 
> all the way to wherever (Seattle, Grass Valley, Los Angeles, etc).
>
 My Ford ranger does about the same and I am expecting to improve that some 
when I get the hydrogen assist system adjusted.  N.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Subaru Prius in 2012?

[Nelson]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> Vaj wrote:
> >
> > On May 21, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Bhairitu wrote:
> >
> >> I figure my fellow Subaru owners here will be interested in this:
> >> http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/05/subaru/
> >>
> >> I might get one but maybe in 2013 (give them a year to work out bugs).
> >
> >
> > I can imagine it buried in a snowdrift already, the front lopped off 
> > by a snow plow and eventually being retrieved during the spring thaw. 
> > That wussie thing? I need a Jeep Grand Cherokee "Prius" to survive 
> > where I live. The wind off a logging truck would send that thing into 
> > the nearest ditch. If you'd hit a moose, you'd be crushed to death!
> >
> > You may think I'm kidding, but people disappear in Maine when they run 
> > off the highway during winter. In the spring we find them. 
> > Freeze-dried, of course. Quite delicious, like pig jerky.
> 
> But that happens in Oregon too.  Remind me not if Vaj offers jerky at 
> some get together not to take any.
>
  In winter, when there is a lot of snow, a lot of the high mileage cars get 
zero as they wont make it out of the driveway.
  In these times I will be still be getting around twelve MPG.
. Also, the old Intn'l pulls a trailer that weighs 4.5 K empty and, recently, I 
have moved equipment for a friend that weighed around 14K.
  If I get hit with a new suv, it will probably get totaled and the old (73) 
pickup will still be going.  N.
  
  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Subaru Prius in 2012?

[Bhairitu]

Alex Stanley wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>   
>> Vaj wrote:
>> 
>>> On May 21, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Bhairitu wrote:
>>>
>>>   
 I figure my fellow Subaru owners here will be interested in this:
 http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/05/subaru/

 I might get one but maybe in 2013 (give them a year to work out bugs).
 
>>> I can imagine it buried in a snowdrift already, the front lopped off 
>>> by a snow plow and eventually being retrieved during the spring thaw. 
>>> That wussie thing? I need a Jeep Grand Cherokee "Prius" to survive 
>>> where I live. The wind off a logging truck would send that thing into 
>>> the nearest ditch. If you'd hit a moose, you'd be crushed to death!
>>>
>>> You may think I'm kidding, but people disappear in Maine when they run 
>>> off the highway during winter. In the spring we find them. 
>>> Freeze-dried, of course. Quite delicious, like pig jerky.
>>>   
>> But that happens in Oregon too.  Remind me not if Vaj offers
>> jerky at some get together not to take any.
>> 
>
> You're a Tantric, right? Aren't Tantrics those guys who meditate on top of 
> corpses and eat bits of unburnt flesh on the cremation grounds? What the hell 
> kind of Tantric would turn down a taste of Vaj's long-pork jerky?

Meditating on corpses (in India not here) but eating human flesh isn't 
part of my tradition.  There are substitutes, like chicken, but I hear 
human flesh tastes like chicken.  :-D

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Subaru Prius in 2012?

[Bhairitu]

Richard J. Williams wrote:
> 
>
> But you're a special case: there are hardly
> any refineries in California anymore and you
> import almost all your fuel from the Middle
> East. If Obama doesn't do something about the
> economy, you won't have any money to buy a
> new car and what you have will be spent on
> just the fuel. If Obama can't win the war and
> stabilize prices, you will have zero fuel
> in California!
>   

I have a bunch of refineries where I live.  Probably one of the 
downsides to living here if they start leaking something toxic.  
Probably most of the workers in this town work at the refineries.

And oh yes, a lot of them drive Priuses. 
> 
>
> When I go out on the highway on a trip I
> usually take my project car - a 1995
> Cadillac Eldorado with the Northstar 32
> valve V8. It gets over 24 MPG on premium
> fuel and I'm comfortable and cool all the
> way to Abilene. 
>   

My 1998 Forester does 27 MPG on regular.  And I'm comfortable and cool 
all the way to wherever (Seattle, Grass Valley, Los Angeles, etc).

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hot...in a kinda academic, Sunday School sort of way...

[Nelson]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
>
> On May 21, 2009, at 3:24 PM, Ben wrote:
> 
> > is this nerd porn?
> 
> LOL...it's just Shemp...he's a
> Republican...need I say more?
> 
> Sal
>
  Nerd- is that like a dweeb-, haven't heard a ruling on that. curious.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Does anybody believe Speaker Pelosi?

[Nelson]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG."  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon  wrote:
> >
> > Well do you?
> 
> Nancy Pelosi?  "I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability".
>
  Somebody must as she is still there.N.

[FairfieldLife] Attn: Ben!!! Re: Post Count

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, FFL PostCount  wrote:
>
> Fairfield Life Post Counter
> ===
> Start Date (UTC): Sat May 16 00:00:00 2009
> End Date (UTC): Sat May 23 00:00:00 2009
> 658 messages as of (UTC) Fri May 22 00:11:27 2009
> 
> 50 authfriend 
> 48 Robert 
> 47 off_world_beings 
> 43 nablusoss1008 
> 40 Rick Archer 
> 37 Vaj 
> 36 Ben 

Ben, just to make sure you're aware of it, FairfieldLife has a 50 post per week 
limit, and you're already at 36. That leaves you with 14 posts between now and 
Friday at 7pm central time (00:00 UTC a.k.a. GMT). The penalty for overposting 
is a week suspension of posting privileges. 

Alex Stanley
FFL moderator

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat May 16 00:00:00 2009
End Date (UTC): Sat May 23 00:00:00 2009
658 messages as of (UTC) Fri May 22 00:11:27 2009

50 authfriend 
48 Robert 
47 off_world_beings 
43 nablusoss1008 
40 Rick Archer 
37 Vaj 
36 Ben 
32 "Richard J. Williams" 
31 TurquoiseB 
24 enlightened_dawn11 
21 raunchydog 
20 Bhairitu 
17 guyfawkes91 
17 dhamiltony2k5 
17 "do.rflex" 
15 cardemaister 
15 Sal Sunshine 
13 bob_brigante 
12 Duveyoung 
10 Peter 
 9 scienceofabundance 
 9 lurkernomore20002000 
 8 enpai 
 8 wle...@aol.com
 6 shempmcgurk 
 6 billy jim 
 5 sparaig 
 5 Richard M 
 5 Nelson 
 5 Jason 
 5 Alex Stanley 
 4 tomwalsh23 
 4 ruthsimplicity 
 4 okpeachman2000 
 4 "BillyG." 
 3 shukra69 
 3 kaladevi93 
 3 drpetersutphen 
 3 Mike Dixon 
 2 at_man_and_brahman 
 2 Patrick Gillam 
 1 wayback71 
 1 uns_tressor 
 1 ultrarishi 
 1 nelson lafrancis 
 1 margovon 
 1 jyouells2000 
 1 geezerfreak 
 1 emptybill 
 1 Thomas Walsh 
 1 Dick Mays 

Posters: 51
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: For Paul Mason

[Richard J. Williams]

cardemaister wrote:
> The '.h' in at least ITRANS transliteration 
> scheme is just some kind of control character, 
> or somesuch. Haven't bothered to figger out, 
> what its meaning is, but I wouldn't use
> it for instance in 'jagad.hguru', because 
> '.h' doesn't have any phonetic value. A better 
> transliteration IMO is 'jagadguru'.
>
Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon: 

1. jagadguru m. the father of the world Ragh. 
x, 65; Brahma1 BhP. ii, 5, 12; Vishn2u Hariv. 
15699 BhP. i, 8, 25; Siva Kum. vi, 15; Ra1ma 
(as Vishn2u's incarnation) R. iii, 6, 18.

[FairfieldLife] Re: New to this group?

[Richard J. Williams]

Ben wrote:
> I kinda liked the pistols more 
> when it came to punk... 
>
Hey, Ben, I haven't been to Britain 
since 1959, when I lived in East 
Anglia. If you ever get a chance, 
why not drive over to Ripley, 
Derbyshire, and say hello to Eric 
Clapton at Hurtwood? Tell him 
'Willytex' sent you. I haven't 
seen Eric since he performed here 
with Stevie Ray Vaughn years ago.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Subaru Prius in 2012?

[Richard J. Williams]

Bhairitu wrote:
> I figure my fellow Subaru owners here will be
> interested in this:
> http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/05/subaru/
>
> I might get one but maybe in 2013 (give them
> a year to work out bugs).
>
Good idea.

It would take years and hundreds of thousands
of miles to recoup the extra dollars spent on
an expensive hybrid car like the 'Prius'. And
then there's the cost of battery replacement,
not a small amount.

>From what I've read, the mileage rebound of
25% is only good for constant price gasoline
and so probably won't happen any time soon.

Gasoline prices are going to go way up, not
way down, and if they don't, Obama is going
to add a tax for miles driven.

And, it's a popular myth that government's
can force an increase in gas mileage for
cars anyway. How many cars can you name that
get 45 MPG since 1955? I predict Obama's
policy will be reversed in 2010 when the
Republican Party comes back in power.

What the Future of American Motoring Will
Look Like:
http://tinyurl.com/q4eo3h

But I'm not worried about oil these days,
since I don't have that many years of driving
left. Texas has most of the oil refineries
and lots of oil. I burn only genuine Texaco
fuel in my cars and I get all of my oil
from Spindletop or the Permian Basin.

Spindletop:
http://tinyurl.com/o3d3mn

If we run out of fuel to burn in my car, then
I'll just use wind power to get around.

Texas Wind Energy:
http://tinyurl.com/yl7uy4

But you're a special case: there are hardly
any refineries in California anymore and you
import almost all your fuel from the Middle
East. If Obama doesn't do something about the
economy, you won't have any money to buy a
new car and what you have will be spent on
just the fuel. If Obama can't win the war and
stabilize prices, you will have zero fuel
in California!

At this rate, I figure you've got two years
to drive your car, so why not just keep your
old one and fix it up?

You've got nowhere to go anyway, right?
maybe you should think twice about driving
fifty miles just to get some unsulphured
raisins or some high-priced, bottled tap
water!

So, Obama's plan is a bad plan from the
beginning. With the price of oil going up
and a dwindling supply, globilization is
doomed anyway. Before you know it, nobody
will be driving anywhere - about the time
you get your new Subaru 'Prius' paid for!

And for what reason would anyone want to
have a small car like that? You can't drive
them cross country or up in the mountains.
You can't tow a trailer or a big boat with
a Priapus or a Subaru Brat.

I have a 2006 Chrysler PT Cruiser but I
wouldn't use it for anything except to
drive to the grocery car a few blocks away.

Chrysler PT Cruiser:
http://tinyurl.com/pr3g4t

So, you want to 'save the planet' from CO2?
While it's probably a good thing to save
some money, if it's 'global warming' that
drives your decision, then you're confused.
There is no 'global warming', only natural
climate change.

When I go out on the highway on a trip I
usually take my project car - a 1995
Cadillac Eldorado with the Northstar 32
valve V8. It gets over 24 MPG on premium
fuel and I'm comfortable and cool all the
way to Abilene.




Cadillac Eldorado:
http://tinyurl.com/r3ufrz

"It should be noted that the usual climatic
condition for the last 900,000 of 1,000,000
years has been an ice age. Climatic
measurements of less than 1,000 years are
absolutely worthless. The overwhelming
amount of "green house gases" are produced
naturally."

State Rankings - Memorial Day Weekend 2009:
http://tinyurl.com/r9gowc

[FairfieldLife] Re: Subaru Prius in 2012?

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> Vaj wrote:
> >
> > On May 21, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Bhairitu wrote:
> >
> >> I figure my fellow Subaru owners here will be interested in this:
> >> http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/05/subaru/
> >>
> >> I might get one but maybe in 2013 (give them a year to work out bugs).
> >
> >
> > I can imagine it buried in a snowdrift already, the front lopped off 
> > by a snow plow and eventually being retrieved during the spring thaw. 
> > That wussie thing? I need a Jeep Grand Cherokee "Prius" to survive 
> > where I live. The wind off a logging truck would send that thing into 
> > the nearest ditch. If you'd hit a moose, you'd be crushed to death!
> >
> > You may think I'm kidding, but people disappear in Maine when they run 
> > off the highway during winter. In the spring we find them. 
> > Freeze-dried, of course. Quite delicious, like pig jerky.
> 
> But that happens in Oregon too.  Remind me not if Vaj offers
> jerky at some get together not to take any.

You're a Tantric, right? Aren't Tantrics those guys who meditate on top of 
corpses and eat bits of unburnt flesh on the cremation grounds? What the hell 
kind of Tantric would turn down a taste of Vaj's long-pork jerky?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Subaru Prius in 2012?

[Bhairitu]

Vaj wrote:
>
> On May 21, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Bhairitu wrote:
>
>> I figure my fellow Subaru owners here will be interested in this:
>> http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/05/subaru/
>>
>> I might get one but maybe in 2013 (give them a year to work out bugs).
>
>
> I can imagine it buried in a snowdrift already, the front lopped off 
> by a snow plow and eventually being retrieved during the spring thaw. 
> That wussie thing? I need a Jeep Grand Cherokee "Prius" to survive 
> where I live. The wind off a logging truck would send that thing into 
> the nearest ditch. If you'd hit a moose, you'd be crushed to death!
>
> You may think I'm kidding, but people disappear in Maine when they run 
> off the highway during winter. In the spring we find them. 
> Freeze-dried, of course. Quite delicious, like pig jerky.

But that happens in Oregon too.  Remind me not if Vaj offers jerky at 
some get together not to take any.

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Subaru Prius in 2012?

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of nablusoss1008
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 4:12 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Subaru Prius in 2012?
 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Rick Archer"  wrote >
>
> >
> > I might get one but maybe in 2013 (give them a year to work out bugs).
> > I hope they come out with something like a hybrid Outback, which could
tow
> > 1000 pounds.
> 
> There was a Smart Car pulling out of a parking spot the other day as I 
> was walking up to the credit union and I noted it might be the same 
> couple who were driving around here a few years back in a GEM car. I 

Thanks Rick, great info; glad you share this essential info about your
deserted non-life with us ! 

Now please have a checking !
Actually, Nabby, life is very good. Fulfilled. I don't think I need a
checking because meditations are very deep and enjoyable, and pure awareness
persists whether or not I'm meditating. I haven't missed a meditation since
July 25, 1968. Have you? Maybe you need the checking.
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: New to this group?

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> off_world_beings wrote:
> > o
> >
> > I think Britain always had a good set of eclectic music shows on
radio
> > and TV that were easily available to everyone (instead of surfing
all
> > sorts of channels to find different ones and in different parts of
the
> > country here in the States), and I think this gives people from
there a
> > wider range of influences.
>
> I usually like BBC and Channel 4 offerings when they make it across
the
> pond.  Those are less driven to be "commercial" and appeal to the
> "lowest common denominator" like so much Hollywood trash.>>

True, on the other hand we have had the demon Ruper Murdoch a lot lnger
than you have had. He's had a bigger impact here in US though, with the
fundies and all.

OffWorld

We're
> entering an interesting era with the second Great Depression and I'm
> watching what broadcast and cable/satellite TV is doing in response.
> Maybe "ala carte" will get another hearing and become available.  I
know
> Comcast is having to rethink things as many are even paring way down
to
> Limited Basic.   And so much now can be seen on the Internet in
> reasonable quality.  But Hollywood is also feeling the pinch and
budgets
> have been slashed around 50%.  It will be interesting to see what
> "stars" disappear from the scene as I hear the pinch means that
"divas"
> will not be put up with any longer.
>

[FairfieldLife] Peer Review

[off_world_beings]

The arguments against peer-review are the most absurd I have ever heard.
You might as well say that the Earth is flat because the photos could be
illusions, and that the Earth is 6,000 years old because carbon dating
is not valid, and that Bob Dylan discovered America, not Columbus,
because he had a dream about it.

All this because you are against peer-review as a way to find common
acceptability in society. Which is its purpose. Nothing else works,
everything else can lead to war and destruction of civilization. People
who are against peer-review ALWAYS have an ego-driven alterior motive,
and that quote that Richard cited, is so pompous it reeks of ego-driven
wannabe Uberlord.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj ...

[off_world_beings]

The arguments against peer-review are the most absurd I have ever heard.
You might as well say that the Earth is flat because the photos could be
illusions, and that the Earth is 6,000 years old because carbon dating
is not valid, and that Bob Dylan discovered America, not Columbus,
because he had a dream about it.

All this because you are against peer-review as a way to find common
acceptability in society. Which is its purpose. Nothing else works,
everything else can lead to war and destruction of civilization. People
who are against peer-review ALWAYS have an ego-driven alterior motive,
and that quote that Richard cited, is so pompous it reeks of ego-driven
wannabe Uberlord.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: New to this group?

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Ben" 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , off_world_beings 
wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

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

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

> >  >
> > > > 
> >  > > , "Ben" 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > So Ben, hows' ol' Blighty, and hows' the scrumpy these days?
> > > >
> > > > If you are Gen-ex, what music do you like from back in Britain?
> > > >
> > > > OffWorld - the insubordinate Scot.
> > > >
> > >
> > > you're scottish!
> > >
> > > hoots mon and show me your tatties
> > >
> > > I left england in 2001, just after 9/11... I have no idea how
blighty
> > is.
> > >
> > > what music do I like from Britain? sadly nothing really current,
much
> > >
> > > for popular music I guess, amy winehouse is ok and adele is "ok"
> > >
> > > I like dark ambient/industrial music of COIL, from the west
country
> > >
> > > I also like the apocalyptic folk of Current 93
> > >
> > > I dont really listen to new music much... too much "old" music to
> > catch up on
> > >
> > > I'm the kind that can listen to death metal one minute, marin
marais
> > (baroque), blind faith etc all in one breath most people say
they
> > have an eclectic taste... When I hear what they listen to, I tend to
> > think they are telling lies.
> > >
> > > I'm really digging ambient/shoe gazing music of a kind recently...
> > >
> > > bands such as
> > >
> > > eluvium
> > > god speed you black emperor!
> > > marissa nadler
> > > Jesu
> > >
> > > I guess the closest current brit band would be mogwai or maybe
aphex
> > twin... both of which I like... The cranes are cool too (also
brit)>>
> >
> > Great! I will check these out. I like any music of any genre as long
as
> > its good :-)
> >
> > I think Britain always had a good set of eclectic music shows on
radio
> > and TV that were easily available to everyone (instead of surfing
all
> > sorts of channels to find different ones and in different parts of
the
> > country here in the States), and I think this gives people from
there a
> > wider range of influences.
> >
> > I always wanted to go to Glastonbury, but the time I didn't get
there, I
> > was glad, because my friends spent 4 days in the rain and mud. I
went to
> > Stonehenge festival when it was still a real festival. Very strange
> > unpoliceable environment.
> >
> > I haven't kept up recently, so this stuff listed is older, so I am
glad
> > to get the chance to check out your suggestions. Probably my
favorites
> > are Massive Attack (from Bristol !), The Stranglers (originally
> > "Guilford Stranglers"), Fela Kuti (from Nigeria, but studied music
in
> > Wales! ), as well as The Skids, Morcheeba, Prodigy, some Pink Floyd,
and
> > of course, The Clash, Bowie, The Smiths. But I haven't kept up with
a
> > lot of the more recent stuff. Elsewhere, I like Thievery
Corporation,
> > Citezen Cope, Lou Reed, Marley, Iggy Pop and whole bunch more.
> >
> > OffWorld
> >
> > >
> > > Growing up where I grew up, I've seen hundreds maybe thousands of
> > bands over the years... as I've been to glastonbury festival many
> > times...and often seen live bands in Bristol...
> > >
> >
> some good names...
>
> Glastonbury used to be sunny EVERY year, except 1985.>>

That was it !  You may have met my friends in the mud there ! There were
probably a few dozen of them went over from Whinchester School of Art
when I was studying there.

I'll check out some of the music you mentioned.  thanks

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj ...

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Richard M" 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , Vaj 
> wrote: >
> [snip]
> > The peer review process is not an indicator of good
> > science. It's  also not any sort of guarantee--so
> > you're basing your statement on  something false.
>
> Finally - now here's a sentiment I can agree with Vaj!
>
> There's definitely something fishy with this idea of peer-
> review. To me it smacks of priesthood, social control, vested
> interests, editorial monopoly and the politicization of Science.
>
> The process of peer review has itself come under review -
> empirical study - and has been found wanting. There is going to
> be a conference on it in July:
>
> http://www.iiis2009.org/wmsci/Website/default.asp?vc=27

>
> INVITATION TO A SYMPOSIUM ON PEER REVIEW
> ---
>
> Only 8% members of the Scientific Research Society agreed that
> "peer review works well as it is." (Chubin and Hackett, 1990;
> p.192).
>
> "A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the
> peer review system substantiate complaints about this
> fundamental aspect of scientific research." (Horrobin, 2001).
>
> Horrobin concludes that peer review "is a non-validated charade
> whose processes generate results little better than does
> chance." (Horrobin, 2001). This has been statistically proven
> and reported by an increasing number of journal editors.
>
> Since a growing number of studies conclude that peer review is
> flawed and ineffective as it is being implemented, why not
> apply scientific and engineering research and methods to the
> peer review process?>>

I agree with improving peer-review at all levels. It is what it is
though, and you cannot go ahead and throw out ALL of science and medical
science. Horrobin has not made a valid conclusion here. His conclusion
is clearly biased towards some alterior motive. Peer-review is not
perfect, but its all we've got. Otherwise you get the Taliban. Its your
choice.

Of course, your interest in this Richard is probably so that you can
throw out evidence on Global warming and other inconvenient truths.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj ...

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Ben" 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , off_world_beings 
wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

> >  > , "Ben" 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > > wow!
> > > > >
> > > > > you "guys" are... so bored with your life huh?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ben, I apologize for an inappropriate public display of
> > long-standing squabbles with Vaj. Vaj is a TM critic who doesn't
miss an
> > opportunity to diminish TM and trot out obscure Buddhist texts to
prove
> > that TM is inferior to whatever flavor of the month he happens to
> > stumble upon in his search for "truth." I really don't care what
> > spiritual practice anyone wants to do. If you feel attracted to
> > experience TM fine, if not, fine. I don't criticize Vaj for
practicing
> > "mindfullness" or whatever he wants, in fact he has never been clear
> > exactly what he does practice, I suspect a hodgepodge of several
things.
> > Fine, whatever floats his boat.
> > > >
> > > > My objection to Vaj is that he poses as intellectual giant with
> > superior knowledge and misrepresents TM. Vaj thinks he has all the
> > answers but his answers result in and indecipherable jumble of
> > confusion. It's kind of like putting a penny in a gumball machine
and
> > not getting the flavor you had hoped for. All the flavors are there,
but
> > they are not very well organized. After many attempts to get exactly
the
> > flavor you want, you end up with as much confusion of flavors strew
> > about on the floor as was once in the gumball machine. Good luck
sorting
> > it all out.
> > > >
> > >
> > > well if you feel the need to "prove" your practise is better than
> > anothers.>>
> >
> > This is where you start to learn something from Fairfiled Life.
No-one
> > in the real world is interested in personal opinion. In the 21st
century
> > we can only go by robust research published in peer-reviewed
scientific
> > journals over many decades in hundreds of independent journals and
from
> > hundreds of indepnedent sceintific institutions around the world -
over
> > several decades.
> > If we do not go by this approach, the world COULD be doomed. Can you
at
> > least agree with this Ben?
>
> depends on the subject
>
> If I was to discuss the inner meaning of the holy grail
> what good would years of peer reviewed texts do? none, because there
isnt that kind of thing, as science deals with a specific thing...and
only attempts to go beyond it.>>

You are welcome to do that, but no-one in serious society will listen
and it will have no long-term meaning or impact. It is just like rumor
and personal opinion. That's what we modern humans call 'invalid' or
'unproven'

>
> I am starting to think this group is largely made up of
materialists...which is fine I guess, if that is your thing >>

I don't think you learned TM Ben? I'm not sure. No problem, but it means
that you have not realized yet that you are dealing with a group of
people, most of whom, for a very long time have been able to marry
science, logic, and spirituality in their minds. To try to seperate the
two is a kind of blasphemy to me.  It is ignorance - the opposite of
enlightenment. If you stick around you could learn something of what
this all means.

Maharishi said that ""Science is the window through which the "Age of
Enlightenment" can be glimpsed.""
And this is not an opinion - that science can glimpse the future
evolution of enlightenment for the world. It is a verified observation.
Without science you have no agreement. Science is there to provide
agreement on what is useful to humankind. Otherwise it is chaos and the
world will perish.

>
> from wiki, just for clarification, nothing more:
>
> The philosophy of materialism holds that the only thing that can be
truly proven to exist is matter,>

Like I said, in this case it has to do with consciousness. Consciousness
holds all things within its reality - material and spiritual. Maharishi
called it 200% of life and that is one of the most important statements
made in 1,000's of years of philosophy and science.

>
> As a Gnostic, I know:
>
> If I were to say `I know God', I would be a liar. God is beyond
comprehension. Better to be silent and live in humility. If I were to
say, `I do not know God', I would also be a liar.>>

Gnosticism comes from the word "Gnosos" which means "knowledge" (it is
where the English word "knowledge" comes from), and Gnonos has its roots
in Sanskrit words like "Gyan", and "Gyanes". Gyan means 'knowledge' and
it is the goal of all spiritual seeking.
Gnosticism, therefore is about the pursuit of true knowledge, and if you
cannot know god, then that discussion is not part of Gnosticism.

God, however is knowable. You are God, and you can know your Self. St.
Francis of Assisi said "W

Re: [FairfieldLife] Subaru Prius in 2012?

[Vaj]

On May 21, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Bhairitu wrote:


I figure my fellow Subaru owners here will be interested in this:
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/05/subaru/

I might get one but maybe in 2013 (give them a year to work out bugs).



I can imagine it buried in a snowdrift already, the front lopped off  
by a snow plow and eventually being retrieved during the spring thaw.  
That wussie thing? I need a Jeep Grand Cherokee "Prius" to survive  
where I live. The wind off a logging truck would send that thing into  
the nearest ditch. If you'd hit a moose, you'd be crushed to death!


You may think I'm kidding, but people disappear in Maine when they run  
off the highway during winter. In the spring we find them. Freeze- 
dried, of course. Quite delicious, like pig jerky.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj ...

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
>
> On May 21, 2009, at 1:59 PM, off_world_beings wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On May 21, 2009, at 1:13 PM, off_world_beings wrote:
> > >
> > > > Vaj has no proof for anything he says. Which do you prefer,
> > myth or
> > > > science?
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Offworld:
> > >
> > > As you know, I'm a big fan of good quality meditation research,
> > esp. >
> >
>
> Hi Offworld:
>
> > Vaj, what you need to prove what you are saying is even at least a
> > larger fraction of the numbers of robust research published in peer-
> > reviewed scientific journals and from hundreds of independent
> > sceintific institutions around the world - over several decades -
> > that Maharishi's TM has.
> >
>
> No, of course I don't need to prove that. Just because of a lot
> "research" was published is no indicator of quality.

So say the anti-science fundamentalists. Like I say, you and jerry
falwell - 2 peas ina pod.

> Listen to what I'm sating: I'm pro-science. I'm a trained scientist>>

So are some fundamentalist creationists who think the world is 6,000
years old. No-one listens to them though. People only listen to research
published in 100's of peer-reviewed journals over decades. This is the
reality of the future. Your type of fundamentalism is over.

> not an artist like yourself. But it does have to be good, unbiased,
> independent science using good controls, a strong null hypothesis and
> good methodology.>

Lol.. in other words so I can cherry pick. And you are not qualified
enough with your associates degree in 'science' to judge those things.

>
> The peer review process is not an indicator of good science. It's
> also not any sort of guarantee--so you're basing your statement on
> something false.>

...so says the pseudo-scientist.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Subaru Prius in 2012?

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote > >
> >
> > I might get one but maybe in 2013 (give them a year to work out bugs).
> > I hope they come out with something like a hybrid Outback, which could tow
> > 1000 pounds.
> 
> There was a Smart Car pulling out of a parking spot the other day as I 
> was walking up to the credit union and I noted it might be the same 
> couple who were driving around here a few years back in a GEM car. I 


Thanks Rick, great info; glad you share this essential info about your deserted 
non-life with us ! 

Now please have a checking !

Re: [FairfieldLife] Insurance covers TM

[Vaj]

No worries Dick. Mindfulness Meditation, the Mindfulness Based Stress  
Reduction (MBSR) 8-week course and Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy  
(MBCT) are available already in most US medical centers and many  
hospitals very inexpensively or on a sliding scale. MBCT is already  
covered by insurance companies in Europe for depression (e.g. the UK)  
and some here in the US. They also have much peer-reviewed science and  
widely published research to support their widespread use and efficacy.


For those interested in just instruction in deep meditation, a 10-day  
residential course is given on a donation basis, worldwide. See  
dhamma.org for more information.


Please pass this on to all your contacts. Thanks in advance. Peace.

On May 21, 2009, at 4:52 PM, Rick Archer wrote:




Dear friends,

Concerning the message I sent earlier today about TM and health  
insurance, I have just learned that my source, who usually just  
passes on official announcements, did not have the complete story  
this time.  There apparently are some promising pilot programs to  
explore how funding of TM could work, but nothing like a program of  
private reimbursement yet.  Sorry for the false lead.  I'll let you  
know as soon as I hear something more definite and more official.


On the other hand, with the growing pressure on insurance companies  
to finally start reining in costs, this move should be a no- 
brainer.  (We must assume they have brains.)


The other items about the training program for health professionals  
and the family chat link are still valid, of course.


May you enjoy perfect health!

Jai Guru Dev
Dick

[FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj ...

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Ben" 
wrote:
>
>
> > It was great until the uneducated, disgusting, anti-science egos
like
> > Vaj and Turq arrived.
> >
> > OffWorld
> >
>
> science is great
>
> but "seekers" go beyond science...
>

...and fall off a cliff.

OffWorld

RE: [FairfieldLife] Insurance covers TM

[Rick Archer]

Dear friends,
 
Concerning the message I sent earlier today about TM and health insurance, I
have just learned that my source, who usually just passes on official
announcements, did not have the complete story this time.  There apparently
are some promising pilot programs to explore how funding of TM could work,
but nothing like a program of private reimbursement yet.  Sorry for the
false lead.  I'll let you know as soon as I hear something more definite and
more official.
 
On the other hand, with the growing pressure on insurance companies to
finally start reining in costs, this move should be a no-brainer.  (We must
assume they have brains.)
 
The other items about the training program for health professionals and the
family chat link are still valid, of course.
 
May you enjoy perfect health!
 
Jai Guru Dev
Dick
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hot...in a kinda academic, Sunday School sort of way...

[Sal Sunshine]

On May 21, 2009, at 3:24 PM, Ben wrote:


is this nerd porn?


LOL...it's just Shemp...he's a
Republican...need I say more?

Sal

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy

[Sal Sunshine]

On May 21, 2009, at 2:19 PM, Ben wrote:


Why aren't YOU over it? Hillary certainly is.


No kidding.  Hard to believe that almost
a year after Hillary conceded the nomination,
and over 6 months since Obama soundly
whipped McCain's ass, this insanity still goes
on, complete with ugly names for Obama's
supporters and a mean-spirited set of attacks
on the supporters as well as Obama himself
that seems to veer at times precipitously close
to a personal vendetta, ie an irrational
hatred that is not receptive to any kind
of logical discussion.

Obama has become the new Barry. :)

Sal

I think they are afraid of an actual articulate educated black  
man...


just my theory


Uh, oh...I think I'm beginning to see why you
like spiritual topics, Ben. :)

Just wait for the response to this...and then duck!!

Sal

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj ...

[Sal Sunshine]

On May 21, 2009, at 2:18 PM, Richard M wrote:

Finally - now here's a sentiment I can agree with Vaj!

There's definitely something fishy with this idea of peer-
review. To me it smacks of priesthood, social control, vested
interests, editorial monopoly and the politicization of Science.

The process of peer review has itself come under review -
empirical study - and has been found wanting. There is going to
be a conference on it in July:

http://www.iiis2009.org/wmsci/Website/default.asp?vc=27

INVITATION TO A SYMPOSIUM ON PEER REVIEW
---


We should send Off.


Only 8% members of the Scientific Research Society agreed that
"peer review works well as it is." (Chubin and Hackett, 1990;
p.192).

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hot...in a kinda academic, Sunday School sort of way...

[Ben]

is this nerd porn?

[FairfieldLife] Hot...in a kinda academic, Sunday School sort of way...

[shempmcgurk]

[FairfieldLife] For Paul Mason

[cardemaister]

The '.h' in at least ITRANS transliteration scheme is just
some kind of control character, or somesuch. Haven't bothered
to figger out, what its meaning is, but I wouldn't use
it for instance in 'jagad.hguru', because '.h' doesn't have
any phonetic value. A better transliteration IMO is 'jagadguru'.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Does anybody believe Speaker Pelosi?

[Ben]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG."  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon  wrote:
> >
> > Well do you?
> 
> Nancy Pelosi?  "I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability".
>

Billy could be in the dictionary under the word red neck.. right?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Does anybody believe Speaker Pelosi?

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon  wrote:
>
> Well do you?

Nancy Pelosi?  "I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability".

[FairfieldLife] Re: New to this group?

[Ben]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "Ben" 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , off_world_beings 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > >   > , "Ben" 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > So Ben, hows' ol' Blighty, and hows' the scrumpy these days?
> > >
> > > If you are Gen-ex, what music do you like from back in Britain?
> > >
> > > OffWorld - the insubordinate Scot.
> > >
> >
> > you're scottish!
> >
> > hoots mon and show me your tatties
> >
> > I left england in 2001, just after 9/11... I have no idea how blighty
> is.
> >
> > what music do I like from Britain? sadly nothing really current, much
> >
> > for popular music I guess, amy winehouse is ok and adele is "ok"
> >
> > I like dark ambient/industrial music of COIL, from the west country
> >
> > I also like the apocalyptic folk of Current 93
> >
> > I dont really listen to new music much... too much "old" music to
> catch up on
> >
> > I'm the kind that can listen to death metal one minute, marin marais
> (baroque), blind faith etc all in one breath most people say they
> have an eclectic taste... When I hear what they listen to, I tend to
> think they are telling lies.
> >
> > I'm really digging ambient/shoe gazing music of a kind recently...
> >
> > bands such as
> >
> > eluvium
> > god speed you black emperor!
> > marissa nadler
> > Jesu
> >
> > I guess the closest current brit band would be mogwai or maybe aphex
> twin... both of which I like... The cranes are cool too (also brit)>>
> 
> Great! I will check these out. I like any music of any genre as long as
> its good :-)
> 
> I think Britain always had a good set of eclectic music shows on radio
> and TV that were easily available to everyone (instead of surfing all
> sorts of channels to find different ones and in different parts of the
> country here in the States), and I think this gives people from there a
> wider range of influences.
> 
> I always wanted to go to Glastonbury, but the time I didn't get there, I
> was glad, because my friends spent 4 days in the rain and mud. I went to
> Stonehenge festival when it was still a real festival. Very strange
> unpoliceable environment.
> 
> I haven't kept up recently, so this stuff listed is older, so I am glad
> to get the chance to check out your suggestions. Probably my favorites
> are Massive Attack (from Bristol !), The Stranglers (originally
> "Guilford Stranglers"), Fela Kuti (from Nigeria, but studied music in
> Wales! ), as well as The Skids, Morcheeba, Prodigy, some Pink Floyd, and
> of course, The Clash, Bowie, The Smiths. But I haven't kept up with a
> lot of the more recent stuff. Elsewhere, I like Thievery Corporation,
> Citezen Cope, Lou Reed, Marley, Iggy Pop and whole bunch more.
> 
> OffWorld
> 
> >
> > Growing up where I grew up, I've seen hundreds maybe thousands of
> bands over the years... as I've been to glastonbury festival many
> times...and often seen live bands in Bristol...
> >
>
some good names...

Glastonbury used to be sunny EVERY year, except 1985. I remember fondly being 
in 2 foot of mud watching billy bragg...I dont actually remeber much of it, but 
the "feeling" of that experience is great. 

Before that, Glastonbury was sunny EVERY year. It was also less commercialI 
sound bad.. lol but it was... there was just more freedom..then the police came 
in, the crowd changed...rave music arrived... it was sad to see really. 
Glastonbury became just another large festival. Before it was just more relaxed 
and the crowd were more "down to earth" as opposed to being yuppies on 
vactaion, almost...as it is now.

I used to live in the new york city area too... lots of good music there 
you might like SWANS and MIchael Gira...or maybe not

 I never got to see Lou reed, but I saw antony and the johnsons once...and 
numerous other bands I loved the experimental nature of many of the bands 
there I saw a guy called devendra banhart, before he made it big... that 
was great... in fact so much good music there...

I kinda liked the pistols more when it came to punk... but of course thats 
short lived nihilistic music. I have not heard of fela kuti...

I could discuss music for hours lol

ever heard of throbbing gristle? a manchester band?

the lead singer now lives in NY city... I have seen him live a few times 
(genesis p oridge).. he was actually the last person to be banned from britain 
by order of the queen...Ironically he was talking to the Dalai Lama as he was 
infomred of this news

[FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj ...

[Ben]

> >>
> > well its a bit boring, if that is all it is...
> 
> Ben, like any other newsgroup, it's what you
> make of it.  If you want a discussion on something
> and nobody else has started it, start it yourself.
> As Vaj said, there used to be many long-winded
> discussions of spirituality and things that revolve
> around that.  I personally found most of those to
> be pretentious and boring, but that's just me.  I
> kind of enjoy the sparring because at least I know
> that whoever's on the other end of the computer
> at least has a pulse.  But welcome!  And start
> a thread on something and see who jumps in.
> 
> Sal
>
I'll just comment for now lol but thanks

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy

[Ben]

> >
> > Why aren't YOU over it? Hillary certainly is.
> 
> No kidding.  Hard to believe that almost
> a year after Hillary conceded the nomination,
> and over 6 months since Obama soundly
> whipped McCain's ass, this insanity still goes
> on, complete with ugly names for Obama's
> supporters and a mean-spirited set of attacks
> on the supporters as well as Obama himself
> that seems to veer at times precipitously close
> to a personal vendetta, ie an irrational
> hatred that is not receptive to any kind
> of logical discussion.
> 
> Obama has become the new Barry. :)
> 
> Sal
>
I think they are afraid of an actual articulate educated black man...

just my theory

[FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj ...

[Richard M]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  
wrote: >
[snip]
> The peer review process is not an indicator of good 
> science. It's  also not any sort of guarantee--so 
> you're basing your statement on  something false.

Finally - now here's a sentiment I can agree with Vaj!

There's definitely something fishy with this idea of peer- 
review. To me it smacks of priesthood, social control, vested 
interests, editorial monopoly and the politicization of Science. 

The process of peer review has itself come under review - 
empirical study - and has been found wanting. There is going to 
be a conference on it in July:

http://www.iiis2009.org/wmsci/Website/default.asp?vc=27

INVITATION TO A SYMPOSIUM ON PEER REVIEW
---

Only 8% members of the Scientific Research Society agreed that 
"peer review works well as it is." (Chubin and Hackett, 1990; 
p.192).

"A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the 
peer review system substantiate complaints about this 
fundamental aspect of scientific research." (Horrobin, 2001).

Horrobin concludes that peer review "is a non-validated charade 
whose processes generate results little better than does 
chance." (Horrobin, 2001). This has been statistically proven 
and reported by an increasing number of journal editors.

Since a growing number of studies conclude that peer review is 
flawed and ineffective as it is being implemented, why not 
apply scientific and engineering research and methods to the 
peer review process?

This is the purpose of the International Symposium on Peer 
Reviewing: ISPR (http://www.ICTconfer.org/ispr) being organized 
in the context of The 3rd International Conference on Knowledge 
Generation, Communication and Management: KGCM 2009 
(http://www.ICTconfer.org/kgcm), which will be held on July 10-
13, 2009, in Orlando, Florida, USA.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj ...

[Ben]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "Ben" 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > wow!
> > > >
> > > > you "guys" are... so bored with your life huh?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ben, I apologize for an inappropriate public display of
> long-standing squabbles with Vaj. Vaj is a TM critic who doesn't miss an
> opportunity to diminish TM and trot out obscure Buddhist texts to prove
> that TM is inferior to whatever flavor of the month he happens to
> stumble upon in his search for "truth." I really don't care what
> spiritual practice anyone wants to do. If you feel attracted to
> experience TM fine, if not, fine. I don't criticize Vaj for practicing
> "mindfullness" or whatever he wants, in fact he has never been clear
> exactly what he does practice, I suspect a hodgepodge of several things.
> Fine, whatever floats his boat.
> > >
> > > My objection to Vaj is that he poses as intellectual giant with
> superior knowledge and misrepresents TM. Vaj thinks he has all the
> answers but his answers result in and indecipherable jumble of
> confusion. It's kind of like putting a penny in a gumball machine and
> not getting the flavor you had hoped for. All the flavors are there, but
> they are not very well organized. After many attempts to get exactly the
> flavor you want, you end up with as much confusion of flavors strew
> about on the floor as was once in the gumball machine. Good luck sorting
> it all out.
> > >
> >
> > well if you feel the need to "prove" your practise is better than
> anothers.>>
> 
> This is where you start to learn something from Fairfiled Life. No-one
> in the real world is interested in personal opinion. In the 21st century
> we can only go by robust research published in peer-reviewed scientific
> journals over many decades in hundreds of independent journals and from
> hundreds of indepnedent sceintific institutions around the world - over
> several decades.
> If we do not go by this approach, the world COULD be doomed. Can you at
> least agree with this Ben?

depends on the subject

If I was to discuss the inner meaning of the holy grail
what good would years of peer reviewed texts do? none, because there isnt that 
kind of thing, as science deals with a specific thing...and only attempts to go 
beyond it. Books like "The Tao of Physics" at least attempt a marriage ,...but 
ultimatly of course fail

I am starting to think this group is largely made up of materialists...which is 
fine I guess, if that is your thing 

from wiki, just for clarification, nothing more:

The philosophy of materialism holds that the only thing that can be truly 
proven to exist is matter, and is considered a form of physicalism. 
Fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including 
consciousness) are the result of material interactions; therefore, matter is 
the only substance. As a theory, materialism belongs to the class of monist 
ontology. As such, it is different from ontological theories based on dualism 
or pluralism. For singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism 
would be in contrast to idealism and to spiritualism.


> 
> Now, Maharishi's Tm has hundreds of robust research published in
> peer-reviewed scientific journals over many decades in hundreds of
> independent journals and from hundreds of indepnedent scientific
> institutions around the world - over several decades.
> 
> We, on the side of TM, are defending SCIENCE, not religion or
> philosophy. THAT is the WHOLE point here.
> 
> Vaj has no proof for anything he says. Which do you prefer, myth or
> science?
> 
> OffWorld
>
I dont think science or myth are particularly all that great. Nor do I think 
religion or philosophy are.

As a Gnostic, I know:

If I were to say `I know God', I would be a liar. God is beyond comprehension. 
Better to be silent and live in humility. If I were to say, `I do not know 
God', I would also be a liar.

— Jean-Yves Leloup

A spoon helps you to eat soup
But it is the soup that is eaten not the spoon.

I can watch porno vids for decades
But I wont have had sex, until I have had sex.

or to quote some buddhism:

One day Mara, the Evil One, was travelling through the villages of India with 
his attendants. 

he saw a man doing walking meditation whose face was lit up on wonder. The man 
had just discovered something on the ground in front of him. 

Mara's attendant asked what that was and Mara replied, 

"A piece of truth." "Doesn't this bother you when someone finds a piece of 
truth, O Evil One?" 

his attendant asked. "No," Mara replied. "Right after this, they usually make a 
belief out of it." 

>From 108 Treasures for the Heart: A Guide for Daily Living by Benny Liow
.

science is great if you want to restrict yourselves to the scientific method. 
However you fall into the problem of the observer effecting the observed 

It all boils down to what 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj ...

[Richard M]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
[snip]

> Listen to what I'm sating: I'm pro-science. I'm a trained 
> scientist,  

Just curious - what's your scientific background?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj ...

[Ben]

> It was great until the uneducated, disgusting, anti-science egos like
> Vaj and Turq arrived.
> 
> OffWorld
>

science is great

but "seekers" go beyond science...

RE: [FairfieldLife] Subaru Prius in 2012?

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Bhairitu
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 1:33 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Subaru Prius in 2012?
 
Rick Archer wrote:
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

[mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 ]
> On Behalf Of Bhairitu
> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:45 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 

> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Subaru Prius in 2012?
> 
> I figure my fellow Subaru owners here will be interested in this:
> http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/05/subaru/
>
> I might get one but maybe in 2013 (give them a year to work out bugs).
> I hope they come out with something like a hybrid Outback, which could tow
> 1000 pounds.

There was a Smart Car pulling out of a parking spot the other day as I 
was walking up to the credit union and I noted it might be the same 
couple who were driving around here a few years back in a GEM car. I 
don't need to pull anything but I don't think Subaru has ever had 
anything that could pull something. Does your Outback do that? My 
nephew liked my Forester when I bought and wanted one but had to pull 
his daughter's horse trailer around so wound up with a big Ford SUV 
which he recently sold. Some friends had a Forester and a Honda SUV 
but had to sell the Forester which they liked better because they 
couldn't tow it behind their RV which they now live in and tour the 
country. I've driven their Honda and it wasn't a bad ride.
The Outback is rated to tow up to 2,000 lbs. We have a trailer hitch on ours
and tow a camping popup weighing 1,000 lbs with no problem.
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Subaru Prius in 2012?

[Bhairitu]

Rick Archer wrote:
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Bhairitu
> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:45 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Subaru Prius in 2012?
>  
> I figure my fellow Subaru owners here will be interested in this:
> http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/05/subaru/
>
> I might get one but maybe in 2013 (give them a year to work out bugs).
> I hope they come out with something like a hybrid Outback, which could tow
> 1000 pounds.

There was a Smart Car pulling out of a parking spot the other day as I 
was walking up to the credit union and I noted it might be the same 
couple who were driving around here a few years back in a GEM car.   I 
don't need to pull anything but I don't think Subaru has ever had 
anything that could pull something.  Does your Outback do that?  My 
nephew liked my Forester when I bought and wanted one but had to pull 
his daughter's horse trailer around so wound up with a big Ford SUV 
which he recently sold.   Some friends had a Forester and a Honda SUV 
but had to sell the Forester which they liked better because they 
couldn't tow it behind their RV which they now live in and tour the 
country.  I've driven their Honda and it wasn't a bad ride.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: New to this group?

[Bhairitu]

off_world_beings wrote:
> o
>
> I think Britain always had a good set of eclectic music shows on radio
> and TV that were easily available to everyone (instead of surfing all
> sorts of channels to find different ones and in different parts of the
> country here in the States), and I think this gives people from there a
> wider range of influences.

I usually like BBC and Channel 4 offerings when they make it across the 
pond.  Those are less driven to be "commercial" and appeal to the 
"lowest common denominator" like so much Hollywood trash.   We're 
entering an interesting era with the second Great Depression and I'm 
watching what broadcast and cable/satellite TV is doing in response.  
Maybe "ala carte" will get another hearing and become available.  I know 
Comcast is having to rethink things as many are even paring way down to 
Limited Basic.   And so much now can be seen on the Internet in 
reasonable quality.  But Hollywood is also feeling the pinch and budgets 
have been slashed around 50%.  It will be interesting to see what 
"stars" disappear from the scene as I hear the pinch means that "divas" 
will not be put up with any longer.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj ...

[Vaj]

On May 21, 2009, at 1:59 PM, off_world_beings wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
>
> On May 21, 2009, at 1:13 PM, off_world_beings wrote:
>
> > Vaj has no proof for anything he says. Which do you prefer,  
myth or

> > science?
>
>
> Hi Offworld:
>
> As you know, I'm a big fan of good quality meditation research,  
esp. >




Hi Offworld:

Vaj, what you need to prove what you are saying is even at least a  
larger fraction of the numbers of robust research published in peer- 
reviewed scientific journals and from hundreds of independent  
sceintific institutions around the world - over several decades -  
that Maharishi's TM has.




No, of course I don't need to prove that. Just because of a lot  
"research" was published is no indicator of quality. Even several  
years ago Mindfulness research was increasing at an exponential rate  
according to proponents of that type of meditation! I won't even  
pretend to know what the thousands of research projects are. Are  
certainly not all interest me.
The rest of your post is dishonest. You are anti-science when it  
does not suit your anti-TM agenda. Period.




Listen to what I'm sating: I'm pro-science. I'm a trained scientist,  
not an artist like yourself. But it does have to be good, unbiased,  
independent science using good controls, a strong null hypothesis and  
good methodology.
No-one respects people who CHOOSE to be anti-science, just because  
it contradicts their unscientific obsession. You and Jerry Falwell  
are exactly the same in this regard.




Actually, we're nothing alike. Sorry to disappoint you. Although I do  
exude a certain fatherly charm some people have told me. ;-)
If you believe in science, please state the following as a reply to  
this post (I know you will ignore it):


""What the world needs now is to take up anything that has robust  
research published in peer-reviewed scientific journals in hundreds  
of independent journals and from hundreds of independent scientific  
institutions around the world - over several decades - otherwise  
why do we even have science?""




The peer review process is not an indicator of good science. It's  
also not any sort of guarantee--so you're basing your statement on  
something false.


What is "robust research"? Why is "robust" research considered  
scientific or good science?

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Meals of King Tony Nader

[Robert]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason  wrote:
>
>  
>  
>   Sri Rick, Maharishi made a huge mistake.
> 
>   If you look at it from a narrow prespective, Earth is a kingdom and 
> Tony Nader is the King.
> 
>   If you look at it from a vast Cosmic prespective, the Earth is a tiny 
> Colony spinning in Space and Tony Nader is the Governor of this tiny Colony.
> 
>   There is no need for the Supreme Administrator of the Cosmos to be 
> physicaly present in the Colony.  Logic dictates that Tony Nader is the 
> Governor of the Earth Colony.
> 
> 
> --- On Fri, 5/15/09, Rick Archer  wrote:
> Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Meals of King Tony Nader
> Date: Friday, May 15, 2009, 3:21 PM
> 
>  
> 
> 
> On Behalf Of scienceofabundance
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 12:30 PM
> Peter  wrote:
> >
> > Bob, admittedly, I have not listened to or read too much of King Tony's 
> > book, but from what I did hear, I thought, "big deal". I honestly could not 
> > understand what all the fuss was about. Do they ever mention the 
> > genitals/reproducti ve system?
> 
> FWIW, when I talked with King Tony about it - he did not have the position he 
> has now in the TMO and given our friendship could be quite honest with me - 
> he wasn't at all enamored with the book. It will probably be taken as an 
> exaggeration here by some - so be it - but he was between "uncomfortable" and 
> "embarrassed" about it. As far as he was concerned, it was a "composite" work 
> and his role was overplayed by MMY which caused him significant discomfort. 
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, if that book caused him "significant discomfort," how in the world did 
> he adjust to getting his weight in gold, dressing up like a Vedic Lord 
> Fauntleroy, and having 25x his daily food intake wasted? (A crime against 
> humanity and nature, IMO.)._,___
>  
This is common behaviour in the Ashram...
I think Maharishi made a big fuss over Tony, in order to keep Bevan ego, from 
completely exploding...
Tony kind of balances out the Bev.
R.G.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj ...

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , Sal Sunshine 
wrote:
>
> On May 21, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Ben wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , Sal Sunshine 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On May 21, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Ben wrote:
> >>
> >>> wow is this group just moaners online anonymous?
> >>
> >> Yep!  :)
> >>
> >> You say that like it's a bad thing, Ben...
> >>
> >> Sal
> >>
> > well its a bit boring, if that is all it is...
>
> Ben, like any other newsgroup, it's what you
> make of it.  If you want a discussion on something
> and nobody else has started it, start it yourself.
> As Vaj said, there used to be many long-winded
> discussions of spirituality and things that revolve
> around that.  I personally found most of those to
> be pretentious and boring, but that's just me.  I
> kind of enjoy the sparring because at least I know
> that whoever's on the other end of the computer
> at least has a pulse.  But welcome!  And start
> a thread on something and see who jumps in.


That's the longest post Sal has ever made !

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj ...

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , Vaj  wrote:
>
>
> On May 21, 2009, at 1:13 PM, off_world_beings wrote:
>
> > Vaj has no proof for anything he says. Which do you prefer, myth or
> > science?
>
>
> Hi Offworld:
>
> As you know, I'm a big fan of good quality meditation research, esp. >

Vaj, what you need to prove what you are saying is even at least a
larger fraction of the numbers of robust research published in
peer-reviewed scientific journals and from hundreds of independent
sceintific institutions around the world - over several decades - that
Maharishi's TM has.

The rest of your post is dishonest. You are anti-science when it does
not suit your anti-TM agenda. Period.

No-one respects people who CHOOSE to be anti-science, just because it
contradicts their unscientific obsession. You and Jerry Falwell are
exactly the same in this regard.

If you believe in science, please state the following as a reply to this
post (I know you will ignore it):

""What the world needs now is to take up anything that has robust
research published in peer-reviewed scientific journals in hundreds of
independent journals and from hundreds of independent scientific
institutions around the world - over several decades - otherwise why do
we even have science?""

Please cut and paste this above and state it as your own if you belief
in science.

Others who believe in science on FFL should do the same to show that you
are not an anti-science fundamentalist like Vaj and Turq.

OffWorld

.

[FairfieldLife] 'An Old Prayer for Man & Woman'

[Robert]

First, the mens and womens should sit on seperate sides of the room.
Then say to them...
 
For the Men: Dear God, Thank you, deeply, for not making me a woman.
 
For the Women: 'Dearest God, Thank you, for allowing me to do Thy Will.
 
Then play this, while passing the basket...
 
 Dylan's Version:





YouTube - Bob Dylan - Just Like A Woman

 


5 min - Jul 10, 2007 - 













Just Like A Woman LIve 1966. ... Blonde on Blonde - 08 Just Like a Woman · 
Added . 4:53. Blonde on Blonde - 08 Just Like a Woman. 70156 views ...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueGuzmotwaI
 


  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
> >
> > On May 21, 2009, at 10:55 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It occurred to me last night as I was reading Raunchy's
> > > > post #219365 that the emotional component is not so
> > > > much a matter of Hillary having lost as of *how* she
> > > > lost, how incredibly unfairly and viciously she was
> > > > treated by Obama's supporters--in the lefty blogs, by
> > > > the Democratic Party, by the media, and of course by
> > > > the right wingers, not to mention some of the people
> > > > on FFL. And it wasn't just Hillary who was treated
> > > > this way, it was her supporters as well.
> > > >
> > > > That left deep emotional scars (speaking of Barry's
> > > > Cockburn quotes about "tending to cause damage").
> > > >
> > > > Obama himself wasn't the instigator of most of it,
> > > > but he did almost nothing to try to stop or mitigate
> > > > it and even encouraged it at times. That's awfully
> > > > hard to forgive.
> > >
> > > Not for sane people.
> > >
> > > It's OVER.
> > >
> > > Why aren't YOU over it? Hillary certainly is.
> > 
> > No kidding.  Hard to believe that almost
> > a year after Hillary conceded the nomination,
> > and over 6 months since Obama soundly
> > whipped McCain's ass, this insanity still goes
> > on, complete with ugly names for Obama's
> > supporters and a mean-spirited set of attacks
> > on the supporters as well as Obama himself
> > that seems to veer at times precipitously close
> > to a personal vendetta, ie an irrational
> > hatred that is not receptive to any kind
> > of logical discussion.
> > 
> > Obama has become the new Barry. :)
> 
> Now THAT had me LOL.  :-)
> 
> Doncha *feel* for him? FIFTEEN YEARS from
> now Obama, by then my age (63) and retired
> gracefully from two successful terms as 
> President, will come through New Jersey 
> on a speaking tour and Judy, by then 103
> (or at least looking it) will attend and
> scream out from the audience, "Liar! Don't
> you remember what you said in a speech
> back in 2008? [waving a printout] I have 
> a copy of it right here!"
> 
> Obama will laugh at her. But Judy, deciding
> that his laughter and compassionate silence
> at encountering Yet Another Crazy is sub-
> mission, will decide that she "won" the
> encounter. 
> 
> Then, having gotten a taste of "the thrill
> of victory," she'll start stalking him all
> over the world, appearing at every one of
> his speaking engagements, yelling out the
> same stuff. The Secret Service assigned to
> Obama in retirement will offer to have her 
> sent somewhere with padded walls, but being 
> the compassionate mensch he is, Obama will
> decline the offer. 
> 
> Finally, tired of hearing the same old shit
> shouted by the same old windbag, the Secret
> Service agents will take matters into their 
> own hands and cart her off to Bellevue 
> themselves.
> 
> Obama will never notice her absence, just
> as he never noticed her presence.
> 
> :-)


Good laughs, Barry. I don't think she realizes what a small world she lives in 
in her head.

[FairfieldLife] Re: New to this group?

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Ben" 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , off_world_beings 
wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

> >  > , "Ben" 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > So Ben, hows' ol' Blighty, and hows' the scrumpy these days?
> >
> > If you are Gen-ex, what music do you like from back in Britain?
> >
> > OffWorld - the insubordinate Scot.
> >
>
> you're scottish!
>
> hoots mon and show me your tatties
>
> I left england in 2001, just after 9/11... I have no idea how blighty
is.
>
> what music do I like from Britain? sadly nothing really current, much
>
> for popular music I guess, amy winehouse is ok and adele is "ok"
>
> I like dark ambient/industrial music of COIL, from the west country
>
> I also like the apocalyptic folk of Current 93
>
> I dont really listen to new music much... too much "old" music to
catch up on
>
> I'm the kind that can listen to death metal one minute, marin marais
(baroque), blind faith etc all in one breath most people say they
have an eclectic taste... When I hear what they listen to, I tend to
think they are telling lies.
>
> I'm really digging ambient/shoe gazing music of a kind recently...
>
> bands such as
>
> eluvium
> god speed you black emperor!
> marissa nadler
> Jesu
>
> I guess the closest current brit band would be mogwai or maybe aphex
twin... both of which I like... The cranes are cool too (also brit)>>

Great! I will check these out. I like any music of any genre as long as
its good :-)

I think Britain always had a good set of eclectic music shows on radio
and TV that were easily available to everyone (instead of surfing all
sorts of channels to find different ones and in different parts of the
country here in the States), and I think this gives people from there a
wider range of influences.

I always wanted to go to Glastonbury, but the time I didn't get there, I
was glad, because my friends spent 4 days in the rain and mud. I went to
Stonehenge festival when it was still a real festival. Very strange
unpoliceable environment.

I haven't kept up recently, so this stuff listed is older, so I am glad
to get the chance to check out your suggestions. Probably my favorites
are Massive Attack (from Bristol !), The Stranglers (originally
"Guilford Stranglers"), Fela Kuti (from Nigeria, but studied music in
Wales! ), as well as The Skids, Morcheeba, Prodigy, some Pink Floyd, and
of course, The Clash, Bowie, The Smiths. But I haven't kept up with a
lot of the more recent stuff. Elsewhere, I like Thievery Corporation,
Citezen Cope, Lou Reed, Marley, Iggy Pop and whole bunch more.

OffWorld

>
> Growing up where I grew up, I've seen hundreds maybe thousands of
bands over the years... as I've been to glastonbury festival many
times...and often seen live bands in Bristol...
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
>
> On May 21, 2009, at 10:55 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > It occurred to me last night as I was reading Raunchy's
> > > post #219365 that the emotional component is not so
> > > much a matter of Hillary having lost as of *how* she
> > > lost, how incredibly unfairly and viciously she was
> > > treated by Obama's supporters--in the lefty blogs, by
> > > the Democratic Party, by the media, and of course by
> > > the right wingers, not to mention some of the people
> > > on FFL. And it wasn't just Hillary who was treated
> > > this way, it was her supporters as well.
> > >
> > > That left deep emotional scars (speaking of Barry's
> > > Cockburn quotes about "tending to cause damage").
> > >
> > > Obama himself wasn't the instigator of most of it,
> > > but he did almost nothing to try to stop or mitigate
> > > it and even encouraged it at times. That's awfully
> > > hard to forgive.
> >
> > Not for sane people.
> >
> > It's OVER.
> >
> > Why aren't YOU over it? Hillary certainly is.
> 
> No kidding.  Hard to believe that almost
> a year after Hillary conceded the nomination,
> and over 6 months since Obama soundly
> whipped McCain's ass, this insanity still goes
> on, complete with ugly names for Obama's
> supporters and a mean-spirited set of attacks
> on the supporters as well as Obama himself
> that seems to veer at times precipitously close
> to a personal vendetta, ie an irrational
> hatred that is not receptive to any kind
> of logical discussion.
> 
> Obama has become the new Barry. :)

Now THAT had me LOL.  :-)

Doncha *feel* for him? FIFTEEN YEARS from
now Obama, by then my age (63) and retired
gracefully from two successful terms as 
President, will come through New Jersey 
on a speaking tour and Judy, by then 103
(or at least looking it) will attend and
scream out from the audience, "Liar! Don't
you remember what you said in a speech
back in 2008? [waving a printout] I have 
a copy of it right here!"

Obama will laugh at her. But Judy, deciding
that his laughter and compassionate silence
at encountering Yet Another Crazy is sub-
mission, will decide that she "won" the
encounter. 

Then, having gotten a taste of "the thrill
of victory," she'll start stalking him all
over the world, appearing at every one of
his speaking engagements, yelling out the
same stuff. The Secret Service assigned to
Obama in retirement will offer to have her 
sent somewhere with padded walls, but being 
the compassionate mensch he is, Obama will
decline the offer. 

Finally, tired of hearing the same old shit
shouted by the same old windbag, the Secret
Service agents will take matters into their 
own hands and cart her off to Bellevue 
themselves.

Obama will never notice her absence, just
as he never noticed her presence.

:-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj ...

[Sal Sunshine]

On May 21, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Ben wrote:

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine   
wrote:


On May 21, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Ben wrote:


wow is this group just moaners online anonymous?


Yep!  :)

You say that like it's a bad thing, Ben...

Sal


well its a bit boring, if that is all it is...


Ben, like any other newsgroup, it's what you
make of it.  If you want a discussion on something
and nobody else has started it, start it yourself.
As Vaj said, there used to be many long-winded
discussions of spirituality and things that revolve
around that.  I personally found most of those to
be pretentious and boring, but that's just me.  I
kind of enjoy the sparring because at least I know
that whoever's on the other end of the computer
at least has a pulse.  But welcome!  And start
a thread on something and see who jumps in.

Sal

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj ...

[Vaj]

On May 21, 2009, at 1:13 PM, off_world_beings wrote:

Vaj has no proof for anything he says. Which do you prefer, myth or  
science?



Hi Offworld:

As you know, I'm a big fan of good quality meditation research, esp.  
authentic scientific research into higher states of consciousness,  
samadhi, etc., neuroscience and meditation, cell biology and  
meditation, and so on. So you should stop making false statements  
about 'what I believe' as a way to mislead people. Just because other  
dishonest people do it, doesn't mean you should too. If they jumped  
off a bridge, would you?


I think we're very fortunate to have some world class scientists now  
investigating meditation. It gives us a much better idea of what's  
good research and what is or has been bad science, exaggerations or  
simply misleading. It remains important that scientists do not stoop  
to brand-name favoritism or science-as-a-marketing scam. The  
underlying motivation needs to be pure. That's why major reviews like  
the Univ. of Alberta study and the Cambridge Handbook of  
Consciousness (the current major textbook on the subject) are so  
helpful: they clue us in to where the cutting edge is headed and  
conversely where the weak points are.

RE: [FairfieldLife] Subaru Prius in 2012?

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Bhairitu
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:45 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Subaru Prius in 2012?
 
I figure my fellow Subaru owners here will be interested in this:
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/05/subaru/

I might get one but maybe in 2013 (give them a year to work out bugs).
I hope they come out with something like a hybrid Outback, which could tow
1000 pounds.
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy

[Sal Sunshine]

On May 21, 2009, at 10:55 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:

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


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:


I'm a hit and run reader and poster on FFL. I don't have
time to read all the posts in most threads, so I often
form impressions based on partial information. I was
talking with a friend last night who used to post
regularly but who these days only lurks. He said that it
was unfair to lump Judy and Raunchy together with regard
to their criticisms of Obama. He opined that Judy had
been much more fair and objective. So I'm sorry I did
that Judy. Maybe I'll end up apologizing to Raunchy too,
but I still get the impression that she couldn't bring
herself to say anything positive about Obama, due to her
emotional commitment to Hillary.


Thank you, Rick.

It occurred to me last night as I was reading Raunchy's
post #219365 that the emotional component is not so
much a matter of Hillary having lost as of *how* she
lost, how incredibly unfairly and viciously she was
treated by Obama's supporters--in the lefty blogs, by
the Democratic Party, by the media, and of course by
the right wingers, not to mention some of the people
on FFL. And it wasn't just Hillary who was treated
this way, it was her supporters as well.

That left deep emotional scars (speaking of Barry's
Cockburn quotes about "tending to cause damage").

Obama himself wasn't the instigator of most of it,
but he did almost nothing to try to stop or mitigate
it and even encouraged it at times. That's awfully
hard to forgive.


Not for sane people.

It's OVER.

Why aren't YOU over it? Hillary certainly is.


No kidding.  Hard to believe that almost
a year after Hillary conceded the nomination,
and over 6 months since Obama soundly
whipped McCain's ass, this insanity still goes
on, complete with ugly names for Obama's
supporters and a mean-spirited set of attacks
on the supporters as well as Obama himself
that seems to veer at times precipitously close
to a personal vendetta, ie an irrational
hatred that is not receptive to any kind
of logical discussion.

Obama has become the new Barry. :)

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj ...

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Ben" 
wrote:
>
>
> > > wow!
> > >
> > > you "guys" are... so bored with your life huh?
> > >
> >
> > Ben, I apologize for an inappropriate public display of
long-standing squabbles with Vaj. Vaj is a TM critic who doesn't miss an
opportunity to diminish TM and trot out obscure Buddhist texts to prove
that TM is inferior to whatever flavor of the month he happens to
stumble upon in his search for "truth." I really don't care what
spiritual practice anyone wants to do. If you feel attracted to
experience TM fine, if not, fine. I don't criticize Vaj for practicing
"mindfullness" or whatever he wants, in fact he has never been clear
exactly what he does practice, I suspect a hodgepodge of several things.
Fine, whatever floats his boat.
> >
> > My objection to Vaj is that he poses as intellectual giant with
superior knowledge and misrepresents TM. Vaj thinks he has all the
answers but his answers result in and indecipherable jumble of
confusion. It's kind of like putting a penny in a gumball machine and
not getting the flavor you had hoped for. All the flavors are there, but
they are not very well organized. After many attempts to get exactly the
flavor you want, you end up with as much confusion of flavors strew
about on the floor as was once in the gumball machine. Good luck sorting
it all out.
> >
>
> well if you feel the need to "prove" your practise is better than
anothers.>>

This is where you start to learn something from Fairfiled Life. No-one
in the real world is interested in personal opinion. In the 21st century
we can only go by robust research published in peer-reviewed scientific
journals over many decades in hundreds of independent journals and from
hundreds of indepnedent sceintific institutions around the world - over
several decades.
If we do not go by this approach, the world COULD be doomed. Can you at
least agree with this Ben?

Now, Maharishi's Tm has hundreds of robust research published in
peer-reviewed scientific journals over many decades in hundreds of
independent journals and from hundreds of indepnedent scientific
institutions around the world - over several decades.

We, on the side of TM, are defending SCIENCE, not religion or
philosophy. THAT is the WHOLE point here.

Vaj has no proof for anything he says. Which do you prefer, myth or
science?

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj ...

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > 
> > On May 21, 2009, at 10:09 AM, Sal Sunshine wrote:
> > 
> > > On May 21, 2009, at 8:19 AM, Vaj wrote:
> > >
> >  Vaj, I'm worried about you. Are you getting enough
> >  subtle laxity of the lower absorptions? Perhaps you
> >  need to cultivate swooning a bit more in your
> >  meditation?
> > >>>
> > >>> Perhaps you need to remove the stick from your ass.
> > >
> > > FWIW, I thought Richard was kidding.
> > 
> > Who knows with him. What he said didn't even make sense.
> 
> Of course he was kidding. Amusing that Vaj doesn't
> recognize that he was being parodied (speaking of
> having a stick up one's ass).
> 
> Richard was mocking Vaj because of Vaj's over-the-
> top characterization of Shukra's post as "digital
> terrorism."
> 
> But maybe, for Vaj, it wasn't over-the-top. Perhaps
> someone pointing out that Vaj makes stuff up really
> does terrify him.

BINGO !

"raunchydog"  wrote:
Ben, I apologize for an inappropriate public display of long-standing squabbles
with Vaj. Vaj is a TM critic who doesn't miss an opportunity to diminish TM and
trot out obscure Buddhist texts to prove that TM is inferior to whatever flavor
of the month he happens to stumble upon in his search for "truth." I really
don't care what spiritual practice anyone wants to do. If you feel attracted to
experience TM fine, if not, fine. I don't criticize Vaj for practicing
"mindfullness" or whatever he wants, in fact he has never been clear exactly
what he does practice, I suspect a hodgepodge of several things. Fine, whatever
floats his boat.


My objection to Vaj is that he poses as intellectual giant with superior
knowledge and misrepresents TM. Vaj thinks he has all the answers but his
answers result in and indecipherable jumble of confusion. It's kind of like
putting a penny in a gumball machine and not getting the flavor you had hoped
for. All the flavors are there, but they are not very well organized. After many
attempts to get exactly the flavor you want, you end up with as much confusion
of flavors strew about on the floor as was once in the gumball machine. Good
luck sorting it all out.


Bingo for these posts by FFL's two Queens

[FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj ...

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "raunchydog" 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Ben" 
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "raunchydog" 
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , ruthsimplicity 
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Ben" 
wrote:
> > > > > ?> I'm new here
> > > > > >
> > > > > > how is Vaj and naughty boy?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > He isn't a naughty boy.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, but he is. I've documented quite a few instances
> > > > of his "naughtiness" by now.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Poor Vaj. He routinely invites smack downs and mockery so that all
the TM critics will feel sorry for him. After he finishes whacking off
behind his mask of mental masturbation, twisting his intellect in knots
over his latest trope of Buddhist obscurities, I hope he has enough jism
left to enjoy today's pity fuck from Sal.
> > >
> >
> > wow!
> >
> > you "guys" are... so bored with your life huh?
> >
>
> Ben, I apologize for an inappropriate public display of long-standing
squabbles with Vaj. Vaj is a TM critic who doesn't miss an opportunity
to diminish TM and trot out obscure Buddhist texts to prove that TM is
inferior to whatever flavor of the month he happens to stumble upon in
his search for "truth." I really don't care what spiritual practice
anyone wants to do. If you feel attracted to experience TM fine, if not,
fine. I don't criticize Vaj for practicing "mindfullness" or whatever he
wants, in fact he has never been clear exactly what he does practice, I
suspect a hodgepodge of several things. Fine, whatever floats his boat.
>
> My objection to Vaj is that he poses as intellectual giant with
superior knowledge and misrepresents TM. Vaj thinks he has all the
answers but his answers result in and indecipherable jumble of
confusion. It's kind of like putting a penny in a gumball machine and
not getting the flavor you had hoped for. All the flavors are there, but
they are not very well organized. After many attempts to get exactly the
flavor you want, you end up with as much confusion of flavors strew
about on the floor as was once in the gumball machine. Good luck sorting
it all out.
>

Re-read this one above from Raunchy above Ben, this will explain to you
some of why people are the way they are here with Vaj. Vaj is a
psychotic posting nutcase with no education. Maybe we should feel sorry
for him, but he is not stupid. Just lacking any real knowledge, and only
pure hatred of everything TM.

OffWorld

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj ...

[Vaj]

On May 21, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Ben wrote:




wow!

you "guys" are... so bored with your life huh?



Ben, I apologize for an inappropriate public display of long- 
standing squabbles with Vaj. Vaj is a TM critic who doesn't miss  
an opportunity to diminish TM and trot out obscure Buddhist texts  
to prove that TM is inferior to whatever flavor of the month he  
happens to stumble upon in his search for "truth." I really don't  
care what spiritual practice anyone wants to do. If you feel  
attracted to experience TM fine, if not, fine. I don't criticize  
Vaj for practicing "mindfullness" or whatever he wants, in fact he  
has never been clear exactly what he does practice, I suspect a  
hodgepodge of several things. Fine, whatever floats his boat.


My objection to Vaj is that he poses as intellectual giant with  
superior knowledge and misrepresents TM. Vaj thinks he has all the  
answers but his answers result in and indecipherable jumble of  
confusion. It's kind of like putting a penny in a gumball machine  
and not getting the flavor you had hoped for. All the flavors are  
there, but they are not very well organized. After many attempts  
to get exactly the flavor you want, you end up with as much  
confusion of flavors strew about on the floor as was once in the  
gumball machine. Good luck sorting it all out.




well if you feel the need to "prove" your practise is better than  
anothers...


largely this is just the old "my penis is bigger than yours" argument

Now I see nothing wrong with "seeing fault" in something

but to constantly harp on about "how small your penis is" is a bit  
strange...


or to put it another way, if you truly feel everyone has a small  
penis compared to you and thus thye are inferior... why not just  
leave and go find someone with a big penis


Its hardly the actions of a "wise personage" to constantly mention  
tha they have a huge penis and everyone is inferior as their  
penises are smaller...


but again I'm new here



Don't believe everything you hear from Raunchy Dog, Ben. She's not  
exactly being honest. We've talked a lot about TM from the POV of  
Patanjali and other Hindu yogic schools and my direct experience in  
that tradition of practice. Occasionally some parallels come up  
between Buddhist  "transcendental" forms of meditation and meditation  
research that has parallels to TM. But many different POV's may be  
mentioned and yes, there are differences.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj ...

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , Vaj  wrote:
>
>
> On May 21, 2009, at 12:15 PM, Ben wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , Sal Sunshine
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >> On May 21, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Ben wrote:
> >>
> >>> wow is this group just moaners online anonymous?
> >>
> >> Yep!  :)
> >>
> >> You say that like it's a bad thing, Ben...
> >>
> >> Sal
> >>
> >  well its a bit boring, if that is all it is...
>
>
> Ben, this used to be a very fun and serious spiritual list.>>

It was great until the uneducated, disgusting, anti-science egos like
Vaj and Turq arrived.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: The end of the Eelam dream

[Jason]

 
http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20090506_10
 
Home › News & Events › MOD News ›
 
 


















 

 





 





 

 
portrait of a psycho as a con man
‘Portrait of a psychopath’: Intimate life of Prabhakaran exposed 
 
Following images may be shocking and even more embarrassing for the 
‘do-gooders’ of terror, saviors of the victim industry, defence ‘experts’, and 
politicians who continued to cuddle the tigers while unleashing abominable lies 
against their very own country.

Those who enjoyed making lucrative business, routine foreign tours while 
seeking years of asylum in the Western countries sanitizing a terrorist cause 
may be extremely disturbed by the unraveling dark corners of Prabhakaran's 
‘deeva’ life style.

Had the Army failed to bring the LTTE terrorists down to its knees, these 
images which revealed the duplicity of its terror leader Prabhakaran would 
never have come to the public domain. 

The pictures are damaging in a sense that they had exposed the true life of a 
man who had always pretended to have experienced innumerable hardships in their 
separatist cause. But the pictures tell a different story. Here a man who had 
deceived his people and turned thousands of young men and women to butchers and 
caused death and destruction on a massive scale while enjoying the company of 
his family. 

The people had to struggle to make ends meet while LTTE leaders enjoyed the 
unbelievable luxury of having a swim in high security zones set up in the Wanni 
East in the midst of fighting. Had they been aware of the lifestyle of their 
so-called 'liberator' who was nothing more than a glorified bandit, they would 
have banished him before the Army fought its way into the last LTTE stronghold 
- a thin ribbon of coastal land in the Mullaittivu District. 
The photographs of P'Karan, his wife Madivadini, children and some of his top 
'commander' bare evidence of the luxurious life they had led as thousands of 
forcibly recruited children were thrown into battle. While, the recovery of 
millions of USD worth militrya hardware bared the extent of the LTTE overseas 
procurement network, the photographs of a smiling psyco shed light on the life 
of the man and his chief followers. 
While, denying the tamil speaking people of the Northern and Eastern provinces 
even the basic facilities in the name of waging a liberation struggle, the gang 
of baby-faced killers and their families had lived a life of luxury. The funds 
raised by the overseas extremist Tamils for the acquisition of armaments, too 
have been definitely utilized by the LTTe leadership for their personal use. 
The 'uniformed' men serving Prabakara's family and he wearing a camouflaged 
uniform with a beret similar to the one warn by troops deployed under the UN 
command revealed the mentality of a demented Prabakaran who cleverly exploited 
the weakness of his people, the extremist overseas Tamils and an international 
community to his advantage. 
The bottom line is that the well-fed LTTE leader had never experienced the true 
horrors of war. Although LTTE propagandists had propagated the lie that every 
big battle was spearheaded by Prabakaran, the man seemed to have lived a cushy 
life. Had the LTTE terrorists had a half chance to destroy evidence of 
Prabakaran's duplicity as it rapidly retreated on the Wanni front before being 
surrounded by the Army on the Mullaittivu coast, a one-time hunting ground of 
the LTTE, Prabakaran would have done it. 
Had anyone felt that Prabakaran was their man to lead the Sri Lankan Tamils, 
this was irrefutable evidence that he was nothing more than a fraud. The 
People, especially the Tamil speaking people should be grateful to the armed 
forces for exposing Prabakaran thereby unceremoniously ending a life of 
deception. 
 
External Links >>
Tiger leader's photos on display (BBC Report)
Related News >>
The false liberators of Tamils exposed
LTTE leaders' luxury life exposed; a swimming pool located
Troops capture Prabakaran's main hideout: Terrorist to face inevitable defeat - 
Mullaittivu  
 
Reproduction of  news items are permitted when used without any alterations to 
contents and the source
 
  POST TO FACEBOOK |   PRINT | 

function openit(){
var which="feedback.asp"
whichit=window.open(which,"","width=500,height=400")
}
   


function openitmail(){
var which="mailtofrnd.asp"
whichit=window.open(which,"","width=650,height=500")
}
   
 FEEDBACK |    E MAIL 
 
 


  

[FairfieldLife] Subaru Prius in 2012?

[Bhairitu]

I figure my fellow Subaru owners here will be interested in this:
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/05/subaru/

I might get one but maybe in 2013 (give them a year to work out bugs).

[FairfieldLife] Re: Brack Obama diatribe against the previous administration (Gitmo).

[Ben]

> > > 
> > > P.S. He going to cut the deficit.after he triples it!
> > >
> > 
> > what your solution "billy"
> > 
> > would it have been better if that old guy and the stupid bimbo on the 
> > republican ticket won?
> 
> I think time will tell, especially when we're all driving lawnmowers! Obama 
> is a misguided fool!
>
You really hit every branch when you fell out the "stupid" tree

didnt you billy...

Is that your best response...?

Obama is a fool... therefore he's bad

uh..,... oh kay...
come back when you can reply with something more befitting to your age.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Brack Obama diatribe against the previous administration (Gitmo).

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ben"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG."  wrote:
> >
> > Don't you love self righteous Monday morning quarterbacks!  Ha, what a 
> > joke, "Why, *I* woulda done that, Ahhh, he turned left when he shoulda 
> > turned right...Ahhh I am clean as a whistle and always take the high moral 
> > ground!"
> > 
> > I can hardly wait till his term ends,to count his mistakes publicly! I 
> > think he enjoys cutting off the head of the previous administration to make 
> > himself seem bigger...the man's a joke, full of rhetoric and Ah, he doesn't 
> > like to "point fingers", do you believe this forked tongue devil?
> > 
> > P.S. He going to cut the deficit.after he triples it!
> >
> 
> what your solution "billy"
> 
> would it have been better if that old guy and the stupid bimbo on the 
> republican ticket won?

I think time will tell, especially when we're all driving lawnmowers! Obama is 
a misguided fool!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj ...

[Ben]

> 
> 
> Ben, this used to be a very fun and serious spiritual list. Then at  
> one point a large number of the negative posters from the usenet  
> group alt.meditation.transcendental came over. Since then it has gone  
> downhill.
>
well tis often the case with large unmoderated groups...

I dont think there are any good discussion groups left on yahoo

[FairfieldLife] Re: Brack Obama diatribe against the previous administration (Gitmo).

[Ben]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG."  wrote:
>
> Don't you love self righteous Monday morning quarterbacks!  Ha, what a joke, 
> "Why, *I* woulda done that, Ahhh, he turned left when he shoulda turned 
> right...Ahhh I am clean as a whistle and always take the high moral ground!"
> 
> I can hardly wait till his term ends,to count his mistakes publicly! I 
> think he enjoys cutting off the head of the previous administration to make 
> himself seem bigger...the man's a joke, full of rhetoric and Ah, he doesn't 
> like to "point fingers", do you believe this forked tongue devil?
> 
> P.S. He going to cut the deficit.after he triples it!
>

what your solution "billy"

would it have been better if that old guy and the stupid bimbo on the 
republican ticket won?

[FairfieldLife] Insurance covers TM

[Rick Archer]

Throughout the U.S. some large insurance companies such as Blue Cross Blue
Shield, Aetna, and Signa are starting to reimburse individuals up to 90% for
learning the Transcendental Meditation program under the guidance of a
qualified health provider.   This includes MD's, nurse practitioners,
physicians assistants, and clinical psychologists.  A detailed pilot program
has been created for the local areas. 
 
We expect that this is just the beginning of what could be a wonderful new
development in the health insurance industry.  It will be a way to teach TM
to many people who could not otherwise afford to learn.
 
There is also a new comprehensive training program structured in three-day
modules for health practitioners in the following fields:  medical doctors,
osteopathic physicians, chiropractic physicians, naturopathic physicians,
nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and other allied health
professionals who are committed to providing optimal care for their
patients. 
 
Please visit:
http://www.maaa-courses.org/news-letter/maaa-newsletter.html for more
information.
 
§ § §
 
New link for Maharishi Global Family Chat Archives:
 
http://212.178.154.22/gfc-archive.html
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Brack Obama diatribe against the previous administration (Gitmo).

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG."  wrote:
>
> Don't you love self righteous Monday morning quarterbacks!  Ha, what a joke, 
> "Why, *I* woulda done that, Ahhh, he turned left when he shoulda turned 
> right...Ahhh I am clean as a whistle and always take the high moral ground!"
> 
> I can hardly wait till his term ends,to count his mistakes publicly! I 
> think he enjoys cutting off the head of the previous administration to make 
> himself seem bigger...the man's a joke, full of rhetoric and Ah, he doesn't 
> like to "point fingers", do you believe this forked tongue devil?
> 
> P.S. He going to cut the deficit.after he triples it!

Obama thinks America is a great Country, that's why he's going to 'fix' it!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj ...

[Ben]

> > wow!
> > 
> > you "guys" are... so bored with your life huh?
> >
> 
> Ben, I apologize for an inappropriate public display of long-standing 
> squabbles with Vaj. Vaj is a TM critic who doesn't miss an opportunity to 
> diminish TM and trot out obscure Buddhist texts to prove that TM is inferior 
> to whatever flavor of the month he happens to stumble upon in his search for 
> "truth." I really don't care what spiritual practice anyone wants to do. If 
> you feel attracted to experience TM fine, if not, fine. I don't criticize Vaj 
> for practicing "mindfullness" or whatever he wants, in fact he has never been 
> clear exactly what he does practice, I suspect a hodgepodge of several 
> things. Fine, whatever floats his boat. 
> 
> My objection to Vaj is that he poses as intellectual giant with superior 
> knowledge and misrepresents TM. Vaj thinks he has all the answers but his 
> answers result in and indecipherable jumble of confusion. It's kind of like 
> putting a penny in a gumball machine and not getting the flavor you had hoped 
> for. All the flavors are there, but they are not very well organized. After 
> many attempts to get exactly the flavor you want, you end up with as much 
> confusion of flavors strew about on the floor as was once in the gumball 
> machine. Good luck sorting it all out.
>

well if you feel the need to "prove" your practise is better than anothers...

largely this is just the old "my penis is bigger than yours" argument

Now I see nothing wrong with "seeing fault" in something

but to constantly harp on about "how small your penis is" is a bit strange...

or to put it another way, if you truly feel everyone has a small penis compared 
to you and thus thye are inferior... why not just leave and go find someone 
with a big penis

Its hardly the actions of a "wise personage" to constantly mention tha they 
have a huge penis and everyone is inferior as their penises are smaller...

but again I'm new here

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj ...

[Vaj]

On May 21, 2009, at 12:15 PM, Ben wrote:

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  
 wrote:


On May 21, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Ben wrote:


wow is this group just moaners online anonymous?


Yep!  :)

You say that like it's a bad thing, Ben...

Sal


 well its a bit boring, if that is all it is...



Ben, this used to be a very fun and serious spiritual list. Then at  
one point a large number of the negative posters from the usenet  
group alt.meditation.transcendental came over. Since then it has gone  
downhill.

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of authfriend
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:44 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> I'm a hit and run reader and poster on FFL. I don't have
> time to read all the posts in most threads, so I often
> form impressions based on partial information. I was
> talking with a friend last night who used to post
> regularly but who these days only lurks. He said that it
> was unfair to lump Judy and Raunchy together with regard
> to their criticisms of Obama. He opined that Judy had
> been much more fair and objective. So I'm sorry I did
> that Judy. Maybe I'll end up apologizing to Raunchy too,
> but I still get the impression that she couldn't bring
> herself to say anything positive about Obama, due to her
> emotional commitment to Hillary.

Thank you, Rick.

It occurred to me last night as I was reading Raunchy's
post #219365 that the emotional component is not so
much a matter of Hillary having lost as of *how* she
lost, how incredibly unfairly and viciously she was
treated by Obama's supporters--in the lefty blogs, by
the Democratic Party, by the media, and of course by
the right wingers, not to mention some of the people
on FFL. And it wasn't just Hillary who was treated
this way, it was her supporters as well.
It does seem that Obama and Hillary have gotten over it. Maybe she's just
stifling resentment because she's a good sport and she wants to be Secretary
of State, but it looks like she and Obama have a close and cordial working
relationship. Everyone had their favorites during the campaign and here too
I don't claim to be objective, but it seems like all the candidates received
pretty harsh treatment by their opponents' followers. Sure, Olbermann and
others favored Obama over Hillary but Fox news trashed both of them in favor
of McCain and later McCain/Palin. So it goes.
 
Finally, I do think you owe her an apology for your
initial comment about the two of us--that we wouldn't
be criticizing Hillary, were she in the White House,
for doing what Obama's been doing. That was way, way
out of line, and it just reminds us of the kind of crap
we had to put up with during the primary campaign.
Can't apologize for that one 'cause I still see it that way. I don't know
about you, but if Hillary were in there, making some of the same decisions
Obama is making, Raunchy would be reacting very differently.
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy

[Vaj]

On May 21, 2009, at 12:01 PM, raunchydog wrote:

I haven't seen you make such references to men, only to women,  
several times, and I pointed it out to you each time.



You do realize that Rick's guru is a women who hugs people to help  
them embrace totality, right? I think he's an excellent  
representative of that embracing equanimity.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy

[Vaj]

On May 21, 2009, at 11:55 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:


Thank you, Rick.

It occurred to me last night as I was reading Raunchy's
post #219365 that the emotional component is not so
much a matter of Hillary having lost as of *how* she
lost, how incredibly unfairly and viciously she was
treated by Obama's supporters--in the lefty blogs, by
the Democratic Party, by the media, and of course by
the right wingers, not to mention some of the people
on FFL. And it wasn't just Hillary who was treated
this way, it was her supporters as well.

That left deep emotional scars (speaking of Barry's
Cockburn quotes about "tending to cause damage").

Obama himself wasn't the instigator of most of it,
but he did almost nothing to try to stop or mitigate
it and even encouraged it at times. That's awfully
hard to forgive.


Not for sane people.

It's OVER.

Why aren't YOU over it? Hillary certainly is.


I found this comment interesting:

Authfriend:

"Anyway, as I read Raunchy's post, I realized how angry
I still was. I've managed to repress that anger now
that Obama's in the White House so I can evaluate
what he's doing more objectively, but it doesn't take
much to bring it up again."

Why on earth would a successful meditator still have lingering  
destructive emotions months after the original stressor? Isn't part  
of the TM model that unstressing will help with this kind of thing?  
Was she even angrier before she started meditating? After 30 years?  
I'm sorry, that's odd to me. It's not working.


If it was me, I would need to seriously reevaluate my meditation  
method even if I was really, really attached to it. And clearly,  
she's really, really attached to it--to her detriment and to those  
around her who have to continuously deal with the still unresolved  
kleshas. I guess this level of obscuration in consciousness could  
explain why she has such a difficult time seeing things clearly,  
unless they are very linear or black and white. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj ...

[Ben]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
>
> On May 21, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Ben wrote:
> 
> > wow is this group just moaners online anonymous?
> 
> Yep!  :)
> 
> You say that like it's a bad thing, Ben...
> 
> Sal
>
 well its a bit boring, if that is all it is...

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Meals of King Tony Nader

[Jason]

 
 
  Sri Rick, Maharishi made a huge mistake.

  If you look at it from a narrow prespective, Earth is a kingdom and Tony 
Nader is the King.

  If you look at it from a vast Cosmic prespective, the Earth is a tiny 
Colony spinning in Space and Tony Nader is the Governor of this tiny Colony.

  There is no need for the Supreme Administrator of the Cosmos to be 
physicaly present in the Colony.  Logic dictates that Tony Nader is the 
Governor of the Earth Colony.


--- On Fri, 5/15/09, Rick Archer  wrote:
Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Meals of King Tony Nader
Date: Friday, May 15, 2009, 3:21 PM

 


On Behalf Of scienceofabundance
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 12:30 PM
Peter  wrote:
>
> Bob, admittedly, I have not listened to or read too much of King Tony's book, 
> but from what I did hear, I thought, "big deal". I honestly could not 
> understand what all the fuss was about. Do they ever mention the 
> genitals/reproducti ve system?

FWIW, when I talked with King Tony about it - he did not have the position he 
has now in the TMO and given our friendship could be quite honest with me - he 
wasn't at all enamored with the book. It will probably be taken as an 
exaggeration here by some - so be it - but he was between "uncomfortable" and 
"embarrassed" about it. As far as he was concerned, it was a "composite" work 
and his role was overplayed by MMY which caused him significant discomfort. 



Boy, if that book caused him "significant discomfort," how in the world did he 
adjust to getting his weight in gold, dressing up like a Vedic Lord Fauntleroy, 
and having 25x his daily food intake wasted? (A crime against humanity and 
nature, IMO.)._,___
 
 
 *















  

[FairfieldLife] Obama on torture and closing Gitmo

[do.rflex]

Excerpts from Obama's speech on national security: "the prison at Guantanamo 
has weakened American national security"


After 9/11, we knew that we had entered a new era – that enemies who did not 
abide by any law of war would present new challenges to our application of the 
law; that our government would need new tools to protect the American people, 
and that these tools would have to allow us to prevent attacks instead of 
simply prosecuting those who try to carry them out.

Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of 
hasty decisions. And I believe that those decisions were motivated by a sincere 
desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that – too often – 
our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all 
too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. 

Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often 
set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in 
this season of fear, too many of us – Democrats and Republicans; politicians, 
journalists and citizens – fell silent.

In other words, we went off course. 

And this is not my assessment alone. It was an assessment that was shared by 
the American people, who nominated candidates for President from both major 
parties who, despite our many differences, called for a new approach – one that 
rejected torture, and recognized the imperative of closing the prison at 
Guantanamo Bay. 


On torture: 

Now let me be clear: we are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We 
do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat. But we must do so 
with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and 
balances and accountability. 

For reasons that I will explain, the decisions that were made over the last 
eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that 
was neither effective nor sustainable – a framework that failed to rely on our 
legal traditions and time-tested institutions; that failed to use our values as 
a compass. And that is why I took several steps upon taking office to better 
protect the American people.

First, I banned the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques by the 
United States of America.

I know some have argued that brutal methods like water-boarding were necessary 
to keep us safe. 

I could not disagree more. 

As Commander-in-Chief, I see the intelligence, I bear responsibility for 
keeping this country safe, and I reject the assertion that these are the most 
effective means of interrogation. 

What's more, they undermine the rule of law. 

They alienate us in the world. 

They serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and increase the will of our 
enemies to fight us, while decreasing the will of others to work with America. 

They risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will 
surrender to them in battle, and more likely that Americans will be mistreated 
if they are captured. 

In short, they did not advance our war and counter-terrorism efforts – they 
undermined them, and that is why I ended them once and for all.


The arguments against these techniques did not originate from my 
Administration. As Senator McCain once said, torture "serves as a great 
propaganda tool for those who recruit people to fight against us." And even 
under President Bush, there was recognition among members of his Administration 
– including a Secretary of State, other senior officials, and many in the 
military and intelligence community – that those who argued for these tactics 
were on the wrong side of the debate, and the wrong side of history. 

We must leave these methods where they belong – in the past. They are not who 
we are. They are not America. 


On closing Guantanamo: 

There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is 
America's strongest currency in the world. Instead of building a durable 
framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held 
values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined 
the rule of law. 

Indeed, part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place 
was the misplaced notion that a prison there would be beyond the law – a 
proposition that the Supreme Court soundly rejected. 

Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter-terrorism, Guantanamo became 
a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the 
existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it 
ever detained.

So the record is clear: rather than keep us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has 
weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It 
sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy 
that operates in scores of countries. 

By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy

[Robert]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of raunchydog
> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:16 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
>  
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > I'm a hit and run reader and poster on FFL. I don't have time to read all
> > the posts in most threads, so I often form impressions based on partial
> > information. I was talking with a friend last night who used to post
> > regularly but who these days only lurks. He said that it was unfair to
> lump
> > Judy and Raunchy together with regard to their criticisms of Obama. He
> > opined that Judy had been much more fair and objective. So I'm sorry I did
> > that Judy. Maybe I'll end up apologizing to Raunchy too, but I still get
> the
> > impression that she couldn't bring herself to say anything positive about
> > Obama, due to her emotional commitment to Hillary.
> >
> 
> Well waddya know, Rick: Message #219365 I actually said something positive
> about Obama. I could bring myself to say something positive about you as
> well if you refrained from implying that women are incapable of rational
> thought because they are "emotional." This is sooo old school sexim, Rick.
> It's time to update your programming.
> I don't think I'm zeroing in on women. I can think of plenty of men,
> including myself on occasion, whose views of a person or issue are colored
> by emotions, preventing any semblance of objectivity.
>
OMG...what a crock of poo poo.
What is 'Objectivity'?
The 'Mind'...
The 'Rational Mind'?
Come on girls and boys...
All these years meditating, and you still are devoted to the 'Rational Mind'...

Don't you remember from the Intro Lectures, that we only use 5-10% of our 
mind(s)?

Well, that 5-10% refers to the 'Rational Mind'...

Now, there's a whole other world 'Out There'! Folks!
But yu hav to 'Feel'...
I know that's hard for all you 'Detatched' people...
But, you do have to feel, because if you 'Shut Down', then you can't feel or 
use your intuition, on anything, and therefore get caught up in the 'Bull 
Market'...

Now the 'Bull Market' was marketed by the 'Clinton People',
In the last election...

We decided, we had enough of the Clinton's for one lifetime...
So, we went against them, in a big way, to make way, for a 'New Way'..
We are experiencing this 'New Way', now...

And this wouldn't have been possible, if Hillary had won.

I am sorry the 'Girls got hurt'...
But, girls are made to withstand more hurt than men...

And from what I understand, their orgasms are more intense as well...
Because they have twice as many nerve endings on their clitoris'...
As men have on their penis'...
So, ther ya go ...
billy bob...
R.g.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of raunchydog
> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:16 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
>  
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > I'm a hit and run reader and poster on FFL. I don't have time to read all
> > the posts in most threads, so I often form impressions based on partial
> > information. I was talking with a friend last night who used to post
> > regularly but who these days only lurks. He said that it was unfair to
> lump
> > Judy and Raunchy together with regard to their criticisms of Obama. He
> > opined that Judy had been much more fair and objective. So I'm sorry I did
> > that Judy. Maybe I'll end up apologizing to Raunchy too, but I still get
> the
> > impression that she couldn't bring herself to say anything positive about
> > Obama, due to her emotional commitment to Hillary.
> >
> 
> Well waddya know, Rick: Message #219365 I actually said something positive
> about Obama. I could bring myself to say something positive about you as
> well if you refrained from implying that women are incapable of rational
> thought because they are "emotional." This is sooo old school sexim, Rick.
> It's time to update your programming.
> I don't think I'm zeroing in on women. I can think of plenty of men,
> including myself on occasion, whose views of a person or issue are colored
> by emotions, preventing any semblance of objectivity.
>

I haven't seen you make such references to men, only to women, several times, 
and I pointed it out to you each time. The only emotional hot button I have 
with respect to Hillary is the incredible sexist abuse she endured from the 
Lefty Bloggers like DKos and assholes like Chris Matthews, Kieth Olbermann, 
Huffington Post and Andrew Sullivan. Even Bill O'Reilly treated her with more 
respect than all of these jerks put together. The sexist attacks she endured 
were tolerated by her own party and were worse than any would be racist attacks 
on Obama from the KKK, which would never have seen the light of day in 
mainstream media. How she ever managed to suck it up, I'll never know. I'll own 
that sexism is an emotional hot button for me but it doesn't preclude my 
rational abilities to recognize it, speak out against it and defend Hillary or 
any woman against it. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > I'm a hit and run reader and poster on FFL. I don't have
> > time to read all the posts in most threads, so I often
> > form impressions based on partial information. I was
> > talking with a friend last night who used to post
> > regularly but who these days only lurks. He said that it
> > was unfair to lump Judy and Raunchy together with regard
> > to their criticisms of Obama. He opined that Judy had
> > been much more fair and objective. So I'm sorry I did
> > that Judy. Maybe I'll end up apologizing to Raunchy too,
> > but I still get the impression that she couldn't bring
> > herself to say anything positive about Obama, due to her
> > emotional commitment to Hillary.
> 
> Thank you, Rick.
> 
> It occurred to me last night as I was reading Raunchy's
> post #219365 that the emotional component is not so
> much a matter of Hillary having lost as of *how* she
> lost, how incredibly unfairly and viciously she was
> treated by Obama's supporters--in the lefty blogs, by
> the Democratic Party, by the media, and of course by
> the right wingers, not to mention some of the people
> on FFL. And it wasn't just Hillary who was treated
> this way, it was her supporters as well.
> 
> That left deep emotional scars (speaking of Barry's 
> Cockburn quotes about "tending to cause damage").
> 
> Obama himself wasn't the instigator of most of it,
> but he did almost nothing to try to stop or mitigate
> it and even encouraged it at times. That's awfully
> hard to forgive.

Not for sane people.

It's OVER.

Why aren't YOU over it? Hillary certainly is.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> I'm a hit and run reader and poster on FFL. I don't have
> time to read all the posts in most threads, so I often
> form impressions based on partial information. I was
> talking with a friend last night who used to post
> regularly but who these days only lurks. He said that it
> was unfair to lump Judy and Raunchy together with regard
> to their criticisms of Obama. He opined that Judy had
> been much more fair and objective. So I'm sorry I did
> that Judy. Maybe I'll end up apologizing to Raunchy too,
> but I still get the impression that she couldn't bring
> herself to say anything positive about Obama, due to her
> emotional commitment to Hillary.

Thank you, Rick.

It occurred to me last night as I was reading Raunchy's
post #219365 that the emotional component is not so
much a matter of Hillary having lost as of *how* she
lost, how incredibly unfairly and viciously she was
treated by Obama's supporters--in the lefty blogs, by
the Democratic Party, by the media, and of course by
the right wingers, not to mention some of the people
on FFL. And it wasn't just Hillary who was treated
this way, it was her supporters as well.

That left deep emotional scars (speaking of Barry's 
Cockburn quotes about "tending to cause damage").

Obama himself wasn't the instigator of most of it,
but he did almost nothing to try to stop or mitigate
it and even encouraged it at times. That's awfully
hard to forgive.

It's entirely possible she'd have lost anyway had the
attitudes toward her been different. It would still
have been painful for those who found her genuinely
inspiring and Obama considerably less so, but nowhere
near what it was in the context of what actually went
on. One's favorite candidate isn't necessarily going
to win even in the fairest of campaigns, and when they
lose, you move on.

But in this case, the unpleasantness of the campaign
and the injustices of the delegate count reminded
many of Hillary's supporters of Bush's win in 2000,
a terrible blot on our democratic history. Not so
easy to move on after something like that.

Anyway, as I read Raunchy's post, I realized how angry
I still was. I've managed to repress that anger now
that Obama's in the White House so I can evaluate
what he's doing more objectively, but it doesn't take
much to bring it up again.

Raunchy can speak for herself, but my sense is that
because Raunchy spent a lot of time and effort working
for Hillary's campaign, she's even angrier than I am,
and it makes her less willing to be objective about
Obama. But it's not so much her emotional commitment
to Hillary as her reaction to the viciousness of the
primary, especially the gross sexism it revealed among
those we thought were our political comrades, even if
we were supporting different candidates for the
nomination.

If Hillary hadn't been so thoroughly trashed during the
primary campaign, if she had been treated fairly, I
seriously doubt Raunchy would have any trouble saying
positive things about Obama even given her devotion to
Hillary.

As it is, her criticisms of him aren't particularly
unfair; she's by no means alone, even among lefties, in
her view of what he's been doing with regard to human
rights and the Constitution and the economy.

Finally, I do think you owe her an apology for your
initial comment about the two of us--that we wouldn't
be criticizing Hillary, were she in the White House,
for doing what Obama's been doing. That was way, way
out of line, and it just reminds us of the kind of crap
we had to put up with during the primary campaign.

You may have a point in your fallback position about
not saying positive things, but I'd suggest that on
this forum there's an awful lot of praise for Obama,
so criticism for the sake of a bit of balance shouldn't
be viewed as somehow traitorous or overly emotional.

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of raunchydog
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:16 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> I'm a hit and run reader and poster on FFL. I don't have time to read all
> the posts in most threads, so I often form impressions based on partial
> information. I was talking with a friend last night who used to post
> regularly but who these days only lurks. He said that it was unfair to
lump
> Judy and Raunchy together with regard to their criticisms of Obama. He
> opined that Judy had been much more fair and objective. So I'm sorry I did
> that Judy. Maybe I'll end up apologizing to Raunchy too, but I still get
the
> impression that she couldn't bring herself to say anything positive about
> Obama, due to her emotional commitment to Hillary.
>

Well waddya know, Rick: Message #219365 I actually said something positive
about Obama. I could bring myself to say something positive about you as
well if you refrained from implying that women are incapable of rational
thought because they are "emotional." This is sooo old school sexim, Rick.
It's time to update your programming.
I don't think I'm zeroing in on women. I can think of plenty of men,
including myself on occasion, whose views of a person or issue are colored
by emotions, preventing any semblance of objectivity.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj ...

[Richard M]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >
> > On May 21, 2009, at 8:56 AM, Richard M wrote:
> > 
> > > > Oh! Another poison the well fallacy. So impressive children. 
> > > > Now go over and play with Judy, don't get too close to 
> > > > Raunchy or Dawn dear.
> > > >
> > > > Digital terrorism. Gotta love it.
> > >
> > > "Digital terrorism"? "Terrorism"?
> > >
> > > Seems a bit intemperate...
> > >
> > > Vaj, I'm worried about you. Are you getting enough subtle laxity
> > > of the lower absorptions? Perhaps you need to cultivate swooning
> > > a bit more in your meditation?
> > 
> > Perhaps you need to remove the stick from your ass.
> 
> Sounds like a paraphrase of Matthew 7:5 --
> "First cast out the beam out of your own butt; and then 
> shall you shit well enough to cast out the stick out of 
> your brother's butt."
> 
> :-)
>

Would that be a sunbeam? 

[FairfieldLife] Brack Obama diatribe against the previous administration (Gitmo).

[BillyG.]

Don't you love self righteous Monday morning quarterbacks!  Ha, what a joke, 
"Why, *I* woulda done that, Ahhh, he turned left when he shoulda turned 
right...Ahhh I am clean as a whistle and always take the high moral ground!"

I can hardly wait till his term ends,to count his mistakes publicly! I 
think he enjoys cutting off the head of the previous administration to make 
himself seem bigger...the man's a joke, full of rhetoric and Ah, he doesn't 
like to "point fingers", do you believe this forked tongue devil?

P.S. He going to cut the deficit.after he triples it!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> I'm a hit and run reader and poster on FFL. I don't have time to read all
> the posts in most threads, so I often form impressions based on partial
> information. I was talking with a friend last night who used to post
> regularly but who these days only lurks. He said that it was unfair to lump
> Judy and Raunchy together with regard to their criticisms of Obama. He
> opined that Judy had been much more fair and objective. So I'm sorry I did
> that Judy. Maybe I'll end up apologizing to Raunchy too, but I still get the
> impression that she couldn't bring herself to say anything positive about
> Obama, due to her emotional commitment to Hillary.
>

Well waddya know, Rick: Message #219365 I actually said something positive 
about Obama. I could bring myself to say something positive about you as well 
if you refrained from implying that women are incapable of rational thought 
because they are "emotional." This is sooo old school sexim, Rick. It's time to 
update your programming.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj ...

[Sal Sunshine]

On May 21, 2009, at 9:20 AM, Richard M wrote:

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine   
wrote:

>
> On May 21, 2009, at 8:19 AM, Vaj wrote:
>
> >>> Vaj, I'm worried about you. Are you getting enough subtle laxity
> >>> of the lower absorptions? Perhaps you need to cultivate swooning
> >>> a bit more in your meditation?
> >>
> >>
> >> Perhaps you need to remove the stick from your ass.
>
> FWIW, I thought Richard was kidding.
>
> Sal
>
Yeah, and now I'm gonna sue his ass off. I've just done my back in  
following his advice:




You really shouldn't bend over backwards just to
accommodate people, Richard.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj ...

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> On May 21, 2009, at 8:56 AM, Richard M wrote:
> 
> > > Oh! Another poison the well fallacy. So impressive children. 
> > > Now go over and play with Judy, don't get too close to 
> > > Raunchy or Dawn dear.
> > >
> > > Digital terrorism. Gotta love it.
> >
> > "Digital terrorism"? "Terrorism"?
> >
> > Seems a bit intemperate...
> >
> > Vaj, I'm worried about you. Are you getting enough subtle laxity
> > of the lower absorptions? Perhaps you need to cultivate swooning
> > a bit more in your meditation?
> 
> Perhaps you need to remove the stick from your ass.

Sounds like a paraphrase of Matthew 7:5 --
"First cast out the beam out of your own butt; and then 
shall you shit well enough to cast out the stick out of 
your brother's butt."

:-)