[FairfieldLife] Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[raunchydog]

Finally, Secretary Clinton will be interviewed on a Sunday TV show. This 
Sunday, June 7, she'll appear on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. It'll be 
her first Sunday show interview as secretary of state and her first Sunday show 
since she ended her presidential campaign almost exactly a year ago.

http://hillary.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/05/secretary_clinton_on_sunday_tv_finally

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Carradine's Jyotish Chart

[gullible fool]

"Saturn and Rahu are malefic planets and are located in the 8th house of secret 
affairs and death."

Aren't all the planets malefic, except for Jupiter, which can be either?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> >
> > To All:
> > 
> > Thanks Vaj for the information.  Using the birth time provided, Mr. 
> > Carradine was born under the sign of Aquarius or Kumbha, and the Moon was 
> > in the nakshatra of Chitra.
> > 
> > At this birth sign, we can see the reason why he had trouble maintaining 
> > his marriage.  Mars is in the 8th house which causes an affliction termed 
> > as kujadosha.  This affliction causes conflicts in marriage and divorces.
> > 
> > The same Mars is considered as an apsara karaka signifying that he has 
> > penchant for beautiful women, resulting in secret affairs and dalliances.
> > 
> > The nature of his death is not readily apparent from the rashi chart.  
> > However, the circumstances of his death are shown more clearly from the 
> > navamsha chart.  From that chart, Saturn and Rahu are in conjunction in the 
> > 8th house from the Moon.  Saturn and Rahu are malefic planets and are 
> > located in the 8th house of secret affairs and death.
> > 
> > Saturn is further debilitated showing that his body has already weakened 
> > due to his age.  This planet is the karaka (significator) for air or lack 
> > of it.  When mixed with the influence of Rahu, the results are lethal.
> > 
> > Rahu is represented in Hindu myth as a bodyless demon who pretended to be a 
> > demigod.  In the navamsha chart, Rahu is the lord of the 11th house of 
> > desire which is enducing Saturn to indulge in strange sexual gratifications.
> > 
> > With the influence of Rahu's sexual preferences, he indulged in getting 
> > autoerotic pleasures through asphyxiation.
> > 
> > JR
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > >
> > > I already posted it in the files section, but I accidentally used the  
> > > Yukteshwar ayanamsha. That's the birth data built into Goravani for  
> > > Grasshopper.
> > > 
> > > On Jun 6, 2009, at 12:47 PM, Bhairitu wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Did you look here?
> > > > http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Main_Page
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Carradine's Jyotish Chart

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> To All:
> 
> Thanks Vaj for the information.  Using the birth time provided, Mr. Carradine 
> was born under the sign of Aquarius or Kumbha, and the Moon was in the 
> nakshatra of Chitra.
> 
> At this birth sign, we can see the reason why he had trouble maintaining his 
> marriage.  Mars is in the 8th house which causes an affliction termed as 
> kujadosha.  This affliction causes conflicts in marriage and divorces.
> 
> The same Mars is considered as an apsara karaka signifying that he has 
> penchant for beautiful women, resulting in secret affairs and dalliances.
> 
> The nature of his death is not readily apparent from the rashi chart.  
> However, the circumstances of his death are shown more clearly from the 
> navamsha chart.  From that chart, Saturn and Rahu are in conjunction in the 
> 8th house from the Moon.  Saturn and Rahu are malefic planets and are located 
> in the 8th house of secret affairs and death.
> 
> Saturn is further debilitated showing that his body has already weakened due 
> to his age.  This planet is the karaka (significator) for air or lack of it.  
> When mixed with the influence of Rahu, the results are lethal.
> 
> Rahu is represented in Hindu myth as a bodyless demon who pretended to be a 
> demigod.  In the navamsha chart, Rahu is the lord of the 11th house of desire 
> which is enducing Saturn to indulge in strange sexual gratifications.
> 
> With the influence of Rahu's sexual preferences, he indulged in getting 
> autoerotic pleasures through asphyxiation.
> 
> JR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >
> > I already posted it in the files section, but I accidentally used the  
> > Yukteshwar ayanamsha. That's the birth data built into Goravani for  
> > Grasshopper.
> > 
> > On Jun 6, 2009, at 12:47 PM, Bhairitu wrote:
> > 
> > > Did you look here?
> > > http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Main_Page
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Carradine's Jyotish Chart

[John]

To All:

Thanks Vaj for the information.  Using the birth time provided, Mr. Carradine 
was born under the sign of Aquarius or Kumbha, and the Moon was in the 
nakshatra of Chitra.

At this birth sign, we can see the reason why he had trouble maintaining his 
marriage.  Mars is in the 8th house which causes an affliction termed as 
kujadosha.  This affliction causes conflicts in marriage and divorces.

The same Mars is considered as an apsara karaka signifying that he has penchant 
for beautiful women, resulting in secret affairs and dalliances.

The nature of his death is not readily apparent from the rashi chart.  However, 
the circumstances of his death are shown more clearly from the navamsha chart.  
From that chart, Saturn and Rahu are in conjunction in the 8th house from the 
Moon.  Saturn and Rahu are malefic planets and are located in the 8th house of 
secret affairs and death.

Saturn is further debilitated showing that his body has already weakened due to 
his age.  This planet is the karaka (significator) for air or lack of it.  When 
mixed with the influence of Rahu, the results are lethal.

Rahu is represented in Hindu myth as a headless demon who pretended to be a 
demigod.  In the navamsha chart, Rahu is the lord of the 11th house of desire 
which is enducing Saturn to indulge in strange sexual gratifications.

With the influence of Rahu's sexual preferences, he indulged in getting 
autoerotic pleasures through asphyxiation.

JR



























--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> I already posted it in the files section, but I accidentally used the  
> Yukteshwar ayanamsha. That's the birth data built into Goravani for  
> Grasshopper.
> 
> On Jun 6, 2009, at 12:47 PM, Bhairitu wrote:
> 
> > Did you look here?
> > http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Main_Page
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry, nothing here for you anymore. Be gone

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "It's just a ride" 
 wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:40 PM, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> 
> >
> > From my side, to be honest, I've been trying
> > to provoke a little interest lately, in lieu
> > of bailing from FFL altogether.
> >
> 
> 
> > So, if you'd like, consider my "high numbers"
> > a "last gasp," an attempt to see if there is
> > any life left in the Olde FFL, from my obviously
> > jaded perspective. If so, I'll stick around. If
> > not, I'll bail.
> >
> 
> Don't you realize that people have left because they have had enough of our
> resident Lord of the Flies?  The one who lords over all, thinks "pushing
> buttons" is a noble thing instead of an ill mannered, nasty thing to do and
> is in violation of the guidelines and rules of FFL?
> 
> Try reading the guidelines and rules.  Its as though they were written just
> for you.  Why Rick hasn't thrown you out in light of his guidelines and
> rules is beyond me and I'm sure many other FFL people.  Thankfully for you
> Rick is the owner/moderator in name only.
> 
> People would stop lurking and become contributors to FFL if you left.  But
> they will lurk until assured they won't be playing into your game of
> superiority and bullying, trying to compensate for the obvious, that you
> have no other place to go.  Many go away for a few months, come back to
> check if you're still here then go away again, hoping to wait you out.
> 
> I would appeal to your sense of shame in urging your to leave FFL, but shame
> is something your type of person lacks.



Interesting observation. 
The same could be said about the "Vaj". Several lurkers stay away from FFL 
because of these two characters. 

But will your suggestion happen ? Probably not since the Turqs and Vaj's 
attachments to lifelong self-lies and hatred towards Maharishi are too strong.

[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)

[azgrey]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
> wrote:
> >
> > Dang, the Edgster telling it like it is.  I have hi-lighted
> > some of the parts I most enjoyed,   and which I felt were
> > most right on.
> 
> And another skeptopath to add to the list.


Thank you Sister Aloysius.


> 
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> > >
> > > Why should I waste my time doing research into crop circles?
> > >
> > > All I need to do is read one article by a person who has done this,
> > and the below is a typical "balanced" view about crop circles. The
> > writer has done some homework, saved me the effort, and the conclusion
> > is that "man made" is overwhelmingly the "best guess" to support.
> > >
> > > Judy, do you agree with the below article? If so, we have no basis for
> > our having a debate.
> > >
> > > Right now though, I put you in the same category as the guy who said
> > to me about professional wrestling "Some of it's fake, but some's real."
> > Good line.  Great analogy
> > >
> > > To me, you're wanting something, anything will do, to point at that
> > suggests woo-woo is operative in the world. You're a witch doctor trying
> > to find a "special bone" "special bone, I love that to shake at a
> > patient when you say, "I'm the exception to the rule, my bones work and
> > ooogaboooga is a real power that can those in the know can wield."
> > >
> > > Stop clinging to your need for wooism to be justifiable.
> > >
> > > No one's levitating, 2012 will be like Y2K, Tony's a fraud, Maharishi
> > dumped Guru Dev and sold out to money, crop circles are man made,
> > psychic surgeons palm chicken parts, Sai Baba is a pedophile, Barry
> > isn't all bad, you are not always right, and you are comfortable calling
> > names as much as Vaj. What part of this paragraph don't you agree with?
> > Edg in top form.  Bam, bam.  No malice here.  Just calling people out on
> > their crap.  It's got to be done.
> > >
> > > Your intellectual heft is often put to a low use -- you've spend 15
> > years beating a dead horse you call "loser." It's sick to beat a dead
> > horse, and you know it. Everyone here knows it.  It is true.  Raunchy,
> > are we wrong here.? I don't think so.  It's easy to get into a rut.  I
> > think we have to call it like it is.
> > 
> > I don't think there was one wasted word in this post.
> > >
> > > Edg
> > >
> > > http://www.unmuseum.org/cropcir.htm
> > > The article:
> > >
> > > For over twenty years the southern English countryside has been the
> > site of a strange phenomenon that has baffled observers and spawned
> > countless news stories and not a few books. In the middle of the night,
> > flattened circular depressions have appeared in fields of wheat, rye and
> > other cereal crops. They range in diameter from ten feet to almost a
> > hundred feet wide and vary from simple circles to complex spirals with
> > rings and spurs. All have sharply defined edges.
> > >
> > > The most striking feature of the circles is the frequency with which
> > they occur. In 1990 over 700 crop-circles appeared in Britain.
> > >
> > > People who attempt to study these circles have coined a name for
> > themselves: cereologists. The word comes from the name of the Roman
> > goddess of vegetation, Ceres. There are two favorite theories held by
> > cereologists that think crop circles are the result of some not well
> > understood physical phenomena. The first is that the depressions are the
> > result of an unusual weather effect. George Tenence Meaden, a former
> > professor of physics, calls this a "plasma vortex phenomenon" which he
> > defines as "a spinning mass of air which has accumulated a significant
> > fraction of electrically charged matter." According to Meaden the effect
> > is similar to that of ball lightning, but larger and longer lasting.
> > >
> > > The second theory is that somehow crop-circles are created by UFOs.
> > Proponents of this theory note that occasionally crop circles seem to
> > appear in conjunction with a UFO sighting.
> > >
> > > Some of the early, simple crop circles certainly do suggest fields
> > that might have been flattened by the weight of a grounded flying
> > saucer. As the circles have become more complex in shape, though,
> > proponents of the UFO theory have had to modify their ideas suggesting
> > that the marks left are due to a strange effect of the craft's drive
> > force on the plants. Others even argue that the shapes are messages
> > purposefully left by the saucer's crew.
> > >
> > > The most likely explanation for almost all of the crop circles is that
> > they are hoaxes. Even the most ardent fans of either the weather or UFO
> > theories admit that a significant fraction of the circles are man-made.
> > One cereologist, a believer in the weather theory, Jenny Randles, wrote:
> > "I would put the hoaxes to comprise something over 50 percent of the
> > total.

[FairfieldLife] Special full Moon Messages from the Pleiadians (Jupiter, Neptune, Chiron)

[Rick Archer]

 
 
From: ls...@aol.com [mailto:ls...@aol.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 10:35 PM
To: ls...@aol.com
Subject: Special full Moon Messages from the Pleiadian's (Jupiter, Neptune, 
Chiron)
 

Dear clients and spiritual family of Astrological Varieties,
 
It is a pleasure to bring to you full Moon messages from the Pleiadian’s on 
this full Moon in Sagittarius night. This is a taste of what will be the format 
in my new e-book “Full Moon Messages from the Pleiadian’s” coming out on 
September 12, 2009.
 
It has been over 30 years that my spiritual work has taken place. Some of it so 
joyful and some of it so painful. 
 
The Pleiadian’s have wanted me to focus on the Neptune, Jupiter and Chiron 
conjunction happening at the same time on this full Moon. They are working with 
other human appearing beings at the start of this planetary conjunction to 
prepare for a more physical manifestation.
 
And so, I take a walk down to the ocean and watch the rays of the Moon dance 
like fire flies on the ocean surface. As I return home I put a beautiful 
picture of Mother Meera on my desk, light some Nag Champa and put on some ocean 
wave sounds and the following questions start:
 
There are three of them: One in front of me very clearly in my minds eye and 
one on each side of me but not clear.
 
Pleiadian’s: Good evening Lou.
 
Lou: Hello again. I know that you have been hinting to me that this full Moon 
starts a new vibration cycle in the cosmos. Could you elaborate on this?
 
Pleiadian’s: Yes. The conjunction between Neptune and Jupiter happens every 13 
years. Over the last 13 year cycle we have been working on new ways to 
implement higher technologies and laying down a foundation for the Aquarian 
Age. This started in 1996.
 
Lou: What happened to the mass landing plans that UFO authors talked about like 
Sister Tuella’s book “Project: World Evacuation” and Sheldon Nidle/Virgina 
Essene in regards to the Photon Belt?
 
Pleiadian’s: The male energy took over during those points of time in both big 
government and Religion so it did not allow certain light wave patterns to make 
the connections necessary for our higher technologies to work. YOU CANNOT MOVE 
IN AND OUT OF TIME OR VIBRATIONS WHEN THE GODDESS ENERGY IS LOW.
 
We in the Pleiadian culture (Lou knows this because he is from our Culture) 
devote much time to Goddess energy in the sense that it is soft, compassionate, 
without competition, open to change and flexibility and caring for children and 
animals.
 
The earth is moving through a photon belt or a donut shaped energy field that 
surrounds planet earth but because the male energy is still high and not 
balanced with the female energies and the great I AM presence we had to not 
only slow the process down considerably but the project came to a holding point 
over the last six years. 
 
It is during this Jupiter, Neptune, Chiron conjunction in the sign of Aquarius 
that we are able to start the movement again. The electromagnetic fields will 
now increase slowly and gain speed over the next 36 months or three years of 
your time.
 
It will allow more sightings than normal over the next few years and it has 
been the Uranus/Neptune mutual reception that started in 2004 which most UFO 
audiences where thinking the manifestation of a world wide event would happen. 
 
The reason why this has not happened is because of two things. The male energy 
is still overactive and the dissolving energy of Neptune in Aquarius and the 
Uranus’s energy in Pisces was more about races working together to PREPARE not 
to actually manifest a world wide event.
 
Lou: Then when is the manifestation?
 
The Pleiadian’s: When Uranus moves into Aries in March of 2011 we will start to 
show ourselves much more to prepare for the beginning of “ THE PREPERATION 
PHASE” to fully start when Neptune moves into it’s own sign of Pisces in 
February of 2012. 
 
However, humanity will see significant movement towards a global stress level 
from this full Moon till Uranus moves into Aries in March of 2011. Aries is the 
sign of taking physical action so there will be the last sweeping up of 
negative energies that are in the way from this full Moon June 7, 2009 to March 
of 2011. 
 
Then when the last cleaning is done through many different scenarios Neptune 
moving into Pisces in February of 2012 will start a global awareness of space 
cultural activities that culminates towards the end of 2012. Leaders of all 
Governments, Religions and the scientific community will be amazed and shocked 
to find out the second coming (Pisces into Aquarius) will be much different 
than ever imagined.
 
Lou: Will all soul-twins be united during this period?
 
The Pleiadian’s: Yes. It is the great I AM presence wish that all soul-twins 
will join and be prepared to lead by February 2012. You are feeling this happen 
around you now Lou. Things are starting to move in that direction for you now.
 
And know that your soul-twin that you gave so freely of in 

[FairfieldLife] The "Star" Sign

[nablusoss1008]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuuMOvy1KNE

[FairfieldLife] Vedic City on Travel Channel

[bob_brigante]

The show "Extreme Towns" features a seven-minute clip (~mins 45-52) on Vedic 
City:

In America's heartland, Maharishi Vedic City is an entire town designed to make 
life stress free. This new community harnesses ancient Indian spirituality in 
all areas of life; the restaurants, schools, homes and businesses are all aimed 
at increasing your inner peace. Named for the famed yogi Maharishi, Vedic City 
is the fastest-growing city in all of Iowa. Since its founding in 2001, the 
population had grown 10 times its original size with 1,200 residents now 
calling it home. Each of these individuals must practice Vedic Natural Law, an 
ancient Indian science focusing on transcendental meditation -- a mental 
clearing and physical peace practiced for 15 to 20 minutes twice a day. Other 
laws enforced in this spiritual haven insist that all food served must be 
organic and all buildings must be constructed facing east. 
http://snipurl.com/jlwd2  [www_travelchannel_com] 

schedule: http://m.travelchannel.com/s/2448/FullTVSchedule?

[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)

[lurkernomore20002000]

I suppose there is a chance that Judy is right in her views, and everyone else 
is wrong.  I suppose this may be the case.  But on the other hand, on the 
surface, and for many layers down, I think Edg is dialed in to the reality of 
the situaton.  And it's not mean spirited expose.  Just a sober looking at 
things as they are. Not sure why Judy cannot give any ground on some things.  I 
think it reinforces all that her harshest critics say about her.  Excuse me for 
referring to Judy in the third person, or whatever person it is, but I do not 
care to get into a one on one with her.  Nope.  Not interested.  Call me a 
coward if you wish.


 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
> wrote:
> >
> > Dang, the Edgster telling it like it is.  I have hi-lighted
> > some of the parts I most enjoyed,   and which I felt were
> > most right on.
> 
> And another skeptopath to add to the list.
> 
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> > >
> > > Why should I waste my time doing research into crop circles?
> > >
> > > All I need to do is read one article by a person who has done this,
> > and the below is a typical "balanced" view about crop circles. The
> > writer has done some homework, saved me the effort, and the conclusion
> > is that "man made" is overwhelmingly the "best guess" to support.
> > >
> > > Judy, do you agree with the below article? If so, we have no basis for
> > our having a debate.
> > >
> > > Right now though, I put you in the same category as the guy who said
> > to me about professional wrestling "Some of it's fake, but some's real."
> > Good line.  Great analogy
> > >
> > > To me, you're wanting something, anything will do, to point at that
> > suggests woo-woo is operative in the world. You're a witch doctor trying
> > to find a "special bone" "special bone, I love that to shake at a
> > patient when you say, "I'm the exception to the rule, my bones work and
> > ooogaboooga is a real power that can those in the know can wield."
> > >
> > > Stop clinging to your need for wooism to be justifiable.
> > >
> > > No one's levitating, 2012 will be like Y2K, Tony's a fraud, Maharishi
> > dumped Guru Dev and sold out to money, crop circles are man made,
> > psychic surgeons palm chicken parts, Sai Baba is a pedophile, Barry
> > isn't all bad, you are not always right, and you are comfortable calling
> > names as much as Vaj. What part of this paragraph don't you agree with?
> > Edg in top form.  Bam, bam.  No malice here.  Just calling people out on
> > their crap.  It's got to be done.
> > >
> > > Your intellectual heft is often put to a low use -- you've spend 15
> > years beating a dead horse you call "loser." It's sick to beat a dead
> > horse, and you know it. Everyone here knows it.  It is true.  Raunchy,
> > are we wrong here.? I don't think so.  It's easy to get into a rut.  I
> > think we have to call it like it is.
> > 
> > I don't think there was one wasted word in this post.
> > >
> > > Edg
> > >
> > > http://www.unmuseum.org/cropcir.htm
> > > The article:
> > >
> > > For over twenty years the southern English countryside has been the
> > site of a strange phenomenon that has baffled observers and spawned
> > countless news stories and not a few books. In the middle of the night,
> > flattened circular depressions have appeared in fields of wheat, rye and
> > other cereal crops. They range in diameter from ten feet to almost a
> > hundred feet wide and vary from simple circles to complex spirals with
> > rings and spurs. All have sharply defined edges.
> > >
> > > The most striking feature of the circles is the frequency with which
> > they occur. In 1990 over 700 crop-circles appeared in Britain.
> > >
> > > People who attempt to study these circles have coined a name for
> > themselves: cereologists. The word comes from the name of the Roman
> > goddess of vegetation, Ceres. There are two favorite theories held by
> > cereologists that think crop circles are the result of some not well
> > understood physical phenomena. The first is that the depressions are the
> > result of an unusual weather effect. George Tenence Meaden, a former
> > professor of physics, calls this a "plasma vortex phenomenon" which he
> > defines as "a spinning mass of air which has accumulated a significant
> > fraction of electrically charged matter." According to Meaden the effect
> > is similar to that of ball lightning, but larger and longer lasting.
> > >
> > > The second theory is that somehow crop-circles are created by UFOs.
> > Proponents of this theory note that occasionally crop circles seem to
> > appear in conjunction with a UFO sighting.
> > >
> > > Some of the early, simple crop circles certainly do suggest fields
> > that might have been flattened by the weight of a grounded flying
> > saucer. As the circles have become more complex in shape, though,
> > proponents of the UFO theory have had to mo

[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
wrote:
>
> Dang, the Edgster telling it like it is.  I have hi-lighted
> some of the parts I most enjoyed,   and which I felt were
> most right on.

And another skeptopath to add to the list.


> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> >
> > Why should I waste my time doing research into crop circles?
> >
> > All I need to do is read one article by a person who has done this,
> and the below is a typical "balanced" view about crop circles. The
> writer has done some homework, saved me the effort, and the conclusion
> is that "man made" is overwhelmingly the "best guess" to support.
> >
> > Judy, do you agree with the below article? If so, we have no basis for
> our having a debate.
> >
> > Right now though, I put you in the same category as the guy who said
> to me about professional wrestling "Some of it's fake, but some's real."
> Good line.  Great analogy
> >
> > To me, you're wanting something, anything will do, to point at that
> suggests woo-woo is operative in the world. You're a witch doctor trying
> to find a "special bone" "special bone, I love that to shake at a
> patient when you say, "I'm the exception to the rule, my bones work and
> ooogaboooga is a real power that can those in the know can wield."
> >
> > Stop clinging to your need for wooism to be justifiable.
> >
> > No one's levitating, 2012 will be like Y2K, Tony's a fraud, Maharishi
> dumped Guru Dev and sold out to money, crop circles are man made,
> psychic surgeons palm chicken parts, Sai Baba is a pedophile, Barry
> isn't all bad, you are not always right, and you are comfortable calling
> names as much as Vaj. What part of this paragraph don't you agree with?
> Edg in top form.  Bam, bam.  No malice here.  Just calling people out on
> their crap.  It's got to be done.
> >
> > Your intellectual heft is often put to a low use -- you've spend 15
> years beating a dead horse you call "loser." It's sick to beat a dead
> horse, and you know it. Everyone here knows it.  It is true.  Raunchy,
> are we wrong here.? I don't think so.  It's easy to get into a rut.  I
> think we have to call it like it is.
> 
> I don't think there was one wasted word in this post.
> >
> > Edg
> >
> > http://www.unmuseum.org/cropcir.htm
> > The article:
> >
> > For over twenty years the southern English countryside has been the
> site of a strange phenomenon that has baffled observers and spawned
> countless news stories and not a few books. In the middle of the night,
> flattened circular depressions have appeared in fields of wheat, rye and
> other cereal crops. They range in diameter from ten feet to almost a
> hundred feet wide and vary from simple circles to complex spirals with
> rings and spurs. All have sharply defined edges.
> >
> > The most striking feature of the circles is the frequency with which
> they occur. In 1990 over 700 crop-circles appeared in Britain.
> >
> > People who attempt to study these circles have coined a name for
> themselves: cereologists. The word comes from the name of the Roman
> goddess of vegetation, Ceres. There are two favorite theories held by
> cereologists that think crop circles are the result of some not well
> understood physical phenomena. The first is that the depressions are the
> result of an unusual weather effect. George Tenence Meaden, a former
> professor of physics, calls this a "plasma vortex phenomenon" which he
> defines as "a spinning mass of air which has accumulated a significant
> fraction of electrically charged matter." According to Meaden the effect
> is similar to that of ball lightning, but larger and longer lasting.
> >
> > The second theory is that somehow crop-circles are created by UFOs.
> Proponents of this theory note that occasionally crop circles seem to
> appear in conjunction with a UFO sighting.
> >
> > Some of the early, simple crop circles certainly do suggest fields
> that might have been flattened by the weight of a grounded flying
> saucer. As the circles have become more complex in shape, though,
> proponents of the UFO theory have had to modify their ideas suggesting
> that the marks left are due to a strange effect of the craft's drive
> force on the plants. Others even argue that the shapes are messages
> purposefully left by the saucer's crew.
> >
> > The most likely explanation for almost all of the crop circles is that
> they are hoaxes. Even the most ardent fans of either the weather or UFO
> theories admit that a significant fraction of the circles are man-made.
> One cereologist, a believer in the weather theory, Jenny Randles, wrote:
> "I would put the hoaxes to comprise something over 50 percent of the
> total."
> >
> > Why don't these backers of the weather or UFO explanations believe
> that all the circles are hoaxed? Most would argue that a close
> examination of a circle will reveal differences between a hoaxed circle
> and a "genuine" circle. There is no clear criteria about what ma

[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)

[lurkernomore20002000]

Dang, the Edgster telling it like it is.  I have hi-lighted some of the
parts I most enjoyed,   and which I felt were most right on.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> Why should I waste my time doing research into crop circles?
>
> All I need to do is read one article by a person who has done this,
and the below is a typical "balanced" view about crop circles. The
writer has done some homework, saved me the effort, and the conclusion
is that "man made" is overwhelmingly the "best guess" to support.
>
> Judy, do you agree with the below article? If so, we have no basis for
our having a debate.
>
> Right now though, I put you in the same category as the guy who said
to me about professional wrestling "Some of it's fake, but some's real."
Good line.  Great analogy
>
> To me, you're wanting something, anything will do, to point at that
suggests woo-woo is operative in the world. You're a witch doctor trying
to find a "special bone" "special bone, I love that to shake at a
patient when you say, "I'm the exception to the rule, my bones work and
ooogaboooga is a real power that can those in the know can wield."
>
> Stop clinging to your need for wooism to be justifiable.
>
> No one's levitating, 2012 will be like Y2K, Tony's a fraud, Maharishi
dumped Guru Dev and sold out to money, crop circles are man made,
psychic surgeons palm chicken parts, Sai Baba is a pedophile, Barry
isn't all bad, you are not always right, and you are comfortable calling
names as much as Vaj. What part of this paragraph don't you agree with?
Edg in top form.  Bam, bam.  No malice here.  Just calling people out on
their crap.  It's got to be done.
>
> Your intellectual heft is often put to a low use -- you've spend 15
years beating a dead horse you call "loser." It's sick to beat a dead
horse, and you know it. Everyone here knows it.  It is true.  Raunchy,
are we wrong here.? I don't think so.  It's easy to get into a rut.  I
think we have to call it like it is.

I don't think there was one wasted word in this post.
>
> Edg
>
> http://www.unmuseum.org/cropcir.htm
> The article:
>
> For over twenty years the southern English countryside has been the
site of a strange phenomenon that has baffled observers and spawned
countless news stories and not a few books. In the middle of the night,
flattened circular depressions have appeared in fields of wheat, rye and
other cereal crops. They range in diameter from ten feet to almost a
hundred feet wide and vary from simple circles to complex spirals with
rings and spurs. All have sharply defined edges.
>
> The most striking feature of the circles is the frequency with which
they occur. In 1990 over 700 crop-circles appeared in Britain.
>
> People who attempt to study these circles have coined a name for
themselves: cereologists. The word comes from the name of the Roman
goddess of vegetation, Ceres. There are two favorite theories held by
cereologists that think crop circles are the result of some not well
understood physical phenomena. The first is that the depressions are the
result of an unusual weather effect. George Tenence Meaden, a former
professor of physics, calls this a "plasma vortex phenomenon" which he
defines as "a spinning mass of air which has accumulated a significant
fraction of electrically charged matter." According to Meaden the effect
is similar to that of ball lightning, but larger and longer lasting.
>
> The second theory is that somehow crop-circles are created by UFOs.
Proponents of this theory note that occasionally crop circles seem to
appear in conjunction with a UFO sighting.
>
> Some of the early, simple crop circles certainly do suggest fields
that might have been flattened by the weight of a grounded flying
saucer. As the circles have become more complex in shape, though,
proponents of the UFO theory have had to modify their ideas suggesting
that the marks left are due to a strange effect of the craft's drive
force on the plants. Others even argue that the shapes are messages
purposefully left by the saucer's crew.
>
> The most likely explanation for almost all of the crop circles is that
they are hoaxes. Even the most ardent fans of either the weather or UFO
theories admit that a significant fraction of the circles are man-made.
One cereologist, a believer in the weather theory, Jenny Randles, wrote:
"I would put the hoaxes to comprise something over 50 percent of the
total."
>
> Why don't these backers of the weather or UFO explanations believe
that all the circles are hoaxed? Most would argue that a close
examination of a circle will reveal differences between a hoaxed circle
and a "genuine" circle. There is no clear criteria about what makes
circles genuine or not, though. In fact the BBC asked one circle
"expert" to examine a formation they had found. The expert declared it
real, only to have to reverse his judgment when the BBC film crew told
him they'd had the circle especially built for the occasion.
>
> Some cereologists claim t

[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)

[geezerfreak]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak"  wrote:
> >
> > The real question, as always, is "does anybody care?".
> > 
> > I figured I'd do one of my once every few months drop
> > ins, just to see what's going on at FFL.
> > 
> > What's the first thing I see? Judy obsessing on the
> > topic of Barry and lying.
> > 
> > It never fucking changes does it.
> 
> P.S.: There's one really good way to change it: 
> Convince Barry to tell the truth.
> 
> I'll bet that's never occurred to you, has it? As
> far as you're concerned, it's just fine for Barry
> to lie all he wants, but it's an outrage for
> anybody to call him on it.
> 
> Just amazing.
>
There are many amazing things in this world tubby. Your obsession with Barry 
isn't one of them though. Sad and boring are the words that come to mind.

[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)

[geezerfreak]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak"  wrote:
> >
> > The real question, as always, is "does anybody care?".
> > 
> > I figured I'd do one of my once every few months drop
> > ins, just to see what's going on at FFL.
> > 
> > What's the first thing I see? Judy obsessing on the
> > topic of Barry and lying.
> > 
> > It never fucking changes does it.
> 
> Did Barry wake you up and call you in for emergency
> duty? He certainly does need some help. But you won't
> be able to do him any good when you're so tired your
> reading comprehension is impaired.
> 
> After you've had a night's sleep, read this again:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > BTW, anybody think Barry's going to acknowledge his
> > > "mistake" here? Or apologize for calling me a liar?
> 
> What you have to do to help him out on *this* one is
> to somehow prove *he* was correct to call *me* a liar.
> 
> Good luck on that, sweet cheeks.
And good luck on your Barry obsession lard ass. What a way to live

[FairfieldLife] Re: Where's Curtis? was: Post Count

[geezerfreak]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , TurquoiseB  wrote:
> 
> > The place has kinda lost its interest for me,
> > now that Curtis has chosen to focus on doing
> > creative things vs. pissing his energy away
> > here, 
> Did Curtis formally announce his departure? What's he doing?
>

Holy cow, did Curtis bail? He was one of the main reasons (along with Ruth and 
Barry) that I check in once in a while.

If he did bail, you should all honor him by buying his CDs. Curtis is one of 
the true talents in the blues world.

[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak"  wrote:
>
> The real question, as always, is "does anybody care?".
> 
> I figured I'd do one of my once every few months drop
> ins, just to see what's going on at FFL.
> 
> What's the first thing I see? Judy obsessing on the
> topic of Barry and lying.
> 
> It never fucking changes does it.

P.S.: There's one really good way to change it: 
Convince Barry to tell the truth.

I'll bet that's never occurred to you, has it? As
far as you're concerned, it's just fine for Barry
to lie all he wants, but it's an outrage for
anybody to call him on it.

Just amazing.

[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak"  wrote:
>
> The real question, as always, is "does anybody care?".
> 
> I figured I'd do one of my once every few months drop
> ins, just to see what's going on at FFL.
> 
> What's the first thing I see? Judy obsessing on the
> topic of Barry and lying.
> 
> It never fucking changes does it.

Did Barry wake you up and call you in for emergency
duty? He certainly does need some help. But you won't
be able to do him any good when you're so tired your
reading comprehension is impaired.

After you've had a night's sleep, read this again:

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > BTW, anybody think Barry's going to acknowledge his
> > "mistake" here? Or apologize for calling me a liar?

What you have to do to help him out on *this* one is
to somehow prove *he* was correct to call *me* a liar.

Good luck on that, sweet cheeks.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count

[geezerfreak]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex  wrote:
>
> > > 
> > > > The place has kinda lost its interest for me,
> > > > now that Curtis has chosen to focus on doing
> > > > creative things vs. pissing his energy away
> > > > here, and a few others (who, frankly, were 
> > > > the only reasons I stuck around) have done 
> > > > the same.
> > > 
> > > I *thought* I detected a trend toward increasing,
> > > er, flaccidity in your posts recently.
> > > 
> > > > So, if you'd like, consider my "high numbers"
> > > > a "last gasp," an attempt to see if there is
> > > > any life left in the Olde FFL, from my obviously
> > > > jaded perspective. If so, I'll stick around. If
> > > > not, I'll bail.
> > > > 
> > > > And THEN watch what happens to the Judys and
> > > > the Edgs and the Nabbys who...even you have to 
> > > > admit it...live for my posts, and for "refuting" 
> > > > them, if only in their own minds. 
> > > 
> > > I would be *thrilled* if you left. Your posts
> > > rarely do anything but create dissension and
> > > bad feeling; that's obviously your intent and
> > > has been since I first encountered you.
> > > 
> > > While it's amusing to take your posts apart for
> > > their sloppy, shallow thinking, hypocrisy, 
> > > meanspiritedness, and gross dishonesty, having
> > > actual discussions is a lot more fun. With your
> > > constant well-poisoning out of the picture,
> > > there'd be a lot better chance for intelligent
> > > conversation to blossom and flourish.
> > >
> Robert wrote:
> > Have you guys filed for Divorce yet...just 
> > wondering?
> > R.G.
> >
> So, it's all about Judy and Barry.
>
Checking in Pt 2: and WillyTex running his (apparently) endless repeat of the 
"So it's all about." bit. Tex, do you really imagine that anyone finds this 
amusing anymore?

[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)

[geezerfreak]

The real question, as always, is "does anybody care?".

I figured I'd do one of my once every few months drop ins, just to see what's 
going on at FFL.

What's the first thing I see? Judy obsessing on the topic of Barry and lying.

It never fucking changes does it.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> BTW, anybody think Barry's going to acknowledge his
> "mistake" here? Or apologize for calling me a liar?
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Barry's just been losing and losing and losing
> > > > > > > > recently.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > To follow up, Richard, read what Judy
> > > > > > > > > actually SAYS in reply to Edg. She keeps
> > > > > > > > > berating him (and others) for not "reading
> > > > > > > > > what I have posted," and "reading the links
> > > > > > > > > I have posted."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Only THEN will Edg (and these others) learn
> > > > > > > > > the "truth," she implies. And what exactly
> > > > > > > > > IS the nature of this "truth?"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Duh. They have to agree with Judy.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Wrong AGAIN, loser. You won't find any of my
> > > > > > > > posts on crop circles demonizing somebody for
> > > > > > > > disagreeing with me. Not one.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ahem.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" 
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > They look like artworks or, possibly some message but
> > > > > > > > not to get hysterical about as it would seem that if
> > > > > > > > whoever is in command of such technology was mad at us,
> > > > > > > > we would be long gone.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Heh. I don't think that's what scares them. It's
> > > > > > > the idea that some of the circles may not have a
> > > > > > > mundane explanation they find terrifying.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Characterizing those who disagree with you
> > > > > > > as "terrified" isn't demonizing them?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh, how clever of you not to quote the next two
> > > > > > paragraphs:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > What I'm berating the skeptopaths for is
> > > > > > > their cowardice. They don't have the cojones
> > > > > > > to disagree with me on the basis of what I've
> > > > > > > said and the information I've pointed to.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Instead they create armies of straw men and
> > > > > > > beat *them* up, then pound their chests as if
> > > > > > > they'd actually accomplished something. Losers.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Poor, poor, POOR Judy. Someone quoted only
> > > > > the first part of your demonization, not the
> > > > > second part, which is even more demonizing.
> > > > > In the second part, you call them a name
> > > > > ("skeptopaths"),  you say they have no cojones,
> > > > > and you create fantasy images of how they
> > > > > react to the awesome power of your "rightness"
> > > > > on this subject.
> > > > 
> > > > No, loser, I'm "demonizing" them (as the part you
> > > > snipped shows) ...
> > > 
> > > What's most fascinating here is that Judy
> > > chose to LIE about me "snipping."
> > > 
> > > I posted the *entirety* of her post. See
> > > for yourself at:
> > > 
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/220723
> > 
> > You've got to excuse Barry. He's at the end of his
> > rope and is grasping at straws. Of course, he has
> > to *manufacture* the straws, because there just aren't
> > any real ones around.
> > 
> > This is the post he deceptively snipped:
> > 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/220973
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Barry, nothing here for you anymore. Be gone

[It's just a ride]

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:40 PM, TurquoiseB  wrote:

>
> From my side, to be honest, I've been trying
> to provoke a little interest lately, in lieu
> of bailing from FFL altogether.
>


> So, if you'd like, consider my "high numbers"
> a "last gasp," an attempt to see if there is
> any life left in the Olde FFL, from my obviously
> jaded perspective. If so, I'll stick around. If
> not, I'll bail.
>

Don't you realize that people have left because they have had enough of our
resident Lord of the Flies?  The one who lords over all, thinks "pushing
buttons" is a noble thing instead of an ill mannered, nasty thing to do and
is in violation of the guidelines and rules of FFL?

Try reading the guidelines and rules.  Its as though they were written just
for you.  Why Rick hasn't thrown you out in light of his guidelines and
rules is beyond me and I'm sure many other FFL people.  Thankfully for you
Rick is the owner/moderator in name only.

People would stop lurking and become contributors to FFL if you left.  But
they will lurk until assured they won't be playing into your game of
superiority and bullying, trying to compensate for the obvious, that you
have no other place to go.  Many go away for a few months, come back to
check if you're still here then go away again, hoping to wait you out.

I would appeal to your sense of shame in urging your to leave FFL, but shame
is something your type of person lacks.

[FairfieldLife] Dueling Dalai Lamas?

[authfriend]

>From the New York Times:

China Creates Specter of Dueling Dalai Lamas
 
By EDWARD WONG

DHARAMSALA, India — For centuries, the selection of the
reincarnation of the Dalai Lama has been steeped in the
mysticism of a bygone world. 

On the windswept Tibetan plateau, his closest aides look
for divinations in a sacred lake. A mountain god transmits
oracular messages by possessing a high lama. Monks scour
villages for boys precocious in their spiritual attunement. 

All that is about to change, as the current Dalai Lama and
his followers in exile here in India compete with the
Chinese government for control of how the 15th Dalai Lama
will be chosen. The issue is urgent for the Tibetans
because the current Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of all
Tibetans and the charismatic face of the exile movement,
has had recent bouts of ill health. He turns 74 in July.

Both the Chinese and the Tibetan exiles are bracing for an
almost inevitable outcome: the emergence into the world of
dueling Dalai Lamas — one chosen by the exiles, perhaps by
the 14th Dalai Lama himself, and the other by Chinese
officials. 

"It's a huge but ultracritical issue, with no clear outcome
or solution except one: trouble," said Robert Barnett, a
Tibet scholar at Columbia University. "It is going to end
up with two Dalai Lamas and thus with long-running
conflict, unless the Chinese agree to a diplomatic solution
pretty soon."

The jockeying has put the Dalai Lama and the Chinese
Communist Party in surprising positions. The Dalai Lama
said late last month in an interview with The New York Times
that all options for choosing his reincarnation were open,
including ones that break from tradition. That could mean 
that the next Dalai Lama would be found outside Tibet,
could be a woman or might even be named while the 14th Dalai
Lama was still alive, before his soul properly transmigrated. Meanwhile, the 
party, officially atheist and accused of
ravaging Tibetan culture, insists that religious customs
must be followed.

Read more (it's fascinating):

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/world/asia/07lama.html?hp
 

[FairfieldLife] 'Conan Slides in Ratings(Peter Principle?)'

[Robert]

Conan O'Brien's first week behind NBC's "Tonight Show" desk resulted in a 
strong overall ratings performance that dominated competitors and left critics 
generally pleased. 
But after debuting to record-setting numbers Monday, “The Tonight Show” 
audience has shrunk with each successive episode. 
O'Brien's "Tonight" premiere garnered a massive 7.1 overnight metered-market 
household rating, then dropped 30% on Tuesday (5.0), slipped 14% on Wednesday 
(4.3), went down 12% on Thursday (3.8) and fell 8% on Friday (3.5). 

While Conan's debut was the highest-rated Monday episode of the veteran 
franchise in four years, last night was the lowest-rated Friday episode of 
"Tonight" in six months. 
Yet Friday's number could also be a sign the O'Brien's out-of-the-gate decline 
is slowing. Competitors were likewise down by a similar percentage when 
comparing Thursday to Friday.  
Also, the first week of O'Brien's "Tonight" has averaged a 4.7 rating in the 
summer -- 21% higher than Jay Leno's second quarter average with the show. 
Several clips from "Tonight" have also received heavy online viral play, 
including one with Barack Obama endorsing the host that received considerable 
coverage. 
"Tonight" beat second-place CBS' "Late Show" by a 62% margin this week. The gap 
between O'Brien and Letterman narrowed nearly each night, however, with the CBS 
program pulling a 2.7 on Friday.


  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Signs we're getting old #27

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 
> > wrote:
> 
> > > The ONLY category applicable is "defense".
> > >
> > > See Barry's original post, above. No mention is made
> > > of other categories that tangentially have something
> > > to do with defense (i.e., people who work in those
> > > departments once saw "Saving Private Ryan").>
> > 
> > I see. What you mean to say here is: Shemp admits he was
> > wrong, and that military spending is more than half of
> > the annual US budget when Social Security is taken out.
> 
> Look, what Barry said wasn't ambiguous. If it had needed
> clarification--if he had meant defense as a percentage of
> the budget minus Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid
> instead of percentage of gross national product, he's had
> ample opportunity to admit his mistake. But he hasn't done
> so, so we can assume he stands by what he said to start
> with, even though it was wildly wrong.
> 
> Shemp was right to call him on it, and you aren't doing
> Barry any favors by trying to cover for him by changing
> what he said.
>


Not only that but even assuming the change, Off_World is totally off on this.  
For example, "Homeland security" is the closest any of the categories he 
includes that come to "defense".  But even that's a stretch.  And he includes 
everything but the kitchen sink.

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat Jun 06 00:00:00 2009
End Date (UTC): Sat Jun 13 00:00:00 2009
92 messages as of (UTC) Sat Jun 06 23:14:43 2009

20 authfriend 
18 TurquoiseB 
 9 shempmcgurk 
 8 off_world_beings 
 6 Robert 
 5 Bhairitu 
 4 ruthsimplicity 
 3 cardemaister 
 3 Rick Archer 
 2 nablusoss1008 
 2 Duveyoung 
 1 sparaig 
 1 scienceofabundance 
 1 ffl...@yahoo.com
 1 bob_brigante 
 1 WillyTex 
 1 Vaj 
 1 Richard M 
 1 Peter 
 1 John 
 1 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 1 "min.pige" 
 1 "do.rflex" 

Posters: 23
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: Signs we're getting old #27

[authfriend]

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

> > The ONLY category applicable is "defense".
> >
> > See Barry's original post, above. No mention is made
> > of other categories that tangentially have something
> > to do with defense (i.e., people who work in those
> > departments once saw "Saving Private Ryan").>
> 
> I see. What you mean to say here is: Shemp admits he was
> wrong, and that military spending is more than half of
> the annual US budget when Social Security is taken out.

Look, what Barry said wasn't ambiguous. If it had needed
clarification--if he had meant defense as a percentage of
the budget minus Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid
instead of percentage of gross national product, he's had
ample opportunity to admit his mistake. But he hasn't done
so, so we can assume he stands by what he said to start
with, even though it was wildly wrong.

Shemp was right to call him on it, and you aren't doing
Barry any favors by trying to cover for him by changing
what he said.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Where's Curtis? was: Post Count

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , TurquoiseB  wrote:
> 
> > The place has kinda lost its interest for me,
> > now that Curtis has chosen to focus on doing
> > creative things vs. pissing his energy away
> > here, 
> 
> Did Curtis formally announce his departure? What's he doing?

Curtis is taking some time off, focusing on
creative endeavors. This is something that
creative people do from time to time, instead
of posting on Fairfield Life.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] The photos people choose to portray their "inner selves"

[TurquoiseB]

>From the Fairfield Life "Members" photo page:

Rick:
  [Rick Archer]

Alex:
  [Alex Stanley]

Stu:
  [s2ness]

Paul Mason:
  ['Premanand' Paul Mason]

Marek:
  [Marek]
Barry:
  [Barry with Maya, age two weeks]

Judy:
  [Barry's fantasy image of Judy]

[FairfieldLife] 'California Dreamin'...'

[Robert]

Hello everyone,

The Eloheim channeling of June 3, 2009 focused on the energies of
June 2009. Eloheim has been telling us for some weeks now that June
would be a powerful month of transformation.


This week they explained that the openings of June will allow us to
start living from our Soul's perspective.


This video is a portion of their opening talk where they share some
of the ways things will change as we start living from our Soul's
perspective.

Here are some quotes from the clip:


Everything becomes brand new because nothing has been experienced
in this way. It is bit like saying you have run around this entire
lifetime with a blindfold on. When you take off the blindfold
everything is new.


Opening up to seeing things in a new way.

You have to continue to allow this transformed state presence in
your system.

You are in a place where continuing in the habitual reactions….is
just no longer as interesting as it used to be and it is certainly
nowhere near as interesting as your Soul's perspective is.


It is your birthright to live in Grace, Ease, and Bliss.


If you are receiving this message by email and don't see the video
below, please visit http://eloheim.info/wordpress/?p=1029 to see it.


Eloheim is channeled weekly in Sonoma, CA. Our events are open to
the public. Admission to the weekly events is by donation. Private
sessions by phone or in person are also available. Please contact
eloheimchan...@... or visit http://eloheim.info/ for details.


  

[FairfieldLife] 'Gotta Keep Those Lovin' Good Vibrations...'

[Robert]

Soul Transitions Vibe Report for June 2009
Nancy Leilah Ward


Greetings!

A lot of people have been feeling like they’re suspended between the
old and what's next - as if we are on the trapeze and have let go of
one bar and are reaching for the other in verry sloow motion.
However, if it hasn’t happened already, that other trapeze bar is
going to come smashing to your hand and you’ll grab it and… whoosh!

During the month of June there is an opening – a gateway of energy and
all we have gathered around us energetically will be shooting forth to
be manifested on the physical plane. There are very powerful energies
at work and in this manifestation there are opportunities to expand
and grow - to release. What we see outside of us is a reflection of
what we are within so whatever shows up reveals where there is light
and where there is density—contrasting and revealing each other in the
glory that is physical life on Earth.

Light and dark reveal each other and are needed – we have said this
before – if all was Light you would be blinded and if all was dark,
you wouldn’t be able to see. Accept and play within the beauty of the
contrast. It is most magnificent to observe how the light from the sun
and the moon play upon this beautiful Earth and the light of love and
awareness plays within our consciousness as well.

That which appears in our life is a direct result of our own focus and
if you do not like what you see, know that you can change it. Do not
feel badly if you don’t like your creation, do not turn against
yourself for it is that very energy that creates pain and confusion.
Instead, nurture yourself, be kind and loving to yourself, do
something nice for yourself to soothe your heart. Look at your
experience and bless it for revealing to you that which needs your
attention, that which is calling out to be transformed through your
awareness and understanding.

As the energetic floodgates open during the month of June, much will
be shifting and rearranging in the physical, emotional, mental and
spiritual energy bodies of everyone. Intimate relationships are going
through deep transformation. That which is not in harmony with your
heart can no longer be ignored. This includes relationships with jobs,
business and living spaces as well. Allow that transformation to find
its place and within the transition is a great deal of love, even
though it may seem very painful, know that as you allow your life
situations to transform and as you enter into a more authentic
expression of your Soul, those who are affected by your transformation
have the opportunity to find their authenticity as well.

As energies shift and reconnect to authentic expression they will flow
into creative endeavors, new partnerships and collaborations that help
accelerate the energy of love that is being amplified throughout the
Universe. This energy is vibrating at a high frequency and is
affecting your sun, your Earth and all the planets of the Solar
System.

There will be much prosperity flowing to those who have been listening
to the call of their Soul. Your time has come, dear ones as that which
you have been focusing on begins to flower. Send out seeds of light
through your desire – send out seeds of light for this flowering to
occur.

Those who are receiving energies of prosperity, we ask that you be
jubilant and to shine your joy out into the world so that others can
pick up on it and be carried along on the waves of creation,
prosperity and transformation. You are all connected in a web of one-
ness within your unique individuality and the telepathic abilities
that have been ignored within you are growing stronger and stronger.
Trust what you feel and trust the messages that you are receiving.
There will be many miraculous occurrences and we see you lighting up –
we see the activation of the pineal gland like a star within the
center of your head awakening your intuition, inner sight and psychic
abilities. You will begin to know more and more that you are creating
and co-creating all that you see around you.

Love, freedom and prosperity are at hand as well as the turmoil of
transformation. You will be experiencing both extremes. Support
through prayer those who are going through the pain of transformation
and amplify the joy of the abundance you are creating. It is all part
of the same frequency. For as the higher energies become more anchored
within you and are radiated through you out into the earth plane, the
more the denser energies are being pulled away, which can be very
painful. Open up to this joyful ride! Allow your expansion to happen
with a sense of play. Yes, lighten up— if you are in a place of
suspension, of not knowing where to go and what to do— be still, focus
on being, not doing.

Listen to the children, for they carry much wisdom and magic and they
are close to their Higher Selves and the creative source of being.
They will be speaking simple gems of truth as the higher energies are
home to them.

Wit

[FairfieldLife] Where's Curtis? was: Post Count

[Rick Archer]

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

> The place has kinda lost its interest for me,
> now that Curtis has chosen to focus on doing
> creative things vs. pissing his energy away
> here, 
Did Curtis formally announce his departure? What's he doing?
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy admits her *intent* in posting to Fairfield Life

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> "It isn't about my winning, it's
> about your *losing*."
> -- Judy Stein, FFL, 16 May 2009

As long as Barry hangs around FFL behaving like a
scumbag loser, yes, indeed, pointing that out is
one of the reasons for my posting here.




> 
>   [Barry's fantasy image of Judy]
>

[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)

[authfriend]

Somebody get him some help, please.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> Please note that ALL of this is a distraction
> from the fact...

...that Barry lied about deceptively snipping my
post, got caught, then lied again by claiming *I*
lied, and got caught *again*.

 that Judy was caught in a lie
> claiming that she had never demonized those
> who disagree with her

That, of course, was not a lie.

 attachment to Woo Woo
> with regard to crop circles.

But this is. It's an example of why I've been
criticizing the skeptopaths. It's a straw man.

> She sought to "prove" that by claiming that
> I snipped parts of a post *in which* she
> demonizes them.

*But not for disagreeing with me*, which is what
the two paragraphs Barry snipped pointed out (the
ones he quotes below).

That's why he snipped them.

He's known from the start what I was referring
to, because he snipped the paragraphs quite
deliberately. His claim that I was lying about
not demonizing people for disagreeing with me
would have made no sense if he'd included those
paragraphs.

The skeptopaths haven't been disagreeing with
me, they've been bravely disagreeing with
their own straw men. *That's* what I've been
criticizing them for doing--not for disagreeing
with me, but for *not having the guts to
disagree with me*.

Barry understands this all too well, because
he's been one of the cowards disagreeing with
his own straw men.

Not to mention his cowardice in lying about
what he snipped, then lying about *my* having
lied, and not being able to admit it when it's
all laid out in black and white.


 Which she then reposted.  :-)
> 
> THIS is what she cited as a distraction, hoping
> to "prove" that she had never demonized those
> who disagree with her:
> 
> > What I'm berating the skeptopaths for is
> > their cowardice. They don't have the cojones
> > to disagree with me on the basis of what I've
> > said and the information I've pointed to.
> > 
> > Instead they create armies of straw men and
> > beat *them* up, then pound their chests as if
> > they'd actually accomplished something. Losers.
> 
> What a loon.
> 
> Let's see how she tries to spin *this*.  :-)
>

[FairfieldLife] Judy admits her *intent* in posting to Fairfield Life

[TurquoiseB]

"It isn't about my winning, it's
about your *losing*."
-- Judy Stein, FFL, 16 May 2009

  [Barry's fantasy image of Judy]

[FairfieldLife] Re: Signs we're getting old #27

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@
wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > >  > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > >  > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > >  > > > > >  > > >  , "shempmcgurk"
> > 
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > >  > > > > >  > > >  , TurquoiseB 
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also in their favor is that Euro-nations have not spent
> > > > > > > > the decades since World War II spending literally *half*
> > > > > > > > of their Gross National Product on "defense," which is
> > > > > > > > a euphemism for both "Better ways to kill people," and
> > > > > > > > "Subsidies for Defense Industries." America has.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Before you open your big, fat mouth about things you know
> > nothing
> > > > > > about, why don't you actually do some research?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Show me one year since WWII when half of the GDP was spent
on
> > > > > > "defense". >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have to agree with Turq on this. If you take Social
Security
> > out
> > > > of
> > > > > > the equation, then almost every year more than half was
spent on
> > > > > > military. Social Security trust fund was inserted into the
> > equation
> > > > by
> > > > > > the Republicans in the 1960's to try to hide their
exorbitant
> > > > defense
> > > > > > spending. It has no business being in there because it is a
> > trust
> > > > find
> > > > > > and not the Government's to use, spend, or touch.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OffWorld
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You guys are mixing up "GDP" with "Federal Budget".
> > > > >
> > > > > They are NOT the same thing. The entire federal budget even at
the
> > > > exhorbitant $3.8 trillion is but 27% of the 14.3 trillion GDP in
> > 2008
> > > > for the United States. See:
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal
> > > > 
)
> > > > >
> > > > > And, yes, I may agree with you vis a vis the Social Security
> > spending
> > > > inclusion. Both Social Security and Medicare are essentially
> > insurance
> > > > programs. Their contributions and benefits are taken and meted
out
> > > > completely differently than all other spending and taxing by the
> > federal
> > > > government and, as such, should be segregated from the budget.
> > > > >
> > > > > But defense is NOT about half of the budget even when SS and
> > Medicare
> > > > are taken out. See the following and do the math:>>
> > > >
> > > > Looks like you need some math lessons. If you take out Social
> > Security
> > > > and medicare are taken out, Defense is more than half of what is
> > left.
> > > >
> > > > Offorld
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh, really?
> > >
> > > Here are the figures I linked to:
> > >
> > > For 2008 (and, by the way, it's worse for 2009 -- which is what we
> > were originally talking about -- because the budget for 2009 is $3.8
> > trillion):
> > >
> > > Total budget: $2.9 trillion
> > >
> > > Social Security: $608 billion
> > > Medicare: $386 billion
> > > Total SS and Medicare: $994 billion
> > >
> > > $2,900 billion
> > > - 994 billion
> > >
> > > = $1,906 billion
> > >
> > > Defense spending: $481 billion
> > >
> > > Now, pray tell Off_World, how is $481 billion anywhere near half
of
> > $1.9 trillion>>
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > >  > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > >  > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > >  > > > > >  > > >  , "shempmcgurk"
> > 
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > 

[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)

[TurquoiseB]

Please note that ALL of this is a distraction
from the fact that Judy was caught in a lie
claiming that she had never demonized those
who disagree with her attachment to Woo Woo
with regard to crop circles.

She sought to "prove" that by claiming that
I snipped parts of a post *in which* she
demonizes them. Which she then reposted.  :-)

THIS is what she cited as a distraction, hoping
to "prove" that she had never demonized those
who disagree with her:

> What I'm berating the skeptopaths for is
> their cowardice. They don't have the cojones
> to disagree with me on the basis of what I've
> said and the information I've pointed to.
> 
> Instead they create armies of straw men and
> beat *them* up, then pound their chests as if
> they'd actually accomplished something. Losers.

What a loon.

Let's see how she tries to spin *this*.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> My mistake. The text I snipped at the top of the
> message seems to have been originally posted by
> Judy, not by Richard. HOWEVER, it has absolutely
> nothing to do with the text she claims below
> that I "snipped" maliciously. That was from 
> another post entirely. Compare for yourself.
> This is what she claims I "snipped" from the
> message in question:
> 
> > > What I'm berating the skeptopaths for is
> > > their cowardice. They don't have the cojones
> > > to disagree with me on the basis of what I've
> > > said and the information I've pointed to.
> > > 
> > > Instead they create armies of straw men and
> > > beat *them* up, then pound their chests as if
> > > they'd actually accomplished something. Losers.
> 
> And here is the message she claims I snipped
> it *from*:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/220723

He's insane. Look down at the bottom of this post,
where I said:

> > > > This is the post he deceptively snipped:
> > > > 
> > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/220973

He's having a psychotic break.


> 
> Not *only* is Judy LYING, she is *continuing*
> to LIE once it has been proven. 
> 
> I hope this establishes a precedent as to what
> we should think of her when she claims that
> someone *else* on this forum lies habitually.
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > BTW, anybody think Barry's going to acknowledge his
> > > "mistake" here? Or apologize for calling me a liar?
> > 
> > Judy *keeps* lying. There is *no* reference
> > in what I originally posted to the post she
> > claims I "snipped." I posted the *entirety*
> > of her comments from the post I was referring 
> > to. She is LYING. Here is what I posted:
> > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > They look like artworks or, possibly some message but
> > > > not to get hysterical about as it would seem that if
> > > > whoever is in command of such technology was mad at us,
> > > > we would be long gone.
> > > 
> > > Heh. I don't think that's what scares them. It's
> > > the idea that some of the circles may not have a
> > > mundane explanation they find terrifying.
> > 
> > And here is the actual message I posted it from:
> > 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/220723
> > 
> > Note that the only text I snipped was from Richard.
> > 
> > Judy is LYING.
> > 
> > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Barry's just been losing and losing and losing
> > > > > > > > > > recently.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > To follow up, Richard, read what Judy
> > > > > > > > > > > actually SAYS in reply to Edg. She keeps
> > > > > > > > > > > berating him (and others) for not "reading
> > > > > > > > > > > what I have posted," and "reading the links
> > > > > > > > > > > I have posted."
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Only THEN will Edg (and these others) learn
> > > > > > > > > > > the "truth," she implies. And what exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > IS the nature of this "truth?"
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Duh. They have to agree with Judy.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Wrong AGAIN, loser. You won't find any of my
> > > > > > > > > > posts on crop circles demonizing somebody for
> > > > > > > > > > disagreeing with me. Not one.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ahem.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > They look like artworks or, possibly some message but
> > > > > > > > > > not to get hysterical about as it would seem that if
> > > > > > > > > > whoever is in command of such technology was mad at us,
> > > > > > > > > > we would be long gone.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Heh. I don't think that's what scares them. It's
> > > > > > > > > the idea that some of

[FairfieldLife] Re: Signs we're getting old #27

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > >  > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > >  > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > >  > > > >  > >  , "shempmcgurk"
> 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > >  > > > >  > >  , TurquoiseB 
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also in their favor is that Euro-nations have not spent
> > > > > > > the decades since World War II spending literally *half*
> > > > > > > of their Gross National Product on "defense," which is
> > > > > > > a euphemism for both "Better ways to kill people," and
> > > > > > > "Subsidies for Defense Industries." America has.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Before you open your big, fat mouth about things you know
> nothing
> > > > > about, why don't you actually do some research?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Show me one year since WWII when half of the GDP was spent on
> > > > > "defense". >
> > > > >
> > > > > I have to agree with Turq on this. If you take Social Security
> out
> > > of
> > > > > the equation, then almost every year more than half was spent on
> > > > > military. Social Security trust fund was inserted into the
> equation
> > > by
> > > > > the Republicans in the 1960's to try to hide their exorbitant
> > > defense
> > > > > spending. It has no business being in there because it is a
> trust
> > > find
> > > > > and not the Government's to use, spend, or touch.
> > > > >
> > > > > OffWorld
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You guys are mixing up "GDP" with "Federal Budget".
> > > >
> > > > They are NOT the same thing. The entire federal budget even at the
> > > exhorbitant $3.8 trillion is but 27% of the 14.3 trillion GDP in
> 2008
> > > for the United States. See:
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal
> > >  )
> > > >
> > > > And, yes, I may agree with you vis a vis the Social Security
> spending
> > > inclusion. Both Social Security and Medicare are essentially
> insurance
> > > programs. Their contributions and benefits are taken and meted out
> > > completely differently than all other spending and taxing by the
> federal
> > > government and, as such, should be segregated from the budget.
> > > >
> > > > But defense is NOT about half of the budget even when SS and
> Medicare
> > > are taken out. See the following and do the math:>>
> > >
> > > Looks like you need some math lessons. If you take out Social
> Security
> > > and medicare are taken out, Defense is more than half of what is
> left.
> > >
> > > Offorld
> >
> >
> > Oh, really?
> >
> > Here are the figures I linked to:
> >
> > For 2008 (and, by the way, it's worse for 2009 -- which is what we
> were originally talking about -- because the budget for 2009 is $3.8
> trillion):
> >
> > Total budget: $2.9 trillion
> >
> > Social Security: $608 billion
> > Medicare: $386 billion
> > Total SS and Medicare: $994 billion
> >
> > $2,900 billion
> > - 994 billion
> >
> > = $1,906 billion
> >
> > Defense spending: $481 billion
> >
> > Now, pray tell Off_World, how is $481 billion anywhere near half of
> $1.9 trillion>>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > >  > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > >  > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > >  > > > >  > >  , "shempmcgurk"
> 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > >  > > > >  > >  , TurquoiseB 
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also in their favor is that Euro-nations have not spent
> > > > > > > the decades since World War II spending literally *half*
> > > > > > > of their Gross Nati

[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > BTW, anybody think Barry's going to acknowledge his
> > "mistake" here? Or apologize for calling me a liar?
> 
> Judy *keeps* lying.

Well, now Barry's *definitely* lying. I was willing
to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he
just made a really STPID mistake the first time
around, but now it's obvious he did it deliberately.

 There is *no* reference
> in what I originally posted to the post she
> claims I "snipped."

Of course there is. How does Barry think he can
get away with this when the posts are all on the
record?

He quoted this:

-
Wrong AGAIN, loser. You won't find any of my
posts on crop circles demonizing somebody for
disagreeing with me. Not one.
-

But he snipped this, which immediately followed
in the post he was quoting from:

-
What I'm berating the skeptopaths for is
their cowardice. They don't have the cojones
to disagree with me on the basis of what I've
said and the information I've pointed to.

Instead they create armies of straw men and
beat *them* up, then pound their chests as if
they'd actually accomplished something. Losers.
-

The three paragraphs are from this post:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/220973

 I posted the *entirety*
> of her comments from the post I was referring 
> to. She is LYING. Here is what I posted:

What he posted is below the part he *excerpts*
here. Scroll down past his "Judy is LYING" lie,
to where he says "Ahem." Immediately above that
is the paragraph beginning "Wrong AGAIN, loser"
that I quoted above, from this post:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/220973

You won't find the other two paragraphs following
it, because (as I said) he snipped them.

He's a pathological liar. He's been lying for so
many years it's his way of life. He literally
couldn't function if he couldn't lie.


> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > 
> > > They look like artworks or, possibly some message but
> > > not to get hysterical about as it would seem that if
> > > whoever is in command of such technology was mad at us,
> > > we would be long gone.
> > 
> > Heh. I don't think that's what scares them. It's
> > the idea that some of the circles may not have a
> > mundane explanation they find terrifying.
> 
> And here is the actual message I posted it from:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/220723
> 
> Note that the only text I snipped was from Richard.
> 
> Judy is LYING.
> 
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Barry's just been losing and losing and losing
> > > > > > > > > recently.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > To follow up, Richard, read what Judy
> > > > > > > > > > actually SAYS in reply to Edg. She keeps
> > > > > > > > > > berating him (and others) for not "reading
> > > > > > > > > > what I have posted," and "reading the links
> > > > > > > > > > I have posted."
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Only THEN will Edg (and these others) learn
> > > > > > > > > > the "truth," she implies. And what exactly
> > > > > > > > > > IS the nature of this "truth?"
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Duh. They have to agree with Judy.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Wrong AGAIN, loser. You won't find any of my
> > > > > > > > > posts on crop circles demonizing somebody for
> > > > > > > > > disagreeing with me. Not one.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ahem.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > They look like artworks or, possibly some message but
> > > > > > > > > not to get hysterical about as it would seem that if
> > > > > > > > > whoever is in command of such technology was mad at us,
> > > > > > > > > we would be long gone.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Heh. I don't think that's what scares them. It's
> > > > > > > > the idea that some of the circles may not have a
> > > > > > > > mundane explanation they find t

[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)

[TurquoiseB]

My mistake. The text I snipped at the top of the
message seems to have been originally posted by
Judy, not by Richard. HOWEVER, it has absolutely
nothing to do with the text she claims below
that I "snipped" maliciously. That was from 
another post entirely. Compare for yourself.
This is what she claims I "snipped" from the
message in question:

> > What I'm berating the skeptopaths for is
> > their cowardice. They don't have the cojones
> > to disagree with me on the basis of what I've
> > said and the information I've pointed to.
> > 
> > Instead they create armies of straw men and
> > beat *them* up, then pound their chests as if
> > they'd actually accomplished something. Losers.

And here is the message she claims I snipped
it *from*:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/220723

Not *only* is Judy LYING, she is *continuing*
to LIE once it has been proven. 

I hope this establishes a precedent as to what
we should think of her when she claims that
someone *else* on this forum lies habitually.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > BTW, anybody think Barry's going to acknowledge his
> > "mistake" here? Or apologize for calling me a liar?
> 
> Judy *keeps* lying. There is *no* reference
> in what I originally posted to the post she
> claims I "snipped." I posted the *entirety*
> of her comments from the post I was referring 
> to. She is LYING. Here is what I posted:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > 
> > > They look like artworks or, possibly some message but
> > > not to get hysterical about as it would seem that if
> > > whoever is in command of such technology was mad at us,
> > > we would be long gone.
> > 
> > Heh. I don't think that's what scares them. It's
> > the idea that some of the circles may not have a
> > mundane explanation they find terrifying.
> 
> And here is the actual message I posted it from:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/220723
> 
> Note that the only text I snipped was from Richard.
> 
> Judy is LYING.
> 
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Barry's just been losing and losing and losing
> > > > > > > > > recently.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > To follow up, Richard, read what Judy
> > > > > > > > > > actually SAYS in reply to Edg. She keeps
> > > > > > > > > > berating him (and others) for not "reading
> > > > > > > > > > what I have posted," and "reading the links
> > > > > > > > > > I have posted."
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Only THEN will Edg (and these others) learn
> > > > > > > > > > the "truth," she implies. And what exactly
> > > > > > > > > > IS the nature of this "truth?"
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Duh. They have to agree with Judy.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Wrong AGAIN, loser. You won't find any of my
> > > > > > > > > posts on crop circles demonizing somebody for
> > > > > > > > > disagreeing with me. Not one.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ahem.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > They look like artworks or, possibly some message but
> > > > > > > > > not to get hysterical about as it would seem that if
> > > > > > > > > whoever is in command of such technology was mad at us,
> > > > > > > > > we would be long gone.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Heh. I don't think that's what scares them. It's
> > > > > > > > the idea that some of the circles may not have a
> > > > > > > > mundane explanation they find terrifying.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Characterizing those who disagree with you
> > > > > > > > as "terrified" isn't demonizing them?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oh, how clever of you not to quote the next two
> > > > > > > paragraphs:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What I'm berating the skeptopaths for is
> > > > > > > > their cowardice. They don't have the cojones
> > > > > > > > to disagree with me on the basis of what I've
> > > > > > > > said and the in

[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count

[WillyTex]

> > 
> > > The place has kinda lost its interest for me,
> > > now that Curtis has chosen to focus on doing
> > > creative things vs. pissing his energy away
> > > here, and a few others (who, frankly, were 
> > > the only reasons I stuck around) have done 
> > > the same.
> > 
> > I *thought* I detected a trend toward increasing,
> > er, flaccidity in your posts recently.
> > 
> > > So, if you'd like, consider my "high numbers"
> > > a "last gasp," an attempt to see if there is
> > > any life left in the Olde FFL, from my obviously
> > > jaded perspective. If so, I'll stick around. If
> > > not, I'll bail.
> > > 
> > > And THEN watch what happens to the Judys and
> > > the Edgs and the Nabbys who...even you have to 
> > > admit it...live for my posts, and for "refuting" 
> > > them, if only in their own minds. 
> > 
> > I would be *thrilled* if you left. Your posts
> > rarely do anything but create dissension and
> > bad feeling; that's obviously your intent and
> > has been since I first encountered you.
> > 
> > While it's amusing to take your posts apart for
> > their sloppy, shallow thinking, hypocrisy, 
> > meanspiritedness, and gross dishonesty, having
> > actual discussions is a lot more fun. With your
> > constant well-poisoning out of the picture,
> > there'd be a lot better chance for intelligent
> > conversation to blossom and flourish.
> >
Robert wrote:
> Have you guys filed for Divorce yet...just 
> wondering?
> R.G.
>
So, it's all about Judy and Barry.

[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> BTW, anybody think Barry's going to acknowledge his
> "mistake" here? Or apologize for calling me a liar?

Judy *keeps* lying. There is *no* reference
in what I originally posted to the post she
claims I "snipped." I posted the *entirety*
of her comments from the post I was referring 
to. She is LYING. Here is what I posted:

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> > They look like artworks or, possibly some message but
> > not to get hysterical about as it would seem that if
> > whoever is in command of such technology was mad at us,
> > we would be long gone.
> 
> Heh. I don't think that's what scares them. It's
> the idea that some of the circles may not have a
> mundane explanation they find terrifying.

And here is the actual message I posted it from:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/220723

Note that the only text I snipped was from Richard.

Judy is LYING.


> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Barry's just been losing and losing and losing
> > > > > > > > recently.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > To follow up, Richard, read what Judy
> > > > > > > > > actually SAYS in reply to Edg. She keeps
> > > > > > > > > berating him (and others) for not "reading
> > > > > > > > > what I have posted," and "reading the links
> > > > > > > > > I have posted."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Only THEN will Edg (and these others) learn
> > > > > > > > > the "truth," she implies. And what exactly
> > > > > > > > > IS the nature of this "truth?"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Duh. They have to agree with Judy.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Wrong AGAIN, loser. You won't find any of my
> > > > > > > > posts on crop circles demonizing somebody for
> > > > > > > > disagreeing with me. Not one.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ahem.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" 
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > They look like artworks or, possibly some message but
> > > > > > > > not to get hysterical about as it would seem that if
> > > > > > > > whoever is in command of such technology was mad at us,
> > > > > > > > we would be long gone.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Heh. I don't think that's what scares them. It's
> > > > > > > the idea that some of the circles may not have a
> > > > > > > mundane explanation they find terrifying.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Characterizing those who disagree with you
> > > > > > > as "terrified" isn't demonizing them?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh, how clever of you not to quote the next two
> > > > > > paragraphs:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > What I'm berating the skeptopaths for is
> > > > > > > their cowardice. They don't have the cojones
> > > > > > > to disagree with me on the basis of what I've
> > > > > > > said and the information I've pointed to.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Instead they create armies of straw men and
> > > > > > > beat *them* up, then pound their chests as if
> > > > > > > they'd actually accomplished something. Losers.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Poor, poor, POOR Judy. Someone quoted only
> > > > > the first part of your demonization, not the
> > > > > second part, which is even more demonizing.
> > > > > In the second part, you call them a name
> > > > > ("skeptopaths"),  you say they have no cojones,
> > > > > and you create fantasy images of how they
> > > > > react to the awesome power of your "rightness"
> > > > > on this subject.
> > > > 
> > > > No, loser, I'm "demonizing" them (as the part you
> > > > snipped shows) ...
> > > 
> > > What's most fascinating here is that Judy
> > > chose to LIE about me "snipping."
> > > 
> > > I posted the *entirety* of her post. See
> > > for yourself at:
> > > 
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/220723
> > 
> > You've got to excuse Barry. He's at the end of his
> > rope and is grasping at straws. Of course, he has
> > to *manufacture* the straws, because there just aren't
> > any real ones around.
> > 
> > This is the post he deceptively snipped:
> > 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/220973
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A test of astrology or Jyotish, for those who might think it fun

[Bhairitu]

cardemaister wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>   
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>> 
>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>>>   
 It's very simple. Take the birth data below and describe the
 individual and what he (it was definitely a man) would have
 been likely to be like in terms of personality. Describe what
 you think his career possibilities might have been, his like-
 lihood of finding love and a happy marriage, and his potential
 impact on the times in which he lived.

 Birth Date: November 1st 1526
 Time: 6.45pm
 Place: Paris, France
 
>>> On the basis of the Western Chart, studying it less than
>>> 5 minutes, I'm afraid: an extremely powerful individual,
>>> with supreme and "surprizing" skills in verbal communication?
>>> Also rather attractive? Perhaps a bit seriousminded, though?
>>>
>>> Gonna try to find out by googling, who he is...
>>>   
>> Every one of your interpretations is accurate, Card.
>>
>> Thanks for playing.
>> 
>
> The only one I could find was Catherine Jagellon(sp?). Obviously
> can't be her...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Jagellonica_of_Poland
Or the birth data was incorrect.  Usually better for tests to use a 
person whose birth data is well known.  When you go back in history the 
validity of birth time, date and location can be questionable.  It is 
better to stick with people who have an AA rating in the AstroDataBank.  
But if you have someone who actually knows little or nothing about 
astrology they will not know these things.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count

[Robert]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> 
> > The place has kinda lost its interest for me,
> > now that Curtis has chosen to focus on doing
> > creative things vs. pissing his energy away
> > here, and a few others (who, frankly, were 
> > the only reasons I stuck around) have done 
> > the same.
> 
> I *thought* I detected a trend toward increasing,
> er, flaccidity in your posts recently.
> 
> > So, if you'd like, consider my "high numbers"
> > a "last gasp," an attempt to see if there is
> > any life left in the Olde FFL, from my obviously
> > jaded perspective. If so, I'll stick around. If
> > not, I'll bail.
> > 
> > And THEN watch what happens to the Judys and
> > the Edgs and the Nabbys who...even you have to 
> > admit it...live for my posts, and for "refuting" 
> > them, if only in their own minds. 
> 
> I would be *thrilled* if you left. Your posts
> rarely do anything but create dissension and
> bad feeling; that's obviously your intent and
> has been since I first encountered you.
> 
> While it's amusing to take your posts apart for
> their sloppy, shallow thinking, hypocrisy, 
> meanspiritedness, and gross dishonesty, having
> actual discussions is a lot more fun. With your
> constant well-poisoning out of the picture,
> there'd be a lot better chance for intelligent
> conversation to blossom and flourish.
>
Have you guys filed for Divorce yet...just wondering?
R.G.

[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)

[authfriend]

BTW, anybody think Barry's going to acknowledge his
"mistake" here? Or apologize for calling me a liar?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Barry's just been losing and losing and losing
> > > > > > > recently.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > To follow up, Richard, read what Judy
> > > > > > > > actually SAYS in reply to Edg. She keeps
> > > > > > > > berating him (and others) for not "reading
> > > > > > > > what I have posted," and "reading the links
> > > > > > > > I have posted."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Only THEN will Edg (and these others) learn
> > > > > > > > the "truth," she implies. And what exactly
> > > > > > > > IS the nature of this "truth?"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Duh. They have to agree with Judy.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wrong AGAIN, loser. You won't find any of my
> > > > > > > posts on crop circles demonizing somebody for
> > > > > > > disagreeing with me. Not one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ahem.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" 
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > They look like artworks or, possibly some message but
> > > > > > > not to get hysterical about as it would seem that if
> > > > > > > whoever is in command of such technology was mad at us,
> > > > > > > we would be long gone.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Heh. I don't think that's what scares them. It's
> > > > > > the idea that some of the circles may not have a
> > > > > > mundane explanation they find terrifying.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Characterizing those who disagree with you
> > > > > > as "terrified" isn't demonizing them?
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, how clever of you not to quote the next two
> > > > > paragraphs:
> > > > >
> > > > > > What I'm berating the skeptopaths for is
> > > > > > their cowardice. They don't have the cojones
> > > > > > to disagree with me on the basis of what I've
> > > > > > said and the information I've pointed to.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Instead they create armies of straw men and
> > > > > > beat *them* up, then pound their chests as if
> > > > > > they'd actually accomplished something. Losers.
> > > > 
> > > > Poor, poor, POOR Judy. Someone quoted only
> > > > the first part of your demonization, not the
> > > > second part, which is even more demonizing.
> > > > In the second part, you call them a name
> > > > ("skeptopaths"),  you say they have no cojones,
> > > > and you create fantasy images of how they
> > > > react to the awesome power of your "rightness"
> > > > on this subject.
> > > 
> > > No, loser, I'm "demonizing" them (as the part you
> > > snipped shows) ...
> > 
> > What's most fascinating here is that Judy
> > chose to LIE about me "snipping."
> > 
> > I posted the *entirety* of her post. See
> > for yourself at:
> > 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/220723
> 
> You've got to excuse Barry. He's at the end of his
> rope and is grasping at straws. Of course, he has
> to *manufacture* the straws, because there just aren't
> any real ones around.
> 
> This is the post he deceptively snipped:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/220973
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count

[authfriend]

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

> The place has kinda lost its interest for me,
> now that Curtis has chosen to focus on doing
> creative things vs. pissing his energy away
> here, and a few others (who, frankly, were 
> the only reasons I stuck around) have done 
> the same.

I *thought* I detected a trend toward increasing,
er, flaccidity in your posts recently.

> So, if you'd like, consider my "high numbers"
> a "last gasp," an attempt to see if there is
> any life left in the Olde FFL, from my obviously
> jaded perspective. If so, I'll stick around. If
> not, I'll bail.
> 
> And THEN watch what happens to the Judys and
> the Edgs and the Nabbys who...even you have to 
> admit it...live for my posts, and for "refuting" 
> them, if only in their own minds. 

I would be *thrilled* if you left. Your posts
rarely do anything but create dissension and
bad feeling; that's obviously your intent and
has been since I first encountered you.

While it's amusing to take your posts apart for
their sloppy, shallow thinking, hypocrisy, 
meanspiritedness, and gross dishonesty, having
actual discussions is a lot more fun. With your
constant well-poisoning out of the picture,
there'd be a lot better chance for intelligent
conversation to blossom and flourish.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A test of astrology or Jyotish, for those who might think it fun

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> TurquoiseB wrote:
> > It's very simple. Take the birth data below and describe the
> > individual and what he (it was definitely a man) would have
> > been likely to be like in terms of personality. Describe what
> > you think his career possibilities might have been, his like-
> > lihood of finding love and a happy marriage, and his potential
> > impact on the times in which he lived.
> >
> > Birth Date: November 1st 1526
> > Time: 6.45pm
> > Place: Paris, France
> >
> > Admittedly, the chart shown above is a Western Placidus chart.
> > But you have the birth data so you can do a Jyotish chart.
> >   
> 
> Here are the calculations for Lahiri ayamasha using the Swiss Ephemeris:
> 
>  Planet Positions from Moshier Ephemeris
> 
> 1.11.1526  jul.18:36:00 UT
>  delta t: 174.154564 sec jd (ET) = 2278734.277016
> 
> Ecl. obl. 23°30' 2.7883   23°30' 2.7883(true, mean)
> Nutation   0° 0' 0.0° 0' 0.(dpsi, deps)
> 
>ecl. long.   ecl. lat.   dist.  speed
> Sun  1 sc 23'39.4943   -0° 0' 0.64280.9881546991° 0'34.7275
> Moon22 vi  2'13.0845   -5° 7'45.58020.002509241   13°50'57.5037
> Mercury 15 li 26'10.59992° 7'15.62060.799975939   -0° 5'52.7191
> Venus   29 vi 36'23.81601°47' 4.93741.3344223701°13'53.2992
> Mars10 vi  9' 7.32381°25'46.30082.0944675600°36' 9.2592
> Jupiter  2 ge  6'59.1454   -0°35'59.11914.64110   -0° 6' 3.9117
> Saturn  24 pi 17'51.7650   -2°44'14.79118.521429316   -0° 3'16.2546
> Uranus  28 ta 13'34.52090° 2' 8.5107   18.261548157   -0° 2'11.6781
> Neptune 24 aq 47' 2.3237   -1° 6'41.9288   29.523115558   -0° 0'25.1385
> Pluto1 cp 43'19.6203   -1°58' 0.6477   35.0144634800° 1' 8.8339
> mean Node   18 sa 48'52.31350° 0' 0.0.002569555   -0° 3'10.6354
> true Node   17 sa 28'11.69410° 0' 0.0.002393766   -0° 7'15.6229
> mean Apogee 14 ge  9'52.73100°25' 5.65670.0027106250° 6'38.7095
> osc. Apogee  6 ge 47'16.73600°57'22.50510.002742132   -3°16' 6.4622
> 
> House Cusps (Equal)
> 
> sid. time :   22:05:25  armc  :  331°21'15"
> geo. lat. :   48N52'00" geo. long.:2E19'00"
> 
> AC: 13 ge 50'50"
> MC: 11 aq 57'37"
> house1: 13 ge 50'50"
> house2: 13 cn 50'50"
> house3: 13 le 50'50"
> house4: 13 vi 50'50"
> house5: 13 li 50'50"
> house6: 13 sc 50'50"
> house7: 13 sa 50'50"
> house8: 13 cp 50'50"
> house9: 13 aq 50'50"
> house   10: 13 pi 50'50"
> house   11: 13 ar 50'50"
> house   12: 13 ta 50'50"
> Vertex:  0 sc 49'25"
> 
> Note that the actual time: 6:45 PM or 18:45 has been adjusted 
> for LMT which was how time was kept at that date and the Local 
> Mean Time for Paris it -9 minutes (so when it was 6:45 PM in 
> Paris it was 6:36 PM in Greenwich). These days the time zone 
> is -1 hour.  Keep in mind for planetary calculations you want 
> to find the UT time since we know the local time because 
> planetary tables are UT. So if you look up the time zone for 
> Paris on the Internet you will get +1 hour but that is for 
> knowing the time in Paris if you know UT.
> 
> To get a 21 degree Gemini sign ascendant using Placidus 
> geocentric I had to adjust the time entry to 17:54 UT.  So 
> the astrologer seemed to have used -54 minutes for LMT.  Not 
> unusual for astrologers to not understand time zones.  The 
> ascendant should have been around 1 degree Cancer.  Note that 
> many astrology programs can't calculate charts back that far.  
> Even the online Swiss Ephemeris at www.astro.com only allows 
> charts of people born within 120 years.  The tool I used is 
> their free swewin program for Windows (using Wine on Ubuntu) 
> which can be found in downloads.
> 
> At a glance its not a bad chart and the person would have had 
> some success in intellectual areas.  Ketu does influence the 
> ascendant and give and interest in the occult. In those areas 
> the person may have had an impact in his time but been 
> controversial. Marriage looks dubious. No children. Could have 
> been a monk. Themes of high official ring through the chart.

Thanks for playing, Bhairitu, really. And thanks
for not cheating via Google.

Controversial is correct. Shaky marriage is correct.
He did hold high official postions. No children is 
wrong. Monk is so wrong it's silly. 

Again, thanks for playing. I posted this for fun,
just as the person who originally asked the astrologer
to do the chart did it for fun. I do find it fascin-
ating that people can see in "charts" things they
theoretically should not, as did the person who 
posed the original challenge.

I'll give this a little more time before posting the
answer. My suspicion is that the heavy believers in
Jyotish will not "check in" on this at all, or will
cheat by Googling first. Just as they...uh...cheat
by pretending 

[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Barry's just been losing and losing and losing
> > > > > > recently.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > To follow up, Richard, read what Judy
> > > > > > > actually SAYS in reply to Edg. She keeps
> > > > > > > berating him (and others) for not "reading
> > > > > > > what I have posted," and "reading the links
> > > > > > > I have posted."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Only THEN will Edg (and these others) learn
> > > > > > > the "truth," she implies. And what exactly
> > > > > > > IS the nature of this "truth?"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Duh. They have to agree with Judy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wrong AGAIN, loser. You won't find any of my
> > > > > > posts on crop circles demonizing somebody for
> > > > > > disagreeing with me. Not one.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ahem.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > They look like artworks or, possibly some message but
> > > > > > not to get hysterical about as it would seem that if
> > > > > > whoever is in command of such technology was mad at us,
> > > > > > we would be long gone.
> > > > >
> > > > > Heh. I don't think that's what scares them. It's
> > > > > the idea that some of the circles may not have a
> > > > > mundane explanation they find terrifying.
> > > > >
> > > > > Characterizing those who disagree with you
> > > > > as "terrified" isn't demonizing them?
> > > >
> > > > Oh, how clever of you not to quote the next two
> > > > paragraphs:
> > > >
> > > > > What I'm berating the skeptopaths for is
> > > > > their cowardice. They don't have the cojones
> > > > > to disagree with me on the basis of what I've
> > > > > said and the information I've pointed to.
> > > > >
> > > > > Instead they create armies of straw men and
> > > > > beat *them* up, then pound their chests as if
> > > > > they'd actually accomplished something. Losers.
> > > 
> > > Poor, poor, POOR Judy. Someone quoted only
> > > the first part of your demonization, not the
> > > second part, which is even more demonizing.
> > > In the second part, you call them a name
> > > ("skeptopaths"),  you say they have no cojones,
> > > and you create fantasy images of how they
> > > react to the awesome power of your "rightness"
> > > on this subject.
> > 
> > No, loser, I'm "demonizing" them (as the part you
> > snipped shows) ...
> 
> What's most fascinating here is that Judy
> chose to LIE about me "snipping."
> 
> I posted the *entirety* of her post. See
> for yourself at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/220723

You've got to excuse Barry. He's at the end of his
rope and is grasping at straws. Of course, he has
to *manufacture* the straws, because there just aren't
any real ones around.

This is the post he deceptively snipped:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/220973

[FairfieldLife] Re: A test of astrology or Jyotish, for those who might think it fun

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > >
> > > It's very simple. Take the birth data below and describe the
> > > individual and what he (it was definitely a man) would have
> > > been likely to be like in terms of personality. Describe what
> > > you think his career possibilities might have been, his like-
> > > lihood of finding love and a happy marriage, and his potential
> > > impact on the times in which he lived.
> > > 
> > > Birth Date: November 1st 1526
> > > Time: 6.45pm
> > > Place: Paris, France
> > 
> > On the basis of the Western Chart, studying it less than
> > 5 minutes, I'm afraid: an extremely powerful individual,
> > with supreme and "surprizing" skills in verbal communication?
> > Also rather attractive? Perhaps a bit seriousminded, though?
> > 
> > Gonna try to find out by googling, who he is...
> 
> Every one of your interpretations is accurate, Card.
> 
> Thanks for playing.

The only one I could find was Catherine Jagellon(sp?). Obviously
can't be her...

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


> 
> I'll post the "answer" later, after anyone who
> chooses to play the game has had an opportunity
> to do so. My response is already "pre-written"
> and has been sent to someone via email, so that
> there can be no trickery on my part.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: IPs (was which guru best?)

[Robert]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > [snip]
> > 
> > > 
> > > But don't forget that according to Nabby FFL is
> > > home to at least four people he has accused of
> > > being CIA operatives working full-time to discredit
> > > TM and Maharishi. 
> > 
> > [snip]
> > 
> > Oh, this is delicious.
> > 
> > Who, pray tell, are the CIA operatives (I mean, beside Rick Archer)?
> >
> Bevan Morris has been with the agency since '79...
> He was recruited in Prague, by a Russian double agent...
> His code name is 'Fat boy'...
> R.G.
>
He was given orders from his superiors, to brainwash Maharishi, that he was 
under the close watch of agents of the CIA, in order that Maharishi would 
withdrawal more from public view, and that the movement would contract...
Bevan has been instrumental in projecting the movement as arrogant and elitist, 
in order to keep as many people from participating as possible, while appearing 
as though he is helping...
Very clever 1984 type tactics...of double-speak and hypnotic suggestion...
R.G.

[FairfieldLife] Re: IPs (was which guru best?)

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , TurquoiseB 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Richard M" 
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Alex Stanley"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Richard M" 
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > All this excitement about IP addresses!
> > > >
> > > > Mine is a dedicated IP (but many are shared, which makes it
> > > > even more pointless). You can give it your best shot if you
like:
> > > >
> > > > 82.69.127.249
> > >
> > > nslookup 82.69.127.249
> > > Canonical name: 82-69-127-249.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk
> > >
> > > > I think that the IP info you will get is "London, England" (Or
> > > > Manchester depending on how you look it up). Either way, don't
go
> > > > looking for me there for any unpaid bills - you'll be over 200
> > > > miles out.
> > >
> > > http://www.zen.co.uk/ 
> > >
> > > Your ISP appears to be based out of Rochdale. I'm going to go way
> > > out on a limb and guess that you are somewhere in the UK.
> >
> > Rochdale = Manchester roughly. As I say - nowhere near me at
> > all (in fact about as far away you can get from me and still
> > be in the same country). OK, you've got me down to one of 60
> > million or so, but I'm not yet worried about my identity being
> > compromised!
>
> But don't forget that according to Nabby FFL is
> home to at least four people he has accused of
> being CIA operatives working full-time to discredit
> TM and Maharishi.


Why would the Scientologists that have infiltrated the CIA, then
infiltrate the TM movement as pretend CIA's who are really Illuminati
pretending to be Freemasons who are pretending to be Scientologists,
pretending to be TM'rs?

Why oh Why?

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Get Rid of the For-Profit Health Insurance Industry

[min.pige]

> http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/150/7/493
> 
> This is an excellent article regarding health care reform.  Shows that there 
> are realistic moderate proposals out there.
>


:

thanks for posting this excellent piece.

[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Barry's just been losing and losing and losing
> > > > > recently.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > To follow up, Richard, read what Judy
> > > > > > actually SAYS in reply to Edg. She keeps
> > > > > > berating him (and others) for not "reading
> > > > > > what I have posted," and "reading the links
> > > > > > I have posted."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Only THEN will Edg (and these others) learn
> > > > > > the "truth," she implies. And what exactly
> > > > > > IS the nature of this "truth?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Duh. They have to agree with Judy.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wrong AGAIN, loser. You won't find any of my
> > > > > posts on crop circles demonizing somebody for
> > > > > disagreeing with me. Not one.
> > > >
> > > > Ahem.
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > >
> > > > > They look like artworks or, possibly some message but
> > > > > not to get hysterical about as it would seem that if
> > > > > whoever is in command of such technology was mad at us,
> > > > > we would be long gone.
> > > >
> > > > Heh. I don't think that's what scares them. It's
> > > > the idea that some of the circles may not have a
> > > > mundane explanation they find terrifying.
> > > >
> > > > Characterizing those who disagree with you
> > > > as "terrified" isn't demonizing them?
> > >
> > > Oh, how clever of you not to quote the next two
> > > paragraphs:
> > >
> > > > What I'm berating the skeptopaths for is
> > > > their cowardice. They don't have the cojones
> > > > to disagree with me on the basis of what I've
> > > > said and the information I've pointed to.
> > > >
> > > > Instead they create armies of straw men and
> > > > beat *them* up, then pound their chests as if
> > > > they'd actually accomplished something. Losers.
> > 
> > Poor, poor, POOR Judy. Someone quoted only
> > the first part of your demonization, not the
> > second part, which is even more demonizing.
> > In the second part, you call them a name
> > ("skeptopaths"),  you say they have no cojones,
> > and you create fantasy images of how they
> > react to the awesome power of your "rightness"
> > on this subject.
> 
> No, loser, I'm "demonizing" them (as the part you
> snipped shows) ...

What's most fascinating here is that Judy
chose to LIE about me "snipping."

I posted the *entirety* of her post. See
for yourself at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/220723

She completely made up the stuff about me
"snipping."

So much for Judy "I never lie" Stein.

Re: [FairfieldLife] A test of astrology or Jyotish, for those who might think it fun

[Bhairitu]

TurquoiseB wrote:
> It's very simple. Take the birth data below and describe the
> individual and what he (it was definitely a man) would have
> been likely to be like in terms of personality. Describe what
> you think his career possibilities might have been, his like-
> lihood of finding love and a happy marriage, and his potential
> impact on the times in which he lived.
>
> Birth Date: November 1st 1526
> Time: 6.45pm
> Place: Paris, France
>
>
>
> Admittedly, the chart shown above is a Western Placidus chart.
> But you have the birth data so you can do a Jyotish chart.
>   

Here are the calculations for Lahiri ayamasha using the Swiss Ephemeris:

 Planet Positions from Moshier Ephemeris

1.11.1526  jul.18:36:00 UT
 delta t: 174.154564 sec jd (ET) = 2278734.277016

Ecl. obl. 23°30' 2.7883   23°30' 2.7883(true, mean)
Nutation   0° 0' 0.0° 0' 0.(dpsi, deps)

   ecl. long.   ecl. lat.   dist.  speed
Sun  1 sc 23'39.4943   -0° 0' 0.64280.9881546991° 0'34.7275
Moon22 vi  2'13.0845   -5° 7'45.58020.002509241   13°50'57.5037
Mercury 15 li 26'10.59992° 7'15.62060.799975939   -0° 5'52.7191
Venus   29 vi 36'23.81601°47' 4.93741.3344223701°13'53.2992
Mars10 vi  9' 7.32381°25'46.30082.0944675600°36' 9.2592
Jupiter  2 ge  6'59.1454   -0°35'59.11914.64110   -0° 6' 3.9117
Saturn  24 pi 17'51.7650   -2°44'14.79118.521429316   -0° 3'16.2546
Uranus  28 ta 13'34.52090° 2' 8.5107   18.261548157   -0° 2'11.6781
Neptune 24 aq 47' 2.3237   -1° 6'41.9288   29.523115558   -0° 0'25.1385
Pluto1 cp 43'19.6203   -1°58' 0.6477   35.0144634800° 1' 8.8339
mean Node   18 sa 48'52.31350° 0' 0.0.002569555   -0° 3'10.6354
true Node   17 sa 28'11.69410° 0' 0.0.002393766   -0° 7'15.6229
mean Apogee 14 ge  9'52.73100°25' 5.65670.0027106250° 6'38.7095
osc. Apogee  6 ge 47'16.73600°57'22.50510.002742132   -3°16' 6.4622

House Cusps (Equal)

sid. time :   22:05:25  armc  :  331°21'15"
geo. lat. :   48N52'00" geo. long.:2E19'00"

AC: 13 ge 50'50"
MC: 11 aq 57'37"
house1: 13 ge 50'50"
house2: 13 cn 50'50"
house3: 13 le 50'50"
house4: 13 vi 50'50"
house5: 13 li 50'50"
house6: 13 sc 50'50"
house7: 13 sa 50'50"
house8: 13 cp 50'50"
house9: 13 aq 50'50"
house   10: 13 pi 50'50"
house   11: 13 ar 50'50"
house   12: 13 ta 50'50"
Vertex:  0 sc 49'25"

Note that the actual time: 6:45 PM or 18:45 has been adjusted for LMT 
which was how time was kept at that date and the Local Mean Time for 
Paris it -9 minutes (so when it was 6:45 PM in Paris it was 6:36 PM in 
Greenwich).  These days the time zone is -1 hour.  Keep in mind for 
planetary calculations you want to find the UT time since we know the 
local time because planetary tables are UT. So if you look up the time 
zone for Paris on the Internet you will get +1 hour but that is for 
knowing the time in Paris if you know UT.

To get a 21 degree Gemini sign ascendant using Placidus geocentric I had 
to adjust the time entry to 17:54 UT.  So the astrologer seemed to have 
used -54 minutes for LMT.  Not unusual for astrologers to not understand 
time zones.  The ascendant should have been around 1 degree Cancer.  
Note that many astrology programs can't calculate charts back that far.  
Even the online Swiss Ephemeris at www.astro.com only allows charts of 
people born within 120 years.  The tool I used is their free swewin 
program for Windows (using Wine on Ubuntu) which can be found in downloads.

At a glance its not a bad chart and the person would have had some 
success in intellectual areas.  Ketu does influence the ascendant and 
give and interest in the occult.   In those areas the person may have 
had an impact in his time but been controversial.  Marriage looks 
dubious.  No children.  Could have been a monk.  Themes of high official 
ring through the chart.

[FairfieldLife] Re: IPs (was which guru best?)

[Robert]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > 
> > But don't forget that according to Nabby FFL is
> > home to at least four people he has accused of
> > being CIA operatives working full-time to discredit
> > TM and Maharishi. 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Oh, this is delicious.
> 
> Who, pray tell, are the CIA operatives (I mean, beside Rick Archer)?
>
Bevan Morris has been with the agency since '79...
He was recruited in Prague, by a Russian double agent...
His code name is 'Fat boy'...
R.G.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Signs we're getting old #27

[off_world_beings]

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

> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> >  > > >  >  , TurquoiseB 
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also in their favor is that Euro-nations have not spent
> > > > > > the decades since World War II spending literally *half*
> > > > > > of their Gross National Product on "defense," which is
> > > > > > a euphemism for both "Better ways to kill people," and
> > > > > > "Subsidies for Defense Industries." America has.
> > > > >
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Before you open your big, fat mouth about things you know
nothing
> > > > about, why don't you actually do some research?
> > > > >
> > > > > Show me one year since WWII when half of the GDP was spent on
> > > > "defense". >
> > > >
> > > > I have to agree with Turq on this. If you take Social Security
out
> > of
> > > > the equation, then almost every year more than half was spent on
> > > > military. Social Security trust fund was inserted into the
equation
> > by
> > > > the Republicans in the 1960's to try to hide their exorbitant
> > defense
> > > > spending. It has no business being in there because it is a
trust
> > find
> > > > and not the Government's to use, spend, or touch.
> > > >
> > > > OffWorld
> > > >
> > >
> > > You guys are mixing up "GDP" with "Federal Budget".
> > >
> > > They are NOT the same thing. The entire federal budget even at the
> > exhorbitant $3.8 trillion is but 27% of the 14.3 trillion GDP in
2008
> > for the United States. See:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal
> >  )
> > >
> > > And, yes, I may agree with you vis a vis the Social Security
spending
> > inclusion. Both Social Security and Medicare are essentially
insurance
> > programs. Their contributions and benefits are taken and meted out
> > completely differently than all other spending and taxing by the
federal
> > government and, as such, should be segregated from the budget.
> > >
> > > But defense is NOT about half of the budget even when SS and
Medicare
> > are taken out. See the following and do the math:>>
> >
> > Looks like you need some math lessons. If you take out Social
Security
> > and medicare are taken out, Defense is more than half of what is
left.
> >
> > Offorld
>
>
> Oh, really?
>
> Here are the figures I linked to:
>
> For 2008 (and, by the way, it's worse for 2009 -- which is what we
were originally talking about -- because the budget for 2009 is $3.8
trillion):
>
> Total budget: $2.9 trillion
>
> Social Security: $608 billion
> Medicare: $386 billion
> Total SS and Medicare: $994 billion
>
> $2,900 billion
> - 994 billion
>
> = $1,906 billion
>
> Defense spending: $481 billion
>
> Now, pray tell Off_World, how is $481 billion anywhere near half of
$1.9 trillion>>


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

> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> >  > > >  >  , TurquoiseB 
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also in their favor is that Euro-nations have not spent
> > > > > > the decades since World War II spending literally *half*
> > > > > > of their Gross National Product on "defense," which is
> > > > > > a euphemism for both "Better ways to kill people," and
> > > > > > "Subsidies for Defense Industries." America has.
> > > > >
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Before you open your big, fat mouth about things you know
nothing
> > > > about, why don't you actually do some research?
> > > > >
> > > > > Show me one year sin

[FairfieldLife] Re: Get Rid of the For-Profit Health Insurance Industry

[Robert]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> >
> >  ruthsimplicity wrote:  I would describe the relationship between docs
> > and insurers as almost adversarial, hardly in cahoots.
> > 
> > Ruth,
> > 
> > You being a nurse and all, I'm hesitant to smack at the health industry
> > lest I besmirch your participation therein.  As I've noted here at least
> > several times, you have impressed me with heartfelt values.
> > 
> > And,  nurses, as a group, (doctors far less so) generally do impress me
> > with their intellects and hearts.
> > 
> > All that said (here it comes,) I think the health industry itself is
> > reflective of the profiteers that any industry finds itself infested by,
> > and those profiteers are as cold hearted as Joseph Mengle.
> > 
> > Start with the AMA's policy to keep doctors rare and rich and absolute
> > rulers of the industry.  It is scandalous, yet, and here's where I
> > intend to put it to you, where is the outcry from the nurses and doctors
> > about this policy?  So far, I don't think I've heard herein about it
> > from you.  So far, you above are posing doctors as victims.  Phihhh, as
> > if.
> > 
> > If the AMA allowed medical schools to double their production, they'd
> > have all the VERY VERY SMART and VERY VERY HEARTFUL candidates they
> > needed to fill up the new classes without having to lower their entrance
> > requirement standards.  But, noo, that would mean that doctors were
> > competing against doctors in pricing, and that would mean that there
> > would be ample supply of doctors such that hospitals could more easily
> > dump the bad ones that continue to maraud the industry with all kinds of
> > malpractice.
> > 
> > Ask anyone in poverty whether they'd rather have a doctor who was in the
> > 98th percentile (not tippy tippy top notch just top notch) or no doctor
> > at all?  Fuck the entrance requirements of the AMA -- a truly evil money
> > making cabal.
> > 
> > And as for doctors not being in league with the insurance companies,
> > that's a lie.  They're not fighting against them with any use of their
> > own or the AMA's political clout.  Your average surgeon will be paying,
> > what?, probably well over a hundred thousand dollars a year to have
> > malpractice insurance -- costs that they pass down to the clients with
> > higher fees without even apologizing to the patients that they're being
> > ripped off.  The doctors are beleagered in many ways by how insurance
> > companies prvent them from doing "all that's needed," yet we do not hear
> > a peep out of the AMA -- if we did, the AMA could, overnight, get
> > congress to stop the bastards -- yes, the AMA has that much power.  Does
> > any politician want the AMA solely supporting another candidate?
> > 
> > Where are the doctors picketing these injustices?  Where are the nurses
> > confronting the physicians about this say-nothing immorality?  I see no
> > headlines.  If there is a movement to fix all the above, it sure isn't
> > grabbing any headlines from the media.
> > 
> > I know someone who just got a $26,000 hospital bill for a stay in ICU
> > for a week.  At no time did anyone come to this person and explain the
> > kinds of prices they'd be billed for.  What other industry gets to do
> > this?  You buy a car and THEN AND ONLY THEN are you told the price? 
> > Talk about sticker shock -- and, fuck you AMA, but the stress of that
> > shock must at the very least psychosomatiically harm a percentage of the
> > patients enough to be a health hazzard in itself.  Someone who's in an
> > anxious state of mind gets the billing and, what?, suicide or the
> > patient ends up constantly bathing his mind/body system with the
> > chemicals that "hand wringing" can produce.  There's no attempt to
> > pre-handle this kind of stress.
> > 
> > And, the above person lost over $50,000 in a retirement fund's value
> > too.  Two industries ripped this person off, ya see?  Yet, everyone is
> > standing around and not shoving the noses of these bastards into the doo
> > doo of their crimes.
> > 
> > The rich get richer, and the poor are ever more being shunted into a
> > lower class status until, what?, there's no middle class and thus no
> > more chance of an uppity middle classer making headlines by showcasing
> > some sort of abuse.
> > 
> > The masses are kept masses, ya see?  Tended like they're in a feed lot.
> > 
> > Obama takes money from BigPharm -- to me, he's cherry picking his
> > battles, and going up against the health industry is a low priority
> > compared to other issues -- Obama is still doing battlefield triage in
> > trying to manage his team's use of clout, but at somepoint, he's got to
> > push for cheap drugs from Canada or elsewhere (government
> > manufacturing?,) bigger medical school enrollments, and, eventually, at
> > least, a single payer policy.
> > 
> > If he doesn't, if the deaths of foreigners by Amer

[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Barry's just been losing and losing and losing
> > > > recently.
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > To follow up, Richard, read what Judy
> > > > > actually SAYS in reply to Edg. She keeps
> > > > > berating him (and others) for not "reading
> > > > > what I have posted," and "reading the links
> > > > > I have posted."
> > > > >
> > > > > Only THEN will Edg (and these others) learn
> > > > > the "truth," she implies. And what exactly
> > > > > IS the nature of this "truth?"
> > > > >
> > > > > Duh. They have to agree with Judy.
> > > >
> > > > Wrong AGAIN, loser. You won't find any of my
> > > > posts on crop circles demonizing somebody for
> > > > disagreeing with me. Not one.
> > >
> > > Ahem.
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > >
> > > > They look like artworks or, possibly some message but
> > > > not to get hysterical about as it would seem that if
> > > > whoever is in command of such technology was mad at us,
> > > > we would be long gone.
> > >
> > > Heh. I don't think that's what scares them. It's
> > > the idea that some of the circles may not have a
> > > mundane explanation they find terrifying.
> > >
> > > Characterizing those who disagree with you
> > > as "terrified" isn't demonizing them?
> >
> > Oh, how clever of you not to quote the next two
> > paragraphs:
> >
> > > What I'm berating the skeptopaths for is
> > > their cowardice. They don't have the cojones
> > > to disagree with me on the basis of what I've
> > > said and the information I've pointed to.
> > >
> > > Instead they create armies of straw men and
> > > beat *them* up, then pound their chests as if
> > > they'd actually accomplished something. Losers.
> 
> Poor, poor, POOR Judy. Someone quoted only
> the first part of your demonization, not the
> second part, which is even more demonizing.
> In the second part, you call them a name
> ("skeptopaths"),  you say they have no cojones,
> and you create fantasy images of how they
> react to the awesome power of your "rightness"
> on this subject.

No, loser, I'm "demonizing" them (as the part you
snipped shows) because they don't have the cojones,
as I said, to disagree with me on the basis of what
I've said and the information I've pointed to. They
can only manage to beat up on straw men of their
own creation.

That's why they're skepto*paths* rather than skeptics 
(yourself included, of course).

The one person who *did* have the balls (and the
honesty) to do that was Curtis. And our discussion
was very cordial; neither of us had to demonize
the other.

The only thing they *can* disagree with me about is
whether there are unanswered questions about the
origins of some of the crop circles. And that there
are such questions isn't *my* "rightness," it's
facts on the record.

> Poor victimized Judy Stein. I think you should
> consider replacing your fantasy image of what
> *you* believe my fantasy image of you on the
> FFL photos page with this one, which better
> reflects your "victim" mentality:
>  
> [http://www.morethings.com/fan/carrie-sissy_spacek/piper+laurie-martyr_m\om05.jpg]
> 
> It has an advantage over *your* fantasy image of my
> fantasy image of you -- with this photo you get to
> portray yourself as a more of a victim and a martyr.

Nope, wrong AGAIN. I don't portray myself as a victim
because I ain't one. I'm portraying *you*, a loser who
can't come up with even an honest insult, a twit who
is so terrified by reality he has to make up one he
can be comfortable with.

If you want to victimize me, you're going to have to
grow a pair first.

> In reality, my image of you is as you appear in the
> other photo you posted to the FFL photo page. As an
> old, overweight woman whose face reveals more about
> what her life choices and indulgences have done to her
> than she realizes, and who is trying very, very hard to
> smile for the camera, and failing:

This is Barry's fantasy image of Judy's *real* image.

Just for one thing, Judy hadn't the slightest difficulty
smiling for the camera, because she found the whole
narcissistic exercise of taking her own picture
hilarious.

And by what my "life choices and indulgences" have done
to me, were you referring to all the laugh lines? I know
they're pretty prominent, since I don't feel the need to
wear makeup. Or did you mean the fact that my (undyed)
hair isn't gray?



Loser.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Signs we're getting old #27

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "shempmcgurk" 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , off_world_beings 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > >   > , "authfriend" 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > >   > , "shempmcgurk" 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > >   > , TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > Also in their favor is that Euro-nations have not spent
> > > > > > the decades since World War II spending literally *half*
> > > > > > of their Gross National Product on "defense," which is
> > > > > > a euphemism for both "Better ways to kill people," and
> > > > > > "Subsidies for Defense Industries." America has.
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > Before you open your big, fat mouth about
> > > > > things you know nothing about, why don't
> > > > > you actually do some research?
> > > > >
> > > > > Show me one year since WWII when half of
> > > > > the GDP was spent on "defense".  For goodness
> > > > > sake's, even with Obama's $3.8 trillion budget
> > > > > this year (which includes defense as just one
> > > > > category of spending, which is not even the
> > > > > largest one) that only represents about 25% of
> > > > > the entire GDP.
> > > >
> > > > What he's most likely thinking of is the stat
> > > > that U.S. defense spending amounts to more
> > > > than half of *global military spending*.
> > >
> > >
> > > Here's a strange situation. I agree with Turq, and disagree with
> Judy
> > > and Shemp.
> > >
> > > Obviously Turq. meant Government discretionary spending, not GDP !
> >
> >
> > Keep digging the hole you're in.
> >
> > Do you even know what "discretionary spending" is?>>
> 
> Of course I know what discretionary spending is. That's why I mentioned
> it. You obviously don't, that's why you had to go look it up, but still
> you don't understand what it is. It is basically the spending over which
> there is a choice. It is basically the annual budget of the Government.
> 
> Military spending is more than half of the US budget when you take out
> Social Security and Medicare.
> 
> OffWorld
>


No, it's not and I prove it by citing figures and adding them up in the next 
post that I wrote.

You're not a betting man, are you?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Signs we're getting old #27

[off_world_beings]

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

> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> >  > > >  >  , TurquoiseB 
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also in their favor is that Euro-nations have not spent
> > > > > > the decades since World War II spending literally *half*
> > > > > > of their Gross National Product on "defense," which is
> > > > > > a euphemism for both "Better ways to kill people," and
> > > > > > "Subsidies for Defense Industries." America has.
> > > > >
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Before you open your big, fat mouth about things you know
nothing
> > > > about, why don't you actually do some research?
> > > > >
> > > > > Show me one year since WWII when half of the GDP was spent on
> > > > "defense". >
> > > >
> > > > I have to agree with Turq on this. If you take Social Security
out
> > of
> > > > the equation, then almost every year more than half was spent on
> > > > military. Social Security trust fund was inserted into the
equation
> > by
> > > > the Republicans in the 1960's to try to hide their exorbitant
> > defense
> > > > spending. It has no business being in there because it is a
trust
> > find
> > > > and not the Government's to use, spend, or touch.
> > > >
> > > > OffWorld
> > > >
> > >
> > > You guys are mixing up "GDP" with "Federal Budget".
> >
> > I was not mixing it up with GDP. I assumed he meant 'discretionary
> > budget'. That seemed obvious.
> >
> > GDP is about 15 trillion for the US, which by the way, was always my
> > argument as to why we are not in a depression, just an adjustment.
> > We live in a world economy (not a US economy) of about 75 trillion
with
> > Europe as the biggest block at about 18 trillion. So with a 75
trillion
> > dollar economy, a few trillion here and there is not the end of the
> > world.
> >
> > OffWorld
>
>
>
> "a few trillion here and there is not the end of the world".
>
> Gosh, I was nervous when Bush had a deficit of $580 billion.
>
> This year Obama and his Democratic Congress have given us a $1.8
trillion deficit. Divide that amount by the 300 million people in the
U.S. and you come up with a figure of $6,000 per person. And that's just
ONE YEAR. Obama's planning on doing this each and every year.
>


> Perhaps not the end of the world but pretty darn close to the end of
America.>>


Utter nonsense.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Signs we're getting old #27

[off_world_beings]

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

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

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

> >  > , TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > > > [snip]
> > > > > Also in their favor is that Euro-nations have not spent
> > > > > the decades since World War II spending literally *half*
> > > > > of their Gross National Product on "defense," which is
> > > > > a euphemism for both "Better ways to kill people," and
> > > > > "Subsidies for Defense Industries." America has.
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > Before you open your big, fat mouth about
> > > > things you know nothing about, why don't
> > > > you actually do some research?
> > > >
> > > > Show me one year since WWII when half of
> > > > the GDP was spent on "defense".  For goodness
> > > > sake's, even with Obama's $3.8 trillion budget
> > > > this year (which includes defense as just one
> > > > category of spending, which is not even the
> > > > largest one) that only represents about 25% of
> > > > the entire GDP.
> > >
> > > What he's most likely thinking of is the stat
> > > that U.S. defense spending amounts to more
> > > than half of *global military spending*.
> >
> >
> > Here's a strange situation. I agree with Turq, and disagree with
Judy
> > and Shemp.
> >
> > Obviously Turq. meant Government discretionary spending, not GDP !
>
>
> Keep digging the hole you're in.
>
> Do you even know what "discretionary spending" is?>>

Of course I know what discretionary spending is. That's why I mentioned
it. You obviously don't, that's why you had to go look it up, but still
you don't understand what it is. It is basically the spending over which
there is a choice. It is basically the annual budget of the Government.

Military spending is more than half of the US budget when you take out
Social Security and Medicare.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Get Rid of the For-Profit Health Insurance Industry

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> >
> >  ruthsimplicity wrote:  I would describe the relationship between docs
> > and insurers as almost adversarial, hardly in cahoots.
> > 
> > Ruth,
> > 
> > You being a nurse and all, I'm hesitant to smack at the health industry
> > lest I besmirch your participation therein.  As I've noted here at least
> > several times, you have impressed me with heartfelt values.
> > 
> > And,  nurses, as a group, (doctors far less so) generally do impress me
> > with their intellects and hearts.
> > 
> > All that said (here it comes,) I think the health industry itself is
> > reflective of the profiteers that any industry finds itself infested by,
> > and those profiteers are as cold hearted as Joseph Mengle.
> > 
> > Start with the AMA's policy to keep doctors rare and rich and absolute
> > rulers of the industry.  It is scandalous, yet, and here's where I
> > intend to put it to you, where is the outcry from the nurses and doctors
> > about this policy?  So far, I don't think I've heard herein about it
> > from you.  So far, you above are posing doctors as victims.  Phihhh, as
> > if.
> > 
> > If the AMA allowed medical schools to double their production, they'd
> > have all the VERY VERY SMART and VERY VERY HEARTFUL candidates they
> > needed to fill up the new classes without having to lower their entrance
> > requirement standards.  But, noo, that would mean that doctors were
> > competing against doctors in pricing, and that would mean that there
> > would be ample supply of doctors such that hospitals could more easily
> > dump the bad ones that continue to maraud the industry with all kinds of
> > malpractice.
> > 
> > Ask anyone in poverty whether they'd rather have a doctor who was in the
> > 98th percentile (not tippy tippy top notch just top notch) or no doctor
> > at all?  Fuck the entrance requirements of the AMA -- a truly evil money
> > making cabal.
> > 
> > And as for doctors not being in league with the insurance companies,
> > that's a lie.  They're not fighting against them with any use of their
> > own or the AMA's political clout.  Your average surgeon will be paying,
> > what?, probably well over a hundred thousand dollars a year to have
> > malpractice insurance -- costs that they pass down to the clients with
> > higher fees without even apologizing to the patients that they're being
> > ripped off.  The doctors are beleagered in many ways by how insurance
> > companies prvent them from doing "all that's needed," yet we do not hear
> > a peep out of the AMA -- if we did, the AMA could, overnight, get
> > congress to stop the bastards -- yes, the AMA has that much power.  Does
> > any politician want the AMA solely supporting another candidate?
> > 
> > Where are the doctors picketing these injustices?  Where are the nurses
> > confronting the physicians about this say-nothing immorality?  I see no
> > headlines.  If there is a movement to fix all the above, it sure isn't
> > grabbing any headlines from the media.
> > 
> > I know someone who just got a $26,000 hospital bill for a stay in ICU
> > for a week.  At no time did anyone come to this person and explain the
> > kinds of prices they'd be billed for.  What other industry gets to do
> > this?  You buy a car and THEN AND ONLY THEN are you told the price? 
> > Talk about sticker shock -- and, fuck you AMA, but the stress of that
> > shock must at the very least psychosomatiically harm a percentage of the
> > patients enough to be a health hazzard in itself.  Someone who's in an
> > anxious state of mind gets the billing and, what?, suicide or the
> > patient ends up constantly bathing his mind/body system with the
> > chemicals that "hand wringing" can produce.  There's no attempt to
> > pre-handle this kind of stress.
> > 
> > And, the above person lost over $50,000 in a retirement fund's value
> > too.  Two industries ripped this person off, ya see?  Yet, everyone is
> > standing around and not shoving the noses of these bastards into the doo
> > doo of their crimes.
> > 
> > The rich get richer, and the poor are ever more being shunted into a
> > lower class status until, what?, there's no middle class and thus no
> > more chance of an uppity middle classer making headlines by showcasing
> > some sort of abuse.
> > 
> > The masses are kept masses, ya see?  Tended like they're in a feed lot.
> > 
> > Obama takes money from BigPharm -- to me, he's cherry picking his
> > battles, and going up against the health industry is a low priority
> > compared to other issues -- Obama is still doing battlefield triage in
> > trying to manage his team's use of clout, but at somepoint, he's got to
> > push for cheap drugs from Canada or elsewhere (government
> > manufacturing?,) bigger medical school enrollments, and, eventually, at
> > least, a single payer policy.
> > 
> > If he doesn't, if the deaths of foreigners by Amer

[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Barry's just been losing and losing and losing
> > > recently.
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
> > > 
> > > > To follow up, Richard, read what Judy
> > > > actually SAYS in reply to Edg. She keeps
> > > > berating him (and others) for not "reading
> > > > what I have posted," and "reading the links
> > > > I have posted."
> > > >
> > > > Only THEN will Edg (and these others) learn
> > > > the "truth," she implies. And what exactly
> > > > IS the nature of this "truth?"
> > > >
> > > > Duh. They have to agree with Judy.
> > >
> > > Wrong AGAIN, loser. You won't find any of my
> > > posts on crop circles demonizing somebody for
> > > disagreeing with me. Not one.
> >
> > Ahem.
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
wrote:
> > 
> > > >
> > > They look like artworks or, possibly some message but
> > > not to get hysterical about as it would seem that if
> > > whoever is in command of such technology was mad at us,
> > > we would be long gone.
> >
> > Heh. I don't think that's what scares them. It's
> > the idea that some of the circles may not have a
> > mundane explanation they find terrifying.
> >
> > Characterizing those who disagree with you
> > as "terrified" isn't demonizing them?
>
> Oh, how clever of you not to quote the next two
> paragraphs:
>
> > What I'm berating the skeptopaths for is
> > their cowardice. They don't have the cojones
> > to disagree with me on the basis of what I've
> > said and the information I've pointed to.
> >
> > Instead they create armies of straw men and
> > beat *them* up, then pound their chests as if
> > they'd actually accomplished something. Losers.

Poor, poor, POOR Judy. Someone quoted only
the first part of your demonization, not the
second part, which is even more demonizing.
In the second part, you call them a name
("skeptopaths"),  you say they have no cojones,
and you create fantasy images of how they
react to the awesome power of your "rightness"
on this subject.

Poor victimized Judy Stein. I think you should
consider replacing your fantasy image of what
*you* believe my fantasy image of you on the
FFL photos page with this one, which better
reflects your "victim" mentality:

 
[http://www.morethings.com/fan/carrie-sissy_spacek/piper+laurie-martyr_m\
om05.jpg]

It has an advantage over *your* fantasy image of my
fantasy image of you -- with this photo you get to
portray yourself as a more of a victim and a martyr.

In reality, my image of you is as you appear in the
other photo you posted to the FFL photo page. As an
old, overweight woman whose face reveals more about
what her life choices and indulgences have done to her
than she realizes, and who is trying very, very hard to
smile for the camera, and failing:

  [Judy Stein]

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Relationship of Fairfield Life TBs and Vaj

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> Forget Robert's hysterical comparison of Vaj 
> to Hitler and the enemies of Socrates. Forget
> EmptyBill's EmptyRhetoric and EmptyGrudge and
> EmptySoul. Forget Judy's attempt to "prove"
> Vaj a "liar," as she attempts for pretty much
> everyone she doesn't like.

Nope, only the liars among you, loser.

 Forget Off and Nabby
> altogether. :-)
> 
> What's *really* going on with the "pile on Vaj"
> thang, eh?
> 
> I mean, it's a real phenomenon. SURE Vaj pisses
> people off and pushes their buttons. And SURE 
> he does it intentionally.
> 
> But the HYSTERIA with which Robert and others
> react *when* he pushes their buttons is what
> intrigues me. 
> 
> It seems to me -- whether you like him or hate
> him -- that Vaj just fuckin' OWNS these people.

Well, OF COURSE it "seems" like that to Barry.
Barry's desperate to see "these people" owned.
If he can manage to see them as having been
owned, they won't seem so much of a threat
to him.

> He has an intuitive feel for what their samskaric
> "hot buttons" are, and how to push them. In a 
> Buddhist monastery, where seekers actually want
> to *get rid of* their samskaras, he would actually
> be appreciated. If your spiritual goal is to elim-
> inate your hot button overreactions, the person
> who can push those buttons is your *friend*. He
> or she reveals to you the things you still need
> to work on.
> 
> But here he's not only not perceived as a friend,

Ah, but that's because he isn't (nor does he 
perceive himself to be).

> he's perceived as evil, an enemy, Hitler, the
> kind of person who tormented Socrates.

No, he's perceived to be just generally a
crappy person, same as Barry is.

> I think that by going as over the top as they 
> have been going when Vaj successfully pushes their
> buttons and demonstrates how completely he OWNS
> them, the folks who have been trying their 
> damnedest to demonize Vaj have been revealing 
> more about themselves and their "spiritual slacker" 
> mentality than his.

Only if we don't look at *Vaj's* mentality.

But if we do, we have to ask why Vaj is so
easy to provoke into doing his damndest to push
buttons.

The *fact* is that Vaj's own buttons are getting
pushed on a regular basis (just as Barry's are).

> Clearly these people do *NOT* want to eliminate or
> control their own "hot button" issues. Instead, they
> *celebrate* them, they wear their oh-so-easily-
> pushable hot buttons on their sleeves, and trot them
> out as if their anger and their outrage and yes,
> their hysteria should actually be viewed as a 
> Good Thing.

Any one of us here could reel off a list of 
things that very dependably push Barry's buttons,
causing him to respond with anger, outrage, and
hysteria. Here's just a few:

--Celibacy as a virtue
--The authority of scripture
--The possibility that crop circles aren't
  all human-made
--Maharishi as enlightened
--TM as the most effective available form of
  meditation for householders
--Effortlessness as the key to transcending
--Determinism
--The efficacy of Jyotish, proper Vastu,
  yagyas, etc.
--Lenz's "siddhis" as a product of hypnosis
--Sticking with one teacher and not experimenting
  with other techniques/teachings

Etc., etc., etc. Mention any of the above (and a
whole bunch more) and you're virtually guaranteed 
one of Barry's long, angry tirades attacking both
the idea and the person and/or group who promotes
it. He just CAN'T keep it in his pants. Push his
buttons and he just *has* to react hysterically,
or angrily, or mean-spiritedly, spring a hot-
button-boner and start waving it all around. And
he actually seems to believe that doing so makes
him look good.

In this case, what's pushed his buttons is that
a number of folks have been pointing out that
his partner in TM/TMer/MMY-bashing lacks
credibility. And of course that's what has pushed
Vaj's buttons as well.


> This is *NOT* an attempt to
> demonize them in "retaliation" or as any kind of
> "defense" of Vaj.

Why, of COURSE not. How could anybody think that even
for a *second*?



Loser.

RE: [FairfieldLife] Yogic high jump record?

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of cardemaister
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 2:05 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Yogic high jump record?
 
Anyone know what the YHJR is nowadays? According to
a news clipping (without date) I just found, it was
then (in the middle of the 80's?) 57,15 centimeters (22.5 inches).
Da "recordista" was Blaine Watson from Canada!
Blaine says, "I think I did better than that in Delhi. it was almost 30
inches, around 28. I may be exaggerating it in my memory."

[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > Barry's just been losing and losing and losing
> > recently.
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
> > 
> > > To follow up, Richard, read what Judy
> > > actually SAYS in reply to Edg. She keeps
> > > berating him (and others) for not "reading
> > > what I have posted," and "reading the links
> > > I have posted."
> > >
> > > Only THEN will Edg (and these others) learn
> > > the "truth," she implies. And what exactly
> > > IS the nature of this "truth?"
> > >
> > > Duh. They have to agree with Judy.
> >
> > Wrong AGAIN, loser. You won't find any of my
> > posts on crop circles demonizing somebody for
> > disagreeing with me. Not one.
> 
> Ahem.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> > >
> > They look like artworks or, possibly some message but
> > not to get hysterical about as it would seem that if
> > whoever is in command of such technology was mad at us,
> > we would be long gone.
> 
> Heh. I don't think that's what scares them. It's
> the idea that some of the circles may not have a
> mundane explanation they find terrifying.
> 
> Characterizing those who disagree with you
> as "terrified" isn't demonizing them?

Oh, how clever of you not to quote the next two
paragraphs:

> What I'm berating the skeptopaths for is
> their cowardice. They don't have the cojones
> to disagree with me on the basis of what I've
> said and the information I've pointed to.
> 
> Instead they create armies of straw men and
> beat *them* up, then pound their chests as if
> they'd actually accomplished something. Losers.

[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> Barry's just been losing and losing and losing
> recently.
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
> 
> > To follow up, Richard, read what Judy
> > actually SAYS in reply to Edg. She keeps
> > berating him (and others) for not "reading
> > what I have posted," and "reading the links
> > I have posted."
> >
> > Only THEN will Edg (and these others) learn
> > the "truth," she implies. And what exactly
> > IS the nature of this "truth?"
> >
> > Duh. They have to agree with Judy.
>
> Wrong AGAIN, loser. You won't find any of my
> posts on crop circles demonizing somebody for
> disagreeing with me. Not one.

Ahem.

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

> >
> They look like artworks or, possibly some message but
> not to get hysterical about as it would seem that if
> whoever is in command of such technology was mad at us,
> we would be long gone.

Heh. I don't think that's what scares them. It's
the idea that some of the circles may not have a
mundane explanation they find terrifying.

Characterizing those who disagree with you
as "terrified" isn't demonizing them?

[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)

[authfriend]

Barry's just been losing and losing and losing
recently.

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

> To follow up, Richard, read what Judy
> actually SAYS in reply to Edg. She keeps
> berating him (and others) for not "reading 
> what I have posted," and "reading the links 
> I have posted."
> 
> Only THEN will Edg (and these others) learn 
> the "truth," she implies. And what exactly 
> IS the nature of this "truth?" 
> 
> Duh. They have to agree with Judy.

Wrong AGAIN, loser. You won't find any of my
posts on crop circles demonizing somebody for
disagreeing with me. Not one.

What I'm berating the skeptopaths for is 
their cowardice. They don't have the cojones
to disagree with me on the basis of what I've
said and the information I've pointed to.

Instead they create armies of straw men and
beat *them* up, then pound their chests as if
they'd actually accomplished something. Losers.


> I *understand* that some people place credence
> in what people *claim* to believe. I really
> do not. I watch to see what they DO. 
> 
> If what they DO conflicts with what they claim
> to believe, well...I don't believe that they
> really believe what they claim to believe. 
> 
> Is that bad?  :-)

Yes, loser, because you *don't* actually see what
they do. You make stuff up and claim that's what 
they've done, as in the post I'm responding to.
You don't have the cojones to engage with reality.
You're so threatened by it you have to create a
nice comfortable one of your own.

I mean, you get very annoyed whenever anybody
expresses doubt that Frederick Lenz actually
physically levitated.

Right?

[FairfieldLife] Re: A test of astrology or Jyotish, for those who might think it fun

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > >
> > > It's very simple. Take the birth data below and describe the
> > > individual and what he (it was definitely a man) would have
> > > been likely to be like in terms of personality. Describe what
> > > you think his career possibilities might have been, his like-
> > > lihood of finding love and a happy marriage, and his potential
> > > impact on the times in which he lived.
> > > 
> > > Birth Date: November 1st 1526
> > > Time: 6.45pm
> > > Place: Paris, France
> > 
> > On the basis of the Western Chart, studying it less than
> > 5 minutes, I'm afraid: an extremely powerful individual,
> > with supreme and "surprizing" skills in verbal communication?
> > Also rather attractive? Perhaps a bit seriousminded, though?
> > 
> > Gonna try to find out by googling, who he is...
> 
> Every one of your interpretations is accurate, Card.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> I'll post the "answer" later, after anyone who
> chooses to play the game has had an opportunity
> to do so. My response is already "pre-written"
> and has been sent to someone via email, so that
> there can be no trickery on my part.

Needless to say, anyone who Googles first,
and cheats, doesn't really believe much in
the astrology or Jyotish they claim to believe
in, do they?

Either that, or they are willing to cheat and
lie in order to make it seem more believable
than it really is. 

The original astrologer was more honest, and
did pretty well...

[FairfieldLife] Re: A test of astrology or Jyotish, for those who might think it fun

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > It's very simple. Take the birth data below and describe the
> > individual and what he (it was definitely a man) would have
> > been likely to be like in terms of personality. Describe what
> > you think his career possibilities might have been, his like-
> > lihood of finding love and a happy marriage, and his potential
> > impact on the times in which he lived.
> > 
> > Birth Date: November 1st 1526
> > Time: 6.45pm
> > Place: Paris, France
> 
> On the basis of the Western Chart, studying it less than
> 5 minutes, I'm afraid: an extremely powerful individual,
> with supreme and "surprizing" skills in verbal communication?
> Also rather attractive? Perhaps a bit seriousminded, though?
> 
> Gonna try to find out by googling, who he is...

Every one of your interpretations is accurate, Card.

Thanks for playing.

I'll post the "answer" later, after anyone who
chooses to play the game has had an opportunity
to do so. My response is already "pre-written"
and has been sent to someone via email, so that
there can be no trickery on my part.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A test of astrology or Jyotish, for those who might think it fun

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> It's very simple. Take the birth data below and describe the
> individual and what he (it was definitely a man) would have
> been likely to be like in terms of personality. Describe what
> you think his career possibilities might have been, his like-
> lihood of finding love and a happy marriage, and his potential
> impact on the times in which he lived.
> 
> Birth Date: November 1st 1526
> Time: 6.45pm
> Place: Paris, France
> 

On the basis of the Western Chart, studying it less than
5 minutes, I'm afraid: an extremely powerful individual,
with supreme and "surprizing" skills in verbal communication?
Also rather attractive? Perhaps a bit seriousminded, though?

Gonna try to find out by googling, who he is...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Get Rid of the For-Profit Health Insurance Industry

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
>  ruthsimplicity wrote:  I would describe the relationship between docs
> and insurers as almost adversarial, hardly in cahoots.
> 
> Ruth,
> 
> You being a nurse and all, I'm hesitant to smack at the health industry
> lest I besmirch your participation therein.  As I've noted here at least
> several times, you have impressed me with heartfelt values.
> 
> And,  nurses, as a group, (doctors far less so) generally do impress me
> with their intellects and hearts.
> 
> All that said (here it comes,) I think the health industry itself is
> reflective of the profiteers that any industry finds itself infested by,
> and those profiteers are as cold hearted as Joseph Mengle.
> 
> Start with the AMA's policy to keep doctors rare and rich and absolute
> rulers of the industry.  It is scandalous, yet, and here's where I
> intend to put it to you, where is the outcry from the nurses and doctors
> about this policy?  So far, I don't think I've heard herein about it
> from you.  So far, you above are posing doctors as victims.  Phihhh, as
> if.
> 
> If the AMA allowed medical schools to double their production, they'd
> have all the VERY VERY SMART and VERY VERY HEARTFUL candidates they
> needed to fill up the new classes without having to lower their entrance
> requirement standards.  But, noo, that would mean that doctors were
> competing against doctors in pricing, and that would mean that there
> would be ample supply of doctors such that hospitals could more easily
> dump the bad ones that continue to maraud the industry with all kinds of
> malpractice.
> 
> Ask anyone in poverty whether they'd rather have a doctor who was in the
> 98th percentile (not tippy tippy top notch just top notch) or no doctor
> at all?  Fuck the entrance requirements of the AMA -- a truly evil money
> making cabal.
> 
> And as for doctors not being in league with the insurance companies,
> that's a lie.  They're not fighting against them with any use of their
> own or the AMA's political clout.  Your average surgeon will be paying,
> what?, probably well over a hundred thousand dollars a year to have
> malpractice insurance -- costs that they pass down to the clients with
> higher fees without even apologizing to the patients that they're being
> ripped off.  The doctors are beleagered in many ways by how insurance
> companies prvent them from doing "all that's needed," yet we do not hear
> a peep out of the AMA -- if we did, the AMA could, overnight, get
> congress to stop the bastards -- yes, the AMA has that much power.  Does
> any politician want the AMA solely supporting another candidate?
> 
> Where are the doctors picketing these injustices?  Where are the nurses
> confronting the physicians about this say-nothing immorality?  I see no
> headlines.  If there is a movement to fix all the above, it sure isn't
> grabbing any headlines from the media.
> 
> I know someone who just got a $26,000 hospital bill for a stay in ICU
> for a week.  At no time did anyone come to this person and explain the
> kinds of prices they'd be billed for.  What other industry gets to do
> this?  You buy a car and THEN AND ONLY THEN are you told the price? 
> Talk about sticker shock -- and, fuck you AMA, but the stress of that
> shock must at the very least psychosomatiically harm a percentage of the
> patients enough to be a health hazzard in itself.  Someone who's in an
> anxious state of mind gets the billing and, what?, suicide or the
> patient ends up constantly bathing his mind/body system with the
> chemicals that "hand wringing" can produce.  There's no attempt to
> pre-handle this kind of stress.
> 
> And, the above person lost over $50,000 in a retirement fund's value
> too.  Two industries ripped this person off, ya see?  Yet, everyone is
> standing around and not shoving the noses of these bastards into the doo
> doo of their crimes.
> 
> The rich get richer, and the poor are ever more being shunted into a
> lower class status until, what?, there's no middle class and thus no
> more chance of an uppity middle classer making headlines by showcasing
> some sort of abuse.
> 
> The masses are kept masses, ya see?  Tended like they're in a feed lot.
> 
> Obama takes money from BigPharm -- to me, he's cherry picking his
> battles, and going up against the health industry is a low priority
> compared to other issues -- Obama is still doing battlefield triage in
> trying to manage his team's use of clout, but at somepoint, he's got to
> push for cheap drugs from Canada or elsewhere (government
> manufacturing?,) bigger medical school enrollments, and, eventually, at
> least, a single payer policy.
> 
> If he doesn't, if the deaths of foreigners by American forces continues,
> if the health industry is not confronted, if the insurance industry
> pretty much is not stopped in its tracks, in the next four years, then I
> think I'll waste my next vote on writing in Kusinich.
> 


> Edg
>
Just

Re: [FairfieldLife] What really happened to the Air France flight

[Bhairitu]

TurquoiseB wrote:
> A shark got it:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUlYA_PtifU
Someday the video posters will hopefully  understand aspect ratios.

Actually it crashed near and island and most of the passengers are safe 
but the island is uncharted and keeps disappearing.  They've run into 
trouble though with some group headed by a guy named "Ben" and there 
seems to be some evidence of a community scientific experiment that took 
place in the 1970s.  Oh, and one of the passengers who was a paraplegic 
is now walking again.
 

[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> Why should I waste my time doing research into crop circles?
> 
> All I need to do is read one article by a person who
> has done this, and the below is a typical "balanced"
> view about crop circles.  The writer has done some
> homework, saved me the effort, and the conclusion is
> that "man made" is overwhelmingly the "best guess" to
> support.
> 
> Judy, do you agree with the below article?

No. It is indeed a "typical" skeptical article, in that
it gets a number of things significantly wrong. The best
that can be said for it is that the writer hedges his
bets by sticking in "almost" and similar qualifiers
throughout.

I just realized that you and I have been through this
before, even down to your refusal to look at the links
and other information that I've posted.

Do you not know how to use Yahoo Search for FFL posts?
Is that the problem?

Because if you're just being stubborn, the hell with
you. This conversation is over. I've made my position
extremely clear and have provided my reasons and
documentation. And yet you continue to misrepresent
what I've said. There's no excuse for that, sorry.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Get Rid of the For-Profit Health Insurance Industry

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> It's just a ride wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 4:55 PM, ruthsimplicity 
> > wrote:
> >
> >   
> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "It's just a ride"
> >>  wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:52 PM, do.rflex  wrote:
> >>>
> >>>   
> >> Really?  I don't know any health insurance companies that cover lost wages.
> >>  What company was it?
> >>
> >> 
> >
> > UHC.   My friend had signed up for disability insurance with UHC through his
> > Fortune 5 company.
> >   
> 
> Look up William McGuire, UHC's CEO.  It is alleged he was given a $1.2 
> billion severance package when he left UHC.  He was also highly (over) 
> compensated in his yearly salary.  Here is a record of his campaign 
> contributions:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnitedHealth_Group
> 
> Here's a record of his campaign contributions:
> http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_political_donations/William_McGuire.php
>
Yes, his compensation package was a scandal. 

[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> Why should I waste my time doing research into crop circles?
>
> All I need to do is read one article by a person who has done this,
and the below is a typical "balanced" view about crop circles. The
writer has done some homework, saved me the effort, and the conclusion
is that "man made" is overwhelmingly the "best guess" to support.


Right. And how many men would it take to make for example this huge crop
circle, and how many days would it take to make it ? Don't you find it
strange that noone has observed them in the making ?



Bishop Cannings, nr Devizes, Wiltshire. Reported 24th May.



CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST CROP CIRCLE CONNECTOR DVD






Image Jack Turner Copyright 2009


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

[FairfieldLife] Re: A test of astrology or Jyotish, for those who might think it fun

[Richard M]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> It's very simple. Take the birth data below and describe the
> individual and what he (it was definitely a man) would have
> been likely to be like in terms of personality. Describe what
> you think his career possibilities might have been, his like-
> lihood of finding love and a happy marriage, and his potential
> impact on the times in which he lived.
> 
> Birth Date: November 1st 1526
> Time: 6.45pm
> Place: Paris, France
> 
> 
> 
> Admittedly, the chart shown above is a Western Placidus chart.
> But you have the birth data so you can do a Jyotish chart.
> 
> This "test" has actually been performed before. The astrologer
> hired at that time to describe this individual, not knowing who
> he was, did a remarkably good job of capturing certain aspects
> of his personality and his life. The person who commissioned
> the horoscope -- an astrology skeptic -- was shocked at the
> results.
> 
> Can you do as well?
>

I'm just wondering about this chart...Out on a limb here..

Has Dorothy 'Dunnit'?

[FairfieldLife] A test of astrology or Jyotish, for those who might think it fun

[TurquoiseB]

It's very simple. Take the birth data below and describe the
individual and what he (it was definitely a man) would have
been likely to be like in terms of personality. Describe what
you think his career possibilities might have been, his like-
lihood of finding love and a happy marriage, and his potential
impact on the times in which he lived.

Birth Date: November 1st 1526
Time: 6.45pm
Place: Paris, France



Admittedly, the chart shown above is a Western Placidus chart.
But you have the birth data so you can do a Jyotish chart.

This "test" has actually been performed before. The astrologer
hired at that time to describe this individual, not knowing who
he was, did a remarkably good job of capturing certain aspects
of his personality and his life. The person who commissioned
the horoscope -- an astrology skeptic -- was shocked at the
results.

Can you do as well?

Re: [FairfieldLife] David Carradine's Jyotish Chart

[Vaj]

I already posted it in the files section, but I accidentally used the  
Yukteshwar ayanamsha. That's the birth data built into Goravani for  
Grasshopper.


On Jun 6, 2009, at 12:47 PM, Bhairitu wrote:


Did you look here?
http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Main_Page

[FairfieldLife] Re: IPs (was which guru best?)

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Alex Stanley
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 2:31 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: IPs (was which guru best?)
>  
> Just out of curiosity, I did a reverse IP lookup and found this:
>  
> 80.111.68.171 resolves to
> "cm-80.111.68.171.chello.no"
> Top Level Domain: "chello.no"
> Country IP Address: AUSTRIA
>  
> Does this mean that Nabby is in Austria and not Norway?
>

The left hemisphere of his brain is in Austria and the right one in Norway.

His balls are in Greenland.

[FairfieldLife] Re: IPs (was which guru best?)

[shempmcgurk]

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


[snip]

> 
> But don't forget that according to Nabby FFL is
> home to at least four people he has accused of
> being CIA operatives working full-time to discredit
> TM and Maharishi. 

[snip]

Oh, this is delicious.

Who, pray tell, are the CIA operatives (I mean, beside Rick Archer)?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Get Rid of the For-Profit Health Insurance Industry

[Bhairitu]

It's just a ride wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 4:55 PM, ruthsimplicity 
> wrote:
>
>   
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "It's just a ride"
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:52 PM, do.rflex  wrote:
>>>
>>>   
>> Really?  I don't know any health insurance companies that cover lost wages.
>>  What company was it?
>>
>> 
>
> UHC.   My friend had signed up for disability insurance with UHC through his
> Fortune 5 company.
>   

Look up William McGuire, UHC's CEO.  It is alleged he was given a $1.2 
billion severance package when he left UHC.  He was also highly (over) 
compensated in his yearly salary.  Here is a record of his campaign 
contributions:

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

Here's a record of his campaign contributions:
http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_political_donations/William_McGuire.php

Re: [FairfieldLife] David Carradine's Jyotish Chart

[Bhairitu]

Did you look here?
http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Main_Page

John wrote:
> To All:
>
> Does anyone know of Carradine's birth time?  I have the other remaining data 
> to come up with some tentative conclusions.  I would guess he was born under 
> the sign of Taurus which would give him a fairly strong Saturn in the 10th 
> house of career.  Since Saturn can represent a foreigner, he became noted for 
> playing a Chinese character in his famous Kung Fu TV series.
>
> The period he was running prior to his death was the dasha of Mercury.  
> Mercury was in a malefic nakshatra of Moola, which is noted for causing 
> accidents and falls.  This nakshatra is also at the center of the Milky Way 
> where scientists have speculated that a massive black is situated.
>
> He was also undergoing the period of sade sati, a very malefic transit of 
> Saturn to the natal Moon.
>
> The chart further shows that Mars, the lord of a malefic 64th navamsha, was 
> in conjunction with the Moon in the rashi chart.
>
> An exact birth time should be able to show the nature of his death in 
> astrological terms.
>
> Regards,
>
> JR
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   

[FairfieldLife] The CIA Four

[scienceofabundance]

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

> But don't forget that according to Nabby FFL is
> home to at least four people he has accused of
> being CIA operatives working full-time to discredit
> TM and Maharishi. 
> 

I'm actually know one of those four, but they don't get paid by the CIA - they 
just get a stipend and credit for future courses.

Science

RE: [FairfieldLife] For Rick

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Randy Meltzer
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 10:54 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] For Rick
 
Hi Rick,
I just returned from Seattle today and Amma happen to be there so I thought
I would go and see her. I have seen her before but not in many years. 
My experience with her was the same as every other time I have seen her,
which is, this is also very nice, but frankly I don't see the big deal. I
never experience anything during the hug and the whole scene evades me. This
is in no way a put down. She is a great saint, no doubt. But for me, I don't
get it.
I have always respected your take on things (you taught an ATR course in
Avoriaz in the mid 70's that I really enjoyed) and the fact that you had the
resolve to break away from the TMO etc. Perhaps you could share what drew
you to Amma and a bit of your experiences.
If you don't want to do this here, then lets talk privately.
Thanks
Sorry about the delay. Busy week. 
"Different strokes for different folks." - Sly and the Family Stone
I see no reason why everyone should "get" Amma. Some prefer other saints, or
no saints, or whatever. We all have different affinities and interests. If
Amma's not for you, that's neither your fault nor Amma's. Other things float
your boat. 
I've always been a bit of a darshan junkie. I experienced profound changes
in Maharishi's presence, and I also do in Amma's. It usually takes me a day
to fully attune to the atmosphere. I may have a ho-hum attitude the first
day, but after that, I feel greatly elevated, and I think a cumulative
influence results. My association with Amma over the past decade has
resulted in deep shifts in my life and evolution. When I go to see Amma, I
try to take full advantage of the opportunity. I don't calculate when my hug
will be, then go see a movie to kill time (I know of someone who actually
did that). I don't spend much time browsing in the bookstore. I sit around
her and settle in, or perform various kinds of service.
I distinguish between being a devotee and a disciple. A devotee has an
emotional or spiritual affinity with a guru or saint. A disciple surrenders
his life to the guru. With Maharishi, I was probably more of a disciple. I
did my best to devote my life to him in every way possible. I might have
done the same with Amma at an earlier age, but now, pushing 60, I'm a lot
more concerned about stability and financial security than I was in my 20's.
I go and see Amma a few times a year (and also other saints who come to FF)
and other than that, I live my life, meditate regularly, walk the dogs, have
a bit of fun, etc. 
I wouldn't argue with Andrew Cohen's characterization of Amma as "the
highest being on the planet", and I'm grateful for the times I've had with
her and will yet have. But again, that's my preference. I respect your
preferences, whatever they may be.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Signs we're getting old #27

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "shempmcgurk" 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , off_world_beings 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > >   > , "shempmcgurk" 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > >   > , TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Also in their favor is that Euro-nations have not spent
> > > > > the decades since World War II spending literally *half*
> > > > > of their Gross National Product on "defense," which is
> > > > > a euphemism for both "Better ways to kill people," and
> > > > > "Subsidies for Defense Industries." America has.
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Before you open your big, fat mouth about things you know nothing
> > > about, why don't you actually do some research?
> > > >
> > > > Show me one year since WWII when half of the GDP was spent on
> > > "defense". >
> > >
> > > I have to agree with Turq on this. If you take Social Security out
> of
> > > the equation, then almost every year more than half was spent on
> > > military. Social Security trust fund was inserted into the equation
> by
> > > the Republicans in the 1960's to try to hide their exorbitant
> defense
> > > spending. It has no business being in there because it is a trust
> find
> > > and not the Government's to use, spend, or touch.
> > >
> > > OffWorld
> > >
> >
> > You guys are mixing up "GDP" with "Federal Budget".
> >
> > They are NOT the same thing.  The entire federal budget even at the
> exhorbitant $3.8 trillion is but 27% of the 14.3 trillion GDP in 2008
> for the United States. See:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal
>  )
> >
> > And, yes, I may agree with you vis a vis the Social Security spending
> inclusion.  Both Social Security and Medicare are essentially insurance
> programs.  Their contributions and benefits are taken and meted out
> completely differently than all other spending and taxing by the federal
> government and, as such, should be segregated from the budget.
> >
> > But defense is NOT about half of the budget even when SS and Medicare
> are taken out.  See the following and do the math:>>
> 
> Looks like you need some math lessons. If you take out Social Security
> and medicare are taken out, Defense is more than half of what is left.
> 
> Offorld


Oh, really?

Here are the figures I linked to:

For 2008 (and, by the way, it's worse for 2009 -- which is what we were 
originally talking about -- because the budget for 2009 is $3.8 trillion):

Total budget: $2.9 trillion

Social Security: $608 billion
Medicare: $386 billion
Total SS and Medicare: $994 billion

 $2,900 billion 
-   994 billion

= $1,906 billion

Defense spending: $481 billion

Now, pray tell Off_World, how is $481 billion anywhere near half of $1.9 
trillion

When, then, is mathematically challenged?




> 
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget%2C_2008
> 
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Signs we're getting old #27

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "shempmcgurk" 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , off_world_beings 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > >   > , "shempmcgurk" 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > >   > , TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Also in their favor is that Euro-nations have not spent
> > > > > the decades since World War II spending literally *half*
> > > > > of their Gross National Product on "defense," which is
> > > > > a euphemism for both "Better ways to kill people," and
> > > > > "Subsidies for Defense Industries." America has.
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Before you open your big, fat mouth about things you know nothing
> > > about, why don't you actually do some research?
> > > >
> > > > Show me one year since WWII when half of the GDP was spent on
> > > "defense". >
> > >
> > > I have to agree with Turq on this. If you take Social Security out
> of
> > > the equation, then almost every year more than half was spent on
> > > military. Social Security trust fund was inserted into the equation
> by
> > > the Republicans in the 1960's to try to hide their exorbitant
> defense
> > > spending. It has no business being in there because it is a trust
> find
> > > and not the Government's to use, spend, or touch.
> > >
> > > OffWorld
> > >
> >
> > You guys are mixing up "GDP" with "Federal Budget".
> 
> I was not mixing it up with GDP. I assumed he meant 'discretionary
> budget'. That seemed obvious.
> 
> GDP is about 15 trillion for the US, which by the way, was always my
> argument as to why we are not in a depression, just an adjustment.
> We live in a world economy (not a US economy) of about 75 trillion with
> Europe as the biggest block at about 18 trillion. So with a 75 trillion
> dollar economy, a few trillion here and there is not the end of the
> world.
> 
> OffWorld



"a few trillion here and there is not the end of the world".

Gosh, I was nervous when Bush had a deficit of $580 billion.

This year Obama and his Democratic Congress have given us a $1.8 trillion 
deficit.  Divide that amount by the 300 million people in the U.S. and you come 
up with a figure of $6,000 per person. And that's just ONE YEAR.  Obama's 
planning on doing this each and every year.

Perhaps not the end of the world but pretty darn close to the end of America.




> 
> 
> > They are NOT the same thing.  The entire federal budget even at the
> exhorbitant $3.8 trillion is but 27% of the 14.3 trillion GDP in 2008
> for the United States. See:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal
>  )
> >
> > And, yes, I may agree with you vis a vis the Social Security spending
> inclusion.  Both Social Security and Medicare are essentially insurance
> programs.  Their contributions and benefits are taken and meted out
> completely differently than all other spending and taxing by the federal
> government and, as such, should be segregated from the budget.
> >
> > But defense is NOT about half of the budget even when SS and Medicare
> are taken out.  See the following and do the math:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget%2C_2008
> 
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Signs we're getting old #27

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "authfriend" 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "shempmcgurk" 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > > Also in their favor is that Euro-nations have not spent
> > > > the decades since World War II spending literally *half*
> > > > of their Gross National Product on "defense," which is
> > > > a euphemism for both "Better ways to kill people," and
> > > > "Subsidies for Defense Industries." America has.
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > Before you open your big, fat mouth about
> > > things you know nothing about, why don't
> > > you actually do some research?
> > >
> > > Show me one year since WWII when half of
> > > the GDP was spent on "defense".  For goodness
> > > sake's, even with Obama's $3.8 trillion budget
> > > this year (which includes defense as just one
> > > category of spending, which is not even the
> > > largest one) that only represents about 25% of
> > > the entire GDP.
> >
> > What he's most likely thinking of is the stat
> > that U.S. defense spending amounts to more
> > than half of *global military spending*.
> 
> 
> Here's a strange situation. I agree with Turq, and disagree with Judy
> and Shemp.
> 
> Obviously Turq. meant Government discretionary spending, not GDP !


Keep digging the hole you're in.

Do you even know what "discretionary spending" is?

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

Depending upon how much discretionary spending is for any given year, defense 
may represent 600% of discretionary spending.

Look, if Barry meant something other than GDP, let him say: "oops, I meant to 
say this or that."  Why second guess him?

We all make mistakes; let Barry tell us himself what he meant and we can go 
from there.




> 
> If you take social security out of the national budget (which is not
> SUPPOSED to be factored into it), then military spanding is half the US
> budget. Even if you leave in SS, then military is STILL more than one
> fifth.
> 
>  
> [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7a/U.S._Federal_Spendi\
> ng_-_FY_2007.png/350px-U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png] 
> 
>

[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)

[Duveyoung]

Why should I waste my time doing research into crop circles?

All I need to do is read one article by a person who has done this, and the 
below is a typical "balanced" view about crop circles.  The writer has done 
some homework, saved me the effort, and the conclusion is that "man made" is 
overwhelmingly the "best guess" to support.

Judy, do you agree with the below article?  If so, we have no basis for our 
having a debate.

Right now though, I put you in the same category as the guy who said to me 
about professional wrestling "Some of it's fake, but some's real."  

To me, you're wanting something, anything will do, to point at that suggests 
woo-woo is operative in the world.  You're a witch doctor trying to find a 
"special bone" to shake at a patient when you say, "I'm the exception to the 
rule, my bones work and ooogaboooga is a real power that can those in the know 
can wield."  

Stop clinging to your need for wooism to be justifiable.

No one's levitating, 2012 will be like Y2K, Tony's a fraud, Maharishi dumped 
Guru Dev and sold out to money, crop circles are man made, psychic surgeons 
palm chicken parts, Sai Baba is a pedophile, Barry isn't all bad, you are not 
always right, and you are comfortable calling names as much as Vaj.  What part 
of this paragraph don't you agree with?

Your intellectual heft is often put to a low use -- you've spend 15 years 
beating a dead horse you call "loser."  It's sick to beat a dead horse, and you 
know it. Everyone here knows it.  

Edg

http://www.unmuseum.org/cropcir.htm
The article:

For over twenty years the southern English countryside has been the site of a 
strange phenomenon that has baffled observers and spawned countless news 
stories and not a few books. In the middle of the night, flattened circular 
depressions have appeared in fields of wheat, rye and other cereal crops. They 
range in diameter from ten feet to almost a hundred feet wide and vary from 
simple circles to complex spirals with rings and spurs. All have sharply 
defined edges.

The most striking feature of the circles is the frequency with which they 
occur. In 1990 over 700 crop-circles appeared in Britain.

People who attempt to study these circles have coined a name for themselves: 
cereologists. The word comes from the name of the Roman goddess of vegetation, 
Ceres. There are two favorite theories held by cereologists that think crop 
circles are the result of some not well understood physical phenomena. The 
first is that the depressions are the result of an unusual weather effect. 
George Tenence Meaden, a former professor of physics, calls this a "plasma 
vortex phenomenon" which he defines as "a spinning mass of air which has 
accumulated a significant fraction of electrically charged matter." According 
to Meaden the effect is similar to that of ball lightning, but larger and 
longer lasting.

The second theory is that somehow crop-circles are created by UFOs. Proponents 
of this theory note that occasionally crop circles seem to appear in 
conjunction with a UFO sighting.

Some of the early, simple crop circles certainly do suggest fields that might 
have been flattened by the weight of a grounded flying saucer. As the circles 
have become more complex in shape, though, proponents of the UFO theory have 
had to modify their ideas suggesting that the marks left are due to a strange 
effect of the craft's drive force on the plants. Others even argue that the 
shapes are messages purposefully left by the saucer's crew.

The most likely explanation for almost all of the crop circles is that they are 
hoaxes. Even the most ardent fans of either the weather or UFO theories admit 
that a significant fraction of the circles are man-made. One cereologist, a 
believer in the weather theory, Jenny Randles, wrote: "I would put the hoaxes 
to comprise something over 50 percent of the total."

Why don't these backers of the weather or UFO explanations believe that all the 
circles are hoaxed? Most would argue that a close examination of a circle will 
reveal differences between a hoaxed circle and a "genuine" circle. There is no 
clear criteria about what makes circles genuine or not, though. In fact the BBC 
asked one circle "expert" to examine a formation they had found. The expert 
declared it real, only to have to reverse his judgment when the BBC film crew 
told him they'd had the circle especially built for the occasion.

Some cereologists claim that the plants in hoaxed circles have broken stems 
while those in real circles are bent. It seems the bending is the result of the 
condition of the plant rather than the type of force used in flattening it. 
During the summer green, moist, wheat is easily bent and can only be broken 
with great difficulty.

So how do you hoax a crop circle? The tools are simple: A stake, a chain or 
rope, some boards, and a few people. The stake is pounded into the ground at 
the center of the soon-to-be circle and the rope attached to it. The r

[FairfieldLife] Idiot America How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free

[do.rflex]

Amazon.com Review - 
Book Description - The Culture Wars Are Over and the Idiots Have Won

A veteran journalist's acidically funny, righteously angry lament about the 
glorification of ignorance in the United States.


=There are lots of people making an awful lot of money 
selling their ideas and their wares to Idiot America. 
Idiot America is an act of collective will, a product 
of lassitude and sloth.=

=To this day, we have a political party—the Republicans—who, 
because it embraced a "movement of Conservatism" that 
celebrated anti-intellectualism is now incapable of 
conducting itself in any other way. 

=Look at the political opposition to President Obama. 
"Socialist!" "Fascist!" "Coming to get your guns." Hysteria 
from the hucksters of Idiot America is still at high-tide. 
People are killing other people and specifically attributing 
their action to imaginary oppression stoked by radio 
talk-show stars and television pundits. That Glenn Beck has 
achieved the prominence he has makes me wonder if there is a 
just god in heaven.=

+ +

In the midst of a career-long quest to separate the smart from the pap, Charles 
Pierce had a defining moment at the Creation Museum in Kentucky, where he 
observed a dinosaur. Wearing a saddle... 

But worse than this was when the proprietor exclaimed to a cheering crowd, "We 
are taking the dinosaurs back from the evolutionists!" He knew then and there 
it was time to try and salvage the Land of the Enlightened, buried somewhere in 
this new Home of the Uninformed.

With his razor-sharp wit and erudite reasoning, Pierce delivers a 
gut-wrenching, side-splitting lament about the glorification of ignorance in 
the United States, and how a country founded on intellectual curiosity has 
somehow deteriorated into a nation of simpletons more apt to vote for an 
American Idol contestant than a presidential candidate.

With Idiot America, Pierce's thunderous denunciation is also a secret call to 
action, as he hopes that somehow, being intelligent will stop being a stigma, 
and that pinheads will once again be pitied, not celebrated.


A Q&A with author Charles P. Pierce

Question: What inspired, or should I say drove, you to write Idiot America?

Charles P. Pierce: The germ of the idea came as I watched the extended coverage 
of the death of Terri Schiavo. I wondered how so many people could ally 
themselves with so much foolishness despite the fact that it was doing them no 
perceptible good, politically or otherwise. 

And it looked like the national media simply could not help itself but be swept 
along. This started me thinking and, when I read a clip in the New York Times 
about the Creation Museum, I pitched an idea to Mark Warren, my editor at 
Esquire, that said simply, "Dinosaurs with saddles." What we determined the 
theme of the eventual piece—and of the book—would be was "The Consequences Of 
Believing Nonsense."


Question: You visited the Creation Museum while writing Idiot America. Describe 
your experience there. What was your first thought when you saw a dinosaur with 
a saddle on its back?

Charles P. Pierce: My first thought was that it was hilarious. My second 
thought was that I was the only person in the place who thought it was, which 
made me both angry and a little melancholy. Outside of the fact that its 
"science" is a god-awful parodic stew of paleontology, geology, and 
epistemology, all of them wholly detached from the actual intellectual method 
of each of them. 

The most disappointing thing is that the completed museum is so dreadfully grim 
and earnest and boring. It even makes dragon myths servant to its fringe 
biblical interpretations. Who wants to live in a world where dragons are boring?


Question: Is there a specific turning point where, as a country, we moved away 
from prizing experience to trusting the gut over intellect?

Charles P. Pierce: I don't know if there's one point that you can point to and 
say, "This is when it happened." The conflict between intellectual expertise 
and reflexive emotion—often characterized as "good old common sense," when it 
is neither common nor sense—has been endemic to American culture and politics 
since the beginning. 

I do think that my profession, journalism, went off the tracks when it accepted 
as axiomatic the notion that "Perception is reality." 

No. Perception is perception and reality is reality, and if the former doesn't 
conform to the latter, then it's the journalist's job to hammer and hammer the 
reality until the perception conforms to it. That's how "intelligent design" 
gets treated as "science" simply because a lot of people believe in it.


Question: You delve into Ignatius Donnelly's life story. In 1880, he published 
the book Atlantis: The Antediluvian World in an attempt to prove that the lost 
city existed. Yet, you characterize Donnelly as a lovable crank, and don't take 
issue with him as you do with modern eccentrics, like Rush Limbaugh. What's the 
difference bet

[FairfieldLife] Re: Signs we're getting old #27

[off_world_beings]

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

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

> >  > , TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Also in their favor is that Euro-nations have not spent
> > > > the decades since World War II spending literally *half*
> > > > of their Gross National Product on "defense," which is
> > > > a euphemism for both "Better ways to kill people," and
> > > > "Subsidies for Defense Industries." America has.
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > >
> > > Before you open your big, fat mouth about things you know nothing
> > about, why don't you actually do some research?
> > >
> > > Show me one year since WWII when half of the GDP was spent on
> > "defense". >
> >
> > I have to agree with Turq on this. If you take Social Security out
of
> > the equation, then almost every year more than half was spent on
> > military. Social Security trust fund was inserted into the equation
by
> > the Republicans in the 1960's to try to hide their exorbitant
defense
> > spending. It has no business being in there because it is a trust
find
> > and not the Government's to use, spend, or touch.
> >
> > OffWorld
> >
>
> You guys are mixing up "GDP" with "Federal Budget".
>
> They are NOT the same thing.  The entire federal budget even at the
exhorbitant $3.8 trillion is but 27% of the 14.3 trillion GDP in 2008
for the United States. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal
 )
>
> And, yes, I may agree with you vis a vis the Social Security spending
inclusion.  Both Social Security and Medicare are essentially insurance
programs.  Their contributions and benefits are taken and meted out
completely differently than all other spending and taxing by the federal
government and, as such, should be segregated from the budget.
>
> But defense is NOT about half of the budget even when SS and Medicare
are taken out.  See the following and do the math:>>

Looks like you need some math lessons. If you take out Social Security
and medicare are taken out, Defense is more than half of what is left.

Offorld

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget%2C_2008

>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Signs we're getting old #27

[off_world_beings]

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

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

> >  > , TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Also in their favor is that Euro-nations have not spent
> > > > the decades since World War II spending literally *half*
> > > > of their Gross National Product on "defense," which is
> > > > a euphemism for both "Better ways to kill people," and
> > > > "Subsidies for Defense Industries." America has.
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > >
> > > Before you open your big, fat mouth about things you know nothing
> > about, why don't you actually do some research?
> > >
> > > Show me one year since WWII when half of the GDP was spent on
> > "defense". >
> >
> > I have to agree with Turq on this. If you take Social Security out
of
> > the equation, then almost every year more than half was spent on
> > military. Social Security trust fund was inserted into the equation
by
> > the Republicans in the 1960's to try to hide their exorbitant
defense
> > spending. It has no business being in there because it is a trust
find
> > and not the Government's to use, spend, or touch.
> >
> > OffWorld
> >
>
> You guys are mixing up "GDP" with "Federal Budget".

I was not mixing it up with GDP. I assumed he meant 'discretionary
budget'. That seemed obvious.

GDP is about 15 trillion for the US, which by the way, was always my
argument as to why we are not in a depression, just an adjustment.
We live in a world economy (not a US economy) of about 75 trillion with
Europe as the biggest block at about 18 trillion. So with a 75 trillion
dollar economy, a few trillion here and there is not the end of the
world.

OffWorld


> They are NOT the same thing.  The entire federal budget even at the
exhorbitant $3.8 trillion is but 27% of the 14.3 trillion GDP in 2008
for the United States. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal
 )
>
> And, yes, I may agree with you vis a vis the Social Security spending
inclusion.  Both Social Security and Medicare are essentially insurance
programs.  Their contributions and benefits are taken and meted out
completely differently than all other spending and taxing by the federal
government and, as such, should be segregated from the budget.
>
> But defense is NOT about half of the budget even when SS and Medicare
are taken out.  See the following and do the math:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget%2C_2008

>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Get Rid of the For-Profit Health Insurance Industry

[Duveyoung]

 ruthsimplicity wrote:  I would describe the relationship between docs
and insurers as almost adversarial, hardly in cahoots.

Ruth,

You being a nurse and all, I'm hesitant to smack at the health industry
lest I besmirch your participation therein.  As I've noted here at least
several times, you have impressed me with heartfelt values.

And,  nurses, as a group, (doctors far less so) generally do impress me
with their intellects and hearts.

All that said (here it comes,) I think the health industry itself is
reflective of the profiteers that any industry finds itself infested by,
and those profiteers are as cold hearted as Joseph Mengle.

Start with the AMA's policy to keep doctors rare and rich and absolute
rulers of the industry.  It is scandalous, yet, and here's where I
intend to put it to you, where is the outcry from the nurses and doctors
about this policy?  So far, I don't think I've heard herein about it
from you.  So far, you above are posing doctors as victims.  Phihhh, as
if.

If the AMA allowed medical schools to double their production, they'd
have all the VERY VERY SMART and VERY VERY HEARTFUL candidates they
needed to fill up the new classes without having to lower their entrance
requirement standards.  But, noo, that would mean that doctors were
competing against doctors in pricing, and that would mean that there
would be ample supply of doctors such that hospitals could more easily
dump the bad ones that continue to maraud the industry with all kinds of
malpractice.

Ask anyone in poverty whether they'd rather have a doctor who was in the
98th percentile (not tippy tippy top notch just top notch) or no doctor
at all?  Fuck the entrance requirements of the AMA -- a truly evil money
making cabal.

And as for doctors not being in league with the insurance companies,
that's a lie.  They're not fighting against them with any use of their
own or the AMA's political clout.  Your average surgeon will be paying,
what?, probably well over a hundred thousand dollars a year to have
malpractice insurance -- costs that they pass down to the clients with
higher fees without even apologizing to the patients that they're being
ripped off.  The doctors are beleagered in many ways by how insurance
companies prvent them from doing "all that's needed," yet we do not hear
a peep out of the AMA -- if we did, the AMA could, overnight, get
congress to stop the bastards -- yes, the AMA has that much power.  Does
any politician want the AMA solely supporting another candidate?

Where are the doctors picketing these injustices?  Where are the nurses
confronting the physicians about this say-nothing immorality?  I see no
headlines.  If there is a movement to fix all the above, it sure isn't
grabbing any headlines from the media.

I know someone who just got a $26,000 hospital bill for a stay in ICU
for a week.  At no time did anyone come to this person and explain the
kinds of prices they'd be billed for.  What other industry gets to do
this?  You buy a car and THEN AND ONLY THEN are you told the price? 
Talk about sticker shock -- and, fuck you AMA, but the stress of that
shock must at the very least psychosomatiically harm a percentage of the
patients enough to be a health hazzard in itself.  Someone who's in an
anxious state of mind gets the billing and, what?, suicide or the
patient ends up constantly bathing his mind/body system with the
chemicals that "hand wringing" can produce.  There's no attempt to
pre-handle this kind of stress.

And, the above person lost over $50,000 in a retirement fund's value
too.  Two industries ripped this person off, ya see?  Yet, everyone is
standing around and not shoving the noses of these bastards into the doo
doo of their crimes.

The rich get richer, and the poor are ever more being shunted into a
lower class status until, what?, there's no middle class and thus no
more chance of an uppity middle classer making headlines by showcasing
some sort of abuse.

The masses are kept masses, ya see?  Tended like they're in a feed lot.

Obama takes money from BigPharm -- to me, he's cherry picking his
battles, and going up against the health industry is a low priority
compared to other issues -- Obama is still doing battlefield triage in
trying to manage his team's use of clout, but at somepoint, he's got to
push for cheap drugs from Canada or elsewhere (government
manufacturing?,) bigger medical school enrollments, and, eventually, at
least, a single payer policy.

If he doesn't, if the deaths of foreigners by American forces continues,
if the health industry is not confronted, if the insurance industry
pretty much is not stopped in its tracks, in the next four years, then I
think I'll waste my next vote on writing in Kusinich.

Edg

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Carradine's Jyotish Chart

[Peter]

Turq, I think most are very aware of this post hoc silliness. Affirming what I 
already know through a pseudo-science! Amazing.

--- On Sat, 6/6/09, TurquoiseB  wrote:

From: TurquoiseB 
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Carradine's Jyotish Chart
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, June 6, 2009, 6:43 AM





















--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> To All:
> 
> Does anyone know of Carradine's birth time?  I have the 
> other remaining data to come up with some tentative 
> conclusions.  I would guess he was born under the sign 
> of Taurus which would give him a fairly strong Saturn 
> in the 10th house of career. Since Saturn can represent 
> a foreigner, he became noted for playing a Chinese 
> character in his famous Kung Fu TV series.
> 
> The period he was running prior to his death was the 
> dasha of Mercury.  Mercury was in a malefic nakshatra 
> of Moola, which is noted for causing accidents and falls.  
> This nakshatra is also at the center of the Milky Way 
> where scientists have speculated that a massive black 
> is situated.
> 
> He was also undergoing the period of sade sati, a very 
> malefic transit of Saturn to the natal Moon.
> 
> The chart further shows that Mars, the lord of a malefic 
> 64th navamsha, was in conjunction with the Moon in the 
> rashi chart.
> 
> An exact birth time should be able to show the nature 
> of his death in astrological terms.

And after this, John is going to reveal the
astrological reason for why Rachel Alexandra
won the Preakness Stakes thoroughbred race.
*After* she won it, of course.  :-)

Doesn't anyone ever CATCH ON to this scam
from astrologers and Jyotish purveyors? 

It's classic "arguing backwards from a con-
clusion." We know how David Carradine died,
so now all we have to do is find some BS
"in his chart" to convince people that we
would have seen it there all along, and thus
would have been able to *predict* it before
it happened.

And people fall for this, and continue paying
these con artists. It boggles the mind.

I've challenged John before and he's bailed
on every challenge. I do so again. 

If you want to make a case for the accuracy
of Jyotish, MAKE A CONCRETE, VERIFIABLE
PREDICTION ABOUT THE FUTURE.

Post it here. "Concrete" means just that...no
generalisms or vague pronouncements that can
be interpreted by you later has having been
"right." "Verifiable" means just that. You
have to be able to show us a news article or
link that verifies that what you predicted 
actually happened, exactly the way you said
it would.

Knowing John, his idea of a concrete, verifiable
prediction that would validate the accuracy of
Jyotish would be "Someone will die in the next
week."   

And knowing the gullibility of those who believe
in Jyotish, this "prediction" and its inevitable
"success" will be greeted with cries of "Wow!... 
that's really impressive, John. You've convinced
me. Will you do my chart?"  


























 




  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Signs we're getting old #27

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "authfriend" 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "shempmcgurk" 
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > Also in their favor is that Euro-nations have not spent
> > > the decades since World War II spending literally *half*
> > > of their Gross National Product on "defense," which is
> > > a euphemism for both "Better ways to kill people," and
> > > "Subsidies for Defense Industries." America has.
> > [snip]
> >
> > Before you open your big, fat mouth about
> > things you know nothing about, why don't
> > you actually do some research?
> >
> > Show me one year since WWII when half of
> > the GDP was spent on "defense".  For goodness
> > sake's, even with Obama's $3.8 trillion budget
> > this year (which includes defense as just one
> > category of spending, which is not even the
> > largest one) that only represents about 25% of
> > the entire GDP.
>
> What he's most likely thinking of is the stat
> that U.S. defense spending amounts to more
> than half of *global military spending*.


Here's a strange situation. I agree with Turq, and disagree with Judy
and Shemp.

Obviously Turq. meant Government discretionary spending, not GDP !

If you take social security out of the national budget (which is not
SUPPOSED to be factored into it), then military spanding is half the US
budget. Even if you leave in SS, then military is STILL more than one
fifth.

 
[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7a/U.S._Federal_Spendi\
ng_-_FY_2007.png/350px-U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png] 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Signs we're getting old #27

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > > Also in their favor is that Euro-nations have not spent
> > > > the decades since World War II spending literally *half*
> > > > of their Gross National Product on "defense," which is
> > > > a euphemism for both "Better ways to kill people," and
> > > > "Subsidies for Defense Industries." America has.
> > > [snip]
> > > 
> > > Before you open your big, fat mouth about
> > > things you know nothing about, why don't
> > > you actually do some research?
> > > 
> > > Show me one year since WWII when half of
> > > the GDP was spent on "defense".  For goodness
> > > sake's, even with Obama's $3.8 trillion budget
> > > this year (which includes defense as just one
> > > category of spending, which is not even the
> > > largest one) that only represents about 25% of
> > > the entire GDP.
> > 
> > What he's most likely thinking of is the stat
> > that U.S. defense spending amounts to more
> > than half of *global military spending*.
> > 
> > > How does this guy spout off this stuff without
> > > knowing what he is talking about?
> > 
> > SOP for Barry. Back in February he made this
> > startling claim:
> > 
> > "Over half of the adult population of the U.S.
> > is on a regular prescription for some kind of
> > antidepressant."
> > 
> > Of course it's nowhere *near* that high a
> > percentage. Maybe he made the same mistake as
> > he did with defense spending: maybe U.S.
> > adults account for half the antidepressant
> > prescriptions globally.
> > 
> > As I keep saying, Barry just makes up the 
> > reality he'd *like* to have.
> > 
> > (And of course he'll never admit to having
> > been wrong on either of these.)
> > 
> > What a loser.
> 
> What's sad is that he could have made his point
> without having to make up statistics.

Of course he could have. But he's such a loser,
he doesn't have the confidence to let his points
stand on their own. On the other hand, he's so
*lazy* he can't be bothered with the Hard Work
to look things up before he posts.

What a pathetic combination.

It's interesting, anchor Rich Sanchez on CNN
yesterday responded to a claim made by Fox
News's Bill O'Reilly about CNN that was 
embarrassingly wrong. What Sanchez said about
O'Reilly is eerily descriptive of Barry:

-
SANCHEZ: All right. So let's see. Let's add this up
together now. Ready? We led the story when it broke.
We led with it again the next day. We analyzed the
terrorism angle with experts, and called former FBI
agents to take us through it. 

And as a network, we covered the story upteen times
throughout the days, throughout all hours of those. 

But Bill O'Reilly says he only saw it once. And since
he only saw it once, well then, that must be the truth.
*It doesn't matter what really happened, it doesn't
matter what the record shows. All that matters is what
Bill thinks he saw.* [emphasis added] 

We called FOX today, by the way. No response yet.
-

Right down to Barry's inability to admit it when
he's made a mistake.

Barry "O'Reilly" Wright, Wrong Again.

[FairfieldLife] Re: To Randy - on Mahesh

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" 

 wrote:
>
> Randy,
> 
> You are showing a bit of naiveté about Vaj.
> 
> Now that you are feeling nice and relieved about NagaVaj's
> expansive views please remember his method of turning
> around your post to imply you had a poisoned intent.

Exactly. It was a willful misinterpretation of 
what Randy said that was designed to put Randy on
the defensive. Standard Vaj trick.

[Randy wrote:]
> Why do you insist on calling Maharishi, Mahesh?

It's childish, a petulant way to show disrespect
by someone who is very firmly attached to that
disrespect--it's virtually Vaj's *identity* here,
so he finds it imperative to reinforce it at every
opportunity.

[FairfieldLife] If Maharishi was from an advanced civilization (Re: New Crop Circle)

[authfriend]

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

> Just as a question, is there *anyone* here on 
> this forum who would like to see Nabby be their
> only "supporter?"  :-)

Not a question. And even the premise is wrong.


> What *I* see in Judy's position is Classic "I-Want-
> To-Believe-In-The-Woo-Woo." It's the very *opposite*
> of the axiom that Rick chose for the FFL Home Page:
> 
> "What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the 
> wish to find out, which is the exact opposite."  
> ~ Bertrand Russell

Only Barry the Loser could claim that the above
is the "exact opposite" of this:

"I think being able to take the 'don't know' position
at present is crucial if we're ever to have a hope of
figuring any of it out."

> Who here believes that Judy really "wishes to find
> out?" I, for one, do not. If she were as unattached
> to non-Woo-Woo explanations for crop circles as she
> was to Woo-Woo explanations for them, she wouldn't
> be so defensive. Her ego would not be in play.

Ooopsie, you got that backwards. Little nervous,
are ya, Barry?

And of course Barry's got everything else wrong
too, no surprise.

What annoys me is not that the skeptopaths won't
believe in woo-woo (see my exchange with Curtis
on this). It's that they're willfully, proudly
ignorant of the facts but are quick to dump on
folks who *do* know the facts and aren't quite so
sure as they are that there's no woo-woo involved.

And while they're busy dumping, the skeptopaths 
pompously proclaim that they "don't care" about
the phenomenon.

If they really didn't care, why would they bother
to attack those who find the phenomenon interesting?

> Others prefer to believe that they are the result of
> Forces That We Cannot Understand, and rail against
> those who don't buy into the I-Want-To-Believe-In-
> The-Woo-Woo mindset as somehow being "threatened" 
> by the believers in it, or being "challenged" by 
> them.

And still others genuinely Don't Know and don't
believe anything either way.

*That's* what the skeptopaths find threatening,
so threatening that they can't even bring 
themselves to correctly articulate the position.
Instead, they say things like this--

> NONE of them do much of anything for me
> aesthetically, and do even less for me in
> terms of imagining the "great cosmic minds"
> who created them.

--when the person they're dumping on has
explicitly said she thinks the idea that "great
cosmic minds" made the circles is even LESS likely
than that humans made them all. (And "great cosmic
minds" is Barry's phrase anyway, despite the fact
that he put it in quotes as though it had been
mine.)

I mean, the *contortions* are remarkable. Talk
about avoidance!
 
> I don't think we are. I think we are amused by those
> who are so attached to believing in Woo-Woo that 
> they perceive those who don't as "attacking" them,
> so much so that their stance needs "defending."
> 
> THEY, after all, are the ones reacting defensively.
> 
> We are not.

Says Barry, reacting defensively.



What a *loser*.

[FairfieldLife] New file uploaded to FairfieldLife

[FairfieldLife]

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the FairfieldLife 
group.

  File: /Carradine.pdf 
  Uploaded by : vajradhatu108  
  Description : David Carradine's Jyotish chart 

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/files/Carradine.pdf 

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.htmlfiles

Regards,

vajradhatu108 
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Gandharva Veda, per a previous Sankaracharya

[authfriend]

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

>  Lawson, despite all the aspersions cast upon
> me by you and Our Dear Editor, per FFL posting
> guidelines, I just snip above what I think is
> relevant for brevity's sake. There is no mysterious
> intent behind my snips other than brevity.

No, sorry, that's simply not true. Vaj's quoting is
among the most profligate of anybody's here; and he
fails to indicate when he's left something out.

When he snips, it isn't for the sake of "brevity."

(Not to mention the weird formatting of quotes in
his posts, which makes them--possibly intentionally--
very hard to read.)

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Whole Problem, In A Nutshell

[authfriend]

Adding back what Barry snipped because it
doesn't fit his fantasy image of me:

-
Edg: If you're going to win this debate,

Judy: What would "winning" mean in this context,
Edg?

You aren't going to be able to get it right,
because you haven't been paying attention to
what I'm saying. You're much too anxious to
hear yourself talk than to listen to the person
you're talking to.
-

In context--which Barry snipped, because he's a
dishonest loser who finds reality too threatening
to deal with--"getting it right" meant being able
to state correctly what the debate was about in
Edg's and my exchange.

Barry wouldn't be able to get it right either.
He's much too anxious to put me down to have
grasped what the issue was. What a loser.

The debate, such as it was, wasn't about whether
some crop circles have woo-woo origins.

It was about whether Edg (and Barry) know enough
of the facts about crop circles to even *discuss*
the issue of their origins.

They've both long since lost that debate.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> "You aren't going to be able to get it right,
> because you haven't been paying attention to
> what I'm saying."
> -- Judy Stein, Fairfield Life, 5 June 2009
> 
>   [Barry's fantasy image of Judy]

And Barry's such a loser, he *still* doesn't
realize that anybody who responds to his post
will see that the photo he keeps posting is his
*fantasy image* of me.

He's obsessed with that fantasy image. He thinks
it's the reality.

What a loser.