[FairfieldLife] People afraid of shadows, living in a world full of lightbulbs
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 --- shempmcgurk wrote: No, because I still want to remain anonymous here on FFL. I know the identities of many anonymous people here and am good at keeping them secret. Is that so ? At least your friend, He is my friend. the fellow with earpieces looking very gay you have a problem with that? and drugged-out he doesn't take drugs. from the pictures the Turq posted here, Alex Stanley is doing what he can to proove you wrong. Where have you been, did you not read what that fool posted here a couple of days ago? I believe I did. He said, correctly, that you can tell where a person is, roughly, by their IP address, which you can see in the header info of their post. It has always been that way. What's your point? Rick, It occurred to me this morning, as I brewed myself a coffee and settled in to read FFL, that there is an analogy that seems to fairly accurately describe folks here who are either 1) overly paranoid about concealing their identity, or 2) overly compulsive about trying to control or spin their image -- what other people think of them. That analogy is that they're like people who are deathly afraid of shadows, but who live in a room full of light bulbs. One of those light bulbs goes on, casts a shadow of *them* onto the wall, and they react in terror. They scream in fear and yell and blame the light for their own fear of their own shadow. In the case of people trying to protect their anonymity, as I've said before, there are good reasons to do so. One could be concerned about reprisals from the TM movement, or be concerned that being known as a TMer might hurt their business. There are also bad reasons for anonymity, such as a *continued* history of abuse of others, including actual reprisals and threats of actual violence against them, performed from under the cover of an ever-changing series of screen names. What these people (and there are very few of them on FFL, and all obviously not quite all there mentally) don't seem to realize is that according to the Patriot Act, in America threatening some- one physically over the Internet gets them classed as a terrorist, and in the Bush era could have guaranteed them a one-way ticket to Guantanamo. Now, under Obama, such threats would probably only land them in a local jail. As for the compulsion to spin one's projected image, and to repetitively react to any perception of them that doesn't match their projected image, well that's a more interesting phenomenon IMO. On a spiritual level, it is clearly attachment to self. The self is what casts a shadow. The light is what *creates* the shadow, attempting to pass through it as the selflessness that light knows it really is, but finding substance -- samskaras, ego, beliefs, attachments. All of these things cast a shadow. And the self doesn't *LIKE* the shadow- selves that light projects of them, so it reacts with fear and anger and a compulsion to 1) demonize the light, and 2) claim that That shadow isn't me. Only *I* -- the way *I* present myself -- am me. The fascinating thing is that none of the ways that these selves-attached-to-their-selves present them- selves are them, either. Only Self is really them, and Self doesn't cast a shadow. I'm all for anonymity on this forum unless it is used to hide abuse. I'm less for the compulsive spinning of one's shadow to pretend it isn't one's own. We're all light bulbs on this forum, and we all cast our own light. And we all cast our own shadows. If we're wise, we *learn* from those shadows...we don't fear them and curse the light that projected them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii_99@ wrote: (snip) On the subject of emptysuit: You must be referring to 'The Empty Pants Suit'... I haven't heard The Secretary of State, speak up on these positions... She is in charge, of most of what you state here... Wrong Robert, Obama is in charge. Here's a little lesson on the fundamentals of political viability: Every cabinet member, every special envoy, every; presidential appointee, serves at the pleasure of the president, and supports the president's policies in public or leaves office. Why don't you write your friend, Hillary, and asked her, what's up with these issues, that you so specifically mention, here... R.G. Why don't you write your friend Obama and ask why he has gone back on his promises? (snip) OK, here's the low-down, on my friend, President Obama... He knows what he is doing, and I trust him to make the right decisions on these matters.. Rome wasn't built in a day, and these policies won't be changed in a day... He has enough to contend with, being a Muslim and everything, and having to put up with the stupid ignorant people, who believe all this bogus propaganda, that's being put out, by the remnints of the Bush Crime family, et el... Anyways, Barack Obama is the 'Righteous Leader' predicted in the 'Dead Sea Scrolls, which I helped to write, all those centuries, ago... Way, way before you were born. R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Carradine's Jyotish Chart
Bob, Your point is well taken. But one has to consider the period that was running to determine which planets are causing the problems. In Carradine's chart he was running the mahadasha of Mercury which is a maraka or death inflictor due to being the 8th house lord. The subperiods were related to Saturn. In the yogini dasha (another time projection module), he was running the period of Moon/Rahu. Therefore, it is logical to pick Saturn and Rahu as the malefic planets that caused his demise. Both planets are located in the 8th house from the Moon in the navamsha chart as well. Mars did not cause his death, although it created havoc in his married life. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , John jr_esq@ wrote: 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. *** Mars in the seventh house is more an indicator of marital discord -- Lord Rama famously had Mars in the 7th: 50-51. Mars in the 7th House will make one go devoid of wife ( Lord Shri Rama also had Mars in 7th and we know the Ramayana, he is separated form his wife Sita devi for many many years and then again when the Demon King Ravana is killed and everything becomes peaceful, he sends his wife away suspecting her chastity, so anyway they remain separated). http://tinyurl.com/l7lb9n http://tinyurl.com/l7lb9n Mars in the 8th house would more likely mean the death of the spouse. Mars in the 8th is an indicator of violent or accidental death, so this would certainly fit Kung Fu David: Mars in the 7th house - There will be clash and unhappiness in married life and this is perhaps the worst of all Kuja Doshas - a direct hit. Mars is a planet of abuse and violation and Mars being in 7th house very possibly can give violation in married life. In a female chart it might give physical or excessive mental torture from the husband. There will be also fight for the dominating power, and there might be lack of harmony in the sexual issues. The sexual and emotional needs of the partners might not match or might have a great difference. Mars might give over sexual desire / sickly sexual desire to the native or to his spouse and create mess in marital life for this issue. It might give a short tempered spouse. Mars in the 8th house - The 8th house rules marital tie, from the 8th house we see the possibility of death of the spouse. Mars is the planet of accident, operation, assault from weapons and bleeding etc. - all of the things are ruled by 8th house. So being in the 8th house, Mars will be very eager to develop these tendencies. He might cause death of spouse, possibly through accident, operation or any other mishaps. Thus it can indicate an early death of the spouse. 8th house is also a house of hidden issues / immoral acts and Mars here can make the native / spouse be involved in hidden and sinful acts. When they come forward, storm blows in married life. http://www.jyotish-remedies.com/articles/kuja_dosha_manglik.htm http://www.jyotish-remedies.com/articles/kuja_dosha_manglik.htm
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MUM: Bad meditation attendance = expulsion
On Jun 8, 2009, at 12:10 AM, gullible fool wrote: In the 1990s, the head librarian at the MUM library used to search through internet history to see what websites were being accessed. I have not been on campus in a while, and so can't comment on what is going on currently. Probably looking for good porn sites so they could go back later at home and check them out. Sal
[FairfieldLife] 'Hebrewicken~ Name of Obama' circa: 73-74 AD...Nagav Desert, Yisrael'
First name origin meaning: Hebrew: God the Lord: The Strong Lord First Name Variations: Elija, Elijha, Elijiah, Elijuo, Eliya, Eliyah, Elijah
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
(snip) Misogyny much, Robert? You think it's funny, don't you? The thought of Hillary at the Guillotine is just a hoot, isn't it? I don't fault you for making such a stupid comment. You were trained well during the primary to hate Hillary. Your comment is simply an example of the many misogynistic, violent slams on Hillary I saw during the primary. Dumbass. No, me Lady, I do not wish to See, The Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, brought to the public square to face the brutal French death device... I was reminding you of another time, which you do not remember, as well as I...so, as I was there, to witness the Barbaric Act of the Beheading of the Queen of France, Marie Antoinette... I love Hillary...always did, and always will... Like I said before, she still admires the French Furniture, but that's about it for the French...can't blame her! R.G.
[FairfieldLife] David Lynch and initiations fees.
Sorry for being dated, but I just came across this February Guardian article http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/jan/27/david-lynch-meditation where it says: Beloved of hippie celebrities everywhere since the 1960s, TM's expensive teaching courses risked it being priced into oblivion until Lynch was credited with persuading Maharishi Mahesh Yogi - to whom he became close in 2003 after paying $1m to participate in the guru's four-week Millionaire's Enlightenment Course - to radically reduce the TM learning fee so that more younger people could learn the practice. I was unaware that David Lynch had persuaded Maharishi to radically reduce the TM learning fee. Actually, I first heard of the fee sales last January - to $1500 until September for now. Does anybody have more information about this? When did it start? And what fees are agreed upon by the David Lynch Foundation and the movement for the scholarship initiations of students? I didn't know about David Lynch being in the Millionaire's Enlightenment Course either. That explains a few things. So that's how Lynch managed to represent the meditators at the top circles of the movement, where normally you have to be a governor or more to participate. It's nice to know that there is someone representing the meditators' point of view up there. As for TM's expensive teaching courses risked it being priced into oblivion it was clear. It is not surprising what John Hagelin in his recent email writes: The number of adults learning the Transcendental Meditation® technique this year has almost tripled â and this month more people learned than in any month in the past 15 years! What *is* surprising is that he goes on to say that: The new TM.org website, the national media from our April Change Begins Within Benefit Concert with Paul McCartney and friends, and our reduced course fees have produced a sharp rise of interest. The new TM.org website! What was wrong with the old one in the first place? Whom is he trying to fool? I would bet that the new website played nil role in the sharp rise of interest. And the Concert without the reduced fees would have produced much less impressive results in initiation numbers. emf
[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM: Bad meditation attendance = expulsion
(snip) We think John Hagelin's burger king crown is ridiculous. TM works for some people, though we are highly curious about new and different practices. But most importantly, we believe in what this university could be and we think the movement/TM organization is ruining it. -Andrew (MUM student being ousted for not meditating enough). (snip) The buck stops at the top, of the heap...kind of the hill...little town blues..stop. S.O.S. stop;.. On Bevan Morris' Leadership, stop.. The matrix is reporting this one: Bevan Morris, the main frame for this MOU reference point, which is quite cold, arrogant and unreceptive, to the real needs, wants and desires of these students, that they worked so tirelessly to recruit, while at the same time, created a stifling attitude there, that only serves to repel everyone, except the ones most Indoctrinated with fear of losing their membership the the National Socialist Party of the Reichstag's Dome Building'... The matrix is sensing that an inauspicious bug-a-boo, has unexpectedly entered the Auspices of Reichstag Meditation and Sidhi Meister Bevan Q. Morris...Master of the Underworld, of the TM movement, and various other properties, of the Reich. R.g.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Eustace emf...@... wrote: Sorry for being dated, but I just came across this February Guardian article http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/jan/27/david-lynch-meditation where it says: Beloved of hippie celebrities everywhere since the 1960s, TM's expensive teaching courses risked it being priced into oblivion until Lynch was credited with persuading Maharishi Mahesh Yogi - to whom he became close in 2003 after paying $1m to participate in the guru's four-week Millionaire's Enlightenment Course - to radically reduce the TM learning fee so that more younger people could learn the practice. I was unaware that David Lynch had persuaded Maharishi to radically reduce the TM learning fee. Actually, I first heard of the fee sales last January - to $1500 until September for now. Does anybody have more information about this? When did it start? And what fees are agreed upon by the David Lynch Foundation and the movement for the scholarship initiations of students? Lynch reportedly told MMy that he wasn't getting many donors for his foundation because the price was too high, so MMY told him to talk to Hagelin about setting a lower price. The upshot is that schools, or large segments thereof, can learn TM for $600 a head. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote: Lynch reportedly told MMy that he wasn't getting many donors for his foundation because the price was too high, so MMY told him to talk to Hagelin about setting a lower price. The upshot is that schools, or large segments thereof, can learn TM for $600 a head. While I still believe that this price is 10X too high, given the current market price for meditation instruction in America, I praise David Lynch both for his dedication and for his efforts to make TM more affordable. My conversations a few years ago with the woman who was his long-time personal secretary convinced me that he is a good-hearted person, and I have no doubts that he is trying everything he can to help make something he feels is valuable more available to young people. It's just a shame that he has to fight the organization that provides that something valuable to achieve his laudable good intentions.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii...@... wrote: (snip) Misogyny much, Robert? You think it's funny, don't you? The thought of Hillary at the Guillotine is just a hoot, isn't it? I don't fault you for making such a stupid comment. You were trained well during the primary to hate Hillary. Your comment is simply an example of the many misogynistic, violent slams on Hillary I saw during the primary. Dumbass. No, me Lady, I do not wish to See, The Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, brought to the public square to face the brutal French death device... I was reminding you of another time, which you do not remember, as well as I...so, as I was there, to witness the Barbaric Act of the Beheading of the Queen of France, Marie Antoinette... I love Hillary...always did, and always will... Like I said before, she still admires the French Furniture, but that's about it for the French...can't blame her! R.G. Weasel.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii_99@ wrote: (snip) On the subject of emptysuit: You must be referring to 'The Empty Pants Suit'... I haven't heard The Secretary of State, speak up on these positions... She is in charge, of most of what you state here... Wrong Robert, Obama is in charge. Here's a little lesson on the fundamentals of political viability: Every cabinet member, every special envoy, every; presidential appointee, serves at the pleasure of the president, and supports the president's policies in public or leaves office. Why don't you write your friend, Hillary, and asked her, what's up with these issues, that you so specifically mention, here... R.G. Why don't you write your friend Obama and ask why he has gone back on his promises? (snip) OK, here's the low-down, on my friend, President Obama... He knows what he is doing, and I trust him to make the right decisions on these matters.. Trust someone who is too arrogant to offer an excuse or an apology for breaking a promise and you can expect to get screwed again in the future. Rome wasn't built in a day, and these policies won't be changed in a day... Obama's actions speak louder than his words. The promises he has ALREADY broken don't indicate he plans to rebuild Rome. He has enough to contend with, being a Muslim and everything, Muslim? Really? What turnip truck did you fall from? Last I heard he professes Christianity. and having to put up with the stupid ignorant people, who believe all this bogus propaganda, that's being put out, by the remnints of the Bush Crime family, et el... Anyways, Barack Obama is the 'Righteous Leader' predicted in the 'Dead Sea Scrolls, which I helped to write, all those centuries, ago... Way, way before you were born. R.G. That's it? Your come back to my charge that Obama doesn't keep promises is past life Mumbo Jumbo? I get it, Robert. Facts in the here and now don't matter as long as you helped write predictions on the Dead Sea Scrolls in the past. Thanks for reminding me how pointless it is to argue with a loon.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: Thanks for reminding me how pointless it is to argue with a loon. While I do not necessarily disagree with you when Robert gets into one of I'm-right-because- I-remember-it-from-a-past-life moods, I should point out about your statement above that he is merely returning the favor. :-) As you do *every* time the name of Saint Hillary comes up, you remind us of the pointlessness of trying to discuss her rationally with you. You are incapable of doing so.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: snip I'm not as politically insightful or articulate as you, so it puzzles me how you can perceive Obama as an empty suit when just about everyone else except right-wingers is rather impressed with how well he's handling the huge pile on his plate. That's why I suspect that emotions skew your perception. Wow. I was so focused on the sexism-vs.-racism aspect of your post, I missed this entirely until Raunchy quoted it again just now. WRONGAROONIE, Rick. There are a significant number of people on the left (who supported Obama) who are not only not impressed, but deeply disappointed and distressed by a lot of what Obama is doing. (Ironically but not surprisingly, some of what most upsets the left has pleased the right.) Raunchy gave you some representative links, but I just wanted to back her up on this, and add that many on the left are *extremely* unhappy with what he's doing on the economy. There's no question that virtually all lefties prefer having Obama in office to Bush (or McCain). Even Bush- lite is better than the full Bush. But don't kid yourself that just about everyone else except right- wingers is happy with him, or that his only critics on the left are disgruntled Hillary supporters. It's just not the case. Here's another recent column to add to the pile: Obama's trail of broken promises The prophet of hope now doesn't even bother with explanations when he reneges on his campaign pledges. By David Sirota http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/06/06/sirota/ Thanks for posting Sirota's article. Obama's arrogance is so stunning it is impossible for even his left wing supporters to ignore.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MUM: Bad meditation attendance = expulsion
On Jun 8, 2009, at 1:27 AM, sparaig wrote: Reason dictates that if you don't like meditation it is best to attend a university in which meditation is not the core of the curriculum. Noticed that did you? It's not like they weren't upfront about the requirements or something. It's like attending a US military academy and objecting to the firearms proficiency class. Don't assume it's that that they're balking at. It's probably how SCI appears (old and jaded) and the veneer of pseudo-science which covers all the required interdisciplinary courses, which used to go through history, showing it's great heights and then always finish with the question of 'can you imagine how great it would really have been if they had had an effortlessless technique to tap into all the laws of nature at the level of the unified field like Transcendental Meditation?' It must seem silly or crazy to students who's parents weren't glassy-eyed TB's or TB's themselves. The fact that SCI is weeding a lot of the people out should clue us into this. So should video courses of a rambling dead yogi. So should a state of freedom like that of China. Vedic fascism just ain't what it used to be I guess. The sh*t must really hit the fan when the majority find out they don't even like the TMSP and aren't allowed to touch the other techniques they're able to peek at thru the Vedic firewall.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MUM: Bad meditation attendance = expulsion
On Jun 8, 2009, at 3:13 AM, Sal Sunshine wrote: On Jun 8, 2009, at 12:10 AM, gullible fool wrote: In the 1990s, the head librarian at the MUM library used to search through internet history to see what websites were being accessed. I have not been on campus in a while, and so can't comment on what is going on currently. Probably looking for good porn sites so they could go back later at home and check them out. I'm sure that's all old news now. Surely the MUM library has a full collection of Vedic porn, where one can see the Kama Sutra played out by Bollywood relatives of the Srivastavas in dazzling VHS.
Re: [FairfieldLife] David Lynch and initiations fees.
On Jun 8, 2009, at 3:51 AM, Eustace wrote: The new TM.org website! What was wrong with the old one in the first place? Whom is he trying to fool? I would bet that the new website played nil role in the sharp rise of interest. And the Concert without the reduced fees would have produced much less impressive results in initiation numbers. Notice they don't give actual numbers. What they could be saying is only a thousand people were learning before, now all the McCartney, Pearl Jam and Moby fans are signing up so we had a spike of three thousand! Yippy!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Thanks for reminding me how pointless it is to argue with a loon. While I do not necessarily disagree with you when Robert gets into one of I'm-right-because- I-remember-it-from-a-past-life moods, I should point out about your statement above that he is merely returning the favor. :-) As you do *every* time the name of Saint Hillary comes up, you remind us of the pointlessness of trying to discuss her rationally with you. You are incapable of doing so. I have no problem backing up my arguments for or against ANY politician with facts because I pay attention to the news as it is and not as I would like it to be. I always back up my discussions regarding Hillary with facts that NO ONE on this forum has EVER refuted. Come to think of it, when have you ever discussed Hillary with one iota of rationality with me or refuted any factual information I've presented? Nada. Until you do, your allegation that I'm incapable of discussing Hillary rationally, only reflects on your lack of interest in factual information and arguing with me point for point on any issue concerning Obama or Hillary. I don't believe you can or will argue factual information, it's not possible to do from the insular, low information, self-referral loop you find so enjoyable residing in your imaginary catbird seat.
[FairfieldLife] TM in schools makes magazine cover! [1 Attachment]
...for it's un-American motivations: The prestigious, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State mag Church State http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2009/06/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_re...@... wrote: There is no IP adress in what I see here, it is your friend that has provided that for the readers. On the FFL website, as well as in all email clients, for practical and aesthetic purposes, only a few lines from an email header are displayed (From:, Date:, Subject:, etc.) You have latched onto the erroneous idea that because the rest of the header, including the IP address, is hidden, it is therefore private. As I explained in detail to you a few days ago, the complete header of any post in the FFL archives can be accessed by clicking View Source. Headers, and any IP addresses they may contain, are therefore public information. That is the way it has always been, and unless Maitreya comes to delete all our IP addresses, it will remain that way for the foreseeable future. My point is that I thought FFL was anonymous. FFL allows anonymity, but it is the sole responsibility of the anonymous user to maintain that anonymity. If that anonymity includes location as well as name, it is the user's responsibility to not send a location-revealing IP address in the headers of his posts.
[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM: Bad meditation attendance = expulsion
. . . and unseen here at MUM. I'm not sure if everyone is aware of not only the internet censorship, but also censorship of artwork here, I was allowed to hang my artworks -- about 20 canvases -- in the MIU library, but Bobby Warren took down my portrait of Maharishi, set it on the fucking floor and turned it to face the wall. That's how swift and haughty the movement was back in the 80's to me. The thing that shocked me most was that Maharishi had been put on the floor and hiddennot that my artistry was being critiqued. I later sold that painting for $2,000 to a true believer - it was a damned nice piece, and I'd painted it with total love and TBerism. Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
Palin was an idiot. She had no business running for vice president, and McCain was a fool to choose her. If she had been a man with the same capabilities, then I'd be saying he was an idiot and McCain was a fool to choose him. Sure. But that's the point--she had so many negatives politically, she wouldn't have been competitive if she had been a man. So why did the left (including the usual suspects here) feel the need to use sexism against her? Criticism of her abilities and lack of experience should have been more than enough. If Obama had chosen a gay man as his running mate, and if the gay man had shown his, er, womanly qualities, the Nutjobs would have pounced on his limp-wristed-ness with do we want a wimp in the White House who'd cry and yell mommy when he 'fall down go boom?' It would still be a sin of anti-femming, right? But maybe not. Maybe it's a deeper issue of what side of the brain do you want to dominate when certain decisions are to be made. A gay man or a regular woman (hee hee) can be expected to favor the tender feeling levels, whereas the macho side of the brain will be conceptualizing away the need for being tuned into that level of life. It's the old Arjun, get up and be a man, cuz the woman part of you just made you drop your fucking bow and arrow. Just so, the question about Hillary-as-a-regular-woman being able to say fuck the heart values, nuke the bastards, does arise to me. Personally I think she showed her balls when she stayed with Bill after the adultery became so much more public. It showed she could tell her heart to shut up and let her win an election with her manly other side of her brain. What we want is someone with a balanced yin/yang, right? And, h, maybe a homosexual man or woman would be a good candidate just based on the fact that that person will have had to manage his/her heartful urges daily since birth. Wait, I think the next American president should be a hermaphrodite. That's the ticket! Edg
[FairfieldLife] Alex invaded the poster's privacy (Re: Rick Archer: )
Yes, the headers have the location info, and yes, anyone can look up this info, but no, if someone looks up this info and then promotes a wider awareness of that information, then the issue of invasion of privacy does arise. How so? Well, given that folks put a lot of personal info on their facebook pages and many other sites, it becomes a stalking issue if someone dedicates themselves to googling a person to find all the dirt they can cherry pick and then presents it to the public. See? That's stalking, and even though it's legal for me to look into my neighbor's living room when the drapes are open, my neighbor will rightly ask, Wacchu lookin at fool? if I stare too long. I believe, slight that it was, that Alex stalked when he looked up the header info -- his intent was to reveal something that he should have known might make the poster uncomfortable, or he should have considered how he'd feel if the tables were turned. Suppose Alex's next door neighbor started reporting here about what he saw going on over at Alex's place? It would be only public info, but the publishing of it takes away the burden of scouring the world for such data, and thus, the neighbor would be going beyond mere idle gossip about another since the work load to dig up the info would indicate that the neighbor had an agenda and was on a mission to harm. Just so, Alex did some work to get the info and then republish it on the front page of FFL. His intent is impossible for us to know, but I would like him to sincerely account for his motivations. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 5:25 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@ wrote: No, because I still want to remain anonymous here on FFL. I know the identities of many anonymous people here and am good at keeping them secret. Is that so ? At least your friend, He is my friend. the fellow with earpieces looking very gay you have a problem with that? and drugged-out he doesn't take drugs. from the pictures the Turq posted here, Alex Stanley is doing what he can to proove you wrong. Where have you been, did you not read what that fool posted here a couple of days ago? I believe I did. He said, correctly, that you can tell where a person is, roughly, by their IP address, which you can see in the header info of their post. It has always been that way. What's your point?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Thanks for reminding me how pointless it is to argue with a loon. While I do not necessarily disagree with you when Robert gets into one of I'm-right-because- I-remember-it-from-a-past-life moods, I should point out about your statement above that he is merely returning the favor. :-) As you do *every* time the name of Saint Hillary comes up, you remind us of the pointlessness of trying to discuss her rationally with you. You are incapable of doing so. It couldn't be more obvious. RD [Hillary is my champion] has a BIG chip on her shoulder and it badly gives bias to her perceptions of Obama's situation and efforts. After all, Obama didn't stop people from picking on poor Hillary - so it's all HIS fault that she lost. That's why RD and Judy nitpicks him like the right wing fringe does. And in spite of the hostile, bitter attacks by the discontents, Obama's approval has consistently been in the mid 60% range since he took office.
[FairfieldLife] Alex invaded the poster's privacy (Re: Rick Archer: )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: Just so, Alex did some work to get the info and then republish it on the front page of FFL. His intent is impossible for us to know, but I would like him to sincerely account for his motivations. This latest brouhaha over IP addresses began when Rick inquired whether a poster was in India. I looked at the IP address and determined that the post originated from a Danish IP. Rick then asked, Isn't Nabby in Denmark, or thereabouts? I replied that Nabby is in Norway. My motivation was to answer questions, and I did so using publicly available information.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , sparaig lengli...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , Eustace emf202@ wrote: Sorry for being dated, but I just came across this February Guardian article http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/jan/27/david-lynch-meditation http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/jan/27/david-lynch-meditation where it says: Beloved of hippie celebrities everywhere since the 1960s, TM's expensive teaching courses risked it being priced into oblivion until Lynch was credited with persuading Maharishi Mahesh Yogi - to whom he became close in 2003 after paying $1m to participate in the guru's four-week Millionaire's Enlightenment Course - to radically reduce the TM learning fee so that more younger people could learn the practice. I was unaware that David Lynch had persuaded Maharishi to radically reduce the TM learning fee. Actually, I first heard of the fee sales last January - to $1500 until September for now. Does anybody have more information about this? When did it start? And what fees are agreed upon by the David Lynch Foundation and the movement for the scholarship initiations of students? Lynch reportedly told MMy that he wasn't getting many donors for his foundation because the price was too high, so MMY told him to talk to Hagelin about setting a lower price. The upshot is that schools, or large segments thereof, can learn TM for $600 a head. I didn't know that. That's cool. Now Vaj and Turq will have to drone on about something else. Vaj probably charges much more for his New age meditation courses, that simply serve to damage people's brains. OffWorld Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Thanks for reminding me how pointless it is to argue with a loon. While I do not necessarily disagree with you when Robert gets into one of I'm-right-because- I-remember-it-from-a-past-life moods, I should point out about your statement above that he is merely returning the favor. :-) As you do *every* time the name of Saint Hillary comes up, you remind us of the pointlessness of trying to discuss her rationally with you. You are incapable of doing so. It couldn't be more obvious. RD [Hillary is my champion] has a BIG chip on her shoulder and it badly gives bias to her perceptions of Obama's situation and efforts. Someone might wish to ask do.rkflex how he accounts for all the Obama supporters who are saying the same things Raunchy is. After all, Obama didn't stop people from picking on poor Hillary - so it's all HIS fault that she lost. Oh, really? Did anybody actually say that, or did do.rkflex just decide it was time for a nice straw man to kick around? That's why RD and Judy nitpicks him like the right wing fringe does. Hmm, breaches of civil rights and the Constitution are now just nitpicks to do.rkflex because his hero is the one doing the breaching. Funny how important they were back when Bush was president. And as I noted in one of my posts, as might be expected, what the lefties (Obama supporters) are complaining about, the right-wing fringe is very happy with. So no, what Obama's critics on the left are saying is *not* like what the right wing fringe is saying. One wonders about do.rkflex's choice of reading material if he hasn't encountered the very loud outcries among Obama's supporters. I guess he just blocks all that from his alleged mind. And in spite of the hostile, bitter attacks by the discontents, Obama's approval has consistently been in the mid 60% range since he took office. And as I also noted, it's as foolish to counter criticisms of Obama with poll numbers, as if they somehow invalidated all criticism, as it is to claim the fact that somebody praises their boss on national television means they really, really like him (or her). The political naivete on this forum is astonishing. Especially from do.rkflex.
[FairfieldLife] Dog Training Fail
I let my dogs look at this one. They chuckled. http://faildogs.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/faildogs-trainingisfutile.jpg
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM in schools makes magazine cover!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: ...for it's un-American motivations: The prestigious, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State mag Church State http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2009/06/ http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2009/06/ Technically speaking, based on the research published in peer-reviewed scientific journals around the world, it is a crime TO NOT give this to the nation's kids. A case can be made that to NOT offer it as part of the curriculum, and allow so many unproven and harmful methods to continue to be used in schools, is causing a lack of brain development, exposing children to negative stress that damages their psyche, undermining the health in children, and, based on the research, by giving the children an inferior education (without TM) is a threat to national security, since national security can only survive with the best educational practices possible being part of every curriculum. These are the rational facts based on the research on TM. Of course Vaj and Turq and others will now argue with IRRATIONAL arguments to try prove their fanatic anti-TM stance, however, such lack of reason has no power in the 21st century, and the case I outlined above will make it impossible for schools to not include this heavily scientifically validated method. Its a slam-dunk for TM now. (A similar, undefeatable case, could be made for Government funding of voluntary learning of TM to all Americans as a preventative health strategy prescribed by doctors - based on all the research - this would also be a rationally based case, that could not be defeated. Its a slam-dunk for TM now.) OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: People afraid of shadows, living in a world full of lightbulbs
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: snip On a spiritual level, it is clearly attachment to self. The self is what casts a shadow. The light is what *creates* the shadow, attempting to pass through it as the selflessness that light knows it really is, but finding substance -- samskaras, ego, beliefs, attachments. All of these things cast a shadow. And the self doesn't *LIKE* the shadow- selves that light projects of them, so it reacts with fear and anger and a compulsion to 1) demonize the light, and 2) claim that That shadow isn't me. Only *I* -- the way *I* present myself -- am me. Barry's caffeine must not have taken effect yet when he wrote this, because it's even more incoherent than usual. But note the unspoken (and highly questionable) assumption that others' purported perceptions of the shadows of people they don't like are unfailingly 100 percent accurate, such that if a person takes issue with those perceptions, it's not because they're inaccurate but because the person's own perceptions are different, and thereby, by definition, wrong. I'm less for the compulsive spinning of one's shadow to pretend it isn't one's own. We're all light bulbs on this forum, and we all cast our own light. And we all cast our own shadows. If we're wise, we *learn* from those shadows...we don't fear them and curse the light that projected them. So considering how much time Barry spends cursing the lights that project his shadows, I guess he's not all that wise yet, hmmm? This is funny. From another Barrypost, addressing Raunchy: As you do *every* time the name of Saint Hillary comes up, you remind us of the pointlessness of trying to discuss her rationally with you. You are incapable of doing so. A prize to anyone who can come up with even a paragraph of rational discussion--with anyone-- of Hillary by Barry.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dog Training Fail
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: I let my dogs look at this one. They chuckled. http://faildogs.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/faildogs-trainingisfutile.jpg They must take after you and your approach to scripture; perhaps you, Turq, could use some training yourself, eh? PS Your dogs...your alter ego?
[FairfieldLife] Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, a 'Danda' swami.
Don't know is it's been mentioned, since most here probably already know that SBS's 'Danda' *I*, or scepture of power (staff) he carried, represented the central channel of the spinal column through which the serpent power or kundalini arises, also called Meru-Danda. This symbol of sushumna signifies his awakening of kunkalini through all 7 centers or chakras, culminating in Unity Consciousness or what classical Yoga refers to as Cosmic Consciousness.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice?
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 12:47 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice? There is no IP adress in what I see here, it is your friend that has provided that for the readers. My point is that I thought FFL was anonymous. You don't have to put friend in quotes. Alex is my friend. As he explained, anybody who knows what they're doing can see a poster's IP address. That's not something that only moderators can do. And IP address does not identify who you are. Just gives a rough idea where you live. Barry, for instance, actually lives in Newark, New Jersey, just up the highway from Judy. They have secret rendezvous in the wee hours of the morn.
[FairfieldLife] Bernie Sanders proposes state-level Single-Payer pilot program
In Washington, where the insurance industry and medical establishment hold sway, the idea gets short shrift. The likelihood of single payer passing the Senate is almost nil. In the meantime, Sen. Sanders provides a mechanism for trying single payer out at the state level: ---If we move to a single-payer system, we can provide quality, comprehensive health care to every man, woman and child in this country without spending a nickel more than we're currently spending. With 15,000 physicians supporting the concept of single payer, with single payer being the only system that can provide comprehensive health care to every man, woman and child, single payer should obviously be on the table. With the American public, the idea is extremely popular. An overwhelming 59 percent say the government should provide national health insurance, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll earlier this year. In Washington, where the insurance industry and medical establishment hold sway, the idea gets short shrift. While some single payer advocates think the only thing worth fighting for is single payer, what I have also introduced is a five-state option. That would mean five states would have the option of running pilot programs in universal health care but one would have to be single payer. I think it's possible this will never happen in Washington, D.C., but that this country will join the rest of the industrialized world when a state, maybe like Vermont, implements single payer and does it well. And then New Hampshire will be looking over our shoulders, and they will adopt that, and so on through the country. That's in fact how national health care came to Canada, it started in the Saskatchewan province. ~~ Politico: http://snipurl.com/jp608
[FairfieldLife] Re: People afraid of shadows, living in a world full of lightbulbs
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: There are also bad reasons for anonymity, such as a *continued* history of abuse of others, including actual reprisals and threats of actual violence against them, performed from under the cover of an ever-changing series of screen names. What these people (and there are very few of them on FFL, and all obviously not quite all there mentally) don't seem to realize is that according to the Patriot Act, in America threatening some- one physically over the Internet gets them classed as a terrorist, and in the Bush era could have guaranteed them a one-way ticket to Guantanamo. Now, under Obama, such threats would probably only land them in a local jail. Au contraire, mon frère. Obama has done nothing to restore Habeas Corpus. The Military Commissions Act still exists. Your fourth amendment rights under FISA are kput. Under the Patriotic Act Obama retains the same philosophical approach to governance as Bush, advancing the unitary power of the executive and giving him the absolute power of a monarch.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Alex invaded the poster's privacy (Re: Rick Archer: )
Nabby and Edg, read this: http://whatismyipaddress.com/staticpages/index.php/can-someone-find-me
[FairfieldLife] Alex invaded the poster's privacy (Re: Rick Archer: )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: Nabby and Edg, read this: http://whatismyipaddress.com/staticpages/index.php/can-someone-find-me I knew all the above information already. Rick/Alex, what would be going too far? I haven't had any satisfactory response to that question from you two. May I hire a detective to work up a dossier on each of you and post it here? Even if whatever was scrounged up by the detective was benign, wouldn't you feel invaded to a great degree? To me this is a case of a very very tiny sin, and I think there's definitely a slippery slope that is being denied. If Alex will go to some trouble to help others here know more about Nab, how much more trouble would he go to to reveal info that he knows because he is a moderator here? He's OFTEN -- MANY TIMES NOW -- told us all about how he's figured out that so and so is so and so if we judge by the IP addresses to see that their user-names all have the same IP addresses. That's another example of where Alex may/may-not have an agenda, but one thing is pretty clear, those whose info was being revealed were not give any veto power over that publishing of their info. Their anonymity has been pierced purposefully. It sure seems to me that Alex wanted to clear things up, by using his insider info that he should normally be expected to be far more responsible about than, say, header information. I'd say Alex has tread the slippery slope with one foot still on non-slippery ground, but a breach of some sort, of some degree, has occurred. Edg
RE: [FairfieldLife] Alex invaded the poster's privacy (Re: Rick Archer: )
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Duveyoung Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 11:02 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Alex invaded the poster's privacy (Re: Rick Archer: ) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer r...@... wrote: Nabby and Edg, read this: http://whatismyipaddress.com/staticpages/index.php/can-someone-find-me I knew all the above information already. Rick/Alex, what would be going too far? I haven't had any satisfactory response to that question from you two. May I hire a detective to work up a dossier on each of you and post it here? Even if whatever was scrounged up by the detective was benign, wouldn't you feel invaded to a great degree? To me this is a case of a very very tiny sin, and I think there's definitely a slippery slope that is being denied. If Alex will go to some trouble to help others here know more about Nab, how much more trouble would he go to to reveal info that he knows because he is a moderator here? He's OFTEN -- MANY TIMES NOW -- told us all about how he's figured out that so and so is so and so if we judge by the IP addresses to see that their user-names all have the same IP addresses. That's another example of where Alex may/may-not have an agenda, but one thing is pretty clear, those whose info was being revealed were not give any veto power over that publishing of their info. Their anonymity has been pierced purposefully. It sure seems to me that Alex wanted to clear things up, by using his insider info that he should normally be expected to be far more responsible about than, say, header information. I'd say Alex has tread the slippery slope with one foot still on non-slippery ground, but a breach of some sort, of some degree, has occurred. That's one way of looking at it, and may be valid. Another way of looking at it is that Alex is doing people a favor by warning them about information they may unwittingly be making public, such that they can take precautionary measures if they wish.
[FairfieldLife] Alex invaded the poster's privacy (Re: Rick Archer: )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: On Behalf Of Duveyoung I'd say Alex has tread the slippery slope with one foot still on non-slippery ground, but a breach of some sort, of some degree, has occurred. That's one way of looking at it, and may be valid. Another way of looking at it is that Alex is doing people a favor by warning them about information they may unwittingly be making public, such that they can take precautionary measures if they wish. Here's yet another way of looking at it: I HAVE NEVER HEARD SUCH NAMBY-PAMBY WHINING BY SUCH A BUNCH OF COMPUTER ILLITERATES IN MY LIFE. STOP, ALREADY! The rule of thumb among anyone who has worked with computers long enough to know his or her ass from a hole in the ground is this: DO NOT EVER WRITE ANYTHING IN EMAIL OR POST IT TO THE INTERNET THAT YOU WOULD FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE SEEING WITH YOUR REAL NAME ATTACHED TO IT, IN PUBLIC. The reason is that it **IS** public, the moment you press the Send button. ANYONE who knows how can access any email message or post you ever sent, even if you think you deleted it. ANYONE with a bit more know-how can tell where you sent it from, and who you really are. Privacy on the Internet or in email is a JOKE. There is none. There never has been, and there probably never will be. GET OVER IT. And if this information makes you paranoid, get over that, too. You aren't important enough to worry about being spied on.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bernie Sanders proposes state-level Single-Payer pilot program
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote: In Washington, where the insurance industry and medical establishment hold sway, the idea gets short shrift. The likelihood of single payer passing the Senate is almost nil. In the meantime, Sen. Sanders provides a mechanism for trying single payer out at the state level: ---If we move to a single-payer system, we can provide quality, comprehensive health care to every man, woman and child in this country without spending a nickel more than we're currently spending. With 15,000 physicians supporting the concept of single payer, with single payer being the only system that can provide comprehensive health care to every man, woman and child, single payer should obviously be on the table. With the American public, the idea is extremely popular. An overwhelming 59 percent say the government should provide national health insurance, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll earlier this year. In Washington, where the insurance industry and medical establishment hold sway, the idea gets short shrift. While some single payer advocates think the only thing worth fighting for is single payer, what I have also introduced is a five-state option. That would mean five states would have the option of running pilot programs in universal health care but one would have to be single payer. I think it's possible this will never happen in Washington, D.C., but that this country will join the rest of the industrialized world when a state, maybe like Vermont, implements single payer and does it well. And then New Hampshire will be looking over our shoulders, and they will adopt that, and so on through the country. That's in fact how national health care came to Canada, it started in the Saskatchewan province. ~~ Politico: http://snipurl.com/jp608 Ah, Bernie. Perhaps one the most honest, well intentioned Senators we have in office. Too bad there aren't more like him. Let's see...who is on the insurance and pharmaceutical industry's payroll? Oh yeah! Max Baucus, head of the Senate Finance Committee who currently controls the discussion on health care, has received tons of money from pharmaceutical companies and says single payer heath care in off the table. Furthermore, he wants to tax health care benefits employees get from their employers, which affects me personally and royally pissed me off since it was one of John McCain's stupid ideas during his campaign. Guess, who agreed with Max Baucus that taxing employee health benefits was a great idea two weeks ago but is in full White House straddle mode on the issue today? Yep. Obama. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hriv3YGa_SuVkRpGJE3ts_kTEvoQD98LU42O0 [Obama's]Changing positions: In 2003, while campaigning for the U.S. Senate, then-candidate Obama told an audience at an AFL-CIO conference that he is a proponent of single-payer health care. I can see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent...of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody, Obama said. Obama said he wanted to see single-payer be enacted, but that in order to do so Democrats would have to control Congress and the White House. Three years later, in an interview with liberal political columnist, pundit and author David Sirota a former chief political advisor for Gov. Brian Schweitzer Sen. Obama backed off his support for single-payer. In a 2006 article in The Nation magazine, Obama told Sirota that although he would not shy away from a debate about single-payer, right now he is not convinced that it is the best way to achieve universal health care. His political preconditions have been met, he said he would never shy away from the debate, and that's exactly what the administration via Max Baucus is doing, Sirota said. http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20090519/NEWS01/905190301 David Sirota has some interesting questions about single payer health care for Obama: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/05/16/sirota/
[FairfieldLife] New Crop Circle, Bishop Cannings, nr Devizes, Wiltshire. Reported 8th June.
This circle was reported by passers-by driving along the A361, from where the circle is clearly visible. As we were flying to photograph the recent Chiseldon formation, we took the opportunity to check the reports out. The formation appears to be 250-300ft in diameter. Steve Karen Alexander Images Steve Alexander Copyright 2009 http://www.temporarytemples.co.uk/ http://cropcircleconnector.com/forum/index.php
[FairfieldLife] Alex invaded the poster's privacy (Re: Rick Archer: )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: That's one way of looking at it, and may be valid. Another way of looking at it is that Alex is doing people a favor by warning them about information they may unwittingly be making public, such that they can take precautionary measures if they wish. HaHa. Post of the week !
[FairfieldLife] Alex invaded the poster's privacy (Re: Rick Archer: )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: snip I HAVE NEVER HEARD SUCH NAMBY-PAMBY WHINING BY SUCH A BUNCH OF COMPUTER ILLITERATES IN MY LIFE. STOP, ALREADY! Ssshhh, you'll wake the baby. DO NOT EVER WRITE ANYTHING IN EMAIL OR POST IT TO THE INTERNET THAT YOU WOULD FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE SEEING WITH YOUR REAL NAME ATTACHED TO IT, IN PUBLIC. Now that we know Barry can read all our emails, we'd better stop telling each other jokes about him. He's already hysterical.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
On Jun 8, 2009, at 9:16 AM, do.rflex wrote: It couldn't be more obvious. RD [Hillary is my champion] has a BIG chip on her shoulder and it badly gives bias to her perceptions of Obama's situation and efforts. After all, Obama didn't stop people from picking on poor Hillary - so it's all HIS fault that she lost. That's why RD and Judy nitpicks him like the right wing fringe does. And in spite of the hostile, bitter attacks by the discontents, Obama's approval has consistently been in the mid 60% range since he took office. Not to mention that Judy consistently misses the fact that since the sexism used against HC was out in the open, rather than hidden (all according to her) that's about the best situation one could hope for...(assuming, of course, that there really *was* sexism, and that it wasn't just a figment of, um, some of her more fanatical followers trying to justify her loss any way they could.) since having something out in the open usually means it's a lot easier to deal with, right? So why didn't Hillary deal with it? Because either it didn't exist, or it was so negligible she didn't want to waste her time. It's pretty astounding that two people who profess to be Democrats could wish something heinous were hidden rather than obvious. But there you have it... Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: New Crop Circle, Bishop Cannings, nr Devizes, Wiltshire. Reported 8th June.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_re...@... wrote: This circle was reported by passers-by driving along the A361, from where the circle is clearly visible. As we were flying to photograph the recent Chiseldon formation, we took the opportunity to check the reports out. The formation appears to be 250-300ft in diameter. Steve Karen Alexander Images Steve Alexander Copyright 2009 http://www.temporarytemples.co.uk/ http://cropcircleconnector.com/forum/index.php Are aliens Christian? Me thinks a Christian computer graphics program created this crop circle and perhaps this one as well: http://www.whitehousecornmaze.com/ If I were to believe in crop circles I would profess a belief in ecumenical crop circles rather than those that are exclusively Christian. What say you? http://www.greatdreams.com/menorah.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Jun 8, 2009, at 9:16 AM, do.rflex wrote: It couldn't be more obvious. RD [Hillary is my champion] has a BIG chip on her shoulder and it badly gives bias to her perceptions of Obama's situation and efforts. After all, Obama didn't stop people from picking on poor Hillary - so it's all HIS fault that she lost. That's why RD and Judy nitpicks him like the right wing fringe does. And in spite of the hostile, bitter attacks by the discontents, Obama's approval has consistently been in the mid 60% range since he took office. Not to mention that Judy consistently misses the fact that since the sexism used against HC was out in the open, rather than hidden (all according to her) that's about the best situation one could hope for...(assuming, of course, that there really *was* sexism, and that it wasn't just a figment of, um, some of her more fanatical followers trying to justify her loss any way they could.) since having something out in the open usually means it's a lot easier to deal with, right? So why didn't Hillary deal with it? Because either it didn't exist, or it was so negligible she didn't want to waste her time. It's pretty astounding that two people who profess to be Democrats could wish something heinous were hidden rather than obvious. But there you have it... Sal I don't think there's anyone on this forum who can't see that RD and Judy are bitterly biased against Obama because their candidate didn't win. Like I said, it couldn't be more obvious. And each of them goes bananas when it's pointed out.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
Poor Sal. She wouldn't know sexism if it bit her in the ass. Hillary was quite aware the of sexism directed at her but wisely chose to ignore it until the end of her campaign, when she did in fact acknowledge it. She was smart to stay focused on the issues during her campaign rather than appear weak by complaining. The sexism directed at Hillary for the purpose of undermining her credibility, exposed the vile sexism so willingly embraced by people on the left who were supposedly supportive of womens' rights. But something awful happened to ordinarily sane people when they started drinking Obama's Kool Aid, they morphed in to irrational Hillary haters. Sadly, their hatred of Hillary only highlighted their hidden hatred of all women. Once again, Sal, in case you missed it the last time I posted it, here are 114 instances of sexism against Hillary documented by Melissa McEwan and others at Shakesville: Hillary Sexism Watch, #114 http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/12/hillary-sexism-watch-114\ .html | posted by Guest Blogger | Saturday, December 06, 2008 by Shaker ScottRS By now, you've likely seen the photo of putative Obama administration Director of Speechwriting Jon Favreau, posed with his hand on the right breast of a cardboard cutout of Hillary Clinton. On the right is another (unidentified) person (wearing an Obama Staff t-shirt, no less), holding the head of the cutout, putting a bottle of beer to the cutout's lips, and delivering a kiss. [Photo via http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/12/04/one_more_question\ .html .] Reactions? Boys will be boys. He's only 20-something and just blowing off steam and having fun. It's just a cardboard cutout. Lighten up. All in good fun. I have read multiple comments suggesting that those who don't find the photo pants-peeing funny are just making mountains out of molehills, and trivializing the real problems women face. Somehow, this isn't objectification since it's a cardboard cutout. Somehow, sexism isn't real if it's clearly a joke and Clinton (allegedly) laughed it off (though one must wonder how immune she must be to this stuff by nowand of course she'd be labeled humorless if she hadn't laughed it off). Somehow, it's not demeaning and disrespectful since it's merely an alcohol-fueled lapse of judgment. I guess he's a hero for managing not to call the cutout sugar tits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Gibson_DUI_incident . I'm not so much upset as disheartened. I hoped against all hope that our country might, one day and once again, at a bare minimum, be run by responsible adults. This is made all the more astounding in light of the umm comprehensive Obama administration vetting process. But why, pray tell, do so many people seem so compelled to make excuses for what is, at best, such puerile, obnoxious, and just plain disrespectful behavior? [Hillary Sexism Watch: Parts One http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/09/q-whats-going-rate-for-i\ ndisputably.html , Two http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/09/hmm.html , Three http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/10/it-was-all-so-much-easie\ r-when-everyone.html , Four http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/11/woman-card.html , Five http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/11/as-i-was-saying.html , Six http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/11/quote-of-day_13.html , Seven http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/11/matthews-misogyny-makes-\ him-unfit-to.html , Eight http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/11/hmm.html , Nine http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/12/welcome-back-imus.html , Ten http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/12/my-vagina-tells-me-to-vo\ te-for-hillary.html , Eleven http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/12/attack-of-50-foot-vagina\ -american-who.html , Twelve http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/12/breaking-news-60-year-ol\ d-woman-has.html , Thirteen http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/12/bigmouth-strikes-again.h\ tml , Fourteen http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/01/shut-up-maureen-dowd.htm\ l , Fifteen http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/01/they-hate-you.html , Sixteen http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/01/hide-nukes.html , Seventeen http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/01/hitch.html , Eighteen http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/01/but-news-is-that-she-cri\ ed.html , Nineteen http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/01/fighting-sexism-is-meant\ -to-be.html , Twenty http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/01/quote-of-day_08.html , Twenty-One http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/01/for-record.html , Twenty-Two http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/01/andy-women-back-clinton.\ html , Twenty-Three http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/01/shut-up-maureen-dowd_09.\ html , Twenty-Four http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/01/in-which-i-talk-about-so\ mething-other.html , Twenty-Five
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: Poor Sal. She wouldn't know sexism if it bit her in the ass. Hillary was quite aware the of sexism directed at her but wisely chose to ignore it until the end of her campaign, when she did in fact acknowledge it. She was smart to stay focused on the issues during her campaign rather than appear weak by complaining. So we, her loyal fans, being neither wise nor smart, choose to appear weak by complaining about it ad infinitum. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
On Jun 8, 2009, at 1:45 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: Poor Sal. She wouldn't know sexism if it bit her in the ass. Hillary was quite aware the of sexism directed at her but wisely chose to ignore it until the end of her campaign, when she did in fact acknowledge it. She was smart to stay focused on the issues during her campaign rather than appear weak by complaining. So we, her loyal fans, being neither wise nor smart, choose to appear weak by complaining about it ad infinitum. :-) The funniest part of all this is that Obama, being omnipotent, of course, was supposed to have controlled *every single one* of the bloggers and others who supposedly engaged in these assaults against poor, defenseless Hillary (talk about sexism!) while Hillary couldn't even control her own husband's silly remarks! Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Jun 8, 2009, at 9:16 AM, do.rflex wrote: It couldn't be more obvious. RD [Hillary is my champion] has a BIG chip on her shoulder and it badly gives bias to her perceptions of Obama's situation and efforts. After all, Obama didn't stop people from picking on poor Hillary - so it's all HIS fault that she lost. That's why RD and Judy nitpicks him like the right wing fringe does. And in spite of the hostile, bitter attacks by the discontents, Obama's approval has consistently been in the mid 60% range since he took office. Not to mention that Judy consistently misses the fact that since the sexism used against HC was out in the open, rather than hidden (all according to her) that's about the best situation one could hope for...(assuming, of course, that there really *was* sexism, and that it wasn't just a figment of, um, some of her more fanatical followers trying to justify her loss any way they could.) since having something out in the open usually means it's a lot easier to deal with, right? So why didn't Hillary deal with it? Because either it didn't exist, or it was so negligible she didn't want to waste her time. It's pretty astounding that two people who profess to be Democrats could wish something heinous were hidden rather than obvious. But there you have it... Sal I don't think there's anyone on this forum who can't see that RD and Judy are bitterly biased against Obama because their candidate didn't win. Like I said, it couldn't be more obvious. And each of them goes bananas when it's pointed out. IMO my bananas don't nearly match your bananas when I point out Obama's broken promises. You have not once refuted any of my posts documenting how Obama is clearly and arrogantly screwing you on civil liberties. Once again for the hard of learning: It's not that Hillary lost, it's HOW she lost. Simply put, had it not been for the inane machinations of the DNC and the irrational worship of Obama that generated egregiously sexist attacks on Hillary and consequently all women, Hillary might have won the primary.
[FairfieldLife] Ginger and the smell of ginger ale
For years I've been using either fresh ginger or powdered ginger. One of the main uses has been to add some to a cup of whole milk in the morning -- along with ground green cardamon and powdered cinnamon -- before boiling it. Well, I was out of ginger the other day and wasn't close to the store where I normally buy my powdered ginger, so I bought some at Sprouts which sells a wide assortment of spices in any quantity you want (bulk). When I used this supply from the new source, I noticed immediately that the ginger smelled like...ginger ale! And I mean exactly like it! It got me wondering: how come the ginger I've been using up to now hasn't? Which is the more genuine ginger? Isn't it ironic that the smell of a processed food -- ginger ale -- has become, for me, the measuring rod for whether a pure food -- ginger, whether in powdered or root form -- is the genuine article? That is, ginger ale smell is what I automatically think of as genuine ginger! The default position has become that the processed smell is automatically assumed to be the real deal!
[FairfieldLife] Alex invaded the poster's privacy (Re: Rick Archer: )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Nabby and Edg, read this: http://whatismyipaddress.com/staticpages/index.php/can-someone-find-me I knew all the above information already. Rick/Alex, what would be going too far? For me, going too far would be revealing non-public information that I received in my capacity as moderator. As I mentioned before in another post, I know Nabby's real name because he emailed me a couple years ago to try and figure out his huge mess of IDs and subscriptions. IMO, it would be a totally unacceptable violation of trust for me to make his name public. Similarly, I knew Offie's real name long before he posted it publicly to FFL because he used to occasionally try and post to FFL while logged in with his real life Yahoo ID, which is not subscribed to FFL, and as moderator, I receive all such postings. I also kept that info to myself. I haven't had any satisfactory response to that question from you two. May I hire a detective to work up a dossier on each of you and post it here? Even if whatever was scrounged up by the detective was benign, wouldn't you feel invaded to a great degree? It would depend on whether the information was public or not. Right now, there's a subscriber to FFL posting as alex52556 in a really lame attempt to impersonate me. So far, he's posted a link to an old xanga profile of mine and to the comments on a guruphiliac post where some idiot tried to provoke me with negative comments about our house and the fact that I used to have a Manhunt profile that contained an artistic picture of me in my underwear. Some years ago, I'd lost a lot of weight and started to work out, and I was proud of my transformation. So, I had a photographer friend of mine take some pics, one of which was posted on Manhunt. Sure, I was surprised that people other than the intended audience had seen it, but I'm not ashamed of it, and it's not like I didn't know that I was making that photo completely public. IMO, impersonating someone on FFL is certainly a greater crime than posting an IP address from the FFL public archives, but I'm not about to boot off my impostor for posting stuff about me that he dug up on Google. one thing is pretty clear, those whose info was being revealed were not give any veto power over that publishing of their info. Bullshit! From the very start, this Yahoo group has been set up to allow memberships to be configured with the Hide my email and IP address from the group moderators option, which in fact, hides the email and IP address from everyone. Additionally, people from their end can use proxies or email providers that don't reveal originating IP address. If people choose to not hide their IP addresses, that is their choice. However, I have no obligation to dumb down my skill set to pander to people who don't want their IP revealed but won't do a damn thing to prevent making their IP address public in the first place.
[FairfieldLife] Reagan wouldn't recognize this GOP
In my mind's eye, I can see Ronald Reagan, watching all the goings-on down here in his old earthly home. The Republican Party that is in such disrepute today is not the party of Reagan. It is the party of Rush Limbaugh, of Ann Coulter, of Newt Gingrich, of George W. Bush, of Karl Rove. It is not a conservative party, it is a party built on the blind and narrow pursuit of power... They have turned to a politics of exclusion, division and nastiness. Today, they wonder what went wrong, why Americans have turned on them, why they lose, or barely win, even in places such as Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina. I suspect Reagan is wondering who these clowns are who want so desperately to wrap themselves in his cloak. ~~ Mickey Edwards, former U.S. congressman, lecturer at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School and author of Reclaiming Conservatism. ~~Full article: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-edwards24-2009jan24,0,653092.story
Re: [FairfieldLife] Ginger and the smell of ginger ale
shempmcgurk wrote: For years I've been using either fresh ginger or powdered ginger. One of the main uses has been to add some to a cup of whole milk in the morning -- along with ground green cardamon and powdered cinnamon -- before boiling it. Well, I was out of ginger the other day and wasn't close to the store where I normally buy my powdered ginger, so I bought some at Sprouts which sells a wide assortment of spices in any quantity you want (bulk). When I used this supply from the new source, I noticed immediately that the ginger smelled like...ginger ale! And I mean exactly like it! It got me wondering: how come the ginger I've been using up to now hasn't? Which is the more genuine ginger? Isn't it ironic that the smell of a processed food -- ginger ale -- has become, for me, the measuring rod for whether a pure food -- ginger, whether in powdered or root form -- is the genuine article? That is, ginger ale smell is what I automatically think of as genuine ginger! The default position has become that the processed smell is automatically assumed to be the real deal! Yes, powdered ginger has less of a smell than fresh ginger. However in many ayurvedic situations powdered will do. But if you want to add zing to your cooking then use fresh ginger. Don't use it fast enough? Trader Joe's sell jars of crushed ginger that keeps for a long time.
[FairfieldLife] Re: New Crop Circle, Bishop Cannings, nr Devizes, Wiltshire. Reported 8th June.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: This circle was reported by passers-by driving along the A361, from where the circle is clearly visible. As we were flying to photograph the recent Chiseldon formation, we took the opportunity to check the reports out. The formation appears to be 250-300ft in diameter. Steve Karen Alexander Images Steve Alexander Copyright 2009 http://www.temporarytemples.co.uk/ http://cropcircleconnector.com/forum/index.php Are aliens Christian? Me thinks a Christian computer graphics program created this crop circle and perhaps this one as well: http://www.whitehousecornmaze.com/ If I were to believe in crop circles I would profess a belief in ecumenical crop circles rather than those that are exclusively Christian. What say you? http://www.greatdreams.com/menorah.htm http://www.greatdreams.com/menorah.htm Crop circles appear with many religion symbols, not only Christian. And if they where computer-created how is it possible to walk into them physically in the fields ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: New Crop Circle, Bishop Cannings, nr Devizes, Wiltshire. Reported 8th June.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: This circle was reported by passers-by driving along the A361, from where the circle is clearly visible. As we were flying to photograph the recent Chiseldon formation, we took the opportunity to check the reports out. The formation appears to be 250-300ft in diameter. Steve Karen Alexander Images Steve Alexander Copyright 2009 http://www.temporarytemples.co.uk/ http://cropcircleconnector.com/forum/index.php Are aliens Christian? Me thinks a Christian computer graphics program created this crop circle and perhaps this one as well: http://www.whitehousecornmaze.com/ If I were to believe in crop circles I would profess a belief in ecumenical crop circles rather than those that are exclusively Christian. What say you? Do you find this to be a Christian crop circle ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: New Crop Circle, Bishop Cannings, nr Devizes, Wiltshire. Reported 8th June.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: This circle was reported by passers-by driving along the A361, from where the circle is clearly visible. As we were flying to photograph the recent Chiseldon formation, we took the opportunity to check the reports out. The formation appears to be 250-300ft in diameter. Steve Karen Alexander Images Steve Alexander Copyright 2009 http://www.temporarytemples.co.uk/ http://cropcircleconnector.com/forum/index.php Are aliens Christian? Me thinks a Christian computer graphics program created this crop circle and perhaps this one as well: http://www.whitehousecornmaze.com/ If I were to believe in crop circles I would profess a belief in ecumenical crop circles rather than those that are exclusively Christian. What say you? Is this a Christian crop circle ? Images Jack Turner Copyright 2009 SENSE OF PEACE ON WINDMILL There are very few occasions when you can experience a Crop Circle without any wind around in England. The sense of peace and tranquillity on Windmill Hill was tangible, as none of the wonderful light Barley was flowing in waves as would be the case on a normal windy day. Just complete stillness, with the added impact of the ancient Windmill Hill settlement. These types of events close to such powerful ancient places, are what makes the County of Wiltshire so unique. There is no doubt that the design itself was creating an atmosphere all of its own.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bernie Sanders proposes state-level Single-Payer pilot program
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote: In Washington, where the insurance industry and medical establishment hold sway, the idea gets short shrift. The likelihood of single payer passing the Senate is almost nil. In the meantime, Sen. Sanders provides a mechanism for trying single payer out at the state level: ---If we move to a single-payer system, we can provide quality, comprehensive health care to every man, woman and child in this country without spending a nickel more than we're currently spending. With 15,000 physicians supporting the concept of single payer, with single payer being the only system that can provide comprehensive health care to every man, woman and child, single payer should obviously be on the table. With the American public, the idea is extremely popular. An overwhelming 59 percent say the government should provide national health insurance, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll earlier this year. In Washington, where the insurance industry and medical establishment hold sway, the idea gets short shrift. While some single payer advocates think the only thing worth fighting for is single payer, what I have also introduced is a five-state option. That would mean five states would have the option of running pilot programs in universal health care but one would have to be single payer. I think it's possible this will never happen in Washington, D.C., but that this country will join the rest of the industrialized world when a state, maybe like Vermont, implements single payer and does it well. And then New Hampshire will be looking over our shoulders, and they will adopt that, and so on through the country. That's in fact how national health care came to Canada, it started in the Saskatchewan province. ~~ Politico: http://snipurl.com/jp608 http://snipurl.com/jp608 Bernie Sanders - Vermont Vermont, ahead of the curve as usual. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Jun 8, 2009, at 9:16 AM, do.rflex wrote: It couldn't be more obvious. RD [Hillary is my champion] has a BIG chip on her shoulder and it badly gives bias to her perceptions of Obama's situation and efforts. After all, Obama didn't stop people from picking on poor Hillary - so it's all HIS fault that she lost. That's why RD and Judy nitpicks him like the right wing fringe does. And in spite of the hostile, bitter attacks by the discontents, Obama's approval has consistently been in the mid 60% range since he took office. Not to mention that Judy consistently misses the fact that since the sexism used against HC was out in the open, rather than hidden (all according to her) that's about the best situation one could hope for...(assuming, of course, that there really *was* sexism, and that it wasn't just a figment of, um, some of her more fanatical followers trying to justify her loss any way they could.) since having something out in the open usually means it's a lot easier to deal with, right? So why didn't Hillary deal with it? Because either it didn't exist, or it was so negligible she didn't want to waste her time. It's pretty astounding that two people who profess to be Democrats could wish something heinous were hidden rather than obvious. But there you have it... Sal I don't think there's anyone on this forum who can't see that RD and Judy are bitterly biased against Obama because their candidate didn't win. Like I said, it couldn't be more obvious. And each of them goes bananas when it's pointed out. IMO my bananas don't nearly match your bananas when I point out Obama's broken promises. You have not once refuted any of my posts documenting how Obama is clearly and arrogantly screwing you on civil liberties. I'm not here to play fetch-the-answers for your every whine. From what I've read, Obama has given solid, justifiable reasons for the decisions he's made. Once again for the hard of learning: It's not that Hillary lost, it's HOW she lost. Simply put, had it not been for the inane machinations of the DNC and the irrational worship of Obama that generated egregiously sexist attacks on Hillary and consequently all women, Hillary might have won the primary. Get over it. Practically EVERYONE ELSE doesn't care. Endlessly whining about it will solve nothing. It only makes you look like an angry cry-baby. And it's no justification for your obnoxious, perpetual undeniably bitter bias and grudge against Obama. Politics is tough. I really don't think you can compare your claims of 'sexism' against Hillary to the massive orchestrated right wing deluge of smears against Michelle as an angry black woman [note cover of New Yorker] and her husband as a Muslim, a Kenyan born foreigner, a covert Islamofascist terrorist who palled around with a domestic terrorist etc., etc...
[FairfieldLife] Success in the early TM era
A reason for the success of the initial SIMS/SRM programs is the same reason for why such a Movement can't hold a candle against the fundamentalist and Monotheistic religions: namely, the latter are held together by a strong belief system, and faith in the certititude of Biblical truths. These conditions coupled with a strong cultural foundation and various social links spell for enclaves of Fundies in certain areas. For example, Shias in some areas vs the Sunni group, each with temples, social welfare projects, etc; the whole system of cultural traits which act as a glue to keep society together. Same with Fundamentalist Christianity. In many areas across the US, with a couple dozen square miles of territory, especially rural towns, you can find hundreds and thousands of Fundies. The combined influence of these fundamentalist groups far outshadows (in number), the total historical influence of the TM groups. Thus, the freedom of belief systems and a strong relative focal point acted in the early years - (1959 - 1975) to attract a relatively large group of New-Age-type people into the fold (probably a wave of people with past incarnations in India); but this in turn over the years detracted from any sense of cohesiveness along the lines of the Fundamentalist groups who point to Biblical truths and strong cultural affiliations. In practical terms (for example); after Katrina the FEMA efforts turned out to be a total failure; with the most benefits to local areas coming from (you guessed it!) - local Fundamentalist Churches. The Dalai Lama appeared on CNN calling for a compassionate outlook. That's about it from the Dharmic Hindus and Buddhists (those with a past in that orientation who have gravitated toward TM).. No TM'ers rebuilding homes and clearing out the trash. OTOH, one can argue that the TM perspective will win out in the long run - hundreds of years into the future, because the belief systems holding the Fundies together are in essence (imo) much superstititious nonsense. From our TM perspective, as MMY has taught, the Foundation has to be Being, ultimately; although this lesson in the short run will be lost on those attempting to clear up the Katrina trash, cure malaria, or offset the dwindling water supply in India.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Jun 8, 2009, at 9:16 AM, do.rflex wrote: It couldn't be more obvious. RD [Hillary is my champion] has a BIG chip on her shoulder and it badly gives bias to her perceptions of Obama's situation and efforts. After all, Obama didn't stop people from picking on poor Hillary - so it's all HIS fault that she lost. That's why RD and Judy nitpicks him like the right wing fringe does. And in spite of the hostile, bitter attacks by the discontents, Obama's approval has consistently been in the mid 60% range since he took office. Not to mention that Judy consistently misses the fact that since the sexism used against HC was out in the open, rather than hidden (all according to her) that's about the best situation one could hope for...(assuming, of course, that there really *was* sexism, and that it wasn't just a figment of, um, some of her more fanatical followers trying to justify her loss any way they could.) since having something out in the open usually means it's a lot easier to deal with, right? So why didn't Hillary deal with it? Because either it didn't exist, or it was so negligible she didn't want to waste her time. It's pretty astounding that two people who profess to be Democrats could wish something heinous were hidden rather than obvious. But there you have it... Sal I don't think there's anyone on this forum who can't see that RD and Judy are bitterly biased against Obama because their candidate didn't win. Like I said, it couldn't be more obvious. And each of them goes bananas when it's pointed out. IMO my bananas don't nearly match your bananas when I point out Obama's broken promises. You have not once refuted any of my posts documenting how Obama is clearly and arrogantly screwing you on civil liberties. I'm not here to play fetch-the-answers for your every whine. From what I've read, Obama has given solid, justifiable reasons for the decisions he's made. Sure. Like what decisions and what solid reasons are you talking about? Let's see links supporting your claims and we can have a discussion. If you have anything specific issue to talk about, I would be happy to address it. Until then, IMO Obama is screwing you and you're too married to him to care. Once again for the hard of learning: It's not that Hillary lost, it's HOW she lost. Simply put, had it not been for the inane machinations of the DNC and the irrational worship of Obama that generated egregiously sexist attacks on Hillary and consequently all women, Hillary might have won the primary. Get over it. Practically EVERYONE ELSE doesn't care. Endlessly whining about it will solve nothing. It only makes you look like an angry cry-baby. And it's no justification for your obnoxious, perpetual undeniably bitter bias and grudge against Obama. I'll match facts documenting what happened during the primary with your obnoxious head up Obama's ass any day. Politics is tough. I really don't think you can compare your claims of 'sexism' against Hillary to the massive orchestrated right wing deluge of smears against Michelle as an angry black woman [note cover of New Yorker] and her husband as a Muslim, a Kenyan born foreigner, a covert Islamofascist terrorist who palled around with a domestic terrorist etc., etc... Attacks on Obama came from the right wing, AFTER they thought he would likely win the primary. When the whole Rev. Wright affair blew up in his face and he gave a nationally televised speech on Race Relations to CYA, it gave him a huge boost in the primary polls. Attacks on Hillary came from her own party and she had no such platform to speak out against sexism. From start to finish the DNC and the media blatantly favored Obama.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 12:47 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice? There is no IP adress in what I see here, it is your friend that has provided that for the readers. My point is that I thought FFL was anonymous. You don't have to put friend in quotes. Alex is my friend. And a slimeball.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Success in the early TM era
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifux...@... wrote: OTOH, one can argue that the TM perspective will win out in the long run - hundreds of years into the future, because the belief systems holding the Fundies together are in essence (imo) much superstititious nonsense. From a historical point of view, TM has been extremely successful so far. I do not foresee, however, that it will challenge Christianity or Islam; rather it will provide an alternative, and through its success influence future developments in the monotheistic religions which are not going to be able to ignore it. -emf
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Jun 8, 2009, at 9:16 AM, do.rflex wrote: It couldn't be more obvious. RD [Hillary is my champion] has a BIG chip on her shoulder and it badly gives bias to her perceptions of Obama's situation and efforts. After all, Obama didn't stop people from picking on poor Hillary - so it's all HIS fault that she lost. That's why RD and Judy nitpicks him like the right wing fringe does. And in spite of the hostile, bitter attacks by the discontents, Obama's approval has consistently been in the mid 60% range since he took office. Not to mention that Judy consistently misses the fact that since the sexism used against HC was out in the open, rather than hidden (all according to her) that's about the best situation one could hope for...(assuming, of course, that there really *was* sexism, and that it wasn't just a figment of, um, some of her more fanatical followers trying to justify her loss any way they could.) since having something out in the open usually means it's a lot easier to deal with, right? So why didn't Hillary deal with it? Because either it didn't exist, or it was so negligible she didn't want to waste her time. It's pretty astounding that two people who profess to be Democrats could wish something heinous were hidden rather than obvious. But there you have it... Sal I don't think there's anyone on this forum who can't see that RD and Judy are bitterly biased against Obama because their candidate didn't win. Like I said, it couldn't be more obvious. And each of them goes bananas when it's pointed out. IMO my bananas don't nearly match your bananas when I point out Obama's broken promises. You have not once refuted any of my posts documenting how Obama is clearly and arrogantly screwing you on civil liberties. I'm not here to play fetch-the-answers for your every whine. From what I've read, Obama has given solid, justifiable reasons for the decisions he's made. Sure. Like what decisions and what solid reasons are you talking about? Let's see links supporting your claims and we can have a discussion. You can find plenty of things to bitch about anyone if you are motivated primarily by an obnoxious, perpetual undeniably bitter bias and grudge. I'm not here to play fetch-the-answers for your every whine. From what I've read, Obama has given solid, justifiable reasons for the decisions he's made. His overall efforts, in spite of the catastrophic mess he's inherited are, in my view, [and in fact the view of almost everyone], a supremely welcome positive change. If you have anything specific issue to talk about, I would be happy to address it. Until then, IMO Obama is screwing you and you're too married to him to care. Once again for the hard of learning: It's not that Hillary lost, it's HOW she lost. Simply put, had it not been for the inane machinations of the DNC and the irrational worship of Obama that generated egregiously sexist attacks on Hillary and consequently all women, Hillary might have won the primary. Get over it. Practically EVERYONE ELSE doesn't care. Endlessly whining about it will solve nothing. It only makes you look like an angry cry-baby. And it's no justification for your obnoxious, perpetual undeniably bitter bias and grudge against Obama. I'll match facts documenting what happened during the primary with your obnoxious head up Obama's ass any day. Politics is tough. I really don't think you can compare your claims of 'sexism' against Hillary to the massive orchestrated right wing deluge of smears against Michelle as an angry black woman [note cover of New Yorker] and her husband as a Muslim, a Kenyan born foreigner, a covert Islamofascist terrorist who palled around with a domestic terrorist etc., etc... Attacks on Obama came from the right wing, AFTER they thought he would likely win the primary. When the whole Rev. Wright affair blew up in his face and he gave a nationally televised speech on Race Relations to CYA, it gave him a huge boost in the primary polls. Attacks on Hillary came from her own party and she had no such platform to speak out against sexism. From start to finish the DNC and the media blatantly favored Obama. Get over it. Practically EVERYONE ELSE doesn't care. Endlessly whining about it will solve nothing. It only
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
From the brimming cesspool of idiocy that FFL often shows itself to be, a fascinating sequence of utter obtuseness: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: snip Not to mention that Judy consistently misses the fact that since the sexism used against HC was out in the open, rather than hidden (all according to her) that's about the best situation one could hope for Right, Stupid Sal. For people to treat her with respect would have been a poor second to open, contemptuous sexism. ...(assuming, of course, that there really *was* sexism, and that it wasn't just a figment of, um, some of her more fanatical followers trying to justify her loss any way they could.) The sexism was, of course, *very* widely remarked in the media, not just among her supporters by any means. It was rampant on FFL, just to mention the most obvious example. And speaking for myself, I've *never* said she lost because of the sexism; I believe, in fact, that I've said she *didn't* lose because of it. So Stupid Sal can't even read, let alone come up with a coherent argument. since having something out in the open usually means it's a lot easier to deal with, right? Obviously (to anyone other than Stupid Sal), it very much depends on the situation and what the something is. But that, of course, not only isn't the point but makes no sense in this context. So why didn't Hillary deal with it? Because either it didn't exist, or it was so negligible she didn't want to waste her time. As Raunchy pointed out, she was very much aware of it. As should be blindingly obvious, she didn't mention it because she'd have been accused of whining by disgusting people like Stupid Sal, do.rkflex, and Barry the Misogynist. Women politicians aren't *allowed* to complain about sexism. That's part of the sexist mindset they have to deal with. But that doesn't apply to *supporters* of women politicians. The whole game here is to exercise the sexism when it'll damage the candidate, and then DISAPPEAR it once the campaign is over, pretend it never happened, stigmatize anybody who dares mention it. Racism, of course, is an entirely different matter. It's pretty astounding that two people who profess to be Democrats could wish something heinous were hidden rather than obvious. But there you have it... And Sal's puerile yammering wouldn't be complete without a big fat VERY stupid lie at the end. Neither Raunchy nor I, of course, wished the sexism against Hillary could have been hidden. Just how much of a nitwit does Sal have to be to make up something like that and think it'll pass muster?? But there you have it... do.rkflex's response to Sal is, if anything, stupider than her post: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote: snip I don't think there's anyone on this forum who can't see that RD and Judy are bitterly biased against Obama because their candidate didn't win. Actually, anybody with any brains who can read can see that's NOT the case. Whether there are any such people on this forum is another question entirely. Sal and do.rkflex certainly aren't. Like I said, it couldn't be more obvious. And each of them goes bananas when it's pointed out. Yes, because it's insulting and WRONG, you stupid git. And then to top off this flood of idiocy, we have do.rkflex's response to Raunchy: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: IMO my bananas don't nearly match your bananas when I point out Obama's broken promises. You have not once refuted any of my posts documenting how Obama is clearly and arrogantly screwing you on civil liberties. I'm not here to play fetch-the-answers for your every whine. Translation: do.rkflex couldn't fetch the answers to the very real objections ON THE LEFT, from OBAMA'S SUPPORTERS, if he tried. How many of the links Raunchy posted do you think do.rkflex read? snip Politics is tough. I really don't think you can compare your claims of 'sexism' against Hillary to the massive orchestrated right wing deluge of smears against Michelle as an angry black woman [note cover of New Yorker] Ah, yes, that right-wing rag The New Yorker. horselaugh He really *doesn't* read, does he? and her husband as a Muslim, a Kenyan born foreigner, a covert Islamofascist terrorist who palled around with a domestic terrorist etc., etc... Those smears were from THE RIGHT, dickhead. That's to be expected. What we're objecting to is the massive orchestrated deluge of sexist smears against Hillary FROM THE LEFT. My God, how can he *possibly* be so brainless as to have missed that?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: snip I'm not here to play fetch-the-answers for your every whine. From what I've read, Obama has given solid, justifiable reasons for the decisions he's made. Sure. Like what decisions and what solid reasons are you talking about? Let's see links supporting your claims and we can have a discussion. You can find plenty of things to bitch about anyone if you are motivated primarily by an obnoxious, perpetual undeniably bitter bias and grudge. Except that it's OBAMA'S SUPPORTERS TOO who are bitching about what he's doing. I'm not here to play fetch-the-answers for your every whine. From what I've read, Obama has given solid, justifiable reasons for the decisions he's made. Apparently do.rkflex has this response on a macro key for whenever he's afraid to participate in an honest discussion. Note that the paragraph above is *exactly* what he said, verbatim, in his earlier post (quoted at the top). Wouldn't you think he'd be embarrassed? The fact is that do.rkflex has nothing to say, not just in this context but in virtuall any other that comes up here. If he can't cut and paste, he's at a complete loss. And he can't even cut and paste when he's challenged.
[FairfieldLife] Most blogs inactive -- a fad passed and no one noticed?
Who here blogs? Who here keeps a diary? Daily? For years? Decades? Who here posts more at other sites than here? Not me, yes, yes, yes, yes, no...are my answers. Hmmm, the above could be the soundtrack to a failed sex session. I'm just sayin' ! Edg The Narrative Fallacy writes Douglas Quenqua reports in the NY Times that according to a 2008 survey only 7.4 million out of the 133 million blogs the company tracks had been updated in the past 120 days meaning that 95 percent of blogs being essentially abandoned, left to lie fallow on the Web, where they become public remnants of a dream or at least an ambition unfulfilled. Richard Jalichandra, chief executive of Technorati, said that at any given time there are 7 million to 10 million active blogs on the Internet, but it's probably between 50,000 and 100,000 blogs that are generating most of the page views. There's a joke within the blogging community that most blogs have an audience of one. Many people who think blogging is a fast path to financial independence also find themselves discouraged. I did some Craigslist postings to advertise it, and I very quickly got an audience of about 50,000 viewers a month, says Matt Goodman, an advertising executive in Atlanta who had no trouble attracting an audience to his site, Things My Dog Ate, leading to some small advertising deals. I think I made about $20 from readers clicking on the ads.
[FairfieldLife] Iowa senator gets hip
http://snipurl.com/jpycc http://snipurl.com/jpycc [www_motherjones_com]
[FairfieldLife] Nirvana, ParaNirvana and MahapParaNirvana.
Nirvana is Cosmic Consciousness or Self-Realization, ParaNirvana is realization of Brahman or Unity and the MahaParaNirvana is the great point of NO return where the Sadhaka (practitioner) drops the mortal coil and merges into the omnipresence, (unless he takes the Bodhisattva vow, another subject), correct me if I am wrong, but this is my understanding to date. Thanks :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
On Jun 8, 2009, at 3:25 PM, do.rflex wrote: Get over it. Practically EVERYONE ELSE doesn't care. Endlessly whining about it will solve nothing. It only makes you look like an angry cry-baby. And it's no justification for your obnoxious, perpetual undeniably bitter bias and grudge against Obama. Politics is tough. I really don't think you can compare your claims of 'sexism' against Hillary to the massive orchestrated right wing deluge of smears against Michelle as an angry black woman [note cover of New Yorker] and her husband as a Muslim, a Kenyan born foreigner, a covert Islamofascist terrorist who palled around with a domestic terrorist etc., etc... I've found it helpful for Raunchy Dog and Judy posts to imagine I'm hearing lyrics of an Alanis Morisette song while reading them. It has assisted me greatly in my reading comprehension.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Nirvana, ParaNirvana and MahapParaNirvana.
On Jun 8, 2009, at 5:30 PM, BillyG. wrote: Nirvana is Cosmic Consciousness or Self-Realization, ParaNirvana is realization of Brahman or Unity and the MahaParaNirvana is the great point of NO return where the Sadhaka (practitioner) drops the mortal coil and merges into the omnipresence, (unless he takes the Bodhisattva vow, another subject), correct me if I am wrong, but this is my understanding to date. Thanks :-) It could just be that you're thinking too much Billy.
[FairfieldLife] NYC's garden in the sky
http://snipurl.com/jq1b4 http://snipurl.com/jq1b4 [www_nytimes_com]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nirvana, ParaNirvana and MahapParaNirvana.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wg...@... wrote: Nirvana is Cosmic Consciousness or Self-Realization, ParaNirvana is realization of Brahman or Unity and the MahaParaNirvana is the great point of NO return where the Sadhaka (practitioner) drops the mortal coil and merges into the omnipresence, (unless he takes the Bodhisattva vow, another subject), correct me if I am wrong, but this is my understanding to date. Thanks :-) Nir means without, vana means craving; nirvana is a state where all desires have been fulfilled (by living unlimited bliss consciousness without any limitation by the mind), so there is no craving which would necessitate another birth. Whether anybody continues to have a body after this point doesn't matter, as there is no going back to mental limitation.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice?
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 3:11 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 12:47 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Archer: may I have some free professional advice? There is no IP adress in what I see here, it is your friend that has provided that for the readers. My point is that I thought FFL was anonymous. You don't have to put friend in quotes. Alex is my friend. And a slimeball. That's why we're friends. Sometimes we go into town together and slime passersby, like in Ghost Busters.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
Zinger again! Judy, this post and your previous post for Sal was just too easy. You would think the fish in the barrel would at least put up a fight and make things more interesting around here by at least offering a fact based discussion about Obama messing with their civil liberties. Truth be told, not only do they lack the intellectual ability for such a discussion, sadly they lack interest as well. Pity, that. It confirms my suspicion their allegiance to the cult of personality is more important to them than the welfare of our country. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: snip I'm not here to play fetch-the-answers for your every whine. From what I've read, Obama has given solid, justifiable reasons for the decisions he's made. Sure. Like what decisions and what solid reasons are you talking about? Let's see links supporting your claims and we can have a discussion. You can find plenty of things to bitch about anyone if you are motivated primarily by an obnoxious, perpetual undeniably bitter bias and grudge. Except that it's OBAMA'S SUPPORTERS TOO who are bitching about what he's doing. I'm not here to play fetch-the-answers for your every whine. From what I've read, Obama has given solid, justifiable reasons for the decisions he's made. Apparently do.rkflex has this response on a macro key for whenever he's afraid to participate in an honest discussion. Note that the paragraph above is *exactly* what he said, verbatim, in his earlier post (quoted at the top). Wouldn't you think he'd be embarrassed? The fact is that do.rkflex has nothing to say, not just in this context but in virtuall any other that comes up here. If he can't cut and paste, he's at a complete loss. And he can't even cut and paste when he's challenged.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: Zinger again! Judy, this post and your previous post for Sal was just too easy. You would think the fish in the barrel would at least put up a fight and make things more interesting around here by at least offering a fact based discussion about Obama messing with their civil liberties. Truth be told, not only do they lack the intellectual ability for such a discussion, sadly they lack interest as well. Pity, that. It confirms my suspicion their allegiance to the cult of personality is more important to them than the welfare of our country. It was predictable and predicted. They each go bananas. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: snip I'm not here to play fetch-the-answers for your every whine. From what I've read, Obama has given solid, justifiable reasons for the decisions he's made. Sure. Like what decisions and what solid reasons are you talking about? Let's see links supporting your claims and we can have a discussion. You can find plenty of things to bitch about anyone if you are motivated primarily by an obnoxious, perpetual undeniably bitter bias and grudge. Except that it's OBAMA'S SUPPORTERS TOO who are bitching about what he's doing. I'm not here to play fetch-the-answers for your every whine. From what I've read, Obama has given solid, justifiable reasons for the decisions he's made. Apparently do.rkflex has this response on a macro key for whenever he's afraid to participate in an honest discussion. Note that the paragraph above is *exactly* what he said, verbatim, in his earlier post (quoted at the top). Wouldn't you think he'd be embarrassed? The fact is that do.rkflex has nothing to say, not just in this context but in virtuall any other that comes up here. If he can't cut and paste, he's at a complete loss. And he can't even cut and paste when he's challenged.
[FairfieldLife] Let Women Wear Hijab: Obama's Empty Cairo Speech
I know many will gush over President Obama's Cairo speech and I'm likely swimming against the tide of the media and my fellow Democrats and progressives. But reading the transcript, I was struck by two things: 1. Aside from a few platitudes, it is disappointingly weak on human rights and specifically women's rights. 2. It betrays a naiveté, perhaps feigned, about how the Arab world works... With women being stoned, raped, abused, battered, mutilated, and slaughtered on a daily basis across the globe, violence that is so often perpetrated in the name of religion, the most our president can speak about is protecting their right to wear the hijab? I would have been much more heartened if the preponderance of the speech had been about how in the 21st century, we CANNOT tolerate the pervasive abuse of our mothers and sisters and daughters. Read more: Peter Daou Political consultant, former Internet Adviser to Hillary Clinton Posted: June 4, 2009 07:41 AM http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-daou/let-women-wear-the-hijab_b_211226.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
On Jun 8, 2009, at 6:17 PM, do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: Zinger again! Judy, this post and your previous post for Sal was just too easy. You would think the fish in the barrel would at least put up a fight and make things more interesting around here by at least offering a fact based discussion about Obama messing with their civil liberties. Truth be told, not only do they lack the intellectual ability for such a discussion, sadly they lack interest as well. Pity, that. It confirms my suspicion their allegiance to the cult of personality is more important to them than the welfare of our country. It was predictable and predicted. They each go bananas. Do, Do, Do. That's the second time you used a phallic fruit reference in a recent post. Please be more careful! You're coming awfully close to being accused of digital rape. Please try to limit subliminal and/ or subconscious male imagery in your messages, esp. those of overtly phallic nature. It may be helpful for you to think of old Dick Cavett episodes with Gloria Steinem in addition to listening to Jagged Little Pill in the background. Vaj Antiquated Feminists Support Group facilitator
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: Zinger again! Judy, this post and your previous post for Sal was just too easy. You would think the fish in the barrel would at least put up a fight and make things more interesting around here by at least offering a fact based discussion about Obama messing with their civil liberties. Truth be told, not only do they lack the intellectual ability for such a discussion, sadly they lack interest as well. Pity, that. It confirms my suspicion their allegiance to the cult of personality is more important to them than the welfare of our country. It occurs to me that the reason idiots like Sal, do.rkflex, and Barry (Vaj soon to chime in, no doubt) are accusing us of criticizing Obama only out of unhappiness that Hillary lost, and claiming that we wouldn't be criticizing Hillary if she had won, is because *that's how they'd be behaving* if the situation were reversed. They're already demonstrating it with Obama. They're just very shallow people. Basically, they can't walk and chew gum at the same time, politically speaking. If their candidate had lost, they wouldn't be able to *separate* their disappointment from how they view whoever beat him so as to evaluate the latter objectively, just as they can't separate their glee that Obama won from their evaluation of how he's doing. Because that's how *they* are, and they don't have the imagination to see that it's not the only possible way to be, they *assume* that everybody else is just like them. The way to make all criticism of Obama disappear, they think, is to beat up on the critics. They don't know enough about the issues to actually engage in a discussion and are too lazy to inform themselves. That's 50 for me. See youse Friday or Saturday.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nirvana, ParaNirvana and MahapParaNirvana.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote: Nirvana is Cosmic Consciousness or Self-Realization, ParaNirvana is realization of Brahman or Unity and the MahaParaNirvana is the great point of NO return where the Sadhaka (practitioner) drops the mortal coil and merges into the omnipresence, (unless he takes the Bodhisattva vow, another subject), correct me if I am wrong, but this is my understanding to date. Thanks :-) Nir means without, vana means craving; nirvana is a state where all desires have been fulfilled (by living unlimited bliss consciousness without any limitation by the mind), so there is no craving which would necessitate another birth. Whether anybody continues to have a body after this point doesn't matter, as there is no going back to mental limitation. Thanks...after a little research I discovered the appellation of jiva-atman and para-atman used in Yoga differ a little from Buddhism, though very similar. Good link below: http://users.ez2.net/nick29/theosophy/lessons07.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Zinger again! Judy, this post and your previous post for Sal was just too easy. You would think the fish in the barrel would at least put up a fight and make things more interesting around here by at least offering a fact based discussion about Obama messing with their civil liberties. Truth be told, not only do they lack the intellectual ability for such a discussion, sadly they lack interest as well. Pity, that. It confirms my suspicion their allegiance to the cult of personality is more important to them than the welfare of our country. It was predictable and predicted. They each go bananas. Translation do.rflex: I just can't bother my pretty little head with any facts regarding the demise of my civil liberties. So I'll just do a wee little ad hominemon attack on raunchydog and Judy and maybe no one will notice I've go bupkis when it comes to defending Obama. Loving Him should be enough. Cue the schmaltzy music, please. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: snip I'm not here to play fetch-the-answers for your every whine. From what I've read, Obama has given solid, justifiable reasons for the decisions he's made. Sure. Like what decisions and what solid reasons are you talking about? Let's see links supporting your claims and we can have a discussion. You can find plenty of things to bitch about anyone if you are motivated primarily by an obnoxious, perpetual undeniably bitter bias and grudge. Except that it's OBAMA'S SUPPORTERS TOO who are bitching about what he's doing. I'm not here to play fetch-the-answers for your every whine. From what I've read, Obama has given solid, justifiable reasons for the decisions he's made. Apparently do.rkflex has this response on a macro key for whenever he's afraid to participate in an honest discussion. Note that the paragraph above is *exactly* what he said, verbatim, in his earlier post (quoted at the top). Wouldn't you think he'd be embarrassed? The fact is that do.rkflex has nothing to say, not just in this context but in virtuall any other that comes up here. If he can't cut and paste, he's at a complete loss. And he can't even cut and paste when he's challenged.
[FairfieldLife] Still waiting for TM to 'kick in'?
I'm sure many TM'ers are, (or were, many probably quit waiting) since MMY never emphasized ***EFFORT***! Oh my God there's that word!! Well, *Paurusha* is a term in Yoga used to define manliness, valor or *effort*. Georg Feuerstein describes it thus: ..an important notion in the Yoga-Vasishtha (2.4.10) where *manly effort* is placed above fate (grace), ...without *effort* suffering (duhkha) cannot be overcome.one must not depend on grace (destiny). Paurushha = manliness, virility, courage, effort. Sanskrit Dictionary.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Still waiting for TM to 'kick in'?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wg...@... wrote: I'm sure many TM'ers are, (or were, many probably quit waiting) since MMY never emphasized ***EFFORT***! Oh my God there's that word!! Well, *Paurusha* is a term in Yoga used to define manliness, valor or *effort*. Georg Feuerstein describes it thus: ..an important notion in the Yoga-Vasishtha (2.4.10) where *manly effort* is placed above fate (grace), ...without *effort* suffering (duhkha) cannot be overcome.one must not depend on grace (destiny). Paurushha = manliness, virility, courage, effort. Sanskrit Dictionary. Are you manly, Billy?
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.
the reduction in fee that the article is talking about is the for the David Lynch projects where the fee is a fraction of what it is otherwise. The fees for individual instruction are only slightly lowered. $--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Eustace emf...@... wrote: Sorry for being dated, but I just came across this February Guardian article http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/jan/27/david-lynch-meditation where it says: Beloved of hippie celebrities everywhere since the 1960s, TM's expensive teaching courses risked it being priced into oblivion until Lynch was credited with persuading Maharishi Mahesh Yogi - to whom he became close in 2003 after paying $1m to participate in the guru's four-week Millionaire's Enlightenment Course - to radically reduce the TM learning fee so that more younger people could learn the practice. I was unaware that David Lynch had persuaded Maharishi to radically reduce the TM learning fee. Actually, I first heard of the fee sales last January - to $1500 until September for now. Does anybody have more information about this? When did it start? And what fees are agreed upon by the David Lynch Foundation and the movement for the scholarship initiations of students? I didn't know about David Lynch being in the Millionaire's Enlightenment Course either. That explains a few things. So that's how Lynch managed to represent the meditators at the top circles of the movement, where normally you have to be a governor or more to participate. It's nice to know that there is someone representing the meditators' point of view up there. As for TM's expensive teaching courses risked it being priced into oblivion it was clear. It is not surprising what John Hagelin in his recent email writes: The number of adults learning the Transcendental Meditation® technique this year has almost tripled â and this month more people learned than in any month in the past 15 years! What *is* surprising is that he goes on to say that: The new TM.org website, the national media from our April Change Begins Within Benefit Concert with Paul McCartney and friends, and our reduced course fees have produced a sharp rise of interest. The new TM.org website! What was wrong with the old one in the first place? Whom is he trying to fool? I would bet that the new website played nil role in the sharp rise of interest. And the Concert without the reduced fees would have produced much less impressive results in initiation numbers. emf
[FairfieldLife] Fairfield Directory of Active Spiritual Practice Groups
Spiritual Practice Groups of Fairfield Directory of Active Fairfield Spiritual Practice Groups Outside of Fairfield, people intently ask, What is going on in Fairfield? The spiritual, utopian side of Fairfield is something they are wondering about. Fairfield has become recognized as a spiritual Mecca of sorts, ranking with Sedona, Arizona, Boulder and Crestone, Colorado, Ashville, North Carolina and the like. Within these past three decades, Fairfield spiritual practice groups have matured, giving this community a rich, new face. The long-time Fairfield meditating community today is its own center for spiritual practice. The breadth of spiritual practice groups in Fairfield is now a unique feature of our town in the 21st Century. ___Alphabetical: A Course in Miracles, Mondays 7:30 pm. Local contact: 472-7148. The Afternoon Satsang, at Revelations Coffee Shop. North room 2:30pm most days. Spiritual experience and understanding. Ammachi Fairfield Satsang Ammachi Fairfield weekly schedule of meditation, chanting, and bhajans. http://amma-fairfield.org/ contact: 472-8563 or 472-9336 Art of Living Foundation -Sri Sri Ravi Shankar Meditation and program schedule in Fairfield. 472-9892 http://us.artofliving.org/index.html Babaji Group: Local contact: 472-9952 Bapuji Group Shri Avadoot, better known as ³Bapuji². Local contact: 472-9260 Chalanda Sai Maa Satang in Fairfield Group meditations based on the teachings of Chalanda Sai Maa Lakshmi Devi. First and third Monday of the month at 7:30 PM. Call for location information: 641-919-5223 or email directly at: fairfieldsai...@humanityinunity.org http://www.humanityinunity.org Circle of Sophia a holy order for women at St. Gabriel and All Angels, the Liberal Catholic Church. Original worship celebration, written from sources in ancient Christianity, enlivens the Feminine Divine for both men and women. Celebrations monthly. 300 E. Burlington. www.stgabe.org Contact 472-1645 Deeksha Darshan and teachings of Bhagavan Kalki Padmavati Amma Fairfield contact for local program: 472-6948 Divine Mother Church in Fairfield `We don¹t talk about God, we commune with God'. Interfaith Service: Sundays 11 AM; 51 North Court, East Entrance Contact 641.209.9900 Eckankar Local meetings, lectures and meditation Bringing speakers from the regional and national movement http://www.eckankar.org Fairfield Vedic Pujas, Yagyas and Ceremonies Scheduled public events always open to interested persons. By Vedic Scholar and Priest, Pandit Dhruv Narain Sharma: 630-240-3368 http://yagya108.org/default.aspx Fellowship of the Holy Spirit in Fairfield `Consciousness, Joy, and Devotion: Christianity that works.' Sundays, 11 AM, 51 North Court. 472-8737. Gangaji Group Local contact: 472-9476. Golden Shield Qi Gong Fairfield practice: 641-919-3913. Golden Shield Qi Gong www.jingui.com 641-472-5998 Hatha Yoga classes. Sue Berkey: 472-6577 Henry Hertzberger Chanting, Pujas Yagyas. Mahaganapati Temple Schedule: Fairfield Shri Karunamayi Satsang Fairfield Group Meditation and Program. 472-8422 http://www.karunamayi.org/tour/2008Fairfield.shtml Liberal Catholic Church in Fairfield St Gabriel and all Angels, 300 E. Burlington. Contact, 472-1625www.stgabe.org Manavata Mandir Vedic Temple 800 W. Burlington in Fairfield. 469-6041. Master Spiritual Healer John Douglas Biannual visits to Fairfield Workshops, meetings, meditation. http://www.spirit-repair.com/ Mother Meera: 641.472.5149 http://www.mothermeera-fairfield.com/default.jsp Quaker Meeting Fairfield Society of Friends (Conservative Un-programmed) silent meeting for worship. 472-8422. St. Germain Meditation. Two active groups meeting for meditation weekly http://www.reiki-seichem.com/germain.html http://saintgermainfoundation.com/ Saniel Bonder, `Waking Down' in Fairfield. Sittings calendar: call 472-2001. http://wakingdowninfairfield.com/ Scalar Group Meditation Programs facilitated by Lilli Botchis. A unique opportunity as a group to research in mind/body consciousness the universal themes of pure energy and manifestation potential of HHFe Scalar wave regeneration system. Programs designed to clear, balance and open the chakra system. Contact, 472-0129. http://earthspectrum.com/ http://www.timeportalpubs.com/index.htm Shivabalayogi Group All are welcome. There is never any charge for Swamiji's blessings. For further information, contact: 641-233-1025. Svaroopa Yoga (641) 472-7499. Tetra Building Meditation Room. Daily morning and afternoon meditation facility for the practice of the TM-Sidhi meditation. A quiet, clean and convenient and unaffiliated place, `to do program'. Contact David Hawthorne for use and membership information: 472-3799. Transcendental Meditation Programs: TMmovement: 472-1174 Transformational Prayer in Fairfield For information on Fairfield activities, call 472-0662. Wednesday Night Satsang - Every Wednesday
[FairfieldLife] Obama's Ego
Obama's ego is too big to fail. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090608/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_stimulus
[FairfieldLife] Employment
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090608/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_stimulus
[FairfieldLife] Alex invaded the poster's privacy (Re: Rick Archer: )
Om Christ Rick, do ignore this thread. Yeah this Turq guy says it good agin here. Alex ain't revealing nothing special private that no damned gullible fool like that other FFL moderator whoever he is even could not publicly quickly find from their own posting. Is kind of interesting these several top posters every week living nowhere near and having not much to do with Fairfield or even meditating. Knowing where they are posting from kind of does helps with the spam filter in reading FFL. I appreciate Alex's fineese with the IP's. Would be fun to see a list. But hey, I got some *real* private information on Alex that I am about to share right here on FFL. Then you'll have some real trouble about would someone reveal private personal information of people who would post to FFL. You got trouble coming. Heads up. Jai Guru Dev, -Doug in FF --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: On Behalf Of Duveyoung I'd say Alex has tread the slippery slope with one foot still on non-slippery ground, but a breach of some sort, of some degree, has occurred. That's one way of looking at it, and may be valid. Another way of looking at it is that Alex is doing people a favor by warning them about information they may unwittingly be making public, such that they can take precautionary measures if they wish. Here's yet another way of looking at it: I HAVE NEVER HEARD SUCH NAMBY-PAMBY WHINING BY SUCH A BUNCH OF COMPUTER ILLITERATES IN MY LIFE. STOP, ALREADY! The rule of thumb among anyone who has worked with computers long enough to know his or her ass from a hole in the ground is this: DO NOT EVER WRITE ANYTHING IN EMAIL OR POST IT TO THE INTERNET THAT YOU WOULD FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE SEEING WITH YOUR REAL NAME ATTACHED TO IT, IN PUBLIC. The reason is that it **IS** public, the moment you press the Send button. ANYONE who knows how can access any email message or post you ever sent, even if you think you deleted it. ANYONE with a bit more know-how can tell where you sent it from, and who you really are. Privacy on the Internet or in email is a JOKE. There is none. There never has been, and there probably never will be. GET OVER IT. And if this information makes you paranoid, get over that, too. You aren't important enough to worry about being spied on. om
[FairfieldLife] Post Count
Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): Sat Jun 06 00:00:00 2009 End Date (UTC): Sat Jun 13 00:00:00 2009 340 messages as of (UTC) Mon Jun 08 23:38:09 2009 50 authfriend jst...@panix.com 35 TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com 24 shempmcgurk shempmcg...@netscape.net 24 Rick Archer r...@searchsummit.com 23 Robert babajii...@yahoo.com 18 raunchydog raunchy...@yahoo.com 18 off_world_beings no_re...@yahoogroups.com 16 do.rflex do.rf...@yahoo.com 15 Duveyoung no_re...@yahoogroups.com 12 nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 11 Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net 9 Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@lisco.com 8 Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net 7 bob_brigante no_re...@yahoogroups.com 7 WillyTex no_re...@yahoogroups.com 5 sparaig lengli...@cox.net 5 geezerfreak geezerfr...@yahoo.com 5 John jr_...@yahoo.com 5 BillyG. wg...@yahoo.com 4 ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com 4 dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony...@yahoo.com 4 cardemaister no_re...@yahoogroups.com 3 lurkernomore20002000 steve.sun...@sbcglobal.net 3 gullible fool ffl...@yahoo.com 3 Richard M compost...@yahoo.co.uk 3 Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com 2 ffl...@yahoo.com 2 Joe Smith msilver1...@yahoo.com 2 It's just a ride bill.hicks.all.a.r...@gmail.com 2 Eustace emf...@nyu.edu 1 yifuxero yifux...@yahoo.com 1 shukra69 shukr...@yahoo.ca 1 seekliberation seekliberat...@yahoo.com 1 scienceofabundance no_re...@yahoogroups.com 1 nelson lafrancis nelsonriddle2...@yahoo.com 1 azgrey no_re...@yahoogroups.com 1 Peter drpetersutp...@yahoo.com 1 Nelson nelsonriddle2...@yahoo.com 1 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 1 Dick Mays dickm...@lisco.com 1 min.pige min.p...@yahoo.com Posters: 41 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] Alex invaded the poster's privacy (Re: Rick Archer: )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony...@... wrote: But hey, I got some *real* private information on Alex that I am about to share right here on FFL. Then you'll have some real trouble about would someone reveal private personal information of people who would post to FFL. You got trouble coming. Heads up. Jai Guru Dev, -Doug in FF : bracing for impact :
[FairfieldLife] Re: Still waiting for TM to 'kick in'?
Whoaaaoohh!!!, hold your horses cowboy, you apparently haven't been paying attention to the general 'new age' attitude rampant these days have you? People who put forth effort are low-life unevolved pieces of shit (like me for example). seekliberation Mike Brown I'm sure many TM'ers are, (or were, many probably quit waiting) since MMY never emphasized ***EFFORT***! Oh my God there's that word!! Well, *Paurusha* is a term in Yoga used to define manliness, valor or *effort*. Georg Feuerstein describes it thus: ..an important notion in the Yoga-Vasishtha (2.4.10) where *manly effort* is placed above fate (grace), ...without *effort* suffering (duhkha) cannot be overcome.one must not depend on grace (destiny). Paurushha = manliness, virility, courage, effort. Sanskrit Dictionary.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Still waiting for TM to 'kick in'?
You'll find a little of that here too! :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seekliberation seekliberat...@... wrote: Whoaaaoohh!!!, hold your horses cowboy, you apparently haven't been paying attention to the general 'new age' attitude rampant these days have you? People who put forth effort are low-life unevolved pieces of shit (like me for example). seekliberation Mike Brown I'm sure many TM'ers are, (or were, many probably quit waiting) since MMY never emphasized ***EFFORT***! Oh my God there's that word!! Well, *Paurusha* is a term in Yoga used to define manliness, valor or *effort*. Georg Feuerstein describes it thus: ..an important notion in the Yoga-Vasishtha (2.4.10) where *manly effort* is placed above fate (grace), ...without *effort* suffering (duhkha) cannot be overcome.one must not depend on grace (destiny). Paurushha = manliness, virility, courage, effort. Sanskrit Dictionary.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Alex invaded the poster's privacy (Re: Rick Archer: )
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dhamiltony2k5 Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 6:38 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Alex invaded the poster's privacy (Re: Rick Archer: ) Om Christ Rick, do ignore this thread. Yeah this Turq guy says it good agin here. Alex ain't revealing nothing special private that no damned gullible fool like that other FFL moderator whoever he is even could not publicly quickly find from their own posting. Is kind of interesting these several top posters every week living nowhere near and having not much to do with Fairfield or even meditating. You're the only one who appears to be obsessed with whether FFL members live in FF or meditate. I never set or contemplated setting those as conditions for membership. Our diverse, world-wide participation makes FFL a much more interesting place than it would be if it were restricted to meditating FF residents.
[FairfieldLife] New Dome makeover
The Russians have contracted to do the new Dome makeover. Henceforth, all dome Badge activity will be monitored by the KGB. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_dome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_dome Better picture: http://www.geocities.com/rlbagulatftn/bessel_banach_3d3.jpg
[FairfieldLife] Flash player M channel
The M channel #3 now has a Flash player option -- I'm not sure if Windows MP has better resolution: http://www.maharishichannel.in/
[FairfieldLife] Lieberman-Graham Dropped From Supplemental
According to sources on the Hill, the Lieberman-Graham detainee photo suppression amendment is out of the conference report of the supplemental. For everyone who made phone calls -- pat yourself on the back. Let us all now sit back and enjoy the spectacle of Joe Lieberman throwing a tantrum. If you decided you wanted to celebrate by donating to the Marcy Wheeler fund, -- well, I could think of worse things. [Good job Jane and Marcy. Now let's see if and when Obama actually releases the torture photos. I sure hope we don't hear more foot dragging excuses.] raunchydog Source: Lieberman-Graham Dropped From Supplemental By: Jane Hamsher Monday June 8, 2009 4:08 pm http://firedoglake.com/2009/06/08/breaking-lieberman-graham-dropped-from-supplemental/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Most blogs inactive -- a fad passed and no one noticed?
Responding in spite of the fact that it's Edg. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: Who here blogs? Who here keeps a diary? Daily? For years? Decades? Who here posts more at other sites than here? Not me, yes, yes, yes, yes, no...are my answers. Hmmm, the above could be the soundtrack to a failed sex session. I'm just sayin' ! Edg The Narrative Fallacy writes Douglas Quenqua reports in the NY Times that according to a 2008 survey only 7.4 million out of the 133 million blogs the company tracks had been updated in the past 120 days meaning that 95 percent of blogs being essentially abandoned, left to lie fallow on the Web, where they become public remnants of a dream or at least an ambition unfulfilled. And good riddance. :-) All you have to do to see why this is true is read Fairfield Life. It's a classic imple- mentation of Sturgeon's Law: 95% of everything is crap. Theodore Sturgeon was wise enough to include his own writing into his law. I am certainly humble enough to apply it to my own cyberramblings here or on other forums. The reasons blogs fail and no one reads their diaries is their authors HAVE NOTHING TO SAY. The most poignant and disappointing example of this in recent years had to do with a book that was waited for with a level of anticipation that approached drooling. It became known at one point that Bill Wyman of the Rolling Stones fancied himself a diarist, in the grand old English tradition of diarists. He kept a detailed diary of all of his exploits as a Rolling Stone, from Day One to the present. And he was getting ready to shop it around for a publisher. The publishing world quivered. What, after all, could *possibly* be more salable (and salacious) than an insider's account of the history of the Rolling Stones, both onstage and -- more important -- offstage. The Stones partied down with everyone on the planet who was everyone. They partied (and slept with) queens, princesses, supermodels, the rich, the famous, and the lowlife. They were the ultimate Bad Boys, and the voyeurs of the publishing world just couldn't *wait* to get their hands on it. And so what happened? The manuscript was shopped around, and it was -- in a word -- BORING. All that Bill Wyman could find to write about while keeping a detailed diary of his life as a Rolling Stone was himself and the BORING things he thought about. The book idea sunk like a... uh...stone. There is a lesson in this for...uh...aspiring diarists or bloggers among us. Just because you think the thoughts going through your head are brilliant, that doesn't mean that anyone else will. If your motivation for writing them down and pushing them out into cyberspace is primarily based on gaining some recognition or applause for how brilliant these thoughts are, that is almost a certain indicator of how BORING they really are, and the response you will get. The bloggers who seem to succeed IMO are those who either 1) have something to say you can't get anywhere else, or 2) have a way of saying it that you cannot find anywhere else, or 3) are having so much fun saying it that their fun is contagious. And for the record, I have never aspired to anything but Door Number Three. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jun 8, 2009, at 3:25 PM, do.rflex wrote: Get over it. Practically EVERYONE ELSE doesn't care. Endlessly whining about it will solve nothing. It only makes you look like an angry cry-baby. And it's no justification for your obnoxious, perpetual undeniably bitter bias and grudge against Obama. Politics is tough. I really don't think you can compare your claims of 'sexism' against Hillary to the massive orchestrated right wing deluge of smears against Michelle as an angry black woman [note cover of New Yorker] and her husband as a Muslim, a Kenyan born foreigner, a covert Islamofascist terrorist who palled around with a domestic terrorist etc., etc... I've found it helpful for Raunchy Dog and Judy posts to imagine I'm hearing lyrics of an Alanis Morisette song while reading them. It has assisted me greatly in my reading comprehension. While this is funny, it doesn't really work for me for two reasons. The first is that when Alanis played God (in the movie Dogma) she was actually good in the role. The second is that Alanis is attractive. I don't really have an image in mind of either of them as I laugh through their Hillary rants, but if I did it might resemble that of radical feminist Andrea All sex is rape Dworkin: [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00055/AndreaDworkin_557\ 42a.jpg]
[FairfieldLife] Mahaparinirvana
Billy - I agree with Vaj. Give it up. Even more scary, consider this. If Vaj and I agree on something like this then you should be afraid ... very afraid. It means that universal apocatastasis is almost here and your ass is soon to become a burnt offering to the gods. However, while you are awaiting such oblivion peruse this: http://www.answers.com/topic/nirvana#cite_ref-30
