[FairfieldLife] The effect of native language in ones outward appearence?

[cardemaister]

One of the remaining three girls in Finnish Top Model (huippu malli) contest 
has, I believe, (the "Finnish variety" of) Swedish as her native language. I 
wonder if it shows in her outward appearence:

http://www.nelonen.fi/huippumalli/kilpailijat/default.htm

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.

[sparaig]

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

Keep in mind that Lynch is a TBer like myself who believes that
TM is unique or durned close to it. While I wouldn't be surprised
if various non-TM teachers offer TM-like techniques to their
students. the quality control just isn't there. Radically different 
techniques go by the same name.

What is bothersome, even telling, is that many of you former TBers
are confident that its all the same, despite the obvious physiological
evidence to the contrary (not to mention common sense understanding
of how TM differs from most run-of-the-mill mantra meditation that 
*I* have heard of).

This criticism is directed at many former TM teachers on this group,
who appear to have missed things the entire time they were parroting MMY's
words. Which suggests that MMY's words aren't as good as they could be,
I guess.




L.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[sparaig]

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

One would expect that the far left, like the far right, becomes more
disappointed with Obama as time goes on...

L.

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  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.
> 
> Keep in mind that Lynch is a TBer like myself who believes that
> TM is unique or durned close to it. While I wouldn't be surprised
> if various non-TM teachers offer TM-like techniques to their
> students. the quality control just isn't there. Radically 
> different techniques go by the same name.
> 
> What is bothersome, even telling, is that many of you former TBers
> are confident that its all the same, despite the obvious physiological
> evidence to the contrary (not to mention common sense understanding
> of how TM differs from most run-of-the-mill mantra meditation that 
> *I* have heard of).
> 
> This criticism is directed at many former TM teachers on this group,
> who appear to have missed things the entire time they were 
> parroting MMY's words. Which suggests that MMY's words aren't 
> as good as they could be, I guess.

Or that they were lies. Or, more kind, hopeful
fantasies on his part. I can agree with the 
kinder interpretation for some of his claims, 
but not all. Some were knowing lies. The person
who sat there on the stage looking out at the
rows of twitching, spasming, out-of-control
meditators in Fiuggi and still claimed that TM
could not possibly have any negative effects 
was definitely lying.

But the bottom line is that my experience learn-
ing, practicing, and teaching both TM and other 
techniques of meditation is that Maharishi's 
claims to: 1) the uniqueness of TM, 2) the effect-
iveness of its "followup," 3) the "differences"
between the supposed positive effects of TM and
the positive effects of other techniques, and
most importantly 4) what it is *worth* in the
marketplace are at best mistaken and are at 
worst knowing lies.

When you have had the same experience learning,
practicing, and teaching both TM and some other
technique of meditation, then you are qualified
to criticize me. Until then, you are still in
the position of being a person who has tried 
only one technique of meditation in his life, 
has practiced *it* sporadically, has never taught 
it or been trained to teach it, and has never 
learned, practiced or taught any of the other 
techniques you still believe TM is "superior" to.

In other words, Get real.

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.

[Richard M]

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

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

[snip]
> Or that they were lies. Or, more kind, hopeful
> fantasies on his part. I can agree with the 
> kinder interpretation for some of his claims, 
> but not all. Some were knowing lies. The person
> who sat there on the stage looking out at the
> rows of twitching, spasming, out-of-control
> meditators in Fiuggi and still claimed that TM
> could not possibly have any negative effects 
> was definitely lying.

I rate *kind* Turq higher.

After all I too have surveyed "rows of twitching, spasming, out-
of-control meditators". No, I did not see those as negative 
effects (or any other negative effects quite frankly). Actually 
I didn't see anything I would ultimately judge as "out of 
control" either. 

Makes me a liar?

That's not to say that there may NOT have EVER been any 
negative effects. For one thing, if you push to an extreme, 
there is NOTHING that cannot EVER have some negative effects. 
Even a saint will tread on an ant. Even the simple, natural, 
effortless sipping of peppermint tea is bound to affect 
someone, some place in a negative fashion. 

By these standards no one could ever say of anything that there 
are no negative effects. That would damage our language.
 
> But the bottom line is that my experience learn-
> ing, practicing, and teaching both TM and other 
> techniques of meditation is that Maharishi's 
> claims to: 1) the uniqueness of TM, 2) the effect-
> iveness of its "followup," 3) the "differences"
> between the supposed positive effects of TM and
> the positive effects of other techniques, and
> most importantly 4) what it is *worth* in the
> marketplace are at best mistaken and are at 
> worst knowing lies.

I have good reason to respect your opinion because of your 
experience (and I do). But of course the force of your claim 
"from experience" is opposed by every individual with similar, 
or greater experience that disagrees. 

Let's take Jerry Jarvis. I'm assuming he disagrees with you. 
And I'm assuming his CV is even more impressive than yours. 
Does that make him right and you wrong? Or, in preferred 
language, does that make his opinion more credible than yours?
 
> When you have had the same experience learning,
> practicing, and teaching both TM and some other
> technique of meditation, then you are qualified
> to criticize me. 

Noo! The greatest crime against thinking is the attempt to 
shut down debate (IMO of course). 

(Presumably by your lights you are not *qualified* to criticise 
MMY, as I would doubt even you have had "the same experience 
learning, practicing, and teaching both TM and some other 
technique of meditation" as he had).

> Until then, you are still in
> the position of being a person who has tried 
> only one technique of meditation in his life, 
> has practiced *it* sporadically, has never taught 
> it or been trained to teach it, and has never 
> learned, practiced or taught any of the other 
> techniques you still believe TM is "superior" to.
> 
> In other words, Get real.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.

[Vaj]

On Jun 9, 2009, at 5:23 AM, sparaig wrote:


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.



Keep in mind that Lynch is a TBer like myself who believes that
TM is unique or durned close to it. While I wouldn't be surprised
if various non-TM teachers offer TM-like techniques to their
students. the quality control just isn't there. Radically different
techniques go by the same name.



At the Harvard conference on meditation last month, Herbert Benson  
listed 8 meditation techniques that have the same physiological  
signature:


Vipassana Meditation
Mantra Meditation
Mindfulness Meditation
Transcendental Meditation
Breath Focus
Kripalu Yoga
Kundalini Yoga
Repetitive Prayer

So much for "uniqueness", huh?

The uniqueness lie is a marketing myth used by disreputable and  
biased TM researchers to push their product. Apparently they're the  
only ones who believe this. Other researchers know better than to  
accept such BS. The independent research "Meditation: In Search of a  
Unique Effect" put this and a number of other TM research untruths to  
rest way back in the 80's!

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.

[TurquoiseB]

Richard, 1) I respect your opinions, 2) you are
entitled to them even if I didn't :-), and 3) I
have no interest in arguing with you or anyone
else about this (to me) dead horse. But I'm 
curious that you don't be able to see a funda-
mental difference in the *types* of experience
being discussed. See below:

> > But the bottom line is that my experience learn-
> > ing, practicing, and teaching both TM and other 
> > techniques of meditation is that Maharishi's 
> > claims to: 1) the uniqueness of TM, 2) the effect-
> > iveness of its "followup," 3) the "differences"
> > between the supposed positive effects of TM and
> > the positive effects of other techniques, and
> > most importantly 4) what it is *worth* in the
> > marketplace are at best mistaken and are at 
> > worst knowing lies.
> 
> I have good reason to respect your opinion because of your 
> experience (and I do). But of course the force of your claim 
> "from experience" is opposed by every individual with similar, 
> or greater experience that disagrees. 
> 
> Let's take Jerry Jarvis. I'm assuming he disagrees with you. 

You should definitely not have picked Jerry. I knew
him well and worked closely with him for many years.
To the best of my knowledge he has never learned or
practiced any technique of meditation other than TM 
and the other techniques marketed by MMY. From what 
has been said on this forum by people who have 
stayed in touch with him, he has not tried any other 
techniques since leaving the TM movement.

How then would you consider his experience similar
to mine?

Jerry may, in fact, be smarter and wiser than me. 
But let's talk "apples and oranges." Jerry (to the
best of my knowledge) has only ever eaten and sold
apples, during the entire course of his life. He
has never tasted an orange; he's only *heard about*
oranges, or been told about them. I have eaten and 
sold both apples and oranges. Which of us is likely 
to have more "credibility" when it comes to a 
comparison of apples and oranges?

THAT was my point to Lawson. NOT that his opinion 
is not valid, merely that it lacks *breadth* in the
greater spiritual smorgasbord. So (to the best of
my knowledge) does Jerry's. Jerry undoubtedly knows
MUCH more about apples (TM) than I do. But I kinda
doubt that he would suggest that he knew as much 
about a technique that he has never practiced and 
that I have. 

The thing is, Jerry wouldn't do that. He might have
his opinion, but I remember him as being up-front
about it when opinion is based *on what he has been
told*, and is not based on his personal experience. 
Jerry is a TM True Believer, and I don't fault him 
for that because he (in my memory) is a fairly nice 
one, and one who rarely used his belief *in what he 
has been told* to beat people into submission.  :-)

> And I'm assuming his CV is even more impressive than yours. 
> Does that make him right and you wrong? Or, in preferred 
> language, does that make his opinion more credible than yours?

As stated above, there is no question that Jerry's
CV *about TM* is more impressive than mine. But I'm
not talking about *only* TM. I'm comparing TM to 
some other techniques that I have both learned and
taught. Jerry has (to the best of my knowledge) never
learned or taught them. How then could his opinion on 
the theoretical "differences" between them and one of
them's "superiority" over the other be based on anything
other than theory and what he's been told? 

My opinion is based on actual experience. That may not 
make me more "credible," but it sure takes things out 
of the realm of empty speculation, which I think is the 
realm you're in when you have someone who claims that 
something he has never experienced is inferior to 
something he has.

This is a point that long-term TMers on this forum NEVER
SEEM TO GET. They are talking *theory*, and belief
*in what they have been told*. Those of us who have 
"played both sides of the net" are talking our own
personal experience.

There is a difference.

[FairfieldLife] Re: TM in schools makes magazine cover!

[nablusoss1008]

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

> >
> 
> 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


Bingo !

[FairfieldLife] Re: Success in the "early" TM era

[nablusoss1008]

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

What a rare post about the reality of TM and the TMO in the world today and 
tomorrow.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Nirvana, ParaNirvana and MahapParaNirvana.

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yifuxero"  wrote:
>
> --Let me understand this:  by "merging" do people mean no further relative 
> bodies?  Why would that be an asset?  How does having (being, in the relative 
> sense) no body "increase" one's awareness of the Absolute?  
>  Put another way, people spend millions of years evoloving from amoebas only 
> to have no further relative existence?  and that's a good thing?  

Actually, being localized in a physical body is a limitation. However MMY calls 
it "Punam adah, punam idam", inner AND outer fullness. Doesn't mean you can't 
resurrect one at any time, Jesus Christ did.
 

[FairfieldLife] Reincarnation?

[off_world_beings]

Reincarnation?

http://gmy.news.yahoo.com/v/13880459


OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reincarnation?

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> Reincarnation?
> 
> http://gmy.news.yahoo.com/v/13880459
> 
> 
> OffWorld

Fascinating story.

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.

[Richard M]

SpareEgg:
 
>> Keep in mind that Lynch is a TBer like myself who believes
>> that TM is unique or durned close to it. While I wouldn't be
>> surprised if various non-TM teachers offer TM-like techniques to
>> their students. the quality control just isn't there. 
>> Radically different techniques go by the same name.

Vaj:
> At the Harvard conference on meditation last month, Herbert Benson  
> listed 8 meditation techniques that have the same physiological  
> signature:
> 
> Vipassana Meditation
> Mantra Meditation
> Mindfulness Meditation
> Transcendental Meditation
> Breath Focus
> Kripalu Yoga
> Kundalini Yoga
> Repetitive Prayer
> 
> So much for "uniqueness", huh?

(Now I'm confused. I thought Vaj had been trying to claim that 
TM does NOT have the same "physiological signature" as his preferred 
techniques?)

Anyhoo...

I find rugby to be a pretty unique sport. Yet here are seven other 
sports that I wouldn't mind betting have the same "physiological 
signature":

* Cross country running
* US "Football"
* Soccer
* Basketball
* Tennis
* Ice Hockey
* Swimming

So much for "uniqueness", huh?

> The uniqueness lie is a marketing myth used by disreputable and  
> biased TM researchers to push their product. Apparently they're the  
> only ones who believe this. Other researchers know better than to  
> accept such BS. The independent research "Meditation: In Search of a  
> Unique Effect" put this and a number of other TM research 
> untruths to  rest way back in the 80's!

Any uniqueness claimed for TM does not lie in its effect. The doctrine 
is that pretty much all roads lead to Rome, but TM is particulary 
suitable for "normal" folks. (OK, I know, there's a come-back there).

The TM technique can (or could at the time) claim uniqueness as being:

* Not a skill i.e. something that you develop and get "better" at, as 
in, for example, learning a musical instrument. In theory you can't say 
"I meditate better now than I did five years ago" (unless you were 
doing it wrong five years ago).

* Not an aptitude that you may or may not have. You can't say "A is 
better at TM than B".

* Not mental effort (in the sense of trying to still the 
mind, or empty the mind of thoughts, or concentrate on an object of 
attention. That is how meditation is thought of in the popular 
imagination. Where on earth did folks get these ideas from, except from 
other techniques pushing those ideas?)

* Of practical value for folks-in-the-world (as opposed to folks who 
want simply to make religious progress or gain altered states of 
consciousness)

* Benefits are not conditional on buying into a belief system. Even if 
you are a Lennonist ("above us only sky"), TM will still work and be 
(practically) effective for you.

Although these points have all been thoroughly discussed here, I still 
find them "broadly" true. Taken individually you can of course prod and 
poke and question. But taken together, like the strands that make up a 
rope, I think the claim for uniqueness is not unreasonable. In all 
likelihood the other seven techniques listed above have some claim to 
uniqueness as well.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[raunchydog]

The most interesting thing about the primary season was how the Bush 
administration had so energized the left to rally around Democrats, any 
Democrat. People who were ordinarily not interested in politics and had no long 
term stake in the viability of the Democratic party suddenly hated all things 
Republican. They were all so ready for CHANGE...that ephemeral, not quite 
defined but feel good down to your toes CHANGE. Obama carried the day on that 
simpleminded message with a little, "Yes we can!" thrown in to amp up his 
soaring rhetoric and peddle his messianic message of HOPE. There it is...a few 
simple minded slogans and what do you get? Mass hysteria and devotion to a god 
like empty suit. Oh, how in love, oh, how smitten the newly converted 
"Democrats." 

The late Tip O'Neill famously stated, "All politics is local." As an aside, 
I'll tell you a story about local Jefferson County politics that illustrates 
how shallow, how devoid of conscience, how clueless, how poorly informed and 
how little Obots care about the Democratic Party and its important role in 
local politics. 

I live in Ward 2, home to MUM, the largest Ward and voting block supporting 
Obama. In a general election, the presidential candidates are on the front of 
the ballot where you can vote for a specific candidate or vote a straight 
ticket, the party of your choice. In Iowa, the candidates for county supervisor 
were on the back of the ballot. 

I campaigned for Hillary but I also campaigned for the two county supervisors 
on the Democratic ticket. In the final analysis of the vote tally, which I 
posted Message #198577 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/198577 :

"Earl Shepard (D) and Will Richards (D) worked very had to get absentee ballots 
but their bid for county supervisor failed. The moment the town folk realized 
the meditatiors were voting in a block in the June primary for Earl and Will, 
they put up an organized resistance and the Republicans won. So predictable...

Obama's 4998 votes vs. Shepard's 3096 means that 1902 of Obama's
voters who could have voted for Shepard did not. Apparently, they were
only interested in one name on the ticket...Obama and Democrats be
damned."   

That's right folks. The stupid Obots didn't bother to vote a straight 
Democratic ticket nor did they bother to turn the ballot over and vote for 
county supervisor. Now Jefferson County is stuck with Republican county 
supervisors who recently made a resolution to ban gay marriage in Iowa. 
Assholes, the bunch of them.

So here we on FFLife we have seen several examples of a continuance of the same 
ignorant, newly converted "Obama Democrats" so married to the cult of 
personality, they are either too damn lazy to be informed about Obama screwing 
with their civil liberties of they just don't care, because if they just close 
their eyes and wish real hard for CHANGE, Obama will make it all better. 

Not one person on this forum has the ability to defend Obama on any of the 
issues I have specifically raised and will continue to raise until one day, 
hopefully someone, anyone, will actually say, "Gee, maybe I ought to become 
more informed and hold politicians to account, even Obama."  Fortunately, not 
everyone on the left has abdicated their responsibility to hold Obama to 
account. If Hillary were in office instead of Obama, I can assure you, I would 
hold her to account as well.

Somewhere along the way, maybe it's the dumbing down of education in America or 
the decision to jettison Civics/Government classes from high school 
curriculums, we have lost our sense of responsibility as citizens to be 
informed about the nuts and bolts of good governance from local to national 
politics. Such as it is, IMO it is appalling as well as dangerous to the 
survival of democracy in America. 

Isn't interesting how a few wee facts about Obama's lack of interest in 
restoring civil liberties leaves the Obots at such a loss for words. Stupid is 
as stupid does.

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

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reincarnation?

[Richard M]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG."  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Reincarnation?
> > 
> > http://gmy.news.yahoo.com/v/13880459
> > 
> > 
> > OffWorld
> 
> Fascinating story.
>

Yes. I thought it interesting that the father said 
"I'm a Christian...fact and faith clash in this story". But
then I'm always thinking I'm being gullible...

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.

[Vaj]

On Jun 9, 2009, at 9:21 AM, Richard M wrote:


SpareEgg:


Keep in mind that Lynch is a TBer like myself who believes
that TM is unique or durned close to it. While I wouldn't be
surprised if various non-TM teachers offer TM-like techniques to
their students. the quality control just isn't there.
Radically different techniques go by the same name.


Vaj:

At the Harvard conference on meditation last month, Herbert Benson
listed 8 meditation techniques that have the same physiological
signature:

Vipassana Meditation
Mantra Meditation
Mindfulness Meditation
Transcendental Meditation
Breath Focus
Kripalu Yoga
Kundalini Yoga
Repetitive Prayer

So much for "uniqueness", huh?


(Now I'm confused. I thought Vaj had been trying to claim that
TM does NOT have the same "physiological signature" as his preferred
techniques?)


Maybe you should listen closer?



Anyhoo...

I find rugby to be a pretty unique sport. Yet here are seven other
sports that I wouldn't mind betting have the same "physiological
signature":

* Cross country running
* US "Football"
* Soccer
* Basketball
* Tennis
* Ice Hockey
* Swimming

So much for "uniqueness", huh?


How much did you want to bet?





The uniqueness lie is a marketing myth used by disreputable and
biased TM researchers to push their product. Apparently they're the
only ones who believe this. Other researchers know better than to
accept such BS. The independent research "Meditation: In Search of a
Unique Effect" put this and a number of other TM research
untruths to  rest way back in the 80's!


Any uniqueness claimed for TM does not lie in its effect.


Agreed.


The doctrine
is that pretty much all roads lead to Rome, but TM is particulary
suitable for "normal" folks. (OK, I know, there's a come-back there).


Of course all the others on the list could be used by "normal" people  
as well.




The TM technique can (or could at the time) claim uniqueness as being:

* Not a skill i.e. something that you develop and get "better" at, as
in, for example, learning a musical instrument. In theory you can't  
say

"I meditate better now than I did five years ago" (unless you were
doing it wrong five years ago).


So, in your opinion the cloth does not get dyed by repetition, the  
"gap" does not widen and TM does not lead to higher states of  
consciousness. Interesting.




* Not an aptitude that you may or may not have. You can't say "A is
better at TM than B".


Do you have evidence for this belief?

Many people quit TM, more than stay with it.

Recent anecdotal reports of MUM students claims that for a  
significant number of students, TM doesn't seem to work for them.




* Not mental effort (in the sense of trying to still the
mind, or empty the mind of thoughts, or concentrate on an object of
attention. That is how meditation is thought of in the popular
imagination. Where on earth did folks get these ideas from, except  
from

other techniques pushing those ideas?)


This is your misunderstanding of meditation theory and practice,  
which is also sadly pervasive in TM circles. Prayatna or technique =  
effort. It's inescapable.




* Of practical value for folks-in-the-world (as opposed to folks who
want simply to make religious progress or gain altered states of
consciousness)


Again, not unique. Many folks-in-the-world practice non-TM forms of  
meditation quite successfully.




* Benefits are not conditional on buying into a belief system. Even if
you are a Lennonist ("above us only sky"), TM will still work and be
(practically) effective for you.


Same with many other meditation forms.

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.

[guyfawkes91]

> 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!

It's in the hundreds, if that. For a while it was about 30/month. It's not much 
more now.

[FairfieldLife] Howard Dean on Public Health Care Option

[do.rflex]

YouTube clip here: http://snipurl.com/jrm2u

[FairfieldLife] Money-Driven Medicine: Real Reason Health Care Costs So Much

[do.rflex]

About the Film

Money-Driven Medicine explores how a profit-driven health care system squanders 
billions of health care dollars, while exposing millions of patients to 
unnecessary or redundant tests, unproven, sometimes unwanted procedures, and 
over-priced drugs and devices that, too often, are no better than the less 
expensive products they have replaced. 

In remarkably candid interviews both doctors and patients tell the riveting, 
sometimes funny, and often wrenching stories of a system where medicine has 
become a business. "We are paid to do things to patients," says one doctor. "We 
are not paid to talk to them." 

Watch trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE1TJyFeuuw


MORE here: http://snipurl.com/jrn5v

[FairfieldLife] Alex invaded the poster's privacy (Re: Rick Archer: )

[Duveyoung]

Alex/Rick,

You guys still have not addressed the issue of "stalking."  I pointed out that 
I could sic a detective on someone and get "only public knowledge about them" 
and then do them a major disservice by publishing that info.

Who wants an entire lifetime's mistakes to be researched and, accumulated and 
cherry picked by a person with an agenda have that "summation" made public, and 
then, with one -- now thoroughly "done" with the past's incorrect notions -- 
having to explain him/herself for all the past which may be replete with "one 
time only mistakes."  

I know someone who had a one-time stay, voluntarily, in re-hab for an anxiety 
disorder.  Then that person got a divorce, and in that action, the marriage 
partner exposed this person's past to the divorce proceedings in an attempt to 
besmirch.  The judge saw the obvious attempt to manipulate the court's opinion, 
noted that in the final paperwork, and then went on to give both parties a fair 
and equal splitting of marital assets.  Fine, justice prevailed.  But, the 
marriage partner decided to appeal the ruling, and thus, the whole shebang was 
sent to an appeals court that let the ruling stand.  Now here's the important 
part, all of the appellate court's proceeding are googlable.  Now, if anyone 
puts in the name of the person, up comes a complete history of the one-time 
stay in re-hab for a malady that was not related to drug or alcohol addiction, 
but, now, this person must have that brought up if ever a job is sought etc.  
The appeals documents are 100 pages long, and to read the whole deal is 
necessary to understand that the person was not a drug addict or alcoholic.  
That's a case of public info that was put into the public without the person's 
permission -- as the result of an attack agenda -- and now it will be there 
forever.

It's exactly the same sin that others here chided me for -- the simple act of 
putting a person's name in a post's title that also had negative phrases.  
Putting the name "Joe Smith" in a title with the phrase "child molester" for 
instance was said to be a harm in that google will not sort out all the 
wrongful and vicious agendas to put those pages lower on its listing.  

Again, I ask, what are you limits on how much a poster's past can be revealed 
here and yet still be not a "stalking" that FFL is forced to abet.

You may have personal morals to not do so, but will you let others here post 
what is basically a "hit piece" on some other poster?

I have posted, say, 5,000 blurbs on the Web over the last decade+, and I have 
grown in that time to have changed my POV on many core issues (Thank You 
Curtis, Marek, et al.)  Yet, if I start posting at, say, a new trikking message 
board, and someone "does a number on Edg," and then posts summations about my 
rage and vitriol and new age thoughts etc., what has that to do with my 
conclusions about trikking?

Just so, I think Alex has modeled that "some simple look-ups" are harmless, yet 
I don't see any reasoning provided by Alex or Rick that would show them being 
uncomfortable with "stalking" as a conceptthem seemingly saying, "if it's 
in the public, anyone can use that info for any reason here at FFL."

Yet, one poster uploaded porn to this group's file section and pretended that 
FFL was morally responsible for the content of that section -- and note that 
once uploaded, that porn was "public" and associated with "FFL" forever in that 
the Internet's Wayback Machine and other sources will have spidered the content 
and duplicated it on their servers.

I think Alex and Rick owe us a high standard in this regard such that their 
moderation is a notch more responsible.

Edg



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  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

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[Duveyoung]

Seems to me that Raunch and Judy would not be good special education
teachers.

I accuse Judy of being an "intellectist" of low degree.  Note my red
fonted highlighting of her post below.  It shows an outrageous snobbery
for those less endowed, and it haughtily models that anyone with a
lesser intellect can be publicly denounced like Trotacharya was by his
"betters."

And, to put it mildly, fucking shame on you for this vile elitism.  If
someone's come to a wrong conclusion, you can point that out without the
personal attacks.  A personal attack is, um, STOOOPID.

Edg


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> 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 salsunshine@ wrote:
> 
> > 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.rflex@ wrote:
> 
> > 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.rflex@ wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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?
>
> 
>
> > Politics is tough. I really don't think you can
> > compare your claims of 'sexism' against Hillary to
> > the mass

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  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.
> > 
> > Keep in mind that Lynch is a TBer like myself who believes that
> > TM is unique or durned close to it. While I wouldn't be surprised
> > if various non-TM teachers offer TM-like techniques to their
> > students. the quality control just isn't there. Radically 
> > different techniques go by the same name.
> > 
> > What is bothersome, even telling, is that many of you former TBers
> > are confident that its all the same, despite the obvious physiological
> > evidence to the contrary (not to mention common sense understanding
> > of how TM differs from most run-of-the-mill mantra meditation that 
> > *I* have heard of).
> > 
> > This criticism is directed at many former TM teachers on this group,
> > who appear to have missed things the entire time they were 
> > parroting MMY's words. Which suggests that MMY's words aren't 
> > as good as they could be, I guess.
> 
> Or that they were lies. Or, more kind, hopeful
> fantasies on his part. I can agree with the 
> kinder interpretation for some of his claims, 
> but not all. Some were knowing lies. The person
> who sat there on the stage looking out at the
> rows of twitching, spasming, out-of-control
> meditators in Fiuggi and still claimed that TM
> could not possibly have any negative effects 
> was definitely lying.


Assuming those were temporary side-effects of
"unstressing" or "normalization" as he claimed, he
was definitely NOT lying...

> 
> But the bottom line is that my experience learn-
> ing, practicing, and teaching both TM and other 
> techniques of meditation is that Maharishi's 
> claims to: 1) the uniqueness of TM, 2) the effect-
> iveness of its "followup," 3) the "differences"
> between the supposed positive effects of TM and
> the positive effects of other techniques, and
> most importantly 4) what it is *worth* in the
> marketplace are at best mistaken and are at 
> worst knowing lies.
> 
> When you have had the same experience learning,
> practicing, and teaching both TM and some other
> technique of meditation, then you are qualified
> to criticize me. Until then, you are still in
> the position of being a person who has tried 
> only one technique of meditation in his life, 
> has practiced *it* sporadically, has never taught 
> it or been trained to teach it, and has never 
> learned, practiced or taught any of the other 
> techniques you still believe TM is "superior" to.
> 
> In other words, Get real.
>

Well, based on your avoidance of my points, specifically
that there's a huge range of techniques that go by the same
name, I can only assume that you're blind.


L

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Jun 9, 2009, at 5:23 AM, sparaig wrote:
> 
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> > Keep in mind that Lynch is a TBer like myself who believes that
> > TM is unique or durned close to it. While I wouldn't be surprised
> > if various non-TM teachers offer TM-like techniques to their
> > students. the quality control just isn't there. Radically different
> > techniques go by the same name.
> >
> 
> At the Harvard conference on meditation last month, Herbert Benson  
> listed 8 meditation techniques that have the same physiological  
> signature:
> 
> Vipassana Meditation
> Mantra Meditation
> Mindfulness Meditation
> Transcendental Meditation
> Breath Focus
> Kripalu Yoga
> Kundalini Yoga
> Repetitive Prayer
> 
> So much for "uniqueness", huh?
> 
> The uniqueness lie is a marketing myth used by disreputable and  
> biased TM researchers to push their product. Apparently they're the  
> only ones who believe this. Other researchers know better than to  
> accept such BS. The independent research "Meditation: In Search of a  
> Unique Effect" put this and a number of other TM research untruths to  
> rest way back in the 80's!
>

So, by physiological signature, he was discussing breath suspension
of up to 1 minute, 5x during a 10 minute meditation period?

Where's the research to back this up?

L

[FairfieldLife] Alex invaded the poster's privacy (Re: Rick Archer: )

[TurquoiseB]

This holier-than-thou horseshit from the person 
who has (falsely) associated my name with "predation"
in dozens of posts, and continues to do so. Never an
apology, never even an admission that NO ONE on this
group ever agreed with his initial projection onto me
of his own fantasies, nada.

As usual, Edg is pontificating and being holier-than-
thou from a position of sheer and utter hypocrisy.

As I remember it, he never even thanked me for stand-
ing up to the person who was threatening to do to *him*
(and Marek) *exactly* what he rails against -- dig up
dirt on him and post it to the Internet. As it turns
out, that was the same person who posted porn to FFL
in an attempt to get it taken down, and the same person
who more recently tried to "assist" an FFL member in
committing suicide, something he had never suggested
he was even contemplating. I don't remember Edg getting 
up on his high horse over that one, either.

As far as I can tell, "morality" for Edg Duveyoung
consists of "That which enables me to believe that I
have the right to preach to others about how much
lower than me they are." 

Fuck you and the tricycle you rode in on.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> Alex/Rick,
> 
> You guys still have not addressed the issue of "stalking."  I pointed out 
> that I could sic a detective on someone and get "only public knowledge about 
> them" and then do them a major disservice by publishing that info.
> 
> Who wants an entire lifetime's mistakes to be researched and, accumulated and 
> cherry picked by a person with an agenda have that "summation" made public, 
> and then, with one -- now thoroughly "done" with the past's incorrect notions 
> -- having to explain him/herself for all the past which may be replete with 
> "one time only mistakes."  
> 
> I know someone who had a one-time stay, voluntarily, in re-hab for an anxiety 
> disorder.  Then that person got a divorce, and in that action, the marriage 
> partner exposed this person's past to the divorce proceedings in an attempt 
> to besmirch.  The judge saw the obvious attempt to manipulate the court's 
> opinion, noted that in the final paperwork, and then went on to give both 
> parties a fair and equal splitting of marital assets.  Fine, justice 
> prevailed.  But, the marriage partner decided to appeal the ruling, and thus, 
> the whole shebang was sent to an appeals court that let the ruling stand.  
> Now here's the important part, all of the appellate court's proceeding are 
> googlable.  Now, if anyone puts in the name of the person, up comes a 
> complete history of the one-time stay in re-hab for a malady that was not 
> related to drug or alcohol addiction, but, now, this person must have that 
> brought up if ever a job is sought etc.  The appeals documents are 100 pages 
> long, and to read the whole deal is necessary to understand that the person 
> was not a drug addict or alcoholic.  That's a case of public info that was 
> put into the public without the person's permission -- as the result of an 
> attack agenda -- and now it will be there forever.
> 
> It's exactly the same sin that others here chided me for -- the simple act of 
> putting a person's name in a post's title that also had negative phrases.  
> Putting the name "Joe Smith" in a title with the phrase "child molester" for 
> instance was said to be a harm in that google will not sort out all the 
> wrongful and vicious agendas to put those pages lower on its listing.  
> 
> Again, I ask, what are you limits on how much a poster's past can be revealed 
> here and yet still be not a "stalking" that FFL is forced to abet.
> 
> You may have personal morals to not do so, but will you let others here post 
> what is basically a "hit piece" on some other poster?
> 
> I have posted, say, 5,000 blurbs on the Web over the last decade+, and I have 
> grown in that time to have changed my POV on many core issues (Thank You 
> Curtis, Marek, et al.)  Yet, if I start posting at, say, a new trikking 
> message board, and someone "does a number on Edg," and then posts summations 
> about my rage and vitriol and new age thoughts etc., what has that to do with 
> my conclusions about trikking?
> 
> Just so, I think Alex has modeled that "some simple look-ups" are harmless, 
> yet I don't see any reasoning provided by Alex or Rick that would show them 
> being uncomfortable with "stalking" as a conceptthem seemingly saying, 
> "if it's in the public, anyone can use that info for any reason here at FFL."
> 
> Yet, one poster uploaded porn to this group's file section and pretended that 
> FFL was morally responsible for the content of that section -- and note that 
> once uploaded, that porn was "public" and associated with "FFL" forever in 
> that the Internet's Wayback Machine and other sources will have spidered the 
> content and duplicated it on their servers.
> 
> I think Alex and Rick owe us a high standard in this regard such that their 
> moder

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "guyfawkes91"  wrote:
>
> 
> > 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!
> 
> It's in the hundreds, if that. For a while it was about 30/month. It's not 
> much more now.
>


Leaving aside the kids learning via the David Lynch FOundation, you mean...


L

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[Duveyoung]

I have yet to see Judy explain what she'd do as president that wouldn't be 
subject to the gut-wrenching onus of picking of one's battles and doing triage.

Obama has not finished even his second 100 days, and he's being judged for 
having a "failed presidency," because he's not moved forward on several very 
important issues.

Yet, we don't see Judy explaining to anyone how it could be done otherwise when 
one considers the huge momentum that the various forces-arrayed represent.  Try 
to stomp the military industrial complex -- get real.  It'll be a decade long 
steady push that solves that ill -- not some swift Gordian Knot cut.  

Where's your patience, your faith, etc.?  

And note that, if I wanted to, I could really rail against Obama's selling out 
and that our military is still killing and torturing innocents, etc.  Or, say, 
his lack of pushing for single-payer I find to be a bowing to BigPharm and 
BigInsurance, yet I can see that he's dealing with the devil and trying to 
cobble together a health package that doesn't kill these big industries with 
their tens of thousands of employees "overnight."  He's trying to keep people's 
jobs, ya see?

Triage ain't easy, right?

Bush got into office by theft, and I see Judy's issue that Obama manipulated 
the election process, but let's put that aside and deal with the fact that we 
have a good hearted man who is deeply aware of history and who's trying to 
clean up not just Bush's mess but Bill's and many other messes -- including the 
messes of the Dems' many pork barrelings and suck-jobs on the military's cock.  
In fact, Obama may have his sights on changing the country's whole roster of 
mistakes, but he knows he can't just run full speed at such a mass and expect 
it to be moved much.  

Give him more time -- we all bit our tongues and tried to keep the issues of 
Bush on the front burner while we let the issue of his theft of the presidency 
be put aside so that the headlines pertained to issues that mattered now now 
now.  Just so, let's keep the pressure on Obama, but have some fucking faith in 
this guy's intent, will ya?

Edg

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

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.

[Vaj]

On Jun 9, 2009, at 10:55 AM, sparaig wrote:


At the Harvard conference on meditation last month, Herbert Benson
listed 8 meditation techniques that have the same physiological
signature:

Vipassana Meditation
Mantra Meditation
Mindfulness Meditation
Transcendental Meditation
Breath Focus
Kripalu Yoga
Kundalini Yoga
Repetitive Prayer

So much for "uniqueness", huh?

The uniqueness lie is a marketing myth used by disreputable and
biased TM researchers to push their product. Apparently they're the
only ones who believe this. Other researchers know better than to
accept such BS. The independent research "Meditation: In Search of a
Unique Effect" put this and a number of other TM research untruths to
rest way back in the 80's!



So, by physiological signature, he was discussing breath suspension
of up to 1 minute, 5x during a 10 minute meditation period?

Where's the research to back this up?



I don't believe any of them consider these TM-induced apneas  
significant. You keep bringing this up again and again, like you're  
still having a hard time letting go of this. It's an interesting  
chosen artifact, but that's about it. Experientially, from my own  
experience of breath cessation during TM, it does not represent  
anything worthwhile. I'd agree with Austin on this, at best it  
represents the shallow preludes of samadhi.


Reductions in metabolic rate however, as recorded by Benson of 60  
some per cent is very significant--the highest drop ever recorded in  
humans. 

[FairfieldLife] Alex invaded the poster's privacy (Re: Rick Archer: )

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> Alex/Rick,
> 
> You guys still have not addressed the issue of "stalking."

I haven't because IMO, it's just another case of you going off on a tangent. 
The issue here is whether or not message headers are public information. In 
fact, they ARE public information. End of story. If a case of actual stalking 
happens in the context of FFL, and not some bogus accusation of stalking, like 
the one made against Judy, I may be inclined to address that issue. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Most blogs inactive -- a fad passed and no one noticed?

[Duveyoung]

Look who thinks that 15 years of battling with one person is not boring, yet 
how easily he dismisses 95% of all bloggers for the same (labeled "boring") sin 
of wanting to manifest their POVs.  

What historian is going to read all of the Barry and Judy battles to try to 
sort out which of these two won the most points?  

Perhaps in the next five billion years, some alien researcher with an 
outstanding AI program could casually ask the program's HAL to decide this 
issue, but that researcher's time could yield much better knowledge by 
data-mining all the posts of the "bloggers who quit blogging" for deep wisdom 
hidden in bon mots etc.  

Anyone here think that becoming an expert on the Barry and Judy battles would 
edify a reader in any way that they couldn't get by, say, simply being told 
"try to avoid egoic obsessions." Is there some other lesson that we can get 
from attending this battle?  

Edg

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> Responding in spite of the fact that it's Edg. :-)
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  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: Nirvana, ParaNirvana and MahapParaNirvana.

[Duveyoung]

Yifuxero,

By any chance, have you followed my posts about Ramana Maharshi's POV about the 
difference between identification and attachment?

Edg

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yifuxero"  wrote:
>
> --Let me understand this:  by "merging" do people mean no further relative 
> bodies?  Why would that be an asset?  How does having (being, in the relative 
> sense) no body "increase" one's awareness of the Absolute?  
>  Put another way, people spend millions of years evoloving from amoebas only 
> to have no further relative existence?  and that's a good thing?  
> 
> - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 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] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.

[Richard M]

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

Richard M:
>> The TM technique can (or could at the time) claim uniqueness 
>> as being:
...
>> * Not a skill i.e. something that you develop and get "better" at, as
>> in, for example, learning a musical instrument. In theory you can't  
>> say "I meditate better now than I did five years ago" (unless you 
>> were doing it wrong five years ago).

Vaj: 
> So, in your opinion the cloth does not get dyed by repetition, the  
> "gap" does not widen and TM does not lead to higher states of  
> consciousness. Interesting.

No, no, quite wrong.

To take an unfortunate example - I think TM as a technique is a bit 
like learning to smoke a cigarette.

In THAT sense it is not a "skill" (unless you are being perverse and 
over-literal). And yet, by repetition, the cloth/the lungs do get 
dyed/die by repetition.

This contrasts to the whole idea of "adepts" and "experts" that are 
referred to in other schools (and your posts). 

Let me put it this way: I think staements such as "John Doe is a TM 
expert" or "John Doe is a TM master or adept" are close to being 
oxymorons. That is a pointer to an element of uniqueness about the 
technique and its philosophy.

It's very democratic too: I can readily admit my lowly place in the 
spiritual food chain. But I need bow to no one as to my ability to do 
TM. This is a great contribution by Maharishi IMO and seems to me to be 
overlooked here. He was a sort of analog to Luther in this regard.

And you, Vaj, with your emphasis on whether traditions are kosher or 
not, whether MMY has a right to be titled "Maharishi", whether he was 
from the right caste, and your zealous love of architectonic - that all 
stands against that liberating influence. In My Opinion.

Richard M:
>> * Not an aptitude that you may or may not have. You can't say "A is
>> better at TM than B".

Vaj: 
> Do you have evidence for this belief?

Why should I? It's just obvious. I would say if you don't understand 
these points then I don't think you understand where TM is coming from. 
Consider two people seated side by side practising TM. Let's say 
Nabster and Raunchy. They're either doing it right or doing it wrong. 
But it's quite meaningless to suppose that one could have a talent for 
it whilst the other might not. Talent and aptitude do not enter into 
it. (That's NOT to say that their experiences wil be the same, that 
they will each get the same value from it, or find it equally 
beneficial).

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.

[Vaj]

On Jun 9, 2009, at 11:23 AM, Richard M wrote:


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

Richard M:

The TM technique can (or could at the time) claim uniqueness
as being:

...
* Not a skill i.e. something that you develop and get "better"  
at, as

in, for example, learning a musical instrument. In theory you can't
say "I meditate better now than I did five years ago" (unless you
were doing it wrong five years ago).


Vaj:

So, in your opinion the cloth does not get dyed by repetition, the
"gap" does not widen and TM does not lead to higher states of
consciousness. Interesting.


No, no, quite wrong.

To take an unfortunate example - I think TM as a technique is a bit
like learning to smoke a cigarette.

In THAT sense it is not a "skill" (unless you are being perverse and
over-literal). And yet, by repetition, the cloth/the lungs do get
dyed/die by repetition.

This contrasts to the whole idea of "adepts" and "experts" that are
referred to in other schools (and your posts).

Let me put it this way: I think staements such as "John Doe is a TM
expert" or "John Doe is a TM master or adept" are close to being
oxymorons. That is a pointer to an element of uniqueness about the
technique and its philosophy.

It's very democratic too: I can readily admit my lowly place in the
spiritual food chain. But I need bow to no one as to my ability to do
TM. This is a great contribution by Maharishi IMO and seems to me  
to be

overlooked here. He was a sort of analog to Luther in this regard.


Unfortunately for your belief, it is just that your belief. Science  
tells us something quite different and that is that samadhi is a  
skill like many other acquisitions, language, walking, etc. and the  
acquisition of such skills follows a certain observable acquisition  
curve.


Of course it could that TM is just an introductory technique and does  
not lead to such acquisition, but it is perfectly good at what it  
does do, for some people.




And you, Vaj, with your emphasis on whether traditions are kosher or
not,


Frankly this is your opinion and certainly not mine. TM is a  
perfectly fine intro. form of meditation, aside from the truncated  
mantras, but it should not be misconstrued as a complete Hindu mantra  
path IME and IMO.



whether MMY has a right to be titled "Maharishi",


My interest is largely historical, whether he was or not is  
immaterial, it was an alias he assumed. What concerns me is the  
insult to realizers of the various Hindu paths. Many find it  
insulting and I can see why.



whether he was
from the right caste,


This really is not MY concern what caste he comes from. But it was a  
strong concern for his guru and the lineage he comes from.



and your zealous love of architectonic - that all
stands against that liberating influence. In My Opinion.


OK...



Richard M:

* Not an aptitude that you may or may not have. You can't say "A is
better at TM than B".


Vaj:

Do you have evidence for this belief?


Why should I?


Why shouldn't you? We have EEG evidence of Samadhi in Patanjali  
yogins, so we know what it looks like. If you can't replicate those  
findings in students, I would hope that would be a point of concern-- 
unless of course your primary interest is in stress reduction, which  
Relaxation Response forms of meditation are all great at.



It's just obvious. I would say if you don't understand
these points then I don't think you understand where TM is coming  
from.


Actually I do. TM is believed to be a form of sahaj meditation where  
the principle of "charm" is believed to spontaneously focus or  
concentrate the mind with only a minimal amount of effort being  
necessary.

[FairfieldLife] Alex invaded the poster's privacy (Re: Rick Archer: )

[Duveyoung]

below
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> This holier-than-thou horseshit from the person
> who has (falsely) associated my name with "predation"
> in dozens of posts, and continues to do so. Never an
> apology, never even an admission that NO ONE on this
> group ever agreed with his initial projection onto me
> of his own fantasies, nada.

50,000 FFL lurkers can be wrong.  You can be a predator even if no one
other than me can see it.  Hee hee.  Your own posts about your cafe
doings are proof - or not -- I'm willing to let history decide about
you,  now that I've had my say.  If I'm wrong, hey, fucking hooray.  If
not, at least I called you on the dynamics of your life being odious,
and if that smarts to even the least degree, you've got homework to do. 
If I've wronged you, history will not treat that kindly, right?  You're
okay with history deciding, right?

>
> As usual, Edg is pontificating and being holier-than-
> thou from a position of sheer and utter hypocrisy.

I have been a hypocrite all my life in many ways -- it's called "growing
up gradually as one's POVs are tested in the marketplace of thoughts." 
Anyone here want to aver that they're not hypocritcal? Glad to be a
hypocrite and have it pointed out -- a big benefit for taking the risk
of posting here.

>
> As I remember it, he never even thanked me for stand-
> ing up to the person who was threatening to do to *him*
> (and Marek) *exactly* what he rails against -- dig up
> dirt on him and post it to the Internet. As it turns
> out, that was the same person who posted porn to FFL
> in an attempt to get it taken down, and the same person
> who more recently tried to "assist" an FFL member in
> committing suicide, something he had never suggested
> he was even contemplating. I don't remember Edg getting
> up on his high horse over that one, either.

Um, let's see.if a Nazi gives a Jew a moist towlette to clean up
their child's face as they go into the showers, we're to think the Nazi
is a good guy?  Eh, okay, THANKS BARRY!  Feel better now?

>
> As far as I can tell, "morality" for Edg Duveyoung
> consists of "That which enables me to believe that I
> have the right to preach to others about how much
> lower than me they are."

Yeah, I love to preach.  Yeah, I've been wrong about things.  Yeah, I'm
growing, yeah, I'm sometimes backsliding.  Yeah, thanks for all here who
have tried to gently correct me. And, yeah, fuck anyone who's attacked
me or another poster with the intent to besmirch instead of to correct. 
Including me -- I've done that, and I'll do it again, but I'll be glad
to be called on it.

I've taught a goodly number of lessons here by my testimonials about my
triumphs and tribulations.  To the degree that others have resonated,
fine; to the degree that they have not, fine.  It's call life.  I get to
be wrong, Barry gets to be wrong.  If either of us is correct, great. 
The fact that Barry calls me on my hypocricy is a benefit to me in that
it allows me to use that criticism to dive within and check out  the
validity of his observations.  The pain of Barry's Zen Whacking is not
the issue; what I do in response  IS the issue.

If I'm coming off here  as a blowhard knowitall, well, I'll lose readers
until it's painfully obvious that I'm off -track and not bringing
anything of import to this group.  Who wants to be known as a blowhard? 
I'll try to bring better material here, but until I do, the personal
attacks are useful to me, so thanks to one and all, but note that
"attacking others" is likely to be harmful to those  who run that
"judgmental process" in their brains.  Take care out there folks.

>
> Fuck you and the tricycle you rode in on.

It's such a funny thing that so many here have glommed onto my use of
the Trikke as some sort of sign that my mentality is skewed.  It's a
fitness machine for gawd's sake.  And, note that the attack on the
Trikke is done with a brush that broadly includes many recumbent
"trikers" (one k only) out there with their cool little $4,000
bomber-trikes with gears, and also the elders who have their slow-ass
"adult trikes."  Those folks are true tricyclists who are besmirched by
the way Barry used  the word "tricycle."  He hasn't yet grasped that a
Trikke is much closer to rollerblading than tricycling.  He uses the
word tricycle  to obviously mean that I'm an adult on a toddler's toy
tricycle and that I'm to be thought less of for that. Even that notion
is bankrupt in that going to youtube will easily yeild tons of adults
who are very very much into tricycles of many sorts, and finally,  Barry
ignores that he's pals with Rick and Marek who both have had positive
resonance with the Trikke also.  Barry, Barry, Barry.  Tsk.

Edg
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> > Alex/Rick,
> >
> > You guys still have not addressed the issue of "stalking."  I
pointed out that I could sic a detective on someone and get "only public
knowledge about th

[FairfieldLife] Alex invaded the poster's privacy (Re: Rick Archer: )

[Duveyoung]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> >
> > Alex/Rick,
> > 
> > You guys still have not addressed the issue of "stalking."
> 
> I haven't because IMO, it's just another case of you going off on a tangent. 
> The issue here is whether or not message headers are public information. In 
> fact, they ARE public information. End of story. If a case of actual stalking 
> happens in the context of FFL, and not some bogus accusation of stalking, 
> like the one made against Judy, I may be inclined to address that issue.

Alex,

So instead of addressing the issue, you're calling it a tangent and that's how 
you're going to debate?

Isn't this a case of FFL needing to examine its "stalking policy" and to 
definitively handle it? 

And, so what's so fucking wrong with going off on a tangent?  Show me a thread 
here that doesn't evolve into other issues and nuances.

Can I ask you to examine your feelings towards me in the above regard?  Am I 
wrong that "reading between the lines" of your replies it can be surmised that 
you see me as some sort of "time-wasting twit of little brain who's making 
mountains out of molehills all the time?"  Like that?  Is that your bottom 
line?  I attacked your use of public information and I think it stung ya -- man 
up and handle the issue.

Edg 

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.

[Richard M]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> We have EEG evidence of Samadhi in Patanjali  
> yogins, so we know what it looks like. If you can't replicate those  
> findings in students, I would hope that would be a point of concern

Vaj - can you not see the methodological flaw in this? It's circular.

Let me re-phase your statement slightly:

We have tested these guys and found a pattern. We see that that pattern 
matches what samadhi looks like. Therefore we now know what samadhi 
looks like. Groan...

Or is it:

We don't know what samadhi is, but whatever it is, we know these guys 
have got it (how, if we don't know what samadhi is?). So now we've measured 
them, and as a result we now know what samadhi is. Groan...

[FairfieldLife] Happy Birthday wayback71

[Rick Archer]

Today is her birthday. She doesn't visit often, but it's always nice when
she does. Happy Birthday to her!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Adept TM'ers

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M"  wrote:

> >> The TM technique can (or could at the time) claim uniqueness 
> >> as being:
> ...
> >> * Not a skill i.e. something that you develop and get "better" at, as
> >> in, for example, learning a musical instrument. In theory you can't  
> >> say "I meditate better now than I did five years ago" (unless you 
> >> were doing it wrong five years ago).
> 

I wonder about this. I hypothesize that there are people who are very good at 
TM.  They transcend easily and feel good in their practice, with little if any 
adverse effects (unstressing).  They may be naturally good at it or it may have 
come from practice or both. In some research the TMO as specifically chosen 
meditators who have long experience meditating and have specific types of 
experiences. This includes the breath suspension person.  The issue is why some 
people have certain experiences and others do not.  Is it practice?  Is it 
there particular make-up?  I think probably both. What is it in them that makes 
them "good at it." Would they have equally positive experiences with other 
techniques? I hypothesize that they might, but that is a difficult question to 
research because of the strong mindset that develops in meditators that their 
technique is the best or "right" technique.  Lots of unanswered questions that 
are very interesting.  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.

[Vaj]

On Jun 9, 2009, at 12:07 PM, Richard M wrote:


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


We have EEG evidence of Samadhi in Patanjali
yogins, so we know what it looks like. If you can't replicate those
findings in students, I would hope that would be a point of concern


Vaj - can you not see the methodological flaw in this? It's circular.


Since this has been discussed before here, ad nauseum, I did not feel  
I needed to explain in any detail.


The statement relies on the assumption that the traditional Patanjali  
yogins were not lying and that they knew, through their lineal  
instruction, what that state of consciousness was. However, given  
that we've now replicated this finding in numerous other yogins, in  
numerous independent labs, and that the same process now is  
understood to underlie neuroplastic restructuring of the brain, I  
have a significant degree of confidence in such statements--or I  
wouldn't make them.

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >
> > We have EEG evidence of Samadhi in Patanjali  
> > yogins, so we know what it looks like. If you can't replicate those  
> > findings in students, I would hope that would be a point of concern
> 
> Vaj - can you not see the methodological flaw in this? It's circular.
> 
> Let me re-phase your statement slightly:
> 
> We have tested these guys and found a pattern. We see that that pattern 
> matches what samadhi looks like. Therefore we now know what samadhi 
> looks like. Groan...
> 
> Or is it:
> 
> We don't know what samadhi is, but whatever it is, we know these guys 
> have got it (how, if we don't know what samadhi is?). So now we've measured 
> them, and as a result we now know what samadhi is. Groan...


We have correlated physiological markers to specific described experiences that 
occur in more than one person.  We do not know if the same markers might occur 
in different people in different circumstances.  We do not know if there is any 
"cosmic" meaning (for lack of a better word) for the experience or the markers. 
>

[FairfieldLife] Alex invaded the poster's privacy (Re: Rick Archer: )

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> > >
> > > Alex/Rick,
> > > 
> > > You guys still have not addressed the issue of "stalking."
> > 
> > I haven't because IMO, it's just another case of you going off
> > on a tangent. The issue here is whether or not message headers
> > are public information. In fact, they ARE public information.
> > End of story. If a case of actual stalking happens in the context
> > of FFL, and not some bogus accusation of stalking, like the one
> > made against Judy, I may be inclined to address that issue.
> 
> Alex,
> 
> So instead of addressing the issue, you're calling it a tangent
> and that's how you're going to debate?

>From my perspective, there is no debate.
 
> Isn't this a case of FFL needing to examine its "stalking policy"
> and to definitively handle it? 

Not in my opinion.
 
> And, so what's so fucking wrong with going off on a tangent? Show
> me a thread here that doesn't evolve into other issues and nuances.

There's nothing wrong with going off on tangents. What I object to is the 
insistence that I participate in the discussion of them.
 
> Can I ask you to examine your feelings towards me in the above
> regard?  Am I wrong that "reading between the lines" of your
> replies it can be surmised that you see me as some sort of "time-
> wasting twit of little brain who's making mountains out of
> molehills all the time?"  Like that?  Is that your bottom line?  

Out of that description, I agree with "making mountains out of molehills" and 
"time wasting". I don't think you're little-brained or a twit. I see you as 
needlessly over-emotional and constantly striving to find things to be upset 
about. Engaging you in that particular drama is of no interest to me.

> I attacked your use of public information and I think it stung ya
> -- man up and handle the issue.

I am not stung. I am annoyed by the constant whining of people who can't accept 
the technical realities of the online world.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Adept TM'ers

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M"  wrote:
> 
> > > > The TM technique can (or could at the time) claim uniqueness 
> > > > as being:
> > ...
> > > > * Not a skill i.e. something that you develop and get 
> > > > "better" at, as in, for example, learning a musical 
> > > > instrument. In theory you can't say "I meditate better 
> > > > now than I did five years ago" (unless you 
> > > > were doing it wrong five years ago).
> 
> I wonder about this. I hypothesize that there are people 
> who are very good at TM.  They transcend easily and feel 
> good in their practice, with little if any adverse effects 
> (unstressing).  They may be naturally good at it or it may 
> have come from practice or both. 

Ruth, you're going to groan (and I don't blame
you), but I chalk the differences in how some
people react to TM as opposed to the way others
react to TM as predilection, which I then chalk
up to "past life experience." OK, *forget* the
"past life experience" if you don't believe in
that, but "predilection" is Right On in my exper-
ience as both a meditator and as a teacher of 
meditation.

My theory is that those who have "paid their dues"
performing meditative practices in the past are
more likely to "fall into" other, similar practices
in another life. If you don't believe in past lives,
call it pure predilection...the fact that different
human beings have different nervous systems and
likes and dislikes and things that they "resonate"
with and things that they do not.

Whatever you call it, the outcome is the same. Some
experience what they call transcendence (although I
don't necessarily call it that) very quickly with
TM, and some don't. For some, it takes time before
they "settle down" enough to even sit through 20
minutes of TM practice. For others, it's like pulling
teeth even after years of TM practice.

In my opinion, there is "no harm, no foul" in ANY
of these different reactions. I have known people who
*hated* TM, and then tried a meditation practice that
involved focus and concentration, and *loved* it. They
"fell into" that practice immediately, and found *it*
effortless, whereas they always found TM effortful.
Go figure. This is completely contradictory to the
dogma of the TM movement, and yet as a person who has
taught hundreds of people TM and another hundreds of
people other techniques of meditation, I've seen it
happen. 

There is simply no predicting who will "get" a par-
ticular practice. Some will, some won't. No harm, no
foul either way in my opinion. Some will "get" one
practice and not another. Again, no harm, no foul.

Ritalin -- a form of speed, an amphetamine if I am
not mistaken -- has the effect of *calming down* 
certain people. For others, it has the effect of
speed in general. Same with meditation practices.

Also, contrary to what Richard suggests, there are 
some meditation practices that one can *definitely* 
get better at over time. Which is a good thing. 
Imagine being one of the people who *didn't* fall
easily into TM and being told for years that it was
all your fault. Oh. You probably were.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Adept TM'ers

[Bhairitu]

ruthsimplicity wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M"  wrote:
>
>   
 The TM technique can (or could at the time) claim uniqueness 
 as being:
 
>> ...
>> 
 * Not a skill i.e. something that you develop and get "better" at, as
 in, for example, learning a musical instrument. In theory you can't  
 say "I meditate better now than I did five years ago" (unless you 
 were doing it wrong five years ago).
 
>
> I wonder about this. I hypothesize that there are people who are very good at 
> TM.  They transcend easily and feel good in their practice, with little if 
> any adverse effects (unstressing).  They may be naturally good at it or it 
> may have come from practice or both. In some research the TMO as specifically 
> chosen meditators who have long experience meditating and have specific types 
> of experiences. This includes the breath suspension person.  The issue is why 
> some people have certain experiences and others do not.  Is it practice?  Is 
> it there particular make-up?  I think probably both. What is it in them that 
> makes them "good at it." Would they have equally positive experiences with 
> other techniques? I hypothesize that they might, but that is a difficult 
> question to research because of the strong mindset that develops in 
> meditators that their technique is the best or "right" technique.  Lots of 
> unanswered questions that are very interesting.  

One teacher of ayurveda referred to this in a workshop.   Not just TM 
but meditation in general.  Vata people tend to have flashes or fleeting 
glimpse of transcendence.  They are most likely to have "lots of 
thoughts."  Kapha people on the other hand being naturally calm tend to 
have much deeper and lasting experiences.  Ever wonder why increasing 
ojas was recommended?  Of course kapha people might also fall asleep 
during medtiation.  Pitta people are somewhere in-between.  Most all the 
yogic herbal practices are for calming, herbs such as ashwaganda for 
instance.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> >
> > Seems to me that Raunch and Judy would not be good special education
> > teachers.
> > 
> 
> Yeah. As predicted, Judy went bananas. She has a very difficult time with 
> criticism - as anyone can plainly see.
>

Pardon moi. It isn't Judy going bananas. If there are any bananas to be had on 
FFLife, as Vaj suggested, it is the phallic equivalent of do.rflex getting 
screwed by Obama and loving it. Ignore the pain, honey.

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.

[Richard M]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Jun 9, 2009, at 12:07 PM, Richard M wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >>
> >> We have EEG evidence of Samadhi in Patanjali
> >> yogins, so we know what it looks like. If you can't replicate those
> >> findings in students, I would hope that would be a point of concern
> >
> > Vaj - can you not see the methodological flaw in this? It's circular.
> 
> Since this has been discussed before here, ad nauseum, I did not feel  
> I needed to explain in any detail.
> 
> The statement relies on the assumption that the traditional Patanjali  
> yogins were not lying and that they knew, through their lineal  
> instruction, what that state of consciousness was. However, given  
> that we've now replicated this finding in numerous other yogins, in  
> numerous independent labs, and that the same process now is  
> understood to underlie neuroplastic restructuring of the brain, I  
> have a significant degree of confidence in such statements--or I  
> wouldn't make them.
>

A circular line of reasoning remains circular no matter how many
times you turn the handle.

Putting back your snip:

"Let me re-phase your statement slightly:

We have tested these guys and found a pattern. We see that that pattern 
matches what samadhi looks like. Therefore we now know what samadhi 
looks like. Groan...

Or is it:

We don't know what samadhi is, but whatever it is, we know these guys 
have got it (how, if we don't know what samadhi is?). So now we've measured 
them, and as a result we now know what samadhi is. Groan..."

You seem to have gone with version 2. But as a rider to "we know
these guys have got it" you've introduced: "the assumption that
the traditional Patanjali yogins were not lying and that they
knew, through their lineal instruction, what that state of
consciousness was". That doesn't do it for me.

[FairfieldLife] Obama Orders General Odierno to Shave Stephen Colbert's Head

[do.rflex]

Watch: 
http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=2697706&ref=fpblg

See video results here: http://snipurl.com/jry1r

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> > >
> > > Seems to me that Raunch and Judy would not be good special education
> > > teachers.
> > > 
> > 
> > Yeah. As predicted, Judy went bananas. She has a very difficult time with 
> > criticism - as anyone can plainly see.
> >
> 
> Pardon moi. It isn't Judy going bananas. If there are any bananas to be had 
> on FFLife, as Vaj suggested, it is the phallic equivalent of do.rflex getting 
> screwed by Obama and loving it. Ignore the pain, honey.


Jr High.

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.

[Richard M]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > >
> > > We have EEG evidence of Samadhi in Patanjali  
> > > yogins, so we know what it looks like. If you can't replicate 
those  
> > > findings in students, I would hope that would be a point of 
concern
> > 
> > Vaj - can you not see the methodological flaw in this? It's 
circular.
> > 
> > Let me re-phase your statement slightly:
> > 
> > We have tested these guys and found a pattern. We see that that 
pattern 
> > matches what samadhi looks like. Therefore we now know what samadhi 
> > looks like. Groan...
> > 
> > Or is it:
> > 
> > We don't know what samadhi is, but whatever it is, we know these 
guys 
> > have got it (how, if we don't know what samadhi is?). So now we've 
measured 
> > them, and as a result we now know what samadhi is. Groan...
> 
> 
> We have correlated physiological markers to specific
> described experiences that occur in more than one person.  
> We do not know if the same markers might occur in different 
> people in different circumstances.  We do not know if there is 
> any "cosmic" meaning (for lack of a better word) for the 
> experience or the markers. 


Yes. I buy that reading. That means I haven't bought much, eh?

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Jun 9, 2009, at 10:55 AM, sparaig wrote:
> 
> >> At the Harvard conference on meditation last month, Herbert Benson
> >> listed 8 meditation techniques that have the same physiological
> >> signature:
> >>
> >> Vipassana Meditation
> >> Mantra Meditation
> >> Mindfulness Meditation
> >> Transcendental Meditation
> >> Breath Focus
> >> Kripalu Yoga
> >> Kundalini Yoga
> >> Repetitive Prayer
> >>
> >> So much for "uniqueness", huh?
> >>
> >> The uniqueness lie is a marketing myth used by disreputable and
> >> biased TM researchers to push their product. Apparently they're the
> >> only ones who believe this. Other researchers know better than to
> >> accept such BS. The independent research "Meditation: In Search of a
> >> Unique Effect" put this and a number of other TM research untruths to
> >> rest way back in the 80's!
> >>
> >
> > So, by physiological signature, he was discussing breath suspension
> > of up to 1 minute, 5x during a 10 minute meditation period?
> >
> > Where's the research to back this up?
> 
> 
> I don't believe any of them consider these TM-induced apneas  
> significant. 

Well Benson is the one claiming that TM's physiological signature is the
same as the RR, not I.

You keep bringing this up again and again, like you're  
> still having a hard time letting go of this. It's an interesting  
> chosen artifact, but that's about it. Experientially, from my own  
> experience of breath cessation during TM, it does not represent  
> anything worthwhile. I'd agree with Austin on this, at best it  
> represents the shallow preludes of samadhi.

You think its supposed to be something special? Something striking?
Something NOTEWORTHY!!!???

Earth to Vaj: if its a sign of samadhi, you won't even notice it.

> 
> Reductions in metabolic rate however, as recorded by Benson of 60  
> some per cent is very significant--the highest drop ever recorded in  
> humans.
>

Interesting stuff. But, has he replicated it back at Harvard, especially with
non-monks?


L.

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Jun 9, 2009, at 11:23 AM, Richard M wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >
> > Richard M:
> >>> The TM technique can (or could at the time) claim uniqueness
> >>> as being:
> > ...
> >>> * Not a skill i.e. something that you develop and get "better"  
> >>> at, as
> >>> in, for example, learning a musical instrument. In theory you can't
> >>> say "I meditate better now than I did five years ago" (unless you
> >>> were doing it wrong five years ago).
> >
> > Vaj:
> >> So, in your opinion the cloth does not get dyed by repetition, the
> >> "gap" does not widen and TM does not lead to higher states of
> >> consciousness. Interesting.
> >
> > No, no, quite wrong.
> >
> > To take an unfortunate example - I think TM as a technique is a bit
> > like learning to smoke a cigarette.
> >
> > In THAT sense it is not a "skill" (unless you are being perverse and
> > over-literal). And yet, by repetition, the cloth/the lungs do get
> > dyed/die by repetition.
> >
> > This contrasts to the whole idea of "adepts" and "experts" that are
> > referred to in other schools (and your posts).
> >
> > Let me put it this way: I think staements such as "John Doe is a TM
> > expert" or "John Doe is a TM master or adept" are close to being
> > oxymorons. That is a pointer to an element of uniqueness about the
> > technique and its philosophy.
> >
> > It's very democratic too: I can readily admit my lowly place in the
> > spiritual food chain. But I need bow to no one as to my ability to do
> > TM. This is a great contribution by Maharishi IMO and seems to me  
> > to be
> > overlooked here. He was a sort of analog to Luther in this regard.
> 
> Unfortunately for your belief, it is just that your belief. Science  
> tells us something quite different and that is that samadhi is a  
> skill like many other acquisitions, language, walking, etc. and the  
> acquisition of such skills follows a certain observable acquisition  
> curve.
> 
> Of course it could that TM is just an introductory technique and does  
> not lead to such acquisition, but it is perfectly good at what it  
> does do, for some people.
> 
> >
> > And you, Vaj, with your emphasis on whether traditions are kosher or
> > not,
> 
> Frankly this is your opinion and certainly not mine. TM is a  
> perfectly fine intro. form of meditation, aside from the truncated  
> mantras, but it should not be misconstrued as a complete Hindu mantra  
> path IME and IMO.
> 
> > whether MMY has a right to be titled "Maharishi",
> 
> My interest is largely historical, whether he was or not is  
> immaterial, it was an alias he assumed. What concerns me is the  
> insult to realizers of the various Hindu paths. Many find it  
> insulting and I can see why.
> 
> > whether he was
> > from the right caste,
> 
> This really is not MY concern what caste he comes from. But it was a  
> strong concern for his guru and the lineage he comes from.
> 
> > and your zealous love of architectonic - that all
> > stands against that liberating influence. In My Opinion.
> 
> OK...
> 
> >
> > Richard M:
> >>> * Not an aptitude that you may or may not have. You can't say "A is
> >>> better at TM than B".
> >
> > Vaj:
> >> Do you have evidence for this belief?
> >
> > Why should I?
> 
> Why shouldn't you? We have EEG evidence of Samadhi in Patanjali  
> yogins, so we know what it looks like. If you can't replicate those  
> findings in students, I would hope that would be a point of concern-- 
> unless of course your primary interest is in stress reduction, which  
> Relaxation Response forms of meditation are all great at.
> 
> > It's just obvious. I would say if you don't understand
> > these points then I don't think you understand where TM is coming  
> > from.
> 
> Actually I do. TM is believed to be a form of sahaj meditation where  
> the principle of "charm" is believed to spontaneously focus or  
> concentrate the mind with only a minimal amount of effort being  
> necessary.
>

Actually, with NO effort being necessary...

L.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Adept TM'ers

[Richard M]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M"  wrote:
> > 
> > > > > The TM technique can (or could at the time) claim uniqueness 
> > > > > as being:
> > > ...
> > > > > * Not a skill i.e. something that you develop and get 
> > > > > "better" at, as in, for example, learning a musical 
> > > > > instrument. In theory you can't say "I meditate better 
> > > > > now than I did five years ago" (unless you 
> > > > > were doing it wrong five years ago).
> > 
> > I wonder about this. I hypothesize that there are people 
> > who are very good at TM.  They transcend easily and feel 
> > good in their practice, with little if any adverse effects 
> > (unstressing).  They may be naturally good at it or it may 
> > have come from practice or both. 
> 
> Ruth, you're going to groan (and I don't blame
> you), but I chalk the differences in how some
> people react to TM as opposed to the way others
> react to TM as predilection, which I then chalk
> up to "past life experience." OK, *forget* the
> "past life experience" if you don't believe in
> that, but "predilection" is Right On in my exper-
> ience as both a meditator and as a teacher of 
> meditation.
> 
> My theory is that those who have "paid their dues"
> performing meditative practices in the past are
> more likely to "fall into" other, similar practices
> in another life. If you don't believe in past lives,
> call it pure predilection...the fact that different
> human beings have different nervous systems and
> likes and dislikes and things that they "resonate"
> with and things that they do not.
> 
> Whatever you call it, the outcome is the same. Some
> experience what they call transcendence (although I
> don't necessarily call it that) very quickly with
> TM, and some don't. For some, it takes time before
> they "settle down" enough to even sit through 20
> minutes of TM practice. For others, it's like pulling
> teeth even after years of TM practice.
> 
> In my opinion, there is "no harm, no foul" in ANY
> of these different reactions. I have known people who
> *hated* TM, and then tried a meditation practice that
> involved focus and concentration, and *loved* it. They
> "fell into" that practice immediately, and found *it*
> effortless, whereas they always found TM effortful.
> Go figure. This is completely contradictory to the
> dogma of the TM movement, and yet as a person who has
> taught hundreds of people TM and another hundreds of
> people other techniques of meditation, I've seen it
> happen. 
> 
> There is simply no predicting who will "get" a par-
> ticular practice. Some will, some won't. No harm, no
> foul either way in my opinion. Some will "get" one
> practice and not another. Again, no harm, no foul.
> 
> Ritalin -- a form of speed, an amphetamine if I am
> not mistaken -- has the effect of *calming down* 
> certain people. For others, it has the effect of
> speed in general. Same with meditation practices.
> 
> Also, contrary to what Richard suggests, there are 
> some meditation practices that one can *definitely* 
> get better at over time. Which is a good thing. 
> Imagine being one of the people who *didn't* fall
> easily into TM and being told for years that it was
> all your fault. Oh. You probably were.
>

Not my view guv!

When I say that I don't think TM depends on aptitude or skill,
I can quite believe that there are many other techniques that
DO. And with those I would expect the meditator to become more
adept over time.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Adept TM'ers

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M"  wrote:
> 
> > >> The TM technique can (or could at the time) claim uniqueness 
> > >> as being:
> > ...
> > >> * Not a skill i.e. something that you develop and get "better" at, as
> > >> in, for example, learning a musical instrument. In theory you can't  
> > >> say "I meditate better now than I did five years ago" (unless you 
> > >> were doing it wrong five years ago).
> > 
> 
> I wonder about this. I hypothesize that there are people who are very good at 
> TM.  They transcend easily and feel good in their practice, with little if 
> any adverse effects (unstressing).  They may be naturally good at it or it 
> may have come from practice or both. In some research the TMO as specifically 
> chosen meditators who have long experience meditating and have specific types 
> of experiences. This includes the breath suspension person.  The issue is why 
> some people have certain experiences and others do not.  Is it practice?  Is 
> it there particular make-up?  I think probably both. What is it in them that 
> makes them "good at it." Would they have equally positive experiences with 
> other techniques? I hypothesize that they might, but that is a difficult 
> question to research because of the strong mindset that develops in 
> meditators that their technique is the best or "right" technique.  Lots of 
> unanswered questions that are very interesting.
>

Travis' research on comparing long-term meditating students with 
shorter-term meditating students suggests that there is a ceiling effect 
*during* TM within a few months.

However, when he looked at the EEG of the two groups immediately prior to
the meditation period, he found marked differences. He's interpreted that as
meaning that one masters TM quite fast, but that the state effects continue to
accumulate over the years.

L.

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Jun 9, 2009, at 12:07 PM, Richard M wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >>
> >> We have EEG evidence of Samadhi in Patanjali
> >> yogins, so we know what it looks like. If you can't replicate those
> >> findings in students, I would hope that would be a point of concern
> >
> > Vaj - can you not see the methodological flaw in this? It's circular.
> 
> Since this has been discussed before here, ad nauseum, I did not feel  
> I needed to explain in any detail.
> 
> The statement relies on the assumption that the traditional Patanjali  
> yogins were not lying and that they knew, through their lineal  
> instruction, what that state of consciousness was. However, given  
> that we've now replicated this finding in numerous other yogins, in  
> numerous independent labs, and that the same process now is  
> understood to underlie neuroplastic restructuring of the brain, I  
> have a significant degree of confidence in such statements--or I  
> wouldn't make them.
>

Unlike MMY, and the TM researchers, etc...


L.

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > >
> > > We have EEG evidence of Samadhi in Patanjali  
> > > yogins, so we know what it looks like. If you can't replicate those  
> > > findings in students, I would hope that would be a point of concern
> > 
> > Vaj - can you not see the methodological flaw in this? It's circular.
> > 
> > Let me re-phase your statement slightly:
> > 
> > We have tested these guys and found a pattern. We see that that pattern 
> > matches what samadhi looks like. Therefore we now know what samadhi 
> > looks like. Groan...
> > 
> > Or is it:
> > 
> > We don't know what samadhi is, but whatever it is, we know these guys 
> > have got it (how, if we don't know what samadhi is?). So now we've measured 
> > them, and as a result we now know what samadhi is. Groan...
> 
> 
> We have correlated physiological markers to specific described experiences 
> that occur in more than one person.  We do not know if the same markers might 
> occur in different people in different circumstances.  We do not know if 
> there is any "cosmic" meaning (for lack of a better word) for the experience 
> or the markers. 
> >
>

More interestingly, we have radically different markers in different meditation
traditions for the same self-reported experiences (or lack thereof).


L.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.

[Vaj]

On Jun 9, 2009, at 12:33 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:

We have correlated physiological markers to specific described  
experiences that occur in more than one person.  We do not know if  
the same markers might occur in different people in different  
circumstances.  We do not know if there is any "cosmic" meaning  
(for lack of a better word) for the experience or the markers.



We also know that these traditions have for thousands of years  
described these states as "extraordinary" in some manner. What's the  
Sagan saying 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'?  
Extraordinary states of mind should therefore possess some  
extraordinary characteristics, that is extraordinary physiologic  
evidence.


If I had to give one overriding impression of most meditation  
research is that there's little that is truly extraordinary.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.

[Vaj]

On Jun 9, 2009, at 1:01 PM, Richard M wrote:


Since this has been discussed before here, ad nauseum, I did not feel
I needed to explain in any detail.

The statement relies on the assumption that the traditional Patanjali
yogins were not lying and that they knew, through their lineal
instruction, what that state of consciousness was. However, given
that we've now replicated this finding in numerous other yogins, in
numerous independent labs, and that the same process now is
understood to underlie neuroplastic restructuring of the brain, I
have a significant degree of confidence in such statements--or I
wouldn't make them.



A circular line of reasoning remains circular no matter how many
times you turn the handle.

Putting back your snip:

"Let me re-phase your statement slightly:

We have tested these guys and found a pattern. We see that that  
pattern

matches what samadhi looks like. Therefore we now know what samadhi
looks like. Groan...

Or is it:

We don't know what samadhi is, but whatever it is, we know these guys
have got it (how, if we don't know what samadhi is?). So now we've  
measured

them, and as a result we now know what samadhi is. Groan..."

You seem to have gone with version 2. But as a rider to "we know
these guys have got it" you've introduced: "the assumption that
the traditional Patanjali yogins were not lying and that they
knew, through their lineal instruction, what that state of
consciousness was". That doesn't do it for me.


Not close to what I'm saying. You're misdirecting.

Mis-parse it however you like Richard. It's a replicated scientific  
finding published in a major journal that shows physiologic markers,  
parallel to people in a certain meditative state, which they're able  
to replicate at will, often for hours at a a time.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.

[Vaj]

On Jun 9, 2009, at 1:09 PM, sparaig wrote:


You keep bringing this up again and again, like you're

still having a hard time letting go of this. It's an interesting
chosen artifact, but that's about it. Experientially, from my own
experience of breath cessation during TM, it does not represent
anything worthwhile. I'd agree with Austin on this, at best it
represents the shallow preludes of samadhi.


You think its supposed to be something special? Something striking?
Something NOTEWORTHY!!!???

Earth to Vaj: if its a sign of samadhi, you won't even notice it.



ROFLOL.


Reductions in metabolic rate however, as recorded by Benson of 60
some per cent is very significant--the highest drop ever recorded in
humans.




Interesting stuff. But, has he replicated it back at Harvard,  
especially with

non-monks?


I don't know. I assume it's all monks.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.

[Vaj]

On Jun 9, 2009, at 1:16 PM, sparaig wrote:


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



On Jun 9, 2009, at 12:07 PM, Richard M wrote:


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


We have EEG evidence of Samadhi in Patanjali
yogins, so we know what it looks like. If you can't replicate those
findings in students, I would hope that would be a point of concern


Vaj - can you not see the methodological flaw in this? It's  
circular.


Since this has been discussed before here, ad nauseum, I did not feel
I needed to explain in any detail.

The statement relies on the assumption that the traditional Patanjali
yogins were not lying and that they knew, through their lineal
instruction, what that state of consciousness was. However, given
that we've now replicated this finding in numerous other yogins, in
numerous independent labs, and that the same process now is
understood to underlie neuroplastic restructuring of the brain, I
have a significant degree of confidence in such statements--or I
wouldn't make them.



Unlike MMY, and the TM researchers, etc...


Very little confidence in most of their research. I just don't see a  
lot of credibility there.


Of course if I heard they were replicating EEG evidence seen in  
Patanjali yogins, I'd be very interested--esp. if independent labs  
could replicate the findings and the yogins could go into those  
states at will. for as long as they desired...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> I have yet to see Judy explain what she'd do as president that wouldn't be 
> subject to the gut-wrenching onus of picking of one's battles and doing 
> triage.
> 

Edg, Thanks for posting this. At long last, you are the first person on FFLife 
willing to discuss political issues that should matter to people of good 
conscience instead of flinging crap, which I have have no problem indulging in 
if the crap hits me first. 

> Obama has not finished even his second 100 days, and he's being judged for 
> having a "failed presidency," because he's not moved forward on several very 
> important issues.
> 

Wrong. No one has ever said Obama has a failed presidency, just that the issues 
he has already moved on do not indicate the direction of "changing the politics 
of Washington" as he promised.

> Yet, we don't see Judy explaining to anyone how it could be done otherwise 
> when one considers the huge momentum that the various forces-arrayed 
> represent.  Try to stomp the military industrial complex -- get real.  It'll 
> be a decade long steady push that solves that ill -- not some swift Gordian 
> Knot cut.  
> 

I agree with you on this point in principle, but the polices he has implemented 
thus far do not indicate he is interested in cutting the Gordian Knot. If you 
could cite a specific instance for discussion, I would be interested in talking 
about it. Here's one knot to unravel on a related topic: Why does the Obama 
administration continue to use a notorious military police unit at Guantanamo 
that regularly brutalizes unarmed prisoners, including gang-beating them, 
breaking their bones, gouging their eyes and dousing them with chemicals?"

http://i1.democracynow.org/2009/5/19/jeremy_scahill_little_known_military_thug

> Where's your patience, your faith, etc.?  
> 

Patience is to virtue as Obama is to politician. The former I trust, the latter 
I don't no matter who it is.

> And note that, if I wanted to, I could really rail against Obama's selling 
> out and that our military is still killing and torturing innocents, etc.  Or, 
> say, his lack of pushing for single-payer I find to be a bowing to BigPharm 
> and BigInsurance, yet I can see that he's dealing with the devil and trying 
> to cobble together a health package that doesn't kill these big industries 
> with their tens of thousands of employees "overnight."  He's trying to keep 
> people's jobs, ya see?
> 

Point well taken. But one must remember that Obama stated that we could 
implement single payer health care once the Democrats controlled both houses 
and the presidency. Well the conditions have been met and now a fair question 
is:
Was he saying that pandering for votes knowing full well he could not keep his 
promise?

> Triage ain't easy, right?
> 

> Bush got into office by theft, and I see Judy's issue that Obama manipulated 
> the election process, but let's put that aside and deal with the fact that we 
> have a good hearted man who is deeply aware of history and who's trying to 
> clean up not just Bush's mess but Bill's and many other messes -- including 
> the messes of the Dems' many pork barrelings and suck-jobs on the military's 
> cock.  In fact, Obama may have his sights on changing the country's whole 
> roster of mistakes, but he knows he can't just run full speed at such a mass 
> and expect it to be moved much.  
> 

Point taken.

> Give him more time -- we all bit our tongues and tried to keep the issues of 
> Bush on the front burner while we let the issue of his theft of the 
> presidency be put aside so that the headlines pertained to issues that 
> mattered now now now.  Just so, let's keep the pressure on Obama, but have 
> some fucking faith in this guy's intent, will ya?
> 

Agreed. Keep the pressure on but keep in mind that the best intentions...etc.

> Edg
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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.
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > >  I'm not here to play fetch-the-answers for your every
> > > > > > whine. From what I've read, Obama has given solid,
> > > > > > justifiable reaso

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Jun 9, 2009, at 1:01 PM, Richard M wrote:
> 
> >> Since this has been discussed before here, ad nauseum, I did not feel
> >> I needed to explain in any detail.
> >>
> >> The statement relies on the assumption that the traditional Patanjali
> >> yogins were not lying and that they knew, through their lineal
> >> instruction, what that state of consciousness was. However, given
> >> that we've now replicated this finding in numerous other yogins, in
> >> numerous independent labs, and that the same process now is
> >> understood to underlie neuroplastic restructuring of the brain, I
> >> have a significant degree of confidence in such statements--or I
> >> wouldn't make them.
> >>
> >
> > A circular line of reasoning remains circular no matter how many
> > times you turn the handle.
> >
> > Putting back your snip:
> >
> > "Let me re-phase your statement slightly:
> >
> > We have tested these guys and found a pattern. We see that that  
> > pattern
> > matches what samadhi looks like. Therefore we now know what samadhi
> > looks like. Groan...
> >
> > Or is it:
> >
> > We don't know what samadhi is, but whatever it is, we know these guys
> > have got it (how, if we don't know what samadhi is?). So now we've  
> > measured
> > them, and as a result we now know what samadhi is. Groan..."
> >
> > You seem to have gone with version 2. But as a rider to "we know
> > these guys have got it" you've introduced: "the assumption that
> > the traditional Patanjali yogins were not lying and that they
> > knew, through their lineal instruction, what that state of
> > consciousness was". That doesn't do it for me.
> 
> Not close to what I'm saying. You're misdirecting.
> 
> Mis-parse it however you like Richard. It's a replicated scientific  
> finding published in a major journal that shows physiologic markers,  
> parallel to people in a certain meditative state, which they're able  
> to replicate at will, often for hours at a a time.
>

Willful samadhi seems an oxymoron to me, but oh well.


L.

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Jun 9, 2009, at 12:33 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
> 
> > We have correlated physiological markers to specific described  
> > experiences that occur in more than one person.  We do not know if  
> > the same markers might occur in different people in different  
> > circumstances.  We do not know if there is any "cosmic" meaning  
> > (for lack of a better word) for the experience or the markers.
> 
> 
> We also know that these traditions have for thousands of years  
> described these states as "extraordinary" in some manner. What's the  
> Sagan saying 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'?  
> Extraordinary states of mind should therefore possess some  
> extraordinary characteristics, that is extraordinary physiologic  
> evidence.

Well, I guess "turya is the basis for other states" could be interpreted
as saying that turya is special...

> 
> If I had to give one overriding impression of most meditation  
> research is that there's little that is truly extraordinary.
>

And why would there be, given MMY's model?

L.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Most blogs inactive -- a fad passed and no one noticed?

[WillyTex]

TurquoiseB wrote:
> And so what happened? The manuscript was shopped
> around, and it was -- in a word -- BORING...
>
Yeah, many of the things people have to say are
boring. They just don't have anything to say for
sharing stories around the water cooler the next 
day. Of course there are exceptions:

'Clapton: The Autobiography'
by Eric Clapton
Broadway Books, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/na65qs

"First of all, this is an exceptional book, but 
unlike some biographies, and fewer autobiographies, 
it is not one that would be a "page turner" for 
everyone because it is not full of cute anecdotes 
that make for sharing stories around the water 
cooler the next day.

A case in point is the time when Eric first met 
Jimi Hendrix. Chas Chandler of the Animals was 
trying to develop a career as a promoter and 
came across Hendrix in New York. Promising him 
a chance to meet Eric Clapton, he took Jimi to 
London. After meeting several musicians (Eric 
Burton, Andy Summers, et. al.), Chas took Jimi 
to hear Cream play. 

Backstage, Chas introduced Jimi, and they 
asked if Jimi could sit in with them for a few 
numbers, which seemed kind of ballsey. In 
CLAPTON, Eric writes that Jimi played Howlin' 
Wolf's "Killing Floor" in true Hendrix fashion 
playing "the guitar with his teeth, behind his 
head, lying on the floor, doing the splits, 
the whole business. 

It was amazing.They (the crowd) loved it, 
and I loved it, too, but I remember thinking 
that here was a force to be reckoned with. It 
scared me, because he was clearly going to be 
a huge star, and just as we were finding our 
own speed, here was the real thing." In other 
accounts I have read and heard about from 
others, Eric after seeing and hearing Jimi 
perform, goes over and sits down, looking 
rejected. 

Another musician comes over to ask him, 
"What's wrong?" In some accounts it's Jack 
Bruce, in other accounts it's Peter Townsend. 
Eric replies, "I'm (expletive-deleted). If 
I'm "God," who's he?" Which to me would have 
been a funny anecdote..." - George McAdams

Read more Amazon comments: 

'Clapton: The Autobiography'
by Eric Clapton
Broadway Books, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/na65qs

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Jun 9, 2009, at 1:16 PM, sparaig wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jun 9, 2009, at 12:07 PM, Richard M wrote:
> >>
> >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> 
>  We have EEG evidence of Samadhi in Patanjali
>  yogins, so we know what it looks like. If you can't replicate those
>  findings in students, I would hope that would be a point of concern
> >>>
> >>> Vaj - can you not see the methodological flaw in this? It's  
> >>> circular.
> >>
> >> Since this has been discussed before here, ad nauseum, I did not feel
> >> I needed to explain in any detail.
> >>
> >> The statement relies on the assumption that the traditional Patanjali
> >> yogins were not lying and that they knew, through their lineal
> >> instruction, what that state of consciousness was. However, given
> >> that we've now replicated this finding in numerous other yogins, in
> >> numerous independent labs, and that the same process now is
> >> understood to underlie neuroplastic restructuring of the brain, I
> >> have a significant degree of confidence in such statements--or I
> >> wouldn't make them.
> >>
> >
> > Unlike MMY, and the TM researchers, etc...
> 
> Very little confidence in most of their research. I just don't see a  
> lot of credibility there.
> 
> Of course if I heard they were replicating EEG evidence seen in  
> Patanjali yogins, I'd be very interested--esp. if independent labs  
> could replicate the findings and the yogins could go into those  
> states at will. for as long as they desired...
>

Yeah, that Buddha they keep failing to slay is so important...


L.

[FairfieldLife] Alex invaded the poster's privacy (Re: Rick Archer: )

[Duveyoung]

below
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"
 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"
 wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Alex/Rick,
> > > >
> > > > You guys still have not addressed the issue of "stalking."
> > >
> > > I haven't because IMO, it's just another case of you going off
> > > on a tangent. The issue here is whether or not message headers
> > > are public information. In fact, they ARE public information.
> > > End of story. If a case of actual stalking happens in the context
> > > of FFL, and not some bogus accusation of stalking, like the one
> > > made against Judy, I may be inclined to address that issue.
> >
> > Alex,
> >
> > So instead of addressing the issue, you're calling it a tangent
> > and that's how you're going to debate?
>
> From my perspective, there is no debate.
>
> > Isn't this a case of FFL needing to examine its "stalking policy"
> > and to definitively handle it?
>
> Not in my opinion.
>
> > And, so what's so fucking wrong with going off on a tangent? Show
> > me a thread here that doesn't evolve into other issues and nuances.
>
> There's nothing wrong with going off on tangents. What I object to is
the insistence that I participate in the discussion of them.

But your moderator status doesn't give you that luxury if the FFL policy
is being examined.  I contend that it isn't a mountain out of a
molehill, and that the act of doing look-ups as you have done is a
modeling to FFL readers and posters that anyone can stalk anyone by any
means and reveal all sorts of "private" information that can be found in
the public domain to the readers here.

Again, I ask, can I hire a detective to see what can be found out about
your life's mistakes and post that info here?

If a person is not "in the know about Internet stuff," and you think
that that's a good enough reason to let them be victimized by yourself,
hey, that fucking stinks.  Most folks simply don't do their homework,
and to them you're offering the very very geeky nerd excuse that it's
okay for you to victimize them, because they don't have your talent for
technical matters?  You never contacted Nab privately about what you
were going to do to him.

I have owned computers since 1980 and only a few weeks ago did I notice
that Yahoo lets a poster check a box to keep the IP address hidden from
the likes of you.  See?  It's not that I'm not geeky enough; it's that
only someone like you resonates with knowing such thingsnot that
others are too dumb to be concerned.  Frankly, you come off as one of
these classic nerds who has no life except that one wherein he can lord
it over others about his insider techno-savvy.  Fine, have your life if
that's the case, but it's fucking snobby and elitist IMO.
>
> > Can I ask you to examine your feelings towards me in the above
> > regard?  Am I wrong that "reading between the lines" of your
> > replies it can be surmised that you see me as some sort of "time-
> > wasting twit of little brain who's making mountains out of
> > molehills all the time?"  Like that?  Is that your bottom line?
>
> Out of that description, I agree with "making mountains out of
molehills" and "time wasting". I don't think you're little-brained or a
twit. I see you as needlessly over-emotional and constantly striving to
find things to be upset about. Engaging you in that particular drama is
of no interest to me.

Well, let's balance things with me saying that you've shown almost no
heart values here, and thus, I surmise that you are incapable of
emotionally knowing the difference between a mountain and a molehill
when it comes to the feeling level impact either may wield.  To Nab your
exposure of his location was egregious and harming, yet you have yet to
recognize his emotions as "really existing," and that your actions had
something to do with that.  Not that Nab isn't responsible for handling
his feelings, but for you to purposefully trigger him without consulting
him privately first, seems to point to an anti-Nab agenda that you found
a way to express, and you thought you had complete deniablity about it. 
I call you on it, and the next thing I know you're belittling me for
being concerned more than your heart is allowing you to be about the
core issue of stalking and having an agenda to cherry pick and present a
negativity.

I do admire your stated morals about how you do keep private things
private.  My only beef with you is that acquiring public info and using
if for an agenda is a breach of privacy by today's standards.  Again, I
may have my drapes pulled back and passersby can see inside my home, but
if I catch them staring, then I've been invaded to some degree.  You're
saying that I can stare at anyone's life here by any means and,
especially if it's googlable, it can be posted here.  Wrong.  Bad.  And,
you as a moderator are at some risk if

[FairfieldLife] Re: Most blogs inactive -- a fad passed and no one noticed?

[WillyTex]

Duveyoung wrote:
> Anyone here think that becoming an expert 
> on the Barry and Judy battles would edify 
> a reader in any way that they couldn't get 
> by, say, simply being told "try to avoid 
> egoic obsessions." 
>
> Is there some other lesson that we can get 
> from attending this battle?  
> 
Well, Edg, yes - you could try reading the
massages BEFORE you post your own comments.

LOL!

That way, you won't feel so 'cornered' when
you get flamed by Barry or Judy. You can just
quote their own words and be free. 

"Your argument above would be a good one if 
you were defending Judy because according 
to it, from her description of the events, 
Uncle Tantra was not really cornered at all 
as no difficulty or impossibility of escape 
was mentioned, quite the opposite. Judy has 
used the defence that cornering your opponent 
doesn't mean you win. You seem to be going 
a step further and saying her opponent was 
never even cornered, which makes your 
accusation, quoted above, meaningless. Or 
perhaps the accusation was true at the time 
it was made but subsequent evidence shows 
that not only is Judy a liar about never 
calling herself the winner, she has also 
misrepresented Uncle Tantra's actions as 
indicating that he was cornered when he wasn't. 

Or have the two of you switched sides while 
I wasn't looking?"

Read more:

From: Pansy Bassingthwaighte
Subject: Re: Judge Judy and her Many Hats
Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic, 
alt.bible, alt.christnet, 
alt.meditation.transcendental, 
alt.meditation
Date: October 12, 2003
http://tinyurl.com/nm4593

[FairfieldLife] Re: Happy Birthday wayback71

[Duveyoung]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> Today is her birthday. She doesn't visit often, but it's always nice when
> she does. Happy Birthday to her!

That goes double for me.come back Wayback come back!

Edg

[FairfieldLife] Alex invaded the poster's privacy (Re: Rick Archer: )

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> below
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"
>  wrote:

> > There's nothing wrong with going off on tangents. What I object
> > to is the insistence that I participate in the discussion of
> > them.
> 
> But your moderator status doesn't give you that luxury if the FFL
> policy is being examined.  

My being a moderator does not obligate me to discus group policy issues. For 
example, I was not at all involved in establishing posting limits. I just do my 
best to channel my Inner Rick and carry out his rules as he would want them 
carried out. My duties here consist of handling subscriptions, dealing with 
spammers, and maintaining the Post Count script. That's it. I don't even read 
most of the traffic here.

The person you need a response from is Rick, and apparently he's even less 
inclined to respond to you than I am. Good luck with that.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Money-Driven Medicine: Real Reason Health Care Costs So Much

[Bhairitu]

do.rflex wrote:
> About the Film
>
> Money-Driven Medicine explores how a profit-driven health care system 
> squanders billions of health care dollars, while exposing millions of 
> patients to unnecessary or redundant tests, unproven, sometimes unwanted 
> procedures, and over-priced drugs and devices that, too often, are no better 
> than the less expensive products they have replaced. 
>
> In remarkably candid interviews both doctors and patients tell the riveting, 
> sometimes funny, and often wrenching stories of a system where medicine has 
> become a business. "We are paid to do things to patients," says one doctor. 
> "We are not paid to talk to them." 
>
> Watch trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE1TJyFeuuw
>
>
> MORE here: http://snipurl.com/jrn5v
Ain't capitalism wonderful!  NOT!  It has become an out-of-hand 
Frankenstein monster.  It breeds chaos and inequity.   Capitalism's role 
is to fill in where government is inappropriate.  Total capitalism would 
be as much a nightmare as total government.  There is a balance point 
somewhere.

Once upon a time medicine was a practice not a business.  Dentistry was 
a practice not a business.  But greed and survival is driving everyone 
out after the money.  An "I'll get mine while I can" attitude.  The 
moral equivalent of "every man for himself."  All you have to do is look 
around and notice given a recession and encroaching depression what 
businesses are doing about it.  Some are greedy and doing the "I'll get 
mine while I can" approach while others are figuring ways to make their 
goods and services more affordable so they stay in business.  The 
"health industry" seems to be taking the former approach to get theirs 
"while they can."  They may soon be out of  business.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[Duveyoung]

RD,

Yeah, total agreement with you below.

I do think/wish-it's-true that Obama has seriously had to bite his tongue and 
deal with the devil when it comes to these major concessions that I as an 
outsider think he's making.

I'm thinking of John, Martin and Bobby.  Call me a conspiracy nut if you must, 
but Obama does have some real world examples of what happens to presidents and 
other leaders. Obama can only push so hard, before he's entering that danger 
zone, and if he's tippy toes around the military industry, I can understand.  I 
mean, how did J.Edgar Hoover keep his job for so many presidencies?  Hoover had 
some power it seems.  

I ask you straight out:  

"If Obama had already closed down Guantanamo by bringing all those prisoners 
here to our courts, and it was then shown again and again that the evidence 
against many if not most of them did not come up to American standards of 
habeas corpus and exposing our military as festering with brutes and perverts, 
and there were world wide riots protesting the revelations, and 

if Obama had completely gotten our army out of Iraq, and now Iraq was killing 
themselves with a religious civil war, and 

if Obama had gotten congress to pass a single-payer health plan that virtually 
put most insurance companies out of business overnight, and 

if Obama had vetoed the bailout bill and the entire economy of the world had 
collapsed, what would RaunchyDog and Edg be saying about Obama's brute force 
tactics that had caused such upheaval in American life?"

I think you and I would be shouting about his impatience, his bullying, his 
uncaringness, etc.

Like I said, "Triage sucks."

Edg  

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> >
> > I have yet to see Judy explain what she'd do as president that wouldn't be 
> > subject to the gut-wrenching onus of picking of one's battles and doing 
> > triage.
> > 
> 
> Edg, Thanks for posting this. At long last, you are the first person on 
> FFLife willing to discuss political issues that should matter to people of 
> good conscience instead of flinging crap, which I have have no problem 
> indulging in if the crap hits me first. 
> 
> > Obama has not finished even his second 100 days, and he's being judged for 
> > having a "failed presidency," because he's not moved forward on several 
> > very important issues.
> > 
> 
> Wrong. No one has ever said Obama has a failed presidency, just that the 
> issues he has already moved on do not indicate the direction of "changing the 
> politics of Washington" as he promised.
> 
> > Yet, we don't see Judy explaining to anyone how it could be done otherwise 
> > when one considers the huge momentum that the various forces-arrayed 
> > represent.  Try to stomp the military industrial complex -- get real.  
> > It'll be a decade long steady push that solves that ill -- not some swift 
> > Gordian Knot cut.  
> > 
> 
> I agree with you on this point in principle, but the polices he has 
> implemented thus far do not indicate he is interested in cutting the Gordian 
> Knot. If you could cite a specific instance for discussion, I would be 
> interested in talking about it. Here's one knot to unravel on a related 
> topic: Why does the Obama administration continue to use a notorious military 
> police unit at Guantanamo that regularly brutalizes unarmed prisoners, 
> including gang-beating them, breaking their bones, gouging their eyes and 
> dousing them with chemicals?"
> 
> http://i1.democracynow.org/2009/5/19/jeremy_scahill_little_known_military_thug
> 
> > Where's your patience, your faith, etc.?  
> > 
> 
> Patience is to virtue as Obama is to politician. The former I trust, the 
> latter I don't no matter who it is.
> 
> > And note that, if I wanted to, I could really rail against Obama's selling 
> > out and that our military is still killing and torturing innocents, etc.  
> > Or, say, his lack of pushing for single-payer I find to be a bowing to 
> > BigPharm and BigInsurance, yet I can see that he's dealing with the devil 
> > and trying to cobble together a health package that doesn't kill these big 
> > industries with their tens of thousands of employees "overnight."  He's 
> > trying to keep people's jobs, ya see?
> > 
> 
> Point well taken. But one must remember that Obama stated that we could 
> implement single payer health care once the Democrats controlled both houses 
> and the presidency. Well the conditions have been met and now a fair question 
> is:
> Was he saying that pandering for votes knowing full well he could not keep 
> his promise?
> 
> > Triage ain't easy, right?
> > 
> 
> > Bush got into office by theft, and I see Judy's issue that Obama 
> > manipulated the election process, but let's put that aside and deal with 
> > the fact that we have a good hearted man who is deeply aware of history and 
> > who's trying to clean up not just Bush's mess but Bill's and many othe

RE: [FairfieldLife] Alex invaded the poster's privacy (Re: Rick Archer: )

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Alex Stanley
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 1:48 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Alex invaded the poster's privacy (Re: Rick Archer:
)
 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> below
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Alex Stanley"
>  wrote:

> > There's nothing wrong with going off on tangents. What I object
> > to is the insistence that I participate in the discussion of
> > them.
> 
> But your moderator status doesn't give you that luxury if the FFL
> policy is being examined. 

My being a moderator does not obligate me to discus group policy issues. For
example, I was not at all involved in establishing posting limits. I just do
my best to channel my Inner Rick and carry out his rules as he would want
them carried out. My duties here consist of handling subscriptions, dealing
with spammers, and maintaining the Post Count script. That's it. I don't
even read most of the traffic here.

The person you need a response from is Rick, and apparently he's even less
inclined to respond to you than I am. Good luck with that.
My comment on the topic is that Alex doesn't eat pizza at his keyboard. He's
a gourmet cook.
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Happy Birthday wayback71

[WillyTex]

Rick Archer wrote:
> > Today is her birthday. She doesn't visit 
> > often, but it's always nice when she does. 
> > Happy Birthday to her!
> >
Duveyoung wrote:
> That goes double for me.come back Wayback 
> come back!
> 
Will you guys please stop outing people. This 
is just outrageous!!!

> > > Happy Birthday wayback71
> > > 

[FairfieldLife] Obama on Single-Payer Healthcare

[do.rflex]

Obama has rejected the idea of establishing a single government insurance 
program, however, saying the U.S. tradition of providing health care through 
employers would make such a shift politically and practically impossible. 

"If I were starting a system from scratch, then I think that the idea of moving 
towards a single-payer system could very well make sense," Obama said in 
response to the questioner in New Mexico, echoing comments he made during his 
presidential campaign. 

"The only problem is that we're not starting from scratch. . . . We don't want 
a huge disruption as we go into health-care reform where suddenly we're trying 
to completely reinvent one-sixth of the economy." 

~~Washington Post: http://snipurl.com/js84c

[FairfieldLife] Alex invaded the poster's privacy (Re: Rick Archer: )

[azgrey]

Edg, respectfully, you really should consider backing off and 
dropping this.

You are coming across as an obsessively ignorant, completely
out of balance manic.

Take a time out and pull it together, please. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> below
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"
>  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"
>  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Alex/Rick,
> > > > >
> > > > > You guys still have not addressed the issue of "stalking."
> > > >
> > > > I haven't because IMO, it's just another case of you going off
> > > > on a tangent. The issue here is whether or not message headers
> > > > are public information. In fact, they ARE public information.
> > > > End of story. If a case of actual stalking happens in the context
> > > > of FFL, and not some bogus accusation of stalking, like the one
> > > > made against Judy, I may be inclined to address that issue.
> > >
> > > Alex,
> > >
> > > So instead of addressing the issue, you're calling it a tangent
> > > and that's how you're going to debate?
> >
> > From my perspective, there is no debate.
> >
> > > Isn't this a case of FFL needing to examine its "stalking policy"
> > > and to definitively handle it?
> >
> > Not in my opinion.
> >
> > > And, so what's so fucking wrong with going off on a tangent? Show
> > > me a thread here that doesn't evolve into other issues and nuances.
> >
> > There's nothing wrong with going off on tangents. What I object to is
> the insistence that I participate in the discussion of them.
> 
> But your moderator status doesn't give you that luxury if the FFL policy
> is being examined.  I contend that it isn't a mountain out of a
> molehill, and that the act of doing look-ups as you have done is a
> modeling to FFL readers and posters that anyone can stalk anyone by any
> means and reveal all sorts of "private" information that can be found in
> the public domain to the readers here.
> 
> Again, I ask, can I hire a detective to see what can be found out about
> your life's mistakes and post that info here?
> 
> If a person is not "in the know about Internet stuff," and you think
> that that's a good enough reason to let them be victimized by yourself,
> hey, that fucking stinks.  Most folks simply don't do their homework,
> and to them you're offering the very very geeky nerd excuse that it's
> okay for you to victimize them, because they don't have your talent for
> technical matters?  You never contacted Nab privately about what you
> were going to do to him.
> 
> I have owned computers since 1980 and only a few weeks ago did I notice
> that Yahoo lets a poster check a box to keep the IP address hidden from
> the likes of you.  See?  It's not that I'm not geeky enough; it's that
> only someone like you resonates with knowing such thingsnot that
> others are too dumb to be concerned.  Frankly, you come off as one of
> these classic nerds who has no life except that one wherein he can lord
> it over others about his insider techno-savvy.  Fine, have your life if
> that's the case, but it's fucking snobby and elitist IMO.
> >
> > > Can I ask you to examine your feelings towards me in the above
> > > regard?  Am I wrong that "reading between the lines" of your
> > > replies it can be surmised that you see me as some sort of "time-
> > > wasting twit of little brain who's making mountains out of
> > > molehills all the time?"  Like that?  Is that your bottom line?
> >
> > Out of that description, I agree with "making mountains out of
> molehills" and "time wasting". I don't think you're little-brained or a
> twit. I see you as needlessly over-emotional and constantly striving to
> find things to be upset about. Engaging you in that particular drama is
> of no interest to me.
> 
> Well, let's balance things with me saying that you've shown almost no
> heart values here, and thus, I surmise that you are incapable of
> emotionally knowing the difference between a mountain and a molehill
> when it comes to the feeling level impact either may wield.  To Nab your
> exposure of his location was egregious and harming, yet you have yet to
> recognize his emotions as "really existing," and that your actions had
> something to do with that.  Not that Nab isn't responsible for handling
> his feelings, but for you to purposefully trigger him without consulting
> him privately first, seems to point to an anti-Nab agenda that you found
> a way to express, and you thought you had complete deniablity about it. 
> I call you on it, and the next thing I know you're belittling me for
> being concerned more than your heart is allowing you to be about the
> core issue of stalking and having an agenda to cherry pick and present a
> negativity.
> 
> I do admire your stated morals about how you do keep private things
> pri

Re: [FairfieldLife] Alex invaded the poster's privacy (Re: Rick Archer: )

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jun 9, 2009, at 2:15 PM, azgrey wrote:


Edg, respectfully, you really should consider backing off and
dropping this.

You are coming across as an obsessively ignorant, completely
out of balance manic.


(Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course...)


Take a time out and pull it together, please.


It just wouldn't be a "normal" day here at FF Life
if Edg wasn't close to the deep end, az...

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Alex invaded the poster's privacy (Re: Rick Archer: )

[Duveyoung]

Actually, I had already decided to drop it.

But, yup, yup, yup, I do love hammering an iota until it's a mere scintillation.

To me, it's agony to decide when to shut up about anything, because anything 
can mean anything and for me, just anything is important. Hee hee.  Tell me 
that it rained in your city today, and I can find a way to spin it into a 
crisis of great import or was on and on about the wonders of weather dynamics.  
It's what I do.  I flesh out skeletons like girls putting on outfits on Barbie. 
 Wait, I meant to say, I can flesh out skeletons like boys with cap guns can 
reenact and reimagine the Okay Corral.  Yeah, that's better.  

Sigh  

On the other hand, there's tons of lurkers here, presumably, who could toss 
their hats into our ring here and thereby urge us all to be more edifyingly 
intent instead of fine-print debates.  As it is now, about all anyone can get 
here is a couple of responses even to the best of posts, and so the illusion is 
that "almost no one's listening, so why be scholarly, and let's all instead 
shoot from the hip.  Call it beta-testing.  If I'm wrong, I don't have to do 
the hard work of discovering it; instead, I can let others do my editing."  
Like that, heh heh.

I just looked in the mirror, and, hmmm, I'd say I'm trending to trollishness 
lately, but I tell myself it's bloggishness.  Between these two bookends I 
rattle mightily.

Edg

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey  wrote:
>
> Edg, respectfully, you really should consider backing off and 
> dropping this.
> 
> You are coming across as an obsessively ignorant, completely
> out of balance manic.
> 
> Take a time out and pull it together, please. 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> >
> > below
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"
> >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alex/Rick,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You guys still have not addressed the issue of "stalking."
> > > > >
> > > > > I haven't because IMO, it's just another case of you going off
> > > > > on a tangent. The issue here is whether or not message headers
> > > > > are public information. In fact, they ARE public information.
> > > > > End of story. If a case of actual stalking happens in the context
> > > > > of FFL, and not some bogus accusation of stalking, like the one
> > > > > made against Judy, I may be inclined to address that issue.
> > > >
> > > > Alex,
> > > >
> > > > So instead of addressing the issue, you're calling it a tangent
> > > > and that's how you're going to debate?
> > >
> > > From my perspective, there is no debate.
> > >
> > > > Isn't this a case of FFL needing to examine its "stalking policy"
> > > > and to definitively handle it?
> > >
> > > Not in my opinion.
> > >
> > > > And, so what's so fucking wrong with going off on a tangent? Show
> > > > me a thread here that doesn't evolve into other issues and nuances.
> > >
> > > There's nothing wrong with going off on tangents. What I object to is
> > the insistence that I participate in the discussion of them.
> > 
> > But your moderator status doesn't give you that luxury if the FFL policy
> > is being examined.  I contend that it isn't a mountain out of a
> > molehill, and that the act of doing look-ups as you have done is a
> > modeling to FFL readers and posters that anyone can stalk anyone by any
> > means and reveal all sorts of "private" information that can be found in
> > the public domain to the readers here.
> > 
> > Again, I ask, can I hire a detective to see what can be found out about
> > your life's mistakes and post that info here?
> > 
> > If a person is not "in the know about Internet stuff," and you think
> > that that's a good enough reason to let them be victimized by yourself,
> > hey, that fucking stinks.  Most folks simply don't do their homework,
> > and to them you're offering the very very geeky nerd excuse that it's
> > okay for you to victimize them, because they don't have your talent for
> > technical matters?  You never contacted Nab privately about what you
> > were going to do to him.
> > 
> > I have owned computers since 1980 and only a few weeks ago did I notice
> > that Yahoo lets a poster check a box to keep the IP address hidden from
> > the likes of you.  See?  It's not that I'm not geeky enough; it's that
> > only someone like you resonates with knowing such thingsnot that
> > others are too dumb to be concerned.  Frankly, you come off as one of
> > these classic nerds who has no life except that one wherein he can lord
> > it over others about his insider techno-savvy.  Fine, have your life if
> > that's the case, but it's fucking snobby and elitist IMO.
> > >
> > > > Can I ask you to examine your feelings towards me in the above
> > > 

[FairfieldLife] Alex invaded the poster's privacy (Re: Rick Archer: )

[Duveyoung]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
>
> On Jun 9, 2009, at 2:15 PM, azgrey wrote:
> 
> > Edg, respectfully, you really should consider backing off and
> > dropping this.
> >
> > You are coming across as an obsessively ignorant, completely
> > out of balance manic.
> 
> (Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course...)
> 
> > Take a time out and pull it together, please.
> 
> It just wouldn't be a "normal" day here at FF Life
> if Edg wasn't close to the deep end, az...
> 
> Sal

I was a diver on my high school swimming team. The deep end is where it's at!

And I ask ya: "What's more important, insight from the depths or gossip about 
the shallow splashings of surface-only paddlers?"

Better to be deep diving and wrong than to be shallow but correct about 
insignificant superficialities. 

One of the best parts about life is that an utter fool can say, "I'm an artist, 
but only the future will judge me so."
 
Edg

[FairfieldLife] The Next President in 2012

[Joe Smith]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1XaQ7tz8uM

[FairfieldLife] Alex invaded the poster's privacy (Re: Rick Archer: )

[WillyTex]

Rick Archer wrote:
> My comment on the topic is that Alex
> doesn't eat pizza at his keyboard.
> He's a gourmet cook.
>
Everyone is a 'gourmet cook' these days!
You've got to 'eat right to keep fit',
said Adelle Davis.

That's right, I guess, but like I told
Rita, 'we've all got to go sometime',
so while you're here, make sure you live
a little.

Yes, you can - you can eat a can of
'beanie-weenies', right out of the can,
right off the stove. Of course I'd never
let Rita see me do that. She's opposed
to drinking milk out of the bottle while
standing in front of the Fridge.

But, it's not all about driving across
town to get some unsulphured raisins at
Whole Foods.

Read some Amazon reviews:

"You don't have to be a health nut to get
success from what's here, you just need
common sense and the information in this
great book." - A Customer

'Let's Eat Right to Keep Fit'
by Adelle Davis
Signet, 1970
http://tinyurl.com/n4sjcc 


That's me in the bus stop, the one sucking in his gut.

Whole Foods Market World Headquarters, Austin, Texas USA

http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/ 

[FairfieldLife] Alex invaded the poster's privacy (Re: Rick Archer: )

[Richard J. Williams]

azgrey wrote:
> Edg, respectfully, you really should 
> consider backing off and dropping this.
> 
> You are coming across as an obsessively 
> ignorant, completely out of balance manic.
> 
> Take a time out and pull it together, 
> please. 
> 
So, it's not all about Alex.

[FairfieldLife] Alex invaded the poster's privacy (Re: Rick Archer: )

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> below
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"
>  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"
>  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Alex/Rick,
> > > > >
> > > > > You guys still have not addressed the issue of "stalking."
> > > >
> > > > I haven't because IMO, it's just another case of you going off
> > > > on a tangent. The issue here is whether or not message headers
> > > > are public information. In fact, they ARE public information.
> > > > End of story. If a case of actual stalking happens in the context
> > > > of FFL, and not some bogus accusation of stalking, like the one
> > > > made against Judy, I may be inclined to address that issue.
> > >
> > > Alex,
> > >
> > > So instead of addressing the issue, you're calling it a tangent
> > > and that's how you're going to debate?
> >
> > From my perspective, there is no debate.
> >
> > > Isn't this a case of FFL needing to examine its "stalking policy"
> > > and to definitively handle it?
> >
> > Not in my opinion.
> >
> > > And, so what's so fucking wrong with going off on a tangent? Show
> > > me a thread here that doesn't evolve into other issues and nuances.
> >
> > There's nothing wrong with going off on tangents. What I object to is
> the insistence that I participate in the discussion of them.
> 
> But your moderator status doesn't give you that luxury if the FFL policy
> is being examined.  I contend that it isn't a mountain out of a
> molehill, and that the act of doing look-ups as you have done is a
> modeling to FFL readers and posters that anyone can stalk anyone by any
> means and reveal all sorts of "private" information that can be found in
> the public domain to the readers here.
> 
> Again, I ask, can I hire a detective to see what can be found out about
> your life's mistakes and post that info here?
> 
> If a person is not "in the know about Internet stuff," and you think
> that that's a good enough reason to let them be victimized by yourself,
> hey, that fucking stinks.  Most folks simply don't do their homework,
> and to them you're offering the very very geeky nerd excuse that it's
> okay for you to victimize them, because they don't have your talent for
> technical matters?

Agreed. And very arrogant. Not than I'm not a arrogant snob, but I don't run 
public forums with the intention of smearing Saints either. With the rumours 
these "friends" have published about well known historical figures you'd never 
know what they'd cook up about you, me, anybody.

You never contacted Nab privately

He doesn't have my emailadress or current location. That's why he is referring 
to some questions I put to him several years ago.

 about what you
> were going to do to him. I have owned computers since 1980 and only a few 
> weeks ago did I notice
> that Yahoo lets a poster check a box to keep the IP address hidden from
> the likes of you.  See?  It's not that I'm not geeky enough; it's that
> only someone like you resonates with knowing such thingsnot that
> others are too dumb to be concerned.  Frankly, you come off as one of
> these classic nerds who has no life except that one wherein he can lord
> it over others about his insider techno-savvy.  Fine, have your life if
> that's the case, but it's fucking snobby and elitist IMO.

And again; extremely arrogant.

> >
> > > Can I ask you to examine your feelings towards me in the above
> > > regard?  Am I wrong that "reading between the lines" of your
> > > replies it can be surmised that you see me as some sort of "time-
> > > wasting twit of little brain who's making mountains out of
> > > molehills all the time?"  Like that?  Is that your bottom line?

Probably. He comes through as a classic slimeball hiding behing a fake mask of 
"humour".


> >
> > Out of that description, I agree with "making mountains out of
> molehills" and "time wasting". I don't think you're little-brained or a
> twit. I see you as needlessly over-emotional and constantly striving to
> find things to be upset about. Engaging you in that particular drama is
> of no interest to me.
> 
> Well, let's balance things with me saying that you've shown almost no
> heart values here, and thus, I surmise that you are incapable of
> emotionally knowing the difference between a mountain and a molehill
> when it comes to the feeling level impact either may wield.  To Nab your
> exposure of his location was egregious and harming,

I might add; potentially harming as he was wrong. Potentially harming not 
because of the CIA, as the Turq wrongfully suggested, they know of me but have 
no interest in my peaceful activities, but because of eastern-european bandits 
operating in Scandinavia, Germany and Austria. That's why that slimeball 
potentially put my life at risk because I publicly offended

[FairfieldLife] Alex invaded the poster's privacy (Re: Rick Archer: )

[Richard J. Williams]

Duveyoung wrote:
> To me, it's agony to decide when
> to shut up about anything...
>
Right, it's been what, thirty years
since you quit working for the TMO
and the Marshy. LOL!

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Next President in 2012

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Smith"  wrote:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1XaQ7tz8uM



According to a recent CNN/Opinion Research poll, the Republican race for 2012 
is a dead heat, with no distinguishable front-runner. The poll shows that 22% 
of Republicans would support former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee for the party's 
nod, 21% would throw their support behind Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and another 
21% would pick former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Also in the poll, Newt Gingrich got 13%, and Jeb Bush got 6%. 

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/06/03/1952314.aspx

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Next President in 2012

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Smith"  wrote:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1XaQ7tz8uM
> 
> 
> 
> According to a recent CNN/Opinion Research poll, the Republican race for 2012 
> is a dead heat, with no distinguishable front-runner. The poll shows that 22% 
> of Republicans would support former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee for the 
> party's nod, 21% would throw their support behind Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, 
> and another 21% would pick former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
> 
> Also in the poll, Newt Gingrich got 13%, and Jeb Bush got 6%. 
> 
> http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/06/03/1952314.aspx
>


But, what about Rush?


L.

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Duveyoung
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 1:51 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
 
RD,

Yeah, total agreement with you below.

I do think/wish-it's-true that Obama has seriously had to bite his tongue
and deal with the devil when it comes to these major concessions that I as
an outsider think he's making.

I'm thinking of John, Martin and Bobby. Call me a conspiracy nut if you
must, but Obama does have some real world examples of what happens to
presidents and other leaders. Obama can only push so hard, before he's
entering that danger zone, and if he's tippy toes around the military
industry, I can understand. I mean, how did J.Edgar Hoover keep his job for
so many presidencies? Hoover had some power it seems. 

I ask you straight out: 

"If Obama had already closed down Guantanamo by bringing all those prisoners
here to our courts, and it was then shown again and again that the evidence
against many if not most of them did not come up to American standards of
habeas corpus and exposing our military as festering with brutes and
perverts, and there were world wide riots protesting the revelations, and 

if Obama had completely gotten our army out of Iraq, and now Iraq was
killing themselves with a religious civil war, and 

if Obama had gotten congress to pass a single-payer health plan that
virtually put most insurance companies out of business overnight, and 

if Obama had vetoed the bailout bill and the entire economy of the world had
collapsed, what would RaunchyDog and Edg be saying about Obama's brute force
tactics that had caused such upheaval in American life?"

I think you and I would be shouting about his impatience, his bullying, his
uncaringness, etc.

Like I said, "Triage sucks."

Edg 
This expresses my take on things. And I anticipated this. Some Lefties
expected Obama to come waltzing like some kind of magician and fulfill all
their fondest hopes and dreams. I suppose Ron Paul folks thought the same of
him. He would have smashed into an immovable wall. Obama is better at
dancing the dance. I think he has a keen sense of just how far he can push
things, and when he needs to go easy if he wants to accomplish anything.
That doesn't mean that I agree with everything he's doing, but I credit him
with the intelligence, the access to information, and the experience to do a
better job than just about anyone else could be doing at this point.
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and initiations fees.

[Richard J. Williams]

Vaj wrote:
> I don't believe any of them consider 
> these TM-induced apneas significant...
>
There is no medical evidence of a sleep 
apnea induced by TM practice. In most 
cases, TM doesn't cause sleeping, but a 
'rest-full alertness'. This was 
demonstrated by Steve Perino, who had 
no indications of physiological sleeping 
apnea. 

In contrast, sleep apnea is considered a 
sleep disorder which is characterized 
by pauses in breathing during sleep. 
Sleeping or sleeping apnea has nothing to 
do with TM meditation practice. 

Read more:

Sleep apnea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_apnea

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

There are no 'pauses in breathing' in 
TM practice, only a slight reduction in 
CO2 output, but suspension of external 
breathing in sleep apnea shows the volume 
of the lungs to be unchanged. This has 
been measured by Herbert Benson and Keith
Wallace. 

"Dr. Benson verified the physiological 
changes brought about by meditation and 
Christian prayer, then cut away the 
mythology, dogma, and ritual. The process 
which remained is simple enough to fit on 
two pages of the book..." - Anthony P. Mayo

Read more:

'The Relaxation Response'
by Herbert Benson, M.D.
Harper, 1975 
http://tinyurl.com/koptfh

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[Robert]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Duveyoung
> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 1:51 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV
>  
> RD,
> 
> Yeah, total agreement with you below.
> 
> I do think/wish-it's-true that Obama has seriously had to bite his tongue
> and deal with the devil when it comes to these major concessions that I as
> an outsider think he's making.
> 
> I'm thinking of John, Martin and Bobby. Call me a conspiracy nut if you
> must, but Obama does have some real world examples of what happens to
> presidents and other leaders. Obama can only push so hard, before he's
> entering that danger zone, and if he's tippy toes around the military
> industry, I can understand. I mean, how did J.Edgar Hoover keep his job for
> so many presidencies? Hoover had some power it seems. 
> 
> I ask you straight out: 
> 
> "If Obama had already closed down Guantanamo by bringing all those prisoners
> here to our courts, and it was then shown again and again that the evidence
> against many if not most of them did not come up to American standards of
> habeas corpus and exposing our military as festering with brutes and
> perverts, and there were world wide riots protesting the revelations, and 
> 
> if Obama had completely gotten our army out of Iraq, and now Iraq was
> killing themselves with a religious civil war, and 
> 
> if Obama had gotten congress to pass a single-payer health plan that
> virtually put most insurance companies out of business overnight, and 
> 
> if Obama had vetoed the bailout bill and the entire economy of the world had
> collapsed, what would RaunchyDog and Edg be saying about Obama's brute force
> tactics that had caused such upheaval in American life?"
> 
> I think you and I would be shouting about his impatience, his bullying, his
> uncaringness, etc.
> 
> Like I said, "Triage sucks."
> 
> Edg 
> This expresses my take on things. And I anticipated this. Some Lefties
> expected Obama to come waltzing like some kind of magician and fulfill all
> their fondest hopes and dreams. I suppose Ron Paul folks thought the same of
> him. He would have smashed into an immovable wall. Obama is better at
> dancing the dance. I think he has a keen sense of just how far he can push
> things, and when he needs to go easy if he wants to accomplish anything.
> That doesn't mean that I agree with everything he's doing, but I credit him
> with the intelligence, the access to information, and the experience to do a
> better job than just about anyone else could be doing at this point.
>
He is the best man for the job, at this time, and we should be thankful, that 
we have this good man,
Who has taken on this task of immense proportions...


Can you even imagine, the alternative?
Sarah Palin, Seductress in Chief?

What a country, huh?
Only in America!
R.g.

[FairfieldLife] Why it's good to be a dreamer: Solutions often come during sleep

[do.rflex]

 WASHINGTON — A California dream researcher has proven something that wouldn't 
surprise Mozart or Keith Richards. It's that dreaming is a great way to solve 
creative problems.

Dr. Sara Mednick, a sleep psychologist at the University of California, San 
Diego, found that subjects who, between morning and afternoon word-game 
sessions, took a nap that included a period of lively dreaming called REM 
sleep, improved their later scores by 40 percent.

Scores for those who merely rested or whose naps included no REM sleep didn't 
budge, Mednick reports in Monday's online edition of the Proceedings of the 
National Academy of Sciences. REM sleep is the most conked-out stage of 
slumber, named after the rapid eye movement that characterizes it.

The idea that dreams have creative utility isn't new. Richards, for one, has 
said that he dreamed the riff that underlies the Rolling Stones song 
"Satisfaction," and Mozart claimed some of his music came to him in dreams. 

But Mednick's work sheds new light on the process.

In her experiment, REM sleepers scored higher in the afternoon mainly because 
they, at some level, recognized what the others didn't: that half the words 
that that were the correct answers to the morning's puzzles were also correct 
answers to the afternoon's.

"REM sleep allowed subjects to access and utilize for creative problem solving 
supposedly irrelevant information," Mednick said in an e-mail. She theorizes 
that without thinking about it, REM sleepers created flexible new associations 
with the morning's winning words while they were sleeping that made it easier 
to call up those words in the afternoon.

Creative problem-solving that entails dreams, Mednick continued, typically 
begins with a period of unsuccessful effort. That's followed by a decision to 
set the problem aside, then a lull in which the thinker does no conscious work 
to find a solution. Finally, the fresh solution enters consciousness in a dream 
and is recognized upon awakening.

And why does the magic moment tend to occur during REM or rapid-eye-movement 
sleep, as Mednick's experiment suggests? She theorizes that it's a time when 
the brain's neocortex, the part of its gray matter associated with thinking, is 
free to integrate fresh information and malleable ideas and memories into a new 
synthesis: a eureka moment.

The process works especially well for musicians, scientists and artists whose 
challenges are analogous to the neocortex's, Mednick said. That is, to make new 
connections among bits and pieces of familiar elements.

To test her findings, Mednick said, she recently applied the method to a hobby: 
songwriting.

She went to sleep, Mednick said, thinking of the word "pyrite," as in "iron 
pyrite," also known as fool's gold, hoping to dream up a song of thwarted love.

She woke up, Mednick said, with the lyrics to "Love Like Pyrite" pouring out of 
her head, ready for her garage band to attack.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/69680.html

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Next President in 2012

[Mike Dixon]

That would be a pay cut for him.

--- On Tue, 6/9/09, sparaig  wrote:


From: sparaig 
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Next President in 2012
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2009, 8:26 PM








--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "Joe Smith"  wrote:
> >
> > http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=T1XaQ7tz8uM
> 
> 
> 
> According to a recent CNN/Opinion Research poll, the Republican race for 2012 
> is a dead heat, with no distinguishable front-runner. The poll shows that 22% 
> of Republicans would support former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee for the 
> party's nod, 21% would throw their support behind Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, 
> and another 21% would pick former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
> 
> Also in the poll, Newt Gingrich got 13%, and Jeb Bush got 6%. 
> 
> http://firstread. msnbc.msn. com/archive/ 2009/06/03/ 1952314.aspx
>

But, what about Rush?

L.

















  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Next President in 2012

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jun 9, 2009, at 3:13 PM, do.rflex wrote:

According to a recent CNN/Opinion Research poll, the Republican race  
for 2012 is a dead heat, with no distinguishable front-runner. The  
poll shows that 22% of Republicans would support former Arkansas  
Gov. Mike Huckabee for the party's nod, 21% would throw their  
support behind Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and another 21% would pick  
former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.


Now there's a crop of winners...


Also in the poll, Newt Gingrich got 13%, and Jeb Bush got 6%.


Even better!

Sal

[FairfieldLife] The "Star" Sign

[nablusoss1008]

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

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why it's good to be a dreamer: Solutions often come during sleep

[Robert]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
>  WASHINGTON — A California dream researcher has proven something that 
> wouldn't surprise Mozart or Keith Richards. It's that dreaming is a great way 
> to solve creative problems.
> 
Keith Richards? Really
I heard that Paul McCartney, heard the melody, for the song 'Yesterday'...in a 
dream...
The original words were: 'Scrambled Eggs, all my troubles seemed so far 
away...now, it looks as though, they're here to stay...
Oh, I believe in 'Scrambled Eggs'...
R.G.






> Dr. Sara Mednick, a sleep psychologist at the University of California, San 
> Diego, found that subjects who, between morning and afternoon word-game 
> sessions, took a nap that included a period of lively dreaming called REM 
> sleep, improved their later scores by 40 percent.
> 
> Scores for those who merely rested or whose naps included no REM sleep didn't 
> budge, Mednick reports in Monday's online edition of the Proceedings of the 
> National Academy of Sciences. REM sleep is the most conked-out stage of 
> slumber, named after the rapid eye movement that characterizes it.
> 
> The idea that dreams have creative utility isn't new. Richards, for one, has 
> said that he dreamed the riff that underlies the Rolling Stones song 
> "Satisfaction," and Mozart claimed some of his music came to him in dreams. 
> 
> But Mednick's work sheds new light on the process.
> 
> In her experiment, REM sleepers scored higher in the afternoon mainly because 
> they, at some level, recognized what the others didn't: that half the words 
> that that were the correct answers to the morning's puzzles were also correct 
> answers to the afternoon's.
> 
> "REM sleep allowed subjects to access and utilize for creative problem 
> solving supposedly irrelevant information," Mednick said in an e-mail. She 
> theorizes that without thinking about it, REM sleepers created flexible new 
> associations with the morning's winning words while they were sleeping that 
> made it easier to call up those words in the afternoon.
> 
> Creative problem-solving that entails dreams, Mednick continued, typically 
> begins with a period of unsuccessful effort. That's followed by a decision to 
> set the problem aside, then a lull in which the thinker does no conscious 
> work to find a solution. Finally, the fresh solution enters consciousness in 
> a dream and is recognized upon awakening.
> 
> And why does the magic moment tend to occur during REM or rapid-eye-movement 
> sleep, as Mednick's experiment suggests? She theorizes that it's a time when 
> the brain's neocortex, the part of its gray matter associated with thinking, 
> is free to integrate fresh information and malleable ideas and memories into 
> a new synthesis: a eureka moment.
> 
> The process works especially well for musicians, scientists and artists whose 
> challenges are analogous to the neocortex's, Mednick said. That is, to make 
> new connections among bits and pieces of familiar elements.
> 
> To test her findings, Mednick said, she recently applied the method to a 
> hobby: songwriting.
> 
> She went to sleep, Mednick said, thinking of the word "pyrite," as in "iron 
> pyrite," also known as fool's gold, hoping to dream up a song of thwarted 
> love.
> 
> She woke up, Mednick said, with the lyrics to "Love Like Pyrite" pouring out 
> of her head, ready for her garage band to attack.
> 
> http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/69680.html
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Next President in 2012

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
>
> On Jun 9, 2009, at 3:13 PM, do.rflex wrote:
> 
> > According to a recent CNN/Opinion Research poll, the Republican race  
> > for 2012 is a dead heat, with no distinguishable front-runner. The  
> > poll shows that 22% of Republicans would support former Arkansas  
> > Gov. Mike Huckabee for the party's nod, 21% would throw their  
> > support behind Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and another 21% would pick  
> > former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
> 
> Now there's a crop of winners...
> 
> > Also in the poll, Newt Gingrich got 13%, and Jeb Bush got 6%.
> 
> Even better!
> 
> Sal


Good laughs, Sal.

[FairfieldLife] USB nuke

[bob_brigante]

http://snipurl.com/jsio3  [www_rr_com] 

[FairfieldLife] Earl Kaplan Gets His Business Back

[Joe Smith]

My brother's kid started this online fish business when he was 20 years old 
during the dot.com 90s, selling fish by mail order using a process he invented, 
oxygenating water in plastic bags which would allow five day delivery of fish. 
He guaranteed it. Petstore.com bought him out for an undisclosed amount and 
then proceeded to run the business into the ground. My brother's kid then 
bought it back, rebuilt the business and then sold it a second time for more 
millions. Readers Digest probably couldn't handle the system of contracted book 
sales at conventions, schools, etc and sold it back to Earl.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS243833+12-Nov-2008+PRN20081112

[FairfieldLife] Alex invaded the poster's privacy (Re: Rick Archer: )

[nablusoss1008]

>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> >
> > below
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"
> >  wrote:

> > Bingo! You're a classic geek snob. 
> > 
> > Edg



BINGO ! 

And may I add that Alex Stanley is also a first class, bonifide, A-1, Horses 
Ass, as well as a slimeball and Rick Archers personal "friend". 

Not that there is anything wrong with being Rick's personal "friend".

[FairfieldLife] GDP strange map

[bob_brigante]

http://snipurl.com/jskjv   
[strangemaps_wordpress_com]

replacing state names with countries of similar GDP:

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Money-Driven Medicine: Real Reason Health Care Costs So Much

[Richard J. Williams]

Bhairitu wrote:
> They may soon be out of  business...
>
There's only one small little problem 
with your proposal - it's against the 
U.S. Constitution. Maybe you have not 
thought this through very much. It's 
illegal in most states to cause a riot 
for means of promoting anarchy. 

"I will never vote for legislation 
unless the proposed measure is expressly 
authorized by the Constitution." - Ron Paul

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> RD,
> 
> Yeah, total agreement with you below.
> 
> I do think/wish-it's-true that Obama has seriously had to bite his tongue and 
> deal with the devil when it comes to these major concessions that I as an 
> outsider think he's making.
> 
> I'm thinking of John, Martin and Bobby.  Call me a conspiracy nut if you 
> must, but Obama does have some real world examples of what happens to 
> presidents and other leaders. Obama can only push so hard, before he's 
> entering that danger zone, and if he's tippy toes around the military 
> industry, I can understand.  I mean, how did J.Edgar Hoover keep his job for 
> so many presidencies?  Hoover had some power it seems.  
> 
> I ask you straight out:  
> 
> "If Obama had already closed down Guantanamo by bringing all those prisoners 
> here to our courts, and it was then shown again and again that the evidence 
> against many if not most of them did not come up to American standards of 
> habeas corpus and exposing our military as festering with brutes and 
> perverts, and there were world wide riots protesting the revelations, and 
> 

Wouldn't it be refreshing to have a president that had enough guts to speak the 
truth on principle regardless of the consequences?  Isn't that the president 
type of president Obama supporters wanted?  I never believed all the 
hopey-changey rhetoric for a minute, so I'm never going to be as disappointed 
in Obama as his most ardent followers probably will. 

I've been a staunch Democrat my whole life, a political junky with a habit of 
paying close attention to the details of policy, issues and record of a 
politician rather than feel good slogans. Initially I leaned toward Edwards but 
Hillary spoke with depth and intelligence on the issues, had the heart of a 
true blue Democrat and she was exactly what I wanted to see in a presidential 
candidate.  I couldn't see the heart of a Democrat behind Obama's rhetorical 
mask, demagoguery and the messianic worship he inspired in his followers.  I 
felt the blind devotion of his supporters was unhealthy for the political 
process, short circuiting an honest review of issues and it left me suspicious 
of his motives.  

Recently, you may recall, Obama opened a can of worms by releasing Bush's 
torture memos then left Pelosi twisting in the wind defending herself against 
Republicans who predictably shifted the focus of their culpability to 
Democrats. Republicans breached state secrets and revealed the CIA had briefed 
Nancy about "harsh interrogation techniques."  Her only wiggle out of it was to 
imply that the CIA had not been entirely truthful in disclosing information on 
the program. So there we have it folks...mutual finger pointing in the service 
of obfuscating who knew what and when and preventing an honest hearing of 
Bush's War Crimes.  

Question:  Did Obama release the memos to simply pander to the left knowing 
that every politician with access to national security information would 
immediately start finger pointing and stymie an investigation or was he just 
plain naive?  The thing that makes me suspicious Obama was Kabuki dancing for 
the left was the fact that he never gave Nancy any cover by advocating for her 
against the Republicans.

As a follow up to the whole mess, Obama weaseled out by deciding to suppress 
release of the torture photos.  Then to back him up Lindsey Graham and Joe 
Lieberman promptly made an amendment to the war supplemental bill, which Obama 
supported, called the "photo suppression amendment" forbidding release of the 
torture photos.

Glenn Greenwald recently wrote on this subject disagreeing with Obama's refusal 
to release the torture photos. In an update, Glenn wrote this stunning report 
today: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ Yesterday, I posted that the 
Graham-Lieberman amendment was off the table, thanks to the activism of Jane 
Hamsher and Marcy Wheeler at Firedoglake.

Do you remember when Nancy Pelosi became Speaker in 2006? I thought, "This is 
great! Finally the Democrats control both houses, and those Republican rats in 
the Bush Administration responsible for shredding our Constitution will finally 
see justice."  Were you as disappointed as I was when the first thing out of 
her mouth was, "impeachment is off the table?"  IMO there is an illness of 
acquiescence in government as well as the electorate and Obama needs to clean 
house as he promised.  I'll get to the rest of your questions later when I have 
more time. Thanks for playing.
 
> if Obama had completely gotten our army out of Iraq, and now Iraq was killing 
> themselves with a religious civil war, and 
> 
> if Obama had gotten congress to pass a single-payer health plan that 
> virtually put most insurance companies out of business overnight, and 
> 
> if Obama had vetoed the bailout bill and the entire economy of the world had 
> collapsed, what would RaunchyDog and Edg be saying about Obama's b

Re: [FairfieldLife] GDP strange map

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jun 9, 2009, at 4:40 PM, bob_brigante wrote:

http://snipurl.com/jskjv  [strangemaps_wordpress_com]

replacing state names with countries of similar GDP:

Iowa becomes Venezuela--I can live with that.

Missouri becomes Poland--figures.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary Clinton on Sunday TV

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert"  wrote:
>
> Can you even imagine, the alternative?
> Sarah Palin, Seductress in Chief?
> 
> What a country, huh?
> Only in America!
> R.g.
>

Oh right Robert, is that the best you have to offer to the discussion? How 
about picking an issue we can actually talk about such as (O.K. I pick 
something simple for you) why has the closing of Guantanamo stalled?

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why it's good to be a dreamer: Solutions often come during sleep

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Robert
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 3:55 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why it's good to be a dreamer: Solutions often
come during sleep
 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "do.rflex"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON - A California dream researcher has proven something that
wouldn't surprise Mozart or Keith Richards. It's that dreaming is a great
way to solve creative problems.
> 
Keith Richards? Really
I heard that Paul McCartney, heard the melody, for the song 'Yesterday'...in
a dream...
The original words were: 'Scrambled Eggs, all my troubles seemed so far
away...now, it looks as though, they're here to stay...
Oh, I believe in 'Scrambled Eggs'...
Here were his original lyrics:
Scrambled Eggs  , 
Have an   omelette with some
Muenster cheese  , 
Put your dishes in the washbin please, 
So I can clean the scrambled eggs. 

Join me, do, 
There's a lot of eggs for me and you, 
I've got ham and cheese and bacon too, 
So go get two and join me do. 

Fried or sunny side, 
Just aren't right, 
The mix-bowl begs, 
Quick, go get a pan, and we'll scramble up some eggs, eggs, eggs, eggs. 

Scrambled eggs, 
Good for breakfast, dinner time or brunch
 , 
Don't buy six or twelve, buy a bunch, 
And we'll have a lunch on scrambled eggs.
>From http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Yesterday:song.htm