[FairfieldLife] Re: Can Machines Develop Consciousness?

[dhamiltony2k5]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> >
> > To All:
> > 
> > Machines can play chess, and compute equations in nanoseconds.  
> > But at the present state of technology, it can't think and 
> > understand the meaning of, "I think, therefore I am".  But 
> > scientists are worried, nonetheless of the future possibilities 
> > of machines.
> 
> I am always amused when TMers trot out Descartes'
> old saw as if it were profound philosophy. Espec-
> ially because if their TM practice were working 
> the way they claim it is, they should have the
> experience of disproving it twice daily.
> 
> You am, therefore you think. Or you am and not 
> think, depending on the circumstances. 
> 
> Stop trying to put Descartes before the horse...
>

As mortals living in the internet age, isn't it now 'you post therefore you 
are' and when your ISP link goes down it's then,  'publish or perish'.

The soul search of the weekly 50 post limit we see.  A spiritual practice in 
FFL guideline for some like a guided meditation for others.

Thanks for the mindful post Turq.

JGD,
-D in FF

[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM enrollment etc

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, scienceofabundance  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG."  wrote:
> > >
> > > So what is the purpose of Gay sex? I mean, why do men 
> > > have sex with other men? I mean, I can understand men 
> > > hugging each other to show their mutual love, and even 
> > > kiss in some cultures, but SEX? Why would you need to 
> > > have sex with someone of the same sex to show them that 
> > > you love them?
> > 
> > It has something to do with your Willie getting hard.
> 
> Funny. I like the way you capitalize "Willie". Yes, we  
> must honor The Penis.

It's a spiritual thing, the same way that Nabby
capitalizes "He" and "Him" when referring to 
Maharishi. Gotta honor that which you worship. :-)

Billy does the same thing in his original question
by capitalizing Gay. That must means that subcon-
sciously he worships gayness. 

And who knows *what* his use of full caps for SEX
must mean. He does seem to talk about SEX more 
often than any other fearful celibate I've ever met. 

Just joshin' wit ya, Billy. But I do have a reply
to your question. Simply turn your last sentence
around: "Why would you NOT have sex with someone 
of the same sex to show them that you love them?"
Or even more fundamental, "Why would you NOT have 
sex with someone of ANY sex to show them that you 
love them?"

Please answer this for us.

My suspicion is that you cannot do so without 1)
appealing to some "authority" or "scripture" that
you believe in, and 2) using that "authority" or
"scripture" to pretend that there is something
inherently "wrong" or "bad" about sex unless it 
is done in circumstances that the "authority" 
or "scripture" wants it done in.

My opinion? Sex is no more "wrong" or "bad" than
any other bodily function. Only thinking makes it
so. To believe that sex is inherently "wrong" and
that you should abstain from it makes as much 
sense as believing that taking a dump is "wrong"
and that you should abstain from that, too.

It's OK to believe the latter, I guess, but all 
that happens is that you wind up becoming all anal
retentive and full of shit. My feeling is that 
the same thing happens if you believe in the 
former as well.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM enrollment etc

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, scienceofabundance  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> >
> > Sorry mate, that's not my experience. I've seen gays agressively 
> > getting on to hetero fellows on the tube, expecially young boys, 
> > to the effect that the police had to be summoned. 
> > 
> > Not that there is anything wrong with it... being gay. 
> > But they should stay the f... away from heteros not wanting 
> > their attention.
> 
> I don't think you have the faintest idea how fabricated/conjured 
> your  responses appear.

He really doesn't. Then again, our Nabby also 
believes that the people on this forum who criticize
Maharishi and the TMO are being paid by the CIA to
do so.  :-)

It's a self importance thang. Anyone who believes in
something different than he does is doing it to spite
him or attack him or "steal his energy" somehow. It's
all about him. 

You see the same levels of self-important paranoia in 
TBs of "other stripes" as well. Raunchy and Judy are
*still* trying to claim that someone suggesting that
they are so angry that they are in danger of bursting
into flames (the well-known phenomenon of "spontaneous
human combustion") is a "death threat." Judy says *with
a straight face* that the cop she accuses of "entrap-
ment" lured the black professor out onto his porch *so
that* he could arrest him. Cuckoo.

Once it's become an established pattern of thinking,
the paranoid see nothing *unusual* about their paranoia.
They don't think twice about saying stuff like this.

Other people, a bit more balanced, listen to what they
say and start looking for the tin foil hat.

[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM Enrollment etc

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, scienceofabundance  wrote:
>
> I've been thinking of how little can be inferred from the 
> titles of FFL posts as we wind our way through topics 
> completely unrelated to the original title. 
> 
> Thinking of this, I just entered "MUM Enrollment" into 
> Bing.com and guess what came up as the third (!) entry? 
> Just read between the lines!
> _
> Message #225652
> Re: MUM enrollment etc   Saturday, July  25th, 2009
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Regarding male Teachers; I would love to meet a
> > > female Lama, are there any ? If not, why not ?
> >
> > Nabby is still reluctant to admit to being gay, but I think it's
> > a positive step that he has admitted his...uh...fondness for
> > animals, so here's a female lama I think he'd hit it off with:
> >
> > [http://uweb.und.nodak.edu/~andrew.thole/BusterLlama.jpg]
> >
> > I love her. She is one cute llama!
> ___
> 
> In Google, the first two (!) entries were from the "MUM 
> Enrollment" thread - but from a few days ago.
> 
> I cannot imagine what someone who is looking for MUM 
> enrollment numbers would think as s/he sees these entries.

I would expect that if the person doing the search
were interested in either gay sex or sex with llamas,
they would realize that they should definitely enroll 
at MUM.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM Enrollment etc

[dhamiltony2k5]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, scienceofabundance  wrote:
>
> I've been thinking of how little can be inferred from the titles of FFL posts 
> as we wind our way through topics completely unrelated to the original title. 
>

Yea, seems is an un-written FFL policy guideline of 'don't ask, don't tell, & 
don't change the subject heading' and then really see who is really reading all 
this stuff.

Is just the way it goes. 

Got to act quick or it all goes by fast. 4instance, i did had some anecdotal 
things from the street about enrollments at MSAE to post back a while ago that 
i dropped instead once the original thread about MUM enrollment got overrun 
with the homosexual stuff.  But the homosexual stuff at MUM became interesting 
pulp in its moment instead.

Is just the way of it on the internet publishing.

I do find it helps a lot to set my spam filter against the non-meditators on 
the FFL list.  Is way more useful and effective to just read the posts of the 
practicing meditators.  When non-meditators actualy have something worthwhile 
to write it gets picked up in the echo later by better more germain meditating 
FFL writers.

JGD, -D
 
> Thinking of this, I just entered "MUM Enrollment" into Bing.com and guess 
> what came up as the third (!) entry? Just read between the lines!
> _
> Message #225652
> Re: MUM enrollment etc   Saturday, July  25th, 2009
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Regarding male Teachers; I would love to meet a
> > > female Lama, are there any ? If not, why not ?
> >
> > Nabby is still reluctant to admit to being gay, but I think it's
> > a positive step that he has admitted his...uh...fondness for
> > animals, so here's a female lama I think he'd hit it off with:
> >
> > [http://uweb.und.nodak.edu/~andrew.thole/BusterLlama.jpg]
> >
> > I love her. She is one cute llama!
> ___
> In Google, the first two (!) entries were from the "MUM Enrollment" thread - 
> but from a few days ago.
> 
> I cannot imagine what someone who is looking for MUM enrollment numbers would 
> think as s/he sees these entries.
>

[FairfieldLife] Crowley Breaks Protocol

[Joe Smith]

Sergeant Crowley broke protocol when he responded to a break in at Dr. Gates 
house. After he established identification of the owner of the house, Gates 
himself, Crowley was then supposed to have had Gates wait outside while he 
(Crowley) went back inside with assistance and *clear* the house. This means he 
was supposed to have completely checked out the house for possible intruders.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090726/ap_on_re_us/us_harvard_scholar_disorderly

[FairfieldLife] Re: Can Machines Develop Consciousness?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> To All:
> 
> Machines can play chess, and compute equations in nanoseconds.  
> But at the present state of technology, it can't think and 
> understand the meaning of, "I think, therefore I am".  But 
> scientists are worried, nonetheless of the future possibilities 
> of machines.

I am always amused when TMers trot out Descartes'
old saw as if it were profound philosophy. Espec-
ially because if their TM practice were working 
the way they claim it is, they should have the
experience of disproving it twice daily.

You am, therefore you think. Or you am and not 
think, depending on the circumstances. 

Stop trying to put Descartes before the horse...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" 
wrote:
>
> I missed the story too, so I'm glad Rick posted it.  Thanks again
> Rick. Here's a a blog about it from Dr. Violet Socks, a feminist,
> who has a thoughtful perspective on the story :

Once again, Raunchy has posted an opinion by a "feminist"
but without posting her photo, so we can add data to our
ongoing study of whether they are mainly homely or not.
I rectify the situation by posting "Dr." Sock's own bio below,
with obviously fake but entertaining photo.

I actually like this one, because the Virginia blogster seems
1) to have a sense of humor, and 2) to be aware that she is
a completely-made-up creation with no credibility whatsoever.
That's a rare quality in a blogger, much less a feminist blogger.

Dr. Violet Socks (currently deceased) is a fictional character and the
author of the blog Reclusive Leftist. In her youth she was a bonne
vivante and circus performer; now she is a crabbed and eccentric recluse
who occupies a small house deep in the forest, where she writes and
researches topics of interest. She is accompanied by her faithful dog
Molly.
Dr. Socks's tenure as the host of Reclusive Leftist has been marked
by a number of startling personal transformations, as well as assaults
by sinister miscreants. On April 1, 2006, she briefly became a Christian
  following a phone call with
Naomi Wolf and a mystical encounter with a paperback copy of The Origin
of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. This brief but
horrifying incident left deep psychic wounds from which neither Dr.
Socks nor her dog have ever entirely recovered.

In August 2006, Dr. Socks's body was overtaken by a virus
 , which proceeded to seize
control of the blog and begin writing posts about Jonas Salk. The
Virus's week-long spree came to end when Dr. Socks unexpectedly won
the death match for her soul by dragging herself to the computer and
posting several pictures of ballet dancers.

Barely a month later the blog was occupied by the Ministry of Truth
  while Dr. Socks was attending
a debriefing at the Ministry of Love, though it must be stressed that in
that case Dr. Socks completely welcomed the attention and was deeply and
sincerely grateful to Minitrue for their assistance.

Sometime during the late evening hours of August 10, 2007, Dr. Socks was
assimilated mid-post   by Chris
Clarke's BlogWarBot, resulting in a new, horrifying entity:  Dr.
BlogWarBot Socks  .

This Borg-like creature maintained control of the blog for several days,
until an emergency intervention by a crack team of lolkitteh avatars
 , commanded by the Rev. B.
Dagger Lee, succeeded in removing the alien implants from Dr. Socks on
the morning of August 14.

Death and Removal to the Smoking Lounge

  [The Apotheosis of Dr. Socks]

On August 24, 2007, Dr. Socks was killed
  in a freak accident involving
President Bush, Martin Heidegger, and some smack. Since then she has
devoted herself to dispensing wisdom from the realm beyond and goofing
off in the Spirit Smoking Lounge

, where God occasionally drops by to do tequila shots. She is
accompanied by her spirit boyfriend, Raoul, and — through the magic
of fiction — her still-very-much-alive dog Molly.

> "Jimmy Carter was in the news this past week because of an editorial
>
 -rights-equality>  he wrote for the Observer about how godbaggism is
> used to oppress women. Carter is a lifelong godbag himself, but he
left
> the Baptist Church some time ago when he realized that the dudes
running
> the Southern Baptist Convention weren't going to ease up on the
> misogyny any time soon. In fact, they were hunkering down and ordering
> in giant stocks of canned food for the long haul. "
>
> Jimmy Carter should join the Church of Trope
>
 -church-of-trope/>   Reclusive Leftist
> Violet Socks, Sunday, July 19th, 2009
> By the way, the timing of Carter's editorial appears to be connected
> to something The Elders are doing. The Elders, of course, are a group
of
> wizards who were sent by Valar to assist the people of Middle Earth in
> their contest with Sauron. Since the discords of Melkor they have
sought
> to heal the world of strife and restore the harmonies of Eru, the One,
> who in Arda is called Ilúvatar.
>
> At any rate, The Elders (love that name) are taking on equality for
> women and girls  , which is an excellent
> thing. I am always happy and grateful for any attention to women's
> rights paid by wor

[FairfieldLife] Re: Name one female Buddhist Lama

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool  wrote:
>
> > An equally important high lama, the last Karmapa, took an
> > important role in Pema Chödrön's ordination.
>
> But was he approved by the Dalai Lama?

Absolutely. He had the Dalai Lama's official tattoo
and everything.

 
[http://www.jetcityorange.com/Buddhism/tattoos/Endless-Knot-and-Lotus.jp\
g]

You ain't nuttin' in the Tibetan Buddhist community
until you got yer tats.

[FairfieldLife] MUM Enrollment etc

[scienceofabundance]

I've been thinking of how little can be inferred from the titles of FFL posts 
as we wind our way through topics completely unrelated to the original title. 

Thinking of this, I just entered "MUM Enrollment" into Bing.com and guess what 
came up as the third (!) entry? Just read between the lines!
_
Message #225652
Re: MUM enrollment etc   Saturday, July  25th, 2009

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 
> wrote:
> >
> > Regarding male Teachers; I would love to meet a
> > female Lama, are there any ? If not, why not ?
>
> Nabby is still reluctant to admit to being gay, but I think it's
> a positive step that he has admitted his...uh...fondness for
> animals, so here's a female lama I think he'd hit it off with:
>
> [http://uweb.und.nodak.edu/~andrew.thole/BusterLlama.jpg]
>
> I love her. She is one cute llama!
___
In Google, the first two (!) entries were from the "MUM Enrollment" thread - 
but from a few days ago.

I cannot imagine what someone who is looking for MUM enrollment numbers would 
think as s/he sees these entries.  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: CSA

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante  wrote:

> > > Kinda close to hog heaven, no?
> > 
> > Hog heaven? I have only a vague recollection of a "hog heaven"
> > sign somewhere north of FF on Highway 1. If there's a large-scale
> > hog operation in this area, we're certainly not smelling it down
> > here on 155th street, directly south of the greenhouses.
> >
> 
> Alex, how do you like the big pig's attire? The people who live on
> that property love their pig.  They dress it up in seasonal
> costumes. It has appeared as the Easter Bunny, a Halloween witch,
> and Santa. They should dress it as a pork chop. Now, that would
> be funny. Anyway it's one of the more interesting things to see
> driving north on HWY 1. I don't get any whiff of hog confinement
> when I drive by there.

On my way up to Iowa City this morning, I made a point of looking out for that 
place. The name is actually Hog Haven Agri Sales, and it doesn't appear to me 
to be a hog confinement operation. I seldom travel up that way, and I have 
never noticed the pig statue dressed up in seasonal attire.

[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM enrollment etc

[scienceofabundance]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> Sorry mate, that's not my experience. I've seen gays agressively getting on 
> to hetero fellows on the tube, expecially young boys, to the effect that the 
> police had to be summoned. 
> 
> Not that there is anything wrong with it... being gay. 
> But they should stay the f... away from heteros not wanting their attention.
>

I don't think you have the faintest idea how fabricated/conjured your  
responses appear.

[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM enrollment etc

[scienceofabundance]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG."  wrote:
>
> 
> Sex/Love  Sex/Love  Sex/Love  Separate and distinct!  And for those wishing 
> to push the tantric side of it, I've never heard of tantric gay sex! 
> 
You need to catch up on your reading...

http://tinyurl.com/ktvesb

[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM enrollment etc

[scienceofabundance]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG."  wrote:
> 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > So what is the purpose of Gay sex? I mean, why do men have sex with other 
> > men? I mean, I can understand men hugging each other to show their mutual 
> > love, and even kiss in some cultures, but SEX? Why would you need to have 
> > sex with someone of the same sex to show them that you love them?
> >
> 
> 
> It has something to do with your Willie getting hard.
>
Funny. I like the way you capitalize "Willie".  Yes, we  must honor The Penis.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> Hey that's great, Rick. Thanks for posting good news about women's issues. I 
> always liked Carter for his commitment to public service, especially his work 
> with Habitat for Humanity. His willingness to stand on principle, even this 
> late in life, shows he is a man of integrity. It's amazing, how religion, the 
> supposed fountain of love and kindness, breeds such bigotry and hatred toward 
> gays, people of color and women. 




How do you feel about Carter's stand against abortion, probably the strongest 
opponent of abortion of all 44 presidents?




> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women
> > 7/20/09
> > After more than 60 years together, Jimmy Carter has announced himself at
> > odds with the Southern Baptist Church -- and he's decided it's time they go
> > their separate ways. Via Feministing
> > 
> >  , the former president
> > called the decision "unavoidable" after church leaders prohibited women from
> > being ordained and insisted women be "subservient to their husbands." Said
> > Carter in an essay in The Age
> >  > k0v.html?page=-1>
> >  > k0v.html?page=-1> :
> > At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to  the
> > wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital
> > mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs
> > many  millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives,
> > and  continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and
> > influence within their own communities.
> > 
> > And, later:
> > The truth is that male religious leaders have had -- and still  have -- an
> > option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate  women. They
> > have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the  latter. Their
> > continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for  much of the
> > pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world.  
> > After watching everyone from philandering politicians to Iran's president
> > taking a sudden look heavenwards when the roof starts to come down on them,
> > it's refreshing to see Carter calling out the role of religion in the
> > mistreatment of women. 
> > 
> > The question for Carter -- and for others who find themselves at odds with
> > leadership -- is, when a group you're deeply involved in starts to move away
> > from your own core beliefs, do you stay and try to change from within or, at
> > some point, do you have to look for the exit? Carter did give the former a
> > shot -- in recent years publicly criticizing and distancing himself from
> > church leadership, while staying involved with his church. Now, he's seeing
> > if absence might do what presence did not.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Can Machines Develop Consciousness?

[John]

To All:

Machines can play chess, and compute equations in nanoseconds.  But at the 
present state of technology, it can't think and understand the meaning of, "I 
think, therefore I am".  But scientists are worried, nonetheless of the future 
possibilities of machines.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/science/26robot.html?ref=science

[FairfieldLife] Re: Vote for Curt Hanson House District 90

[bob_brigante]

> Steve Burgmeier will oppose Curt. We cannot let Steve win. Steve is currently 
> one of the three Republican Jefferson County supervisors who recently made a 
> resolution against gay marriage. Very creepy, indeed.
> 


**

Instead of wasting a lot of time and energy on what is basically a semantic 
issue, the Govt should simply get out of the marriage biz and leave that to the 
churches -- mainstream or offshoot churches will be happy to marry all who 
desire that nomenclature. Let the state stick to civil unions for all parties, 
straight or gay.

[FairfieldLife] Vote for Curt Hanson House District 90

[raunchydog]

Curt Hanson is our Democratic candidate for John Whitaker's State House 
District 90. Obama appointed John to serve as State Executive Director for the 
Farm Service Agency in Iowa. The Democrats have held District 90 for 15 years. 
John has run unopposed for his last two elections. Now that John is stepping 
down, the Republicans think they have a shot at District 90. 

Steve Burgmeier will oppose Curt. We cannot let Steve win. Steve is currently 
one of the three Republican Jefferson County supervisors who recently made a 
resolution against gay marriage. Very creepy, indeed.

This is going to be a tight race. The special election is September 1st.  We 
are relying on absentee ballots to win this election for Curt and need about 
1,700 votes to win. Obama wants this win. He sent two young men, Jake and Kevin 
from state to campaign for Curt. You can find them at our campaign headquarters 
59 E. Broadway open 7 days a week. 

Get out the vote! You can get an absentee ballot and sign up to volunteer on 
Curt's website.

http://www.curthanson.org/

RE: [FairfieldLife] Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of It's just a ride
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 9:43 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of
Women
 
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Rick Archermailto:rick%40searchsummit.com> > wrote:
>
>
> Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women
> 7/20/09

Gee, Rick. If you weren't meditating on OM you would have known that
this had already been discussed and dropped on FFL 3 days ago.
But I was meditating on OM, so to speak. I was up in Toronto with Amma, so I
didn't realize this had been posted.
 

[FairfieldLife] Jupiter took a bullet for us last weekend.

[bob_brigante]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/weekinreview/26overbye.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women

[raunchydog]

I missed the story too, so I'm glad Rick posted it.  Thanks again Rick. 
Here's a a blog about it from Dr. Violet Socks, a feminist, who has a
thoughtful perspective on the story :

"Jimmy Carter was in the news this past week because of an editorial
  he wrote for the Observer about how godbaggism is
used to oppress women. Carter is a lifelong godbag himself, but he left
the Baptist Church some time ago when he realized that the dudes running
the Southern Baptist Convention weren't going to ease up on the
misogyny any time soon. In fact, they were hunkering down and ordering
in giant stocks of canned food for the long haul. "

Jimmy Carter should join the Church of Trope
   Reclusive Leftist
Violet Socks, Sunday, July 19th, 2009
By the way, the timing of Carter's editorial appears to be connected
to something The Elders are doing. The Elders, of course, are a group of
wizards who were sent by Valar to assist the people of Middle Earth in
their contest with Sauron. Since the discords of Melkor they have sought
to heal the world of strife and restore the harmonies of Eru, the One,
who in Arda is called Ilúvatar.

At any rate, The Elders (love that name) are taking on equality for
women and girls  , which is an excellent
thing. I am always happy and grateful for any attention to women's
rights paid by world leaders. Or wizards.

And Carter's editorial is superb. There are two little things,
however, I want to point out — not by way of criticism, mind you;
just as matters of interest.

First of all, notice that in addition to all the woman-centric reasons
Carter gives, he also says this:

It is not women and girls alone who suffer. It damages all of us. The
evidence shows that investing in women and girls delivers major benefits
for everyone in society. An educated woman has healthier children. She
is more likely to send them to school. She earns more and invests what
she earns in her family.

He's absolutely right, of course. And every world leader who speaks
on this topic makes the same point, including Hillary Clinton. What
makes me tired is that this "not just women!" maneuver is still
necessary. It makes me tired to realize that it's still not enough
to simply say, "women are human, and that's why it's wrong
to oppress them." We still have to make the case that other people
— real people, presumably — will also benefit.

It reminds me of the First Wave of feminism, when these same arguments
were being made in almost precisely the same terms. Emancipated women,
the suffragists said, would make better mothers and wives, which of
course would mean healthier children and happier husbands. That was the
argument for treating women like humans: because it would benefit men
and children. Two centuries on, and this is still where we are.

The other thing I want to note is that Carter severely underplays the
misogyny present in the Magic Books he and the other wizards are so fond
of. He's right that interpretation is fluid (I've made that same
point myself
 ), but the fact is
there is plenty of fuel in those books for all kinds of crazy shit.

So here's a thought: bag the fricking books. They're ancient. If
God is real, then treat Her like a natural fact and begin a fresh
investigation into Her nature. Be a scientist. Would you consult an
ancient Babylonion astronomy text for a guide to the stars? No! So why
in the hell are people, even religious-minded people, still reading the
mush-brained ramblings of a bunch of primitive desert barbarians who
lived 2000 years ago? These guys thought the sun revolved around the
earth and flies came from rotting meat, and this is who you're gonna
consult for insight into the Ultimate Ground of Being? Jesus H. Christ."

 
[http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/mopeat700-19\
7x300.jpg]

The Church of Trope.  No women were
harmed in the making of this religion.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "It's just a ride"
 wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Rick archerr...@... wrote:
> >
> >
> > Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women
> > 7/20/09
>
>
> Gee, Rick.  If you weren't meditating on OM you would have known that
> this had already been discussed and dropped on FFL 3 days ago.
>

[FairfieldLife] Walter Cronkite interview with Dennis Kucinich - Department of Peace

[Rick Archer]

Click here to view video:
http://kucinich.us/index.php?option=com_content

&task=view&id=2804&Itemid=1

Dear Friends,

My generation came of age at a time when Walter Cronkite was the name in
American culture synonymous with credibility and respect. His role in our
society transcended his TV news anchor position. His pronouncements on the
events of our time were like a slow rolling thunder delivered from an
electronic
Mount Olympus.

When he said `and that's the way it is,' we believed his every word because
his
compassion, dignity and respect merited our trust.

In his later years, Walter Cronkite became a powerful spokesperson for world
peace. I was humbled to share a platform with him at an event sponsored by
the
Peace Alliance.

Please continue to rally support for our legislation to create a cabinet
level
Department of Peace, HR808, which now has 70 cosponsors in the House of
Representatives.

Thank you.
Dennis
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Satan-the negative power!

[Robert]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG."  wrote:
>
> Lust, anger, greed and a host of other kleshas (obstructions to spiritual 
> progress-also dosha) fulfill Satan's mission to keep spiritual souls bound to 
> the wheel of karma (samsara), commonly called 'damnation', to reincarnate 
> indefinitely.
> 
> The moment the soul wakes up to his spiritual destiny Satan becomes alarmed, 
> he might lose one to the almighty and finally lose ALL to the almighty, then 
> what use would there be for him?
> 
> And so the cosmic drama continues and man is slammed against the hard rocks 
> of ignorance and duality until he obeys natural law and cooperates with the 
> Divine Plan and realizes his oneness with God.
> 
> Civilizations that fell due to their violation of natural law:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis
>
Hey, this is Bruno...don't mess with us, and we won't mess with you...
We been at this game for a long time, like from the beginning of time...
So, don't think you're going to change anything...'cause we're winning...just 
look around...you can't even get this thing with health care passed...humans 
are really not up to par, with playing this game, with us...we just been at it 
longer...
Hey, why don't you just follow the example of two of our prime players...Donald 
Trump and Micky Jagger...we take care of them, very well...they show us 
respect, and follow our instructions...
So, go back to your boring life...stay out of our business and we'll stay out 
of yours...
-El Diablo

Re: [FairfieldLife] Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women

[It's just a ride]

On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Rick Archer wrote:
>
>
> Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women
> 7/20/09


Gee, Rick.  If you weren't meditating on OM you would have known that
this had already been discussed and dropped on FFL 3 days ago.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Medical rationing based on skin color

[Robert]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "It's just a ride" 
 wrote:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/07/23/doctors.attitude.race.weight/index.html
> 
> -- 
> Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and
> eventually ... a racket.
>
A simple solution, to possible rationing of health care...
Just make an amendment to guarantee Roman Citizens will be taken care of 
first...
All the rest, stand in line...and pray to your God to take care of you!

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Name one female Buddhist Lama

[gullible fool]

Of course. I was in the mood to make play troll for once.
 
"Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no `you,' only 
love." 
 
- Amma  

--- On Sat, 7/25/09, Vaj  wrote:


From: Vaj Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Name one 
female Buddhist Lama
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, July 25, 2009, 9:27 PM










On Jul 25, 2009, at 8:31 PM, gullible fool wrote:



An equally important high lama, the last Karmapa, took an important role 
in Pema Chödrön's ordination.
 
But was he approved by the Dalai Lama?
 



I assume you're joking?









  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women

[raunchydog]

Hey that's great, Rick. Thanks for posting good news about women's issues. I 
always liked Carter for his commitment to public service, especially his work 
with Habitat for Humanity. His willingness to stand on principle, even this 
late in life, shows he is a man of integrity. It's amazing, how religion, the 
supposed fountain of love and kindness, breeds such bigotry and hatred toward 
gays, people of color and women. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> 
> Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women
> 7/20/09
> After more than 60 years together, Jimmy Carter has announced himself at
> odds with the Southern Baptist Church -- and he's decided it's time they go
> their separate ways. Via Feministing
> 
>  , the former president
> called the decision "unavoidable" after church leaders prohibited women from
> being ordained and insisted women be "subservient to their husbands." Said
> Carter in an essay in The Age
>  k0v.html?page=-1>
>  k0v.html?page=-1> :
> At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to  the
> wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital
> mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs
> many  millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives,
> and  continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and
> influence within their own communities.
> 
> And, later:
> The truth is that male religious leaders have had -- and still  have -- an
> option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate  women. They
> have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the  latter. Their
> continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for  much of the
> pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world.  
> After watching everyone from philandering politicians to Iran's president
> taking a sudden look heavenwards when the roof starts to come down on them,
> it's refreshing to see Carter calling out the role of religion in the
> mistreatment of women. 
> 
> The question for Carter -- and for others who find themselves at odds with
> leadership -- is, when a group you're deeply involved in starts to move away
> from your own core beliefs, do you stay and try to change from within or, at
> some point, do you have to look for the exit? Carter did give the former a
> shot -- in recent years publicly criticizing and distancing himself from
> church leadership, while staying involved with his church. Now, he's seeing
> if absence might do what presence did not.
>

[FairfieldLife] When disorderly conduct is a cop's judgement call (to intimidate)

[It's just a ride]

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1912777,00.html

-- 
Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and
eventually ... a racket.

[FairfieldLife] Medical rationing based on skin color

[It's just a ride]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/07/23/doctors.attitude.race.weight/index.html

-- 
Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and
eventually ... a racket.

[FairfieldLife] 'Mafia Controlled Health Care? (We Love Power over Life and Death!)'

[Robert]

Which Mafia Controls the Health Care Business?’

A. The Italian Mafia in New Jersey
B. The Jewish Mafia in New York
C. The Texas Mafia in Dallas
D. All of the Above



  

[FairfieldLife] Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women

[Rick Archer]

Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women
7/20/09
After more than 60 years together, Jimmy Carter has announced himself at
odds with the Southern Baptist Church -- and he's decided it's time they go
their separate ways. Via Feministing

 , the former president
called the decision "unavoidable" after church leaders prohibited women from
being ordained and insisted women be "subservient to their husbands." Said
Carter in an essay in The Age

 :
At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to  the
wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital
mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs
many  millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives,
and  continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and
influence within their own communities.

And, later:
The truth is that male religious leaders have had -- and still  have -- an
option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate  women. They
have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the  latter. Their
continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for  much of the
pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world.  
After watching everyone from philandering politicians to Iran's president
taking a sudden look heavenwards when the roof starts to come down on them,
it's refreshing to see Carter calling out the role of religion in the
mistreatment of women. 

The question for Carter -- and for others who find themselves at odds with
leadership -- is, when a group you're deeply involved in starts to move away
from your own core beliefs, do you stay and try to change from within or, at
some point, do you have to look for the exit? Carter did give the former a
shot -- in recent years publicly criticizing and distancing himself from
church leadership, while staying involved with his church. Now, he's seeing
if absence might do what presence did not.
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Name one female Buddhist Lama

[Vaj]

On Jul 25, 2009, at 8:31 PM, gullible fool wrote:



An equally important high lama, the last Karmapa, took an important  
role in Pema Chödrön's ordination.


But was he approved by the Dalai Lama?




I assume you're joking?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Name one female Buddhist Lama

[Vaj]

On Jul 25, 2009, at 8:48 PM, shinkai_birx wrote:


Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo



When I first went to have an audience with Jetsunma, she wasn't  
feeling well, so I met with her husband. It turned out he was an old  
TM teacher who had left TM far behind with no regrets. He felt there  
was no comparison between Mantrayana, Dzogchen and commercial  
teachings like TM/TMSP. In fact he said the young monks at their  
center in Poolesville we're already exhibiting siddhis, something  
never seen with the TMSP.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Name one female Buddhist Lama

[shinkai_birx]

Lama Yeshe Wangmo
A'dzon Rinpoche
Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo
Ven. Khandro Rinpoche
Jetsunma Kusho Chimey Luding

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Name one female Buddhist Lama

[gullible fool]

  
An equally important high lama, the last Karmapa, took an important role 
in Pema Chödrön's ordination.
 
But was he approved by the Dalai Lama?
 
"Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no `you,' only 
love." 
 
- Amma  

--- On Sat, 7/25/09, Vaj  wrote:


From: Vaj 
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Name one female Buddhist Lama
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, July 25, 2009, 6:54 PM










On Jul 25, 2009, at 6:42 PM, nablusoss1008 wrote:

--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Vaj  wrote:
> 
> One of the greatest lamas in the west, who has appeared on TV specials 
> here in the US, is Ani Pema Chödrön. Her audio series on meditation is 
> the best I've heard.
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 25, 2009, at 5:23 PM, nablusoss1008 wrote:
> 
> > Do they excist at all. If not, why ?

Fine, and she is a Lama approoved by the Dalai Lama ? 

All lamas aren't "approved" by the Dalai Lama, they're approved of by their 
lineage and via their training and realization. Typically this means years of 
meditation experience, a rigorous series of preliminary practices and a three 
year, 3 month retreat using highly advanced techniques, at a minimum. An 
equally important high lama, the last Karmapa, took an important role in Pema 
Chödrön's ordination.





  

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat Jul 25 00:00:00 2009
End Date (UTC): Sat Aug 01 00:00:00 2009
97 messages as of (UTC) Sat Jul 25 23:36:41 2009

14 shempmcgurk 
14 nablusoss1008 
14 authfriend 
 6 Robert 
 6 "do.rflex" 
 5 Vaj 
 4 It's just a ride 
 4 "BillyG." 
 3 gullible fool 
 3 TurquoiseB 
 3 Mike Dixon 
 3 Bhairitu 
 2 yifuxero 
 2 wayback71 
 2 scienceofabundance 
 2 raunchydog 
 2 cardemaister 
 2 Nelson 
 2 Dick Mays 
 1 shukra69 
 1 guyfawkes91 
 1 dhamiltony2k5 
 1 Rick Archer 

Posters: 23
Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
=
Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
Standard Time (Winter):
US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Fwd: Dr. Travis Publishes in FBI Bulletin

[Vaj]

On Jul 25, 2009, at 4:26 PM, Dick Mays wrote:

Brain Functioning as the Ground for Spiritual Experiences and  
Ethical Behaviorby Dr. Fred Travis





Interesting, a lot of this material is lifted from Buddhist meditation  
research. Not very original, but interesting they're starting to  
emulate successful Buddhist research.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Name one female Buddhist Lama

[shempmcgurk]

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Name one female Buddhist Lama

[Vaj]

On Jul 25, 2009, at 6:42 PM, nablusoss1008 wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> One of the greatest lamas in the west, who has appeared on TV  
specials
> here in the US, is Ani Pema Chödrön. Her audio series on  
meditation is

> the best I've heard.
>
>
>
> On Jul 25, 2009, at 5:23 PM, nablusoss1008 wrote:
>
> > Do they excist at all. If not, why ?

Fine, and she is a Lama approoved by the Dalai Lama ?


All lamas aren't "approved" by the Dalai Lama, they're approved of by  
their lineage and via their training and realization. Typically this  
means years of meditation experience, a rigorous series of preliminary  
practices and a three year, 3 month retreat using highly advanced  
techniques, at a minimum. An equally important high lama, the last  
Karmapa, took an important role in Pema Chödrön's ordination.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Name one female Buddhist Lama

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> 
> One of the greatest lamas in the west, who has appeared on TV specials  
> here in the US, is Ani Pema Chödrön. Her audio series on meditation is  
> the best I've heard.
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 25, 2009, at 5:23 PM, nablusoss1008 wrote:
> 
> > Do they excist at all. If not, why ?

Fine, and she is a Lama approoved by the Dalai Lama ? 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Name one female Buddhist Lama

[Vaj]

Two great current female lamas I know are Lama Tsultrim Allione and  
Tenzin Palmo.


Tsultrim's classic Women of Wisdom is one of the most profound  
collection of spiritual biographies I've ever read. She runs a retreat  
center in the SW US called Tara Mandala.


Tenzin Palmo's biography, Cave in the Snow, is another classic.

http://www.taramandala.org/Tsultrim.htm

http://www.tenzinpalmo.com/

One of the biographies from Women of Wisdom, and one of my Grand- 
gurus, can be found here:


http://www.khandro.net/book-womenofwisdom.htm

Another excellent lineage biography of a lineage of female yoginis and  
lamas is the Mother Essence lineage, which was largely a family  
lineage, outside the monastic establishment, descended from the great  
yogini, Yeshe Tsogyal:


http://www.dharmaweb.org/index.php/The_Mother_Essence_Lineage,_by_Ngakpa_Chogyam_Rinpoche

LINK

One of the greatest lamas in the west, who has appeared on TV specials  
here in the US, is Ani Pema Chödrön. Her audio series on meditation is  
the best I've heard.




On Jul 25, 2009, at 5:23 PM, nablusoss1008 wrote:


Do they excist at all. If not, why ?

[FairfieldLife] Name one female Buddhist Lama

[nablusoss1008]

Do they excist at all. If not, why ?

[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM enrollment etc

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, scienceofabundance  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > Not that there is anything wrong with being gay per se. But some of these 
> > > fellows follow a rather agressive sexual policy. I think many hetero men 
> > > have experienced this, particularily in younger years. Some of these 
> > > characters don't take a no for an answer and you have to take hard action 
> > > to stop their advances. 
> > > 
> > > You must be living in The Gay Kingdom or some other corner  of the globe 
> > > I have not heard of.  There is _no_ evidence whatsoever that gay men as a 
> > > group are sexually aggressive towards heterosexual men anywhere in the 
> > > world.  
> 
> [snip]
> 
> I agree.
> 
> The times in my life that I have been "hit upon" by gay men -- and it was all 
> very subtle and subjective, I might add -- once I communicated to them I 
> wasn't interested, THEY GOT THE MESSAGE RIGHT AWAY AND ALL FURTHER "HITTING 
> UPON" ME STOPPED IMMEDIATELY.

Sorry mate, that's not my experience. I've seen gays agressively getting on to 
hetero fellows on the tube, expecially young boys, to the effect that the 
police had to be summoned. 

Not that there is anything wrong with it... being gay. 
But they should stay the f... away from heteros not wanting their attention.

[FairfieldLife] Satan-the negative power!

[BillyG.]

Lust, anger, greed and a host of other kleshas (obstructions to spiritual 
progress-also dosha) fulfill Satan's mission to keep spiritual souls bound to 
the wheel of karma (samsara), commonly called 'damnation', to reincarnate 
indefinitely.

The moment the soul wakes up to his spiritual destiny Satan becomes alarmed, he 
might lose one to the almighty and finally lose ALL to the almighty, then what 
use would there be for him?

And so the cosmic drama continues and man is slammed against the hard rocks of 
ignorance and duality until he obeys natural law and cooperates with the Divine 
Plan and realizes his oneness with God.

Civilizations that fell due to their violation of natural law:

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

[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM enrollment etc

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, scienceofabundance  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Not that there is anything wrong with being gay per se. But some of these 
> > fellows follow a rather agressive sexual policy. I think many hetero men 
> > have experienced this, particularily in younger years. Some of these 
> > characters don't take a no for an answer and you have to take hard action 
> > to stop their advances. 
> > 
> > You must be living in The Gay Kingdom or some other corner  of the globe I 
> > have not heard of.  There is _no_ evidence whatsoever that gay men as a 
> > group are sexually aggressive towards heterosexual men anywhere in the 
> > world.  
> 
> Gay  men - for reasons that most people can understand (i.e. it is very 
> dangerous) - do not come on to straight men. 

Rubbish. Many gay men jump on hetero children. Some of these predators think of 
nothing except their own  gratification.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Ronald Reagan- 1961 Speaking Out Against Socialized Medicine

[Bhairitu]

do.rflex wrote:
> Bill Maher pulls out an old record made by none other than the Republican's 
> favorite, St. Ronnie from back in 1961, speaking out against the dangers of 
> socialized medicine, and has a bit of fun with it. The more things change, 
> the more they stay the same.
>
> Watch it here: 
> http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/real-time-remembering-ronald-reagan-1961-s
I was surprised that Maher had Anthony Woods on his panel last night.  
He is running for Congress in the district next to mine (Walnut Creek, 
Pleasant Hill, etc) because Ellen Tauscher has taken a cabinet 
position.  Woods, a gay soldier and Harvard graduate, came off very well 
on the show.  He may very well take that seat.  It's a fairly liberal 
area and so Democrats usually win.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Racial profiling and the Gates case

[It's just a ride]

On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 3:37 PM, gullible fool wrote:
>
>
>
> From:
>
> http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/07/25/in_risky_field_suspicion_is_key_tool_officers_say/
>
> In risky field, suspicion is key tool, officers say

It's wry humor time whenever, in a learned forum (which this ain't),
the subject of Americans' fear of being in the presence of the police
glances off the most recent report of some police brutality or
corruption (the thieving cops in East Texas made a big international
splash) is mocked by people like Brits.  Brits can't believe why we,
living in the Home of the Brave and the Free, home of the Bill of
Rights, who went to Europe twice to fight for freedom, so much fear
our police.   The British police face as much or more danger than the
police in America.  The British police have to deal with the aftermath
of football matches and a populace who think nothing of pissing in the
street while falling over between pubs.  Yet the Brits don't live in
fear of their police as we do.  So don't give me this bull that it's
risky business.  It's risky all over.

The sheriff I mentioned doesn't access this forum.  Let's just say
that he's a very good example of the Peter Principle in action.
Police departments in the US seek out people of lower intelligence.
In many ways the difference between a cop and a criminal is that one
of them hasn't got caught yet.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Racial profiling and the Gates case

[gullible fool]

Unlikely Gates lives in a rundown lean to in a rough neighborhood.
 
Gates lives in the Harvard Square area, very close to the main campus of 
Harvard University. An article I read today said he lives very close to 
Cambridge Rindge and Latin School, which is at 459 Broadway, Cambridge, MA. 
Google maps can show you how close 459 Broadway is to the university.
 
"Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no `you,' only 
love." 
 
- Amma  

--- On Sat, 7/25/09, It's just a ride  wrote:


From: It's just a ride 
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Racial profiling and the Gates case
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, July 25, 2009, 3:24 PM


On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 1:50 PM, authfriend wrote:
> Absolutely. And he should have refused. My point is
> that there was no reason for Crowley to have asked
> him to in the first place.

I agree

>
>
> I'm saying Crowley *tempted* him, lured him, enticed
> him into being disruptive in public so that Crowley
> would have the legal justification to arrest him.

I passed this by the local sheriff, whom I'm friends with.  The
sheriff didn't tell me what I didn't already know.  Gates was cruisin'
for a bruisin'.  T'ain't racial profiling when there's a report of a
possible break in and you ask for ID to make sure you're leaving the
house in the hands of the rightful occupant or his/her designate.  The
black cop said Gates wasn't acting quite right, was perhaps tired from
his trip.  Translation:  we deal with nuts all day long but Gates was
acting nuttier and more aggressively than most.

The laws and procedure are taught in police academy but the how to's
are taught in less public venues.   One how to is in getting someone
who's wasting your time and ticking you off to make a fatal mistake.
Getting Gates out of the house was the best way to handle this
malefactor.  Just let him take his rants outside then arrest him for
creating a public disturbance.   Standard police procedure to settle a
score or speed up resolution of a problem.  Crowley erred in arresting
a noted black scholar with a big mouth (not that a lot of black men
don't have big mouths when it comes to dealing with the law).

There's the unusual turn of events of a black professor/scholar and a
white blue collar guy involved here.

Obama's no fool.  He sized up what had gone on.  Unlikely Gates lives
in a rundown lean to in a rough neighborhood.   I am convinced, as is
my sheriff friend, that had this been a white male (Irish even better)
Crowley would have been a lot more accommodating, perhaps even asking
for backup to get someone to explain to Gates why this was the police
doing everything possible to protect /his/ property.  It's not a case
of Crowley acting illegally, it's a case of Crowley acting differently
than he would have with a white.




To subscribe, send a message to:
fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links






  

[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM enrollment etc

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG."  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG."  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > [snip]
> > 
> > > So what is the purpose of Gay sex? I mean, why do men have sex with other 
> > > men? I mean, I can understand men hugging each other to show their mutual 
> > > love, and even kiss in some cultures, but SEX? Why would you need to have 
> > > sex with someone of the same sex to show them that you love them?
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > It has something to do with your Willie getting hard.
> 
> That's what I thought, basically it's lust, sex in its proper context is for 
> procreation. 
> 
> Sex/Love  Sex/Love  Sex/Love  Separate and distinct!  And for those wishing 
> to push the tantric side of it, I've never heard of tantric gay sex! 
> 
> Actually, sex outside of the context for which it was intended WAS the 
> original sin, causing man/woman's downfall, and continues to be the cause of 
> man/woman's downfall...(temptation i.e. Satan).

Oops...redirect to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liSseCH6_p8

[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM enrollment etc

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG."  wrote:
> 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > So what is the purpose of Gay sex? I mean, why do men have sex with other 
> > men? I mean, I can understand men hugging each other to show their mutual 
> > love, and even kiss in some cultures, but SEX? Why would you need to have 
> > sex with someone of the same sex to show them that you love them?
> >
> 
> 
> It has something to do with your Willie getting hard.

That's what I thought, basically it's lust, sex in its proper context is for 
procreation. 

Sex/Love  Sex/Love  Sex/Love  Separate and distinct!  And for those wishing to 
push the tantric side of it, I've never heard of tantric gay sex! 

Actually, sex outside of the context for which it was intended WAS the original 
sin, causing man/woman's downfall, and continues to be the cause of man/woman's 
downfall...(temptation).

or Satan see below:  
http://video.yahoo.com/network/100284668?v=5529382&l=3774740

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Racial profiling and the Gates case

[gullible fool]

 
From: 
 
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/07/25/in_risky_field_suspicion_is_key_tool_officers_say/

 
In risky field, suspicion is key tool, officers say
 
The most terrifying confrontations often erupt out of the most mundane 
scenarios. An Arlington patrolman working a construction detail is suddenly 
confronted by a suicidal man who lunges for the officer’s gun. A Quincy 
sergeant trying to help a troubled man becomes his victim when the sergeant is 
pinned against a wall. A Wellesley officer is tackled by two men after he 
walked to their stopped car to see if they needed help.



 
Race has been the prevailing theme in the wake of Henry Louis Gates Jr.’s 
arrest at his Cambridge home, an incident that has triggered a national debate 
about whether the officer overreacted when he placed the prominent Harvard 
University professor in handcuffs. But for many police officers, the encounter 
highlights a difficult balancing act they must perform each day as they try to 
bring the appropriate level of force to bear on inherently unpredictable 
situations.
 
Underestimating a seemingly routine call can be deadly. Overreacting can lead 
to accusations of civil rights violations, litigation, and physical harm to an 
innocent person.

 
>From the busiest departments to the sleepiest towns, patrol officers, 
>sergeants, and lieutenants all had similar stories of the times they relaxed 
>too quickly around a suspect or after defusing a tense situation. Officers 
>also spoke of the fear that can strike even veteran police officers when they 
>respond to a domestic violence call or pull a vehicle over in a traffic stop. 
>In an FBI analysis, 19 percent of the 57 officers killed by criminals in 2007 
>had either just pulled someone to the side of the road or were trying to.

 
“There is always that feeling of, ‘Is this going to be more than the soccer mom 
late for practice?’ ’’ said Walpole police Officer Jaclyn Hazeldine. “You don’t 
know who’s got what in the car, and you can’t let your guard down.’’

 
Terrence Cunningham was a young sergeant in Wellesley in 1995 when he spotted a 
stopped car on Route 9 about 2 in the morning. He saw two men inside and, 
thinking they had car trouble, pulled up behind them and began to walk to the 
vehicle. Immediately, they ran out of the car and grabbed him, punching and 
kicking at him. It turns out that they were the look-out guys for a third man 
stealing car parts from a nearby Dodge dealership. An off-duty Boston police 
officer rescued the sergeant, but Cunningham, now the department’s police 
chief, was reminded of one of the job’s most painful realities.

 
“You never know what’s going to happen,’’ he said. “You always have to have a 
plan. If this thing goes upside down, what are you going to do?’’

 
One evening in 1994, Deputy Superintendent William Gross of the Boston police 
and another officer drove to a Dorchester street to quell a parking dispute 
between two neighbors. The fight was quickly resolved, the two drivers shook 
hands, and Gross, then a patrolman, and his fellow officer struck up a 
conversation with gang unit officers who drove up to the scene. Seconds later, 
the new peace was shattered when shots rang out from an apartment building 
across the street. Gross rushed to the building, and, as he tried to get 
inside, he saw the gunman on the other side of the glass door, pointing a gun 
at him. Gross fired at him.

 
“You have seconds to react, just seconds,’’ said Gross. “That’s often what 
happens.’’ 



 
Gross missed the gunman, but when he dashed inside, through the smoke and haze, 
he saw a mortally wounded man slumped on the floor. Fifteen years later, Gross 
remains shaken by how that quiet night grew so violent so quickly.

 
“We had no idea we’d be involved in a police shooting,’’ Gross said. “We had no 
idea that once we gained access in the building, there would be a dead body in 
the hallway.’’


Police officers often have more to fear when they are pulling people over or 
responding to routine calls than when they are investigating a suspected bank 
robber or a killer, said Thomas Nolan, an associate professor of criminal 
justice at Boston University and a former Boston police officer.

 
“You just don’t know how something is going to affect someone or what the 
reaction is going to be from someone who is thrust into a situation,’’ Nolan 
said. “The frustration, the anger, the sentiment that ‘I’m being oppressed and 
discriminated against by this police officer.’ ’’

 
For their own safety, police must be suspicious of everyone, a quality that 
often rubs civilians the wrong way, many of the police officers said.

 
Hazeldine recalled going to a house after a security alarm went off. The 
homeowner was not there, but a concerned neighbor kept following Hazeldine 
around as she checked the house.

 
Worried that he might actually be the burglar, Hazeldine told the man to go 
home.

 
The alarm turned o

[FairfieldLife] New blog - Fairfield SuperRadiance

[Dick Mays]

New blog - Fairfield SuperRadiance

http://www.superradianceblog.com/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Racial profiling and the Gates case

[It's just a ride]

On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 3:03 PM, shempmcgurk wrote:
> I'm snipping out everything else because I want to focus on the above.
>
> This is what, in effect, Judy referred to as "luring".  And that's probably 
> what Crowley did.  But "luring" is not necessarily a bad thing; it seems to 
> be, as I indicated in an earlier post, to be a tool that police use to catch 
> malefactors, as you indicate above.
>
> Judy seems to feel that "luring" is automatically assumed to be a bad thing 
> to do; but it appears from your post that it isn't.
>

I don't like the word "luring".  It sounds too much like what
ScienceofAbundance's ilk do to confused/lacking sexual
confidence/perpetually horny underage boys, boys the chicken hawks
"sense" with their gaydar are begging for it.  I'm straight (and good
looking and was a junior and high school jock, so muscle, not fat) and
I had to fight off the chicken hawks while a teenager.  The
experiences don't leave a good feeling towards gays.   I grew up in a
time and place when if an adult grabbed for your crotch (or worse),
you got out of the situation ASAP and didn't utter a word about it to
anyone.
I wonder just how good the gaydar was for priests, gym teachers,
ministers, US congressmen and senators when they used their position
to take sexual advantage of someone in less of a position to make an
informed, adult choice in the matter?  Is your gaydar as good as a
straight guy's wish/hope that "she want's it/me"?

I guess "luring" is the correct word here.  You can be "luring"
without being lurid.  It's not unusual for police to call your
attention to something, have you come to look out of curiosity, and
now you're there.  It might not have been necessary to induce Gates to
go outside.  He was on a roll and probably would have followed Crowley
outside, shouting.  It's standard procedure if you watch Law and Order
to see the detectives ask someone to step outside to discuss something
so their wife/husband won't have to hear, then cuff them.

[FairfieldLife] Fwd: Dr. Travis Publishes in FBI Bulletin

[Dick Mays]

From: MUM Development Office 



JULY 24, 2009 * ISSUE 44

University Website


Brain 
Functioning as the Ground for Spiritual 
Experiences and Ethical Behavior by Dr. Fred 
Travis



Dr. Fred Travis


Brain Integration of college students increased 
after 3 months practice of Transcendental 
Meditation


Dr. Travis Publishes in FBI Bulletin

Fred Travis, director of MUM's Center for Brain, 
Consciousness and Cognition, recently published 
an article entitled 
"Brain 
Functioning as the Ground for Spiritual 
Experiences and Ethical Behavior" in the FBI Law 
Enforcement Bulletin about the potential benefits 
of the Transcendental Meditation® program for 
those in law enforcement.


In his article, Dr. Travis explained how 
experience affects the brain, and noted that 
those in law enforcement experience the worst of 
life and need an inner shield just as they need a 
bullet-proof vest.


He wrote that the Transcendental Meditation 
technique gives the experience of pure awareness, 
and discussed research on how this experience 
builds greater integration between areas of the 
brain. He also reported on previously published 
research at American University that showed that 
the TM® technique protects students from stress 
by increasing holistic brain functioning as 
measured by his Brain Integration Scale.


Dr. Travis concluded that his "research has 
indicated that practice of the TM technique leads 
to increased frontal brain integration, faster 
habituation to stressful stimuli, and higher 
moral reasoning. Spiritual experiences enliven 
frontal coherence, which builds global circuits 
to place individual experiences in a larger 
framework. In this vein, spiritual experiences 
could provide the inner armor to protect law 
enforcement officers from the noxious effects of 
negative experiences and stress."


The content of the article has been extended into 
a lecture offered by the FBI as part of their 
Wellness and Vitality in Police Officers program. 
"The FBI is developing ways to heal the effects 
of the day-to-day experience of Law Enforcement," 
said Dr. Travis, "and we are part of that 
conversation."


To unsubscribe, click here


Development Office, 
Maharishi University of Management, Fairfield, IA 
52557 641-472-1180


Copyright 2009, Maharishi University of Management. Publication or reproduction
of this communication in any form is prohibited without permission.

®Transcendental Meditation, TM, and Maharishi 
University of Management are registered or common 
law trademarks
licensed to Maharishi Vedic Education Development 
Corporation, a 501(c) (3) non-profit educational 
organization.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Doing Sanyama on Universal Health Care'

[Mike Dixon]

All the more reason to not rush anything. Write the bill, bring it to the floor 
and debate it line by line. Allow the public to read it and communicate with 
their reps and senators and amend it before setting it in stone. They're saying 
it wouldn't go in effect until something like 2013 anyway. Do it right or don't 
do it at all, is all I'm saying.

--- On Sat, 7/25/09, authfriend  wrote:


From: authfriend 
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Doing Sanyama on Universal Health Care'
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, July 25, 2009, 6:55 PM


  



--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Mike Dixon  wrote:
>
> How many bills have been rushed through the congress
> and not read and debated before being voted on this
> year alone?

As long as you're just making a prediction of what might
happen eventually, fine. All kinds of things *could*
happen eventually. But what you were saying sounded as
if you were claiming it was already engraved in stone,
and that's what I was objecting to.

P.S.: Health care is *already* rationed by the insurance
companies. If it's done right, a public option would
reduce the amount of rationing.

















  

[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM enrollment etc

[shempmcgurk]

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


[snip]

> So what is the purpose of Gay sex? I mean, why do men have sex with other 
> men? I mean, I can understand men hugging each other to show their mutual 
> love, and even kiss in some cultures, but SEX? Why would you need to have sex 
> with someone of the same sex to show them that you love them?
>


It has something to do with your Willie getting hard.

[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM enrollment etc

[shempmcgurk]

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


[snip]

> 
> Thank you for saying -- with some authority -- what
> you have said, and saving me the trouble of doing
> so with somewhat less authority. As a straight guy
> who has worked with and lived around gay guys most
> of my life, I haven't had even one of them ever 
> come onto me. 

[snip]


It could be because you're ugly and you smell.

[FairfieldLife] Ronald Reagan- 1961 Speaking Out Against Socialized Medicine

[do.rflex]

Bill Maher pulls out an old record made by none other than the Republican's 
favorite, St. Ronnie from back in 1961, speaking out against the dangers of 
socialized medicine, and has a bit of fun with it. The more things change, the 
more they stay the same.

Watch it here: 
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/real-time-remembering-ronald-reagan-1961-s

[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM enrollment etc

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, scienceofabundance  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Not that there is anything wrong with being gay per se. But some of these 
> > fellows follow a rather agressive sexual policy. I think many hetero men 
> > have experienced this, particularily in younger years. Some of these 
> > characters don't take a no for an answer and you have to take hard action 
> > to stop their advances. 
> > 
> > You must be living in The Gay Kingdom or some other corner  of the globe I 
> > have not heard of.  There is _no_ evidence whatsoever that gay men as a 
> > group are sexually aggressive towards heterosexual men anywhere in the 
> > world.  

[snip]

I agree.

The times in my life that I have been "hit upon" by gay men -- and it was all 
very subtle and subjective, I might add -- once I communicated to them I wasn't 
interested, THEY GOT THE MESSAGE RIGHT AWAY AND ALL FURTHER "HITTING UPON" ME 
STOPPED IMMEDIATELY.

This is the farthest thing from "sexually agressive".

Now, that's not to say that is always the case, but that's been my experience.  
Perhaps I smiled at the gay man in a friendly way that was interpreted as "oh, 
he's one of us".  But I've always found that if they then "come on to you" that 
all you have to do is look them in the eye and continue to treat them nicely 
and like human beings that that in itself is a communication to them that 
you're not gay.  That has worked for me every time...AND, I might add, by not 
being negative to them or unkind you can usually make a friend out of them that 
you ordinarily wouldn't be able to.

But why am I not surprised that Nabby's experience is the exact opposite from 
mine?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Racial profiling and the Gates case

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "It's just a ride" 
 wrote:


[snip]

> 
> The laws and procedure are taught in police academy but the how to's
> are taught in less public venues.   One how to is in getting someone
> who's wasting your time and ticking you off to make a fatal mistake.
> Getting Gates out of the house was the best way to handle this
> malefactor.  Just let him take his rants outside then arrest him for
> creating a public disturbance.   Standard police procedure to settle a
> score or speed up resolution of a problem.  

[snip]


I'm snipping out everything else because I want to focus on the above.

This is what, in effect, Judy referred to as "luring".  And that's probably 
what Crowley did.  But "luring" is not necessarily a bad thing; it seems to be, 
as I indicated in an earlier post, to be a tool that police use to catch 
malefactors, as you indicate above.

Judy seems to feel that "luring" is automatically assumed to be a bad thing to 
do; but it appears from your post that it isn't.

[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM enrollment etc

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, scienceofabundance  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Not that there is anything wrong with being gay per se. But some of these 
> > fellows follow a rather agressive sexual policy. I think many hetero men 
> > have experienced this, particularily in younger years. Some of these 
> > characters don't take a no for an answer and you have to take hard action 
> > to stop their advances. 
> > 
> > You must be living in The Gay Kingdom or some other corner  of the globe I 
> > have not heard of.  There is _no_ evidence whatsoever that gay men as a 
> > group are sexually aggressive towards heterosexual men anywhere in the 
> > world.  
> 
> Gay  men - for reasons that most people can understand (i.e. it is very 
> dangerous) - do not come on to straight men.  Because of this _very real_ 
> danger (i.e. it exists and the gay man may be beaten to a pulp or be killed) 
> your comments above are laughable. Also, there are no shortage of gay men 
> around to come on to - open, closeted and everywhere between.
> 
> Gay men - having grown up to be _very_ well tuned to sexual energy - may come 
> on to men who see themselves as straight but give off a homosexual energy 
> without knowing it, or knowing it but suppressing it to a level that would 
> require them to look up to see the smallest bubble in the bubble diagram. 
> 
> I don't know or care what your sexuality is, but if you have had experiences 
> of many gay men coming on to you, the chances are that you are giving some 
> level of gay energy. 
> 
> In my travels around the world (sometimes for TMO, other times on my own 
> business), I had to regularly "come out" to people I had not met before. 
> [There was a few years in my life when I was coming out so often because of 
> traveling that I felt like a male "debutante" - and, even if I say so myself, 
> rather a fine-looking one in my blue suit  and red tie (pre-beige period).]
> 
> One result of these "coming outs" - sometimes, certainly not always, but 
> often enough for there to be a pattern - was the number of straight men who 
> were afraid that I was about to come on to them. In many cases, my thoughts 
> as I pondered their reaction was "not in a thousand years" - unkept, unkempt, 
> overweight, and over here - to paraphrase a (famous)quote. 
> 
> Self-confidence was the one commonality among those who were not in the least 
> bit bothered - and the most fun to socialize with. They didn't give a sh*t 
> that I was gay and I didn't give a sh*t that they were straight.


So what is the purpose of Gay sex? I mean, why do men have sex with other men? 
I mean, I can understand men hugging each other to show their mutual love, and 
even kiss in some cultures, but SEX? Why would you need to have sex with 
someone of the same sex to show them that you love them?

[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM enrollment etc

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, scienceofabundance  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> >
> > Not that there is anything wrong with being gay per se. 
> > But some of these fellows follow a rather agressive sexual 
> > policy. I think many hetero men have experienced this, 
> > particularily in younger years. Some of these characters 
> > don't take a no for an answer and you have to take hard 
> > action to stop their advances. 
> 
> You must be living in The Gay Kingdom or some other corner  
> of the globe I have not heard of.  There is _no_ evidence 
> whatsoever that gay men as a group are sexually aggressive 
> towards heterosexual men anywhere in the world.  

Thank you for saying -- with some authority -- what
you have said, and saving me the trouble of doing
so with somewhat less authority. As a straight guy
who has worked with and lived around gay guys most
of my life, I haven't had even one of them ever 
come onto me. I now live in one of the gayest towns
in Europe, and can still say the same.

> Gay  men - for reasons that most people can understand 
> (i.e. it is very dangerous) - do not come on to straight 
> men.  Because of this _very real_ danger (i.e. it exists 
> and the gay man may be beaten to a pulp or be killed) 
> your comments above are laughable. Also, there are no 
> shortage of gay men around to come on to - open, 
> closeted and everywhere between.

Again, that's really the issue. Nabby is completely
unaware of the fact that for years now he has talked
non-stop of the MEN that he loves -- Maharishi, Guru
Dev, Bevan, Benjamin Creme, other male spiritual
teachers, male leaders of the TM movement -- and at
almost no time during those years did he ever speak
of a WOMAN he loved. 

Nabby is probably of the opinion that this preference
on his part is "spiritual" and not sexual. Me, I tend
to agree with you that if -- as he says -- he's been
hit on by gay men a lot, that's because they were seeing
something in him that was obvious to them but that he
cannot bring himself to admit.

> Gay men - having grown up to be _very_ well tuned to sexual 
> energy - may come on to men who see themselves as straight 
> but give off a homosexual energy without knowing it, or 
> knowing it but suppressing it to a level that would require 
> them to look up to see the smallest bubble in the bubble diagram. 
>
> I don't know or care what your sexuality is, but if you have 
> had experiences of many gay men coming on to you, the chances 
> are that you are giving some level of gay energy. 

Let's face it...anyone who talks ONLY about the men that
he has undying devotional love towards is puttin' out a
great DEAL of gay energy. Do that in a monastery or an
ashram and you can get away with not admitting what is
really going on. Do it on the street, and it's more
obvious.

[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM enrollment etc

[scienceofabundance]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> Not that there is anything wrong with being gay per se. But some of these 
> fellows follow a rather agressive sexual policy. I think many hetero men have 
> experienced this, particularily in younger years. Some of these characters 
> don't take a no for an answer and you have to take hard action to stop their 
> advances. 
> 
> You must be living in The Gay Kingdom or some other corner  of the globe I 
> have not heard of.  There is _no_ evidence whatsoever that gay men as a group 
> are sexually aggressive towards heterosexual men anywhere in the world.  

Gay  men - for reasons that most people can understand (i.e. it is very 
dangerous) - do not come on to straight men.  Because of this _very real_ 
danger (i.e. it exists and the gay man may be beaten to a pulp or be killed) 
your comments above are laughable. Also, there are no shortage of gay men 
around to come on to - open, closeted and everywhere between.

Gay men - having grown up to be _very_ well tuned to sexual energy - may come 
on to men who see themselves as straight but give off a homosexual energy 
without knowing it, or knowing it but suppressing it to a level that would 
require them to look up to see the smallest bubble in the bubble diagram. 

I don't know or care what your sexuality is, but if you have had experiences of 
many gay men coming on to you, the chances are that you are giving some level 
of gay energy. 

In my travels around the world (sometimes for TMO, other times on my own 
business), I had to regularly "come out" to people I had not met before. [There 
was a few years in my life when I was coming out so often because of traveling 
that I felt like a male "debutante" - and, even if I say so myself, rather a 
fine-looking one in my blue suit  and red tie (pre-beige period).]

One result of these "coming outs" - sometimes, certainly not always, but often 
enough for there to be a pattern - was the number of straight men who were 
afraid that I was about to come on to them. In many cases, my thoughts as I 
pondered their reaction was "not in a thousand years" - unkept, unkempt, 
overweight, and over here - to paraphrase a (famous)quote. 

Self-confidence was the one commonality among those who were not in the least 
bit bothered - and the most fun to socialize with. They didn't give a sh*t that 
I was gay and I didn't give a sh*t that they were straight.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Racial profiling and the Gates case

[It's just a ride]

On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 1:50 PM, authfriend wrote:
> Absolutely. And he should have refused. My point is
> that there was no reason for Crowley to have asked
> him to in the first place.

I agree

>
>
> I'm saying Crowley *tempted* him, lured him, enticed
> him into being disruptive in public so that Crowley
> would have the legal justification to arrest him.

I passed this by the local sheriff, whom I'm friends with.  The
sheriff didn't tell me what I didn't already know.  Gates was cruisin'
for a bruisin'.  T'ain't racial profiling when there's a report of a
possible break in and you ask for ID to make sure you're leaving the
house in the hands of the rightful occupant or his/her designate.  The
black cop said Gates wasn't acting quite right, was perhaps tired from
his trip.  Translation:  we deal with nuts all day long but Gates was
acting nuttier and more aggressively than most.

The laws and procedure are taught in police academy but the how to's
are taught in less public venues.   One how to is in getting someone
who's wasting your time and ticking you off to make a fatal mistake.
Getting Gates out of the house was the best way to handle this
malefactor.  Just let him take his rants outside then arrest him for
creating a public disturbance.   Standard police procedure to settle a
score or speed up resolution of a problem.  Crowley erred in arresting
a noted black scholar with a big mouth (not that a lot of black men
don't have big mouths when it comes to dealing with the law).

There's the unusual turn of events of a black professor/scholar and a
white blue collar guy involved here.

Obama's no fool.  He sized up what had gone on.  Unlikely Gates lives
in a rundown lean to in a rough neighborhood.   I am convinced, as is
my sheriff friend, that had this been a white male (Irish even better)
Crowley would have been a lot more accommodating, perhaps even asking
for backup to get someone to explain to Gates why this was the police
doing everything possible to protect /his/ property.  It's not a case
of Crowley acting illegally, it's a case of Crowley acting differently
than he would have with a white.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Climate Change Denial 101

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > 
> > The legitimacy of scientific research isn't a matter of popular opinion, 
> > Shremp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Vast majorities used to believe that the sun and the stars revolved around 
> > the earth - or that the earth was flat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, just as many politically correct scientists who want to continue to 
> receive their government grants still claim that there is man-made 
> catastrophic global warming...when there isn't.
> 
> Thank you for providing the best argument for MY side.
>


Bananas.

 

> > 
> > The scientific method isn't governed by, nor does it depend on, public 
> > debate. It works within it's own long established and well tested and 
> > accepted parameters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and these parameters are NOT being met by Al Gore et al.



Gore doesn't claim to be a scientist. Neither do I. But the overwhelming body 
of legitimate science that DOES work within said parameters speaks for itself - 
and we both recognize it [he, far much more than I because he's been studying 
it for what? ...two decades?]. That you don't recognize it, is YOUR problem, 
Shremp. 

As I mentioned, it says a lot about your vested ideological and emotionally 
based position. The approximately 20% remaining wingnut fringe has that same 
kind of mindset.



> 
> Virtually every premise of global warming has been shattered.
> 


LOL!  Nothing you've e provided has done that, Shremp, by any stretch of the 
imagination.



> > 
> > Your ideologically vested and emotionally based denials about global 
> > warming are interesting in terms of how YOU perceive reality, but they 
> > carry no weight in the vast, reputably legitimized global scientific 
> > community.
> >
> 
> What planet are you on?
>


As I used to say some time back during the Bush administration nightmare, I 
subscribe to the views of the 'reality based' community.

You haven't remotely backed up your outlandish claims against the overwhelming 
body of scientific evidence indicating man-made global warming, Shremp. 

Practically lacking in providing any widely-accepted-as-legitimate scientific 
evidence, and by continuing to insist you have, you essentially define YOURSELF 
as a fringe loon. 

[FairfieldLife] Judy Watch :-)

[TurquoiseB]

Judy "I never lie" Stein, at 10:35 this morning:

> I'm making a few posts this morning, then I'm 
> going out of town until sometime Monday.

At 14:55 this afternoon, she was still posting.
Either "morning" lasts until nearly 3:00 pm in
New Jersey or Ms. I Never Lie sometimes does.  :-)

Fourteen compulsive "gotcha" posts so far today. 
And interestingly, her credibility and "interest
factor" has become so low that even with this 
number of posts, only one person on the forum
has bothered to reply to her. 

And that was Shemp, because Judy had fallen for 
a troll of *his*. 

It must be tough being this controlled by other
people while trying to claim that she's "winning."

[FairfieldLife] Re: Racial profiling and the Gates case

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  wrote:
> > > >
> 
> > > > Apparently, Crowley's fellow officer -- who is Black --
> > > > backs up how Crowley conducted himself 100%.
> > > 
> > > No surprise there. She has to continue to work with him.
> > > Ever heard of the Blue Line?
> > 
> > [snip]
> > 
> > You are:
> > 
> > 1) accusing the black officer of a crime.  Police
> > officers are NOT allowed to lie about what happens
> > during the course of their work.
> 
> (1) I didn't accuse her of a thing. (2) Don't be naive.
> 
> > 2)  There were non-police citizens who ALSO witnessed
> > what happened outside.  We shall see whether they
> > support Crowley's and the black officer's report as to
> > what happened.  do you have any doubt they will back
> > up the black officer?
> 
> Non sequitur. What do you imagine I'm saying happened
> that would have appeared to them different from what
> they'd report?
> 
>  
> > > I'm not saying what Crowley did was itself criminal,
> > > even if he did engineer the arrest as payback for having
> > > been dissed. But it was an abuse of authority and worthy
> > > of at least a reprimand.
> > 
> > It's funny; you are quick to say that Gates was within
> > his rights to refuse to step out on the porch when
> > Crowley initially asked him to ("which he was entitled
> > to do so", you wrote).  But Gates was also free to 
> > refuse to step outside the second time Crowley asked
> > him, which you claim was his engineering his arrest.
> 
> Absolutely. And he should have refused. My point is
> that there was no reason for Crowley to have asked
> him to in the first plac.
> 
> > You have quickly backed off your claim of "entrapment"
> 
> No, I didn't back off a thing. I wasn't claiming what
> you thought I was. As I explained, I was using it as a
> synonym for "lured." I acknowledged you were correct
> in saying it wasn't a crime, but as I've said, I wasn't
> accusing Crowley of committing a crime.
> 
> > Judy, you have concluded that it is an abuse of
> > authority for Crowley to have provided Gates with the
> > opportunity to disturb the peace and be disruptive.
> 
> I'm saying Crowley *tempted* him, lured him, enticed
> him into being disruptive in public so that Crowley
> would have the legal justification to arrest him.
> 
> > But, apparently, the law disagrees with you.
> 
> As I've already said, Crowley didn't commit a crime.
> There's nothing for the law to disagree with me
> about.
> 
>   Gates
> > acted 100% of his own accord.  He CHOSE to make
> > disparaging remarks about Crowley's mother.  He CHOSE
> > to walk out of his house when he could have refused
> > just as he did the first time he was asked.  He CHOSE
> > to make this a racial issue. 
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> > All this was Gates' doing.  Crowley it seems acted
> > completely appropriately...
> 
> Except for asking Gates to come outside. There was no
> procedural reason for him to do so. The investigation
> was complete. Crowley didn't need anything more from
> Gates.
> 
> > and Gates should be thanking him for being so diligent
> > in protecting the neighborhood in which he lives.
> 
> Well, yes and no. It's Crowley's *job* to investigate
> a report of a burglary; he couldn't have *not* done
> so. But it wouldn't have been out of place for Gates
> to have expressed appreciation.
> 
> Look, I understand why Crowley was angry; but I also
> understand why Gates was angry. Gates was exhausted
> from a long trip and upset to find his lock had been
> jimmied and that he had to break into his own house.
> The combination of his distress over that and a white
> cop demanding he prove he wasn't a burglar--even
> though it was entirely appropriate and Crowley, as far
> as we know, behaved perfectly up until he decided to
> arrest Gates--given the long history of black men being
> mistreated by white cops, was enough to push Gates
> over the edge and lead him to behave irrationally.
> 
> That doesn't *excuse* his behavior. But it wasn't a
> crime, and until Crowley lured him out onto the porch
> there was zero basis for an arrest. And even then,
> although the arrest was justified legally, Gates's bad
> behavior wasn't a threat to public order; the arrest
> wasn't justified in practical terms.
> 
> Again, Crowley *could* have just handed Gates his card,
> walked out, got in his car, and driven away, leaving
> Gates to do his fuming by himself. Gates might well 
> have still tried to cause trouble for Crowley with his
> superiors; the incident might still have made the
> papers. But it was the unnecessary arrest that escalated
> it into a big racial uproar across the country.
> 
> I'll bet a buck that Crowley privately wishes he hadn't
> made the arrest. I *hope*--but wouldn't bet--that Gates
> privately wishes he

[FairfieldLife] New Crop Circle; Smeathe's Plantation nr O, Wiltshire. Reported 24th July.

[nablusoss1008]

THE FARMER HAS STATED THAT NO ONE HAS ACCESS
TO THIS CROP CIRCLE ON HIS LAND.

Image Russell Stannard Copyright 2009

  

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST CROP CIRCLE CONNECTOR DVD






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



All images   Olivier Morel  (WCCSG) Copyright
2009 

  



Image Russell Stannard Copyright 2009

[FairfieldLife] New Crop Circle; Woodborough Hill, nr Alton Barnes, Wiltshire. Reported 22nd Jul

[nablusoss1008]

 


The Crop Circle Community would like to suggest to visitors to this crop
circle to pay £2 per person in donation box. Also it would courteous
for large groups to contact farmer to warn them of their visit



Circular Features on the ground close to the Pickton Hill formation.

[FairfieldLife] Checking Ideas With The Air

[nablusoss1008]

http://dlf.tv/2009/checking-ideas-with-the-air/

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Doing Sanyama on Universal Health Care'

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon  wrote:
>
> How many bills have been rushed through the congress
> and not read and debated before being voted on this
> year alone?

As long as you're just making a prediction of what might
happen eventually, fine. All kinds of things *could*
happen eventually. But what you were saying sounded as
if you were claiming it was already engraved in stone,
and that's what I was objecting to.

P.S.: Health care is *already* rationed by the insurance
companies. If it's done right, a public option would
reduce the amount of rationing.

[FairfieldLife] Interesting article on Chris Hartnett

[shempmcgurk]

Although he went to MIU at the same time I did, I knew him only in passing.

But I do remember the woman he met at MIU and eventually married.  She WAS the 
hottest babe on campus.  Good article on him and there are several photos of 
his wife and you can see that she's still quite pretty today:


http://www.dnjournal.com/cover/2008/june.htm

[FairfieldLife] Re: Racial profiling and the Gates case

[authfriend]

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

> > > Apparently, Crowley's fellow officer -- who is Black --
> > > backs up how Crowley conducted himself 100%.
> > 
> > No surprise there. She has to continue to work with him.
> > Ever heard of the Blue Line?
> 
> [snip]
> 
> You are:
> 
> 1) accusing the black officer of a crime.  Police
> officers are NOT allowed to lie about what happens
> during the course of their work.

(1) I didn't accuse her of a thing. (2) Don't be naive.

> 2)  There were non-police citizens who ALSO witnessed
> what happened outside.  We shall see whether they
> support Crowley's and the black officer's report as to
> what happened.  do you have any doubt they will back
> up the black officer?

Non sequitur. What do you imagine I'm saying happened
that would have appeared to them different from what
they'd report?

 
> > I'm not saying what Crowley did was itself criminal,
> > even if he did engineer the arrest as payback for having
> > been dissed. But it was an abuse of authority and worthy
> > of at least a reprimand.
> 
> It's funny; you are quick to say that Gates was within
> his rights to refuse to step out on the porch when
> Crowley initially asked him to ("which he was entitled
> to do so", you wrote).  But Gates was also free to 
> refuse to step outside the second time Crowley asked
> him, which you claim was his engineering his arrest.

Absolutely. And he should have refused. My point is
that there was no reason for Crowley to have asked
him to in the first plac.

> You have quickly backed off your claim of "entrapment"

No, I didn't back off a thing. I wasn't claiming what
you thought I was. As I explained, I was using it as a
synonym for "lured." I acknowledged you were correct
in saying it wasn't a crime, but as I've said, I wasn't
accusing Crowley of committing a crime.

> Judy, you have concluded that it is an abuse of
> authority for Crowley to have provided Gates with the
> opportunity to disturb the peace and be disruptive.

I'm saying Crowley *tempted* him, lured him, enticed
him into being disruptive in public so that Crowley
would have the legal justification to arrest him.

> But, apparently, the law disagrees with you.

As I've already said, Crowley didn't commit a crime.
There's nothing for the law to disagree with me
about.

  Gates
> acted 100% of his own accord.  He CHOSE to make
> disparaging remarks about Crowley's mother.  He CHOSE
> to walk out of his house when he could have refused
> just as he did the first time he was asked.  He CHOSE
> to make this a racial issue. 

Absolutely.

> All this was Gates' doing.  Crowley it seems acted
> completely appropriately...

Except for asking Gates to come outside. There was no
procedural reason for him to do so. The investigation
was complete. Crowley didn't need anything more from
Gates.

> and Gates should be thanking him for being so diligent
> in protecting the neighborhood in which he lives.

Well, yes and no. It's Crowley's *job* to investigate
a report of a burglary; he couldn't have *not* done
so. But it wouldn't have been out of place for Gates
to have expressed appreciation.

Look, I understand why Crowley was angry; but I also
understand why Gates was angry. Gates was exhausted
from a long trip and upset to find his lock had been
jimmied and that he had to break into his own house.
The combination of his distress over that and a white
cop demanding he prove he wasn't a burglar--even
though it was entirely appropriate and Crowley, as far
as we know, behaved perfectly up until he decided to
arrest Gates--given the long history of black men being
mistreated by white cops, was enough to push Gates
over the edge and lead him to behave irrationally.

That doesn't *excuse* his behavior. But it wasn't a
crime, and until Crowley lured him out onto the porch
there was zero basis for an arrest. And even then,
although the arrest was justified legally, Gates's bad
behavior wasn't a threat to public order; the arrest
wasn't justified in practical terms.

Again, Crowley *could* have just handed Gates his card,
walked out, got in his car, and driven away, leaving
Gates to do his fuming by himself. Gates might well 
have still tried to cause trouble for Crowley with his
superiors; the incident might still have made the
papers. But it was the unnecessary arrest that escalated
it into a big racial uproar across the country.

I'll bet a buck that Crowley privately wishes he hadn't
made the arrest. I *hope*--but wouldn't bet--that Gates
privately wishes he'd kept his temper.

If you want to continue the discussion, I won't be able
to respond until Monday or Tuesday, because I'll be out
of town.

[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM enrollment etc

[scienceofabundance]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 
> wrote:
> >
> > Regarding male Teachers; I would love to meet a
> > female Lama, are there any ? If not, why not ?
> 
> Nabby is still reluctant to admit to being gay, but I think it's
> a positive step that he has admitted his...uh...fondness for
> animals, so here's a female lama I think he'd hit it off with:
> 
>   [http://uweb.und.nodak.edu/~andrew.thole/BusterLlama.jpg]
>
> I love her.  She is one cute llama!

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Attuning to Buddha'

[Nelson]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert  wrote:
> >
> > While in Seattle, a couple of years ago...
> > I had a pretty intense experience with a Shaman there...
> > 
> > Anyway, he told me that one of my 'Guides'...is Buddha.
> > I said, are you sure, it isn't Maharishi, I asked?
> > No, Buddha, he said, in his Polish accent...
> > Though he is Polish, he's pretty good, having studied with a Shaman there 
> > and here...
> > 
> 
> FWIW, Wojtek Skalski is originally Polish:
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/people/Wojtek-Skalski/1395213803
>
  Isn't that a permanent condition?

[FairfieldLife] Yes, but did he consider it in the light of common sense...

[shempmcgurk]

...outside of meditation?

Thank God he didn't!

http://dlf.tv/2009/mulholland-dr/

[FairfieldLife] The Reason for the Trip to Brazil

[nablusoss1008]

http://dlf.tv/2009/the-reason-for-the-trip-to-brazil/

[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM enrollment etc

[shukra69]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, scienceofabundance  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > The Turq **accuses** me of being gay 
> > 
> > Your choice of word "accuses" indicates that you believe that being gay is 
> > a wrong/bad/evil.
> 
> Not that there is anything wrong with being gay per se. But some of these 
> fellows follow a rather agressive sexual policy. I think many hetero men have 
> experienced this, particularily in younger years. Some of these characters 
> don't take a no for an answer and you have to take hard action to stop their 
> advances. 

Sadly I suppose I never had the sex appeal to have had endure any of that first 
hand but I doubt that women would tell you a much different story.

> 
> You may believe this consciously, but if you don't, your choice of word 
> indicates that you believe it unconsciously.
> 
> My choice of words boils down to me not having english as a first language.
> 
> > 
> > accuse: to charge with a fault or offense
> > 
> > 
> > Buddhist Joke in Two Acts
> > 
> > Act One
> > A Buddhist monk stepped up to a hot dog vendor, contemplating what to have 
> > for lunch.  Seeing a line behind the monk, the vendor became impatient, and 
> > demanded from the monk, "What do you want?"  The monk handed him $20 and 
> > replied, "Make me one with everything!" 
> > 
> > Act Two
> > The vendor handed the monk his hot dog and started taking care of the next 
> > man on line.   "Wait," said the monk.  "Where's my change?"  The vendor 
> > gazed at the monk and answered, "Change must come from within."
> > 
> > Written by Robert Johnson
> 
> HeHe :-)
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeLmiDvGPcg
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Climate Change Denial 101

[shempmcgurk]

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


[snip]

> 
> The legitimacy of scientific research isn't a matter of popular opinion, 
> Shremp.





Precisely!





> Vast majorities used to believe that the sun and the stars revolved around 
> the earth - or that the earth was flat.





Yes, just as many politically correct scientists who want to continue to 
receive their government grants still claim that there is man-made catastrophic 
global warming...when there isn't.

Thank you for providing the best argument for MY side.




> 
> The scientific method isn't governed by, nor does it depend on, public 
> debate. It works within it's own long established and well tested and 
> accepted parameters.





Yes, and these parameters are NOT being met by Al Gore et al.

Virtually every premise of global warming has been shattered.




> 
> Your ideologically vested and emotionally based denials about global warming 
> are interesting in terms of how YOU perceive reality, but they carry no 
> weight in the vast, reputably legitimized global scientific community.
>

What planet are you on?

[FairfieldLife] Danger Mouse, Sparklehorse, and David Lynch - Dark Night of the Soul Release

[nablusoss1008]

http://dlf.tv/dark-night-of-the-soul/

[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM enrollment etc

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 
> wrote:
> >
> > Regarding male Teachers; I would love to meet a
> > female Lama, are there any ? If not, why not ?
> 
> Nabby is still reluctant to admit to being gay, but I think it's
> a positive step that he has admitted his...uh...fondness for
> animals, so here's a female lama I think he'd hit it off with:
> 

Nice picture and I am still hetero thank you very much, but why do you avoid 
the question; why are there no female Lamas in Buddhism ? Did the Dolly Lama 
disapprove ? We have female Christian Priest and Hindu female Saints. 

Why no female Buddhist Lamas ? 

Is it perhaps because "Buddhism" today is stuck in the Middle-Ages, along with 
the red-hatered you and the Vaj present here on FFL on behalf of your outdated 
religion lead by the fiasco Dolly Lama who lost Tibet to the Communists ?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Turq sets the trap . . .

[Bhairitu]

authfriend wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu 
>
>  wrote:
> 
>   
>> Judy often contradicts herself and if you say so
>> then she'll demand where and of course we know
>> she'll say it is not a contradiction.  But anyone
>> who is bothering to read the exchanges will see
>> the contradictions.  By the end of the exchange
>> this last week she claimed that I said she had
>> watched Naomi Wolf's video when actually I
>> pointed out both by quote and message links that
>> she hadn't.
>> 
>
> You really gotta wonder whether Bhairitu is stupid,
> or if he thinks everybody else is stupid.
>
> Here's the part of the exchange he's talking about:
>
> -
>   
 Judy in a later post on the thread admits she 
 never watched the Naomi Wolf interview. So she 
 is making things up to conflate the argument.
 
>>> And that's just a blatant lie. I was responding 
>>> to *what you said* and *what you said Wolf 
>>> said*. I didn't make anything up then, and I'm 
>>> not now.
>>>   
>> In message #193085:
>>
>> Me: You didn't watch the video did you?
>> Judy: No, and I ain't gonna waste a half-hour on 
>> her.
>> 
>
> Non sequitur. I never claimed to have watched it.
> Your blatant lie was to say I was making things up.
> Again, I was responding to *what you said*. And
> that's all on the record.
>
> And your quoting me above as if I *had* claimed
> to have watched the video is another lie.
>
> Clean it up, Bhairitu. You know better than to try
> to pull this kind of crap on me.
> -
>
> Obviously, as anyone who bothers to read the
> above will see, I did not claim Bhairitu had
> said I had watched Naomi Wolf's video. He made
> that up out of whole cloth.
>
> What actually happened is that he *mistakenly*
> thought *I* had said I had watched the video--
> which I never did--so he quoted me from an
> earlier exchange saying I had not watched it,
> thinking he was catching me in a contradiction.
>
> But that was *his error*, and now he's trying
> to cover it up by lying about what was said.
>
> One more time, Bhairitu: I never said I had
> watched Naomi Wolf's video. Nor did I ever say
> you had said I did. Nor did I make anything up.
> You screwed up, and you're trying to blame it
> on me. Not only have you not cleaned it up,
> you've made it worse.
>
> Such wonderful ethics you have. So impressively
> spiritual.
Don't be ridiculous.

[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM enrollment etc

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, scienceofabundance  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > The Turq **accuses** me of being gay 
> 
> Your choice of word "accuses" indicates that you believe that being gay is a 
> wrong/bad/evil.

Not that there is anything wrong with being gay per se. But some of these 
fellows follow a rather agressive sexual policy. I think many hetero men have 
experienced this, particularily in younger years. Some of these characters 
don't take a no for an answer and you have to take hard action to stop their 
advances. 

You may believe this consciously, but if you don't, your choice of word 
indicates that you believe it unconsciously.

My choice of words boils down to me not having english as a first language.

> 
> accuse: to charge with a fault or offense
> 
> 
> Buddhist Joke in Two Acts
> 
> Act One
> A Buddhist monk stepped up to a hot dog vendor, contemplating what to have 
> for lunch.  Seeing a line behind the monk, the vendor became impatient, and 
> demanded from the monk, "What do you want?"  The monk handed him $20 and 
> replied, "Make me one with everything!" 
> 
> Act Two
> The vendor handed the monk his hot dog and started taking care of the next 
> man on line.   "Wait," said the monk.  "Where's my change?"  The vendor gazed 
> at the monk and answered, "Change must come from within."
> 
> Written by Robert Johnson

HeHe :-)

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

[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM enrollment etc

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 
wrote:
>
> Regarding male Teachers; I would love to meet a
> female Lama, are there any ? If not, why not ?

Nabby is still reluctant to admit to being gay, but I think it's
a positive step that he has admitted his...uh...fondness for
animals, so here's a female lama I think he'd hit it off with:

  [http://uweb.und.nodak.edu/~andrew.thole/BusterLlama.jpg]

[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM enrollment etc

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > 
> > > Isn't it fascinating how Germans tend to gravi-
> > > tate towards and glorify "man love," as long as
> > > it's called something else? The SS officers used
> > > to do exactly the same thing back in Hitler's day.
> > 
> > The Turq accuses me of being gay ...
> 
> I did NOT "accuse" you of being gay. If you want
> to get all oiled up and sweaty with Bevan, that
> is absolutely FINE with me...I don't think there
> is anything wrong with that. 
> 
> Being gay is nothing that you should apologize 
> for, Nabby. I just think you'd be happier being
> gay if you stop hiding it behind all this "bhakti"
> language. If you're madly in love with "the men
> in your life" (Maharishi, Bevan, Benny Creme,
> Maitreya, etc.) why not just SAY you're madly in
> love with the men in your life. You don't have to
> pretend it's "spiritual" love. We understand.


Next time you see your shrink, ask him/her from where your compulsive urge to 
label heterosexual men as gay comes from.

Regarding male Teachers; I would love to meet a female Lama, are there any ? If 
not, why not ?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Doing Sanyama on Universal Health Care'

[Mike Dixon]

How many bills have been rushed through the congress and not read and 
debated before being voted on this year alone? Getting the system in place is 
what's imperative. Once it becomes law and the baby boomers are under it's 
care, your councilors will be able to start gently nudging you in the direction 
of not expecting much from the system,especially if the economy is burdened. 
I'm not saying it is going to be done immediately, maybe not even in my life 
time. But the system will be in place.  wrote:


From: authfriend 
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Doing Sanyama on Universal Health Care'
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, July 25, 2009, 4:24 PM


  



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

 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Mike Dixon 
 wrote:
> >
> > Yep, that's where all the savings come in. Most 
> > health care dollars are spent in the last years
> > of life and thats' when it will be rationed. If
> > you're retired and living past normal life 
> > expectency, *no major surgery or expensive
> > health care for you*! Just take these pills and 
> > enjoy the ride. It will be your duty to cross
> > over. They are planning councilors for the
> > elderly. Wow! no more social security or
> > medical bills for that one!
>
> Seems odd that people would approve of such a
> plan when they soon might be victims of it.

Indeed. Mike might want to ask himself what the
current and soon-to-be proportion of seniors is
among the voters, and what kind of support anyone
who advocated rationing seniors' health care
would get at the polls.

Then he should ask himself how likely his scenario
is to become the reality any time in the 
foreseeable future.

















  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Climate Change Denial 101

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  wrote:
> > >
> > > John:
> > > 
> > > I am always amazed at how unhappy True Believers in global warming, such 
> > > as yourself, are when confronted with evidence, suggestions, or proposals 
> > > that the global warming hypothesis is false.  
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > The problem with your argument, Shremp, is that the only 'evidence' you've 
> > provided has come from various dubious, crackpot, dishonest and/or funded 
> > shills for Big Energy.
> 
> 
> 
> That simply isn't true.
> 
> But even if it were, it is the facts that would be important, regardless of 
> who financed the studies or research.
> 
> But you seem to be relying on the principle: he who pays the piper calls the 
> tune.  Well, if that's the case, then it would be important to see who funds 
> the studies and research that comes out with the global warming alarmism.
> 
> And it's the government!  Just the other day there was a link on the 
> DrudgeReport that over $77 billion, I think it was, has been spent by the 
> government on global warming research.
> 
> Now, you aren't going to try and convince me that the Government of the USA 
> is not biased, are you?
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > The overwhelming consensus in the world-wide scientific community that 
> > global warming is real, that it is very much being created by humans and 
> > that it poses great risks for humanity is practically indisputable.
> 
> 
> 
> There is NOT overwhelming consensus.  If anything, the research is now 
> showing that there is ZERO evidence to be alarmed.
> 
> 
> > 
> > The majority of what you have cited in the past has been extensively 
> > debunked by reputable researchers - and doesn't amount to a hill of beans 
> > in comparison to the, at this point, far more than obvious scientific 
> > reality.
> 
> 
> 
> simply not true.
> 
> But even if it was, why wouldn't you be hoping that that it wasn't true?  Why 
> are you so keen to believe in something that promises to kill millions of 
> people?  You should be hoping against hope that you are wrong.
> 
> It is, simply, irrational.
> 
> 
> > 
> > You've kind of relegated yourself to the minority fringe, Shremp - which is 
> > nothing surprising... or new.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, polls on global warming beliefs show that I am not...but you are.  
> see:
> 
> http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2009/07/breaking-europe-belief-in-global.html
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ag1_0hhLg_2E
> 
> http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?secid=1501&status=article&id=27577562530&secure=1&show=1&rss=1
> 
> 
> http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104619
> 


The legitimacy of scientific research isn't a matter of popular opinion, 
Shremp. Vast majorities used to believe that the sun and the stars revolved 
around the earth - or that the earth was flat.

The scientific method isn't governed by, nor does it depend on, public debate. 
It works within it's own long established and well tested and accepted 
parameters.

Your ideologically vested and emotionally based denials about global warming 
are interesting in terms of how YOU perceive reality, but they carry no weight 
in the vast, reputably legitimized global scientific community.




 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Racial profiling and the Gates case

[shempmcgurk]

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


[snip]

> > 
> > Apparently, Crowley's fellow officer -- who is Black --
> > backs up how Crowley conducted himself 100%.
> 
> No surprise there. She has to continue to work with him.
> Ever heard of the Blue Line?

[snip]

You are:

1) accusing the black officer of a crime.  Police officers are NOT allowed to 
lie about what happens during the course of their work.

2)  There were non-police citizens who ALSO witnessed what happened outside.  
We shall see whether they support Crowley's and the black officer's report as 
to what happened.  do you have any doubt they will back up the black officer?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Racial profiling and the Gates case

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> > > There was no need for Gates to come onto the porch.
> > > Crowley appears to have told Gates to step onto the
> > > porch in hopes that Gates would continue to yell at
> > > him--which Gates did--and by that time a crowd had
> > > gathered, so Crowley could claim Gates was "alarming"
> > > the public, which is one of the legal criteria for a
> > > disorderly conduct arrest. It looks like Crowley
> > > essentially entrapped Gates into doing something for
> > > which Crowley could arrest him.
> > > 
> > > If you read the arrest report and the Mass. statute
> > > defining "disorderly conduct," you'll see how
> > > carefully and deliberately Crowley worked the language
> > > of the statute into the report.
> > 
> > Apparently, Crowley's fellow officer -- who is Black --
> > backs up how Crowley conducted himself 100%.
> 
> No surprise there. She has to continue to work with him.
> Ever heard of the Blue Line?
> 
> > Crowley would have to be quite Machiavellian and quite a
> > schemer to manipulate the situation into the crime of
> > entrapment as you describe it.
> 
> Crime of disorderly conduct, not entrapment.
> 
> > And to decide all of that and plan it on the spur of the
> > moment would mean that Crowley has an incredible legal
> > mind. 
> 
> Oh, hardly, Shemp. Cops *must* know the basics of what
> constitutes legal arrests, or the police department would
> be swamped with lawsuits. Cops on the street have to make
> spur-of-the-moment arrests all the time. And a disorderly
> conduct arrest is *always* spur-of-the-moment, by definition. Moreover, it's 
> a common type of arrest, so you'd expect the
> legal justifications for it to be something a street cop
> knows by heart.
>  
> > Plus, at least one legal definition of "entrapment" doesn't
> > gell with what you describe:
> 
> You're right, but I wasn't using the term in the legal
> sense, just as a synonym for "lured." Strike it if you
> want.
> 
> 
> > And, apparently, there are other reasons for asking home
> > owners in this situation to "step outside" one of which
> > is that with home invasions you often have to make sure
> > that the home owner isn't saying everything is okay
> > because another family member may be a hostage inside
> > the house who has instructed the home owner to say
> > everything is okay (and that's why the officer asks if
> > he is alone in the house, something that I believe
> > Crowley asked).  This may be standard operating procedure
> > (I don't know for sure but I heard this on the radio).
> 
> It's my understanding too, but that wasn't the timeline
> here. Crowley did ask Gates to step onto the porch to
> start with for these very reasons, before Crowley had
> entered the foyer, but Gates refused (which he was
> entitled to do). Then they had their extended alteraction
> inside the house (during which Gates also refused, BTW,
> to say whether there was anyone else in the house). 
> 
> Crowley had decided at the point he entered the house
> that Gates wasn't a burglar, but he had to follow
> procedure to get Gates's ID. Gates was uncooperative
> at first but then did show his Harvard ID (Gates says
> he also showed his driver's license; Crowley says he
> didn't).
> 
> Anyway, Gates was upbraiding Crowley for being a
> racist, demanding his name and badge number, anf
> threatening to report him. Crowley says he gave him
> the info twice, but Gates didn't hear him because
> he was yelling.
> 
> Finally Crowley decided enough was enough, the
> investigation was complete, and it was time for him
> to leave. At that point he told Gates that if Gates
> wanted to continue to discuss the issue, he should
> come outside and discuss it there.
> 
> That second "step outside" is the problematic one, not
> the first. There was no reason for Gates to be asked to
> come outside. Crowley could have handed Gates his card
> with his badge number and name and simply left. If
> Gates wanted to pursue the issue with the department,
> he was free to do so.
> 
> It's important to realize that Crowley couldn't have
> arrested Gates for disorderly conduct for yelling at
> him inside his house. He had to be doing it in front
> of spectators and "alarming the public" to justify an
> arrest.
> 
> > I agree with you that there does not appear enough
> > evidence to CONVICT Gates of disturbing the peace.
> > But I wonder whether the officer had the flexibility 
> > and leaway under the law to arrest and detain Gates.
> 
> Sure he did--once he'd gotten Gates to follow him
> outside and yell at him in front of spectators.
> 
> > My only guide for this is the show "Cops" which I have
> > seen on occasion and this sort of thing seems to occur
> > in almost every episode: people are stopped by the
> > police for some sort of perceived infraction or
> > disord

[FairfieldLife] Re: Turq sets the trap . . .

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu 

 wrote:

> Judy often contradicts herself and if you say so
> then she'll demand where and of course we know
> she'll say it is not a contradiction.  But anyone
> who is bothering to read the exchanges will see
> the contradictions.  By the end of the exchange
> this last week she claimed that I said she had
> watched Naomi Wolf's video when actually I
> pointed out both by quote and message links that
> she hadn't.

You really gotta wonder whether Bhairitu is stupid,
or if he thinks everybody else is stupid.

Here's the part of the exchange he's talking about:

-
> >> Judy in a later post on the thread admits she 
> >> never watched the Naomi Wolf interview. So she 
> >> is making things up to conflate the argument.
> >
> > And that's just a blatant lie. I was responding 
> > to *what you said* and *what you said Wolf 
> > said*. I didn't make anything up then, and I'm 
> > not now.
>
> In message #193085:
>
> Me: You didn't watch the video did you?
> Judy: No, and I ain't gonna waste a half-hour on 
> her.

Non sequitur. I never claimed to have watched it.
Your blatant lie was to say I was making things up.
Again, I was responding to *what you said*. And
that's all on the record.

And your quoting me above as if I *had* claimed
to have watched the video is another lie.

Clean it up, Bhairitu. You know better than to try
to pull this kind of crap on me.
-

Obviously, as anyone who bothers to read the
above will see, I did not claim Bhairitu had
said I had watched Naomi Wolf's video. He made
that up out of whole cloth.

What actually happened is that he *mistakenly*
thought *I* had said I had watched the video--
which I never did--so he quoted me from an
earlier exchange saying I had not watched it,
thinking he was catching me in a contradiction.

But that was *his error*, and now he's trying
to cover it up by lying about what was said.

One more time, Bhairitu: I never said I had
watched Naomi Wolf's video. Nor did I ever say
you had said I did. Nor did I make anything up.
You screwed up, and you're trying to blame it
on me. Not only have you not cleaned it up,
you've made it worse.

Such wonderful ethics you have. So impressively
spiritual.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Turq sets the trap . . .

[authfriend]

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

> And she finds it tremendously frustrating when 
> that doesn't happen when *she* speaks, and people 
> treat her as nothing more than one more voice in 
> the crowd, someone whose "pronouncements" and 
> claims of "truth" have no more validity or value 
> or "truth" in them than anyone else's.

What we see here (Barry is SO transparent!),
and throughout this post, is Barry attempting
to discredit my criticisms of him by claiming, 
essentially, that there are no such things as
facts, and that therefore it's outrageous for
me to point out that he is chronically and
viciously dishonest.


> To win her compulsive arguments, she almost
> always falls back on citing some "authority."

Such as, for instance, citing the archives of
this forum as the "authority."

If he claims I said X, and I quote myself as
having said Y--something that anybody can
verify for themselves--somehow, in Barry's mind,
the fact that I said Y has "no more validity or
value or 'truth'" in it than his claim that I
said X.


> The thing is, the whole *reasoning* is bent.
> Sane people just don't automatically believe
> what someone else says. Stupid people and
> cultists do that.

And if you're going to automatically believe
what Barry says, I have some perfectly lovely
swampland in Florida you might be interested
in.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Doing Sanyama on Universal Health Care'

[authfriend]

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

 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon 
 wrote:
> >
> > Yep, that's where all the savings come in. Most 
> > health care dollars are spent in the last years
> > of life and thats' when it will be rationed. If
> > you're retired and living past normal life 
> > expectency, *no major surgery or expensive
> > health care for you*! Just take these pills and 
> > enjoy the ride. It will be your duty to cross
> > over. They are planning councilors for the
> > elderly. Wow! no more social security or
> > medical bills for that one!
>
> Seems odd that people would approve of such a
> plan when they soon might be victims of it.

Indeed. Mike might want to ask himself what the
current and soon-to-be proportion of seniors is
among the voters, and what kind of support anyone
who advocated rationing seniors' health care
would get at the polls.

Then he should ask himself how likely his scenario
is to become the reality any time in the 
foreseeable future.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Doing Sanyama on Universal Health Care'

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "It's just a ride" 
 wrote:
 
> We also spend a lot of unnecessary money on people with
> the Gay Plague.  We will save a lot when we stop doing
> this.  If you want to contract HIV, then have the money
> to pay for your treatment.

But it's OK for us to spend money on all the people with
HIV who aren't gay, right?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Racial profiling and the Gates case

[authfriend]

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

> > There was no need for Gates to come onto the porch.
> > Crowley appears to have told Gates to step onto the
> > porch in hopes that Gates would continue to yell at
> > him--which Gates did--and by that time a crowd had
> > gathered, so Crowley could claim Gates was "alarming"
> > the public, which is one of the legal criteria for a
> > disorderly conduct arrest. It looks like Crowley
> > essentially entrapped Gates into doing something for
> > which Crowley could arrest him.
> > 
> > If you read the arrest report and the Mass. statute
> > defining "disorderly conduct," you'll see how
> > carefully and deliberately Crowley worked the language
> > of the statute into the report.
> 
> Apparently, Crowley's fellow officer -- who is Black --
> backs up how Crowley conducted himself 100%.

No surprise there. She has to continue to work with him.
Ever heard of the Blue Line?

> Crowley would have to be quite Machiavellian and quite a
> schemer to manipulate the situation into the crime of
> entrapment as you describe it.

Crime of disorderly conduct, not entrapment.

> And to decide all of that and plan it on the spur of the
> moment would mean that Crowley has an incredible legal
> mind. 

Oh, hardly, Shemp. Cops *must* know the basics of what
constitutes legal arrests, or the police department would
be swamped with lawsuits. Cops on the street have to make
spur-of-the-moment arrests all the time. And a disorderly
conduct arrest is *always* spur-of-the-moment, by definition. Moreover, it's a 
common type of arrest, so you'd expect the
legal justifications for it to be something a street cop
knows by heart.
 
> Plus, at least one legal definition of "entrapment" doesn't
> gell with what you describe:

You're right, but I wasn't using the term in the legal
sense, just as a synonym for "lured." Strike it if you
want.


> And, apparently, there are other reasons for asking home
> owners in this situation to "step outside" one of which
> is that with home invasions you often have to make sure
> that the home owner isn't saying everything is okay
> because another family member may be a hostage inside
> the house who has instructed the home owner to say
> everything is okay (and that's why the officer asks if
> he is alone in the house, something that I believe
> Crowley asked).  This may be standard operating procedure
> (I don't know for sure but I heard this on the radio).

It's my understanding too, but that wasn't the timeline
here. Crowley did ask Gates to step onto the porch to
start with for these very reasons, before Crowley had
entered the foyer, but Gates refused (which he was
entitled to do). Then they had their extended alteraction
inside the house (during which Gates also refused, BTW,
to say whether there was anyone else in the house). 

Crowley had decided at the point he entered the house
that Gates wasn't a burglar, but he had to follow
procedure to get Gates's ID. Gates was uncooperative
at first but then did show his Harvard ID (Gates says
he also showed his driver's license; Crowley says he
didn't).

Anyway, Gates was upbraiding Crowley for being a
racist, demanding his name and badge number, anf
threatening to report him. Crowley says he gave him
the info twice, but Gates didn't hear him because
he was yelling.

Finally Crowley decided enough was enough, the
investigation was complete, and it was time for him
to leave. At that point he told Gates that if Gates
wanted to continue to discuss the issue, he should
come outside and discuss it there.

That second "step outside" is the problematic one, not
the first. There was no reason for Gates to be asked to
come outside. Crowley could have handed Gates his card
with his badge number and name and simply left. If
Gates wanted to pursue the issue with the department,
he was free to do so.

It's important to realize that Crowley couldn't have
arrested Gates for disorderly conduct for yelling at
him inside his house. He had to be doing it in front
of spectators and "alarming the public" to justify an
arrest.

> I agree with you that there does not appear enough
> evidence to CONVICT Gates of disturbing the peace.
> But I wonder whether the officer had the flexibility 
> and leaway under the law to arrest and detain Gates.

Sure he did--once he'd gotten Gates to follow him
outside and yell at him in front of spectators.

> My only guide for this is the show "Cops" which I have
> seen on occasion and this sort of thing seems to occur
> in almost every episode: people are stopped by the
> police for some sort of perceived infraction or
> disorderliness, the police have no intention of
> arresting them at all, and only want the "suspect" to
> simmer down and start behaving.

Right. But by the time Crowley asked Gates to come out
onto the porch the second time, the investigation had
been completed. Crowley could just have left, his d

[FairfieldLife] Re: Climate Change Denial 101

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  wrote:
> >
> > John:
> > 
> > I am always amazed at how unhappy True Believers in global warming, such as 
> > yourself, are when confronted with evidence, suggestions, or proposals that 
> > the global warming hypothesis is false.  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your argument, Shremp, is that the only 'evidence' you've 
> provided has come from various dubious, crackpot, dishonest and/or funded 
> shills for Big Energy.



That simply isn't true.

But even if it were, it is the facts that would be important, regardless of who 
financed the studies or research.

But you seem to be relying on the principle: he who pays the piper calls the 
tune.  Well, if that's the case, then it would be important to see who funds 
the studies and research that comes out with the global warming alarmism.

And it's the government!  Just the other day there was a link on the 
DrudgeReport that over $77 billion, I think it was, has been spent by the 
government on global warming research.

Now, you aren't going to try and convince me that the Government of the USA is 
not biased, are you?



> 
> The overwhelming consensus in the world-wide scientific community that global 
> warming is real, that it is very much being created by humans and that it 
> poses great risks for humanity is practically indisputable.



There is NOT overwhelming consensus.  If anything, the research is now showing 
that there is ZERO evidence to be alarmed.


> 
> The majority of what you have cited in the past has been extensively debunked 
> by reputable researchers - and doesn't amount to a hill of beans in 
> comparison to the, at this point, far more than obvious scientific reality.



simply not true.

But even if it was, why wouldn't you be hoping that that it wasn't true?  Why 
are you so keen to believe in something that promises to kill millions of 
people?  You should be hoping against hope that you are wrong.

It is, simply, irrational.


> 
> You've kind of relegated yourself to the minority fringe, Shremp - which is 
> nothing surprising... or new.



Actually, polls on global warming beliefs show that I am not...but you are.  
see:

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2009/07/breaking-europe-belief-in-global.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ag1_0hhLg_2E

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?secid=1501&status=article&id=27577562530&secure=1&show=1&rss=1


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104619




> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> It's an irrational and unreasonable response.  
> > 
> > Let me explain.
> > 
> > If you had cancer and a doctor giving you a second opinion told you you had 
> > been improperly diagnosed and that you were NOT going to die in 6 months as 
> > you had been told by the first doctor, anger is not the response rational 
> > people would have.  At the very least they would be cautiously optimistic; 
> > at the most ecstatic.
> > 
> > But that's never the reaction of the global warming true believers when it 
> > is suggested that the hypothesis is false; they get angry and they attack 
> > the "deniers" as they call them.
> > 
> > You should be EMBRACING anyone who suggests that global warming is bunk and 
> > hoping against hope that they are right and you are wrong.  Of course, you 
> > should do everything to investigate their claims to see if it holds water.  
> > But if it turns out that they've got something of substance then you should 
> > be more than willing (and want to!) join the bandwagon that they are on.  
> > BECAUSE THAT WOULD MEAN THAT MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF HUMANS ARE NOT GOING 
> > TO DIE.
> > 
> > But no.  You do the opposite.  No investigation of the claims.  NO 
> > dialogue.  No welcoming of debate on the issue.  Instead, a lot of 
> > name-calling and anger.
> > 
> > And that's why global warming true believers such as yourself are suspect.  
> > Your reaction is entirely irrational.
> > 
> > And the cancer analogy is NOT inappropriate.  Al Gore has painted a picture 
> > of catastrophy that is FAR WORSE for the world than any cancer could 
> > possibly create for us.  If anything, using cancer as an analogy undermines 
> > it.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Liberty Patriot Freedom Republic University is proud to present Climate
> > > Change Denial 101, an introductory four week course in the art of
> > > climate change denial featuring a new prayer topic every week, presented
> > > for the objective fundamentalist in an unbiased, socially conservative
> > > dominionist setting. Upon completing CCD 101, students should be able to
> > > defend the fossil fuel industry, willfully ignore and wildly
> > > mis-interpret data, and reconstruct their own apologetic to the secular
> > > consensus held by climate researchers.
> > > 
> > > Grades will be earned based on 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Climate Change Denial 101

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  wrote:
>
> John:
> 
> I am always amazed at how unhappy True Believers in global warming, such as 
> yourself, are when confronted with evidence, suggestions, or proposals that 
> the global warming hypothesis is false.  
>



The problem with your argument, Shremp, is that the only 'evidence' you've 
provided has come from various dubious, crackpot, dishonest and/or funded 
shills for Big Energy.

The overwhelming consensus in the world-wide scientific community that global 
warming is real, that it is very much being created by humans and that it poses 
great risks for humanity is practically indisputable.

The majority of what you have cited in the past has been extensively debunked 
by reputable researchers - and doesn't amount to a hill of beans in comparison 
to the, at this point, far more than obvious scientific reality.

You've kind of relegated yourself to the minority fringe, Shremp - which is 
nothing surprising... or new.





>
It's an irrational and unreasonable response.  
> 
> Let me explain.
> 
> If you had cancer and a doctor giving you a second opinion told you you had 
> been improperly diagnosed and that you were NOT going to die in 6 months as 
> you had been told by the first doctor, anger is not the response rational 
> people would have.  At the very least they would be cautiously optimistic; at 
> the most ecstatic.
> 
> But that's never the reaction of the global warming true believers when it is 
> suggested that the hypothesis is false; they get angry and they attack the 
> "deniers" as they call them.
> 
> You should be EMBRACING anyone who suggests that global warming is bunk and 
> hoping against hope that they are right and you are wrong.  Of course, you 
> should do everything to investigate their claims to see if it holds water.  
> But if it turns out that they've got something of substance then you should 
> be more than willing (and want to!) join the bandwagon that they are on.  
> BECAUSE THAT WOULD MEAN THAT MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF HUMANS ARE NOT GOING 
> TO DIE.
> 
> But no.  You do the opposite.  No investigation of the claims.  NO dialogue.  
> No welcoming of debate on the issue.  Instead, a lot of name-calling and 
> anger.
> 
> And that's why global warming true believers such as yourself are suspect.  
> Your reaction is entirely irrational.
> 
> And the cancer analogy is NOT inappropriate.  Al Gore has painted a picture 
> of catastrophy that is FAR WORSE for the world than any cancer could possibly 
> create for us.  If anything, using cancer as an analogy undermines it.
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Liberty Patriot Freedom Republic University is proud to present Climate
> > Change Denial 101, an introductory four week course in the art of
> > climate change denial featuring a new prayer topic every week, presented
> > for the objective fundamentalist in an unbiased, socially conservative
> > dominionist setting. Upon completing CCD 101, students should be able to
> > defend the fossil fuel industry, willfully ignore and wildly
> > mis-interpret data, and reconstruct their own apologetic to the secular
> > consensus held by climate researchers.
> > 
> > Grades will be earned based on the following schedule: Purchase of
> > overpriced Bible at Liberty Bookstore and Gift of 500 dollars or more to
> > the University "A"; motivated students will have an opportunity in week
> > three to earn an even higher grade, but none lower than A will be given.
> > 
> > 
> > Upon receiving a passing grade each student will be awarded 12 semester
> > hours of science transferable to any complicit faith-based university or
> > unaccredited diploma mill of higher learning.
> > 
> > Prerequisites: None required. Suggest GED or equivalent home schooling
> > work with basic mastery of times tables.
> > 
> > Course syllabus and
> > schedule for CCD 101
> > 
> >   [http://image.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/global4.jpg] Week
> > 1 Introduction -- An overview of the global warming conspiracy with
> > vigorous classroom discussion of why facts and science have an unfair
> > liberal bias (All six pages in text booklet), and a careful review of
> > the NASA Global Temperature Record with correct interpretations written
> > by our crack science faculty (Attached graph). The class will then pray
> > the demons out of James Hansen's soul.
> > 
> > Week 2 Creating Controversy -- from Intelligent Design to the fake
> > Presidential birth certificate, how past and honorary alumni have become
> > Davids of Denial, bringing the Goliaths of media and science to their
> > knees with the power of willful ignorance in the Valley of IOKIYAR, to
> > preserve blessed quarterly earnings and create righteous skepticism
> > despite overwhelming evidence. Prayer topic will be Coal: The Immaculate
> > Combustion.
> > 
> > Week 3 G

[FairfieldLife] Re: Climate Change Denial 101

[shempmcgurk]

John:

I am always amazed at how unhappy True Believers in global warming, such as 
yourself, are when confronted with evidence, suggestions, or proposals that the 
global warming hypothesis is false.  It's an irrational and unreasonable 
response.  

Let me explain.

If you had cancer and a doctor giving you a second opinion told you you had 
been improperly diagnosed and that you were NOT going to die in 6 months as you 
had been told by the first doctor, anger is not the response rational people 
would have.  At the very least they would be cautiously optimistic; at the most 
ecstatic.

But that's never the reaction of the global warming true believers when it is 
suggested that the hypothesis is false; they get angry and they attack the 
"deniers" as they call them.

You should be EMBRACING anyone who suggests that global warming is bunk and 
hoping against hope that they are right and you are wrong.  Of course, you 
should do everything to investigate their claims to see if it holds water.  But 
if it turns out that they've got something of substance then you should be more 
than willing (and want to!) join the bandwagon that they are on.  BECAUSE THAT 
WOULD MEAN THAT MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF HUMANS ARE NOT GOING TO DIE.

But no.  You do the opposite.  No investigation of the claims.  NO dialogue.  
No welcoming of debate on the issue.  Instead, a lot of name-calling and anger.

And that's why global warming true believers such as yourself are suspect.  
Your reaction is entirely irrational.

And the cancer analogy is NOT inappropriate.  Al Gore has painted a picture of 
catastrophy that is FAR WORSE for the world than any cancer could possibly 
create for us.  If anything, using cancer as an analogy undermines it.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty Patriot Freedom Republic University is proud to present Climate
> Change Denial 101, an introductory four week course in the art of
> climate change denial featuring a new prayer topic every week, presented
> for the objective fundamentalist in an unbiased, socially conservative
> dominionist setting. Upon completing CCD 101, students should be able to
> defend the fossil fuel industry, willfully ignore and wildly
> mis-interpret data, and reconstruct their own apologetic to the secular
> consensus held by climate researchers.
> 
> Grades will be earned based on the following schedule: Purchase of
> overpriced Bible at Liberty Bookstore and Gift of 500 dollars or more to
> the University "A"; motivated students will have an opportunity in week
> three to earn an even higher grade, but none lower than A will be given.
> 
> 
> Upon receiving a passing grade each student will be awarded 12 semester
> hours of science transferable to any complicit faith-based university or
> unaccredited diploma mill of higher learning.
> 
> Prerequisites: None required. Suggest GED or equivalent home schooling
> work with basic mastery of times tables.
> 
> Course syllabus and
> schedule for CCD 101
> 
>   [http://image.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/global4.jpg] Week
> 1 Introduction -- An overview of the global warming conspiracy with
> vigorous classroom discussion of why facts and science have an unfair
> liberal bias (All six pages in text booklet), and a careful review of
> the NASA Global Temperature Record with correct interpretations written
> by our crack science faculty (Attached graph). The class will then pray
> the demons out of James Hansen's soul.
> 
> Week 2 Creating Controversy -- from Intelligent Design to the fake
> Presidential birth certificate, how past and honorary alumni have become
> Davids of Denial, bringing the Goliaths of media and science to their
> knees with the power of willful ignorance in the Valley of IOKIYAR, to
> preserve blessed quarterly earnings and create righteous skepticism
> despite overwhelming evidence. Prayer topic will be Coal: The Immaculate
> Combustion.
> 
> Week 3 Guest Speaker -- Honorary Alumnus Prof. Samuel J. Wurzelbacher,
> courtesy of the Exxon Mom's Apple Pie & Cute Kittens Foundation,
> miraculously appears on video to debunk peak oil theory and makes the
> case for Drill Baby Drill with partial differential analysis and
> algorithmic game theory. Gifts of 100 dollars or more to Prof.
> Wurzzelbacher will earn students carrying an A average a plus mark and a
> smiley face on their transcript.
> 
> 
> A prayer vigil for Sarah Palin's energy policy will follow.
> 
> Week 4 Jesus Hates Alternative Energy -- This section will top off the
> course with a detailed review of our Lord and Savior who loved fossil
> fuels so much he graciously wiped out millions of innocent children with
> Noah's Flood to bequeath mankind enough of coal, oil, and gas to last
> until the End Times.
> 
> 
> Time permitting students will hear why being declined for peer reviewed
> publication is identical to being ruthlessly nailed to a c

[FairfieldLife] Re: Racial profiling and the Gates case

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine 
>  wrote:
> >
> > On Jul 24, 2009, at 3:48 PM, shempmcgurk wrote:
> > 
> > > Here is what is confusing me about the Gates case.
> > >
> > > I have heard commentators say that Gates was 
> > > "racially profiled" by the policeman who came to 
> > > his home. Although Gates may have been profiled by 
> > > the neighbor who made the initial call to 
> > > police/911 that started this whole thing off, 
> > > there certainly wasn't any racial profiling done 
> > > on the part of the police officer that went to the 
> > > house.
> 
> Correct. None by the person who reported seeing a 
> break-in, either. She was asked to describe the people
> she saw, and she said (accurately) that they were
> black. That isn't even remotely "racial profiling."
> 
> The "racial profiling" complaint is based on the cop
> (Crowley) asking Gates for his ID. But that's just
> routine to ask for ID from whoever you find in a house
> that's been reported as having been broken into.
> 
> Crowley says he had already concluded Gates wasn't a
> burglar by the time he came in the house. The ID was
> a formality.
> 
> What's *very* questionable to me is the subsequent
> arrest for disorderly conduct. There's excellent
> reason to believe the arrest was Crowley's payback
> for Gates having yelled at him and called him a
> racist.
> 
> Although I think Gates behaved abominably, I'm not
> on Crowley's side in this, not because I think he's 
> a racist but because he abused his authority. Gates's
> bad behavior wasn't a crime--until Crowley lured him
> out onto the porch.
> 
> There was no need for Gates to come onto the porch.
> Crowley appears to have told Gates to step onto the
> porch in hopes that Gates would continue to yell at
> him--which Gates did--and by that time a crowd had
> gathered, so Crowley could claim Gates was "alarming"
> the public, which is one of the legal criteria for a
> disorderly conduct arrest. It looks like Crowley
> essentially entrapped Gates into doing something for
> which Crowley could arrest him.
> 
> If you read the arrest report and the Mass. statute
> defining "disorderly conduct," you'll see how
> carefully and deliberately Crowley worked the language
> of the statute into the report.



Apparently, Crowley's fellow officer -- who is Black -- backs up how Crowley 
conducted himself 100%.  And what the Black officer saw was what happened after 
Gates came out of the house.

Crowley would have to be quite Machiavellian and quite a schemer to manipulate 
the situation into the crime of entrapment as you describe it.  And to decide 
all of that and plan it on the spur of the moment would mean that Crowley has 
an incredible legal mind. 

Plus, at least one legal definition of "entrapment" doesn't gell with what you 
describe:

"The appellate court held that it is not entrapment for the police to provide 
someone with an opportunity for a crime. Entrapment can only exist as a defense 
when it is proven that the government created the crime." 

[see: 
http://stillanightowl.wordpress.com/2008/08/28/deception-in-the-investigation-of-crime-entrapment/]

And, apparently, there are other reasons for asking home owners in this 
situation to "step outside" one of which is that with home invasions you often 
have to make sure that the home owner isn't saying everything is okay because 
another family member may be a hostage inside the house who has instructed the 
home owner to say everything is okay (and that's why the officer asks if he is 
alone in the house, something that I believe Crowley asked).  This may be 
standard operating procedure (I don't know for sure but I heard this on the 
radio).

I agree with you that there does not appear enough evidence to CONVICT Gates of 
disturbing the peace.  But I wonder whether the officer had the flexibility and 
leaway under the law to arrest and detain Gates. My only guide for this is the 
show "Cops" which I have seen on occasion and this sort of thing seems to occur 
in almost every episode: people are stopped by the police for some sort of 
perceived infraction or disorderliness, the police have no intention of 
arresting them at all, and only want the "suspect" to simmer down and start 
behaving. 

Keep in mind that any time a cop arrests someone he is imposing a lot of 
paperwork on himself (and if you've seen the arresting report of the Gates 
case, you'll know how true this is).  Arresting someone on small infractions 
like this is the last thing an officer wants to do because it imposes 
additional work on him. But when the individual ceases to be co-operative and 
the officer has given the person several warnings, they arrest them.  This is 
what appears to be what happened here.  Gates acted like a pompous ass, he was 
given enough warnings, didn't cooperate, and was arrested.

And like a lot of the incidents on the show "Cops", charges were dropped

[FairfieldLife] Climate Change Denial 101

[do.rflex]

Liberty Patriot Freedom Republic University is proud to present Climate
Change Denial 101, an introductory four week course in the art of
climate change denial featuring a new prayer topic every week, presented
for the objective fundamentalist in an unbiased, socially conservative
dominionist setting. Upon completing CCD 101, students should be able to
defend the fossil fuel industry, willfully ignore and wildly
mis-interpret data, and reconstruct their own apologetic to the secular
consensus held by climate researchers.

Grades will be earned based on the following schedule: Purchase of
overpriced Bible at Liberty Bookstore and Gift of 500 dollars or more to
the University "A"; motivated students will have an opportunity in week
three to earn an even higher grade, but none lower than A will be given.


Upon receiving a passing grade each student will be awarded 12 semester
hours of science transferable to any complicit faith-based university or
unaccredited diploma mill of higher learning.

Prerequisites: None required. Suggest GED or equivalent home schooling
work with basic mastery of times tables.

Course syllabus and
schedule for CCD 101

  [http://image.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/global4.jpg] Week
1 Introduction -- An overview of the global warming conspiracy with
vigorous classroom discussion of why facts and science have an unfair
liberal bias (All six pages in text booklet), and a careful review of
the NASA Global Temperature Record with correct interpretations written
by our crack science faculty (Attached graph). The class will then pray
the demons out of James Hansen's soul.

Week 2 Creating Controversy -- from Intelligent Design to the fake
Presidential birth certificate, how past and honorary alumni have become
Davids of Denial, bringing the Goliaths of media and science to their
knees with the power of willful ignorance in the Valley of IOKIYAR, to
preserve blessed quarterly earnings and create righteous skepticism
despite overwhelming evidence. Prayer topic will be Coal: The Immaculate
Combustion.

Week 3 Guest Speaker -- Honorary Alumnus Prof. Samuel J. Wurzelbacher,
courtesy of the Exxon Mom's Apple Pie & Cute Kittens Foundation,
miraculously appears on video to debunk peak oil theory and makes the
case for Drill Baby Drill with partial differential analysis and
algorithmic game theory. Gifts of 100 dollars or more to Prof.
Wurzzelbacher will earn students carrying an A average a plus mark and a
smiley face on their transcript.


A prayer vigil for Sarah Palin's energy policy will follow.

Week 4 Jesus Hates Alternative Energy -- This section will top off the
course with a detailed review of our Lord and Savior who loved fossil
fuels so much he graciously wiped out millions of innocent children with
Noah's Flood to bequeath mankind enough of coal, oil, and gas to last
until the End Times.


Time permitting students will hear why being declined for peer reviewed
publication is identical to being ruthlessly nailed to a cross by
freedom-hating liberal heretics and pray for the Rapture.

http://snipurl.com/nxo2g  [www_examiner_com]

[FairfieldLife] Re: Racial profiling and the Gates case

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine 
 wrote:
>
> On Jul 24, 2009, at 3:48 PM, shempmcgurk wrote:
> 
> > Here is what is confusing me about the Gates case.
> >
> > I have heard commentators say that Gates was 
> > "racially profiled" by the policeman who came to 
> > his home. Although Gates may have been profiled by 
> > the neighbor who made the initial call to 
> > police/911 that started this whole thing off, 
> > there certainly wasn't any racial profiling done 
> > on the part of the police officer that went to the 
> > house.

Correct. None by the person who reported seeing a 
break-in, either. She was asked to describe the people
she saw, and she said (accurately) that they were
black. That isn't even remotely "racial profiling."

The "racial profiling" complaint is based on the cop
(Crowley) asking Gates for his ID. But that's just
routine to ask for ID from whoever you find in a house
that's been reported as having been broken into.

Crowley says he had already concluded Gates wasn't a
burglar by the time he came in the house. The ID was
a formality.

What's *very* questionable to me is the subsequent
arrest for disorderly conduct. There's excellent
reason to believe the arrest was Crowley's payback
for Gates having yelled at him and called him a
racist.

Although I think Gates behaved abominably, I'm not
on Crowley's side in this, not because I think he's 
a racist but because he abused his authority. Gates's
bad behavior wasn't a crime--until Crowley lured him
out onto the porch.

There was no need for Gates to come onto the porch.
Crowley appears to have told Gates to step onto the
porch in hopes that Gates would continue to yell at
him--which Gates did--and by that time a crowd had
gathered, so Crowley could claim Gates was "alarming"
the public, which is one of the legal criteria for a
disorderly conduct arrest. It looks like Crowley
essentially entrapped Gates into doing something for
which Crowley could arrest him.

If you read the arrest report and the Mass. statute
defining "disorderly conduct," you'll see how
carefully and deliberately Crowley worked the language
of the statute into the report.

(Is Marek around? Be interesting to hear his take on
all this.)


> I sort of agree with shemp... I must be feeling worse
> than I thought. What it definitely is, though, is a
> sad comment on our times and our sense of community.
> His own neighbor didn't recognize him?  How sad is 
> that.

Well, that part is definitely *not* "a sad comment on
our times." The woman who made the report wasn't Gates's
neighbor; she was someone who worked in the area. She
had no way of knowing the person she saw lived in the
house.

This will, of course, be lost on Stupid Sal, but in
the case of a controversial event like this one, it's
always a good idea to read more than one account before
forming your opinions, because it's inevitable that
early reports will have inaccuracies and that more
information will come out later.