[FairfieldLife] Re: Seelisberg = Bevan Morris is now in Seelisberg
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, It's just a ride bill.hicks.all.a.r...@... wrote: Maharishi had ADD. He couldn't hold onto the same thought for 5 minutes straight. Your dreams are gone, as are he. Whereas his followers can hold onto the same petty grudge for years. Is that their attempt to hold onto their dreams of knowing the truth, or to life? :-) What *IS* it about the grudges and the quest for revenge that holds such fascination and attraction for them? Two people yesterday bit into the chum I'd scattered and (probably...I only read the first lines as usual so I don't know for sure) ranted for dozens of lines explaining why revenge is a Good Thing and a Spiritual Thing and why they're so obsessed with it, and how hanging on to their revenge fantasies makes them all noble. I don't buy it. Seeking revenge is seen as a Good Thing only in religions and spiritual traditions that have never evolved past that level of childish ego. Those religions and traditions tend to celebrate the revenge and add stories *about* revenge to their scrip- tures to glorify it as something cosmic and wonderful. But IMO that's just pandering to the paying customers (the mindless followers) by glorifying something they're already good at -- being petty and seeking revenge -- rather than suggesting that they should Grow Up Already and get over such childish shit. And now their fantasies are seeming to center on trying to either get the person who has been pointing out that their obsession with revenge is low-vibe banned, or trying to get others on this forum to pile on when they indulge in their own Revenge Rants against him. So far, that hasn't seemed to be working, so I fully expect them to add the people who haven't signed on to their proposed banning and shaming campaigns to their Hit List and start attacking *them*, too. And that, too will be just more childish shit. But all this clinging to revenge may on some level be a Good Thing after all. It's becoming obvious that the phrase Yeah, that'll happen when Judy and Edg get past their revenge fantasies is pretty much in the same ballpark as saying When pigs fly or When Hell freezes over. Such phrases are often associated with the Apocalypse or the predicted end of the world. Maybe Judy and Edg holding on so tightly to their revenge fantasies is all that's keeping the Apocalypse from happening. Maybe what we should be afraid of is the day that either of them demonstrate an ounce of compassion or the ability to forget the past. The day that happens may indicate that the world has no future. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Does emotion poison the brain and destroy the ability to reason?
I'm fascinated by this Polanski situation not because I'm a fan of his, or even his movies. IMO, he's only made two good movies in his life, Repulsion and Chinatown, and neither of those place him in any way above the law. I have said on this forum several times now that I think he should have spent more time in jail for the crime he was convicted of than he did. But that has been perverted by the revenge fantasists on FFL to me supporting and enabling a child rapist. Go figure. The amount of time Polanski serves is now a moot point. By the time his extradition is settled, he will have spend more time behind bars than he was originally sentenced to, and that will be *before* he is returned to the US, if he is. The larger issue in my opinion is that people in the media and on this forum HAVE LOST THEIR FUCKING MINDS with regard to Roman Polanski. They don't seem to be able to remember even simple facts about the legal system they claim to be upholding. Roman Polanski was convicted of (after having been talked into confessing to it as part of a plea bargain that was not honored) only *one* thing -- having had sex with a minor. That's it. That is ALL that he was convicted of. The people screaming for revenge can't seem to remember this. They talk about the supposed drugging and the anal rape as if they were facts, and had been proven to be facts in court, and as if Polanski had been convicted of doing these things. THAT NEVER HAPPENED. These things were never established as fact; he was never found guilty of these things. They were, and remain, hearsay. Roman Polanski can be held accountable (some would say unfortunately, and I agree with them) for only one thing -- having had sex with a minor. *That* is the only thing he was convicted of. The *only* penalties that can be applied to him are penalties appropriate to that crime. That's the appeal of reason and of legal fact. But this case isn't *about* reason or fact; it's about emotion. Normally sane people get so emotional that Cokie Roberts said yesterday on This Week (only partly tongue in cheek), Roman Polanski is a criminal. He raped and drugged and raped and sodomized a child. And then was a fugitive from justice. As far as I'm concerned, just take him out and shoot him. This normally sane reporter doesn't even realize that she is so emotional she said raped twice, let alone that she's calling for him to be punished for *things he was not convicted of*. The guy should have received the same jail sentence as anyone else in the state of California convicted of having had sex with a minor. End of story. Weighting his sentence and making it lighter because he was famous is unacceptable. Weighting his sentence and making it longer because of hearsay that was never allowed to be presented in court (because of the plea bargain) and that he was never convicted of is unacceptable. Stop letting emotion poison your brains, people. Step away from the outrage (faux or real) and away from the revenge fantasies and try to remember the *facts*. Roman Polanski was convicted of having sex with a minor. Period. If you're calling for punishment for more than that, the person who considers themselves above the law is YOU.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Does emotion poison the brain and destroy the ability to reason?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: The guy should have received the same jail sentence as anyone else in the state of California convicted of having had sex with a minor. End of story. Weighting his sentence and making it lighter because he was famous is unacceptable. Weighting his sentence and making it longer because of hearsay that was never allowed to be presented in court (because of the plea bargain) and that he was never convicted of is unacceptable. Stop letting emotion poison your brains, people. Step away from the outrage (faux or real) and away from the revenge fantasies and try to remember the *facts*. Roman Polanski was convicted of having sex with a minor. Period. If you're calling for punishment for more than that, the person who considers themselves above the law is YOU. I'll follow up on this to make one additional factual point and then riff on it. Of course there is now one additional charge that can be applied to Roman Polanski besides having had sex with a minor -- fleeing the country before final sentence was passed. In my opinion that's what all this furor is really about. The people who are still trying to drag him back to the US are *using* the emotional angle of his case to hide what they are *really* pissed off about -- international extradition agreements and the fact that they don't work the way that the US would like them to. This whole furor is an attempt IMO to force the international community to abide by *America's* view of what law is. They want to insure that in the future anyone they call a criminal in the United States is considered one all over the world, to the point that these other countries will spend their own time, energy, and money tracking down these US criminals to return them to justice in America. Not gonna happen. France has extradition agree- ments with the US, but reserves the right to make its own decisions on whether to extradite or not. So, until the recent American bullying started, did Switzerland. My bet is that the Swiss, who worship money even more than the Americans do, will capitulate and return Polanski to the US, where they'll throw the book at him for revealing the American justice system's 1) lack of justice and 2) its impotence. It's having been bested by a short, Polish twerp that's really the issue here. They cannot abide that. The thing they're using to chum the waters of international sentiment and get him extradited are the hearsay elements of the case, things he was never convicted of, things that were never presented in court in the first place. But the real reason they're still after him IMO is because he proved to the world 1) just how corrupt the American legal system is, and 2) how easy it is to ignore if you take a mind to. And that's probably about all I have to say about Roman Polanski, except to establish what I have said and continue to say here, as opposed to the things that bitter old harpies and hate junkies *claim* that I've said. I think that Polanski: * Should have spent more time in jail than he did, for the crime of which he was convicted -- having sex with a minor. * Should not have had that time weighted *either* by the fact that he was a celebrity *or* because of charges made against him that were dropped and of which he was *not* convicted. * Is probably a real sleazeball, and not a very good filmmaker. He all too often relies on the very thing that is being used against him to sell his movies -- an appeal to cheap emotion (cf. The Pianist). * Is toast. The Swiss are ruled by the love of money and are not about to risk having the US investigate their hiding of it any further by fighting extradition.
[FairfieldLife] What the phuk is a Rk (~ rik)?
Motto: Let your fancy flow! (Jimi Hendrix, Up from the Skies). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Av-vf9ZEjEfeature=related In Finnish the word 'rikki' means 'broken' (well, a homonymic word also means 'sulphur'...). 'Snap, Crackle, Pop' in Finnish is 'Riks, Raks, Poks'. So, e.g. 'riks' in Finnish is an onomatopoetic word for the sound of something shattering: mennä (to go) rikki (broken). Thus, the word 'Rk' is an auditive descripition, on the vaikharii level of speech, of the spontaneous sequential symmetry breaking that produces the manifest, material world (maayaa) from the unmanifest immaterial existense (sat). Now, 'paramo vyomaa' (locative: parame vyoman[i] - *in* paramo vyomaa) in the terminology of modern physics prolly corresponds to quantum vacuum state or somesuch. I guess it's a well known fact that quantum vacuum state constantly produces, or whatever, pairs of virtual particles (a particle and its antiparticle?) that usually immediately annihilate each other. Perhaps one might say that a miniscule portion of the quantum vacuum state breaks, so to speak, for a unbelievably short moment of time but is immeditely healed (made whole). So, the Rk-s naturally exist in a holistict state (akSara: not-kSara), but due to some peculiar conditions (according to Stephen Hawking, the nearness(?) of miniature black holes) they can manifest (kSara of A) to be annihilited during a pralaya, mahaa or otherwise...blah, blah, blah...
[FairfieldLife] For Bhairitu -- my Polanski conspiracy theory :-)
Just for fun, and to piss off the emotionally- out-of-control here. :-) My theory -- which is not just mine, BTW, and has been voiced in the European press -- is that the Polanski case is All About Extradition. That is, it's an attempt by the US to beef up extradition as a preventive measure to keep rich Americans from taking their money to off- shore tax havens and then moving there them- selves when the economy finally tanks. The real goal of this effort is to ensure that when this happens the US can extradite and bring back rich people who move to tax haven countries and, more important, bring back their money. Andorran sources have said that pressures similar to what the US is trying to impose on Switzerland have been tried on them. So have sources in the Channel Islands, the Cayman Islands, and other nations known as tax havens. I'll just throw this out and allow the ranters to rant about it. It's just a theory, and a con- spiracy theory at that :-), but my rule of thumb when some guvmint dredges up a 32-year-old case at the same time its economy is in a meltdown is that it's not a bad idea to follow the money and see whether there might just be a financial reason for it. And there is. http://www.billshrink.com/blog/15-of-the-worlds-most-significant-tax-havens/ http://emsnews.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/tax-havens-under-attack/ http://www.azbiz.com/articles/2009/08/21/finance/your_money/doc4a8ee0dc0e47f892500676.txt http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/15/rich-americans-scrambling_n_260325.html http://features.csmonitor.com/economyrebuild/2009/08/19/economic-scene-a-tougher-stance-on-tax-havens/
[FairfieldLife] Shamatha Project researcher receives Nobel Prize
Elizabeth Blackburn, a participant in the Shamatha Project meditation research, the most detailed look into deep meditation ever conducted, has received the Nobel prize for medicine, along with two other colleagues for her research on telomeres. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/05/ AR2009100500912.html LINK 3 Americans share 2009 Nobel medicine prize By KARL RITTER and MATT MOORE The Associated Press Monday, October 5, 2009; 6:56 AM STOCKHOLM -- Americans Elizabeth H. Blackburn, Carol W. Greider and Jack W. Szostak won the 2009 Nobel Prize in medicine on Monday for discovering a key mechanism in the genetic operations of cells, an insight that has inspired new lines of research into cancer. The trio solved the mystery of how chromosomes, the rod-like structures that carry DNA, protect themselves from degrading when cells divide. The Nobel citation said the laureates found the solution in the ends of the chromosomes - structures called telomeres that are often compared to the plastic tips at the end of shoe laces that keep those laces from unraveling. Blackburn and Greider discovered the enzyme that builds telomeres - telomerase - and the mechanism by which it adds DNA to the tips of chromosomes to replace genetic material that has eroded away. The prize-winners' work set the stage for research suggesting that cancer cells use telomerase to sustain their uncontrolled growth. Scientists are studying whether drugs that block the enzyme can fight the disease. In addition, scientists believe that the DNA erosion the enzyme repairs might play a role in some illnesses. The discoveries by Blackburn, Greider and Szostak have added a new dimension to our understanding of the cell, shed light on disease mechanisms, and stimulated the development of potential new therapies, the prize committee said in its citation. (...)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rape and Barry's Sociopathy and Barry's Elitism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: What is rape? What makes it the crime that most folks consider almost as bad as murder? [Snip] Rape is bad, very, very bad... Why is rape bad, very, very bad? There is a 'Demonic Spirit' that is 'Doing the Raping'... Because, it is inhuman... This is the essence, of what happened with Sharon Tate, and 'The Director'...he became possessed, with some kind of 'Demon', which was left there, by the 'Manson Followers'...and that demon, is something he has to face now, although, that demon, has moved on to someone else, in the LA area... First of all, we need to appreciate, what 'Sex' is, in it's essence... 'Sex' in it's essence, is the 'Holy Spirit'... In 'Tantra' Sex...is one end of the 'Cobra Snake'... And the 'Third Eye'...and 'Crown Chakra'...are the other end... Of the 'Mastery of that Cobra Energy, of 'Awakened Shakti'... Now, if one is 'Invaded'...by a 'Nasty Spirit'... That wishes to abuse, this 'Human Being'... By 'Grabbing' at the 'Sacred Fire'... Then the 'Actual Soul' of that human, can 'Withdraw from the Body'... In horror... This can cause a 'Psychic Death', in the individual... The 'Demonic Power'...of 'Playing With', someone's sexual energy, has been utilized by the CIA, in Abu Ghraib prison~ Baghdad, Iraq... Because the effects of this kind of 'Rape' has been known, in war, to produce maximum shock psychic damage, sometimes permanent... During the 'Nazi Era', much torture, relating to sexuality, was committed by the Nazis, because, in part, to the intense sexual repression in the German Community... And the fact, that Hitler, only had one testicle... Robert Jeffrey Gimbel
Re: [FairfieldLife] Does emotion poison the brain and destroy the ability to reason?
On Oct 5, 2009, at 3:58 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: But that has been perverted by the revenge fantasists on FFL to me supporting and enabling a child rapist. Go figure. The amount of time Polanski serves is now a moot point. By the time his extradition is settled, he will have spend more time behind bars than he was originally sentenced to, and that will be *before* he is returned to the US, if he is. The larger issue in my opinion is that people in the media and on this forum HAVE LOST THEIR FUCKING MINDS with regard to Roman Polanski. They don't seem to be able to remember even simple facts about the legal system they claim to be upholding. There has been a lot written and there are numerous on-going investigations into what the Buddhist taxonomy of consciousness would call afflictive emotions. The first major work was by Daniel Goleman, Ph.D. and entitled Destructive Emotions. Goleman was group leader in the Mind Life conference, where HH the 14th Dalai Lama meets with leading scientists. The meeting Goleman was at was actually the 3rd Mind Life conference held in 1990. Since that time researchers have continued to look into this topic. I am actually just reading a more recent work on the topic of emotional awareness, a conversation between the Dalai Lama and Paul Ekman, Ph.D. entitled Emotional Awareness: Overcoming the Obstacles to Psychological Balance and Compassion. Of course there are afflictive and non-afflictive emotions. If one truly expands consciousness one should expand consciousness to include automatic mechanisms--knee-jerk reactions--which can include the afflictive emotions. As awareness expands, unconscious afflictive emotions are diminished. Some meditation forms may not work at this level and so destructive emotions continue to flourish, which means such people can afflict others with their afflictive emotions. But someone who is free from afflictive emotion and able to discriminate instinctively, can also use afflictive emotions constructively. It's usually pretty easy to tell who is who in person, if one spends enough time around them. Similarly, although with less precision, you can also get a good idea by reading someone's writing across time. One primary characteristic of afflictive emotions is that they are out of tune with reality. There is a distorted perception of reality. It is as if the perception of reality is poisoned or negatively colored by an instinctual negative reaction. Whether one can turn that afflictive emotion into something constructive depends on the skill of the individual. Certain meditative training can help one develop that skillfulness. In general meditative forms that use a form of top-down control of attention tend to favor a more egocentric neural functioning, and thus aren't as good at transforming instinctual negativity. Bottom- up, more open presence style of meditative practice, either alone or in conjunction with egocentric attentional forms, seem to favor a more allocentric, other, out there awareness and are better at integrating and transforming negativity. Transcend and include rather than transcend into. All healthy humans have various instinctual reactions or reflexes that originate from the very old, reptilian part of the brain. For example, in all humans, if they are startled by a loud sound, there is a reflexive and measurable response that always occurs at exactly 250 milliseconds after the stimulus and always lasts for exactly 250 milliseconds, always ending 500 milliseconds after the stimulus. Never longer, never shorter, in the entire species. However in advanced meditators we now know they can transcend and include to the point where that reptilian startle is no longer measurable or just barely detectable. It's this level of meditation practice and proficiency that allows a person to conquer--and master--even the most instinctual negative emotions. This non-startle presence is very obvious once one has recognized it, around certain meditative adepts. It has a kind of ripple effect through the various levels of the person. And like the afflictive emotions of a person who can spread this affliction to others (and cause them to produce negative emotions), people with the non- startle, non-afflictive style are able to pass that presence on to others, but in a more positive manner.
[FairfieldLife] Fwd: Sara Ridgely passed away
Delivered-To: dickm...@lisco.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:from:to :content-type:subject:mime-version:date:x-mailer; bh=HdpzV0IlyfvToMg9Vg08FLVF/bcksy7bXo0nmG2rd4E=; b=OdkP3hCo4NeGBIprDVPxDq/VGvdiShmDoWBHWhGMTW4AX7w4VN6FDwzpYDzfxstjNM /omPdOIfYHJJWuY5lVnZ6szYKyENZo05yPsDgk0/PjZG1vn87N1MH0RtpUIegx8eUNVA Z2KZVZw28KR0hJjLH6dW5aiDSlN42SRrgNL7E= From: Anthony Antimuro aa1...@gmail.com To: Anthony Antimuro aa1...@gmail.com Subject: Sara Ridgely passed away Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 21:28:29 -0500 X-MagicMail-UUID: cca85516-b156-11de-be63-00065bf16b23 Friends, In case you have not yet heard, I thought that you would want to know that Sara Ridgely, beloved wife of Craig Ridgely, passed away peacefully with Craig by her side at home on Friday, October 2. Sara will be missed by all who knew her. If you would like to send a note of condolence and support, you can contact Craig via e-mail or mail at: Craig Ridgley 1104 W. Briggs Av Fairfield, IA 52556 mailto:cridg...@safire.netcridg...@safire.net === Please feel free to share this message with those on your mailing list. I have sent this message to all those on my mailing list who may have known either Craig or Sara. If I have included you in error, please forgive my mistake.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Insensitivity,
Dear Rick, i think very clearly i could help you with this. Give me that key that you have to FFL that rules the other keys that those other moderators have. That one key that rules them all. Its a heavey weight to carry all alone. I should help you with that. We've come through a lot together. The Precious. He wants the Precious. Shall we gives it to him? No, he takes it and becomes powerful. He keeps it in his nasty little pocketses. Om Nay, no you have me all wrong. I only wanted to look at them, the username and password that rules them all. I would not use them, I only feel to check them for their primordial sound values. I can save Doug the effort. My username and password are both based on the ancient mantra and primordial sound FUCK YOU. That's a short U (as in up) not a long U (as in user). Just trying to be helpful. :-) Fortunately, I think we all know that Doug is having us on with all of this. Whereas I don't think I'm alone here in worrying about Robert (babaji) lately. Sometimes I'm afraid he really does believe the stuff he posts.
[FairfieldLife] Re: For Bhairitu -- my Polanski conspiracy theory :-)
TurquoiseB wrote: it's not a bad idea to follow the money and see whether there might just be a financial reason for it. And there is. Maybe it's time for Polanski to pay the victim the money she was awarded in court. Two million dollars ought to begin to make things right.
[FairfieldLife] Nityananda - Nothing can prevent the bond of Love
Late in the evening of August 7, 1961 Nityananda was alone with one devotee and he told him that he would be leaving the body the next day. The devotee was in tears and asked him to change his mind or at least postpone the Mahasamadhi. He replied: It is possible only if a few devotees come forward and make a request; not any devotees but those imbued with desireless devotion, bhava (feeling) and prema (love) Even one such is enough and the samadhi will be canceled. When such a devotee is present, even God cannot take leave without his permission, or be able to disengage himself from the bond of his pure love. http://www.cosmicharmony.com/Av/Nityanan/Nityanan.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: Does emotion poison the brain and destroy the ability to reason?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: I'm fascinated by this Polanski situation not because I'm a fan of his, or even his movies. IMO, he's only made two good movies in his life, Repulsion and Chinatown, and neither of those place him in any way above the law. I have said on this forum several times now that I think he should have spent more time in jail for the crime he was convicted of than he did. But that has been perverted by the revenge fantasists on FFL to me supporting and enabling a child rapist. Go figure. The amount of time Polanski serves is now a moot point. By the time his extradition is settled, he will have spend more time behind bars than he was originally sentenced to, and that will be *before* he is returned to the US, if he is. The larger issue in my opinion is that people in the media and on this forum HAVE LOST THEIR FUCKING MINDS with regard to Roman Polanski. They don't seem to be able to remember even simple facts about the legal system they claim to be upholding. Roman Polanski was convicted of (after having been talked into confessing to it as part of a plea bargain that was not honored) only *one* thing -- having had sex with a minor. That's it. That is ALL that he was convicted of. The people screaming for revenge can't seem to remember this. Can't remember it? Hell, we wish we could FORGET it! Since you are no doubt the psychopath that various members of this group have accused you of being, you wouldn't understand that the mere fact that Polanski was convicted of only ONE count is what has many of us up in arms. Largely due to the fact that, at the time, the victim made it clear she didn't want to go through the horrors of a trial (in those days it was even tougher on rape victims than it is today and rich Polanski's high-priced lawyers would have made minced meat of her), the prosecution made the plea bargaining deal with Polanski. But there were numerous OTHER charges that if Geimer's Grand Jury testimony is to be believed Polanski was guilty of. They talk about the supposed drugging and the anal rape as if they were facts, and had been proven to be facts in court, and as if Polanski had been convicted of doing these things. THAT NEVER HAPPENED. These things were never established as fact; he was never found guilty of these things. They were, and remain, hearsay. No, actually, they were and remain evidence (testimony is evidence). You are correct when you say that we don't know whether those specific things happened (drugging, anal rape) but, hey, when a convicted felon runs out and avoids justice as Polanski did, no one need presume any sort of innocence. Polanski could have chosen to face his accuser in the proper forum -- a court -- but chose not to. He skipped town. So it is entirely reasonable until he does to presume that the victim was correct in all she said. Roman Polanski can be held accountable (some would say unfortunately, and I agree with them) for only one thing -- having had sex with a minor. *That* is the only thing he was convicted of. The *only* penalties that can be applied to him are penalties appropriate to that crime. 1) Uh, no, the only penalties, at minimum are the one count of unlawful sex with a child AND whatever penalty comes from fleeing jurisdiction. 2) Your unfortunately remark tells everyone that the psychopath accusation may literally be clinically accurate. EVEN IF ALL THAT YOU CHILD RAPE ENABLERS CLAIM IS TRUE AND THAT THIS EVIL CHILD SEDUCED AND, AGAINST HIS WILL, FORCED POLANSKI TO TOUCH HER INAPPROPRIATELY (LET'S NOT EVEN SUGGEST THAT HE ANALLY, VAGINALLY, OR ORALLY TOUCHED HER), IT WAS STILL COMMITTED AGAINST A 13 YEAR OLD WHO DOES NOT, BY LAW AND BY COMMON SENSE HAVE THE CAPACITY TO CONSENT TO SEX WITH A 44 YEAR OLD MAN. You simply don't GET that, Barry, and that, dear boy, is precisely why you are a child rape enabler. In whatever small way, you enable crimes of this kind by putting out the idea that 44 year old men can touch 13 year old girls in ANY way, even with consent: Well, your honor, she looked WAY beyond her years and, boy, she really tempted me by sticking her tits in my face and who could resist that? This is what you're essentially saying by your unfortunately remark, Barry, and there really isn't any other interpretation. That's the appeal of reason and of legal fact. But this case isn't *about* reason or fact; it's about emotion. Emotion, anger, and knee-jerk reactions of the mob mentality is curtailed by the rules of law and the justice system taking its course. It is Polanski that broke this covenant. Such emotions are not only natural to have in response to this crime of Polanski's but rational to have and these emotions are held in check by the rule of law taking its course, such as they have been with Polanski's arrest after 32 years
[FairfieldLife] Re: For Bhairitu -- my Polanski conspiracy theory :-)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: Just for fun, and to piss off the emotionally- out-of-control here. :-) My theory -- which is not just mine, BTW, and has been voiced in the European press -- is that the Polanski case is All About Extradition. That is, it's an attempt by the US to beef up extradition as a preventive measure to keep rich Americans from taking their money to off- shore tax havens and then moving there them- selves when the economy finally tanks. The real goal of this effort is to ensure that when this happens the US can extradite and bring back rich people who move to tax haven countries and, more important, bring back their money. Andorran sources have said that pressures similar to what the US is trying to impose on Switzerland have been tried on them. So have sources in the Channel Islands, the Cayman Islands, and other nations known as tax havens. I'll just throw this out and allow the ranters to rant about it. It's just a theory, and a con- spiracy theory at that :-), but my rule of thumb when some guvmint dredges up a 32-year-old case ...and the reason it's a 32 year case is SOLELY because of the convicted child rapist. Gee, I don't suppose one of the motivations on the part of the U.S. is that to discourage further child rapes that it must be shown that you can't flee justice forever, could it? Sadly for Barry who thinks the French and Europeans superior to Americans in all things, including justice and child rape, the French Ministry of Justice has seen the public opinion polls (running 70% against Polanski) and have officially dropped their request that Polanski be set free. at the same time its economy is in a meltdown is that it's not a bad idea to follow the money and see whether there might just be a financial reason for it. And there is. http://www.billshrink.com/blog/15-of-the-worlds-most-significant-tax-havens/ http://emsnews.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/tax-havens-under-attack/ http://www.azbiz.com/articles/2009/08/21/finance/your_money/doc4a8ee0dc0e47f892500676.txt http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/15/rich-americans-scrambling_n_260325.html http://features.csmonitor.com/economyrebuild/2009/08/19/economic-scene-a-tougher-stance-on-tax-havens/
[FairfieldLife] Re: For Bhairitu -- my Polanski conspiracy theory :-)
I note below that one of the links that Barry provides us in order to convince us of his child-rape-enabling viewpoint is to the HuffingtonPost.com. He accuses us of being part of the mob mentality and of being angry and irrational. Well, it may interest him to know that compared with some of the HuffPo bloggers and to an even greater extent its readers' comments, the FFL anti-Polanski crowd are veritable push-overs. HuffPo has an entire page devoted to Polanski: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/roman-polanski --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: Just for fun, and to piss off the emotionally- out-of-control here. :-) My theory -- which is not just mine, BTW, and has been voiced in the European press -- is that the Polanski case is All About Extradition. That is, it's an attempt by the US to beef up extradition as a preventive measure to keep rich Americans from taking their money to off- shore tax havens and then moving there them- selves when the economy finally tanks. The real goal of this effort is to ensure that when this happens the US can extradite and bring back rich people who move to tax haven countries and, more important, bring back their money. Andorran sources have said that pressures similar to what the US is trying to impose on Switzerland have been tried on them. So have sources in the Channel Islands, the Cayman Islands, and other nations known as tax havens. I'll just throw this out and allow the ranters to rant about it. It's just a theory, and a con- spiracy theory at that :-), but my rule of thumb when some guvmint dredges up a 32-year-old case at the same time its economy is in a meltdown is that it's not a bad idea to follow the money and see whether there might just be a financial reason for it. And there is. http://www.billshrink.com/blog/15-of-the-worlds-most-significant-tax-havens/ http://emsnews.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/tax-havens-under-attack/ http://www.azbiz.com/articles/2009/08/21/finance/your_money/doc4a8ee0dc0e47f892500676.txt http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/15/rich-americans-scrambling_n_260325.html http://features.csmonitor.com/economyrebuild/2009/08/19/economic-scene-a-tougher-stance-on-tax-havens/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Does emotion poison the brain and destroy the ability to reason?
Thanks for writing this up, Vaj, and so well. You get it. I see the *level* of destructive emotions being displayed on this forum by 30 to 40 year TM meditators as being a matter of some concern. I further see the fact that they describe these destructive emotions as normal to be of even more concern. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Oct 5, 2009, at 3:58 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: The larger issue in my opinion is that people in the media and on this forum HAVE LOST THEIR FUCKING MINDS with regard to Roman Polanski. They don't seem to be able to remember even simple facts about the legal system they claim to be upholding. There has been a lot written and there are numerous on-going investigations into what the Buddhist taxonomy of consciousness would call afflictive emotions. The first major work was by Daniel Goleman, Ph.D. and entitled Destructive Emotions. Goleman was group leader in the Mind Life conference, where HH the 14th Dalai Lama meets with leading scientists. The meeting Goleman was at was actually the 3rd Mind Life conference held in 1990. Since that time researchers have continued to look into this topic. I am actually just reading a more recent work on the topic of emotional awareness, a conversation between the Dalai Lama and Paul Ekman, Ph.D. entitled Emotional Awareness: Overcoming the Obstacles to Psychological Balance and Compassion. Of course there are afflictive and non-afflictive emotions. If one truly expands consciousness one should expand consciousness to include automatic mechanisms--knee-jerk reactions--which can include the afflictive emotions. As awareness expands, unconscious afflictive emotions are diminished. Some meditation forms may not work at this level and so destructive emotions continue to flourish, which means such people can afflict others with their afflictive emotions. But someone who is free from afflictive emotion and able to discriminate instinctively, can also use afflictive emotions constructively. It's usually pretty easy to tell who is who in person, if one spends enough time around them. Similarly, although with less precision, you can also get a good idea by reading someone's writing across time. One primary characteristic of afflictive emotions is that they are out of tune with reality. There is a distorted perception of reality. It is as if the perception of reality is poisoned or negatively colored by an instinctual negative reaction. Whether one can turn that afflictive emotion into something constructive depends on the skill of the individual. Certain meditative training can help one develop that skillfulness. In general meditative forms that use a form of top-down control of attention tend to favor a more egocentric neural functioning, and thus aren't as good at transforming instinctual negativity. Bottom- up, more open presence style of meditative practice, either alone or in conjunction with egocentric attentional forms, seem to favor a more allocentric, other, out there awareness and are better at integrating and transforming negativity. Transcend and include rather than transcend into. All healthy humans have various instinctual reactions or reflexes that originate from the very old, reptilian part of the brain. For example, in all humans, if they are startled by a loud sound, there is a reflexive and measurable response that always occurs at exactly 250 milliseconds after the stimulus and always lasts for exactly 250 milliseconds, always ending 500 milliseconds after the stimulus. Never longer, never shorter, in the entire species. However in advanced meditators we now know they can transcend and include to the point where that reptilian startle is no longer measurable or just barely detectable. It's this level of meditation practice and proficiency that allows a person to conquer--and master--even the most instinctual negative emotions. This non-startle presence is very obvious once one has recognized it, around certain meditative adepts. It has a kind of ripple effect through the various levels of the person. And like the afflictive emotions of a person who can spread this affliction to others (and cause them to produce negative emotions), people with the non- startle, non-afflictive style are able to pass that presence on to others, but in a more positive manner.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Does emotion poison the brain and destroy the ability to reason?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: Thanks for writing this up, Vaj, and so well. You get it. I see the *level* of destructive emotions being displayed on this forum by 30 to 40 year TM meditators as being a matter of some concern. I further see the fact that they describe these destructive emotions as normal to be of even more concern. How many here think Barry never displays any destructive emotions on FFL?
Re: [FairfieldLife] For Bhairitu -- my Polanski conspiracy theory :-)
I don't have time to read through the links you've provided. I would hope some of them would point out that people put money in Swiss banks that taxes have already been paid on. The US government has no need to know about those. But I agree they may try to impound any money people have not only abroad but in the US. I've been saying ever since I saw the documentary on Argentina back in 2002 that what happened there is likely to happen in the US. In Argentina they stole people's retirement funds. Suddenly even professional people were broke. And I believe in 2005 the IMF who did the raiding in Argentina warned the US that it was in for the same thing. But people here are too busy watching American Idol and football to care. We need to all become Robin Hoods. TurquoiseB wrote: Just for fun, and to piss off the emotionally- out-of-control here. :-) My theory -- which is not just mine, BTW, and has been voiced in the European press -- is that the Polanski case is All About Extradition. That is, it's an attempt by the US to beef up extradition as a preventive measure to keep rich Americans from taking their money to off- shore tax havens and then moving there them- selves when the economy finally tanks. The real goal of this effort is to ensure that when this happens the US can extradite and bring back rich people who move to tax haven countries and, more important, bring back their money. Andorran sources have said that pressures similar to what the US is trying to impose on Switzerland have been tried on them. So have sources in the Channel Islands, the Cayman Islands, and other nations known as tax havens. I'll just throw this out and allow the ranters to rant about it. It's just a theory, and a con- spiracy theory at that :-), but my rule of thumb when some guvmint dredges up a 32-year-old case at the same time its economy is in a meltdown is that it's not a bad idea to follow the money and see whether there might just be a financial reason for it. And there is. http://www.billshrink.com/blog/15-of-the-worlds-most-significant-tax-havens/ http://emsnews.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/tax-havens-under-attack/ http://www.azbiz.com/articles/2009/08/21/finance/your_money/doc4a8ee0dc0e47f892500676.txt http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/15/rich-americans-scrambling_n_260325.html http://features.csmonitor.com/economyrebuild/2009/08/19/economic-scene-a-tougher-stance-on-tax-havens/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Does emotion poison the brain and destroy the ability to reason?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: snip In my opinion that's what all this furor is really about. The people who are still trying to drag him back to the US are *using* the emotional angle of his case to hide what they are *really* pissed off about -- international extradition agreements and the fact that they don't work the way that the US would like them to. Naah. Polanski pissed off the prosecutors by demanding *in absentia* that his case be dropped because of purported malfeasance by the judge and prosecution. Extradition is typically a delicate matter, and nobody thinks that's likely to change, nor should it. If it were a terrorist, you might see actual official concern about the state of international extradition agreements, but Polanski's much too small-time a weasel for that. No, Barry's fantasizing again, this time because it gives him an opportunity to dump on the U.S. and convince himself that he was right to flee.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Does emotion poison the brain and destroy the ability to reason?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: I'm fascinated by this Polanski situation not because I'm a fan of his, or even his movies. No, the reason Barry's so obsessed with it is because it gives him something to attack the FFLers he doesn't like about. But that has been perverted by the revenge fantasists on FFL to me supporting and enabling a child rapist. Go figure. Yeah, it's because Barry is supporting a child rapist. But the revenge fantasies bit is *his fantasy*, and as such it's very revealing of *his motivations*. The amount of time Polanski serves is now a moot point. By the time his extradition is settled, he will have spend more time behind bars than he was originally sentenced to, and that will be *before* he is returned to the US, if he is. He was never sentenced. He fled the country to avoid being sentenced. The larger issue in my opinion is that people in the media and on this forum HAVE LOST THEIR FUCKING MINDS with regard to Roman Polanski. They don't seem to be able to remember even simple facts about the legal system they claim to be upholding. Well, Barry got one simple fact wrong already in this post; let's see if he gets any of the others right. Roman Polanski was convicted of (after having been talked into confessing to it as part of a plea bargain that was not honored) only *one* thing -- having had sex with a minor. That's it. That is ALL that he was convicted of. The people screaming for revenge can't seem to remember this. They talk about the supposed drugging and the anal rape as if they were facts, and had been proven to be facts in court, and as if Polanski had been convicted of doing these things. THAT NEVER HAPPENED. These things were never established as fact; he was never found guilty of these things. They were, and remain, hearsay. Nope, not hearsay, firsthand grand jury testimony. This is hearsay: evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath The victim testified under oath to a grand jury about her own personal knowledge of what happened. Roman Polanski can be held accountable (some would say unfortunately, and I agree with them) for only one thing -- having had sex with a minor. *That* is the only thing he was convicted of. The *only* penalties that can be applied to him are penalties appropriate to that crime. Nope, he can also be penalized for fleeing prosecution. That's the appeal of reason and of legal fact. guffaw Legal fact that Barry gets completely wrong. But this case isn't *about* reason or fact; it's about emotion. Normally sane people get so emotional that Cokie Roberts said yesterday on This Week (only partly tongue in cheek), Roman Polanski is a criminal. He raped and drugged and raped and sodomized a child. And then was a fugitive from justice. As far as I'm concerned, just take him out and shoot him. This normally sane reporter doesn't even realize that she is so emotional she said raped twice, let alone that she's calling for him to be punished for *things he was not convicted of*. Yes, he *was* convicted of rape. Rape is what he pled guilty to, see, so Roberts (who knew exactly what she was saying) was entirely correct to refer to it as such. The guy should have received the same jail sentence as anyone else in the state of California convicted of having had sex with a minor. End of story. Weighting his sentence and making it lighter because he was famous is unacceptable. Weighting his sentence and making it longer because of hearsay Not hearsay. Barry obviously doesn't know what hearsay means. that was never allowed to be presented in court (because of the plea bargain) and that he was never convicted of is unacceptable. Nobody here thinks he should be penalized for raping a minor and fleeing prosecution any more than anyone else in the state of California who committed the same crimes. Stop letting emotion poison your brains, people. Step away from the outrage (faux or real) and away from the revenge fantasies and try to remember the *facts*. Roman Polanski was convicted of having sex with a minor. Period. Having sex with a minor is called statutory rape. A minor is legally considered incapable of consenting to sex, therefore sex with a minor is legally nonconsensual, which means it's rape. If you're calling for punishment for more than that, the person who considers themselves above the law is YOU. Among all his other myriad confusions, Barry's getting us confused with Cokie Roberts. Another thing Barry is confused about: He seems to think expressions of outrage on an Internet forum or blog *will somehow change the laws to which Polanski is subject*. Barry should stop letting emotion poison his brain, and then maybe he'd be able to think straight and remember the *facts*. He might also want to look up the legal terms he tosses around and find out what
[FairfieldLife] Re: Seelisberg = Bevan Morris is now in Seelisberg
See Barry. See Barry fantasize. See Barry melt down, AGAIN, over his own fantasies and make himself look RLY RLY STOOOPID. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: snip What *IS* it about the grudges and the quest for revenge that holds such fascination and attraction for them? Two people yesterday bit into the chum I'd scattered and (probably...I only read the first lines as usual so I don't know for sure) ranted for dozens of lines explaining why revenge is a Good Thing and a Spiritual Thing and why they're so obsessed with it, and how hanging on to their revenge fantasies makes them all noble. Nope, neither of us did anything even remotely like that. Barry now proceeds to rant about his fantasies *as if they were real life*: I don't buy it. Seeking revenge is seen as a Good Thing only in religions and spiritual traditions that have never evolved past that level of childish ego. Those religions and traditions tend to celebrate the revenge and add stories *about* revenge to their scrip- tures to glorify it as something cosmic and wonderful. But IMO that's just pandering to the paying customers (the mindless followers) by glorifying something they're already good at -- being petty and seeking revenge -- rather than suggesting that they should Grow Up Already and get over such childish shit. And now their fantasies are seeming to center on trying to either get the person who has been pointing out that their obsession with revenge is low-vibe banned, or trying to get others on this forum to pile on when they indulge in their own Revenge Rants against him. So far, that hasn't seemed to be working Heh. Barry managed to miss Alex's recent post, it seems. (Completely unsolicited, however.) , so I fully expect them to add the people who haven't signed on to their proposed banning and shaming campaigns to their Hit List and start attacking *them*, too. And that, too will be just more childish shit. But all this clinging to revenge may on some level be a Good Thing after all. It's becoming obvious that the phrase Yeah, that'll happen when Judy and Edg get past their revenge fantasies is pretty much in the same ballpark as saying When pigs fly or When Hell freezes over. Such phrases are often associated with the Apocalypse or the predicted end of the world. Since Barry is the only one to use that phrase about Edg and me, it must mean he's getting more and more nervous about the Apocalypse. Maybe Judy and Edg holding on so tightly to their revenge fantasies is all that's keeping the Apocalypse from happening. You just keep right on fantasizing about our nonexistent revenge fantasies, and you may well bring on your own personal solipsistic Barrypocalypse.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Does emotion poison the brain and destroy the ability to reason?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Thanks for writing this up, Vaj, and so well. You get it. I see the *level* of destructive emotions being displayed on this forum by 30 to 40 year TM meditators as being a matter of some concern. I further see the fact that they describe these destructive emotions as normal to be of even more concern. How many here think Barry never displays any destructive emotions on FFL? Oh, Barry Wright is a paragon of love, serenity, and enlightenment. Not only does he not display destructive emotions but, through his leadership and wonderful button pushing karma-overcoming exercises he engages in with the FFL members, he selflessly aids us in our path to a greater unfolding of our full potential. You know, Judy, when Barry treats you like a piece of shit, you simply don't get it. Vaj does (as Barry indicates above). Why can't you? What deficiency exists within you that you don't recognize what Barry does for your benefit on a daily basis? His lies, distortions of truth, support for child-rapists, and so on, is all part of a concerted effort on his part to break your boundaries, so to speak, and raise you above the karmic muck that you have been stuck in by practising the pedestrian and mostly ineffective TM technique. How many times has Barry tried to get you to see the light? Certainly, you are aware after all these years that Barry has experience with many dozens of self-development techniques, all of which he has mastered. Do you know that, unlike yourself, Barry has witnessed on hundreds of occasions levitation? Oh, I know, some would poo-poo this claim and suggest that he is delusional or that the cult-leader who he claims performed it was hypnotizing him. But, please. Such suggestions are a reflection on those that posit them and reveal such apostates to be on a low rung of evolution. Someone so knowledgable and experienced throws the garbage he throws at you for your own good, Judy, and you simply don't appreciate it. You have the gall to question his motives as well as pick apart the obvious discrepancies in his logic and irrational arguments. Don't you know that spiritual masters are BEYOND logic, compassion, the rule of law, and common sense? Of course you wouldn't know that, Judy, because you aren't the enlightened Barry Wright who knows who it is important to know, has been on all the necessary spiritual trips that need to be experienced and mastered, and has pretty much been at hand to witness every single important event in the last 40 years on planet Earth, just like Zelig (and has probably inadvertently been a key player in all those events, too, just like Forest Gump). I think you owe Barry a HUGE apology, Judy, and in the future you should neither challenge nor question either his motives or methods because they are undertaken for your own good.
[FairfieldLife] 'No God on the Money!' (1984 Double-Speak?)//\\\
Jesus said, not to put... The Name of God The Father... On the Money... This is more of a Euro~Roman Tradition... Putting the Name of God on the money is: Totally and completely against the: The 'Law of Moses' I Am a Jealous God'... 'Thou Shalt Not Have any God's before Me!... Now, we need to someone transform the whole idea of; Money as 'Not God'... The whole damn evil 'God-Less' money system...! Hey, all the money has traces of 'Coca' on it, anyway... So, there ya' go... Money is not God!' But, 'She's Alright, She's Alright, She's Alright Robert
[FairfieldLife] Re: Does emotion poison the brain and destroy the ability to reason?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcg...@... wrote: snip I think you owe Barry a HUGE apology, Judy, and in the future you should neither challenge nor question either his motives or methods because they are undertaken for your own good. I sit corrected. Well, no, actually I sit and roll on the floor laughing. Oops, my ass just fell off...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Does emotion poison the brain and destroy the ability to reason?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Thanks for writing this up, Vaj, and so well. You get it. I see the *level* of destructive emotions being displayed on this forum by 30 to 40 year TM meditators as being a matter of some concern. I further see the fact that they describe these destructive emotions as normal to be of even more concern. How many here think Barry never displays any destructive emotions on FFL? I certainly don't, HaHa. Both barry and Vaj are a couple of hypocrits with a socalled Buddhist agenda.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Does emotion poison the brain and destroy the ability to reason?
A very very nice piece, Shemp. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Thanks for writing this up, Vaj, and so well. You get it. I see the *level* of destructive emotions being displayed on this forum by 30 to 40 year TM meditators as being a matter of some concern. I further see the fact that they describe these destructive emotions as normal to be of even more concern. How many here think Barry never displays any destructive emotions on FFL? Oh, Barry Wright is a paragon of love, serenity, and enlightenment. Not only does he not display destructive emotions but, through his leadership and wonderful button pushing karma-overcoming exercises he engages in with the FFL members, he selflessly aids us in our path to a greater unfolding of our full potential. You know, Judy, when Barry treats you like a piece of shit, you simply don't get it. Vaj does (as Barry indicates above). Why can't you? What deficiency exists within you that you don't recognize what Barry does for your benefit on a daily basis? His lies, distortions of truth, support for child-rapists, and so on, is all part of a concerted effort on his part to break your boundaries, so to speak, and raise you above the karmic muck that you have been stuck in by practising the pedestrian and mostly ineffective TM technique. How many times has Barry tried to get you to see the light? Certainly, you are aware after all these years that Barry has experience with many dozens of self-development techniques, all of which he has mastered. Do you know that, unlike yourself, Barry has witnessed on hundreds of occasions levitation? Oh, I know, some would poo-poo this claim and suggest that he is delusional or that the cult-leader who he claims performed it was hypnotizing him. But, please. Such suggestions are a reflection on those that posit them and reveal such apostates to be on a low rung of evolution. Someone so knowledgable and experienced throws the garbage he throws at you for your own good, Judy, and you simply don't appreciate it. You have the gall to question his motives as well as pick apart the obvious discrepancies in his logic and irrational arguments. Don't you know that spiritual masters are BEYOND logic, compassion, the rule of law, and common sense? Of course you wouldn't know that, Judy, because you aren't the enlightened Barry Wright who knows who it is important to know, has been on all the necessary spiritual trips that need to be experienced and mastered, and has pretty much been at hand to witness every single important event in the last 40 years on planet Earth, just like Zelig (and has probably inadvertently been a key player in all those events, too, just like Forest Gump). I think you owe Barry a HUGE apology, Judy, and in the future you should neither challenge nor question either his motives or methods because they are undertaken for your own good.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Does emotion poison the brain and destroy the ability to reason?
TurquoiseB wrote: I'm fascinated by this Polanski situation not because I'm a fan of his, or even his movies. IMO, he's only made two good movies in his life, Repulsion and Chinatown, and neither of those place him in any way above the law. I have said on this forum several times now that I think he should have spent more time in jail for the crime he was convicted of than he did. I'm more amazed at the obsession with this boring news story on a forum of supposedly somewhat enlightened people. The obsession is about the same as the supposedly unenlightened public. I guess whatever it takes to get people distracted from more important issues at hand like the economy?
[FairfieldLife] Message View reply I simply cannot resist making...
Mea culpa. Re: Does emotion poison the brain and destroy the ability to reason? ../../../message/231474 ... snip ... I sit corrected. Well, no, actually I sit and roll on the floor laughing. Oops, my ass just fell off... And a good thing, too. That's 40 pounds she could easily do without...this is probably the first time in several decades she's been the right weight for her height.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Does emotion poison the brain and destroy the ability to reason?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: TurquoiseB wrote: I'm fascinated by this Polanski situation not because I'm a fan of his, or even his movies. IMO, he's only made two good movies in his life, Repulsion and Chinatown, and neither of those place him in any way above the law. I have said on this forum several times now that I think he should have spent more time in jail for the crime he was convicted of than he did. I'm more amazed at the obsession with this boring news story on a forum of supposedly somewhat enlightened people. That's part of what makes it fascinating, yep. This story has not even been mentioned on any of the other spiritual forums I'm part of, much less obsessed over as it has been here. I have not even heard it discussed in any of the bars and cafes I've been in...you know, the ones the spiritual folks here like to characterize as low-life. :-) The obsession is about the same as the supposedly unenlightened public. I guess whatever it takes to get people distracted from more important issues at hand like the economy? That's some of it. Also I think that there is a general level of fear (and anger at having that fear) about the economy in general, so people like to indulge in the afflictive emotion of righteous anger because it is more powerful and overshadowing than the fear, and makes it seem for a short time as if the fear has gone away. I still find it interesting that the same people who have gotten up on their holier-than-thou hobbyhorses over Polanski and his child rape still haven't had a single thing to say about the fact that the Vatican State has an age of consent of 12. I mean, I find that interesting. WTF can they be *thinking*? Outside the borders of Vatican City, the age of consent is 14. Inside those borders (and WTF *lives* there, right?) it is 12. It's like they're saying, Send your sons and daughters to our priests after they turn 12 at their own peril.
[FairfieldLife] Seriously now . . . is Barry showing signs?
I'm thinking Barry's definitely lost a notch in clarity since his good ol' dayssay, a year or so ago. He used to cover his ass with provisos, ifs, maybes, just my opinions etc., and I think, back then, it was much harder to find fault in his logic. Judy did a masterful job at finding his errors despite his machinations, but I often thought she was pushing it a bit to make her point -- just as I push it when I suggest Barry is a predatory fucker from his single statement about some young girls. But these days, geeze, the guy is so transparently in need of his piano being tuned. He just keeps hitting so many sour notes now, that, well, I'm wondering if it's time for us to feel some compassion for him -- it may be a brain tumor or something. Maybe he's allowing himself to post when he's stoned now, or maybe I just never saw how fucking stupid he really is -- not being a bear of much brain myself, I could have missed it way back when -- when I was willing to cut him a break because he wrote well. Or, perhaps the economy has put Barry out of work (despite his braggadocio otherwise) and even in cheap-to-live Spain perhaps Barry cannot afford to live, and the stress is boggling his brain. Or he's gotten into some trouble in Spain -- like perhaps he was in trouble in France such that he had to run to Spain -- and now that stress of having to run again is the reason he's posting such buffoon crapola. Judy et al, I know it's tempting to say he's always been this bad, but seriously, don't you think he's deteriorating? Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Message View reply I simply cannot resist making...
What a low, vile, odious thug you've become to resort to such tawdry personal attacks. What a fucking jerk -- get your brain scanned for tumors, you're so out of it. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: Mea culpa. Re: Does emotion poison the brain and destroy the ability to reason? ../../../message/231474 ... snip ... I sit corrected. Well, no, actually I sit and roll on the floor laughing. Oops, my ass just fell off... And a good thing, too. That's 40 pounds she could easily do without...this is probably the first time in several decades she's been the right weight for her height.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Does emotion poison the brain and destroy the ability to reason?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: TurquoiseB wrote: I'm fascinated by this Polanski situation not because I'm a fan of his, or even his movies. IMO, he's only made two good movies in his life, Repulsion and Chinatown, and neither of those place him in any way above the law. I have said on this forum several times now that I think he should have spent more time in jail for the crime he was convicted of than he did. I'm more amazed at the obsession with this boring news story on a forum of supposedly somewhat enlightened people. The obsession is about the same as the supposedly unenlightened public. I guess whatever it takes to get people distracted from more important issues at hand like the economy? Geeze, B, I think you're being a bit hard on us -- it's Barry that is driving this dynamo in that he continues to defend a POV (that is his to have as a person,) and keeps foisting it into the conversation here by his droning falsities, and I consider that it is an attack on our atmosphere here. It's not that we're fixated on the Polanski deal, it's that Barry is so irritatingly parading immorality as his banner, that he must be answered lest we have our silence be interpreted as a sign that we think he's won the debate. How many times have I mentioned 30,000 children dying each DAY from drinking dirty water? There -- that issue makes the economy issue pale into insignificance, but who here is wringing their hands and sobbing about it? Of course, there's a host of other issues almost as dire, and you're my hero for being unerringly clear about those issues, but I don't think this forum has any agenda to be responsible about the woes of the world, and what gets talked about is often petty -- and pretty much standard fare here. Edg
[FairfieldLife] Wingnuts to rewrite and 'Conservatize' the Bible
Conservatizing the Bible The eager young men at Conservapedia are p.o.'d that the Bible might be seen as too liberal. So they've come up with the Wiki-style Conservative Bible Project http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project , to make sure the Lord doesn't go all wobbly on us. Excerpt: As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:[1] Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, gender inclusive language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[2] Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[3] defective translations use the word comrade three times as often as volunteer; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as word, peace, and miracle Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as gamble rather than cast lots;[4] using modern political terms, such as register rather than enroll for the census Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities Thus, a project has begun among members of Conservapedia to translate the Bible in accordance with these principles. The translated Bible can be found here http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible . The liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio? Hoo-wee! Elitists like to use words, and lots of 'em! Unnecessary ambiguities? But how are you going to abide by the conservative mandate to avoid dumbing down Holy Writ while at the same time avoiding big words liberals use? More seriously, the insane hubris of this really staggers the mind. These right-wing ideologues know better than the early church councils that canonized Scripture? They really think it's wise to force the word of God to conform to a 21st-century American idea of what constitutes conservatism? These jokers don't worship God. They worship ideology. As Mark Shea says http://markshea.blogspot.com/2009/10/conservative-bible-project.html : Right wing dementia marches on apace. Some of this has a grain of sense to it, as ideological madness always does. For instance, the dumb attempts to feminize Scripture are pernicious and need to stop. But seriously: the story of the woman taken in adultery is liberal? Free market as Sacred tradition? Liberal wordiness? You really need to read the whole Conservapedia entry http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project to grasp how crazy this is. It's like what you'd get if you crossed the Jesus Seminar with the College Republican chapter at a rural institution of Bible learnin'. http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/10/conservatizing-the-bible.ht\ ml
[FairfieldLife] Re: Message View reply I simply cannot resist making...
Re: Message View reply I simply cannot resist making... ../../../../message/231481 What a low, vile, odious thug you've become to resort to such tawdry personal attacks. What a fucking jerk -- get your brain scanned for tumors... Ahem. Might I remind you of a certain post that had the memorable title The Sagging Jowled Spewer of Tamas and suggesting that Judy was up for the Skank of Fairfield Life award? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/147712 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/147712 She posted the photograph, dude. You felt free to comment on that photo once. I did the same. Wasn't in Jeezus who said something about Remove the tumor from thine own eye before you start poking around trying to remove one from other people? Edg Duveyoung, King Of Hypocrisy
[FairfieldLife] Re: Does emotion poison the brain and destroy the ability to reason?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: [snip] That's part of what makes it fascinating, yep. This story has not even been mentioned on any of the other spiritual forums I'm part of, much less obsessed over as it has been here. [snip] ROTFLMAO! FFL ceased to be a spirtual forum around, oh, message #32 back in 2001. Rather disingeneous of you, Barry, to suggest that FFL is a spiritual forum, seeing as 80% of its content, on a daily basis, is mostly political. But go right ahead and continue saying whatever bullshit enables you to make your point.
[FairfieldLife] Debilitation of Mars
To All: As of today on October 5, 2009, Mars has entered the constellation of Cancer where it is debilitated. This means that those areas in the world that are subjected to floods, tsunamis, typhoons and hurricanes will be in danger of disasters caused by rains, wind, and earthquakes. We have already seen the prelude of this condition in the typhoons and floods that have wreaked havoc in the Philippines and India, and the deadly tsunami that hit the American Samoa during the last few days. In the USA there is a great chance that the areas in the Southeast and Southern states will face dangers relating to hurricanes that have threatened these areas in the past. In astrological parlance, Mars is angry because it is in its weakest position in the zodiac, Cancer. Thus, since Cancer is a watery constellation, we see this anger being manifested as natural disasters as described above.
[FairfieldLife] Krugman Elaborates on The Party of Beavis and Butt-head
Krugman Elaborates on The Party of Beavis and Butt-head That's what he called them last week http://hoffmania.com/2009/10/right-wing-noise-machine-lets-seehigh-road\ -low-road.html . Today, Paul Krugman explains the dangerous gleefulness of the GOP, which has the emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year-old http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/opinion/05krugman.html?_r=1ref=opini\ onpagewanted=print . There was what President Obama likes to call a teachable moment last week, when the International Olympic Committee rejected Chicago's bid to be host of the 2016 Summer Games. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/opinion/05krugman.html#secondParagrap\ h [190] Cheers erupted at the headquarters of the conservative Weekly Standard, according to a blog post by a member of the magazine's staff, with the headline Obama loses! Obama loses! Rush Limbaugh declared himself gleeful. World Rejects Obama, gloated the Drudge Report. And so on. So what did we learn from this moment? For one thing, we learned that the modern conservative movement, which dominates the modern Republican Party, has the emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year-old. But more important, the episode illustrated an essential truth about the state of American politics: at this point, the guiding principle of one of our nation's two great political parties is spite pure and simple. If Republicans think something might be good for the president, they're against it whether or not it's good for America. To be sure, while celebrating America's rebuff by the Olympic Committee was puerile, it didn't do any real harm. But the same principle of spite has determined Republican positions on more serious matters, with potentially serious consequences in particular, in the debate over health care reform. Now, it's understandable that many Republicans oppose Democratic plans to extend insurance coverage just as most Democrats opposed President Bush's attempt to convert Social Security into a sort of giant 401(k). The two parties do, after all, have different philosophies about the appropriate role of government. But the tactics of the two parties have been different. In 2005, when Democrats campaigned against Social Security privatization, their arguments were consistent with their underlying ideology: they argued that replacing guaranteed benefits with private accounts would expose retirees to too much risk. The Republican campaign against health care reform, by contrast, has shown no such consistency. For the main G.O.P. line of attack is the claim based mainly on lies about death panels and so on that reform will undermine Medicare. And this line of attack is utterly at odds both with the party's traditions and with what conservatives claim to believe. Think about just how bizarre it is for Republicans to position themselves as the defenders of unrestricted Medicare spending. First of all, the modern G.O.P. considers itself the party of Ronald Reagan and Reagan was a fierce opponent of Medicare's creation, warning that it would destroy American freedom. (Honest.) In the 1990s, Newt Gingrich tried to force drastic cuts in Medicare financing. And in recent years, Republicans have repeatedly decried the growth in entitlement spending growth that is largely driven by rising health care costs. But the Obama administration's plan to expand coverage relies in part on savings from Medicare. And since the G.O.P. opposes anything that might be good for Mr. Obama, it has become the passionate defender of ineffective medical procedures and overpayments to insurance companies. How did one of our great political parties become so ruthless, so willing to embrace scorched-earth tactics even if so doing undermines the ability of any future administration to govern? The key point is that ever since the Reagan years, the Republican Party has been dominated by radicals ideologues and/or apparatchiks who, at a fundamental level, do not accept anyone else's right to govern. Anyone surprised by the venomous, over-the-top opposition to Mr. Obama must have forgotten the Clinton years. Remember when Rush Limbaugh suggested that Hillary Clinton was a party to murder? When Newt Gingrich shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those Medicare cuts? And let's not even talk about the impeachment saga. The only difference now is that the G.O.P. is in a weaker position, having lost control not just of Congress but, to a large extent, of the terms of debate. The public no longer buys conservative ideology the way it used to; the old attacks on Big Government and paeans to the magic of the marketplace have lost their resonance. Yet conservatives retain their belief that they, and only they, should govern. The result has been a cynical, ends-justify-the-means approach. Hastening the day when the rightful governing party returns to power is all that matters, so the G.O.P. will seize any club at hand with which
[FairfieldLife] Hitchens on Polanski
Save the Children Thinking about Roman Polanski's vile child rape in a global context.By Christopher HitchensPosted Monday, Oct. 5, 2009, at 2:03 PM ET, www.slate.com http://www.slate.com [Roman Polanski.] Roman Polanski Once you begin to notice that special set of ethics known as Hollywood exceptionalism, you may find yourself seeing it everywhere. In a recent book titled We'll Be Here for the Rest of Our Lives http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385524838?ie=UTF8tag=slatmaga-20lin\ kCode=as2camp=1789creative=390957creativeASIN=0385524838 (and enticingly subtitled A Swingin' Showbiz Saga), late-night music maestro Paul Shaffer feels that he perhaps ought to say something about Phil Spector's conviction http://www.slate.com/id/2165048/ for the murder of another human being whose name most people can't remember. So he does say something. I regret all the tragedy that has surrounded Phil in recent years, is what he chooses to say. Not really even a try, let alone a nice try. The word tragedy has also been employed recently in the same sentence as the name Roman Polanski. In his case, it seems to me fractionally more justified. Polanski directed various tragedies on-screen and was also the victim of some hellish misfortunes in his own life. The media now say tragedy when they mean that bad things have happened to good oreven worsefamous people. But the types of tragedy that really deserve the name are of two main kinds, the Hegelian and the Greek. Hegel thought it was tragic when two rights came into conflict. The Greeks thought it tragic when a great man was undone by a fatal flaw. The word we get from the second type of tragedyhubrisapplies in multiple ways to Polanski. (If you ask me, it's hubris to release a movie version of a rather well-known tragedy and call it Roman Polanski's Film of Macbeth http://www.imdb.com/media/rm4258111232/tt0067372 .) He may also have thought that he was so cool and so entitled that he could give booze to a 13-year-old and then a Quaalude, a drug that has muscle-relaxant properties that you may suddenly find yourself not wanting to think about. There was a bit of a flaw right there. And it goes on. In July 2005, Polanski took advantage of the notorious British libel laws to sue my colleagues at Vanity Fair http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117926364.html?categoryid=22cs=1 and collect damages for his hurt feelings. It doesn't matter much what the supposed complaint washe had allegedly propositioned a Scandinavian model while purring about making her the next Sharon Tateso much as it mattered that Polanski would dare to sue on a question of his own moral standing and reputation. I don't think, he was quoted as saying of the allegation, you could find a man who could behave in such a way. Say what? Anxious for his thin skin, the British courts did not even put Polanski to the trouble of appearing in a country where he has never lived. They allowed him to pout his outraged susceptibilities by video link before heaping him with fresh money http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/polanski-wins-libel-payout-o\ f-1635-from-vanity-fair-499893.html . At this point, I began to feel a cold spot forming in my own heart. And then, just last December, while still on the lam, Polanski filed http://www.canada.com/news/Polanski+appeals+judge+refusal+dismiss+case/\ 1773755/story.html from abroad to have the original Los Angeles child-rape case, in which he had pleaded guilty, dismissed without further ado. It is not so remarkable, in other words, that prosecutors have apparently reactivated an old but still active case. It is, rather, quite astonishing that Polanski has been able to caper about on the run for so long, thumbing his nose, even collecting damages, flourishing a Get Out of Jail Free and a lucrative Pass Go card, and constantly reminding the law of its impotence. It's affecting in some ways that the original girl in the case has forgiven him and doesn't want to see the matter reopened, but strictly speaking it's of no more relevance than if she had said the same thing at the time. The law prosecutes those who violate children, and it does so partly on behalf of children who haven't been violated yet. We take an individual instance, whoever the individuals happen to be, and we use it for precedent. And we do not know how lucky we are to be able to do so. Just three weeks ago, in Yemen, 12-year-old Fawziya Youssef bled to death http://www.unicef.org/media/media_51125.html while attempting to give birth to a stillborn baby. Her futile and agonizing labor had lasted for quite some time. She had been legally married at the age of 11 to a man twice her age. Her case is not by any means unique in Yemen, where it is estimated that more than a quarter of girls are married by the age of 15 at the latest, many of them becoming brides much younger. Attempts to raise the age of marriage have been stymied by political parties whose character I do not have to tell you,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Message View reply I simply cannot resist making...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: What a low, vile, odious thug you've become to resort to such tawdry personal attacks. What a fucking jerk -- get your brain scanned for tumors, you're so out of it. Bit of a problem for you to chastise Barry for making such remarks given your attack on me awhile back. But at least you were working from an actual photo of my face, as weirdly off-base as your description was. Barry's going only by his fantasies. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Mea culpa. Re: Does emotion poison the brain and destroy the ability to reason? ../../../message/231474 ... snip ... I sit corrected. Well, no, actually I sit and roll on the floor laughing. Oops, my ass just fell off... And a good thing, too. That's 40 pounds she could easily do without...this is probably the first time in several decades she's been the right weight for her height.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Does emotion poison the brain and destroy the ability to reason?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: TurquoiseB wrote: I'm fascinated by this Polanski situation not because I'm a fan of his, or even his movies. IMO, he's only made two good movies in his life, Repulsion and Chinatown, and neither of those place him in any way above the law. I have said on this forum several times now that I think he should have spent more time in jail for the crime he was convicted of than he did. I'm more amazed at the obsession with this boring news story on a forum of supposedly somewhat enlightened people. The obsession is about the same as the supposedly unenlightened public. I guess whatever it takes to get people distracted from more important issues at hand like the economy? Geeze, B, I think you're being a bit hard on us -- it's Barry that is driving this dynamo in that he continues to defend a POV (that is his to have as a person,) and keeps foisting it into the conversation here by his droning falsities, and I consider that it is an attack on our atmosphere here. I was about to point this out as well, except that it's not just that he's foisting his POV on us, he's personally attacking those of us who don't share it. He had *four separate posts* this morning on it. The topic would have died out in a day or two if he didn't keep obsessing over it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Seriously now . . . is Barry showing signs?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: snip Judy et al, I know it's tempting to say he's always been this bad, but seriously, don't you think he's deteriorating? Oh, my goodness, unquestionably. I've said so a number of times now. He used to be able to hold a conversation--there are lots of examples back on alt.m.t, and even some early on in his tenure here. His disagreements were never agreeable, but there was much, much less in the way of protracted, vicious personal attacks. His logic was always flawed, and--let's be charitable-- his memory for facts poor, but the quotient of barefaced lies was far lower. What's so worrying now is the number of huge bloopers he makes, such as--just for one of dozens of examples-- mistaking a right-wing man's blog for one by a liberal feminist woman. And I can't recall any outright misogyny until quite recently. The deterioration started slowly, after he moved to Paris. Each time he's found himself unsatisfied where he was and has moved somewhere else, the angle of descent has become steeper. He's become angrier, unhappier, less able to reason logically, more sunk in fantasy, more prone to blatant lying, and, as noted, much more likely to get things just plain wrong. He also has *much* more frequent meltdowns where he totally loses control. It's sad to watch. Whatever there was that was positive about his personality has just about completely disappeared.
Re: [FairfieldLife] 'No God on the Money!' (1984 Double-Speak?)//\\\
Robert... there is no name of God on our currency. *God* is a generic term. It refers to whoever / whatever each individual believes fills that status. From: Robert babajii...@yahoo.com To: fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 5, 2009 11:55:47 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] 'No God on the Money!' (1984 Double-Speak?)//\\\ Jesus said, not to put... The Name of God The Father... On the Money... This is more of a Euro~Roman Tradition... Putting the Name of God on the money is: Totally and completely against the: The 'Law of Moses' I Am a Jealous God'... 'Thou Shalt Not Have any God's before Me!... Now, we need to someone transform the whole idea of; Money as 'Not God'... The whole damn evil 'God-Less' money system...! Hey, all the money has traces of 'Coca' on it, anyway... So, there ya' go... Money is not God!' But, 'She's Alright, She's Alright, She's Alright Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Does emotion poison the brain and destroy the ability to reason?
Vaj wrote: It is odd, the obsessive posting on a 30 year old rape. That's not to say it's not terrible, but I hear of such things locally all the time. It still goes on, all the time. It's much more common than most people are aware of. I was recently talking to a guy who baby sat for sex offenders for a living. The things they would admit to, were just chilling. They're experts at where kids go and how to groom them. State parks with beaches/swimming in the summer were a particular favorite. He had some real hardcore tantric practices that kept him level-headed and balanced enough to be able to work with these folks. All I can say is: thank god for people like him. Ever see this software ad?: It might be better to talk to your 13 year old to make them aware that the people online may not be what they appear to be rather than spend some money on rather nebulous software. I think your teenager might be happy you are not spying on them. When I was growing up the only software needed to keep us from predators was some short movies, posters or PSAs on TV. Most of those were about excepting candy or rides from strangers. They're cleverer now. One could do a movie about some teens who agree to meet with Susan and then beat the shit out of him. And it's already been done (Ellen Page starring): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0424136/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Message View reply I simply cannot resist making...
Yeah, I had a dark moment, and well, I was wrong. But, I put some creativity into it -- signifying that, as usual, I was more about displaying my incredible wunderkind virtuosity than I was intending to actually have a real world impact. Consider how hard I worked to come up with amazingly novel ways to scour Willy for instance, and yet, he's impervious to any taunt. Believe me, it's more about ego over here than error over there. And, I was pretty sure it'd be water off you, ducky. A big fat excuse, I know, I know, but you were calling me a liar and a fuck something or a something fuck and, oh, so, can I at least say that it wasn't completely unprovoked on my part? I'm just sayin' -- but, yeah, for sure we could get 60 votes in the Senate to censor me at least. I'd be far more ashamed; however, looking over my list of things to be ashamed of, I have to admit that this sin is far far down the list of my sins. So, I won't be making space for that sin to get on the band wagon and take a turn whipping my ass with guilt -- in fact, I'd say it was about 30 years ago when I had accumulated so much guilt that my tank was full -- so hey, now I can just sin right and left and never have that mounting dread feeling any more than when it topped off 30 years ago. Hee hee. Not really, but I love the conceptif only human brains worked like that. So, sorry Judy, sorry. Probably, maybe, sorta, kinda it'll never happen again. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: What a low, vile, odious thug you've become to resort to such tawdry personal attacks. What a fucking jerk -- get your brain scanned for tumors, you're so out of it. Bit of a problem for you to chastise Barry for making such remarks given your attack on me awhile back. But at least you were working from an actual photo of my face, as weirdly off-base as your description was. Barry's going only by his fantasies. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Mea culpa. Re: Does emotion poison the brain and destroy the ability to reason? ../../../message/231474 ... snip ... I sit corrected. Well, no, actually I sit and roll on the floor laughing. Oops, my ass just fell off... And a good thing, too. That's 40 pounds she could easily do without...this is probably the first time in several decades she's been the right weight for her height.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eating fewer antioxidants produces decreased oxidative damage?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: I suppose we shouldn't figure on this as the new Common Wisdom until the study's been replicated... The idea that fruits and veggies may not be as healthy as believed has been my obsession for a few days, and I've found some discussions that flesh out the issue a bit more: http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2009/08/phytochemical-fallacies.html http://is.gd/3Zg9m http://mangans.blogspot.com/2009/07/antioxidants-prevent-health-promoting.html http://is.gd/3Zgc6 http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2007/12/fruit-and-vegetables-re-post.html http://is.gd/3ZgdQ FWIW, after a few days of eating less fruit and fewer carrots, and a bit more protein and fat, my weight is the lowest it's been in a couple months. I'd been around 178 for about a year, binged for a couple weeks this summer on ice cream, went up to 183, ditched the ice cream, and stalled out at 180. This morning I was 178.2. If I keep this up, maybe I'll get those six-pack abs after all.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Message View reply I simply cannot resist making...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: Yeah, I had a dark moment, and well, I was wrong. Something Barry will never admit, goodness knows. And, I was pretty sure it'd be water off you, ducky. Which it was, as are Barry's comments. As I've pointed out before, it's a huge waste of time and energy to try to insult someone by criticizing them for something they aren't *insecure* about. If I were homely or fat or hated getting old, such insults would make sense, but I'm not and I don't, so there's no point. (I must admit, I put in the bit about my ass falling off because I knew Barry wouldn't be able to keep from embarrassing himself by commenting.) A big fat excuse, I know, I know, but you were calling me a liar and a fuck something or a something fuck and, oh, so, can I at least say that it wasn't completely unprovoked on my part? No, you can't. Have a look at post #147607, your post starting the thread. Note the *title* you gave the thread. Then see my response in post #147614, and follow our conversation from there for as long as you can stand it. (But pay particular attention to the last two paragraphs of my post #147632.) snip So, sorry Judy, sorry. Probably, maybe, sorta, kinda it'll never happen again. The attack *per se* wasn't a problem. The problem was that your freakout was entirely unjustified, as you may realize if you read the exchange again. In any case, my current comment was just pointing out that it makes you look pretty silly to scold Barry on this score.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eating fewer antioxidants produces decreased oxidative damage?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: I suppose we shouldn't figure on this as the new Common Wisdom until the study's been replicated... The idea that fruits and veggies may not be as healthy as believed has been my obsession for a few days, and I've found some discussions that flesh out the issue a bit more: As the last commenter on the first post you cite says, Dude, yer messin' with my head. And oy gevalt. The Hyperlipid blogger, in response to one of the comments asking about his normal food for the day, refers the commenter to an earlier response he'd made to the same question: - Normal food for the day? Breakfast almost always is six egg yolks fried in butter. Lots. Lunch, varies sometimes happens sometimes doesn't. A chunk of Brie is common. Supper. This is my main meal, usually meat based, Bolognaise sauce with cheese and a vegetable. Chili mix with cheese and a vegetable, fried salmon and vegetable, steak and chips, Belly pork with a Mexican sauce, Lamb casserole with vegetables included, Goulash is good, assorted curries (extra fatty lamb chops a fave here), chicken (but loaded with butter or coconut oil) often with chips. Chips are popular, fried in beef dripping. Based on potatoes (boring) or sweet potatoes or parsnips (yummy but fructose loaded...). I usually get through 1000kcal of double cream each day, mostly used with Green and Blacks organic cocoa powder, sweetened with a small amount of glucose powder (within my carb limit) alongside meals. Or just have the cream as a simple drink for a full meal at lunchtime. I ferment my cream for this use. I eat quite a lot of Sainsbury's 85% cocoa chocolate. Cocoa beans approach my main vegetable intake. I take some vitamin C occasionally as a supplement, probably not needed as there are loads of sweet peppers in most of my dishes but it's cheap and easy and I do use it as a paracetamol substitute when I have a cold (commoner since my son goes to nursery now). I take 5g/day fish oil to balance the estimated 15-20g omega 6 fatty acids from the UK food chain. I take 10,000iu D3 a day in winter. I lie in the sun in summer. I eat offal as often as I can, should be once a week but I don't always manage this. Usually liver or kidneys That's about it. It's very simple. My wife and I cook from scratch. We're fortunate to be fully aware that we are both gluten intolerant. You have to cook for yourself! Eating out occasionally is fine, tends to be a bit heavy on protein but the occasional high protein day is no stress. I have been known to butter my roast beef if it's a bit low on fat... Peter PS Never forget Optimal ice cream. Cream, egg yolks, vanilla and a little glucose powder (sugar or honey if you don't mind the fructose). Mmmm Consume as a chore to make up any calorie deficit. Or because it's yummy. It's about the only unfermented dairy I eat. No grains. - So, as my grandmother used to say, What do we do now, Mabel? Why the F*** can't we get this stuff figured out??? Plus which, one of the advantages of a veggie/grains/ beans diet is that it's better for the environment and a more efficient use of land resources in terms of getting everybody decently fed. What would happen if suddenly an almost-all-meat diet turned out to be healthiest?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eating fewer antioxidants produces decreased oxidative damage?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: I suppose we shouldn't figure on this as the new Common Wisdom until the study's been replicated... The idea that fruits and veggies may not be as healthy as believed has been my obsession for a few days, and I've found some discussions that flesh out the issue a bit more: Just after finishing my response, I found this on Yahoo News: - Study shows Mediterranean diet cuts depression risk Mon Oct 5, 4:04 pm ET LONDON (Reuters) People who follow a Mediterranean- style diet rich in vegetables, fruits, nuts, whole grains and fish are less likely to become depressed, scientists said on Monday, but the reasons are unclear. Spanish researchers studied 11,000 people and found that those who followed the Mediterranean diet most closely had a more than 30 percent reduction in the risk of depression than those whose diet had few of the crucial Mediterranean elements. The specific mechanisms by which a better adherence to the Mediterranean dietary pattern could help to prevent the occurrence of depression are not well known, said Almudena Sanchez-Villegas and colleagues at the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria and the University of Navarra, Spain. But the researchers suggested that elements of the diet may improve blood vessel function, fight inflammation and repair oxygen-related cell damage -- all of which could reduce the chances of developing depression. The study, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry journal, adds to an existing body of evidence showing the health benefits of a Mediterranean diet, including reduced risks of health disease, diabetes, asthma and cancer. The study used data from Spanish people who reported their dietary intake on a food frequency questionnaire. The researchers worked out how close their eating habits were to the Mediterranean diet based on nine components: A high ratio of monounsaturated fatty acids to saturated fatty acids; moderate intake of alcohol and dairy foods; low intake of meat; and high intake of legumes, fruit and nuts, cereals, vegetables and fish. Individuals who followed the Mediterranean diet most closely had a greater than 30 percent reduction in the risk of depression than whose who had the lowest Mediterranean diet scores, they wrote. (Reporting by Kate Kelland)
[FairfieldLife] Post Count
Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): Sat Oct 03 00:00:00 2009 End Date (UTC): Sat Oct 10 00:00:00 2009 242 messages as of (UTC) Mon Oct 05 23:53:18 2009 39 authfriend jst...@panix.com 22 TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com 22 ShempMcGurk shempmcg...@netscape.net 22 do.rflex do.rf...@yahoo.com 18 Rick Archer r...@searchsummit.com 17 Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net 15 Robert babajii...@yahoo.com 12 Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net 10 dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony...@yahoo.com 9 Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com 8 Duveyoung no_re...@yahoogroups.com 6 nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 6 lurkernomore20002000 steve.sun...@sbcglobal.net 6 WillyTex willy...@yahoo.com 5 PaliGap compost...@yahoo.co.uk 5 John jr_...@yahoo.com 3 jpgillam jpgil...@yahoo.com 2 wle...@aol.com 2 I am the eternal l.shad...@gmail.com 2 Dick Mays dickm...@lisco.com 1 yifuxero yifux...@yahoo.com 1 ve...@gmx.de 1 horashastra ve...@gmx.de 1 cardemaister no_re...@yahoogroups.com 1 anatol_zinc anatol_z...@yahoo.com 1 Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@lisco.com 1 Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com 1 Michael Gurevich m...@thepump.com 1 It's just a ride bill.hicks.all.a.r...@gmail.com 1 Hugo richardhughes...@hotmail.com 1 Bill billarsenaul...@yahoo.com Posters: 31 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] Re: Eating fewer antioxidants produces decreased oxidative damage?
Alex Stanley wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: I suppose we shouldn't figure on this as the new Common Wisdom until the study's been replicated... The idea that fruits and veggies may not be as healthy as believed has been my obsession for a few days, and I've found some discussions that flesh out the issue a bit more: http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2009/08/phytochemical-fallacies.html http://is.gd/3Zg9m http://mangans.blogspot.com/2009/07/antioxidants-prevent-health-promoting.html http://is.gd/3Zgc6 http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2007/12/fruit-and-vegetables-re-post.html http://is.gd/3ZgdQ FWIW, after a few days of eating less fruit and fewer carrots, and a bit more protein and fat, my weight is the lowest it's been in a couple months. I'd been around 178 for about a year, binged for a couple weeks this summer on ice cream, went up to 183, ditched the ice cream, and stalled out at 180. This morning I was 178.2. If I keep this up, maybe I'll get those six-pack abs after all. It all depends on the individual. No one diet fits all. The nutritionists make a big deal about fruits and veggies because there are a lot of people that the only veggies they get are tomatoes and lettuce. And the only fruit they get is strawberry jam if that. I know some people who can't stand veggies and call it rabbit food but they continue to do well. Notice that the nutritionists don't discriminate between the kinds of fruits and vegetables. Astringent and bitter tastes are good for kapha but disastrous for vatas. So eating your greens won't really help balance vata like having a sweet potato might. Use what works for you and that may change from time to time.
[FairfieldLife] The Fear Factor
Good short piece in The New Yorker by an award-winning science journalist debunking the nitwit notion that the H1N1 vaccine is more dangerous than the disease it prevents. Last two paragraphs: ...Though this H1N1 virus is novel, the vaccine is not. It was made and tested in exactly the same way that flu vaccines are always made and tested. Had this strain of flu emerged just a few months earlier, there would not have been any need for two vaccines this year; 2009 H1N1 would simply have been included as one of the components in the annual vaccine. Meanwhile, the virus has now appeared in a hundred and ninety-one countries. It has killed almost four thousand people and infected millions of others. The risks are clear and so are the facts. But, while scientists and public-health officials have dealt effectively with the disease, they increasingly confront a different kind of contagion: the spurious alarms spread by those who would make us fear vaccines more than the illnesses they prevent. http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2009/10/12/091012taco_talk_specter http://tinyurl.com/yeguzlc N.B.: The first sentence of the second paragraph above does NOT imply that the H1N1 flu is any more dangerous than the seasonal flu, except in the sense that more people are vulnerable to it because it's novel, so nobody has preexisting immunity. H1N1 is no more *virulent*--does not cause any more serious disease--than the seasonal flu, as the writer makes clear earlier in the article. *All* flu is dangerous, and we should all get our flu shots, both seasonal and H1N1, to protect ourselves and to protect others who might catch it from us if we come down with it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Fear Factor
authfriend wrote: *All* flu is dangerous, and we should all get our flu shots, both seasonal and H1N1, to protect ourselves and to protect others who might catch it from us if we come down with it. Can we sue you if we get the shot and wind up paralyzed as a result?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Fear Factor
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: authfriend wrote: *All* flu is dangerous, and we should all get our flu shots, both seasonal and H1N1, to protect ourselves and to protect others who might catch it from us if we come down with it. Can we sue you if we get the shot and wind up paralyzed as a result? No, sue the guy who wrote the article; he probably has insurance for that kind of thing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'No God on the Money!' (1984 Double-Speak?)//\\\
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@... wrote: Robert... there is no name of God on our currency. *God* is a generic term. It refers to whoever / whatever each individual believes fills that status. (snip) Let me attempt to explain this concept again: God is not money, and money is not God... I don't care if you use a generic name of God, or that In Buddha We Trust... or 'In Krishna We Trust' 'In Allah We Trust' 'In Bevan We Trust'... No we don't think that money is God... So, we don't write God on the money... This is the 'Law of God'... It is obviously not the 'Law of the United States' But it is why Jesus was prosecuted for 'Sedition'... Because he was so pissed off, that 'Money' had replaced 'God' in the 'Temple'... Robert 'In God We Trust'... Send me your money!
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Fear Factor
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: authfriend wrote: *All* flu is dangerous, and we should all get our flu shots, both seasonal and H1N1, to protect ourselves and to protect others who might catch it from us if we come down with it. Can we sue you if we get the shot and wind up paralyzed as a result? No, sue the guy who wrote the article; he probably has insurance for that kind of thing. If you're getting a weird 'Fear Feeling' about something, is it wise to ignore your instincts? R.g.
[FairfieldLife] Re: of Negative Energy
Thanks. About this post I received several e-mails on the side. Just wanted to acknowledge them. Acouple of posts were quite heartfelt. I had thot the original post was useful in its spiritual practicality so I had shared it. Glad it was useful to some. Jai, -Doug in FF paste Of Negative Energy, in Method -anonymous e-mail Love is a form of insight. If someone says something to you and they have some observation about you, you can watch yourself thinking, I don't know whether I want to take that in. If the person doesn't do it perfectly, if they don't say it exactly the way your mind wants to hear it, you just reject it. You can't pull the kernel of truth out of a stone. The purpose of insight meditation is to get that kernel of truth to come out of the stone, and to particularly get it out of people who have no skillful means, that is, they're abrupt and they don't know how to do it nicely, they're not poised, they don't have good delivery. The purpose of insight meditation is to see the truth coming from people who you perceive as enemies or that are ruthless in some way. The purpose of insight meditation is to turn your enemies into friends. It means that you have to have insight into how their enmity can be friendly to you. They can teach you about yourself. The result of that, ideally, is that you don't insulate yourself and always surround yourself with supporters. You are courageous enough to be in the presence of people who are not of skillful means, doing the right thing at the right moment, and you're able to pull truth even out of that stone. That makes it possible to pull love out of anything, out of a dead branch. That is the nature of insight meditation. There are a lot of situations in life in which love is not so easily seen. There are people who, for whatever reason, make themselves into your enemy, who throw stuff at you that is really hurtful, and not even stuff that's unconscious but rakshasic, demonic stuff. Those rakshasas, those demons, those bad guys are there to help you practice. That's their job, that's what they do. The way they help you practice is that you see them for what they are. You realize that if there's negative energy coming your way from another person which is not allowing you to experience the field of love between you and them, it is not only them doing that but there is an entity doing that, a negative force that is blocking the love. It doesn't want the love to be there, it's invested in that, it's employed by the devil, if you want to call it that, the dark side, the shadow. When you recognize that something is getting in the way between you loving another person, it is one of those or a cluster or aggregate of those. In both the Hindu and the Buddhist tradition the idea is to shoot them in the foot, to cut through, to completely annihilate their power, to debilitate them, to get them out of your life. How do you get rid of those demonic beings that are breaking up the love, that are destroying the love between you and your family, your relations, your lover? This is another important point about insight meditation. It teaches you that they exist, that it's not your imagination, and what to do with them. What do you do with them? Well, right now I'm locked up like this with my sister, God bless her. When you see that another person is emanating a powerful negative energy and they may not even know it, then you have a job to do. As a spiritual person you're on call. Your job is to shoot this thing, get rid of it, take it out, annihilate it, blast it, explode it. How do you do that? When you have an enemy of this rakshasic nature, which it isn't always, sometimes it's at a personality structure level, but if it is, if that's what's coming at you, you have to get rid of it. If its job is to create fear, it will generate more fear. If its job is to create anger, it will generate more anger. That's what rakshasas do. That's their job. According to a lot of scriptures, they don't have a choice, they're slaves, essentially, of the dark side, they are made to do that, they don't have free will. Basically they are there to fight you into sadness, into fear, into anger, into jealousy, but ultimately they are there to cause you to break from practice. They're sadhana breakers. They're there to stop you from practicing, from doing what you know is the best thing for your evolution. How do you stop them from stopping you? From a transcendent point of view, the way that you stop rakshasas is that you get deeper into the transcendent that they are sourced from. If they're here and they have a pipeline into the transcendent and it's this far down and that's where they're getting their rakshasa juice from, you go down lower. You have to go underneath them to get at them. It's like what Maharishi said, you can't solve a problem on the
[FairfieldLife] of Negative energy
re; other post with advice from Karunamayi. If one is being attacked - psychically - by actual demons or physical people; in my experience the transcendent won't help. Best to use Black Magic, fight fire with more powerful fire. I use Voodoo, relying on my favorite Spirit, Eleggua (Eshu). He doesn't mess around.
[FairfieldLife] Re: of Negative Energy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: I didn't bother to read it. I refer you instead to this writeup from Wikipedia, which I think better describes the phenomenon Oh no, Turq. Sorry you missed it. Yours is more descriptive while the other Is more practical. The other is more the FF take on negativity. The transcendental Look. I see it as trying to put a New Age spin on the fact that they're focusing on their fears, personifying them, and indulging in them. I agree with Barry here... I got in a lot of trouble last week, after reading this post, about 'Fighting and Killing the Demonic Forces, or Rakshasas'... When I did that for a day, or two last week, I noticed I was just allowing myself, to sink deeper and deeper, into the 'Negative Energy'...that I was attempting to destroy... The only way out of the negative energy, is to remain, 'In the Self'...The Transcendent...away from the disturbance'... Eckart Tolle talks a lot about this procedure, of 'Observing' or 'Witnessing' whatever it is, that is disturbing, a thought, a fear feeling...just witness it, and this will help it to dissolve... If you attempt to 'Fight the Thing' on the 'Level of the Thing' that is disturbing, the 'Thing' gets you to 'Play' on it's level, and keep you from Peace, from God, from Self... And that is the 'Purpose' of the 'Disturbance'...to disturb you, so you lose Buddha hood, Nirvana, Holy Spirit, Passionate Compassion, and so on... It is true, that if the 'Disturbance' is allowed to grow, to immense proportions, like in Nazi Germany... Then there is no choice, but to go to the evil, and destroy it on it's own level... But, we look at Germany now, and we don't see that, force there anymore... Actually it's now based more right here, in the United States, and amongst the 'Corporate/ Military/Drug/Doctors for Profit'bastards... You can't fight these bastards on their own level, because they are too evil, and have to much 'In God We Trust' bills.. So, the only way, is to stay in 'Coherence' which dispels the fear, the zombies, the perverts and the murderers... Stay out of the Jungle, you monkey girls... Roberto De Venus.
[FairfieldLife] Re: of Negative energy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifux...@... wrote: re; other post with advice from Karunamayi. If one is being attacked - psychically - by actual demons or physical people; in my experience the transcendent won't help. Best to use Black Magic, fight fire with more powerful fire. I use Voodoo, relying on my favorite Spirit, Eleggua (Eshu). He doesn't mess around. I fell that 'Any' use of 'Black Magic' is 'Anti-Spiritual'... It just reminds me of the same energy, as 'Dick Cheney'... Who claims the same thing...that he likes to play with the 'Black Magic', on order to 'Keep us all Safe'... So, it's like the 'Ends Justify the Means'.. This is never a good thing... This is the ultimate 'Tempation of the Devil, the 'Evil One' 'The Liar'...'The Murderer Since the Beginning of Time'... Stay in the Light, and the 'Dark' will disappear... Give attention to the 'Dark' and start playing with the 'Dark'... Nada Good, no good Amigo! Roberto
Re: [FairfieldLife] of Negative energy
Karunamayi is recommending black magic? yifuxero wrote: re; other post with advice from Karunamayi. If one is being attacked - psychically - by actual demons or physical people; in my experience the transcendent won't help. Best to use Black Magic, fight fire with more powerful fire. I use Voodoo, relying on my favorite Spirit, Eleggua (Eshu). He doesn't mess around.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Fear Factor
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: authfriend wrote: *All* flu is dangerous, and we should all get our flu shots, both seasonal and H1N1, to protect ourselves and to protect others who might catch it from us if we come down with it. Can we sue you if we get the shot and wind up paralyzed as a result? No, sue the guy who wrote the article; he probably has insurance for that kind of thing. If you're getting a weird 'Fear Feeling' about something, is it wise to ignore your instincts? It's wise to do a little research into the facts and make sure your your instincts aren't kicking up a fuss over nothing. Especially if they may have been influenced by some twit who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. And *especially* if it's some twit who's repeatedly mocked and denigrated your countryfolk for unnecessary fear, then has turned around and done his level best to make you afraid of something that's not only harmless but beneficial.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Insensitivity,
dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony...@... wrote: Dear Rick, i think very clearly i could help you with this. Give me that key that you have to FFL that rules the other keys that those other moderators have. That one key that rules them all. Its a heavey weight to carry all alone. I should help you with that. We've come through a lot together. Tell me. Is this for real?
[FairfieldLife] More from George and Tom - Their YouTube Channel Page
http://www.youtube.com/user/skunkriverms#play/all
[FairfieldLife] Surprised
Comment from someone who joined recently: I just joined the Fairfieldlife group this past week. I had seen several references to the group, mostly referring to TM or other spiritual paths. I have been very surprised to find that none of the posts I have received refer to sprituality at all. In fact, most of what I've seen has been hate-filled and rude and reeking of very cynical far-left politics. Are these sorts of posts typical of the group? I am finding it rather meanspirited and depressingwhich is fine, if that is what the members want. It just isn't what I was expecting.
[FairfieldLife] YouTube - Doc's Guitar, performed by Skunk River Medicine Show
George Foster and Tom Morgan, of Fairfield: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJX_O9fJbsc
[FairfieldLife] Re: Surprised
Welcome to The Jungle. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: Comment from someone who joined recently: I just joined the Fairfieldlife group this past week. I had seen several references to the group, mostly referring to TM or other spiritual paths. I have been very surprised to find that none of the posts I have received refer to sprituality at all. In fact, most of what I've seen has been hate-filled and rude and reeking of very cynical far-left politics. Are these sorts of posts typical of the group? I am finding it rather meanspirited and depressingwhich is fine, if that is what the members want. It just isn't what I was expecting.
