[FairfieldLife] Fwd: New Postage Stamps on Hindu Deities

[Ghanesh PV]

 *Thailand Government released new Postage Stamps on Hindu Deities*



Government of Thailand released remarkable new edition of stamps depicting
the Hindu Deities, which will definitely delight the hearts of Hindu’s in
Asia and other parts  of the world. Thailand has a remarkable affinity to
the Hindu Religion and Thai People are obviously proud of their Indian
(Hindu) connection with the rich and colorful Thai culture and tradition.





The newly published stamps and the first day covers are embossed and printed
with four(4) idol images of Hindu gods, namely Lord Ganesha,Lord Brahma,
Lord Narayana(Phra Narai) and Lord Shiva(Phra Issuan) has indeed created a
wonderful feelings and has brought great honor to the minds of the Hindu
fraternity in Thailand and every parts in this globe. The inclusion of Aum
sign and the Trimurthi ( Brhama, Vishnu and Mahesh) in the first day cover
enhanced the significance of Hindu Dharma into the mind of every Hindu
admirers without any doubt.



Hindu Existence Group conveys its warm greetings to the Thai Government and
every Thai People for this noble cause.



*Posted by hinduexistence*

[FairfieldLife] Re: meowthirteen

[azgrey]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "nelson"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, m 13  wrote:
> > 
> > > The End
> > > roll credits
> > > show snap shots of future snugglings with kitten
> > >  
> > >  
> > > true story
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Bravo! Brava! Bravi!
> >
>Nice story Meowy.
>At work, in town, there are a number of ferals that I help feed and, some 
> of them have become more social to where they come in and complain if there 
> isn't something to eat.
>One of them will often sit on my shoulder and and act blissed out- pur, 
> purr, rub, etc,  
> Living out in the county, it is dog country and, we have always had some 
> drop offs or throw aways that turn out to be great friends.
>Maybe it is my imagination but it seems they might be gratefull to have a 
> home and not have starved.
>

Be mindful feeding feral cats in the city nelson. It may not be
the best solution as it encourages reproduction. A small 
problem grows quickly. I'm not suggesting you let them starve.
I'm suggesting that other solutions must be coupled with feeding.
In the country, as you mentioned, it is a different story. 

I share your tendency toward anthropomorphism. The experience
of feeling that gratefulness is very real. Used to think I was kinda
being silly. I long ago gave up caring and chose to revel in the 
whole phenomenology of it. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: meowthirteen

[azgrey]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "nelson"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, m 13  wrote:
> > 
> > > The End
> > > roll credits
> > > show snap shots of future snugglings with kitten
> > >  
> > >  
> > > true story
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Bravo! Brava! Bravi!
> >
>Nice story Meowy.
>At work, in town, there are a number of ferals that I help feed and, some 
> of them have become more social to where they come in and complain if there 
> isn't something to eat.
>One of them will often sit on my shoulder and and act blissed out- pur, 
> purr, rub, etc,  
> Living out in the county, it is dog country and, we have always had some 
> drop offs or throw aways that turn out to be great friends.
>Maybe it is my imagination but it seems they might be gratefull to have a 
> home and not have starved.
>

Be mindfull when feeding them nelson. I'm not suggesting
you let feral cats starve. I'm suggesting that there may be
ways of caring for them that don't involve encouraging 
them to reproduce at will. Organized groups that feed 
feral cats where I reside would not cease and are now being
cited and forced to desist. Heart felt good deeds were turning
a small problem into a huge one.   

[FairfieldLife] Re: meowthirteen

[azgrey]

Wow. I'm completely floored. That's soo cool. Perfect. 
Maybe a schnauser puppy will wander into the neighborhood
come springtime.  Thank you for taking the time to
share such a great tale. Your joy is palpable and contagious. 

It's none of my biz, but this isn't the first time you have mentioned
husband's wrath. Here's to hoping that is merely a rhetorical device. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, m 13  wrote:
>
> Scene one
> husband having past mentioned dispising all things 'kitty'
> kitty paw prints,etc..all the things kitties do as @$#%%^&!!!
> whilst speaking softly, cuddly ish about a schnauser he had and dogs in 
> general...
>  
> Scene two
> wife of husband dare not do anything with feline due to fear of husbands 
> wrath on her or kitten,
> fearing God s wrath on her/karmic reprocussions however, she get a box and 
> puts her rabbit fur sleves cut off her coat and some bear fur so found at a 
> garage sale in it...makes a 'nest'.Tucks box and kitten in it under deck 
> within the arms of the riding lawn mower.
> Wife feeds and waters and brushes kitten.
>  
> scene three
> Husband does not tell wife, but cleans out garage like a doting father baby 
> proofing the home.He takes the kitten into his lair(the garage,his cave of 
> zen 'space') throws down a paper bag,a belt from the snowblower that broke,a 
> zip tie, and teaches the kitty to "shake".
>  
> scene four
> wife goes out to give kitty warm eggs she watered down for easy eating, mixed 
> with kitten food ,rehydrated and mushy...heart goes cold...no kitten...no 
> box..she remembers she made husband promise he would not kill 'Pee Wee' as 
> she got to call 'it'...goes into garage,wide eyed...
>  
> scene five
> Food in hand, she turns the door handle to the garage.
>  
> (duh dun duNNNnnnNNnn)
>  
> There is the kitten in husbands lap!
> Wife surveys floor of garage...very neat tidy perfectionist husband who's 
> garage is sacred has a bag, and a circular belt and a zip tie on the floor ?!
> Wife asks, are those toys?
> Husband sheepishly says, yes, i thought the kitty needed something to play 
> with.
> Husband remarks proudly how he cleaned up the garage really good, so nothing 
> would accidently choke the kitten,or accidently strangle it...
> Wife is relieved, because it is raining and snowing and so cold outside.
> Wife hopes no one calls for kitten even though she listed on four boards on 
> internet and called the no kill shelter and got on the waiting list.
> Wife goes and buys a handful of funny toys at the store for it.
> Daughter buys it gift for the holiday...wife hopes daughter won't be 
> heartbroken if kitten gets adopted before the Holiday.
>  
> scene six
> Someone posts on the internet a possible home.
> Wife's heart goes cold.
> The time has come.
> She envisions life without the perky kitten who runs out to greet her every 
> time she comes.
> Poor thing was so hungry it choked down the mushy food.
> It went right in the litter box!Like magic!
> No more cute little eyes looking up at her.
> It even let her "beep" it's nose-and licked her on the face.
> Oh well, she thinks, it will go with a lot of toys and that will be nice 
> ...and that big bag of kitten food.
> Wife makes phone call.
> Husband answers .
> Babe, she says, there is a possible home for that kitten.
> Oh yeah?
> Wife hoped he would say, oh no!
> Wife says, yes.But i kinda like that PeeWee!
> Husband says, I kinda do too.
> Husband says, well, you have to decide if you want it to be an inside cat, or 
> outside cat.
> It must have shots, etc, first, if you want it to be inside cat.
> Oh, thank you husband!exclaims wife!
> Heart of wife thanks God for her birthday present, the best most useful 
> compassionate present of all, a friend .
>  
> Scene seven
> Wife makes necessary phone call to gracious person considering adoption of 
> kitten, to other people,and to vet. 
> Wife thanks God for miracle of angel kitty melting heart of husband.
> Every day she goes out to visit husband in garage having quiet time with 
> kitty till vet's app't date arrives for final shots.
> She finds newly fashioned"toys" for the kitten most days.A box he cut out...a 
> plastic circle off something or other...he shows wife ,'look, she can 
> shake'...wife looks on incredulously-at the fact of a cat hater with a kitten 
> curled up in his lap, and his remark that indicated he's been playing with 
> her, teaching her...husband puts out hand , and says, shake!
> He says it again, and puts out his hand,'shake!'
> The kitten puts out her paw on his.
> Wife can't believe this, she has grown up with multiple cats all her life, 
> and never seen a cat "shake"
> Wife gets rid of ficus tree in the house that husband disliked to make room 
> for kitten's food area.
>  
> The End
> roll credits
> show snap shots of future snugglings with kitten
>  
>  
> true story
>  
> -M
>  
>  
>  
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chutzpah

[azgrey]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which makes you, once again, a schmegegy.
> > > > > 
> > > > > AZ, if you know, please clear up for me some 
> > > > > of the mystery of the term "schmegegy."
> > > > > 
> > > > > Being not of the Jewish persuasion, the only 
> > > > > times I have heard this phrase in my life have
> > > > > been accompanied by a grimace of cognitive
> > > > > dissonance, my face reflecting the fact that
> > > > > I simply don't get the reference.
> > > > > 
> > > > > A Jewish friend of my acquaintance, exorted 
> > > > > over a shared joint back in college to define 
> > > > > "schmegegy" for me, replied:
> > > > > 
> > > > > "You know how when you go to the laundromat
> > > > > to do your wash and afterwards you discover
> > > > > weird lint stuff in the pockets of the washed 
> > > > > clothing, stuff that you can't quite figure
> > > > > out the origin of? Schmegegies."
> > > > > 
> > > > > So what's the literal meaning?
> > > > 
> > > > Schmegegy is a noun meaning idiot with connotations
> > > > or being full of hot air. If you referred to someone as 
> > > > full of baloney, the person you were referring to would
> > > > be a schmegegy. 
> > > > 
> > > > Lets say, for example that someone said that  schmegegy
> > > > was a wimpy way to bash but then spent 3 post responding
> > > > to the comment. That person defines being a schmegegy.
> > > 
> > > Thanks. So my friend's suggestion that a 
> > > schmegegy was an individual with the same
> > > basic worth as trouser lint was correct.
> > 
> > Another example of analogy and example being spot on
> > to clarify definition.
> 
> It may be a side effect of years of Yogic Flying.
> Think to yourself "lightness of cotton fiber" over
> and over for decades, and sure 'nuff you become as
> lightweight as cotton fiber.  :-)

You crack me up.

I do feel you shouldn't be so belittling and dismissive of lint.
At least when you throw lint away it doesn't follow you around
and stalk you for 15 years on internet message boards. :-)
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: "Dishonesty" - Etude No 1 in Peed Off Major (was Doom & Gloom etc)

[azgrey]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
>  wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> > > 3) Judy: "And apparently completely missed the fact 
> > > that the "alarmism" resulted in actions taken to 
> > > successfully defang Y2K. It was a real threat, averted 
> > > because attention was paid to it."
> > > 
> > > 4) Me (a Mullah Nasrudin story):  "A friend noticed 
> > > that every morning Mulla Nasrudin would sprinkle 
> > > crumbs on his doorstep. 'Why do you do that, friend?' 
> > > : 'To keep the lions away' : 'But there aren't any 
> > > lions here?' : 'See, it works!'"
> 
> [snip] 
> 
> > > Go back to Judy's assertion at (3). Note that it is a 
> > > bald assertion. There is no presentation of evidence.
> > > 
> > > That's why the Nasrudin story is to the point. The 
> > > Nasrudin story is a charming way of presenting what 
> > > would otherwise be a dry point. Viz:
> > > 
> > > :: The failure of a catastrophic scenario to 
> > > materialise can never IN ITSELF count as justification 
> > > for any steps we may have taken to avert it ::
> > 
> > Since I never said it did, we can add "non sequitur"
> > to the "thought-stopper" charge.
> 
> The point is NOT "that you said it". Rather it is that as you 
> said nothing ELSE other than *what amounts to that*, the logic 
> of Nasrudin applied to you. 
>  
> > > (Think priests praying to avert the end of the world 
> > > next Thursday and then telling you smugly on Friday 
> > > "we told you so").
> > > 
> > > But in the absence of evidence - that is all Judy's 
> > > asserion at (3) is. So, in other words that's what the 
> > > Nasrudin story is - it's a request for evidence.
> > 
> > Well, no, it's not a request for evidence.  It's an
> > implicit assertion that there can *be* no evidence.
> > That's why I called it a thought-stopper.
> 
> You need to explain that. "Implicit" looks supicious. You mean 
> something like "it doesn't outright say this, but it means 
> this"?
> 
> How so? How EXACTLY does the Nasrudin tale "implicitly assert" 
> (whatever that means) that "THAT THERE CAN *BE* NO 
> EVIDENCE"? Now that there... Yes, that WOULD be a "thought 
> stopper"! Except that it does NOT entail or assert any
> such thing.
> 
> There is a threat: Lions, Y2K, The end of the world, whatever. 
> We do something: Scatter crumbs, spend billions, do some chants
> Time passes: No lions, no computer disaaster, no end of world
> 
> If we just say "see, we averted the disaster", The Nasrudin 
> tale is reminding us about some missing steps: Evidence that 
> the threat existed in the first place and that the measures we 
> took fixed the problem. That's all. Nothing else. It does NOT 
> say implicitly or explicitly "that there can *be* no evidence" 
> (as you put it). If it did it would be crazy.
> 
> So it is no "thought stopper". So there is no "intellectual 
> dishonesty".
> 
> Let's boil the cabbages once more:
> 
> You said: "The "alarmism" resulted in actions taken to 
> successfully defang Y2K. It was a real threat, averted 
> because attention was paid to it." At that point that's ALL 
> you said.
> 
> The priest said: "The "alarmism" resulted in actions (chants) 
> to successfully defang the world's end. It was a real threat, 
> averted because attention was paid to it.".
> 
> So enter Nasrudin - a request for evidence (no thought 
> stopper). You wouldn't accept the likes of that from 
> apocalyptic priests (as it stands). Why is YOUR case any 
> different? 
> 
> Of course you have NOW said more, and linked to an article 
> that looks for the white teeth in the Y2K's rotting corpse. 
> Fair enough. You've also added this: "...as for the countries 
> that did little or nothing and had no major problems, that 
> doesn't prove anything, given the vast differences between the 
> size and complexity of their infrastructures and the degree of
> the dependence of those infrastructures on electronic 
> information technology". 
> 
> I'm underwhelmed by that point I'm afraid. Actually Dutton had 
> said plenty on this in any case. e.g. "It must have been 
> galling for computer-conscientious Germans to observe how life 
> continued its pleasurable path for feckless Italians, who had 
> generally paid no attention to Y2K". 
> 
> Italy, eh? Insufficently complex infrastucture and dependence 
> on IT? Come on!
> 
> Finally, you say this.
> 
> > "You have a habit of leaving lots of stuff on the table.
> > You tend to pick out a tidbit here or there to address
> > in such a way that the original discussion gets derailed
> > and sidetracked. It's hard not to see that as deliberate.
> 
> And once again you see monsters in the dark shadows that just 
> aren't there. "Deliberate!". The explanation is much more 
> dull. Time does not allow all these things to be pursued at 
> once, especially if we're to try hard to get to the bottom of 
> an issue. I suppose my focus has been (rightly or wrongly) to 
> begin by try

[FairfieldLife] YouTube - Arj Barker Sickest Buddhist

[Rick Archer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gCU5uplB4A 

[FairfieldLife] Re: "Dishonesty" - Etude No 1 in Peed Off Major (was Doom & Gloom etc)

[authfriend]

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

> The scientific cash-value of statements such as Judy's
> "Climate change is *already* having severe effects on
> the needy" interest me. I wonder if the concept of 
> "intellectual dishonesty" could gain better purchase 
> there?

>From today's New York Times:

Environmental Refugees Unable to Return Home

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/asia/04migrants.html?hp

http://tinyurl.com/yglw6pl

[FairfieldLife] easy look at David Lynch in India

[shukra69]

http://maharishichannel.in/archives/gfc-archive.html

Dec 29th , download then skip to about 15 mins in

[FairfieldLife] Animator vs Animation

[raunchydog]

http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs13/f/2007/077/2/e/Animator_vs__Animation_by_alanbecker.swf

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat Jan 02 00:00:00 2010
End Date (UTC): Sat Jan 09 00:00:00 2010
112 messages as of (UTC) Sun Jan 03 23:41:31 2010

19 authfriend 
14 TurquoiseB 
10 WillyTex 
 8 m 13 
 7 PaliGap 
 5 raunchydog 
 5 azgrey 
 5 John 
 5 Jason 
 5 Bhairitu 
 3 nablusoss1008 
 3 Hugo 
 3 BillyG 
 2 guyfawkes91 
 2 dhamiltony2k5 
 2 cardemaister 
 2 Vaj 
 1 wayback71 
 1 pranamoocher 
 1 nelson 
 1 metoostill 
 1 gullible fool 
 1 fflmod 
 1 eustace10679 
 1 Sal Sunshine 
 1 It's just a ride 
 1 I am the eternal 
 1 Alex Stanley 
 1 "do.rflex" 

Posters: 29
Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
=
Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
Standard Time (Winter):
US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com 

[FairfieldLife] Re: "Dishonesty" - Etude No 1 in Peed Off Major (was Doom & Gloom etc)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap"  wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
>  wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> > > 3) Judy: "And apparently completely missed the fact 
> > > that the "alarmism" resulted in actions taken to 
> > > successfully defang Y2K. It was a real threat, averted 
> > > because attention was paid to it."
> > > 
> > > 4) Me (a Mullah Nasrudin story):  "A friend noticed 
> > > that every morning Mulla Nasrudin would sprinkle 
> > > crumbs on his doorstep. 'Why do you do that, friend?' 
> > > : 'To keep the lions away' : 'But there aren't any 
> > > lions here?' : 'See, it works!'"
> 
> [snip] 
> 
> > > Go back to Judy's assertion at (3). Note that it is a 
> > > bald assertion. There is no presentation of evidence.
> > > 
> > > That's why the Nasrudin story is to the point. The 
> > > Nasrudin story is a charming way of presenting what 
> > > would otherwise be a dry point. Viz:
> > > 
> > > :: The failure of a catastrophic scenario to 
> > > materialise can never IN ITSELF count as justification 
> > > for any steps we may have taken to avert it ::
> > 
> > Since I never said it did, we can add "non sequitur"
> > to the "thought-stopper" charge.
> 
> The point is NOT "that you said it". Rather it is that as you 
> said nothing ELSE other than *what amounts to that*, the logic 
> of Nasrudin applied to you.

It would have applied to me if you'd asked me for
evidence and all I'd said was, "Well, nothing bad
happened."

But you didn't ask; you just *assumed*. As far as
you were concerned, the Nasrudin story nailed it,
no further discussion necessary.

> > > (Think priests praying to avert the end of the world 
> > > next Thursday and then telling you smugly on Friday 
> > > "we told you so").
> > > 
> > > But in the absence of evidence - that is all Judy's 
> > > asserion at (3) is. So, in other words that's what the 
> > > Nasrudin story is - it's a request for evidence.
> > 
> > Well, no, it's not a request for evidence.  It's an
> > implicit assertion that there can *be* no evidence.
> > That's why I called it a thought-stopper.
> 
> You need to explain that. "Implicit" looks supicious. You mean 
> something like "it doesn't outright say this, but it means 
> this"?

Do you really not know what "implicit" means?

> How so? How EXACTLY does the Nasrudin tale "implicitly assert" 
> (whatever that means) that "THAT THERE CAN *BE* NO 
> EVIDENCE"? Now that there... Yes, that WOULD be a "thought 
> stopper"! Except that it does NOT entail or assert any
> such thing.
> 
> There is a threat: Lions, Y2K, The end of the world, whatever. 
> We do something: Scatter crumbs, spend billions, do some chants
> Time passes: No lions, no computer disaaster, no end of world
> 
> If we just say "see, we averted the disaster", The Nasrudin 
> tale is reminding us about some missing steps: Evidence that 
> the threat existed in the first place and that the measures we 
> took fixed the problem. That's all. Nothing else. It does NOT 
> say implicitly or explicitly "that there can *be* no evidence" 
> (as you put it). If it did it would be crazy.

It's crazy as applied to Y2K or AGW. It's not crazy
in its original context because its *assumption* is
that the lions are imaginary and the crumbs completely
unnecessary. If it points to "missing steps," it's to
imply that the steps are missing because the lions
and the protective power of crumbs were a fantasy to
start with.

How do we know this? Because the protective ritual
would never keep lions away. If the story had Nasrudin
circling his dwelling with bonfires, which *would*
keep lions away, you'd have a case.

The Nasrudin story is about patently irrational fears
and protective rituals. It's still a thought-stopper,
but what it stops is *irrational* thought. That's why
it's intellectually dishonest to use it as an argument
about Y2K or AGW.

> So it is no "thought stopper". So there is no "intellectual 
> dishonesty".

We disagree.

 
> Of course you have NOW said more

And would have said more two posts ago had you *asked*
me to say more instead of dropping the thought-stopper.

, and linked to an article 
> that looks for the white teeth in the Y2K's rotting corpse. 
> Fair enough. You've also added this: "...as for the countries 
> that did little or nothing and had no major problems, that 
> doesn't prove anything, given the vast differences between the 
> size and complexity of their infrastructures and the degree of
> the dependence of those infrastructures on electronic 
> information technology". 
> 
> I'm underwhelmed by that point I'm afraid. Actually Dutton had 
> said plenty on this in any case. e.g. "It must have been 
> galling for computer-conscientious Germans to observe how life 
> continued its pleasurable path for feckless Italians, who had 
> generally paid no attention to Y2K". 
> 
> Italy, eh? Insufficently complex infrastucture and dependence 
> on IT? Come on!

Not sure why you'd even question that. Whether 

[FairfieldLife] Re: meowthirteen

[m 13]

I am so glad you have a wing big enough to open up and spread over a life(s)
smaller than your in body, but not so in spirit
 
I think most cannot get a job like the Geico gecko,
so, to extend some small bit of our time and money to give nourishment is
sane
fair
 
and they are so charming anyway
 
Thanks to you for having a leaky heart and letting it's contents spill onto 
other beings;be they small or no...
 
-M
 


  

[FairfieldLife] Re: "Dishonesty" - Etude No 1 in Peed Off Major (was Doom & Gloom etc)

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
 wrote:
>
[snip]
> > 3) Judy: "And apparently completely missed the fact 
> > that the "alarmism" resulted in actions taken to 
> > successfully defang Y2K. It was a real threat, averted 
> > because attention was paid to it."
> > 
> > 4) Me (a Mullah Nasrudin story):  "A friend noticed 
> > that every morning Mulla Nasrudin would sprinkle 
> > crumbs on his doorstep. 'Why do you do that, friend?' 
> > : 'To keep the lions away' : 'But there aren't any 
> > lions here?' : 'See, it works!'"

[snip] 

> > Go back to Judy's assertion at (3). Note that it is a 
> > bald assertion. There is no presentation of evidence.
> > 
> > That's why the Nasrudin story is to the point. The 
> > Nasrudin story is a charming way of presenting what 
> > would otherwise be a dry point. Viz:
> > 
> > :: The failure of a catastrophic scenario to 
> > materialise can never IN ITSELF count as justification 
> > for any steps we may have taken to avert it ::
> 
> Since I never said it did, we can add "non sequitur"
> to the "thought-stopper" charge.

The point is NOT "that you said it". Rather it is that as you 
said nothing ELSE other than *what amounts to that*, the logic 
of Nasrudin applied to you. 
 
> > (Think priests praying to avert the end of the world 
> > next Thursday and then telling you smugly on Friday 
> > "we told you so").
> > 
> > But in the absence of evidence - that is all Judy's 
> > asserion at (3) is. So, in other words that's what the 
> > Nasrudin story is - it's a request for evidence.
> 
> Well, no, it's not a request for evidence.  It's an
> implicit assertion that there can *be* no evidence.
> That's why I called it a thought-stopper.

You need to explain that. "Implicit" looks supicious. You mean 
something like "it doesn't outright say this, but it means 
this"?

How so? How EXACTLY does the Nasrudin tale "implicitly assert" 
(whatever that means) that "THAT THERE CAN *BE* NO 
EVIDENCE"? Now that there... Yes, that WOULD be a "thought 
stopper"! Except that it does NOT entail or assert any
such thing.

There is a threat: Lions, Y2K, The end of the world, whatever. 
We do something: Scatter crumbs, spend billions, do some chants
Time passes: No lions, no computer disaaster, no end of world

If we just say "see, we averted the disaster", The Nasrudin 
tale is reminding us about some missing steps: Evidence that 
the threat existed in the first place and that the measures we 
took fixed the problem. That's all. Nothing else. It does NOT 
say implicitly or explicitly "that there can *be* no evidence" 
(as you put it). If it did it would be crazy.

So it is no "thought stopper". So there is no "intellectual 
dishonesty".

Let's boil the cabbages once more:

You said: "The "alarmism" resulted in actions taken to 
successfully defang Y2K. It was a real threat, averted 
because attention was paid to it." At that point that's ALL 
you said.

The priest said: "The "alarmism" resulted in actions (chants) 
to successfully defang the world's end. It was a real threat, 
averted because attention was paid to it.".

So enter Nasrudin - a request for evidence (no thought 
stopper). You wouldn't accept the likes of that from 
apocalyptic priests (as it stands). Why is YOUR case any 
different? 

Of course you have NOW said more, and linked to an article 
that looks for the white teeth in the Y2K's rotting corpse. 
Fair enough. You've also added this: "...as for the countries 
that did little or nothing and had no major problems, that 
doesn't prove anything, given the vast differences between the 
size and complexity of their infrastructures and the degree of
the dependence of those infrastructures on electronic 
information technology". 

I'm underwhelmed by that point I'm afraid. Actually Dutton had 
said plenty on this in any case. e.g. "It must have been 
galling for computer-conscientious Germans to observe how life 
continued its pleasurable path for feckless Italians, who had 
generally paid no attention to Y2K". 

Italy, eh? Insufficently complex infrastucture and dependence 
on IT? Come on!

Finally, you say this.

> "You have a habit of leaving lots of stuff on the table.
> You tend to pick out a tidbit here or there to address
> in such a way that the original discussion gets derailed
> and sidetracked. It's hard not to see that as deliberate.

And once again you see monsters in the dark shadows that just 
aren't there. "Deliberate!". The explanation is much more 
dull. Time does not allow all these things to be pursued at 
once, especially if we're to try hard to get to the bottom of 
an issue. I suppose my focus has been (rightly or wrongly) to 
begin by trying to slay your imagined monsters before settling 
down to a nice chat. Hence the title of this thread.

[FairfieldLife] Re: meowthirteen

[nelson]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, m 13  wrote:
> 
> > The End
> > roll credits
> > show snap shots of future snugglings with kitten
> >  
> >  
> > true story
> 
> 
> 
> Bravo! Brava! Bravi!
>
   Nice story Meowy.
   At work, in town, there are a number of ferals that I help feed and, some of 
them have become more social to where they come in and complain if there isn't 
something to eat.
   One of them will often sit on my shoulder and and act blissed out- pur, 
purr, rub, etc,  
Living out in the county, it is dog country and, we have always had some 
drop offs or throw aways that turn out to be great friends.
   Maybe it is my imagination but it seems they might be gratefull to have a 
home and not have starved.
   

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Doom & Gloom Fixation

[Bhairitu]

Hugo wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>   
>> Hugo wrote:
>> 
>>> do you get this nonsense from dude?
>>>
>>>
>>> BTW the BBC have finished the second series of my fave 
>>> TV show "Survivors." Broadcast starts on 12 Jan.
>>>
>>> Catch up here:
>>>
>>> http://survivorsbbctv.wordpress.com/
>>>
>>> The best post apocalypse show ever made. As bleak as the 
>>> day is long. I like my doom and gloom.
>>>   
>> It starts on BBC America in February and probably season one.  I don't 
>> have BBC America unless they play the series OnDemand.  The robber 
>> barons at Comcast seem to want $61 more to get the tier with BBC 
>> America.  Ridiculous!   The trailer sports a "one person" super-hero 
>> theme, seemingly a woman who is immune to the virus -- and yes that's a 
>> theme that has been done numerous times.  It is a reinforcement of the 
>> "me" meme.
>> 
>
> It was done first by the BBC in the 70s, this is a remake or rather
> re-imagining as they like to say these days. It's bang up to date 
> with guns in yer face and everything whereas the original, while 
> bleak, was more stagey and philosophical but still unsettling
> viewing with it's plagues and packs of wild dogs giving everyone rabies, such 
> fun!
>
> It's worth a look anyway. I think if you can't make a good drama
> out of the end of the world there must be something wrong, but the
> BBC failed with Day of the Triffids recently. Survivors is much 
> better.
>
> I'd tell you about the central character but don't want to spoil it.
>   

I see that the first full episode of Demons is up OnDemand.  They had 
the first 28 minutes as a teaser previously.   They may do the same come 
February for Survivors.

BBC productions are pretty low budget compared to US networks but then 
the US networks in order to survive will have to start producing shows 
like the BBC does.  Seems their big money productions are failing 
anyway.  Most people are just looking for a good story to entertain them 
and the network executives seem to believe they don't and want glitz 
instead and long long drawn out seasons usually with a bunch of 
worthless filler episodes.

The LA Times has a prognostication article on tough times ahead for the 
media.  One thing I would root for having mentioned Comcast is for the 
FCC to crack down on them (after allowing them to buy NBC) and break up 
those damn over priced packages which most people only get 10% of the 
value out of.  Want to see some sparks fly on the home theater forums 
just bring up "ala carte" and we have the "armchair" businessmen 
defending the big package deals.  This is because so many of the home 
theater forums are populated by overpaid  management types who don't 
care if they spend $200 a month for cable and only get about $20 worth 
of viewing out of it.  They'll tell the rest of us to go ask our boss 
for a raise.  I laugh at the ultimate result which is one of these guys 
the next day having one of their employees walk in and ask for said 
raise since he mentioned it on the forum.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-predictions28-2009dec28,0,2942337.story

>  
>   
>> I watch trends and if you do that you can see where things are going.  
>> We've slammed into the wall of overpopulation.  That problem could be 
>> solved if the wealthy would give up their power.  But they want to stay 
>> in control and leave millions possibly billions in misery.   They have 
>> NO RIGHT to do so!  Our job is to make the public realize this and take 
>> action.
>> 
>
> I'm with you all the way. Do I have to get out of my armchair?

Probably.   I don't understand why people just sit idly by and whine "we 
can't do anything about it."

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Doom & Gloom Fixation

[Hugo]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo"  wrote:
> 
> > 
> > BTW the BBC have finished the second series of my fave 
> > TV show "Survivors." Broadcast starts on 12 Jan.
> > 
> > Catch up here:
> > 
> > http://survivorsbbctv.wordpress.com/
> > 
> > The best post apocalypse show ever made. As bleak as the 
> > day is long. I like my doom and gloom.
> 
> You sure do Hugo. Cheer up mate!

Don't worry, I'm actually a rather jolly sort of chap.

"Nothing is left for us at this moment but to laugh" as
a wise man said.
 

> Private "we're all doomed" Frazer:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgsPzydgzxE

He he. Dad's army, still crazy after all these years!

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Doom & Gloom Fixation

[Hugo]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> Hugo wrote:
> > do you get this nonsense from dude?
> >
> >
> > BTW the BBC have finished the second series of my fave 
> > TV show "Survivors." Broadcast starts on 12 Jan.
> >
> > Catch up here:
> >
> > http://survivorsbbctv.wordpress.com/
> >
> > The best post apocalypse show ever made. As bleak as the 
> > day is long. I like my doom and gloom.
> 
> It starts on BBC America in February and probably season one.  I don't 
> have BBC America unless they play the series OnDemand.  The robber 
> barons at Comcast seem to want $61 more to get the tier with BBC 
> America.  Ridiculous!   The trailer sports a "one person" super-hero 
> theme, seemingly a woman who is immune to the virus -- and yes that's a 
> theme that has been done numerous times.  It is a reinforcement of the 
> "me" meme.

It was done first by the BBC in the 70s, this is a remake or rather
re-imagining as they like to say these days. It's bang up to date 
with guns in yer face and everything whereas the original, while 
bleak, was more stagey and philosophical but still unsettling
viewing with it's plagues and packs of wild dogs giving everyone rabies, such 
fun!

It's worth a look anyway. I think if you can't make a good drama
out of the end of the world there must be something wrong, but the
BBC failed with Day of the Triffids recently. Survivors is much 
better.

I'd tell you about the central character but don't want to spoil it.

 
> I watch trends and if you do that you can see where things are going.  
> We've slammed into the wall of overpopulation.  That problem could be 
> solved if the wealthy would give up their power.  But they want to stay 
> in control and leave millions possibly billions in misery.   They have 
> NO RIGHT to do so!  Our job is to make the public realize this and take 
> action.

I'm with you all the way. Do I have to get out of my armchair?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Washington DC sues AT&T over calling cards

[Bhairitu]

Isn't it interesting how many very large corporations have turned to 
methods that put them in the "con man" category.   They try to get away 
with it "because they can."   When I was dealing with corporations back 
in the 1990s it was interesting to see how many scumbags tried to run 
their businesses like they were a drug dealer or a snake oil salesman.   
The idea was to get away with what you could and it was supposed to be a 
"wise" idea.  I think it all comes out in the wash though and their 
karma will come back to haunt them.  In fact they have so soiled the 
privileges of capitalism  that those privileges will get revoked.

I am the eternal wrote:
> I'm waiting for a state to sue for lost unused minutes of cell phones.  That
> could put a state soundly in the black for the next century.
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BU3NF20091231
> "
>
> NEW YORK (Reuters) - The attorney general for Washington D.C. has filed a
> lawsuit against an AT&T Inc (T.N) unit, seeking to recover consumers' unused
> balances on prepaid calling cards.
>
> The suit claims that AT&T should turn over unused balances on the calling
> cards of consumers whose last known address was in Washington, D.C. and have
> not used the calling card for three years.
>
> "AT&T's prepaid calling cards must be treated as unclaimed property under
> district law," the attorney general's office said in a statement.
>
> According to the attorney general's office, that sum, known in the industry
> as "breakage," represents some 5 to 20 percent of the total balances
> purchased by consumers who use the calling cards.
>
> States and municipalities have often similarly used unclaimed property laws,
> known as escheat laws, to claim ownership of unused retail gift card
> balances.
>
> A spokesman for AT&T declined to comment on the lawsuit.
>
> The case is: District of Columbia vs. AT&T Corp, Superior Court of the
> District of Columbia.
>
> (Reporting by Emily
> Chasan;
> Editing by Steve Orlofsky and Matthew Lewis)
>
> "
>
>   

[FairfieldLife] Washington DC sues AT&T over calling cards

[I am the eternal]

I'm waiting for a state to sue for lost unused minutes of cell phones.  That
could put a state soundly in the black for the next century.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BU3NF20091231
"

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The attorney general for Washington D.C. has filed a
lawsuit against an AT&T Inc (T.N) unit, seeking to recover consumers' unused
balances on prepaid calling cards.

The suit claims that AT&T should turn over unused balances on the calling
cards of consumers whose last known address was in Washington, D.C. and have
not used the calling card for three years.

"AT&T's prepaid calling cards must be treated as unclaimed property under
district law," the attorney general's office said in a statement.

According to the attorney general's office, that sum, known in the industry
as "breakage," represents some 5 to 20 percent of the total balances
purchased by consumers who use the calling cards.

States and municipalities have often similarly used unclaimed property laws,
known as escheat laws, to claim ownership of unused retail gift card
balances.

A spokesman for AT&T declined to comment on the lawsuit.

The case is: District of Columbia vs. AT&T Corp, Superior Court of the
District of Columbia.

(Reporting by Emily
Chasan;
Editing by Steve Orlofsky and Matthew Lewis)

"

[FairfieldLife] Re: "Dishonesty" - Etude No 1 in Peed Off Major (was Doom & Gloom etc)

[authfriend]

Love your title!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap"  wrote:
>
> Judy's habitual fallback to "dishonest" gets my goat.

(That's "intellectually dishonest." Not the same
thing as lying.)

> The background was:
> 
> 1) An article by philosopher Denis Dutton:
>  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/01/opinion/01dutton.html
> 
> In a nutshell he argued that "Apocalyptic scenarios" 
> are a diversion from real problems. As well as Y2K he 
> includes catastrophic climate change alarmism in that 
> bag.
> 
> 2) Me: "I do not consider CO2 alarmism to be 
> reasonably "based on fact" (sound science). A decade 
> ago I was similarly sceptical about Y2K and puzzled as 
> to how this "meme" (if that is the right concept) had 
> gained such enormous power"
> 
> 3) Judy: "And apparently completely missed the fact 
> that the "alarmism" resulted in actions taken to 
> successfully defang Y2K. It was a real threat, averted 
> because attention was paid to it."
> 
> 4) Me (a Mullah Nasrudin story):  "A friend noticed 
> that every morning Mulla Nasrudin would sprinkle 
> crumbs on his doorstep. 'Why do you do that, friend?' 
> : 'To keep the lions away' : 'But there aren't any 
> lions here?' : 'See, it works!'"
> 
> 5) So here we go, here goes Judy: "Anytime you want to 
> change your approach and have an intellectually honest 
> discussion, just let me know, OK?"
> 
> 6) I protested at that. And here's how Judy responded:
> 
> "Then *argue* it, with facts and logic. *Document* 
> that nothing that was done about Y2K was actually 
> necessary. Don't hide behind a Nasrudin teaching story 
> as if that were a definitive response."
> 
> So let's look at that.
> 
> Go back to Judy's assertion at (3). Note that it is a 
> bald assertion. There is no presentation of evidence.
> 
> That's why the Nasrudin story is to the point. The 
> Nasrudin story is a charming way of presenting what 
> would otherwise be a dry point. Viz:
> 
> :: The failure of a catastrophic scenario to 
> materialise can never IN ITSELF count as justification 
> for any steps we may have taken to avert it ::

Since I never said it did, we can add "non sequitur"
to the "thought-stopper" charge.

> (Think priests praying to avert the end of the world 
> next Thursday and then telling you smugly on Friday 
> "we told you so").
> 
> But in the absence of evidence - that is all Judy's 
> asserion at (3) is. So, in other words that's what the 
> Nasrudin story is - it's a request for evidence.

Well, no, it's not a request for evidence.  It's an
implicit assertion that there can *be* no evidence.
That's why I called it a thought-stopper.

> And that is supposed to be "intellectually dishonest"?
> 
> By Judy's lights "intellectual dishonesty" is padded 
> out to mean "*argue* it, with facts and logic". (A 
> bizarre padding out, but let's leave that aside).

It sure would be bizarre if that's what I had said.
What I said was that an intellectually *honest* argument
uses facts and logic, not thought-stoppers.

BTW, it's just as intellectually dishonest to suggest that
because no lions are in evidence, therefore scattering
crumbs to keep them away is a waste of time, as it is to
point to the absence of lions and suggest that the crumbs
did their job.

> Well  I have now spelled out how the Nasrudin story is 
> an argument (not that it should have needed that).

It didn't, because it isn't. (And it's also a perversion
of the context of the original story, but let's leave
that aside for now.)

> But what about facts? The only such items appearing in 
> the thread so far can be sourced from our side of the 
> debate and not from Judy's lofty tones. This evidence 
> was on the table (not that I think that's where the 
> burden of proof should lie. Again, think praying 
> priests). Judy ignored it. Our philosopher friend from 
> New Zealand had pointed out that the consequences were 
> pretty much the same whether countries panicked about 
> Y2K, or whether they didn't. He identified those 
> countries too. He made a case.

No, his "case" was just as intellectually dishonest as
yours. (Or maybe just ignorant; hard to tell.)

> Judy made no case in response save to fire off her 
> blunderbuss. That's not "*arguing* it, with facts and 
> logic" I'd say.

Right. I declined to argue with a thought-stopper.

> As a second attempt to justify the use of 
> "intellectual dishonesty" we have this:
> 
> Me: "Do you think I DON'T believe it is valid?
> Because that would be "dishonest" I suppose."
> 
> Judy: "No. I'm saying your use of the Nasrudin story 
> is a thought-stopper, a way to avoid making a cogent
> argument."
> 
> Is the Nasrudin story a "thought stopper"? No, it is a 
> valid point (see above). Perhaps Judy is confusing her 
> thoughts stopping for its being a thought stopper?
> 
> Does Judy marshall any evidence, any facts or logic, 
> for it being a thought stopper?

I assumed that was self-evident. A thought-stopper is
something designed to *cut off* argumen

[FairfieldLife] Re: meowthirteen

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, m 13  wrote:

> The End
> roll credits
> show snap shots of future snugglings with kitten
>  
>  
> true story



Bravo! Brava! Bravi!

[FairfieldLife] meowthirteen...a PS....

[m 13]

...because anything is possible
and nothing is too good to be true.
 
This is what is written on a torn piece of paper stuck in my mirror in the 
bathroom.
Believe me
I never would have thought this possible.
 
Believe.
 
Just believe.


  

[FairfieldLife] meowthirteen

[m 13]

Scene one
husband having past mentioned dispising all things 'kitty'
kitty paw prints,etc..all the things kitties do as @$#%%^&!!!
whilst speaking softly, cuddly ish about a schnauser he had and dogs in 
general...
 
Scene two
wife of husband dare not do anything with feline due to fear of husbands wrath 
on her or kitten,
fearing God s wrath on her/karmic reprocussions however, she get a box and puts 
her rabbit fur sleves cut off her coat and some bear fur so found at a garage 
sale in it...makes a 'nest'.Tucks box and kitten in it under deck within the 
arms of the riding lawn mower.
Wife feeds and waters and brushes kitten.
 
scene three
Husband does not tell wife, but cleans out garage like a doting father baby 
proofing the home.He takes the kitten into his lair(the garage,his cave of zen 
'space') throws down a paper bag,a belt from the snowblower that broke,a zip 
tie, and teaches the kitty to "shake".
 
scene four
wife goes out to give kitty warm eggs she watered down for easy eating, mixed 
with kitten food ,rehydrated and mushy...heart goes cold...no kitten...no 
box..she remembers she made husband promise he would not kill 'Pee Wee' as she 
got to call 'it'...goes into garage,wide eyed...
 
scene five
Food in hand, she turns the door handle to the garage.
 
(duh dun duNNNnnnNNnn)
 
There is the kitten in husbands lap!
Wife surveys floor of garage...very neat tidy perfectionist husband who's 
garage is sacred has a bag, and a circular belt and a zip tie on the floor ?!
Wife asks, are those toys?
Husband sheepishly says, yes, i thought the kitty needed something to play with.
Husband remarks proudly how he cleaned up the garage really good, so nothing 
would accidently choke the kitten,or accidently strangle it...
Wife is relieved, because it is raining and snowing and so cold outside.
Wife hopes no one calls for kitten even though she listed on four boards on 
internet and called the no kill shelter and got on the waiting list.
Wife goes and buys a handful of funny toys at the store for it.
Daughter buys it gift for the holiday...wife hopes daughter won't be 
heartbroken if kitten gets adopted before the Holiday.
 
scene six
Someone posts on the internet a possible home.
Wife's heart goes cold.
The time has come.
She envisions life without the perky kitten who runs out to greet her every 
time she comes.
Poor thing was so hungry it choked down the mushy food.
It went right in the litter box!Like magic!
No more cute little eyes looking up at her.
It even let her "beep" it's nose-and licked her on the face.
Oh well, she thinks, it will go with a lot of toys and that will be nice ...and 
that big bag of kitten food.
Wife makes phone call.
Husband answers .
Babe, she says, there is a possible home for that kitten.
Oh yeah?
Wife hoped he would say, oh no!
Wife says, yes.But i kinda like that PeeWee!
Husband says, I kinda do too.
Husband says, well, you have to decide if you want it to be an inside cat, or 
outside cat.
It must have shots, etc, first, if you want it to be inside cat.
Oh, thank you husband!exclaims wife!
Heart of wife thanks God for her birthday present, the best most useful 
compassionate present of all, a friend .
 
Scene seven
Wife makes necessary phone call to gracious person considering adoption of 
kitten, to other people,and to vet. 
Wife thanks God for miracle of angel kitty melting heart of husband.
Every day she goes out to visit husband in garage having quiet time with kitty 
till vet's app't date arrives for final shots.
She finds newly fashioned"toys" for the kitten most days.A box he cut out...a 
plastic circle off something or other...he shows wife ,'look, she can 
shake'...wife looks on incredulously-at the fact of a cat hater with a kitten 
curled up in his lap, and his remark that indicated he's been playing with her, 
teaching her...husband puts out hand , and says, shake!
He says it again, and puts out his hand,'shake!'
The kitten puts out her paw on his.
Wife can't believe this, she has grown up with multiple cats all her life, and 
never seen a cat "shake"
Wife gets rid of ficus tree in the house that husband disliked to make room for 
kitten's food area.
 
The End
roll credits
show snap shots of future snugglings with kitten
 
 
true story
 
-M
 
 
 


  

Re: [FairfieldLife] "Dishonesty" - Etude No 1 in Peed Off Major (was Doom & Gloom etc)

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jan 3, 2010, at 7:58 AM, PaliGap wrote:
> 2) Me: "I do not consider CO2 alarmism to be 
> reasonably "based on fact" (sound science). A decade 
> ago I was similarly sceptical about Y2K and puzzled as 
> to how this "meme" (if that is the right concept) had 
> gained such enormous power"
> 
> 3) Judy: "And apparently completely missed the fact 
> that the "alarmism" resulted in actions taken to 
> successfully defang Y2K. It was a real threat, averted 
> because attention was paid to it."

Too bad Judy couldn't have been prevented--
she's certainly had enough attention paid to her. :)
You're doing great btw, Richard.

> 4) Me (a Mullah Nasrudin story):  "A friend noticed 
> that every morning Mulla Nasrudin would sprinkle 
> crumbs on his doorstep. 'Why do you do that, friend?' 
> : 'To keep the lions away' : 'But there aren't any 
> lions here?' : 'See, it works!'
> 5) So here we go, here goes Judy: "Anytime you want to 
> change your approach and have an intellectually honest 
> discussion, just let me know, OK?"

[FairfieldLife] Re: Self is just self capitalized

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "metoostill"  wrote:
> >
> > > --- On Sat, 1/2/10, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > > 
> > > For all I know I may be the only person on this forum who 
> > > thinks this is REEEALLY REEEALLY STOOOPID. But then 
> > > I believe that that First Noble Truth indicates that Buddha 
> > > was somewhat of a Wuss. "Life is suffering" as the basis of 
> > > all of his teachings? Give me a fuckin' break.
> > 
> > I think the quote is not "Life is Suffering" but "Suffering 
> > is inevitable"...
>
> A good distinction, but one still based on "the
> view from outside," not the view from within. The
> world might perceive one's life as suffering, but
> that is no reason that the person experiencing 
> that life must perceive it that way.

Erm. That was kind of Buddha's point, wasn't it,
that one need not experience life as suffering?
His whole teaching was how to *avoid* experiencing
life as suffering.

> None of the experiences you list below involve
> suffering unless one *chooses* to experience them
> as suffering.

"Chooses" isn't quite the right term here; it
trivializes the process and makes people wrong for
having the experience of suffering. 

> I still say that Buddha was just tailoring his 
> message to his demographic, and as stated before
> I do not fault him for that. If you're talking to
> people whose perception of their lives is that it
> has always been suffering, you talk suffering and
> the cessation of it.

Interpreting "suffering" as material deprivation is
too narrow. Even those who lead comfortable lives
may experience suffering, an inexplicable inability
to be happy and satisfied with what they have, or the
suffering of losing loved ones, or of being ill, or
simply afraid of dying. His "demographic" wasn't only
the "less-than-fortunate" in a material sense.

 Personally, I would like to
> have heard a discourse from Buddha talking to
> someone who did *not* perceive his life as suffer-
> ing. That would have been interesting. Would he
> have preached the Same Old Same Old, or would he
> have found a "carrot" to appeal to the non-
> sufferer, as he used the "cessation of suffering"
> carrot to appeal to the sufferer?

Most likely he wouldn't have bothered to talk to
them. Those who do not experience that life is
suffering have either achieved nirvana, or they are
in a state of denial.

He had nothing to offer the former because they had
already reached the goal of his Eightfold Path, either
through his teaching or on their own. He had no
carrots beyond that of the end of suffering, nirvana.

And he had nothing to offer the latter until their
lives became so miserable, for whatever reason--
material deprivation or emotional pain--that they
could no longer deny their suffering. The carrot has
appeal only if one recognizes that one is hungry.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Police report gives first details of Arizona sweat lodge deaths

[Vaj]

On Jan 3, 2010, at 5:20 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:

> This is what I expected them to find. It's essentially the same mindset
> that
> the MUM Dean displayed when he failed to guard Suvender Sem. The TB
> *cannot conceive* of anything bad happening as a result of doing what
> he's
> either "seen" as correct or been told is correct.


Yeah, but look at the bright side. At least the didn't try to turn the domes 
into giant sweat lodges. :-0

[FairfieldLife] meowthirteen

[azgrey]

Did you find a home for your homeless kitten?

I found your posts so genuinely heartwarming
that I find myself needing to know. I apologize
if you have already revealed the resolution, I 
have been unable to chance upon that post.

Having adopted/fostered numerous dogs,cats
and other animals in my life, all being close to
the cold needle of euthanasia, I found your tender
posts quite touching. They reveal a good heart. 

The best companion pets I have ever had were all
rescues.

Gimmie a Hollywood ending here. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Police report gives first details of Arizona sweat lodge deaths

[wayback71]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> I'll comment on Eustaqe's post of this news item a second time,
> because I think there is a lot in it to discuss, and to learn from.
> I haven't seen a situation that speaks more clearly to the "down
> side of faith" than this one in years.
> 
> James Arthur Ray has, as far as I can tell from the Web, a total
> of *zero* credentials as a "spiritual guide" or teacher. The only
> things he had going for him is a belief in the Laws Of Attraction
> ("If I just want something bad enough I'll get it."), a few badly-
> written books, and enough charisma to land him on Oprah and
> Larry King.
> 
> And yet for many of his followers, that was *enough*. Charisma
> was *enough* for them to pay this guys thousands of dollars and
> put their total faith in him. Charisma was *enough* for them to
> literally DIE for him.
> 
> The real story in all of this for me, however, is not James Arthur
> Ray and his ability to inspire faith. It is the sad nature *of* that
> faith in his followers. They chose to believe in that faith rather
> than pay attention to common sense and their own bodies, which
> were telling them that they were about to DIE. And many of
> them *continue* to believe in the faith rather than testify against
> this charlatan.
> 
> Many of the people sitting in that sweat lodge that he would not
> allow them to leave disregarded the feedback of *their own bodies*
> telling them that they were dying. They chose to believe him
> instead. *Afterwards*, with several of them actually dead, they
> chose to *still* believe in their faith in this guy rather than accept
> a more difficult set of truths.
> 
> Those truths are: 1) they were suckered, 2) they placed their faith
> in someone who did not deserve it, 3) the person they placed their
> faith in didn't give a shit about them or their welfare, and 4) the
> person they placed their faith in actually expects them to continue
> believing in him. That the police had difficulty in getting many of
> this guy's followers to reveal the actual events of this tragedy is
> IMO a far greater tragedy. For these TBs, it was easier to lie to
> the police and, more important, LIE TO THEMSELVES
> to preserve their faith than it was to admit that their faith was
> misplaced and that they'd made idiots of themselves.
> 
> If there is not a parallel here to the TMO and the people who still
> jump through *incredible* intellectual hoops to defend the inde-
> fensible, I don't know where such a parallel might lie.
> 
> WHAT IS IT with TBs that they, having placed their faith in
> someone or something, are so reluctant to give up that faith?
> They will cling to it in spite of *volumes* of evidence suggesting
> that their faith was misplaced. They will cling to it to the point of
> their own deaths if necessary. And all to avoid saying, "Ooops.
> I made a  mistake."
>

I personally know TB's who have admitted 1) that many things MMY did in the 
last 20 years of his life make no logical or rational sense at all - and that 
if any other top person in the TMO had suggested the things he did (raising 
prices so high, keeping them high as initiations dropped to near zero, charging 
so much for Ayurvedic stuff, etc)  they would have thought the person was a 
crazy money grubber and tried to get them fired, and 2)therefore you just have 
to trust the Master and 3) that yes, if a friend or acquaintance treated them 
the way the TMO has treated many people (keeping money they had earned and paid 
for for courses, maintaining black lists of undesirables, overcharging for 
various services) they would never be friends with that person again.

So, are they happy?  I think most TB"s are.  They are in their 50's or 60's and 
the trauma of leaving the group far outweighs the denial.  They are part of the 
only community they have known for most of their lives, and everyone in that 
community is operating in the same way that they are - they reinforce each 
other.  And it is nice to have a community.  And how does a person start over 
at age 65?  Not so easy to do.  Admittedly, it seems living in Fairfield allows 
for dropping out of TB status and yet still maintaining a place to belong, 
altho the friendships among the really devoted TB's would stop.  But someone 
like Rick seems to still have many friends in the TMO despite his moving on.

Also, for some of these TB's at the top of things, being a TB is their job - 
they teach at MUM or work for David Lynch or teach TM out in the world, or live 
on Mother Divine or Purusha. So, while they may not like everything that goes 
down, they  quickly make a mental adjustment and continue taking that paycheck 
and enjoying the lifestyle and those friendships.

I think dropping out of TBhood is much more easily done when a person is 
younger.  And I think things will get easier and easier to live with in the TMO 
- Bevan and the Rajas won't do anything nearly as wild as MMY. If they did, 
then p

[FairfieldLife] Only 506 shopping days left until the Rapture

[m 13]

Ok I was going to go , *brangnnt!*(buzzer)...(wrong answer)
 
-but how can i put this in a more lovely way and not water down the sentiment?
 
Mixed in there was Matt.24 : 36 ;  It sez NO ONE knows, not even Jesus-not 
angels, not people, ...only the Father.
 
Good thing is, he's into Holy Scriptures, BUT he forgot to read the part about 
if it is contrary to the words written in the Book, then it is not of God. What 
he is saying, is not of God. It is NOT truth, according to the bible he hugs, 
due to the fact of the scripture tucked in there that says no one knows. He 
doesn't know. (According to the Bible , and the God of the Bible. ) Somehow, he 
got distracted-?and started studying something he will never find out. 
 
Better use of time/resources would be "doing"- the verb thing-love while you 
are here.
 
Real, practical ways of loving, 
like:
*giving your magazines you read to the laundrymat,without fanfare-just drop 
them off.For those who have no house with a washer dryer, or it died on them, 
or they are just passing thru on a trip...etcsure lifts a person's spirits 
to have something fairly new and lovely to peruse through.
*Keep an 'angel bag' for homeless or otherwise needy people in your car or 
trunk;with non perishable items, some morsels of some kind of food, some 
liquid,maybe a crossword book...maybe these are angels dressed up, you never 
know...if i was hungry and cold, sure would like someone to come give me a 
morsel...
*Give the checker an extra $5 and say it's for the next in line. Leave without 
fanfare.
*Set a strawberry plant on someones doorstep,leave without fanfare.
*but some seeds for the birds and sprinkle them along as you go for a 
walk...even if you just walk in a parking lot-if i was a bird, i sure could use 
some food from some himan who had a little money to spare to purchase some 
seeds...birds eat so little, can we not share a sprinkle of grains, or-? 
sometimes?
 
Whatever belief, life without love, it is empty.
 
Let us instead of numbers and dates, and predictions, perhaps just LIVE 
and if you are alive, LOVE
As much as you can, in whatever way you can, but DO
Do this thing; love
 
There does not have to be suffering in this world.
There is so much beauty in the world and in you.
 
Be beautiful and put study and energy and doings /time  into loving.
 
"It's the time of the season."..for what- predictions?Speculations?
The teachings, of_(you fill in the faith doctrine)
all exude make peace(love) with yourself(your Self) and others(even the plants 
and animals)
 
Summary :
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvddi1gaIOY
 
selah.
 
-Meow13
 
 
 
 
 
 


  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Police report gives first details of Arizona sweat lodge deaths

[raunchydog]

Eustage's post is truly a sad and horrifying story. I hope they fry Ray for 
murder. But why oh, oh why, must we endure another loathsome comparison with 
the TMO from Barry? His non sequiturs remind me of Jon Stewart's hysterical 
skit mocking Glenn Beck. 

Jon Stewart:
"I'm not saying this is a plot by Hitler to steal Glenn Beck from all of us 
internal organ by internal organ by internal organ and then reprogram him to 
use as a weapon. But isn't it fascinating that I'm the only one with the 
courage to ask these questions?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/06/jon-stewart-does-glenn-be_n_348129.html

Obama: 
"We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of 
America."

Glenn Beck's response: 
"If our founding principles are somehow or another no longer relevant, if the 
system in which this country was founded is somehow unjust or unworkable now, 
and communism, Marxism, socialism is the right and relevant path, then that is 
the discussion in a republic we must have. But to subversively bring in a new 
system through the back door in the middle of the night and bring it, piece by 
piece, by overwhelming the system, that is not acceptable."

Eustage's post:
Three people die and 20 injured in a new age sweat lodge.

Barry:
"If there is not a parallel here to the TMO...I don't know where such a 
parallel might lie...TBs...having placed their faith in someone or something 
are...reluctant to give up that faith...They will cling to it to the point of 
their own deaths if necessary."

Is Barry watching too much Glenn Beck or does Glenn Beck read too much Barry? 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> I'll comment on Eustaqe's post of this news item a second time,
> because I think there is a lot in it to discuss, and to learn from.
> I haven't seen a situation that speaks more clearly to the "down
> side of faith" than this one in years.
> 
> James Arthur Ray has, as far as I can tell from the Web, a total
> of *zero* credentials as a "spiritual guide" or teacher. The only
> things he had going for him is a belief in the Laws Of Attraction
> ("If I just want something bad enough I'll get it."), a few badly-
> written books, and enough charisma to land him on Oprah and
> Larry King.
> 
> And yet for many of his followers, that was *enough*. Charisma
> was *enough* for them to pay this guys thousands of dollars and
> put their total faith in him. Charisma was *enough* for them to
> literally DIE for him.
> 
> The real story in all of this for me, however, is not James Arthur
> Ray and his ability to inspire faith. It is the sad nature *of* that
> faith in his followers. They chose to believe in that faith rather
> than pay attention to common sense and their own bodies, which
> were telling them that they were about to DIE. And many of
> them *continue* to believe in the faith rather than testify against
> this charlatan.
> 
> Many of the people sitting in that sweat lodge that he would not
> allow them to leave disregarded the feedback of *their own bodies*
> telling them that they were dying. They chose to believe him
> instead. *Afterwards*, with several of them actually dead, they
> chose to *still* believe in their faith in this guy rather than accept
> a more difficult set of truths.
> 
> Those truths are: 1) they were suckered, 2) they placed their faith
> in someone who did not deserve it, 3) the person they placed their
> faith in didn't give a shit about them or their welfare, and 4) the
> person they placed their faith in actually expects them to continue
> believing in him. That the police had difficulty in getting many of
> this guy's followers to reveal the actual events of this tragedy is
> IMO a far greater tragedy. For these TBs, it was easier to lie to
> the police and, more important, LIE TO THEMSELVES
> to preserve their faith than it was to admit that their faith was
> misplaced and that they'd made idiots of themselves.
> 
> If there is not a parallel here to the TMO and the people who still
> jump through *incredible* intellectual hoops to defend the inde-
> fensible, I don't know where such a parallel might lie.
> 
> WHAT IS IT with TBs that they, having placed their faith in
> someone or something, are so reluctant to give up that faith?
> They will cling to it in spite of *volumes* of evidence suggesting
> that their faith was misplaced. They will cling to it to the point of
> their own deaths if necessary. And all to avoid saying, "Ooops.
> I made a  mistake."
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, eustace10679  wrote:
> >
> > Police report gives first details of Arizona sweat lodge deaths
> >
> > Spiritual adviser James Arthur Ray faces murder investigation after
> three people die and 20 were injured
> >
> > A leaked police report has revealed the horrifying final moments of
> participants in a new age retreat where a "sweat lodge" session killed
> three and injured 20. The spiritual retreat, whose wealthy participants
>

[FairfieldLife] "Dishonesty" - Etude No 1 in Peed Off Major (was Doom & Gloom etc)

[PaliGap]

Judy's habitual fallback to "dishonest" gets my goat.

The background was:

1) An article by philosopher Denis Dutton:
 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/01/opinion/01dutton.html

In a nutshell he argued that "Apocalyptic scenarios" 
are a diversion from real problems. As well as Y2K he 
includes catastrophic climate change alarmism in that 
bag.

2) Me: "I do not consider CO2 alarmism to be 
reasonably "based on fact" (sound science). A decade 
ago I was similarly sceptical about Y2K and puzzled as 
to how this "meme" (if that is the right concept) had 
gained such enormous power"

3) Judy: "And apparently completely missed the fact 
that the "alarmism" resulted in actions taken to 
successfully defang Y2K. It was a real threat, averted 
because attention was paid to it."

4) Me (a Mullah Nasrudin story):  "A friend noticed 
that every morning Mulla Nasrudin would sprinkle 
crumbs on his doorstep. 'Why do you do that, friend?' 
: 'To keep the lions away' : 'But there aren't any 
lions here?' : 'See, it works!'"

5) So here we go, here goes Judy: "Anytime you want to 
change your approach and have an intellectually honest 
discussion, just let me know, OK?"

6) I protested at that. And here's how Judy responded:

"Then *argue* it, with facts and logic. *Document* 
that nothing that was done about Y2K was actually 
necessary. Don't hide behind a Nasrudin teaching story 
as if that were a definitive response."

So let's look at that.

Go back to Judy's assertion at (3). Note that it is a 
bald assertion. There is no presentation of evidence.

That's why the Nasrudin story is to the point. The 
Nasrudin story is a charming way of presenting what 
would otherwise be a dry point. Viz:

:: The failure of a catastrophic scenario to 
materialise can never IN ITSELF count as justification 
for any steps we may have taken to avert it ::

(Think priests praying to avert the end of the world 
next Thursday and then telling you smugly on Friday 
"we told you so").

But in the absence of evidence - that is all Judy's 
asserion at (3) is. So, in other words that's what the 
Nasrudin story is - it's a request for evidence. 

And that is supposed to be "intellectually dishonest"?

By Judy's lights "intellectual dishonesty" is padded 
out to mean "*argue* it, with facts and logic". (A 
bizarre padding out, but let's leave that aside).

Well  I have now spelled out how the Nasrudin story is 
an argument (not that it should have needed that).

But what about facts? The only such items appearing in 
the thread so far can be sourced from our side of the 
debate and not from Judy's lofty tones. This evidence 
was on the table (not that I think that's where the 
burden of proof should lie. Again, think praying 
priests). Judy ignored it. Our philosopher friend from 
New Zealand had pointed out that the consequences were 
pretty much the same whether countries panicked about 
Y2K, or whether they didn't. He identified those 
countries too. He made a case.

Judy made no case in response save to fire off her 
blunderbuss. That's not "*arguing* it, with facts and 
logic" I'd say.

As a second attempt to justify the use of 
"intellectual dishonesty" we have this:

Me: "Do you think I DON'T believe it is valid?
Because that would be "dishonest" I suppose."

Judy: "No. I'm saying your use of the Nasrudin story 
is a thought-stopper, a way to avoid making a cogent
argument."

Is the Nasrudin story a "thought stopper"? No, it is a 
valid point (see above). Perhaps Judy is confusing her 
thoughts stopping for its being a thought stopper?

Does Judy marshall any evidence, any facts or logic, 
for it being a thought stopper? Oh no. It's just 
another bald assertion. So what does that say about 
THAT point then (by Judy's own stance)..."intellectual 
dishonesty"? By using "thought stopper" here, is not 
Judy herself "hiding behind a thought stopper"?

And finally we have this afterthought:

Judy: "*And* you're using Y2K as a stand-in for 
climate change, so you're trying to short-circuit 
argument about that at the same time."

This is nonsense of course. There is NO attempt 
whatsoever by anyone to claim that the the evidence 
(such as it is) for what Judy refers to as "climate 
change" (silly phrase for the scientific conjecture) 
has anything whatsoever to do with the Y2K phenomenon. 
What it IS is a cultural observation about how (in our 
opinion) highly technical issues can be hijacked and 
re-packaged by politicians and the media so that the 
facts about the evidence get obscured. And the 
conjecture is that it is connected with some sort of 
wish or attraction that our culture has for dooom & 
gloom scenarios.

This is what I wrote: "I do not consider CO2 alarmism 
to be reasonably "based on fact" (sound science)." Do 
you see that? No mention of Y2K.

The scientific cash-value of statements such as Judy's
"Climate change is *already* having severe effects on
the needy" interest me. I wonder if the concept of 
"intellectual dishonesty" 

[FairfieldLife] Climate change far worse than thought before

[do.rflex]

Climate change far worse than thought before   NEW DELHI: Global
alarm over climate change and its effects has risen manifold after the
2007 report of  the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Since then, many of the 2,500-odd IPCC  scientists have found climate
change is progressing faster than the worst-case scenario they had
predicted.

Their studies will be considered for the next IPCC report, but since
that will come out only in 2013, the University of New South Wales in
Sydney has just put together the main findings in the last three years.
Most are by previous IPCC lead authors "familiar with the rigour and
completeness required for a scientific assessment of this nature", a
university spokesperson said.

The most significant recent findings are:

* Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were 40
percent higher than in 1990. The recent Copenhagen Accord said warming
should be contained within two degrees, but every year of delayed action
increases the chances of exceeding the two-degree warming mark.

Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas (GHG) warming the atmosphere.

* To keep within the two-degree limit, global GHG emissions need to peak
between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly. To stabilise climate,
near-zero emissions of carbon dioxide and other long-lived GHG should be
reached well within this century.

More specifically, the average annual per-capita emissions will have to
shrink to well under one tonne carbon dioxide by 2050. This is 80-95
percent below the per-capita emissions in developed nations in 2000.

* Over the past 25 years temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.19
degree Celsius per decade. The trend has continued over the last 10
years despite a decrease in radiation from the sun.

* The studies show extreme hot temperature events have increased,
extreme cold temperature events have decreased, heavy rain or snow has
become heavier, while there has been increase in drought as well.

They also show that the intensity of cyclones has increased in the past
three decades in line with rising tropical ocean temperatures.

* Satellites show recent global average sea level rise (3.4 mm/year over
the past 15 years) to be about 80 percent above IPCC predictions. This
acceleration is consistent with a doubling in contribution from melting
of glaciers, ice caps, and the Greenland and West-Antarctic ice sheets.

New estimates of ocean heat uptake are 50 percent higher than previous
calculations. Global ocean surface temperature reached the warmest ever
recorded in June, July and August 2009.

Ocean acidification and ocean de-oxygenation due to global warming have
been identified as potentially devastating for large parts of the marine
ecosystem.

* By 2100, global sea level is likely to rise at least twice as much as
projected by the IPCC in 2007; if emissions are unmitigated the rise may
well exceed one metre.

The sea level will continue to rise for centuries after global
temperatures have been stabilised, and several metres of sea level rise
must be expected over the next few centuries.

* A wide array of satellite and ice measurements demonstrate that both
the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are melting at an increasing
rate. Melting of glaciers and ice-caps in other parts of the world has
also accelerated since 1990.

The contribution of glaciers and ice-caps to global sea level rise has
increased from 0.8 mm per year in the 1990s to 1.2 mm per year today.
The adjustment of glaciers and ice caps to present climate alone is
expected to raise sea level by about 18 cm. Under warming conditions
they may contribute as much as around 55 cm by 2100.

The net loss of ice from the Greenland ice sheet has accelerated since
the mid-1990s and is now contributing 0.7 mm per year to sea level rise
due to both increased melting and accelerated ice flow. Antarctica is
also losing ice mass at an increasing rate, mostly from the West
Antarctic ice sheet due to increased ice flow. Antarctica is currently
contributing to sea level rise at a rate nearly equal to Greenland.

* Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the
expectations of climate models. The area of summertime sea-ice 2007-09
was about 40 percent less than the average prediction from IPCC climate
models in the 2007 report.

* The studies say avoiding tropical deforestation could prevent up to 20
percent of carbon dioxide emissions.

* New ice-core records confirm the importance of GHG for temperatures on
earth, and show that carbon dioxide levels are higher now than they have
been during the last 800,000 years.

http://snipurl.com/tydzs    
[timesofindia_indiatimes_com]

[FairfieldLife] Re: Only 506 shopping days left until the Rapture

[guyfawkes91]

> "Evidently, he was wrong," LaCasse allowed, "but this time it is going
> to happen. There was some doubt last time, but we didn't have any
> proofs. This time we do."
> 
> Would his opinion of Camping change if May 21, 2011, ended without
> incident?
> 
> "I can't even think like that," LaCasse said. "Everything is too
> positive right now. There's too little time to think like that."
> 
Amazing isn't it. But it's exactly the same kind of nutjob thinking that leads 
people to believe there's something in Tony Nader's "work" finding parallels 
between human physiology and vedic literature, or John Hagelin's ideas on much 
the same subject. Oh yes and the ME, even though there's not a shred of 
evidence that can stand up to critical scrutiny. 

I'll make a prediction, in 30 years time on January 12th there will be a few 
old people left in Vedic City and Vlodrop, (MUM having closed 15 years before) 
and they'll be sitting around still dressed up in crowns and gowns telling each 
other how wonderful they are, praising each other for their achievements and 
that finally this year will see the dawn of sat yuga. 

Every other trace of the movement in the West will have vanished by then, the 
pundits will have got jobs in call centers in Mumbai because the money will 
have run out, but the top people will still be sending out letters begging for 
money to support project X,Y,Z, and Tony Nader will still be having 25 dishes 
cooked for each meal.

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Self is just self capitalized

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> TurquoiseB wrote:
> > Much is said in traditional Eastern spirituality about
> > realization of the "Self." Capital "S." As opposed to
> > that awful lower-case "s" word, "self." But if you 
> > analyze what most of the spiritual teachers you revere
> > actually said, most of them were teaching that self and
> > Self were exactly the same thing.
> 
> For those who have realized the "Self" the "self" can be hard to find.  
> But it is there as it has to be or one would be unable to communicate 
> with the other "selves."  IOW, you have to "localize" when dealing with 
> the world.  One may go a whole week without realizing they have not 
> focused on the "self" but then one of these occasions arises when they 
> have to.   Also an enlightened person may act more like a realist than a 
> bliss ninny.  The latter is a show that gurus often put on.
>

uddharedAtmanAtmAnaM nAtmAnamavasAdayet.h .
Atmaiva hyAtmano bandhurAtmaiva ripurAtmanaH .. 6\-5..

[without sandhi, a bit different transliteration,
that e.g. A > aa]:

uddharet; aatmanaa aatmaanam; na aatmaanam avasaadayet.
aatmaa; eva hi; aatmanaH; bandhuH; aatmaa; eva ripuH;
 aatmanaH .. 6\-5..

Exactly the same word (nom. sing: aatmaa; lemma: aatman)
appears in the above shloka(?) seven times, in different
inflectional forms:

aatmanaa -- instrumental singular (by self)
aatmaanam -- accusative sing. ("self-im", like 'him' from 'he')
aatmaanam -- ditto
aatmaa -- nominative sing. (self)
aatmanaH -- (ablative/)genitive sing. ([from/] of self, self's)
aatmaa -- nom. sing.
aatmanaH -- gen. sing.

Maharishi's translation:

Let a man raise his self by his Self,
let him not debase his Self; he alone,
indeed, is his own friend, he alone 
his own enemy.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Police report gives first details of Arizona sweat lodge deaths

[TurquoiseB]

I'll comment on Eustaqe's post of this news item a second time,
because I think there is a lot in it to discuss, and to learn from.
I haven't seen a situation that speaks more clearly to the "down
side of faith" than this one in years.

James Arthur Ray has, as far as I can tell from the Web, a total
of *zero* credentials as a "spiritual guide" or teacher. The only
things he had going for him is a belief in the Laws Of Attraction
("If I just want something bad enough I'll get it."), a few badly-
written books, and enough charisma to land him on Oprah and
Larry King.

And yet for many of his followers, that was *enough*. Charisma
was *enough* for them to pay this guys thousands of dollars and
put their total faith in him. Charisma was *enough* for them to
literally DIE for him.

The real story in all of this for me, however, is not James Arthur
Ray and his ability to inspire faith. It is the sad nature *of* that
faith in his followers. They chose to believe in that faith rather
than pay attention to common sense and their own bodies, which
were telling them that they were about to DIE. And many of
them *continue* to believe in the faith rather than testify against
this charlatan.

Many of the people sitting in that sweat lodge that he would not
allow them to leave disregarded the feedback of *their own bodies*
telling them that they were dying. They chose to believe him
instead. *Afterwards*, with several of them actually dead, they
chose to *still* believe in their faith in this guy rather than accept
a more difficult set of truths.

Those truths are: 1) they were suckered, 2) they placed their faith
in someone who did not deserve it, 3) the person they placed their
faith in didn't give a shit about them or their welfare, and 4) the
person they placed their faith in actually expects them to continue
believing in him. That the police had difficulty in getting many of
this guy's followers to reveal the actual events of this tragedy is
IMO a far greater tragedy. For these TBs, it was easier to lie to
the police and, more important, LIE TO THEMSELVES
to preserve their faith than it was to admit that their faith was
misplaced and that they'd made idiots of themselves.

If there is not a parallel here to the TMO and the people who still
jump through *incredible* intellectual hoops to defend the inde-
fensible, I don't know where such a parallel might lie.

WHAT IS IT with TBs that they, having placed their faith in
someone or something, are so reluctant to give up that faith?
They will cling to it in spite of *volumes* of evidence suggesting
that their faith was misplaced. They will cling to it to the point of
their own deaths if necessary. And all to avoid saying, "Ooops.
I made a  mistake."


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, eustace10679  wrote:
>
> Police report gives first details of Arizona sweat lodge deaths
>
> Spiritual adviser James Arthur Ray faces murder investigation after
three people die and 20 were injured
>
> A leaked police report has revealed the horrifying final moments of
participants in a new age retreat where a "sweat lodge" session killed
three and injured 20. The spiritual retreat, whose wealthy participants
paid thousands of dollars for five days of motivational talks and
physical tasks, was led by James Arthur Ray, one of America's best known
spiritual gurus.
>
> The retreat's Arizona sweat lodge ended up steaming people to death
last October. The tragedy was at first hailed as a terrible accident,
but Ray is now the subject of a murder investigation.
>
> The police report has cast a spotlight on America's self-help
industry, where self-proclaimed gurus make millions by urging people
into ever more bizarre and extreme behaviour.
>
> The report showed that participants in a sweat lodge ceremony vomited,
passed out and screamed for help. Ray told them not to leave. He was
outside the only entrance into the lodge, controlling the flap that let
people in and out. One witness, Theodore Mercer, who helped run the
sweat lodge, said Ray told scared participants three times: "You are not
going to die. You might think you are, but you are not going to die."
>
> The two-hour ceremony, which saw red-hot rocks passed into the lodge
every 15 minutes, came after two days of fasting and not drinking water.
After an hour, two people were dragged out, one saying: "I don't want to
die, I don't want to die." Ray allegedly responded: "It's a good day to
die."
>
> Almost at the end of the ceremony, with just one more round of rocks
to be put in, it emerged that two people had passed out. They were kept
inside. When the ceremony was finally over and panicked people were
trying to get the victims out, Ray called attempts to remove blankets
from the lodge's walls "sacrilegious". One of the victims had been
subjected to such intense heat that his lungs were scorched.
>
> Ray has so far not been charged with any crime, although he has been
sued by some of the victims. "The tragedy was a terrible accident tha

[FairfieldLife] Re: Police report gives first details of Arizona sweat lodge deaths

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> This is what I expected them to find. It's essentially the same mindset
> that
> the MUM Dean displayed when he failed to guard Suvender Sem. 

snip

Only a perverted man like that of the Turqey here could make such a sick 
comparison.


> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, eustace10679  wrote:
> >
> > Police report gives first details of Arizona sweat lodge deaths
> >
> > Spiritual adviser James Arthur Ray faces murder investigation after
> three people die and 20 were injured
> >
> > A leaked police report has revealed the horrifying final moments of
> participants in a new age retreat where a "sweat lodge" session killed
> three and injured 20. The spiritual retreat, whose wealthy participants
> paid thousands of dollars for five days of motivational talks and
> physical tasks, was led by James Arthur Ray, one of America's best known
> spiritual gurus.
> >
> > The retreat's Arizona sweat lodge ended up steaming people to death
> last October. The tragedy was at first hailed as a terrible accident,
> but Ray is now the subject of a murder investigation.
> >
> > The police report has cast a spotlight on America's self-help
> industry, where self-proclaimed gurus make millions by urging people
> into ever more bizarre and extreme behaviour.
> >
> > The report showed that participants in a sweat lodge ceremony vomited,
> passed out and screamed for help. Ray told them not to leave. He was
> outside the only entrance into the lodge, controlling the flap that let
> people in and out. One witness, Theodore Mercer, who helped run the
> sweat lodge, said Ray told scared participants three times: "You are not
> going to die. You might think you are, but you are not going to die."
> >
> > The two-hour ceremony, which saw red-hot rocks passed into the lodge
> every 15 minutes, came after two days of fasting and not drinking water.
> After an hour, two people were dragged out, one saying: "I don't want to
> die, I don't want to die." Ray allegedly responded: "It's a good day to
> die."
> >
> > Almost at the end of the ceremony, with just one more round of rocks
> to be put in, it emerged that two people had passed out. They were kept
> inside. When the ceremony was finally over and panicked people were
> trying to get the victims out, Ray called attempts to remove blankets
> from the lodge's walls "sacrilegious". One of the victims had been
> subjected to such intense heat that his lungs were scorched.
> >
> > Ray has so far not been charged with any crime, although he has been
> sued by some of the victims. "The tragedy was a terrible accident that
> no one, including James Ray, could have seen coming," Ray's lawyer, Brad
> Brian, said in a statement.
> >
> > But the leaked report does reveal previous incidents when problems
> arose at Ray's sweat lodge and other strange ceremonies. One man
> described Ray telling him to shatter bricks with his bare hands, which
> he did, breaking bones in his hand in the process.
> >
> > Critics say that such tasks are a sort of confidence trick that exists
> at the extreme end of America's $11.5bn (£7bn) self-help industry.
> Ray, who was born into extreme poverty in Oklahoma, recently bought a
> multimillion-dollar home in Beverly Hills. There is little doubt that he
> exercised a powerful psychological hold over many of those who took his
> courses. The man who broke his hand shattering a brick described the
> experience to police as "amazing". The same man was at the fatal October
> sweat lodge ceremony. He staggered out halfway through, severely burned
> by the hot rocks, yet went back in for the last round.
> >
> > In explaining such behaviour, the police report concluded simply:
> "Participants thought highly of James Ray and didn't want to let him
> down by leaving the sweat lodge." It was a decision that cost some of
> them their lives.
> >
> >
> (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/03/sweat-lodge-deaths-murder-p\
> robe)
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Police report gives first details of Arizona sweat lodge deaths

[TurquoiseB]

This is what I expected them to find. It's essentially the same mindset
that
the MUM Dean displayed when he failed to guard Suvender Sem. The TB
*cannot conceive* of anything bad happening as a result of doing what
he's
either "seen" as correct or been told is correct.

I hope the guy gets 20 years or so sitting in a prison cell pondering
what his
beliefs did to him and to others.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, eustace10679  wrote:
>
> Police report gives first details of Arizona sweat lodge deaths
>
> Spiritual adviser James Arthur Ray faces murder investigation after
three people die and 20 were injured
>
> A leaked police report has revealed the horrifying final moments of
participants in a new age retreat where a "sweat lodge" session killed
three and injured 20. The spiritual retreat, whose wealthy participants
paid thousands of dollars for five days of motivational talks and
physical tasks, was led by James Arthur Ray, one of America's best known
spiritual gurus.
>
> The retreat's Arizona sweat lodge ended up steaming people to death
last October. The tragedy was at first hailed as a terrible accident,
but Ray is now the subject of a murder investigation.
>
> The police report has cast a spotlight on America's self-help
industry, where self-proclaimed gurus make millions by urging people
into ever more bizarre and extreme behaviour.
>
> The report showed that participants in a sweat lodge ceremony vomited,
passed out and screamed for help. Ray told them not to leave. He was
outside the only entrance into the lodge, controlling the flap that let
people in and out. One witness, Theodore Mercer, who helped run the
sweat lodge, said Ray told scared participants three times: "You are not
going to die. You might think you are, but you are not going to die."
>
> The two-hour ceremony, which saw red-hot rocks passed into the lodge
every 15 minutes, came after two days of fasting and not drinking water.
After an hour, two people were dragged out, one saying: "I don't want to
die, I don't want to die." Ray allegedly responded: "It's a good day to
die."
>
> Almost at the end of the ceremony, with just one more round of rocks
to be put in, it emerged that two people had passed out. They were kept
inside. When the ceremony was finally over and panicked people were
trying to get the victims out, Ray called attempts to remove blankets
from the lodge's walls "sacrilegious". One of the victims had been
subjected to such intense heat that his lungs were scorched.
>
> Ray has so far not been charged with any crime, although he has been
sued by some of the victims. "The tragedy was a terrible accident that
no one, including James Ray, could have seen coming," Ray's lawyer, Brad
Brian, said in a statement.
>
> But the leaked report does reveal previous incidents when problems
arose at Ray's sweat lodge and other strange ceremonies. One man
described Ray telling him to shatter bricks with his bare hands, which
he did, breaking bones in his hand in the process.
>
> Critics say that such tasks are a sort of confidence trick that exists
at the extreme end of America's $11.5bn (£7bn) self-help industry.
Ray, who was born into extreme poverty in Oklahoma, recently bought a
multimillion-dollar home in Beverly Hills. There is little doubt that he
exercised a powerful psychological hold over many of those who took his
courses. The man who broke his hand shattering a brick described the
experience to police as "amazing". The same man was at the fatal October
sweat lodge ceremony. He staggered out halfway through, severely burned
by the hot rocks, yet went back in for the last round.
>
> In explaining such behaviour, the police report concluded simply:
"Participants thought highly of James Ray and didn't want to let him
down by leaving the sweat lodge." It was a decision that cost some of
them their lives.
>
>
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/03/sweat-lodge-deaths-murder-p\
robe)
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Self is just self capitalized

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "metoostill"  wrote:
>
> > --- On Sat, 1/2/10, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > 
> > For all I know I may be the only person on this forum who 
> > thinks this is REEEALLY REEEALLY STOOOPID. But then 
> > I believe that that First Noble Truth indicates that Buddha 
> > was somewhat of a Wuss. "Life is suffering" as the basis of 
> > all of his teachings? Give me a fuckin' break.
> 
> I think the quote is not "Life is Suffering" but "Suffering 
> is inevitable"...

A good distinction, but one still based on "the
view from outside," not the view from within. The
world might perceive one's life as suffering, but
that is no reason that the person experiencing 
that life must perceive it that way.

None of the experiences you list below involve
suffering unless one *chooses* to experience them
as suffering.

I still say that Buddha was just tailoring his 
message to his demographic, and as stated before
I do not fault him for that. If you're talking to
people whose perception of their lives is that it
has always been suffering, you talk suffering and
the cessation of it. Personally, I would like to
have heard a discourse from Buddha talking to
someone who did *not* perceive his life as suffer-
ing. That would have been interesting. Would he
have preached the Same Old Same Old, or would he
have found a "carrot" to appeal to the non-
sufferer, as he used the "cessation of suffering"
carrot to appeal to the sufferer?

> ...one being as pessimistic and imbalanced (yes 
> even really stupid) as it sounds, the other stating an 
> unavoidable reality, as Buddha seems, in that well known 
> story (even if hagiographic or apocryphal), to have noticed 
> that without exception we all will age and die, and watch 
> our loved ones age and die as that is inevitable, and quite 
> appropriately none of us laugh about that, mixed with other 
> more wondrous or awe inspiring experiences.

[FairfieldLife] Only 506 shopping days left until the Rapture

[TurquoiseB]

Stock up on those things you want to take with you to Heaven now.
Biblical scholar's date for rapture: May 21, 2011Harold Camping lets out
a hearty chuckle when he considers the people who believe the world will
end in 2012.
 
  


* Saviors of Mount Sutro
  01.03.10

"That date has not one stitch of biblical authority," Camping says from
the Oakland office where he runs Family Radio, an evangelical station
that reaches listeners around the world. "It's like a fairy tale."

The real date for the end of times, he says, is in 2011.

The Mayans and the recent Hollywood movie "2012" have put the apocalypse
in the popular mind this year, but Camping has been at this business for
a long time. And while Armageddon is pop science or big-screen
entertainment to many, Camping has followers from the Bay Area to China.

Camping, 88, has scrutinized the Bible for almost 70 years and says he
has developed a mathematical system to interpret prophecies hidden
within the Good Book. One night a few years ago, Camping, a civil
engineer by trade, crunched the numbers and was stunned at what he'd
found: The world will end May 21, 2011.

This is not the first time Camping has made a bold prediction about
Judgment Day.

On Sept. 6, 1994, dozens of Camping's believers gathered inside
Alameda's Veterans Memorial Building to await the return of Christ, an
event Camping had promised for two years. Followers dressed children in
their Sunday best and held Bibles open-faced toward heaven.

But the world did not end. Camping allowed that he may have made a
mathematical error. He spent the next decade running new calculations,
as well as overseeing a media company that has grown significantly in
size and reach.

"We are now translated into 48 languages and have been transmitting into
China on an AM station without getting jammed once," Camping said. "How
can that happen without God's mercy?"

His office is flanked by satellite dishes in the parking lot that
transmit his talk show, "Open Forum." In the Bay Area, he's heard on 610
AM, KEAR. Camping says his company owns about 55 stations in the United
States alone, and that his message arrives on every continent.
'I'm looking forward to it'
Employees at the Oakland office run printing presses that publish
Camping's pamphlets and books, and some wear T-shirts that read, "May
21, 2011." They're happy to talk about the day they believe their souls
will be retrieved by Christ.

"I'm looking forward to it," said Ted Solomon, 60, who started listening
to Camping in 1997. He's worked at Family Radio since 2004, making sure
international translators properly dictate Camping's sermons.

"This world may have had an attraction to me at one time," Solomon said.
"But now it's definitely lost its appeal."

Camping is a frail-looking man, and his voice is low and deep, but it
can rise to dramatic peaks with a preacher's flair.

As a young man, he owned an East Bay construction business but longed to
work as a servant of God. So he hit the books.

"Because I was an engineer, I was very interested in the numbers," he
said. "I'd wonder, 'Why did God put this number in, or that number in?'
It was not a question of unbelief, it was a question of, 'There must be
a reason for it.' "
Code-breaking phenomenon
Camping is not the only man to see truths in the Bible hidden in the
numbers. In the late 1990s, a code-breaking phenomenon took off, led by
"The Bible Code," written by former Washington Post journalist Michael
Drosnin.

Drosnin developed a technique that revealed prophecies within the
Bible's text. A handful of biblical scholars have supported Drosnin's
theory, lending it an air of legitimacy, and just as many scholars have
decried it as farce.

One of Drosnin's more well-known findings is that a meteor will strike
Earth in 2012, the same year some people believe the Mayan calendar
marks the end of times, and the same year the "2012" action movie
surmised the Earth's crust will destabilize and kill most humans.
Meaning in numbers
By Camping's understanding, the Bible was dictated by God and every word
and number carries a spiritual significance. He noticed that particular
numbers appeared in the Bible at the same time particular themes are
discussed.

The number 5, Camping concluded, equals "atonement." Ten is
"completeness." Seventeen means "heaven." Camping patiently explained
how he reached his conclusion for May 21, 2011.

"Christ hung on the cross April 1, 33 A.D.," he began. "Now go to April
1 of 2011 A.D., and that's 1,978 years."

Camping then multiplied 1,978 by 365.2422 days - the number of days in
each solar year, not to be confused with a calendar year.

Next, Camping noted that April 1 to May 21 encompasses 51 days. Add 51
to the

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chutzpah

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Which makes you, once again, a schmegegy.
> > > > 
> > > > AZ, if you know, please clear up for me some 
> > > > of the mystery of the term "schmegegy."
> > > > 
> > > > Being not of the Jewish persuasion, the only 
> > > > times I have heard this phrase in my life have
> > > > been accompanied by a grimace of cognitive
> > > > dissonance, my face reflecting the fact that
> > > > I simply don't get the reference.
> > > > 
> > > > A Jewish friend of my acquaintance, exorted 
> > > > over a shared joint back in college to define 
> > > > "schmegegy" for me, replied:
> > > > 
> > > > "You know how when you go to the laundromat
> > > > to do your wash and afterwards you discover
> > > > weird lint stuff in the pockets of the washed 
> > > > clothing, stuff that you can't quite figure
> > > > out the origin of? Schmegegies."
> > > > 
> > > > So what's the literal meaning?
> > > 
> > > Schmegegy is a noun meaning idiot with connotations
> > > or being full of hot air. If you referred to someone as 
> > > full of baloney, the person you were referring to would
> > > be a schmegegy. 
> > > 
> > > Lets say, for example that someone said that  schmegegy
> > > was a wimpy way to bash but then spent 3 post responding
> > > to the comment. That person defines being a schmegegy.
> > 
> > Thanks. So my friend's suggestion that a 
> > schmegegy was an individual with the same
> > basic worth as trouser lint was correct.
> 
> Another example of analogy and example being spot on
> to clarify definition.

It may be a side effect of years of Yogic Flying.
Think to yourself "lightness of cotton fiber" over
and over for decades, and sure 'nuff you become as
lightweight as cotton fiber.  :-)

> Thanks for your suggestions regarding my Blue Moon
> maladies. Come to find out, it was nothing that a near 
> felonious motorcycle ride on some deserted highways 
> and byways followed by howlin' at the moon with 100K
> of my closest friend couldn't cure. I feel much better now. :-o~
> 
> http://www.fiestabowl.org/index.php/blockparty/entertainment/

Looks like fun.

> Say, back in the day, did you ever know Hans Olson? I would 
> wager Bruce Cockburn knows him. 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Olson

Can't say I know the gentleman or his music,
and I've never seen his name pop up on the
Humans mailing list, which is where I've
learned of many other good musicians. But
you're probably correct that Bruce has run
into him...if nowhere else at some festival
where they've played together.