[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Judy

[mainstream20016]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > When I accuse you of sophistry is it in regard to a specific 
> > > > technique you are using.
> > > 
> > > I am not using any "technique." I'm being completely
> > > straightforward. You are not.
> > 
> > Yeah, that doesn't work with someone who knows what
> > sophistry refers to.
> 
> I'm sure you have your own special definition. I'm going
> by the one in my dictionary--
> 
> subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation
> 
> --or Wikipedia:
> 
> a specious argument used for deceiving someone
> 
> That's what you do. Not all that "subtle" to those who
> have been following closely (i.e., you and me) but
> sufficiently so to fool casual observers.
> 
> > > > I am not labeling you as a sophist as an identity. Your
> > > > attempt to shift the discussion into being about my 
> > > > character "mean"
> > > 
> > > There was no such attempt on my part. I made a side comment
> > > on your post to Willytex about *my* choices, which you
> > > decided to interpret as a slam on you, which *you* then used
> > > to shift the discussion to Bad Judy, collaborating with Barry
> > > to demonize me.
> > > 
> > > The rest of this is just more of your standard slippery
> > > sophistry when you've been caught out. As I said, I'm
> > > pretty sure it'll fool everybody else just fine.
> > 
> > Again you misuse a technical term with zero evidence thinking
> > it it a general put down.
> 
> Like I say, I'm going by the standard dictionary
> definition. And I've already provided gobs of
> evidence that this is precisely what you do.
> 
> > I am not buying your bullshit and now after a short drum
> > roll what do you do:
> > > 
> > > FOAD.
> > 
> > FUCK OFF AND DIE, why use an acronym when we can savor your
> > malevolence in full by spelling it all out.
> 
> I think everyone here knows what the acronym means.
> 
> Besides, I like the way the sound of it conveys disgust:
> 
> FOAD.
>

One can only imagine the horror of Judy's personality at the time her father 
considered her to be insufferable prior to Judy learning TM in 1976.  
It's 34 years later……..perhaps her dad embellished what he told her then,  in 
the now-proven false hope that her neuroses would abate.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Judy

[mainstream20016]

One can only imagine the horror of Judy's personality at the time her father 
considered her to be insufferable prior to Judy learning TM in 1976.  
It's 34 years later……..perhaps her dad embellished what he told her then, in 
the now-proven false hope that her neuroses would abate.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > When I accuse you of sophistry is it in regard to a specific 
> > > > technique you are using.
> > > 
> > > I am not using any "technique." I'm being completely
> > > straightforward. You are not.
> > 
> > Yeah, that doesn't work with someone who knows what
> > sophistry refers to.
> 
> I'm sure you have your own special definition. I'm going
> by the one in my dictionary--
> 
> subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation
> 
> --or Wikipedia:
> 
> a specious argument used for deceiving someone
> 
> That's what you do. Not all that "subtle" to those who
> have been following closely (i.e., you and me) but
> sufficiently so to fool casual observers.
> 
> > > > I am not labeling you as a sophist as an identity. Your
> > > > attempt to shift the discussion into being about my 
> > > > character "mean"
> > > 
> > > There was no such attempt on my part. I made a side comment
> > > on your post to Willytex about *my* choices, which you
> > > decided to interpret as a slam on you, which *you* then used
> > > to shift the discussion to Bad Judy, collaborating with Barry
> > > to demonize me.
> > > 
> > > The rest of this is just more of your standard slippery
> > > sophistry when you've been caught out. As I said, I'm
> > > pretty sure it'll fool everybody else just fine.
> > 
> > Again you misuse a technical term with zero evidence thinking
> > it it a general put down.
> 
> Like I say, I'm going by the standard dictionary
> definition. And I've already provided gobs of
> evidence that this is precisely what you do.
> 
> > I am not buying your bullshit and now after a short drum
> > roll what do you do:
> > > 
> > > FOAD.
> > 
> > FUCK OFF AND DIE, why use an acronym when we can savor your
> > malevolence in full by spelling it all out.
> 
> I think everyone here knows what the acronym means.
> 
> Besides, I like the way the sound of it conveys disgust:
> 
> FOAD.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Judy

[mainstream20016]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > When I accuse you of sophistry is it in regard to a specific 
> > > > technique you are using.
> > > 
> > > I am not using any "technique." I'm being completely
> > > straightforward. You are not.
> > 
> > Yeah, that doesn't work with someone who knows what
> > sophistry refers to.
> 
> I'm sure you have your own special definition. I'm going
> by the one in my dictionary--
> 
> subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation
> 
> --or Wikipedia:
> 
> a specious argument used for deceiving someone
> 
> That's what you do. Not all that "subtle" to those who
> have been following closely (i.e., you and me) but
> sufficiently so to fool casual observers.
> 
> > > > I am not labeling you as a sophist as an identity. Your
> > > > attempt to shift the discussion into being about my 
> > > > character "mean"
> > > 
> > > There was no such attempt on my part. I made a side comment
> > > on your post to Willytex about *my* choices, which you
> > > decided to interpret as a slam on you, which *you* then used
> > > to shift the discussion to Bad Judy, collaborating with Barry
> > > to demonize me.
> > > 
> > > The rest of this is just more of your standard slippery
> > > sophistry when you've been caught out. As I said, I'm
> > > pretty sure it'll fool everybody else just fine.
> > 
> > Again you misuse a technical term with zero evidence thinking
> > it it a general put down.
> 
> Like I say, I'm going by the standard dictionary
> definition. And I've already provided gobs of
> evidence that this is precisely what you do.
> 
> > I am not buying your bullshit and now after a short drum
> > roll what do you do:
> > > 
> > > FOAD.
> > 
> > FUCK OFF AND DIE, why use an acronym when we can savor your
> > malevolence in full by spelling it all out.
> 
> I think everyone here knows what the acronym means.
> 
> Besides, I like the way the sound of it conveys disgust:
> 
> FOAD.
>

One can only imagine the horror of Judy's personality at the time her father 
considered her to be insufferable prior to Judy learning TM in 1976.  
It's 33 years later……..perhaps her dad embellished what he told her then,  in 
the now-proven false hope that her neuroses would abate.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Financial Crimes of GW Bush.

[mainstream20016]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Bush left us with a national debt of 11.3 trillion dollars, plus he hid
> > the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
> > 
> > The national debt clock today shows 12.5 trillion, and Obama had the war
> > costs put on the books properly.
> > 
> > OffWorld
> >
> 
> 
> Your math doesn't make sense.
> 
> Bush left office over a year ago.  If he left us with a national debt of 11.3 
> trillion and you're saying that the current national debt clock is 12.5 
> trillion, that's a difference of "only" 1.2 trillion (despite the fact that 
> the deficit is $1.6 trillion, not 1.2 trillion).
> 
> So where are the "hidden costs" of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars if Obama put 
> the war costs on the books?  These costs didn't come with revenue attached to 
> them; they are expenses and would therefore be put "properly" by Obama on the 
> debt side of things.  I always hear that the war in Iraq alone has cost $1 
> trillion.  If that's the case, the national debt clock should be 13.5 
> trillion, not 12.5 trillion.
>

Perhaps the national debt clock doesn't  include the Bush-era (2003-2008) Iraq 
war costs; that would account for the lower figure.   

[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Judy

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > When I accuse you of sophistry is it in regard to a specific 
> > > technique you are using.
> > 
> > I am not using any "technique." I'm being completely
> > straightforward. You are not.
> 
> Yeah, that doesn't work with someone who knows what
> sophistry refers to.

I'm sure you have your own special definition. I'm going
by the one in my dictionary--

subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation

--or Wikipedia:

a specious argument used for deceiving someone

That's what you do. Not all that "subtle" to those who
have been following closely (i.e., you and me) but
sufficiently so to fool casual observers.

> > > I am not labeling you as a sophist as an identity. Your
> > > attempt to shift the discussion into being about my 
> > > character "mean"
> > 
> > There was no such attempt on my part. I made a side comment
> > on your post to Willytex about *my* choices, which you
> > decided to interpret as a slam on you, which *you* then used
> > to shift the discussion to Bad Judy, collaborating with Barry
> > to demonize me.
> > 
> > The rest of this is just more of your standard slippery
> > sophistry when you've been caught out. As I said, I'm
> > pretty sure it'll fool everybody else just fine.
> 
> Again you misuse a technical term with zero evidence thinking
> it it a general put down.

Like I say, I'm going by the standard dictionary
definition. And I've already provided gobs of
evidence that this is precisely what you do.

> I am not buying your bullshit and now after a short drum
> roll what do you do:
> > 
> > FOAD.
> 
> FUCK OFF AND DIE, why use an acronym when we can savor your
> malevolence in full by spelling it all out.

I think everyone here knows what the acronym means.

Besides, I like the way the sound of it conveys disgust:

FOAD.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Financial Crimes of GW Bush.

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> Bush left us with a national debt of 11.3 trillion dollars, plus he hid
> the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
> 
> The national debt clock today shows 12.5 trillion, and Obama had the war
> costs put on the books properly.
> 
> OffWorld
>


Your math doesn't make sense.

Bush left office over a year ago.  If he left us with a national debt of 11.3 
trillion and you're saying that the current national debt clock is 12.5 
trillion, that's a difference of "only" 1.2 trillion (despite the fact that the 
deficit is $1.6 trillion, not 1.2 trillion).

So where are the "hidden costs" of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars if Obama put 
the war costs on the books?  These costs didn't come with revenue attached to 
them; they are expenses and would therefore be put "properly" by Obama on the 
debt side of things.  I always hear that the war in Iraq alone has cost $1 
trillion.  If that's the case, the national debt clock should be 13.5 trillion, 
not 12.5 trillion.

[FairfieldLife] Off_World, Bullshit Artist extraordinaire, can't come clean

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
> > > steve.sundur@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > "As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the
> > > Nobel
> > > > > Peace
> > > > > > > > Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that
> > > America
> > > > > gave him the
> > > > > > > > White House based on:
> > > > > > > > the same credentials."
> > > > >
> > > > > Shemp, take away health care for a moment. What is it you find to be
> > > so
> > > > > objectionable about Obama's presidency so far?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Pretty much the same thing I found objectionable about Bush: the
> > > deficit.
> > > >
> > > > Two years ago with about $10 trillion in National Debt, the United
> > > States paid about $230 billion in interest on its National Debt. That
> > > represents about $700 per person per year.>
> > > 
> > > That's peanuts. Am I right you are therefore against the Bush tax cuts
> > > for the rich because of this scenario? That would have made this figure
> > > smaller per person, and the rich, who are experts at avoiding taxes by
> > > all legal means, would hardly notice any significant difference if those
> > > tax cuts were repealled. Problem solved, debt paid.
> > > 
> > > Bush left us with a national debt of 11.3 trillion dollars, plus he hid
> > > the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
> > > 
> > > The national debt clock today shows 12.5 trillion, and Obama had the war
> > > costs put on the books properly.
> > > 
> > > So what's your point again Shemp? I don't get it.
> > > 
> > > OffWorld
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > Off, it's time for you to come clean on your false representations on Ron 
> > Paul.
> > 
> > You never responded to my previous posts on this subject.
> > 
> > Time for you to come clean to me and everyone here.  You can't keep 
> > misrepresenting yourself without being called on it.
> >
> 
> I responded to your questionso on this many times, You never read the 
> responses, because you do not like facts. Go back and find the responses 
> yourself. I am not answering this AGAIN! 
> 
> OffWolrd
>


No, you didn't.

Your response to post #243274, in which I demonstrated to you that Ron Paul's 
stance on embryonic stem cell research was the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of what you 
represented it to be, didn't address anything.

And where was your respone to post #243273 in which I demonstrated to you that 
Ron Paul's position on two of today's biggest issues -- global warming and 
abortion -- are completely opposite of what you believe?

[FairfieldLife] The Financial Crimes of GW Bush.

[off_world_beings]

Bush left us with a national debt of 11.3 trillion dollars, plus he hid
the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

The national debt clock today shows 12.5 trillion, and Obama had the war
costs put on the books properly.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Shemp

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "authfriend" 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "lurkernomore20002000"
 wrote:
> >
> > Ok, that makes sense.
>
> Lurk, it really doesn't. Almost all of what has been
> added to the deficit under Obama has been to keep the
> economy (which began falling apart largely as a result
> of Bush's policies) from crashing completely.
>
> The big problem is that he didn't add *enough* to the
> deficit to really do the job; all he did was save the
> banks and Wall Street>>

Not true, he gave me and millions of others about $25,000 over the next
10 years with lower mortage rates, and that money is being plowed back
into the economy nationwide, especially in places where there were more
responsible borrowers and less foreclosures. He also created a lot of
jobs and kept many struggling small businesses from going under
The economy is coming back, and only the red states will take the
longest to recover, and nobody cares about them anymore.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Come Clean first, Off

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
> > steve.sundur@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > "As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the
> > Nobel
> > > > Peace
> > > > > > > Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that
> > America
> > > > gave him the
> > > > > > > White House based on:
> > > > > > > the same credentials."
> > > >
> > > > Shemp, take away health care for a moment. What is it you find to be
> > so
> > > > objectionable about Obama's presidency so far?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Pretty much the same thing I found objectionable about Bush: the
> > deficit.
> > >
> > > Two years ago with about $10 trillion in National Debt, the United
> > States paid about $230 billion in interest on its National Debt. That
> > represents about $700 per person per year.>
> > 
> > That's peanuts. Am I right you are therefore against the Bush tax cuts
> > for the rich because of this scenario? That would have made this figure
> > smaller per person, and the rich, who are experts at avoiding taxes by
> > all legal means, would hardly notice any significant difference if those
> > tax cuts were repealled. Problem solved, debt paid.
> > 
> > Bush left us with a national debt of 11.3 trillion dollars, plus he hid
> > the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
> > 
> > The national debt clock today shows 12.5 trillion, and Obama had the war
> > costs put on the books properly.
> > 
> > So what's your point again Shemp? I don't get it.
> > 
> > OffWorld
> >
> 
> 
> Off, it's time for you to come clean on your false representations on Ron 
> Paul.
> 
> You never responded to my previous posts on this subject.
> 
> Time for you to come clean to me and everyone here.  You can't keep 
> misrepresenting yourself without being called on it.
>

I responded to your questionso on this many times, You never read the 
responses, because you do not like facts. Go back and find the responses 
yourself. I am not answering this AGAIN! 

OffWolrd

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Shemp

[ShempMcGurk]

I didn't know Paul Krugman was a participant on this forum.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
> wrote:
> >
> > Ok, that makes sense.
> 
> Lurk, it really doesn't. Almost all of what has been
> added to the deficit under Obama has been to keep the
> economy (which began falling apart largely as a result
> of Bush's policies) from crashing completely.
> 
> The big problem is that he didn't add *enough* to the
> deficit to really do the job; all he did was save the
> banks and Wall Street, at least for the time being, and
> make a pathetically small inroad on unemployment. He
> hasn't managed to put in place what's needed to keep
> this from happening again, worse, which is more
> regulation.
> 
> > I thought it might be for other reasons.  I agree. I think
> > we're in trouble.
> 
> The problem is long-term deficits. Short-term deficits
> that lift the economy are beneficial. If they work, the
> short-term part gets paid off. Not making that distinction,
> as Shemp does not, is misleading in the extreme.
> 
> Here's a pretty good basic explanation of deficit spending:
> 
> http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/03/20/making-heads-and-tails-of-the-cbo-budget-numbers/
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/yeaq7h8
> 
> This was written a year ago, before we knew what would
> be involved in healthcare reform. Whether the program
> they're now trying to pass will cut costs sufficiently
> is a whole 'nother question (as is whether it'll get
> passed at all).
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Judy

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > 
> > When I accuse you of sophistry is it in regard to a specific 
> > technique you are using.
> 
> I am not using any "technique." I'm being completely
> straightforward. You are not.

Yeah, that doesn't work with someone who knows what sophistry refers to.

> 
> > I am not labeling you as a sophist as an identity. Your
> > attempt to shift the discussion into being about my 
> > character "mean"
> 
> There was no such attempt on my part. I made a side comment
> on your post to Willytex about *my* choices, which you
> decided to interpret as a slam on you, which *you* then used
> to shift the discussion to Bad Judy, collaborating with Barry
> to demonize me.
> 
> The rest of this is just more of your standard slippery
> sophistry when you've been caught out. As I said, I'm
> pretty sure it'll fool everybody else just fine.

Again you misuse a technical term with zero evidence thinking it it a general 
put down. I am not buying your bullshit and now after a short drum roll what do 
you do:
> 
> FOAD.

FUCK OFF AND DIE, why use an acronym when we can savor your malevolence in full 
by spelling it all out.

Feel better now Judy?   Thought you would.






>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Shemp

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
wrote:
>
> Ok, that makes sense.

Lurk, it really doesn't. Almost all of what has been
added to the deficit under Obama has been to keep the
economy (which began falling apart largely as a result
of Bush's policies) from crashing completely.

The big problem is that he didn't add *enough* to the
deficit to really do the job; all he did was save the
banks and Wall Street, at least for the time being, and
make a pathetically small inroad on unemployment. He
hasn't managed to put in place what's needed to keep
this from happening again, worse, which is more
regulation.

> I thought it might be for other reasons.  I agree. I think
> we're in trouble.

The problem is long-term deficits. Short-term deficits
that lift the economy are beneficial. If they work, the
short-term part gets paid off. Not making that distinction,
as Shemp does not, is misleading in the extreme.

Here's a pretty good basic explanation of deficit spending:

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/03/20/making-heads-and-tails-of-the-cbo-budget-numbers/

http://tinyurl.com/yeaq7h8

This was written a year ago, before we knew what would
be involved in healthcare reform. Whether the program
they're now trying to pass will cut costs sufficiently
is a whole 'nother question (as is whether it'll get
passed at all).

[FairfieldLife] How long does it take to perfect such a signature?

[ShempMcGurk]

I'm sure Liberace and Carrot Top have equally flamboyant signatures. 
And, indeed, when I was about 14 years old and fancied myself a rock
star I practised my signature 100s of times in order to come up with
something like this.

But a president???

This is bizarre.  Where did a Harvard graduate and constitutional law
professor find the time to practise such a signature?  And what was he
thinking as he practised it?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Judy

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> When I accuse you of sophistry is it in regard to a specific 
> technique you are using.

I am not using any "technique." I'm being completely
straightforward. You are not.

> I am not labeling you as a sophist as an identity. Your
> attempt to shift the discussion into being about my 
> character "mean"

There was no such attempt on my part. I made a side comment
on your post to Willytex about *my* choices, which you
decided to interpret as a slam on you, which *you* then used
to shift the discussion to Bad Judy, collaborating with Barry
to demonize me.

The rest of this is just more of your standard slippery
sophistry when you've been caught out. As I said, I'm
pretty sure it'll fool everybody else just fine.

FOAD.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Shemp

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016"  
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Ok, that makes sense.  I thought it might be for other reasons.  I agree. 
> > > I think we're in trouble.  But you don't really see that reflected in the 
> > > markets.  Dollar has regained strength.  Gold is moderating. Of course 
> > > sentiment can change quickly.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > People knew for years we were in deep shit regarding the mortgage crisis.  
> > Yet the stock market reached unprecedented highs.
> > 
> > Same thing happening here, I believe.
> > 
> 
> What is of real concern of the wealthy is the inevitable return to 
> progressive taxation;  the noise from Republicans about deficit spending is 
> meant to distract from the solution - much higher marginal tax rates on the 
> top earners.   
> 




The problem for Obama is that he has been told by the statisticians and people 
at Treasury that if he raises the tax rates on the rich (i.e., raise the top 
tax brackets) it may make his base happy but it will result in the opposite of 
what he wants and needs: more tax revenue.  He'll get less.

And he also knows that he's got to raise the lower brackets.

So how does he put forward what is essentially a libertarian agenda when he is 
a far left democrat?





> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" 
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > "As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the 
> > > > > > > > Nobel
> > > > > Peace
> > > > > > > > Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America
> > > > > gave him the
> > > > > > > > White House based on:
> > > > > > > > the same credentials."
> > > > > 
> > > > > Shemp, take away health care for a moment.  What is it you find to be 
> > > > > so
> > > > > objectionable about Obama's presidency so far?
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Pretty much the same thing I found objectionable about Bush: the 
> > > > deficit.
> > > > 
> > > > Two years ago with about $10 trillion in National Debt, the United 
> > > > States paid about $230 billion in interest on its National Debt.  That 
> > > > represents about $700 per person per year.
> > > > 
> > > > This cost, please bear in mind, was born while interest rates were, as 
> > > > they are now, at historic lows.
> > > > 
> > > > Obama has not only taken Bush's ridiculously high deficits but expanded 
> > > > them to an unbelievable level: $1.6 trillion.
> > > > 
> > > > What will happen when interest rates go up WHICH THEY MUST AT SOME 
> > > > POINT?  When nations such as China stop buying our debt, in order to 
> > > > attract them to buying it, interest rates will have to go up.
> > > > 
> > > > So, for starters, triple the $230 billion figure to $750 billion a year 
> > > > on the $10 trillion.  And that's based on putting interest rates up to 
> > > > a meager 6 or 7 percent interest figure.  Not a hard level to reach.
> > > > 
> > > > Then double the $10 trillion national debt to $20 trillion which we'll 
> > > > reach in about 3 or 4 years. That $750 billion a year in interest will 
> > > > now be $1.5 trillion a year in interest.
> > > > 
> > > > This represents about $4-5,000 a person, per year, just to service the 
> > > > debt.  Factor out the people who don't pay any tax (about 50% of all 
> > > > taxpayers) and you're looking at about $8-10,000 per person per year to 
> > > > service the debt.
> > > > 
> > > > And all that without reducing the debt at all.
> > > > 
> > > > And by this time Barack Obama will be out of office and concentrating 
> > > > on his presidential library oblivious to it all.
> > > > 
> > > > They say that most empires in history ended because of the debt they 
> > > > incurred.  This is probably the end of America as we know it.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Shemp

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016"  
wrote:
>
> Shemp,
> So you advocate lowering income tax rates.   At what rate of 
> income is tax revenue maximized ?   Please don't insult our intelligence by 
> suggesting 0%. 
> 
> -Mainstream  
> 




Let me answer that question in two ways:

1) My ideal federal income tax system would be a flat tax system: 17% flat tax 
rate and no payroll tax.

2)  If our starting point was the current 6 tax brackets (10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 
33%, 35%) I would raise the 10 and 15 brackets to 17% and lower the 25, 28, 33, 
and 35 brackets to 17%.  And, of course, no payroll tax.

...and not to insult your intelligence but there is actually an answer that is 
"0%" and that is what they call the "Fair Tax" which as I understand it says no 
income tax, no payroll tax, and no corporate tax but a consumption tax on all 
goods and services.  Not sure whether I advocate that yet.  And I forget off 
hand what the rate would be.

In addition to its income tax, Canada has a goods and services tax somewhat 
like the above.






> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [snip]
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > That's peanuts. Am I right you are therefore against the Bush tax cuts
> > > for the rich because of this scenario?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > No, that is precisely why I am FOR the tax cuts for the HIGHER tax brackets 
> > (which, yes, affect the rich).
> > 
> > Lowering the higher tax brackets INCREASED tax revenue.
> > 
> > The problem was lowing the lower tax brackets which DECREASED tax revenues.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > That would have made this figure
> > > smaller per person,
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > No, the opposite would have happened.  You know not of what you speak.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > and the rich, who are experts at avoiding taxes by
> > > all legal means, would hardly notice any significant difference if those
> > > tax cuts were repealled. Problem solved, debt paid.
> > > 
> > > Bush left us with a national debt of 11.3 trillion dollars, plus he hid
> > > the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
> > > 
> > > The national debt clock today shows 12.5 trillion, and Obama had the war
> > > costs put on the books properly.
> > > 
> > > So what's your point again Shemp? I don't get it.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Keep reading the post over and over again until you do.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > OffWorld
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Judy

[curtisdeltablues]

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

When I accuse you of sophistry is it in regard to a specific technique you are 
using.  I am not labeling you as a sophist as an identity. Your attempt to 
shift the discussion into being about my character "mean" is specifically how 
you roll in these arguments.  I have given all the examples anyone would need 
to form an opinion. If you want to show where I have uses a specific technique 
of sophistry I'm all ears.  I am using the term as a technical description.

>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Notice that Curtis fails to acknowledge his error in
> > > > > eagerly adopting Barry's ass-backwards interpretation
> > > > > of my question to Curtis as to whether "The Simpsons"
> > > > > and "The Family Guy" were funny, or mean.
> > > > 
> > > > Actually it was his analysis of your shifting of the
> > > > discussion from the topic to "Curtis is bad because..."
> > > > that interested me about Barry's post.
> > > 
> > > I'll deal with this bit of nonsense and the rest of
> > > the post later. Here I want to address one point:
> > > 
> > > > The fact that you failed to make it clear that you had
> > > > never seen the shows is irrelevant to me.
> > > > 
> > > > > Nor does Curtis acknowledge what he knows to be the
> > > > > case (yes, Joe, "knows," because he's been the one
> > > > > directly involved in this discussion) that virtually
> > > > > everything *else* Barry said about that discussion
> > > > > was factually wrong. (Specific documentation on
> > > > > request.)

I told you what I agreed with in his posts.

> > > > 
> > > > You are not going to get away with this dodge Judy.  Both
> > > > Barry and I didn't know you had never seen the Simpsons
> > > > and you let us know.  Pin on a medal for being right about
> > > > something we couldn't have known from your writing and
> > > > move on, unless you are trying to sidestep the important
> > > > points.
> > > 
> > > Too funny. You're in Barry's Master of Inadvertent
> > > Irony territory here, Curtis.
> > > 
> > > That I hadn't seen the shows was the *least* of
> > > Barry's "mistakes" in that post and is indeed
> > > irrelevant to the actual issues I dealt with in my
> > > response.
> > > 
> > > The biggie
> > 
> > For you.
> > 
> >  was that he assumed I was suggesting the
> > > shows were "mean," when in fact I was suggesting
> > > they were *funny*.
> > 
> > None of it mattered because we didn't know you hadn't
> > seen the shows.
> 
> And *I'm* the sophist in this discussion?? Wow.

As I said before that is a technical term. Nothing in the above is a technique 
of any kind, I am just telling you how I see the facts.  You just want me to 
care about something I don't and don't seem to get that it is a moor point.
> 
> Curtis:
> "I'm just wondering if this disapproval of mocking religious
> claims extends to TV cartoon satires cuz that would pretty
> much knock out my favorite shows on Sunday night, the Simpsons
> and the Family Guy.
> 
> "I have a feeling this is a Curtis-only policy."
> 
> Me:
> "Are they really funny, or are they just mean?"
> 
> Translation: If they're really funny, no, my disapproval
> wouldn't extend to those shows. What I disapprove of is
> *mean* mockery. If they're not really funny, if they're
> mean, then, yes, my disapproval would extend to them.
> 
> Translation of translation: Whether I've seen them doesn't
> matter. I stated my criteria for disapproval, which is
> what you were asking about.

So you reaffirm your subjective analysis about something you haven't seen.  OK  
You disapprove of "mean mockery."  Nothing new here.

> 
> > Once we knew that your point is moot.  Who cares if you
> > think something is funny if you haven't seen it.
> 
> I *assume* they're funny because they're so popular.
> That isn't an unreasonable assumption. But that wasn't
> the point anyway; you weren't asking me whether I
> thought the shows were funny. My "policy" would be the
> same whether they were funny or mean.
> 
> > I didn't need to address it.
> 
> You needed to acknowledge that it wasn't a "Curtis-only
> policy." It was a mean-only policy. You're hardly the
> only person who mocks religion in a mean way.

I have only seen you apply it to me.  When I showed you George Carlin saying 
the exact same things you claimed that it was in a different context and some 
nonsense about the audience laughing at themselves.  As far as I am concerned 
you have proven to me that this is only applied to me Judy. that is the only 
evidence I have.  Your convoluted explanations for why George saying the same 
things are not mean only proved my point.  

> 
> You asked a question about my "policy." I answered it.
> Barry assumed I was implying the shows were mean and
> based his entire lengthy demonization rant on that 
> mistaken assumption. You congratulated and thanked h

[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Judy

[Joe]

It's Sunday, time for the weekly tortured "debate" autopsy from Judy at FFL.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Notice that Curtis fails to acknowledge his error in
> > > > > eagerly adopting Barry's ass-backwards interpretation
> > > > > of my question to Curtis as to whether "The Simpsons"
> > > > > and "The Family Guy" were funny, or mean.
> > > > 
> > > > Actually it was his analysis of your shifting of the
> > > > discussion from the topic to "Curtis is bad because..."
> > > > that interested me about Barry's post.
> > > 
> > > I'll deal with this bit of nonsense and the rest of
> > > the post later. Here I want to address one point:
> > > 
> > > > The fact that you failed to make it clear that you had
> > > > never seen the shows is irrelevant to me.
> > > > 
> > > > > Nor does Curtis acknowledge what he knows to be the
> > > > > case (yes, Joe, "knows," because he's been the one
> > > > > directly involved in this discussion) that virtually
> > > > > everything *else* Barry said about that discussion
> > > > > was factually wrong. (Specific documentation on
> > > > > request.)
> > > > 
> > > > You are not going to get away with this dodge Judy.  Both
> > > > Barry and I didn't know you had never seen the Simpsons
> > > > and you let us know.  Pin on a medal for being right about
> > > > something we couldn't have known from your writing and
> > > > move on, unless you are trying to sidestep the important
> > > > points.
> > > 
> > > Too funny. You're in Barry's Master of Inadvertent
> > > Irony territory here, Curtis.
> > > 
> > > That I hadn't seen the shows was the *least* of
> > > Barry's "mistakes" in that post and is indeed
> > > irrelevant to the actual issues I dealt with in my
> > > response.
> > > 
> > > The biggie
> > 
> > For you.
> > 
> >  was that he assumed I was suggesting the
> > > shows were "mean," when in fact I was suggesting
> > > they were *funny*.
> > 
> > None of it mattered because we didn't know you hadn't
> > seen the shows.
> 
> And *I'm* the sophist in this discussion?? Wow.
> 
> Curtis:
> "I'm just wondering if this disapproval of mocking religious
> claims extends to TV cartoon satires cuz that would pretty
> much knock out my favorite shows on Sunday night, the Simpsons
> and the Family Guy.
> 
> "I have a feeling this is a Curtis-only policy."
> 
> Me:
> "Are they really funny, or are they just mean?"
> 
> Translation: If they're really funny, no, my disapproval
> wouldn't extend to those shows. What I disapprove of is
> *mean* mockery. If they're not really funny, if they're
> mean, then, yes, my disapproval would extend to them.
> 
> Translation of translation: Whether I've seen them doesn't
> matter. I stated my criteria for disapproval, which is
> what you were asking about.
> 
> > Once we knew that your point is moot.  Who cares if you
> > think something is funny if you haven't seen it.
> 
> I *assume* they're funny because they're so popular.
> That isn't an unreasonable assumption. But that wasn't
> the point anyway; you weren't asking me whether I
> thought the shows were funny. My "policy" would be the
> same whether they were funny or mean.
> 
> > I didn't need to address it.
> 
> You needed to acknowledge that it wasn't a "Curtis-only
> policy." It was a mean-only policy. You're hardly the
> only person who mocks religion in a mean way.
> 
> You asked a question about my "policy." I answered it.
> Barry assumed I was implying the shows were mean and
> based his entire lengthy demonization rant on that 
> mistaken assumption. You congratulated and thanked him
> for it when you *should* have guessed from my Carlin
> comment that I wasn't doing that at all.
> 
> 
> > Barry said a lot of things.  I focused on the fact that
> > he hit my main beef with you in this exchange which was
> > to shift the conversation to me being mean.
> 
> No, you didn't. You said:
> 
> "Goddamn Barry! You just handed me at least an hour of my
> life back today responding to Judy. Thanks man. Now I can
> get back to this Blind Boy Fuller song I'm working one with
> nothing to add here."
> 
> No "focusing on" anything there, sorry. Just a blanket
> seal of approval, nothing you needed to add. He'd said it
> all.
> 
> And even so, Barry didn't say anything about my having
> "shifted the conversation" to you being mean. According
> to him, that's all I was *ever* talking about from the
> start. Which, as you know, was not the case. So that
> excuse goes into the crapper as well.
> 
> 
> > You did shift our discussion of challenging religious
> > claims into a discussion of "bad Curtis."  I have come to
> > expect this from you and when it happens I usually state
> > my case and you have the last word which is fine with me.
> 
> Let's have a look at this. You told Willytex that if he
> didn't believe and f

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Shemp

[mainstream20016]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
> wrote:
> >
> > Ok, that makes sense.  I thought it might be for other reasons.  I agree. I 
> > think we're in trouble.  But you don't really see that reflected in the 
> > markets.  Dollar has regained strength.  Gold is moderating. Of course 
> > sentiment can change quickly.
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> People knew for years we were in deep shit regarding the mortgage crisis.  
> Yet the stock market reached unprecedented highs.
> 
> Same thing happening here, I believe.
> 

What is of real concern of the wealthy is the inevitable return to progressive 
taxation;  the noise from Republicans about deficit spending is meant to 
distract from the solution - much higher marginal tax rates on the top earners. 
  


> 
> 
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > "As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel
> > > > Peace
> > > > > > > Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America
> > > > gave him the
> > > > > > > White House based on:
> > > > > > > the same credentials."
> > > > 
> > > > Shemp, take away health care for a moment.  What is it you find to be so
> > > > objectionable about Obama's presidency so far?
> > > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Pretty much the same thing I found objectionable about Bush: the deficit.
> > > 
> > > Two years ago with about $10 trillion in National Debt, the United States 
> > > paid about $230 billion in interest on its National Debt.  That 
> > > represents about $700 per person per year.
> > > 
> > > This cost, please bear in mind, was born while interest rates were, as 
> > > they are now, at historic lows.
> > > 
> > > Obama has not only taken Bush's ridiculously high deficits but expanded 
> > > them to an unbelievable level: $1.6 trillion.
> > > 
> > > What will happen when interest rates go up WHICH THEY MUST AT SOME POINT? 
> > >  When nations such as China stop buying our debt, in order to attract 
> > > them to buying it, interest rates will have to go up.
> > > 
> > > So, for starters, triple the $230 billion figure to $750 billion a year 
> > > on the $10 trillion.  And that's based on putting interest rates up to a 
> > > meager 6 or 7 percent interest figure.  Not a hard level to reach.
> > > 
> > > Then double the $10 trillion national debt to $20 trillion which we'll 
> > > reach in about 3 or 4 years. That $750 billion a year in interest will 
> > > now be $1.5 trillion a year in interest.
> > > 
> > > This represents about $4-5,000 a person, per year, just to service the 
> > > debt.  Factor out the people who don't pay any tax (about 50% of all 
> > > taxpayers) and you're looking at about $8-10,000 per person per year to 
> > > service the debt.
> > > 
> > > And all that without reducing the debt at all.
> > > 
> > > And by this time Barack Obama will be out of office and concentrating on 
> > > his presidential library oblivious to it all.
> > > 
> > > They say that most empires in history ended because of the debt they 
> > > incurred.  This is probably the end of America as we know it.
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Sharkabet

[yifuxero]

Sharkabet:
...
http://www.trollart.com/sharkimage.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: Eckhart Tolle and Ramesh Balsekar's meet, 2002

[yifuxero]

Tolle looks like a troll from the Black Forest. But the Neo-Advaitin message 
isn't very exciting: Everything is the Self. (saved people the trouble of 
reading the Balsekar books).  I've seen more exciting screen savers than that 
message.  Once I came into work and heard a gurgling as of sound, with bubbles 
and water; then saw a co-worker's screen saver as a fish aquarium.  Mystery 
solved!
Lesson: It's what people want to put onto their screen saver that counts; 
having said that the blank screen saver exists.
Satsang for today:  The bogus Neo-Advaitins say that the purpose of life is to 
realize the blank screen saver, then poof! dissolve into Nothingness...no more 
existence at physical death.  If you believe that nonsense and are a woman, 
you're worse than a trailer-trash truckstop ho.
If you're a man and believe it, ye have indeed drunk the Kool-Aid and
are worse than a racist NASCAR red-neck.
Not speaking of Billy...he's on the right track; but thanks for posting the 
item.  Good work! 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG"  wrote:
>
> Where DOES he get those cute little vests...and, you gotta love that beard!
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Consciousness and the Now
> > 
> > by Gautam Sachdeva 
> >    OH, East is East, and West 
> > is West, and never the twain shall meet,
> > Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgement Seat;
> > But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
> > When two strong men stand face to face, tho’ they come from the ends of 
> > the earth!
> > --Rudyard Kipling
> > -Rudyard Kipling 
> > 
> > Over the years, I have invariably been asked for details of the encounter 
> > between the two spiritual Masters, Ramesh Balsekar and Eckhart Tolle. 
> > It’s human nature; our curiosity is aroused; we want to know what exactly 
> > happens when two Masters meet. Is it any different from when two ordinary 
> > people meet? Does something happen at an energetic level? What was the 
> > feeling like in the room? These are some of the questions that have come my 
> > way. It was only recently (eight years later!), that it occurred to me to 
> > pen my thoughts regarding that meeting which took place in 2002.
> > 
> > But first, some background to place the meeting in context.
> > 
> > In 2000, the publishing company Yogi Impressions was born. I actually had 
> > no intention to enter the publishing business. It was just that we had a 
> > hard time finding an appropriate publisher for my mother’s book on her 
> > visual experience of the awakening of the Kundalini. We finally decided to 
> > self-publish her book; my background in advertising gave me the confidence 
> > as I was familiar with the process of designing and printing. After we 
> > brought out her book, we had no plans to publish any more books.
> > 
> > My journey with Eckhart and Ramesh started, almost simultaneously, around 
> > this time. We soon found ourselves publishing Eckhart’s and Ramesh’s 
> > books. The next two titles we brought out were The Power of Now (Indian 
> > edition), and Ramesh’s bookThe Ultimate Understanding.
> > 
> > My sister Nikki had read The Power of Now around the time it had just 
> > released in the West. The book had a tremendous impact on her and she met 
> > Eckhart, almost immediately, when she was in Vancouver on a business trip. 
> > She was keen to bring Eckhart’s message to India and we ended up 
> > publishing the Indian edition of the same, through a series of 
> > synchronistic events. Eckhart had mentioned to Nikki early on that “The 
> > Power of Now will be the beginning of an adventure for Gautam.” Thanks to 
> > him, and the success of his books, we were soon able to publish books of 
> > some other spiritual masters as well. On a personal level, during my 
> > life’s spiritual journey, I have had the good fortune of meeting some 
> > wonderful beings, over the years, whom I would not have normally met had it 
> > not been for spiritual publishing. Eckhart was right - it was the start of 
> > an adventure that still continues. With Ramesh, his editor at the time 
> > informed me he was looking for a publisher to bring out his new book. I 
> > said that, although I did not have much experience as such in publishing, I 
> > would be more than happy to help though they probably would be better off 
> > with an experienced publisher. Nevertheless, a meeting was arranged with 
> > Ramesh. The first question he asked me was if I had read any of his earlier 
> > books. I was in a spot! A bit embarrassed, I hesitatingly replied, 
> > “None!” I thought that was the end of that - I would politely be shown 
> > the door. To my surprise, Ramesh burst out laughing and said, “Then 
> > you’re perfect for the job!” This immediately endeared me to him and I 
> > heaved a sigh of relief. 
> > 
> > Thus began my journ

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Shemp

[mainstream20016]

Shemp,
So you advocate lowering income tax rates.   At what rate of 
income is tax revenue maximized ?   Please don't insult our intelligence by 
suggesting 0%. 

-Mainstream  



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > That's peanuts. Am I right you are therefore against the Bush tax cuts
> > for the rich because of this scenario?
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is precisely why I am FOR the tax cuts for the HIGHER tax brackets 
> (which, yes, affect the rich).
> 
> Lowering the higher tax brackets INCREASED tax revenue.
> 
> The problem was lowing the lower tax brackets which DECREASED tax revenues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > That would have made this figure
> > smaller per person,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the opposite would have happened.  You know not of what you speak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > and the rich, who are experts at avoiding taxes by
> > all legal means, would hardly notice any significant difference if those
> > tax cuts were repealled. Problem solved, debt paid.
> > 
> > Bush left us with a national debt of 11.3 trillion dollars, plus he hid
> > the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
> > 
> > The national debt clock today shows 12.5 trillion, and Obama had the war
> > costs put on the books properly.
> > 
> > So what's your point again Shemp? I don't get it.
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep reading the post over and over again until you do.
> 
> 
> 
> > OffWorld
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Judy

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > > > Notice that Curtis fails to acknowledge his error in
> > > > eagerly adopting Barry's ass-backwards interpretation
> > > > of my question to Curtis as to whether "The Simpsons"
> > > > and "The Family Guy" were funny, or mean.
> > > 
> > > Actually it was his analysis of your shifting of the
> > > discussion from the topic to "Curtis is bad because..."
> > > that interested me about Barry's post.
> > 
> > I'll deal with this bit of nonsense and the rest of
> > the post later. Here I want to address one point:
> > 
> > > The fact that you failed to make it clear that you had
> > > never seen the shows is irrelevant to me.
> > > 
> > > > Nor does Curtis acknowledge what he knows to be the
> > > > case (yes, Joe, "knows," because he's been the one
> > > > directly involved in this discussion) that virtually
> > > > everything *else* Barry said about that discussion
> > > > was factually wrong. (Specific documentation on
> > > > request.)
> > > 
> > > You are not going to get away with this dodge Judy.  Both
> > > Barry and I didn't know you had never seen the Simpsons
> > > and you let us know.  Pin on a medal for being right about
> > > something we couldn't have known from your writing and
> > > move on, unless you are trying to sidestep the important
> > > points.
> > 
> > Too funny. You're in Barry's Master of Inadvertent
> > Irony territory here, Curtis.
> > 
> > That I hadn't seen the shows was the *least* of
> > Barry's "mistakes" in that post and is indeed
> > irrelevant to the actual issues I dealt with in my
> > response.
> > 
> > The biggie
> 
> For you.
> 
>  was that he assumed I was suggesting the
> > shows were "mean," when in fact I was suggesting
> > they were *funny*.
> 
> None of it mattered because we didn't know you hadn't
> seen the shows.

And *I'm* the sophist in this discussion?? Wow.

Curtis:
"I'm just wondering if this disapproval of mocking religious
claims extends to TV cartoon satires cuz that would pretty
much knock out my favorite shows on Sunday night, the Simpsons
and the Family Guy.

"I have a feeling this is a Curtis-only policy."

Me:
"Are they really funny, or are they just mean?"

Translation: If they're really funny, no, my disapproval
wouldn't extend to those shows. What I disapprove of is
*mean* mockery. If they're not really funny, if they're
mean, then, yes, my disapproval would extend to them.

Translation of translation: Whether I've seen them doesn't
matter. I stated my criteria for disapproval, which is
what you were asking about.

> Once we knew that your point is moot.  Who cares if you
> think something is funny if you haven't seen it.

I *assume* they're funny because they're so popular.
That isn't an unreasonable assumption. But that wasn't
the point anyway; you weren't asking me whether I
thought the shows were funny. My "policy" would be the
same whether they were funny or mean.

> I didn't need to address it.

You needed to acknowledge that it wasn't a "Curtis-only
policy." It was a mean-only policy. You're hardly the
only person who mocks religion in a mean way.

You asked a question about my "policy." I answered it.
Barry assumed I was implying the shows were mean and
based his entire lengthy demonization rant on that 
mistaken assumption. You congratulated and thanked him
for it when you *should* have guessed from my Carlin
comment that I wasn't doing that at all.


> Barry said a lot of things.  I focused on the fact that
> he hit my main beef with you in this exchange which was
> to shift the conversation to me being mean.

No, you didn't. You said:

"Goddamn Barry! You just handed me at least an hour of my
life back today responding to Judy. Thanks man. Now I can
get back to this Blind Boy Fuller song I'm working one with
nothing to add here."

No "focusing on" anything there, sorry. Just a blanket
seal of approval, nothing you needed to add. He'd said it
all.

And even so, Barry didn't say anything about my having
"shifted the conversation" to you being mean. According
to him, that's all I was *ever* talking about from the
start. Which, as you know, was not the case. So that
excuse goes into the crapper as well.


> You did shift our discussion of challenging religious
> claims into a discussion of "bad Curtis."  I have come to
> expect this from you and when it happens I usually state
> my case and you have the last word which is fine with me.

Let's have a look at this. You told Willytex that if he
didn't believe and follow every word of every scripture,
he had made the same choices you had.

I commented that--"speaking for myself" was the phrase I
used--I didn't believe *any* scripture, but that I chose
not to insult and demean religious people. So our choices
were different in that regard.

*That* is where you took offense. That's where the
discussion "shifted." But here's the fun part: I didn't
shift i

[FairfieldLife] Re: Eckhart Tolle and Ramesh Balsekar's meet, 2002

[BillyG]

Where DOES he get those cute little vests...and, you gotta love that beard!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> Consciousness and the Now
> 
> by Gautam Sachdeva 
>    OH, East is East, and West is 
> West, and never the twain shall meet,
> Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgement Seat;
> But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
> When two strong men stand face to face, tho’ they come from the ends of the 
> earth!
> --Rudyard Kipling
> -Rudyard Kipling 
> 
> Over the years, I have invariably been asked for details of the encounter 
> between the two spiritual Masters, Ramesh Balsekar and Eckhart Tolle. It’s 
> human nature; our curiosity is aroused; we want to know what exactly happens 
> when two Masters meet. Is it any different from when two ordinary people 
> meet? Does something happen at an energetic level? What was the feeling like 
> in the room? These are some of the questions that have come my way. It was 
> only recently (eight years later!), that it occurred to me to pen my thoughts 
> regarding that meeting which took place in 2002.
> 
> But first, some background to place the meeting in context.
> 
> In 2000, the publishing company Yogi Impressions was born. I actually had no 
> intention to enter the publishing business. It was just that we had a hard 
> time finding an appropriate publisher for my mother’s book on her visual 
> experience of the awakening of the Kundalini. We finally decided to 
> self-publish her book; my background in advertising gave me the confidence as 
> I was familiar with the process of designing and printing. After we brought 
> out her book, we had no plans to publish any more books.
> 
> My journey with Eckhart and Ramesh started, almost simultaneously, around 
> this time. We soon found ourselves publishing Eckhart’s and Ramesh’s 
> books. The next two titles we brought out were The Power of Now (Indian 
> edition), and Ramesh’s bookThe Ultimate Understanding.
> 
> My sister Nikki had read The Power of Now around the time it had just 
> released in the West. The book had a tremendous impact on her and she met 
> Eckhart, almost immediately, when she was in Vancouver on a business trip. 
> She was keen to bring Eckhart’s message to India and we ended up publishing 
> the Indian edition of the same, through a series of synchronistic events. 
> Eckhart had mentioned to Nikki early on that “The Power of Now will be the 
> beginning of an adventure for Gautam.” Thanks to him, and the success of 
> his books, we were soon able to publish books of some other spiritual masters 
> as well. On a personal level, during my life’s spiritual journey, I have 
> had the good fortune of meeting some wonderful beings, over the years, whom I 
> would not have normally met had it not been for spiritual publishing. Eckhart 
> was right - it was the start of an adventure that still continues. With 
> Ramesh, his editor at the time informed me he was looking for a publisher to 
> bring out his new book. I said that, although I did not have much experience 
> as such in publishing, I would be more than happy to help though they 
> probably would be better off with an experienced publisher. Nevertheless, a 
> meeting was arranged with Ramesh. The first question he asked me was if I had 
> read any of his earlier books. I was in a spot! A bit embarrassed, I 
> hesitatingly replied, “None!” I thought that was the end of that - I 
> would politely be shown the door. To my surprise, Ramesh burst out laughing 
> and said, “Then you’re perfect for the job!” This immediately endeared 
> me to him and I heaved a sigh of relief. 
> 
> Thus began my journey in publishing. I soon found myself also donning the hat 
> of spiritual publisher.
> 
> In those early years, I was fortunate to develop an intimate relationship 
> with Ramesh as well as Eckhart. I met Eckhart on numerous occasions during 
> his retreats across the world and also spent time, a few days before and 
> after the retreats, with him. With Ramesh, I had no idea I would end up 
> sitting at his feet for almost ten years and that he would become a 
> father-figure to me and the biggest influence thus far in my life. For his 
> teaching was a validation of my life experience.
> 
> It was with this background that, when Eckhart travelled to India in 2002 and 
> visited Mumbai, I thought it would be wonderful if I could get the two of 
> them together. After all, I found my life situation looking like the Caduceus 
> of Mercury, the staff with two snakes wrapped around it in the form of a 
> double helix. For destiny had intricately woven these two extraordinary 
> beings and their teaching around me. I was quite excited and asked Ramesh if 
> he would like to meet Eckhart, and he readily offered an evening invitation 
> to tea.
> 
> Now, Ramesh used to enjoy having a dig at vari

[FairfieldLife] Evolution in 30 sec.

[yifuxero]

Evolution in 30 sec.  And check out the weird sharks!
http://www.trollart.com/evo.html

[FairfieldLife] Get a load of this

[lurkernomore20002000]

http://www.worldometers.info/

(compliments of my daughter)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count

[Sal Sunshine]

On Mar 14, 2010, at 7:21 PM, FFL PostCount wrote:

S
> 
> tart Date (UTC): Sat Mar 13 00:00:00 2010
> End Date (UTC): Sat Mar 20 00:00:00 2010
> 79 messages as of (UTC) Sun Mar 14 04:28:33 2010
> 
> 16 authfriend 
> 12 lurkernomore20002000 
> 9 tartbrain 
> 6 Joe 
> 5 TurquoiseB 
> 5 ShempMcGurk 
> 4 Buck 
> 4 "do.rflex" 
> 3 off_world_beings 
> 2 shukra69 
> 2 Mike Dixon 
> 2 Bhairitu 
> 1 yifuxero 
> 1 merlin 
> 1 guyfawkes91 
> 1 curtisdeltablues 
> 1 WillyTex 
> 1 Vaj 
> 1 Sal Sunshine 
> 1 Rick Archer 
> 1 It's just a ride 

This is a bit off, methinks.
Sal

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat Mar 13 00:00:00 2010
End Date (UTC): Sat Mar 20 00:00:00 2010
79 messages as of (UTC) Sun Mar 14 04:28:33 2010

16 authfriend 
12 lurkernomore20002000 
 9 tartbrain 
 6 Joe 
 5 TurquoiseB 
 5 ShempMcGurk 
 4 Buck 
 4 "do.rflex" 
 3 off_world_beings 
 2 shukra69 
 2 Mike Dixon 
 2 Bhairitu 
 1 yifuxero 
 1 merlin 
 1 guyfawkes91 
 1 curtisdeltablues 
 1 WillyTex 
 1 Vaj 
 1 Sal Sunshine 
 1 Rick Archer 
 1 It's just a ride 

Posters: 21
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] Come Clean first, Off

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
> steve.sundur@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > "As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the
> Nobel
> > > Peace
> > > > > > Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that
> America
> > > gave him the
> > > > > > White House based on:
> > > > > > the same credentials."
> > >
> > > Shemp, take away health care for a moment. What is it you find to be
> so
> > > objectionable about Obama's presidency so far?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Pretty much the same thing I found objectionable about Bush: the
> deficit.
> >
> > Two years ago with about $10 trillion in National Debt, the United
> States paid about $230 billion in interest on its National Debt. That
> represents about $700 per person per year.>
> 
> That's peanuts. Am I right you are therefore against the Bush tax cuts
> for the rich because of this scenario? That would have made this figure
> smaller per person, and the rich, who are experts at avoiding taxes by
> all legal means, would hardly notice any significant difference if those
> tax cuts were repealled. Problem solved, debt paid.
> 
> Bush left us with a national debt of 11.3 trillion dollars, plus he hid
> the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
> 
> The national debt clock today shows 12.5 trillion, and Obama had the war
> costs put on the books properly.
> 
> So what's your point again Shemp? I don't get it.
> 
> OffWorld
>


Off, it's time for you to come clean on your false representations on Ron Paul.

You never responded to my previous posts on this subject.

Time for you to come clean to me and everyone here.  You can't keep 
misrepresenting yourself without being called on it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Shemp

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
wrote:
>
> Ok, that makes sense.  I thought it might be for other reasons.  I agree. I 
> think we're in trouble.  But you don't really see that reflected in the 
> markets.  Dollar has regained strength.  Gold is moderating. Of course 
> sentiment can change quickly.
> 



People knew for years we were in deep shit regarding the mortgage crisis.  Yet 
the stock market reached unprecedented highs.

Same thing happening here, I believe.




> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > "As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel
> > > Peace
> > > > > > Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America
> > > gave him the
> > > > > > White House based on:
> > > > > > the same credentials."
> > > 
> > > Shemp, take away health care for a moment.  What is it you find to be so
> > > objectionable about Obama's presidency so far?
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > Pretty much the same thing I found objectionable about Bush: the deficit.
> > 
> > Two years ago with about $10 trillion in National Debt, the United States 
> > paid about $230 billion in interest on its National Debt.  That represents 
> > about $700 per person per year.
> > 
> > This cost, please bear in mind, was born while interest rates were, as they 
> > are now, at historic lows.
> > 
> > Obama has not only taken Bush's ridiculously high deficits but expanded 
> > them to an unbelievable level: $1.6 trillion.
> > 
> > What will happen when interest rates go up WHICH THEY MUST AT SOME POINT?  
> > When nations such as China stop buying our debt, in order to attract them 
> > to buying it, interest rates will have to go up.
> > 
> > So, for starters, triple the $230 billion figure to $750 billion a year on 
> > the $10 trillion.  And that's based on putting interest rates up to a 
> > meager 6 or 7 percent interest figure.  Not a hard level to reach.
> > 
> > Then double the $10 trillion national debt to $20 trillion which we'll 
> > reach in about 3 or 4 years. That $750 billion a year in interest will now 
> > be $1.5 trillion a year in interest.
> > 
> > This represents about $4-5,000 a person, per year, just to service the 
> > debt.  Factor out the people who don't pay any tax (about 50% of all 
> > taxpayers) and you're looking at about $8-10,000 per person per year to 
> > service the debt.
> > 
> > And all that without reducing the debt at all.
> > 
> > And by this time Barack Obama will be out of office and concentrating on 
> > his presidential library oblivious to it all.
> > 
> > They say that most empires in history ended because of the debt they 
> > incurred.  This is probably the end of America as we know it.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Shemp

[ShempMcGurk]

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



[snip]



> 
> That's peanuts. Am I right you are therefore against the Bush tax cuts
> for the rich because of this scenario?



No, that is precisely why I am FOR the tax cuts for the HIGHER tax brackets 
(which, yes, affect the rich).

Lowering the higher tax brackets INCREASED tax revenue.

The problem was lowing the lower tax brackets which DECREASED tax revenues.




> That would have made this figure
> smaller per person,






No, the opposite would have happened.  You know not of what you speak.






> and the rich, who are experts at avoiding taxes by
> all legal means, would hardly notice any significant difference if those
> tax cuts were repealled. Problem solved, debt paid.
> 
> Bush left us with a national debt of 11.3 trillion dollars, plus he hid
> the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
> 
> The national debt clock today shows 12.5 trillion, and Obama had the war
> costs put on the books properly.
> 
> So what's your point again Shemp? I don't get it.
> 



Keep reading the post over and over again until you do.



> OffWorld
>

[FairfieldLife] The World Peace Diet hits #1 on Amazon.com! [1 Attachment]

[Rick Archer]

- Original Message -
From: "Dr. Will Tuttle" 
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 4:02 AM
Subject: Victory The World Peace Diet hits #1 on Amazon.com!


Dear Partners and Sponsors of the March 12 World Peace Diet Compassion and 
Health Campaign ---

VICTORY!!   WE DID IT!!THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH!

The March 12 Campaign succeeded completely (though it took us till 1 a.m. on

the morning of the 14th to do it!).

The World Peace Diet is now the #1 best-selling book on the planet.

Thanks to you and an incredible, cooperative effort by the vegan and health 
communities, we are bringing the message of compassion for all life to the 
mainstream!

It's important to keep the momentum going, and to keep The World Peace Diet 
in the top ten for a few days, to continue to send this message. If you have

any ideas as to how to accomplish this, please let me know.

I am hoping that you will alert your mailing lists that this powerful 
pro-vegan book is now #1 on Amazon, and to recommend continued support to 
keep the ripples of compassion and nutritional sanity flowing into the 
cultural mainstream.

This would be incredibly powerful to help animals and the Earth be free from

human enslavement and violence.

Time is of the essence on this. Hoping we can mobilize quickly and keep the 
momentum going.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Here is the website where people are ordering from:
http://worldpeacediet.org

Here is the direct link to Amazon:
http://tinyurl.com/ykmfkbq

Thanks so much,

For the animals and all of us,

Will
Dr. Will Tuttle

508-367-2046
willtut...@earthlink.net
800-697-6614 - voice mail

You are all the BEST!!!

[FairfieldLife] Revisting- Re: Did you have this experience in India ?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
wrote:
>
> Wow, I really dislike having to carry things to this extent.
> But for the record, you did reproduce two of the posts,

Only one, actually. I picked that one because Sal's
part of it was self-contained. But the rest were all
along the same lines in scoffing at anything the
National Enquirer reported.

> and gave numbers for the rest.  If someone wishes to ignore
> that, or be "too busy" to read posts for today, then I guess
> that is where it stays.  But in your post #243746 today at
> 9:59 am, they are laid out.

My guess is we won't see Sal around here for a while.


> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> > Lurk:
> > > > No, I really don't care to
> > > 
> > > Because you can't--they don't exist.
> > 
> > Ah, but they do.
> > 
> > > And In "true fashion," you don't have courage to own up to it. 
> > > Care to bring up the posts? I didn't think so.
> > 
> > I just did, not quite an hour before this post of Sal's.
> > Will she have the courage to own up to them? Will she have
> > the decency to apologize to Lurk for having falsely accused
> > him of having made them up and not having the courage to
> > admit it?
> > 
> > Perhaps she carefully avoided reading my posts. If so, it
> > would be a kindness for someone to clue her in.
> > 
> > But holding one's breath for an acknowledgment and apology
> > from Sal is probably not a great idea.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "authfriend" 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "Joe"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Is that really accurate Judy? 3 million?
> >
> > I couldn't remember where I saw the stat, so I double-
> > checked elsewhere, and apparently it is accurate. This
> > is from the magazine/Web site Broadcasting and Cable:
> >
> > "...Fox News will finish 2009 as the top-rated cable news
> > network, a perch it has enjoyed for eight years running.
> > But 2009--the first year of the Obama administration--
> > also marks FNC's highest rated year in the channel's 13
> > -year-history.
> >
> > "FNC topped the competition in all dayparts: morning (1
> > million total viewers, 340,000 viewers in news' target
> > demographic of 25-54-year-olds [referred to as "the
> > demo"--JS]); total day (1.2 million viewers, 323,000 in
> > the demo); primetime (2.2 million viewers, 551,000 in
> > the demo). Those numbers mark year-to-year demo gains of
> > 14% in the morning, 16% in total day and 10% in primetime
> > (Mon-Sun), according to Nielsen.
> >
> > "FNC saw double-digit gains for all of its programs.
> > Year-to-year, Glenn Beck is up 96% among total viewers
> > (2.3 million) and 148% in the demo (612,000). Special
> > Report with Bret Baier posted gains of 25% among total
> > viewers (2 million) and 33% in the demo (454,000). The
> > O'Reilly Factor is up 13% among total viewers (3.3
> > million) and 27% (801,000) in the demo, marking its
> > tenth consecutive year as the No. 1 cable news program.">>
> 
> How do they kmow how many people are watching it?

See above, end of the second paragraph, "according
to Nielsen"?

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

[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Judy

[Joe]

I'll work on it Tex. If only I could learn to be a troll like yourself. And 
maybe, just maybe.I'll have the uh "smarts" as you call them, to win a 
debate with Judy.

It's good to have lofty goals

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Joe:
> > Precisely. And this is why conversations with Judy,
> > the majority of them anyway, are a waste of time, a 
> > very unusual form of mental masturbation IMO.
> >
> Very impressive, Joe - you managed to tank this 
> discussion is less than five hours. Good work!
>  
> > The only one left on this forum who imagines that 
> > Judy "wins" these so-called debates is Tex...
> >
> She waxed you, real good, Joe, get some smarts.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Shemp

[lurkernomore20002000]

Ok, that makes sense.  I thought it might be for other reasons.  I agree. I 
think we're in trouble.  But you don't really see that reflected in the 
markets.  Dollar has regained strength.  Gold is moderating. Of course 
sentiment can change quickly.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
> > wrote:
> > > > > "As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel
> > Peace
> > > > > Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America
> > gave him the
> > > > > White House based on:
> > > > > the same credentials."
> > 
> > Shemp, take away health care for a moment.  What is it you find to be so
> > objectionable about Obama's presidency so far?
> >
> 
> 
> Pretty much the same thing I found objectionable about Bush: the deficit.
> 
> Two years ago with about $10 trillion in National Debt, the United States 
> paid about $230 billion in interest on its National Debt.  That represents 
> about $700 per person per year.
> 
> This cost, please bear in mind, was born while interest rates were, as they 
> are now, at historic lows.
> 
> Obama has not only taken Bush's ridiculously high deficits but expanded them 
> to an unbelievable level: $1.6 trillion.
> 
> What will happen when interest rates go up WHICH THEY MUST AT SOME POINT?  
> When nations such as China stop buying our debt, in order to attract them to 
> buying it, interest rates will have to go up.
> 
> So, for starters, triple the $230 billion figure to $750 billion a year on 
> the $10 trillion.  And that's based on putting interest rates up to a meager 
> 6 or 7 percent interest figure.  Not a hard level to reach.
> 
> Then double the $10 trillion national debt to $20 trillion which we'll reach 
> in about 3 or 4 years. That $750 billion a year in interest will now be $1.5 
> trillion a year in interest.
> 
> This represents about $4-5,000 a person, per year, just to service the debt.  
> Factor out the people who don't pay any tax (about 50% of all taxpayers) and 
> you're looking at about $8-10,000 per person per year to service the debt.
> 
> And all that without reducing the debt at all.
> 
> And by this time Barack Obama will be out of office and concentrating on his 
> presidential library oblivious to it all.
> 
> They say that most empires in history ended because of the debt they 
> incurred.  This is probably the end of America as we know it.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Today, a Yagya for wisdom and balance.

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "lurkernomore20002000"
 wrote:
>
> off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> > Religion involves belief in deities or gods or a messiah. I practice
TM
> > and I don't believe in anything I haven't seen with my own senses.
>
> So, you believe that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west?
>

Senses know that photos of the Earth and planets, and measurements of
spherical nature of the Earth, are accurate. Maybe you think that
evidence does not count and the world is flat?

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Shemp

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
steve.sundur@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
> > wrote:
> > > > > "As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the
Nobel
> > Peace
> > > > > Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that
America
> > gave him the
> > > > > White House based on:
> > > > > the same credentials."
> >
> > Shemp, take away health care for a moment. What is it you find to be
so
> > objectionable about Obama's presidency so far?
> >
>
>
> Pretty much the same thing I found objectionable about Bush: the
deficit.
>
> Two years ago with about $10 trillion in National Debt, the United
States paid about $230 billion in interest on its National Debt. That
represents about $700 per person per year.>

That's peanuts. Am I right you are therefore against the Bush tax cuts
for the rich because of this scenario? That would have made this figure
smaller per person, and the rich, who are experts at avoiding taxes by
all legal means, would hardly notice any significant difference if those
tax cuts were repealled. Problem solved, debt paid.

Bush left us with a national debt of 11.3 trillion dollars, plus he hid
the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

The national debt clock today shows 12.5 trillion, and Obama had the war
costs put on the books properly.

So what's your point again Shemp? I don't get it.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Today, a Yagya for wisdom and balance.

[lurkernomore20002000]

off_world_beings  wrote:
 
> Religion involves belief in deities or gods or a messiah. I practice TM
> and I don't believe in anything I haven't seen with my own senses.

So, you believe that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Shemp

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
> wrote:
> > > > "As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel
> Peace
> > > > Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America
> gave him the
> > > > White House based on:
> > > > the same credentials."
> 
> Shemp, take away health care for a moment.  What is it you find to be so
> objectionable about Obama's presidency so far?
>


Pretty much the same thing I found objectionable about Bush: the deficit.

Two years ago with about $10 trillion in National Debt, the United States paid 
about $230 billion in interest on its National Debt.  That represents about 
$700 per person per year.

This cost, please bear in mind, was born while interest rates were, as they are 
now, at historic lows.

Obama has not only taken Bush's ridiculously high deficits but expanded them to 
an unbelievable level: $1.6 trillion.

What will happen when interest rates go up WHICH THEY MUST AT SOME POINT?  When 
nations such as China stop buying our debt, in order to attract them to buying 
it, interest rates will have to go up.

So, for starters, triple the $230 billion figure to $750 billion a year on the 
$10 trillion.  And that's based on putting interest rates up to a meager 6 or 7 
percent interest figure.  Not a hard level to reach.

Then double the $10 trillion national debt to $20 trillion which we'll reach in 
about 3 or 4 years. That $750 billion a year in interest will now be $1.5 
trillion a year in interest.

This represents about $4-5,000 a person, per year, just to service the debt.  
Factor out the people who don't pay any tax (about 50% of all taxpayers) and 
you're looking at about $8-10,000 per person per year to service the debt.

And all that without reducing the debt at all.

And by this time Barack Obama will be out of office and concentrating on his 
presidential library oblivious to it all.

They say that most empires in history ended because of the debt they incurred.  
This is probably the end of America as we know it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Judy

[WillyTex]

Joe:
> Precisely. And this is why conversations with Judy,
> the majority of them anyway, are a waste of time, a 
> very unusual form of mental masturbation IMO.
>
Very impressive, Joe - you managed to tank this 
discussion is less than five hours. Good work!
 
> The only one left on this forum who imagines that 
> Judy "wins" these so-called debates is Tex...
>
She waxed you, real good, Joe, get some smarts.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Funny or mean? You decide.

[WillyTex]

> > Have you ever won a debate with Judy, Joe?
> > 
Joe:
> I've won them all...
>
Can you be a little more specific, Joe? Which 
debates did you win? Nobody wins all debates.
 
> What Judy engages in is not debate IMO...
>
Is this a debate, or just your opinion?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "lurkernomore20002000"
 wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> > The one saving grace of Fox News is that only a tiny
> > percentage of people watch it, 3-something million at
> > most. Of course, that's more than the other cable news
> > channels, but it's still not all that significant
> > overall. News and political junkies tend to forget that
> > and talk about it as if it's a lot more influential
> > than it really is.
>
>
> In our household Fox news is on periodically.  On the rare occasions
> when I watch, or have the remote, I will see what is on CNN, and
> typically I'm not too impressed.  There is something about Wolf
Blitzer
> I cannot stomach. I really don't know any of the other CNN
> personalities. On rarer occassions I may catch Rachael Maddow, or
Keith
> Oberman, but  I don't find too much of interest there either.   But it
> is the conservatives shows that are winning the ratings on both radio
> and TV, but I guess, as you say, put in perspective, it is not as
> significant as it might seem to be.>

They are not winning the ratings on TV.
CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, BBC, etc. -- which Fox pundits call 'left wing
media' -- combined, get FAR bigger ratings than the lone far-right Fox
News.  Its just that there are more choices among the center and left
wing TV News.
Combined they far outweigh the lone neocon Fox News.

I don't know about Radio. In Fall 2008, NPR programming reached a record
27.5 million people weekly, according to Arbitron ratings figures. NPR
stations reach 32.7 million listeners overall. In a Harris poll
conducted in 2005, NPR was voted the most trusted news source in the
U.S.

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


As of of 2006, The Rush Limbaugh Show had a minimum weekly audience of
13.5 million listeners

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh#The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show


OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Question to Shemp

[lurkernomore20002000]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
wrote:
> > > "As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel
Peace
> > > Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America
gave him the
> > > White House based on:
> > > the same credentials."

Shemp, take away health care for a moment.  What is it you find to be so
objectionable about Obama's presidency so far?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "authfriend" 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Joe"  wrote:
> >
> > Is that really accurate Judy? 3 million?
>
> I couldn't remember where I saw the stat, so I double-
> checked elsewhere, and apparently it is accurate. This
> is from the magazine/Web site Broadcasting and Cable:
>
> "...Fox News will finish 2009 as the top-rated cable news
> network, a perch it has enjoyed for eight years running.
> But 2009--the first year of the Obama administration--
> also marks FNC's highest rated year in the channel's 13
> -year-history.
>
> "FNC topped the competition in all dayparts: morning (1
> million total viewers, 340,000 viewers in news' target
> demographic of 25-54-year-olds [referred to as "the
> demo"--JS]); total day (1.2 million viewers, 323,000 in
> the demo); primetime (2.2 million viewers, 551,000 in
> the demo). Those numbers mark year-to-year demo gains of
> 14% in the morning, 16% in total day and 10% in primetime
> (Mon-Sun), according to Nielsen.
>
> "FNC saw double-digit gains for all of its programs.
> Year-to-year, Glenn Beck is up 96% among total viewers
> (2.3 million) and 148% in the demo (612,000). Special
> Report with Bret Baier posted gains of 25% among total
> viewers (2 million) and 33% in the demo (454,000). The
> O'Reilly Factor is up 13% among total viewers (3.3
> million) and 27% (801,000) in the demo, marking its
> tenth consecutive year as the No. 1 cable news program.">>

How do they kmow how many people are watching it?

OffWorld

>
>
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/440766-Cable_News_Ratings_Fox_N\
ews_Has_Highest_Rated_Year_In_Network_History.php

>
> http://tinyurl.com/ye93h5y 
>
> > I had no idea.fascinating. (And kind of a relief!)
>
> I was surprised too. I knew it wasn't huge, but I didn't
> realize it was that low. It certainly seems to make noise
> way out of proportion to the size of its audience. It
> seems almost silly for Obama & Co. to have gone to the
> trouble to publicly denounce it a few months back.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Today, a Yagya for wisdom and balance.

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Joe"  wrote:
>
> Hey Buck, is TM a religion?>>

Religion involves belief in deities or gods or a messiah. I practice TM
and I don't believe in anything I haven't seen with my own senses.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Revisting- Re: Did you have this experience in India ?

[lurkernomore20002000]

Wow, I really dislike having to carry things to this extent.  But for the 
record, you did reproduce two of the posts, and gave numbers for the rest.  If 
someone wishes to ignore that, or be "too busy" to read posts for today, then I 
guess that is where it stays.  But in your post #243746 today at 9:59 am, they 
are laid out.

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

> Lurk:
> > > No, I really don't care to
> > 
> > Because you can't--they don't exist.
> 
> Ah, but they do.
> 
> > And In "true fashion," you don't have courage to own up to it. 
> > Care to bring up the posts? I didn't think so.
> 
> I just did, not quite an hour before this post of Sal's.
> Will she have the courage to own up to them? Will she have
> the decency to apologize to Lurk for having falsely accused
> him of having made them up and not having the courage to
> admit it?
> 
> Perhaps she carefully avoided reading my posts. If so, it
> would be a kindness for someone to clue her in.
> 
> But holding one's breath for an acknowledgment and apology
> from Sal is probably not a great idea.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Judy

[curtisdeltablues]

- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Notice that Curtis fails to acknowledge his error in
> > > eagerly adopting Barry's ass-backwards interpretation
> > > of my question to Curtis as to whether "The Simpsons"
> > > and "The Family Guy" were funny, or mean.
> > 
> > Actually it was his analysis of your shifting of the
> > discussion from the topic to "Curtis is bad because..."
> > that interested me about Barry's post.
> 
> I'll deal with this bit of nonsense and the rest of
> the post later. Here I want to address one point:
> 
> > The fact that you failed to make it clear that you had
> > never seen the shows is irrelevant to me.
> > 
> > > Nor does Curtis acknowledge what he knows to be the
> > > case (yes, Joe, "knows," because he's been the one
> > > directly involved in this discussion) that virtually
> > > everything *else* Barry said about that discussion
> > > was factually wrong. (Specific documentation on
> > > request.)
> > 
> > You are not going to get away with this dodge Judy.  Both
> > Barry and I didn't know you had never seen the Simpsons
> > and you let us know.  Pin on a medal for being right about
> > something we couldn't have known from your writing and
> > move on, unless you are trying to sidestep the important
> > points.
> 
> Too funny. You're in Barry's Master of Inadvertent
> Irony territory here, Curtis.
> 
> That I hadn't seen the shows was the *least* of
> Barry's "mistakes" in that post and is indeed
> irrelevant to the actual issues I dealt with in my
> response.
> 
> The biggie

For you.


 was that he assumed I was suggesting the
> shows were "mean," when in fact I was suggesting
> they were *funny*.

None of it mattered because we didn't know you hadn't seen the shows.  Once we 
knew that your point is moot.  Who cares if you think something is funny if you 
haven't seen it.  I didn't need to address it.

> 
> I can see how this might not have been obvious to
> Barry, since he hadn't been following the discussion;
> and of course the opportunity to defend "The Simpsons"
> against my purported depredations would have been too
> much for him to resist anyway. But it was hilarious
> that he went on demonizing me for many, many paragraphs
> based on this incorrect assumption.

Barry said a lot of things.  I focused on the fact that he hit my main beef 
with you in this exchange which was to shift the conversation to me being mean. 
He said it so I didn't have to yesterday.  I am not responsible for everything 
else he  writes that bug you. Take it up with him.

> 
> What wasn't funny was that you went along with it. 

Bullshit Judy.  Not addressing every single detail in someone's post is not 
going along with it.  Once we knew you hadn't seen them it was a moot point. 
(Except for you apparently.)

> After seeing my comment about Goerge Carlin, an instant's
> thought should have clued you in that I wasn't saying
> the shows were mean but, as noted, that they were *funny*.

If you haven't seen them your opinion is irrelevant. Why are you focusing on 
this point as if it matters?  I'm not really interested in you opinion about 
what is and isn't funny to you even if you did see the shows.  We do not share 
the same taste. 

> 
> And there were many other statements Barry made about me
> and my position in that post that were flat-out wrong and
> that you knew were wrong. I mentioned several of them in
> my response to Barry.

That is the place for you to take it up, with him.

 We can go over them again if you
> like.

I would sooner put a fork into my eyeball and point the handle to every point 
on the compass. 

> 
> So here you are, accusing me of "trying to sidestep the
> important points," while you're looking very much as
> if that's precisely what *you're* doing by focusing on
> the fact that I hadn't seen the shows as if that were
> my major bone of contention with Barry's post.

We didn't know that you had not seen the shows.  Then we did.  End of story for 
me.

You did shift our discussion of challenging religious claims into a discussion 
of "bad Curtis."  I have come to expect this from you and when it happens I 
usually state my case and you have the last word which is fine with me.

> 
> More later.

I'll get the fork ready in case I need some relief.


>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Walt Whitman rewrites the Ten Commandments

[tartbrain]

Two great quotes -- Hitchens and Whitman
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> THIS IS WHAT YOU SHALL DO:
> 
> Love the earth and sun and the animals. Despise 
> riches, give alms to everyone that asks, stand up 
> for the stupid and crazy, devote your income and 
> labor to others, hate tyrants, argue not 
> concerning God, have patience and indulgence 
> toward the people, take off your hat to nothing 
> known or unknown or to any man or number of men, 
> go freely with powerful uneducated persons and with
> the young and with the mothers of families, read 
> these leaves in the open air every season of every 
> year of your life, re-examine all you have been 
> told at school or church or in any book, dismiss 
> whatever insults your own soul; and your very 
> flesh shall be a great poem and have the richest 
> fluency not only in its words but in the silent 
> lines of its lips and face and between the lashes 
> of your eyes and in every motion and joint of your 
> body
> 
> --From the preface to "Leaves of Grass"
>

[FairfieldLife] Walt Whitman rewrites the Ten Commandments

[authfriend]

THIS IS WHAT YOU SHALL DO:

Love the earth and sun and the animals. Despise 
riches, give alms to everyone that asks, stand up 
for the stupid and crazy, devote your income and 
labor to others, hate tyrants, argue not 
concerning God, have patience and indulgence 
toward the people, take off your hat to nothing 
known or unknown or to any man or number of men, 
go freely with powerful uneducated persons and with
the young and with the mothers of families, read 
these leaves in the open air every season of every 
year of your life, re-examine all you have been 
told at school or church or in any book, dismiss 
whatever insults your own soul; and your very 
flesh shall be a great poem and have the richest 
fluency not only in its words but in the silent 
lines of its lips and face and between the lashes 
of your eyes and in every motion and joint of your 
body

--From the preface to "Leaves of Grass"

[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Judy

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > Notice that Curtis fails to acknowledge his error in
> > eagerly adopting Barry's ass-backwards interpretation
> > of my question to Curtis as to whether "The Simpsons"
> > and "The Family Guy" were funny, or mean.
> 
> Actually it was his analysis of your shifting of the
> discussion from the topic to "Curtis is bad because..."
> that interested me about Barry's post.

I'll deal with this bit of nonsense and the rest of
the post later. Here I want to address one point:

> The fact that you failed to make it clear that you had
> never seen the shows is irrelevant to me.
> 
> > Nor does Curtis acknowledge what he knows to be the
> > case (yes, Joe, "knows," because he's been the one
> > directly involved in this discussion) that virtually
> > everything *else* Barry said about that discussion
> > was factually wrong. (Specific documentation on
> > request.)
> 
> You are not going to get away with this dodge Judy.  Both
> Barry and I didn't know you had never seen the Simpsons
> and you let us know.  Pin on a medal for being right about
> something we couldn't have known from your writing and
> move on, unless you are trying to sidestep the important
> points.

Too funny. You're in Barry's Master of Inadvertent
Irony territory here, Curtis.

That I hadn't seen the shows was the *least* of
Barry's "mistakes" in that post and is indeed
irrelevant to the actual issues I dealt with in my
response.

The biggie was that he assumed I was suggesting the
shows were "mean," when in fact I was suggesting
they were *funny*.

I can see how this might not have been obvious to
Barry, since he hadn't been following the discussion;
and of course the opportunity to defend "The Simpsons"
against my purported depredations would have been too
much for him to resist anyway. But it was hilarious
that he went on demonizing me for many, many paragraphs
based on this incorrect assumption.

What wasn't funny was that you went along with it. 
After seeing my comment about Goerge Carlin, an instant's
thought should have clued you in that I wasn't saying
the shows were mean but, as noted, that they were *funny*.

And there were many other statements Barry made about me
and my position in that post that were flat-out wrong and
that you knew were wrong. I mentioned several of them in
my response to Barry. We can go over them again if you
like.

So here you are, accusing me of "trying to sidestep the
important points," while you're looking very much as
if that's precisely what *you're* doing by focusing on
the fact that I hadn't seen the shows as if that were
my major bone of contention with Barry's post.

More later.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Judy

[curtisdeltablues]

Just a drive by for me too.

Me:> One of the straw men arguments about the criticisms against religion that 
guys
like Sam Harris make is that he is only talking about fundamentalist. That he
is ignoring really educated people who have watered down the claims of religion
with reason and common sense which is how a lot of intelligent people actually
deal with religious claims.

Tart:

Which I thought was your point from an earlier post that its inconsistent to
cherry pick one's scriptures. Accept on part and you gotta accept it all. I
probably misunderstood you, but actually I liked that argument. It at least got
me thinking that if I accept "like a candle in a windless place" I gotta accept
the whole battle, avatars, gory parts too. And there is the corollary that if
one rejects one part, then one has to reject the whole thing. IF its all from
God (not my claim), then it must all be correct, or all false. You can't cherry
pick. And if its just a compendium of blatherings across generations, including
the family whacko Uncle Charlie (but hes family so we gotta stick him in the
family history), then its not necessarily worthy or a lot of attention.

Picking and choosing is OK of course, we all do it.  But I was objecting to the 
reason someone asserts that they have a reason to believe what they assert.  
You can't say God really means that we should love each other but doesn't 
really mean that women should obey their husbands although he directly says it 
in the same book.  It is the epistemological basis for the claim that I object 
to, attributing scripture special status among other books.  If you accept that 
it is enough that scripture says it as a reason to believe a certain thing then 
you are not distinguishing which ones to choose.  I believe that we are all the 
same under the benevolent gaze of epistemology and none of us is favored by the 
Lord of philosophy!  





--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain  wrote:
>
> Not a full response. Some good things I need to ponder. Some drive-by 
> comments, below.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain  wrote:
> > >
> > > I feel that I am rowing out in a little dingy between two huge battle 
> > > ships. I hope they see my white flag.
> > 
> > We have always had excellent conversations.  You take an appropriate amount 
> > of care to build rapport and I respect that. You have also had good 
> > discussions with Judy that I have enjoyed, so good on you for your 
> > communication skills here.
> >  
> > > 
> > > As part of full disclosure, I am not religious, don't go to or belong to 
> > > a church, though I have, in my simpleton ways, at times constructed 
> > > cathedrals in nature -- in my minds eye -- impressed and stirred by the 
> > > wonder of it all.
> > 
> > Totally with you. 
> 
> 
> A small thorn, which serves a good purpose to keep trying to solve it, is a 
> distinction between religion as it is (in its sorry state) and what religion 
> could be in all its glory. A sort of natural religion -- based on experience, 
> not channeling celestials -- though that too is an experience -- if it 
> exists. 
> 
> I like Carlin. I like Maher. But both, and others at times boil issues down 
> to a icky gooey mess, then criticize how icky it is. And as Jon Stewart will 
> be the first to point out, they are comedians. Going for the laugh. They are 
> not testifying under oath as to the earnest truthfulness of their views. 
> Their exagerations can bring home a point. Or obscure it.  
> 
> Its like democracy. Its a great system. We ought to try to sometime 
> (attributed to Twain or Will Rogers). In parallel, a true natural religion 
> could be awesome. We (as as society) ought to try it sometime. So I while I 
> can vomit over religion, I still hold out for the possibility of Religion. 
> Not as it is, or has been, but what it could be. And as justified as art or 
> philosophy is -- in that it is not a science -- but provide alternative lens 
> through which to view the world. 
> 
> 
> > > Your post got me thinking (a sign of a good post, IMO). You and George, 
> > > as well as a host of others, Hutchens is my recent foray into the mess, 
> > > appear to take religions literally.
> > 
> > Not me.  I understand that there many ways to take religion. 
> 
> I was too simply equating your views with Carlin's. Your view is clearly more 
> nuanced and textured. 
> 
> > The way I take religious scripture is as any good literature.  And I am a 
> > fan and read religious scriptures.  My issues with religious people is when 
> > they attempt to make it seem as if the scripture of their religion is the 
> > word of the creator of the universe.  
> 
> I am sure there are people like that, I just don't run into them much. 
> And people learn over time. I have a friend who was set on becoming a 
> minister -- from a young age. Did youth ministering, had scholarships for 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Judy

[Joe]

Precisely. And this is why conversations with Judy, the majority of them 
anyway, are a waste of time, a very unusual form of mental masturbation IMO.

The only one left on this forum who imagines that Judy "wins" these so-called 
debates is Tex. That alone speaks volumes. (Not to mention that Tex is so very 
proud of himself for "winning" two debates with Judy.)


> So it becomes the good kind of mockery because it was in a book that mocked 
> other things?  So if I mock more things it will improve my "mean" rating.
> 
> The context for your response is that you work backwards from 
> "how is Curtis bad?"  It is your end move in every discussion and makes any 
> communication with you unpleasant for me in the end.
> 
> 
> I believe you enjoy putting people down personally more than discussing 
> ideas. 
> 
> 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Judy

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> Notice that Curtis fails to acknowledge his error in
> eagerly adopting Barry's ass-backwards interpretation
> of my question to Curtis as to whether "The Simpsons"
> and "The Family Guy" were funny, or mean.

Actually it was his analysis of your shifting of the discussion from the topic 
to "Curtis is bad because..." that interested me about Barry's post.  The fact 
that you failed to make it clear that you had never seen the shows is 
irrelevant to me.

> 
> Nor does Curtis acknowledge what he knows to be the
> case (yes, Joe, "knows," because he's been the one
> directly involved in this discussion) that virtually
> everything *else* Barry said about that discussion
> was factually wrong. (Specific documentation on
> request.)

You are not going to get away with this dodge Judy.  Both Barry and I didn't 
know you had never seen the Simpsons and you let us know.  Pin on a medal for 
being right about something we couldn't have known from your writing and move 
on, unless you are trying to sidestep the important points.

> 
> Unsurprisingly given these failures, Curtis engages
> in pretty massive misrepresentation in this current
> post as well.

Let's see if this claim has any validity...


> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > Judy and I had been having a discussion about religious
> > beliefs and the various ways to deal with it in society.
> > Judy proposed that going after egregious specific behavior
> > was the best way.  Although she does not explain how
> > convincing someone their behavior is wrong is so much
> > easier than convincing them that their belief is wrong.
> 
> Never said it was easier. In fact, I said the opposite,
> that going after the beliefs is easier. I said this at
> least twice, and Curtis read those posts, so the above is
> intentionally misleading.

The fact that you "never said it was easier" is a straw man.
I was raising my objections to your position. I am not claiming that you made 
it in that specific form.  It is not a misrepresentation, I am questioning your 
assumptions.

This is a common sophist tactic to find something that is not what you said 
(because it is my point) and jump on it as a way to demonize me and 
"intentionally misleading."  You have tried it with me too often to miss.  It 
will not work. Many things I say are not what you said because I am writing my 
opinion of what you have said. It is an invalid objection unless I attribute 
the phrase to you which I did not. 

> 
> > Usually this is a matter for legal force.
> > 
> > I proposed that it would be the views of the general
> > society that had to change concerning beliefs based on
> > faith just as they already have in many areas of human
> > knowledge that used to be dominated by faith.  In many
> > areas of knowledge we now have more solid evidence. (As
> > an aside Judy used the peculiar term "transcendiing
> > epistemology" to describe faith which is an odd concept
> > that she will have to define for herself.  But faith
> > does not go beyond epistemology, they have a folder for
> > it titled "Poor basis to be confident about knowledge."
> 
> Of course faith doesn't go beyond epistemology in the
> broad sense of the term, "how we know things." My
> point was that faith not only does not require hard
> empirical (known by observation and measurement) 
> evidence, but to a significant degree regards belief in
> the absence of such evidence as a virtue.

Straw man.  Of course all things we believe in don't require hard empirical 
evidence, that is only one tool of a specific part of epistemology that is 
context dependent for its usefulness.  There are plenty of reasonable reasons 
to believe something outside this narrow basis which we use in most modern 
human knowledge beyond the hard sciences.  The key word is reasonable.  The 
claim that faith based on a lack of evidence is a virtue is the move people 
make once the evidence of the scriptures is rejected as poor.  The whole New 
Testament is a proof system for its claims about Jesus and his special role.  A 
poor one. Just because everything can't be specifically quantified is not 
excuse for believing something for shaky reasons and unfounded assertions.

> 
> > But as is often the case the discussion followed the
> > relentlessly predictable gravitational arch for Judy
> > where every discussion is used as evidence for me being
> > a flawed person in some way.
> 
> For Curtis, the point at which he decided I was calling
> him a flawed person (after we'd had quite a stretch of
> reasonably cordial exchange of views) was when I said I
> thought he might have some subconscious negative feelings
> about religion that were stronger than those he's
> expressed here. He's gotten all upset before when I've 
> suggested that he might have subconscious feelings like
> everyone else; apparently that's a flaw as far as he's
> concerned.

No it wa

[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Judy

[tartbrain]

Not a full response. Some good things I need to ponder. Some drive-by comments, 
below.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain  wrote:
> >
> > I feel that I am rowing out in a little dingy between two huge battle 
> > ships. I hope they see my white flag.
> 
> We have always had excellent conversations.  You take an appropriate amount 
> of care to build rapport and I respect that. You have also had good 
> discussions with Judy that I have enjoyed, so good on you for your 
> communication skills here.
>  
> > 
> > As part of full disclosure, I am not religious, don't go to or belong to a 
> > church, though I have, in my simpleton ways, at times constructed 
> > cathedrals in nature -- in my minds eye -- impressed and stirred by the 
> > wonder of it all.
> 
> Totally with you. 


A small thorn, which serves a good purpose to keep trying to solve it, is a 
distinction between religion as it is (in its sorry state) and what religion 
could be in all its glory. A sort of natural religion -- based on experience, 
not channeling celestials -- though that too is an experience -- if it exists. 

I like Carlin. I like Maher. But both, and others at times boil issues down to 
a icky gooey mess, then criticize how icky it is. And as Jon Stewart will be 
the first to point out, they are comedians. Going for the laugh. They are not 
testifying under oath as to the earnest truthfulness of their views. Their 
exagerations can bring home a point. Or obscure it.  

Its like democracy. Its a great system. We ought to try to sometime (attributed 
to Twain or Will Rogers). In parallel, a true natural religion could be 
awesome. We (as as society) ought to try it sometime. So I while I can vomit 
over religion, I still hold out for the possibility of Religion. Not as it is, 
or has been, but what it could be. And as justified as art or philosophy is -- 
in that it is not a science -- but provide alternative lens through which to 
view the world. 


> > Your post got me thinking (a sign of a good post, IMO). You and George, as 
> > well as a host of others, Hutchens is my recent foray into the mess, appear 
> > to take religions literally.
> 
> Not me.  I understand that there many ways to take religion. 

I was too simply equating your views with Carlin's. Your view is clearly more 
nuanced and textured. 

> The way I take religious scripture is as any good literature.  And I am a fan 
> and read religious scriptures.  My issues with religious people is when they 
> attempt to make it seem as if the scripture of their religion is the word of 
> the creator of the universe.  

I am sure there are people like that, I just don't run into them much. 
And people learn over time. I have a friend who was set on becoming a minister 
-- from a young age. Did youth ministering, had scholarships for graduate work 
in theology paid by his church. But over time, I am not sure of the details, 
something snapped, he left the program and has no ties to his prior church as 
far as I can see. Doesn't take his kids to Sunday School. Thusly, someone might 
take a fundamentalist view, and over time, work it out, mellow it out, reason 
it up, and keep it more real.


>If they think that, even if they don't take every word as literal truth, then 
>I object.  I believe that there is more evidence for man being the source of 
>scripture and when I read it I don't suppose Moses had an actual interaction 
>with a burning bush unless he spent some time at Vegas's bunny ranch. (There 
>are pills for that but it will come back periodically.) 

Actually, brothels are illegal in Las Vegas. The Bunny Ranch, I am told, is 
outside Carson City, the capitol, in close proximity to legislators and 
lobbyists. Better they get well screwed -- than well screwing their 
constituents. As Cream sang, "Baby, get into my big black car, and let me show 
you what my politics are." But I hear they (Bunny Ranch) are looking for a good 
blues player to add atmosphere, so you might be in luck. (Lots of perks -- 
though perhaps not always pristine perky.)

> 
>  collection of various writers and interpreters must be taken as a whole. None 
> of this new age, fairfiledlife, take what is useful and drop the rest stuff. 
> "Man it up, take ownership for every literal word and phrase" is what I am 
> hearing.>
> 
> Your objection is valid and I would share it, but I don't think that is what 
> they are saying. That is not my point.  Everyone interprets scripture, and 
> given its often self-contradictory messages, no one can be truly literal 
> about it even if they claim this.
> 
> The line I draw is the claim that any way of reading it gives a person an 
> insight into the mind of some creator.  I don't see any evidence for that 
> claim and consider it to be a sign of hubris to claim it.  Now I can hear a 
> person inspired by something in scripture make a great case for some idea 
> about how the 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[Joe]

Agreed. That's a mighty small pooch to have managed such a loud bark.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe"  wrote:
> >
> > Is that really accurate Judy? 3 million?
> 
> I couldn't remember where I saw the stat, so I double-
> checked elsewhere, and apparently it is accurate. This
> is from the magazine/Web site Broadcasting and Cable:
> 
> "...Fox News will finish 2009 as the top-rated cable news
> network, a perch it has enjoyed for eight years running. 
> But 2009--the first year of the Obama administration--
> also marks FNC's highest rated year in the channel's 13
> -year-history.
> 
> "FNC topped the competition in all dayparts: morning (1 
> million total viewers, 340,000 viewers in news' target 
> demographic of 25-54-year-olds [referred to as "the
> demo"--JS]); total day (1.2 million viewers, 323,000 in
> the demo); primetime (2.2 million viewers, 551,000 in
> the demo). Those numbers mark year-to-year demo gains of
> 14% in the morning, 16% in total day and 10% in primetime
> (Mon-Sun), according to Nielsen.
> 
> "FNC saw double-digit gains for all of its programs. 
> Year-to-year, Glenn Beck is up 96% among total viewers 
> (2.3 million) and 148% in the demo (612,000). Special 
> Report with Bret Baier posted gains of 25% among total 
> viewers (2 million) and 33% in the demo (454,000). The 
> O'Reilly Factor is up 13% among total viewers (3.3 
> million) and 27% (801,000) in the demo, marking its 
> tenth consecutive year as the No. 1 cable news program."
> 
> http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/440766-Cable_News_Ratings_Fox_News_Has_Highest_Rated_Year_In_Network_History.php
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/ye93h5y
> 
> > I had no idea.fascinating. (And kind of a relief!)
> 
> I was surprised too. I knew it wasn't huge, but I didn't
> realize it was that low. It certainly seems to make noise
> way out of proportion to the size of its audience. It
> seems almost silly for Obama & Co. to have gone to the
> trouble to publicly denounce it a few months back.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe"  wrote:
>
> Is that really accurate Judy? 3 million?

I couldn't remember where I saw the stat, so I double-
checked elsewhere, and apparently it is accurate. This
is from the magazine/Web site Broadcasting and Cable:

"...Fox News will finish 2009 as the top-rated cable news
network, a perch it has enjoyed for eight years running. 
But 2009--the first year of the Obama administration--
also marks FNC's highest rated year in the channel's 13
-year-history.

"FNC topped the competition in all dayparts: morning (1 
million total viewers, 340,000 viewers in news' target 
demographic of 25-54-year-olds [referred to as "the
demo"--JS]); total day (1.2 million viewers, 323,000 in
the demo); primetime (2.2 million viewers, 551,000 in
the demo). Those numbers mark year-to-year demo gains of
14% in the morning, 16% in total day and 10% in primetime
(Mon-Sun), according to Nielsen.

"FNC saw double-digit gains for all of its programs. 
Year-to-year, Glenn Beck is up 96% among total viewers 
(2.3 million) and 148% in the demo (612,000). Special 
Report with Bret Baier posted gains of 25% among total 
viewers (2 million) and 33% in the demo (454,000). The 
O'Reilly Factor is up 13% among total viewers (3.3 
million) and 27% (801,000) in the demo, marking its 
tenth consecutive year as the No. 1 cable news program."

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/440766-Cable_News_Ratings_Fox_News_Has_Highest_Rated_Year_In_Network_History.php

http://tinyurl.com/ye93h5y

> I had no idea.fascinating. (And kind of a relief!)

I was surprised too. I knew it wasn't huge, but I didn't
realize it was that low. It certainly seems to make noise
way out of proportion to the size of its audience. It
seems almost silly for Obama & Co. to have gone to the
trouble to publicly denounce it a few months back.

[FairfieldLife] Revisting- Re: Did you have this experience in India ?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
>
> On Mar 14, 2010, at 7:57 AM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mar 13, 2010, at 10:28 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Ok Sal, I'm going to give it right back to you. I
> > > > remember when the John Edwards mistress, love child
> > > > story broke. You totally ridiculed me for buying
> > > > into it, because the story was broken by, OMG, "The
> > > > National Enquirer".
> > > 
> > > Sounds *very* unlikely, lurk, as I've said here, more
> > > than once, that the NI usually gets its stories right, 
> > > and has ever since the OJ Simpson case. Care to
> > > find the posts? I tried to find some but they didn't
> > > appear to exist. (And no, I haven't deleted any.)
> > > Would you like to try?

Lurk:
> > No, I really don't care to
> 
> Because you can't--they don't exist.

Ah, but they do.

> And In "true fashion," you don't have courage to own up to it. 
> Care to bring up the posts? I didn't think so.

I just did, not quite an hour before this post of Sal's.
Will she have the courage to own up to them? Will she have
the decency to apologize to Lurk for having falsely accused
him of having made them up and not having the courage to
admit it?

Perhaps she carefully avoided reading my posts. If so, it
would be a kindness for someone to clue her in.

But holding one's breath for an acknowledgment and apology
from Sal is probably not a great idea.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Judy

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain  wrote:
>
> I feel that I am rowing out in a little dingy between two huge battle ships. 
> I hope they see my white flag.

We have always had excellent conversations.  You take an appropriate amount of 
care to build rapport and I respect that. You have also had good discussions 
with Judy that I have enjoyed, so good on you for your communication skills 
here.
 
> 
> As part of full disclosure, I am not religious, don't go to or belong to a 
> church, though I have, in my simpleton ways, at times constructed cathedrals 
> in nature -- in my minds eye -- impressed and stirred by the wonder of it all.

Totally with you. 
> 
> Your post got me thinking (a sign of a good post, IMO). You and George, as 
> well as a host of others, Hutchens is my recent foray into the mess, appear 
> to take religions literally.

Not me.  I understand that there many ways to take religion.  The way I take 
religious scripture is as any good literature.  And I am a fan and read 
religious scriptures.  My issues with religious people is when they attempt to 
make it seem as if the scripture of their religion is the word of the creator 
of the universe.  If they think that, even if they don't take every word as 
literal truth, then I object.  I believe that there is more evidence for man 
being the source of scripture and when I read it I don't suppose Moses had an 
actual interaction with a burning bush unless he spent some time at Vegas's 
bunny ranch. (There are pills for that but it will come back periodically.) 



Your objection is valid and I would share it, but I don't think that is what 
they are saying. That is not my point.  Everyone interprets scripture, and 
given its often self-contradictory messages, no one can be truly literal about 
it even if they claim this.

The line I draw is the claim that any way of reading it gives a person an 
insight into the mind of some creator.  I don't see any evidence for that claim 
and consider it to be a sign of hubris to claim it.  Now I can hear a person 
inspired by something in scripture make a great case for some idea about how 
the world works.  As long as the source of confidence don't boil down to "cuz 
God says it in scripture" I will evaluate the claims like any other.  I think 
scripture has a lot of insight into human nature and much to teach.

> 
> But thats not how I typically roll -- at least with films, literature, music, 
> people, non-fiction and all. What if religious texts are some collectively 
> written compendium, in the traditions of Joyce, Proust, Henry Miller, 
> Scorsese, Bergman,  TS Elliot,  Neruda, Homer, Picasso surreal symbolic type 
> of panorama of the mind and heart, from many perspectives, from many authors. 
> 
> Sort of a compendium of altered states, longings, life lessons, allegories, 
> debates, inner (and outer) conflicts and attempts at their resolution. I may 
> not love every scene in a film, but I often walk away with the memory of at 
> least a few great scenes. Do I have to own and revere the lesser parts too?
> 
> If I find the Psalms, or descriptions of altered states in the Gita, or the 
> ponderings of Lao Zhu or Rumi, ethical issues dissected and parsed -- do I 
> need to take the battle scenes to heart -- as real o of significance. I 
> usually fast forward long battle scenes as well as car chases, in films. They 
> don't speak to me, while other parts of the film do. Why should I treat 
> religious literature differently?

I think you are a brother from another mother!  I agree and enjoyed how you 
phrased it. We may or may not draw different lines of belief but we are using a 
similar appreciation based evaluation of what scriptures offer.

One of the straw men arguments about the criticisms against religion that guys 
like Sam Harris make is that he is only talking about fundamentalist.  That he 
is ignoring really educated people who have watered down the claims of religion 
with reason and common sense which is how a lot of intelligent people actually 
deal with religious claims.  But I think this is a misunderstanding about his 
point concerning the claims of religion.  It kind of boils down to how far they 
are willing to go to give up the claims of religion.  One one end you have 
Jesus as a human teacher whose words have been imperfectly reflected in the 
Bible as one example. On the other side we have people who believe in the myth 
as literal fact that he died for our sins on the cross,that believing this 
ensures your eternal condition after death, and that we know this as a fact 
because of the irrefutable nature of the Bible.  A book which unlike other 
books is an accurate description of the mind of God and what he wants. (Hint: 
it may involve some of my favorite foods being icky.)

Religious people are on on a continuum of beliefs which is natural.  But the 
first step is a doozy when it comes to evaluating the confidence we should have 
in the claim.  So the dif

[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Judy

[authfriend]

Notice that Curtis fails to acknowledge his error in
eagerly adopting Barry's ass-backwards interpretation
of my question to Curtis as to whether "The Simpsons"
and "The Family Guy" were funny, or mean.

Nor does Curtis acknowledge what he knows to be the
case (yes, Joe, "knows," because he's been the one
directly involved in this discussion) that virtually
everything *else* Barry said about that discussion
was factually wrong. (Specific documentation on
request.)

Unsurprisingly given these failures, Curtis engages
in pretty massive misrepresentation in this current
post as well.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> Judy and I had been having a discussion about religious
> beliefs and the various ways to deal with it in society.
> Judy proposed that going after egregious specific behavior
> was the best way.  Although she does not explain how
> convincing someone their behavior is wrong is so much
> easier than convincing them that their belief is wrong.

Never said it was easier. In fact, I said the opposite,
that going after the beliefs is easier. I said this at
least twice, and Curtis read those posts, so the above is
intentionally misleading.

> Usually this is a matter for legal force.
> 
> I proposed that it would be the views of the general
> society that had to change concerning beliefs based on
> faith just as they already have in many areas of human
> knowledge that used to be dominated by faith.  In many
> areas of knowledge we now have more solid evidence. (As
> an aside Judy used the peculiar term "transcendiing
> epistemology" to describe faith which is an odd concept
> that she will have to define for herself.  But faith
> does not go beyond epistemology, they have a folder for
> it titled "Poor basis to be confident about knowledge."

Of course faith doesn't go beyond epistemology in the
broad sense of the term, "how we know things." My
point was that faith not only does not require hard
empirical (known by observation and measurement) 
evidence, but to a significant degree regards belief in
the absence of such evidence as a virtue.

> But as is often the case the discussion followed the
> relentlessly predictable gravitational arch for Judy
> where every discussion is used as evidence for me being
> a flawed person in some way.

For Curtis, the point at which he decided I was calling
him a flawed person (after we'd had quite a stretch of
reasonably cordial exchange of views) was when I said I
thought he might have some subconscious negative feelings
about religion that were stronger than those he's
expressed here. He's gotten all upset before when I've 
suggested that he might have subconscious feelings like
everyone else; apparently that's a flaw as far as he's
concerned.

(He also assumed erroneously at one point that I was
calling him a bigot. I think I was able to straighten him
out on that, though.)

The next thing that happened was that in a post to
Willytex, he maintained that if one has decided one
doesn't believe in every scripture ever written, one
has made the same choices he (Curtis) has.

I responded that I didn't believe in any scripture but
that I didn't use aggressively negative language about
those who did, so at least in that respect I hadn't made
the same choices. 

He took huge offense at that, it appears. That's where
the whole "mockery" business came into the picture for
the first time (contrary to Barry's dumb claim that
that's what it had been about to start with).

> In this case whereas I believe satire has a huge place
> in shifting public opinion (Sarah Palin/Tina Fey) Judy
> believes that my use of it is "mean."

That's isn't a "whereas," of course. I agree that satire
can be effective in shifting public opinion. But whether
I think a given bit of satire can be effective depends on
a number of factors, including whether it's genuinely
funny. (Hence my "Are they funny, or mean?" question. I
assume "Simpsons" and "Family Guy" are funny rather than
mean, but perhaps I'm wrong? I've never seen either.)

I said yesterday I was considering whether it made sense
to say that genuinely funny satire is fundamentally
motivated by compassion, whereas mean mockery is
motivated by hatred and loathing. I'm still not sure if
that's true, but I'm leaning in that direction. The
distinction is somewhere along those lines but probably
could be better stated.

> Now this is a relational term whose meaning is used in
> context because it relies on a subjective judgment call
> of a specific person.  Judy was not claiming that I was
> being mean to her specifically but in general. This is
> a convenient misuse of the term that allows the person's
> personal judgment to assume the status of a universal.

I can only assume Curtis is pissed off here because I
don't consider his mockery of religion to be genuinely
funny. And I'm not at all sure which term it is he
thinks I'm conveniently misusing, or what the relevance
is of my not claiming Curtis was be

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> > The one saving grace of Fox News is that only a tiny
> > percentage of people watch it, 3-something million at
> > most. Of course, that's more than the other cable news
> > channels, but it's still not all that significant
> > overall. News and political junkies tend to forget that
> > and talk about it as if it's a lot more influential
> > than it really is.
> 
> In our household Fox news is on periodically.  On the rare
> occasions when I watch, or have the remote, I will see what
> is on CNN, and typically I'm not too impressed.  There is
> something about Wolf Blitzer I cannot stomach.

You are not alone! Blitzer is intolerable, IMHO.

CNN's a lot better than Fox in terms of not pushing an
agenda, but it leaves a lot to be desired in terms of
reporting. And like most of the rest of the media, it's
terrified of the accusation of liberal bias, so it tends
to be awfully timid in its political reporting.

 I really don't know any of the other CNN
> personalities. On rarer occassions I may catch Rachael Maddow,
> or Keith Oberman, but  I don't find too much of interest
> there either.

Olbermann has become a caricature. Maddow's not as bad,
but she has her own problems.

   But it
> is the conservatives shows that are winning the ratings on
> both radio and TV, but I guess, as you say, put in
> perspective, it is not as significant as it might seem to be.

Talk radio is a whole 'nother story; the right-wing shows
have a *huge* audience because they dominate the market
something like 75-25 percent. Also, unlike with television,
commuters can listen in their cars, so they're a big built-
in audience.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Funny or mean? You decide.

[Joe]

I've won them all Tex, how could you not know that?

What Judy engages in is not debate IMO. It's a neurosis, a manifestation of a 
deep seated issue within her. I find engaging with her to (90% of the time) be 
a waste of time and time is something I value highly. Too highly to waste it 
playing ego ping pong with a disturbed individual.

Of course, I could be accused of doing the same by responding to you. But 
you'll notice that most mine to you are tongue-in-cheek, like the one you're 
responding to here.

Now for you, the King of the trollish drive by post, to criticize me for 
posting one liners is some mighty funny shit Tex.

I'm glad that your two "debate wins" with Judy have given purpose to your life 
Tex. Yes, "quite an accomplishment" indeed!

Congratulations.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
>> >
> Have you ever won a debate with Judy, Joe?
> 
> It's quite an accomplishment - I've won two
> debates with Judy in the past ten years: one,
> that John F. Kerry was not in Cambodia on
> Christmas Eve in 1968, and second, the four-fold
> negation of Nagarajuna did not include the 
> Sanskrit word 'Brahman'.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Judy

[tartbrain]

I feel that I am rowing out in a little dingy between two huge battle ships. I 
hope they see my white flag. 

As part of full disclosure, I am not religious, don't go to or belong to a 
church, though I have, in my simpleton ways, at times constructed cathedrals in 
nature -- in my minds eye -- impressed and stirred by the wonder of it all. 

Your post got me thinking (a sign of a good post, IMO). You and George, as well 
as a host of others, Hutchens is my recent foray into the mess, appear to take 
religions literally. And a key premise is that the whole thing, all of the 
parts of a large collection of various writers and interpreters must be taken 
as a whole. None of this new age, fairfiledlife, take what is useful and drop 
the rest stuff. "Man it up, take ownership for every literal word and phrase" 
is what I am hearing.

But thats not how I typically roll -- at least with films, literature, music, 
people, non-fiction and all. What if religious texts are some collectively 
written compendium, in the traditions of Joyce, Proust, Henry Miller, Scorsese, 
Bergman,  TS Elliot,  Neruda, Homer, Picasso surreal symbolic type of panorama 
of the mind and heart, from many perspectives, from many authors. 

Sort of a compendium of altered states, longings, life lessons, allegories, 
debates, inner (and outer) conflicts and attempts at their resolution. I may 
not love every scene in a film, but I often walk away with the memory of at 
least a few great scenes. Do I have to own and revere the lesser parts too?

If I find the Psalms, or descriptions of altered states in the Gita, or the 
ponderings of Lao Zhu or Rumi, ethical issues dissected and parsed -- do I need 
to take the battle scenes to heart -- as real o of significance. I usually fast 
forward long battle scenes as well as car chases, in films. They don't speak to 
me, while other parts of the film do. Why should I treat religious literature 
differently?



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> Judy and I had been having a discussion about religious beliefs and the 
> various ways to deal with it in society. Judy proposed that going after 
> egregious specific behavior was the best way.  Although she does not explain 
> how convincing someone their behavior is wrong is so much easier than 
> convincing them that their belief is wrong.  Usually this is a matter for 
> legal force.
> 
> I proposed that it would be the views of the general society that had to 
> change concerning beliefs based on faith just as they already have in many 
> areas of human knowledge that used to be dominated by faith.  In many areas 
> of knowledge we now have more solid evidence. (As an aside Judy used the 
> peculiar term "transcendiing epistemology" to describe faith which is an odd 
> concept that she will have to define for herself.  But faith does not go 
> beyond epistemology, they have a folder for it titled "Poor basis to be 
> confident about knowledge."
> 
> But as is often the case the discussion followed the relentlessly predictable 
> gravitational arch for Judy where every discussion is used as evidence for me 
> being a flawed person in some way.  In this case whereas I believe satire has 
> a huge place in shifting public opinion (Sarah Palin/Tina Fey) Judy believes 
> that my use of it is "mean."  Now this is a relational term whose meaning is 
> used in context because it relies on a subjective judgment call of a specific 
> person.  Judy was not claiming that I was being mean to her specifically but 
> in general. This is a convenient misuse of the term that allows the person's 
> personal judgment to assume the status of a universal. Now in the past I have 
> been shamed by Judy for pretending to be nice and not being real.  So she has 
> set up a convenient double bind that allows her to make her case that I am a 
> bad person no matter how I interact with her.  Sophist bullshit 101. I know 
> what I am dealing with and enter into any discussion knowing where it will 
> end up so I am not blaming her for being her. (think frog and scorpion story)
> 
> Then she shifted the argument to claim that the problem with my satire was 
> that not only was it "mean" but it was not funny.  Her example for nice 
> religious mockery was George Carlin.  Now being told that I am not as funny 
> as George Carlin is like saying I don't play guitar as well as Jimi Hendrix.  
> I take the compliment and move on. 
> 
> But in this case it is very revealing about Judy's intentions in our 
> discussions here.  Her specific objections were around me referring to 
> religion as having tribal superstitions. (Somewhat odd since some of them 
> literally deal with tribes of people and their beliefs.) She also felt that 
> my statement that religions make ridiculously inflated claims was out of line 
> and objected to my advising people to point their finger at religious claims 
> and say "bullshit!"  She also claimed I was being demeaning to r

[FairfieldLife] So did you all "spring forward"?

[Bhairitu]

Or at least those in the US except Shemp (and anyone living in Hawaii)?  
The next two weeks there were be more auto accidents than usual.

[FairfieldLife] Political question of the year

[do.rflex]

Howell Raines
 :

One question has tugged at my professional conscience throughout the
year-long congressional debate over health-care reform, and it has
nothing to do with the public option, portability or medical
malpractice.


It is this:


Why haven't America's old-school news organizations blown the whistle on
Roger Ailes, chief of Fox News, for using the network to conduct a
propaganda campaign against the Obama administration -- a campaign
without precedent in our modern political history?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/11/AR201003\
1102523.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of the fourth praaNaayaama?

[BillyG]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
> 
> As we all hopefully know, according to YS there
> are several stages of samaadhi, at least:
> 
> - savitarka
> - nirvitarka
> - savicaara
> - nirvicaara
> - saananda
> - saasmitaa
> - nirbiija
> - dharma-megha
> 
> According to Taimni, those are all, save nirbiija and 
> dharmamegha, saMprajñaata.
> Between most of them, up to saasmitaa, is an asaMprajñaata
> stage of samaadhi, or stuff.
> 
> So, why couldn't there be stages of caturthaH praaNaayaamaH?
> According to Bhojadeva, caturthaH is "stambha-ruupo gativicchedaH"
> (scil. praaNasya?); Vyaasa explains it to be "gatyaabhaavaH" (praaNasya?).
> 
> Patañjali sez that the "ordinary" praaNaayaama is
> "desha-kaala-saMjñaabhiH paridRSTo diirgha-suukSmaH" and
> the Fourth is "baahyaabhyantara-viSayaakSepii".

With all due respect, the stages you mentioned ARE indications of the 
withdrawal of the prana. Once the prana (psycho-energetic power) is withdrawn 
to the Sahasrar chakra, congratulations, you've transcended fully for the first 
time.  Unless you go to long rounding courses it could take a million years for 
this to happen according to MMY (Fuiggi, Italy).

People often confuse prana with breath, the breath however is merely a 
biproduct of the rapidly moving prana (life, energy) within and around the 
subtle body. 

That is why when one practices pranayama (breathing exercises) one can 
'control' the prana by controlling it's most external manifestation. 
Additionally, once you can control the prana and move it up through or into the 
7th door, (primarily through concentration or passive control of the mind as in 
TM), you have fully withdrawn the prana and have achieved Nirvikalpa Samadhi, 
the highest Samadhi or ecstasy. 

I hope this answers your question..

[FairfieldLife] Response to Judy

[curtisdeltablues]

Judy and I had been having a discussion about religious beliefs and the various 
ways to deal with it in society. Judy proposed that going after egregious 
specific behavior was the best way.  Although she does not explain how 
convincing someone their behavior is wrong is so much easier than convincing 
them that their belief is wrong.  Usually this is a matter for legal force.

I proposed that it would be the views of the general society that had to change 
concerning beliefs based on faith just as they already have in many areas of 
human knowledge that used to be dominated by faith.  In many areas of knowledge 
we now have more solid evidence. (As an aside Judy used the peculiar term 
"transcendiing epistemology" to describe faith which is an odd concept that she 
will have to define for herself.  But faith does not go beyond epistemology, 
they have a folder for it titled "Poor basis to be confident about knowledge."

But as is often the case the discussion followed the relentlessly predictable 
gravitational arch for Judy where every discussion is used as evidence for me 
being a flawed person in some way.  In this case whereas I believe satire has a 
huge place in shifting public opinion (Sarah Palin/Tina Fey) Judy believes that 
my use of it is "mean."  Now this is a relational term whose meaning is used in 
context because it relies on a subjective judgment call of a specific person.  
Judy was not claiming that I was being mean to her specifically but in general. 
This is a convenient misuse of the term that allows the person's personal 
judgment to assume the status of a universal. Now in the past I have been 
shamed by Judy for pretending to be nice and not being real.  So she has set up 
a convenient double bind that allows her to make her case that I am a bad 
person no matter how I interact with her.  Sophist bullshit 101. I know what I 
am dealing with and enter into any discussion knowing where it will end up so I 
am not blaming her for being her. (think frog and scorpion story)

Then she shifted the argument to claim that the problem with my satire was that 
not only was it "mean" but it was not funny.  Her example for nice religious 
mockery was George Carlin.  Now being told that I am not as funny as George 
Carlin is like saying I don't play guitar as well as Jimi Hendrix.  I take the 
compliment and move on. 

But in this case it is very revealing about Judy's intentions in our 
discussions here.  Her specific objections were around me referring to religion 
as having tribal superstitions. (Somewhat odd since some of them literally deal 
with tribes of people and their beliefs.) She also felt that my statement that 
religions make ridiculously inflated claims was out of line and objected to my 
advising people to point their finger at religious claims and say "bullshit!"  
She also claimed I was being demeaning to religious people for claiming that 
they were speaking with an invisible, imaginary friend."  These were way out of 
line according to Judy and not funny and un-mean like her chosen example George 
Carlin. 


OK Judy.  Here is your man.  I'll just go with a "what he said" for the 
following:


George Carlin:

# When it comes to BULLSHIT...BIG-TIME, MAJOR LEAGUE BULLSHIT... you have to 
stand IN AWE, IN AWE of the all time champion of false promises and exaggerated 
claims, religion. [George Carlin, from "You Are All Diseased".]


# Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it, 
religion has actually convinced people that there's an INVISIBLE MAN...LIVING 
IN THE SKY...who watches every thing you do, every minute of every day. And the 
invisible man has a list of ten special things that he does not want you to do. 
And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place full of fire and 
smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send to live and suffer 
and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever 'til the end of 
time...but he loves you. [George Carlin, from "You Are All Diseased"]

I would never want to be a member of a group whose symbol was a guy nailed to 
two pieces of wood. [George Carlin, from the album "A Place For My Stuff"]

#


# Here's another question I've been pondering- What is all this shit about 
Angels? Have you herd this? 3 out of 4 people belive in Angels. Are you FUCKING 
STUPID? Has everybody lost their mind? You know what I think it is? I think 
it's a massive, collective, psychotic chemical flashback for all the drugs 
smoked, swallowed, shot, and obsorbed rectally by all Americans from 1960 to 
1990. 30 years of street drugs will get you some fucking Angels my friend! 
[George Carlin, from "You Are All Diseased".]

# What about Goblins, huh? Doesn't anybody belive in Goblins? You never hear 
about this.. Except on Halloween and then it's all negative shit. And what 
about Zombies? You never hear from Zombies! That's the trouble with Zombies, 
they're unreliable! I say if you're going to go 

[FairfieldLife] Eckhart Tolle and Ramesh Balsekar's meet, 2002

[Rick Archer]

Consciousness and the Now

by Gautam Sachdeva 
   OH, East is East, and West is 
West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgement Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, tho’ they come from the ends of the 
earth!
--Rudyard Kipling
-Rudyard Kipling 

Over the years, I have invariably been asked for details of the encounter 
between the two spiritual Masters, Ramesh Balsekar and Eckhart Tolle. It’s 
human nature; our curiosity is aroused; we want to know what exactly happens 
when two Masters meet. Is it any different from when two ordinary people meet? 
Does something happen at an energetic level? What was the feeling like in the 
room? These are some of the questions that have come my way. It was only 
recently (eight years later!), that it occurred to me to pen my thoughts 
regarding that meeting which took place in 2002.

But first, some background to place the meeting in context.

In 2000, the publishing company Yogi Impressions was born. I actually had no 
intention to enter the publishing business. It was just that we had a hard time 
finding an appropriate publisher for my mother’s book on her visual experience 
of the awakening of the Kundalini. We finally decided to self-publish her book; 
my background in advertising gave me the confidence as I was familiar with the 
process of designing and printing. After we brought out her book, we had no 
plans to publish any more books.

My journey with Eckhart and Ramesh started, almost simultaneously, around this 
time. We soon found ourselves publishing Eckhart’s and Ramesh’s books. The next 
two titles we brought out were The Power of Now (Indian edition), and Ramesh’s 
bookThe Ultimate Understanding.

My sister Nikki had read The Power of Now around the time it had just released 
in the West. The book had a tremendous impact on her and she met Eckhart, 
almost immediately, when she was in Vancouver on a business trip. She was keen 
to bring Eckhart’s message to India and we ended up publishing the Indian 
edition of the same, through a series of synchronistic events. Eckhart had 
mentioned to Nikki early on that “The Power of Now will be the beginning of an 
adventure for Gautam.” Thanks to him, and the success of his books, we were 
soon able to publish books of some other spiritual masters as well. On a 
personal level, during my life’s spiritual journey, I have had the good fortune 
of meeting some wonderful beings, over the years, whom I would not have 
normally met had it not been for spiritual publishing. Eckhart was right - it 
was the start of an adventure that still continues. With Ramesh, his editor at 
the time informed me he was looking for a publisher to bring out his new book. 
I said that, although I did not have much experience as such in publishing, I 
would be more than happy to help though they probably would be better off with 
an experienced publisher. Nevertheless, a meeting was arranged with Ramesh. The 
first question he asked me was if I had read any of his earlier books. I was in 
a spot! A bit embarrassed, I hesitatingly replied, “None!” I thought that was 
the end of that - I would politely be shown the door. To my surprise, Ramesh 
burst out laughing and said, “Then you’re perfect for the job!” This 
immediately endeared me to him and I heaved a sigh of relief. 

Thus began my journey in publishing. I soon found myself also donning the hat 
of spiritual publisher.

In those early years, I was fortunate to develop an intimate relationship with 
Ramesh as well as Eckhart. I met Eckhart on numerous occasions during his 
retreats across the world and also spent time, a few days before and after the 
retreats, with him. With Ramesh, I had no idea I would end up sitting at his 
feet for almost ten years and that he would become a father-figure to me and 
the biggest influence thus far in my life. For his teaching was a validation of 
my life experience.

It was with this background that, when Eckhart travelled to India in 2002 and 
visited Mumbai, I thought it would be wonderful if I could get the two of them 
together. After all, I found my life situation looking like the Caduceus of 
Mercury, the staff with two snakes wrapped around it in the form of a double 
helix. For destiny had intricately woven these two extraordinary beings and 
their teaching around me. I was quite excited and asked Ramesh if he would like 
to meet Eckhart, and he readily offered an evening invitation to tea.

Now, Ramesh used to enjoy having a dig at various teachers or, rather, their 
teaching. Especially those who had written books! It was simply part of his 
programming. And at the age of about eighty-five then, he had the conviction of 
his life’s experience behind him, and the authority of a wizened master of 
Advaita taking up after his guru Nisargadatta Maharaj. Ramesh’s position 

[FairfieldLife] The New Rove-Cheney Assault on Reality

[do.rflex]

The New Rove-Cheney Assault on Reality By FRANK RICH


THE opening salvo, fired on Fox News during Thanksgiving week,
aroused little notice: Dana Perino, the former White House press
secretary, declared
  that
"we did not have a terrorist attack on  our country during President
Bush's term." Rudy Giuliani upped the ante
  on ABC's "Good Morning America" in January.
"We had no domestic attacks under Bush," he said. "We've
had one under Obama." (He apparently meant
  the Fort Hood
shootings.)

  [The New York Times]    March 14, 2010
[650]   Barry Blitt




Now the revisionist floodgates have opened with the simultaneous arrival
of Karl Rove's memoir and Keep America Safe, a new right-wing noise
machine   invented
by Dick Cheney's daughter Liz and the inevitable William Kristol.


This gang's rewriting of history knows few bounds. To hear them tell
it, 9/11 was so completely Bill Clinton's fault that it
retroactively happened while he was still in office. The Bush White
House is equally blameless for the post-9/11 resurgence of the Taliban,
Al Qaeda and Iran. Instead it's President Obama who is endangering
America by coddling terrorists and stopping torture.


Could any of this non-reality-based shtick stick? So far the answer is
No. Rove's book and Keep America Safe could be the best political
news for the White House in some time. This new eruption of
misinformation and rancor vividly reminds Americans why they
couldn't wait for Bush and Cheney to leave Washington.

But the old regime's attack squads are relentless and shameless. The
Obama administration, which put the brakes on any new investigations
into Bush-Cheney national security malfeasance upon taking office, will
sooner or later have to strike back. Once the Bush-Cheney failures in
Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran again come home to roost, as they undoubtedly
and explosively will, someone will have to remind our amnesia-prone
nation who really enabled America's enemies in the run-up to 9/11
and in its aftermath.

There's a good reason why Rove's memoir is titled "Courage
and Consequence," not "Truth or Consequences." Its spin is
so uninhibited that even "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a
job!" is repackaged with an alibi
 .


The book's apolitical asides are as untrustworthy as its major
events. For all Rove's self-proclaimed expertise as a student of
history, he writes that eight American presidents assumed office "as
a result of the assassination or resignation of their predecessor."
(He's off by only three
 .)


After a peculiar early narrative detour to combat reports of his late
adoptive father's homosexuality, Rove burnishes his family values
cred with repeated references to his own happy heterosexual domesticity.
This, too, is a smoke screen: Readers learned months before the book was
published that his marriage ended in divorce
 .

Rove's overall thesis on the misbegotten birth of the Iraq war
  is a stretch even by his
standards. "Would the Iraq war have occurred without W.M.D.?" he
writes. "I doubt it." He claims that Bush would have looked for
other ways "to constrain" Saddam Hussein had the intelligence
not revealed Iraq's "unique threat" to America's
security.


Even if you buy Rove's predictable (and easily refuted) claims that
the White House neither hyped, manipulated nor cherry-picked the
intelligence, his portrait of Bush as an apostle of containment is
absurd. And morally offensive in light of the carnage that followed.


As Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff,
said on MSNBC
 , it's "not a very comforting thing" to tell the
families of the American fallen "that if the intelligence community
in the United States, on which we spend about $60 billion a year,
hadn't made this colossal failure, we probably wouldn't have
gone to war."

Rove and his book are yesterday. Keep America Safe is on the march. Liz
Cheney's crackpot hit squad achieved instant notoriety with its
viral video demanding the names of Obama Justice Department officials
  who had served as pro bono
defense lawyers for Guantánamo Bay detainees. The video br

Re: [FairfieldLife] Revisting- Re: Did you have this experience in India ?

[Sal Sunshine]

On Mar 14, 2010, at 7:57 AM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 13, 2010, at 10:28 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:
> > 
> > > Ok Sal, I'm going to give it right back to you. I remember when the John 
> > > Edwards mistress, love child story broke. You totally ridiculed me for 
> > > buying into it, because the story was broken by, OMG, "The National 
> > > Enquirer".
> > 
> > Sounds *very* unlikely, lurk, as I've said here, more
> > than once, that the NI usually gets its stories right, 
> > and has ever since the OJ Simpson case. Care to
> > find the posts? I tried to find some but they didn't
> > appear to exist. (And no, I haven't deleted any.)
> > Would you like to try?  No, I really don't care to

Because you can't--they don't exist. 
And In "true fashion," you don't have courage to own up to it. 
Care to bring up the posts? I didn't think so.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is TM a religion (?)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, guyfawkes91  wrote:

> What makes TM a religion isn't the funny hats, dietary 
> restrictions or ceremonies, it's the fact that evidence
> against perceived wisdom is ignored or reinterpreted to
> support the received ideas.

Gee, sounds a lot like the Republicans.

And I guess we should start referring to "the Reverend
Glenn Beck" and "Bishop Karl Rove" and "Cardinal Newt
Gingrich," huh?

[FairfieldLife] Revisting- Re: Did you have this experience in India ?

[WillyTex]

> > I am sure catcalls will follow this post...
> >
Judy:
> Not to mention that rich people can be 
> psychologically miserable (sometimes as a 
> result of their wealth, other times 
> independently of it). 
>
In an ideal karmic system, good things should 
happen to good people, and bad things should 
happen to bad people, But in real life, in an 
imperfect world, we know this does not always 
occur.

> You don't have to be materially deprived to 
> undergo great suffering. For that matter, 
you don't have to be poor to undergo great
> *physical* suffering.
>
The goal of the enlightenment tradition is the 
perfection (siddhi) of human existence, so that 
system would include moral reciprocity as well 
as material causation. 

Karmic actions are moral actions, as well as 
purely physical acts and events. A 'thought' 
is a moral event, as well as being a physical 
property of consciousness which produces a
reaction.

We act, based on the rule of law, in order to
avoid corporeal punishment, but we also act
because it is a categorical imperative to 'do
unto other as we would have them do unto us'.

The Buddha defined karma by reference to moral 
choices and the acts consequent upon them. He 
stated, "It is choice (cetana), 0 monks, that 
I call karma; having chosen one acts through 
body, speech, or mind" (A.iii.415). 

Read more:

Subject: Karma
From: Willytex
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: May 11, 2002
http://tinyurl.com/ybxz4op

[FairfieldLife] Revisting- Re: Did you have this experience in India ?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 13, 2010, at 10:28 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:
> > 
> > > Ok Sal, I'm going to give it right back to you.   I
> > > remember when the John Edwards mistress, love child
> > > story broke. You totally ridiculed me for buying into
> > > it, because the story was broken by, OMG, "The National
> > > Enquirer".
> > 
> > Sounds *very* unlikely, lurk, as I've said here, more
> > than once, that the NI usually gets its stories right, 
> > and has ever since the OJ Simpson case.

I was able to find only one post from Sal to this effect,
made well after the Edwards discussion. In it, she agreed
with Feste that the Enquirer was "very reliable." The
story in question was about a purported affair of Sarah
Palin. Sal was disappointed to hear that the Enquirer had
reported that the affair had taken place 10 years
previously, which meant the man (Palin's husband's
business partner) was unlikely to have been Trig's father.


> "Really scraping the bottom of the barrel, aren't we, 
> lurk?  If this is how you and others support the Repugs, 
> heaven help them.  You and your party deserve each other."
> -

And BTW, the Enquirer is up for a Pulitzer for the Edwards
story.

[FairfieldLife] Revisting- Re: Did you have this experience in India ?

[WillyTex]

tartbrain:
> Big Question, "Why are things the way they are?"
>
The 'Big Question' in this debate is the South Asian
docrine of 'karma', which both Barry and Curtis 
failed to define. 

The karma theory states that when an action occurs, 
there is a corresponding re-action. This definition 
of karma was stated very clearly in the Buddha's 
very first sermon.

The concept of karma may originate in the shramana 
tradition of South Asia:

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

Things are the way they are because of the law of 
cause and effect. The Buddha's karma theory states 
that *causation* is the natural law, just like
gravity is a law of physics. It's a totally
mechanical theory - there's no 'soul-monad' in it.

> If past action results in particular current 
> conditions...
> 
All actions, without exception are subject to the 
law of karma. All actions are inter-dependent on
other actions, which the Buddha stated as 'when
this occurs, that will occur' - the law of
dependent origination.

But it is doubtful that the historical Buddha 
taught a theory of reincarnation. For the 
reincarnation to operate, there must be a 
reincarnating soul-monad, which the Buddha denied. 
So, without a reincarnating soul, there would be 
nothing to reincarnate!

> However, does it matter? 
> 
The Buddha's karma theory doesn't discuss the 
first cause of creation. But the karma theory 
does assume that action-reaction takes place on 
the mental level as well as on the physical level. 

The debatable point is, 'is there a moral 
reciprocity, or not'?

And, like Buddha, Immanuel Kant wrote that there 
is a 'categorical imperative' that makes acts 
right or wrong. But Kant did not deny the mechanics 
of action.

Kant also postulated that there is an 'apriori' 
knowledge, (gnosis) that is, a sense that is 
transcendental to, or beyond the world of physical 
matter - a metaphysics of morals. 

'Caste' doesn't refer to one's race, but to the 
birth circumstances of a person, such as gender 
and profession (jati and division of labor). The 
Hindu caste system doesn't pertain to skin color. 

In India caste means 'class', and there are 
different classes in almost every society. 

The question is, are there intrinsic, different
classes in society or not? And if so, on what
basis is a person classed? Curtis and Barry seem
to think that that Hindus are classified as
'brown' or 'little', but not all Hindus share
these characteristics.

> I am sure catcalls will follow this post -- 
> but there is a value judgement...
>
The question is, does a mental thought cause
another corresponding re-action now, or in the
future? In other words, is there such a thing
as moral reciprocity? That's a metaphysical
question, one that is debated in almost every
society.

Curtis:
> I am proposing that karmic thoery is not
> just the basis for cruelty in the vast
> majority of its believer's lives...
>

[FairfieldLife] Revisting- Re: Did you have this experience in India ?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
>
> On Mar 13, 2010, at 10:28 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:
> 
> > Ok Sal, I'm going to give it right back to you.   I
> > remember when the John Edwards mistress, love child
> > story broke. You totally ridiculed me for buying into
> > it, because the story was broken by, OMG, "The National
> > Enquirer".
> 
> Sounds *very* unlikely, lurk, as I've said here, more
> than once, that the NI usually gets its stories right, 
> and has ever since the OJ Simpson case.  Care to
> find the posts?  I tried to find some but they didn't
> appear to exist. (And no, I haven't deleted any.)
> Would you like to try?

Funny, I didn't have any trouble finding them:

184848
184871
184878
184912

Here's 184878:

-
"Thanks, boo, that's what I was thinking. Obviously the 
Enq knows they can't be sued or else they wouldn't print 
trash as if it were 'fact.'

"I was kind of wondering why I hadn't seen the 
'revelations' before lurk posted them, then I saw where 
they came from.

"Really scraping the bottom of the barrel, aren't we, 
lurk?  If this is how you and others support the Repugs, 
heaven help them.  You and your party deserve each other."
-

She was wrong on two other counts in this post as well:
the Enquirer has been successfully sued a number of times
for publishing false information; and the story had
already hit the MSM at this point.

Sal wasn't the only one; boo_lives also embarrassed
himself pretty thoroughly.

The thread title was "Obama's Many Accomplishments,"
if anyone wants to see the whole discussion.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Stages of the fourth praaNaayaama?

[Vaj]

On Mar 14, 2010, at 10:49 AM, Vaj wrote:

> On Mar 14, 2010, at 6:10 AM, cardemaister wrote:
> 
>> 
>> As we all hopefully know, according to YS there
>> are several stages of samaadhi, at least:
>> 
>> - savitarka
>> - nirvitarka
>> - savicaara
>> - nirvicaara
>> - saananda
>> - saasmitaa
>> - nirbiija
>> - dharma-megha
>> 
>> According to Taimni, those are all, save nirbiija and 
>> dharmamegha, saMprajñaata.
>> Between most of them, up to saasmitaa, is an asaMprajñaata
>> stage of samaadhi, or stuff.
>> 
>> So, why couldn't there be stages of caturthaH praaNaayaamaH?
> 
> 
> The reason it's called the "fourth" is because there are three stages before 
> it!


BTW, concealing your email address means I can't contact you off list.

Drop me a line.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Stages of the fourth praaNaayaama?

[Vaj]

On Mar 14, 2010, at 6:10 AM, cardemaister wrote:

> 
> As we all hopefully know, according to YS there
> are several stages of samaadhi, at least:
> 
> - savitarka
> - nirvitarka
> - savicaara
> - nirvicaara
> - saananda
> - saasmitaa
> - nirbiija
> - dharma-megha
> 
> According to Taimni, those are all, save nirbiija and 
> dharmamegha, saMprajñaata.
> Between most of them, up to saasmitaa, is an asaMprajñaata
> stage of samaadhi, or stuff.
> 
> So, why couldn't there be stages of caturthaH praaNaayaamaH?


The reason it's called the "fourth" is because there are three stages before it!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Funny or mean? You decide.

[WillyTex]

Joe:
> I'm scared shitless of Judy... 
>
Yes, I always thought so, because of the ego
factor - that's my theory of why Barry is 
posting so many messages to Judy these days.

But, you're going to have to post more than
a single line of text after the RE:, if you're
going to join the debate, Joe. 

It's like Barry is trying to get in as many 
[debating] points as he can now, because he'll 
be offline for at least a whole day. It's a 
pattern I've noticed with Barry, sort of like
a nervous 'tick' just before he drives out of
town. Barry has  been debating with Judy for 
over fifteen years.

At this point in the debate, it's pretty 
obvious who is scoring the most points and 
who is posting the most useful information.

To go from Sitges, Spain to Houston, Texas and 
miss out on SouthxSouthwest in Austin, is not 
a 'road trip', it's punishment. So, I'd be a 
little nervous and panicked myself in the next 
few days.

Who said karma didn't work, Joe? 

SXSW is one of the largest music festivals in 
the United States!

http://2005.sxsw.com/

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

> Her debating prowess has me shaking in my 
> boots and losing sleep.
>
Have you ever won a debate with Judy, Joe?

It's quite an accomplishment - I've won two
debates with Judy in the past ten years: one,
that John F. Kerry was not in Cambodia on
Christmas Eve in 1968, and second, the four-fold
negation of Nagarajuna did not include the 
Sanskrit word 'Brahman'. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: India 'issues' zero rupee banknotes

[tartbrain]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "It's just a ride" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 9:30 PM, ShempMcGurk wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I find it amusing that the man who royally fucked up India's economy 
> > > > for 50
> > > > years -- Mahatma Gandhi -- graces the zero rupee note.
> > > >
> > > > That's what his economic policies are worth.
> > > >
> > > > I saw the movie "Gandhi" about a year or two after visiting that 
> > > > hell-hole
> > > > known as India for a TM course.  I was the only one in the theatre 
> > > > cheering
> > > > for the British.
> > 
> > You cheer for one of the most wicked, blood-sucking, evil, violent, 
> > inhumane, blood-chillingly cruel, imperialistic empires of all times? 
> > 
> 
> 
> Yes, proudly.
> 
> Britain and its common law brought freedom to corners of the world that had 
> never seen it.
> 
> Britain was largely responsible for ending the practise of slavery throughout 
> the world in which it was practised by many cultures.
> 
> You've been listening to Lyndon Larouche a wee bit too much.
> 

Hardly know the name, have no ideas how to listen to him even if I had any 
inclination to do so.
 
I am not clear how its ok to rape, pillage and enslave a society and decimate 
its culture long as you leave a small tip on the dresser? The Nazi's and 
Soviets brought common law and a superior culture (well it wasn't put to a vote 
-- but they ensured us it was superior) to its conquested countries.  

Sorry I don't have the stomach for empires, imperialism and exploitation of 
entire countries and societies. But I am happy such practices and mindsets 
enrich your life.


  





> 
> 
> > 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > I cheer for the British everytime I have to watch the DVD of Ghandi.  At
> > > least the British were civilized and white.   Hold on.  Those two are
> > > synonymous.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > "As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given  the Nobel Peace
> > > Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America gave him 
> > > the
> > > White House based on:
> > > the same credentials."
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Revisting- Re: Did you have this experience in India ?

[lurkernomore20002000]

Good Morning!


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine 
wrote:
>
> On Mar 13, 2010, at 10:28 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:
>
> > Ok Sal, I'm going to give it right back to you. I remember when the
John Edwards mistress, love child story broke. You totally ridiculed me
for buying into it, because the story was broken by, OMG, "The National
Enquirer".
>
> Sounds *very* unlikely, lurk, as I've said here, more
> than once, that the NI usually gets its stories right,
> and has ever since the OJ Simpson case. Care to
> find the posts? I tried to find some but they didn't
> appear to exist. (And no, I haven't deleted any.)
> Would you like to try?  No, I really don't care to
>
> And even if I had been wrong about JE,
> what on earth does that have to do with the
> idea of reincarnation, or any other? Of course
> I could be wrong. My point is--who gives a damn?
> Well, obviously you do, and quite a bit. The question
> is--what's the point? We'll all find out soon enough anyway,
> and whatever you or I believe or don't believe
> isn't going to make an iota of difference as to
> what actually happens--yes, of course. That's what kind of neat about
it whatever is going to happen
> is going to happen anyway.
>
> And what is this obsession with death anyway? maybe I do think about
it a little too much
> Has it ever occurred to you it might be a bit morbid?
> Sometimes when I check in here and see some of your
> posts (as well as those of others) I think I've somehow
> blundered into a meeting of the Cult of Osiris
> during the Late Middle Dynasty or something.
>
>
> > As a courtesy to you, because you seemed to be so undone by it, I
conceded that perhaps the mistress part was true, but not the love
child.
>
> Oh, yeah, I was *undone* by it, alright...
>
> > Of course I was 90% sure that the love child was true too, but I
thought I would let it play out. And of course it all turned out to be
true, and in true fashion, you never had the courage to own up to it.
Care to bring up the posts? I didn't think so.
>
> Own up to what? I just tried to find the posts
> but couldn't. Why don't you, since it seems
> to mean so much to you. i'll be happy to admit
> I was wrong. And could be "wrong" about
> reincarnation--or anything else.
>
> > At the risk of name calling, I would have to say you have the most
unabashed liberal agenda here,
>
> Why, thank you. :)
>
> > and you take great exception when facts get in the way.
>
> Oh, yeah, the "facts" supporting what happens
> after death are so clear-cut...
>
> > I'm not sure what has caused you to be this way, but at the risk of
becoming the butt of some of your ridicule,
>
> LOL--look who's talking. Who was it that mocked  I do have a bad habit
a long these lines.
> somebody as they were dying? (And I agreed with
> your POV on that one, BTW...nevertheless, it could
> be called ridicule, don't you think? And quite hurtful
> too) As well as other times. Kind of crazy for someone withe a sense
of humor like that to be admonishing someone else for
> their humor, don't you think?
>
> > I have often thought to myself that in a previous life you were
Ethel Rosenberg or some similiar personality.
>
> Yeah, and maybe you were Julius.
> Now *there's* a scary thought.
> Anyway, she was a great lady and
> I'd be proud to be her.
>
> > You can pooh pooh reincarnation, but it is pretty evident that you
haven't looked at any of the evidence.
>
> I haven't seen any "evidence," and neither have you,
> as it doesn't exist--any more than "evidence" for
> Jesus' reincarnation does. yes, you are right
>
> > And further, I think you get called on this same flaw by Judy on a
regular basis i.e making statements without looking a facts, getting
called out, and then not responding. On the other hand, it is kind of a
time honored practice here.
> >
> > Why don't you examine why you appear to be so threatened by the
concept.
>
> lurk, you're losing it, you really are. There are no "facts"
> involved, here, only wishful thinking and "sureties" that
> can never be proven. right again
>
> > But often it is easier just to hold on to just what we feel
comfortable with.
>
> I guess so--isn't it? And easier to lash out at someone else
> as well when those ideas aren't accepted
> hook, line and stinker. yes, right again

Thanks for your reply
>
> Sal
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: "Do the enlightened benefit the world?" - A Call For Opinions

[Buck]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yifuxero"  wrote:
>
> Pure Consciousness is only an indirect cause, not "In-Itself". What changes 
> the world is Shakti.
>



Yep, & you know it when you experience it.  Shaktic experience in contrast to 
non-spiritual experience.  It's that simple.

 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > TurquoiseB:
> > > > "Do you personally believe that someone who is
> > > > enlightened intrinsically has any more positive
> > > > effect on the world around them than someone
> > > > who is not enlightened?"...
> > > >
> > > It is impossible to answer this question because
> > > it has not been established what the term 
> > > 'enlightenment' means. So, without an appeal to 
> > > authority, (verbal testimony) there's no way 
> > > anyone would know what it is Turq is asking.
> > >
> > 
> > Okay, by experience let's take this one as fact of experience.  It's a good 
> > one by experience that way.  It's poetic, generalized but particular from 
> > experience.  I'd agree with it.  Not Turq's evidently.  The real deal:
> > 
> > "...Like a lotus turned downwards is the heart,
> > a span below the neck and a span above the navel.
> > Know that heart to be the abode of God.
> > Surrounded by nerves, it hangs down like a lotus bud.
> > At its end is a subtle nerve,
> > in which is established the Being, who is everything.
> > A great fire is at its center, which has
> > flames all around, spreading in all directions.
> > It is the first partaker, the ageless knower,
> > who digests and circulates food.
> > Above and below are its spreading flames.
> > It keeps its body hot from head to feet.
> > At its core lies a flame, tapering finely upwards,
> > like the awn of corn, yellow, bright and subtle,
> > flashing like a lightening in the heart of a dark cloud.
> > At the center of this flame is installed the Supreme Being.
> > He is Brahman. He is Siva. He is Indra.
> > He is the indestructible Supreme Being, the lord Himself." 
> > - excerpts from the Taittariya Aranyaka III.13
> > 
> > -Buck
> > 
> >  
> > > Apparently Turq thinks the term means a 'force',
> > > external to or beyond human physiology, that
> > > enters into and causes physical change. 
> > > 
> > > The term is an undefined term, not a scientific 
> > > or measurable term at all. The term implies that 
> > > Turq has a religious belief in a dualistic 
> > > 'soul-monad' type of metaphysical theory.
> > > 
> > > The real question is, 'do mental thoughts entail 
> > > a moral reciprocity - that is, 'karma', a type
> > > of 'spiritual' retribution on a idealistic level.
> > > 
> > > The problem with this is that if karma is real,
> > > then 'good' acts should be rewarded with good;
> > > 'bad' acts should be rewarded with bad. But, we
> > > know that physics doesn't work like that: bad
> > > things happen to good people all the time, and
> > > sometimes good things happen to bad people.
> > > 
> > > So, we are left to go figure.
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Disgust for one's own body?

[cardemaister]

Shauca is one of the five niyama's. According to Patañjali

shaucaat svaan.ga-jugupsaa parair asaMsargaH.

Taimni's translation:

>From physical purity (arises) disgust for one's own body
and disinclination to come in physical contact with others.

Have you ever noticed this disgust for your own body,
full of shit and urine, etc?

BTW, that'a an nice example of the importance of indicating
the long vowels in Sanskrit, in this case the long a-sound
(aa, a: , a_ , A , etc.), namely:

svaan.ga with a long a-sound in the middle is sandhi
for sva + an.ga:

svAGga  n. a limb of oñone's own body , oñone's own bñbody , limb or body in 
the strict (not metaphorical) sense Ka1v. Yogas. &c. ;

whereas

svan.ga with a short a is sandhi for su + an.ga

svaGga  mfn. having a beautiful body , well-shaped , fair-limbed RV. ; n. a 
good or handsome limb MW. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Revisting- Re: Did you have this experience in India ?

[Sal Sunshine]

On Mar 13, 2010, at 10:28 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:

> Ok Sal, I'm going to give it right back to you.   I remember when the John 
> Edwards mistress, love child story broke. You totally ridiculed me for buying 
> into it, because the story was broken by, OMG, "The National Enquirer".

Sounds *very* unlikely, lurk, as I've said here, more
than once, that the NI usually gets its stories right, 
and has ever since the OJ Simpson case.  Care to
find the posts?  I tried to find some but they didn't
appear to exist. (And no, I haven't deleted any.)
Would you like to try?

And even if I had been wrong about JE, 
what on earth does that have to do with the
idea of reincarnation, or any other?  Of course 
I could be wrong.  My point is--who gives a damn?
Well, obviously you do, and quite a bit.  The question
is--what's the point?  We'll all find out soon enough anyway,
and whatever you or I believe or don't believe
isn't going to make an iota of difference as to 
what actually happens--whatever is going to happen
is going to  happen anyway.

And what is this obsession with death anyway?
Has it ever occurred to you it might be a bit morbid?
Sometimes when I check in here and see some of your
posts (as well as those of others) I think I've somehow 
blundered into a meeting of the Cult of Osiris
during the Late Middle Dynasty or something.


> As a courtesy to you, because you seemed to be so undone by it, I conceded 
> that perhaps the mistress part was true, but not the love child.

Oh, yeah, I was *undone* by it, alright...

> Of course I was 90% sure that the love child was true too, but I thought I 
> would let it play out.  And of course it all turned out to be true, and in 
> true fashion, you never had the courage to own up to it.  Care to bring up 
> the posts?  I didn't think so.

Own up to what?  I just tried to find the posts 
but couldn't.  Why don't you, since it seems
to mean so much to you.  i'll be happy to admit
I was wrong.  And could be "wrong" about 
reincarnation--or anything else.

>  At the risk of name calling, I would have to say you have the most unabashed 
> liberal agenda here,

Why, thank you. :)

> and you take great exception when facts get in the way.

Oh, yeah, the "facts" supporting what happens
after death are so clear-cut...  

>  I'm not sure what has caused you to be this way, but at the risk of becoming 
> the butt of some of your ridicule,

LOL--look who's talking.  Who was it that mocked
somebody as they were dying?  (And I agreed with 
your POV on that one,  BTW...nevertheless, it could 
be called ridicule, don't you think?  And quite hurtful
too) As well as other times. Kind of crazy for someone withe a sense of humor 
like that to be admonishing someone else for
their humor, don't you think?

> I have often thought to myself that in a previous life you were Ethel 
> Rosenberg or some similiar personality.

Yeah, and maybe you were Julius.
Now *there's* a scary thought.
Anyway, she was a great lady and
I'd be proud to be her.

> You can pooh pooh reincarnation, but it is pretty evident that you haven't 
> looked at any of the evidence.

I haven't seen any "evidence," and neither have you,
as it doesn't exist--any more than "evidence" for
Jesus' reincarnation does.

>  And further, I think you get called on this same flaw by Judy on a regular 
> basis i.e making statements without looking a facts, getting called out, and 
> then not responding.  On the other hand, it is kind of a time honored 
> practice here.
> 
> Why don't you examine why you appear to be so threatened by the concept.

lurk, you're losing it, you really are.  There are no "facts"
involved, here, only wishful thinking and "sureties" that
can never be proven.

>   But often it is easier just to hold on to just what we feel comfortable 
> with.
 
I guess so--isn't it?  And easier to lash out at someone else
as well when those ideas aren't accepted 
hook, line and stinker.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Stages of the fourth praaNaayaama?

[cardemaister]

As we all hopefully know, according to YS there
are several stages of samaadhi, at least:

- savitarka
- nirvitarka
- savicaara
- nirvicaara
- saananda
- saasmitaa
- nirbiija
- dharma-megha

According to Taimni, those are all, save nirbiija and 
dharmamegha, saMprajñaata.
Between most of them, up to saasmitaa, is an asaMprajñaata
stage of samaadhi, or stuff.

So, why couldn't there be stages of caturthaH praaNaayaamaH?
According to Bhojadeva, caturthaH is "stambha-ruupo gativicchedaH"
(scil. praaNasya?); Vyaasa explains it to be "gatyaabhaavaH" (praaNasya?).

Patañjali sez that the "ordinary" praaNaayaama is
"desha-kaala-saMjñaabhiH paridRSTo diirgha-suukSmaH" and
the Fourth is "baahyaabhyantara-viSayaakSepii".