[FairfieldLife] Re: Chesterton & the intolerance of religion

[sgrayatlarge]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
"So if there is a God he doesn't give a shit
about animal's suffering, that is completely obvious".

So if their is no God, then the current plight of animal suffering is a natual 
result of evolution? In either case animals get screwed. Nature's only law is 
survival of the fittest, when one worships nature, then the main pursuit is 
being the most fit. The New Age Movement is all about who is the healthiest. 
Health Uber alles!!

The Bible tells humanity to show some kindness and compassion not only the 
weakest among us, but to animals.

The weak get eaten in the natural world.

Why would one want to worship nature?




> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge  wrote:
> >
> > Please Curtis, challenge away, in fact speaking for Judaism, if you don't 
> > challenge, it's a sign that you aren't trying hard enough. Btw, the bacon 
> > and BLT thing, first you need to do a little research yourself young man 
> > and you will know why that statement is well, silly and not even decent 
> > mockery.
> 
> Try putting it on your Muslim friend's sandwich.  And the idea that God gets 
> pissed off at dietary things is kind of well established in many scriptures.  
> The fact that we are even discussing some rule and whether it applies to me 
> kind of is my point.
> 
>   Why would a God who expects man to be good, decent, ethical, in a word a 
> Mensch even forbid us from eating everything moving or not moving? Did you 
> know that their is a universal commandment not to eat flesh taken from an 
> animal while it is still alive? That was common back in the day, what a 
> stupid silly God to even suggest we practice any kind of restraint?>
> 
> Is this a reformed Jewish perspective?
> 
> I would suggest not taking flesh form an animal while it it alive and I am 
> not close to being Godlike except to my cat who considers the thing I do with 
> the opposable thumb and his food can to be absolutely miraculous.  They are 
> pretty cavalier in most parts of Asia about all this.  I don't see that 
> improving anytime soon. Although I have heard that the growing Chinese 
> affluence is leading to pet ownership which is leading to a counter force 
> against cat and dog eating so I guess there is hope.  But back to God, he is 
> really the last being I would trust on this issue of compassion to animals 
> considering the instincts he put in animals to eat each other alive.  That is 
> so unnecessary if he wanted to give us a good example in nature.  So if there 
> is a God he doesn't give a shit about animal's suffering, that is completely 
> obvious. 
> 
> > 
> > Yes I'm aware of the some of the horrendous practices done in the name of 
> > Kosher butchering in Iowa, again you find human failings, but still we have 
> > standards. They should throw the book at them, I won't defend them.
> > 
> > The Laws of Kashrut (mixing meat and dairy, shellfish restrictions, eat 
> > fish with scales only, not bottom feeders, boil a kid in it's mothers milk, 
> > etc) only applies to Jews anyway, there is a reason why the word Israel 
> > means to struggle.
> > 
> > So you like bacon on your blt, go for it, God won't be pissed, just don't 
> > slaughter the pig while it's alive!
> 
> I was thinking we probably don't need a God idea to figure this one out.  
> Last time I hung out next to a pig pen they seem pretty vocal about what was 
> working for them and especially what was NOT working.  I'm pretty sure he 
> would let us know as long as we were not complete psychopaths. 
> 
> Speaking of which the whole animal farm factory system has me plenty bummed 
> out.  I find myself eating more sardines the more I think about it all.
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Some original quotes by G. K. Chesterton:
> > > > > 
> > > > > "A man who refuses to have his own philosophy will only
> > > > > have the used-up scraps of somebody else's
> > > > > philosophy;
> > > 
> > > This is one of my complaints against religious beliefs, it is adapting a 
> > > pre-fab perspective from an agrarian culture.  I am not advocating being 
> > > intolerant.  But that doesn't mean that we can't challenge the assumptive 
> > > claims of religions that they are absolutely right because God told them 
> > > that putting some bacon in your BLT pisses him off.
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  which the beasts do not
> > > > > have to inherit; hence their happiness. Men have always
> > > > > one of two things: either a complete and conscious 
> > > > > philosophy or the unconscious acceptance of the broken
> > > > > bits of some incomplete and  shattered and often
> > > > > discredited philosophy" ["The Revival of
> > > > > Philosophy,Why?]
> > > 
> > > A false alternative, but I

[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count

[authfriend]

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

> Actually that "messages as of.." time is the time of the
> last email not when the script is run.  So between 4:15
> UTC and when the script ran at the right time no emails
> were delivered to the email service that Alex is using.
> They caught up afterwards.  Mystery solved.

Ah! How did you figure that out?

BTW, at least for the time being, Yahoo's Advanced Search
seems to be functioning properly again. I've checked it a
couple of times recently against both the Post Count and
the external archive, and it's been spot-on.

So anybody who is getting close to 50 posts and isn't sure
whether the Post Count is accurate because of delayed posts
or problems with Alex's server might want to check Yahoo
Advanced Search and the external archive to verify it.
(The external archive's search syntax is not very intuitive
or user-friendly; if you click on Search and then on Refine
Search, you'll get instructions on the search syntax. Takes
some getting used to.)

Also, once again you can now search by author with Yahoo's
Advanced Search and it'll give you *only* posts made by
that author instead of all posts that contain the poster's
Yahoo ID (i.e., in attributions or in quoted text).

Who knows how long it'll last...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chesterton & the intolerance of religion

[sgrayatlarge]

No not reformed, perhaps informed Jewish perspective

Regarding animals, the Bible presented the first idea of giving animals a day 
of rest (Sabbath) each week and they are to be fed first before humans eat. 
That didn't happen before, where both man and beast worked every day.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge  wrote:
> >
> > Please Curtis, challenge away, in fact speaking for Judaism, if you don't 
> > challenge, it's a sign that you aren't trying hard enough. Btw, the bacon 
> > and BLT thing, first you need to do a little research yourself young man 
> > and you will know why that statement is well, silly and not even decent 
> > mockery.
> 
> Try putting it on your Muslim friend's sandwich.  And the idea that God gets 
> pissed off at dietary things is kind of well established in many scriptures.  
> The fact that we are even discussing some rule and whether it applies to me 
> kind of is my point.
> 
>   Why would a God who expects man to be good, decent, ethical, in a word a 
> Mensch even forbid us from eating everything moving or not moving? Did you 
> know that their is a universal commandment not to eat flesh taken from an 
> animal while it is still alive? That was common back in the day, what a 
> stupid silly God to even suggest we practice any kind of restraint?>
> 
> Is this a reformed Jewish perspective?
> 
> I would suggest not taking flesh form an animal while it it alive and I am 
> not close to being Godlike except to my cat who considers the thing I do with 
> the opposable thumb and his food can to be absolutely miraculous.  They are 
> pretty cavalier in most parts of Asia about all this.  I don't see that 
> improving anytime soon. Although I have heard that the growing Chinese 
> affluence is leading to pet ownership which is leading to a counter force 
> against cat and dog eating so I guess there is hope.  But back to God, he is 
> really the last being I would trust on this issue of compassion to animals 
> considering the instincts he put in animals to eat each other alive.  That is 
> so unnecessary if he wanted to give us a good example in nature.  So if there 
> is a God he doesn't give a shit about animal's suffering, that is completely 
> obvious. 
> 
> > 
> > Yes I'm aware of the some of the horrendous practices done in the name of 
> > Kosher butchering in Iowa, again you find human failings, but still we have 
> > standards. They should throw the book at them, I won't defend them.
> > 
> > The Laws of Kashrut (mixing meat and dairy, shellfish restrictions, eat 
> > fish with scales only, not bottom feeders, boil a kid in it's mothers milk, 
> > etc) only applies to Jews anyway, there is a reason why the word Israel 
> > means to struggle.
> > 
> > So you like bacon on your blt, go for it, God won't be pissed, just don't 
> > slaughter the pig while it's alive!
> 
> I was thinking we probably don't need a God idea to figure this one out.  
> Last time I hung out next to a pig pen they seem pretty vocal about what was 
> working for them and especially what was NOT working.  I'm pretty sure he 
> would let us know as long as we were not complete psychopaths. 
> 
> Speaking of which the whole animal farm factory system has me plenty bummed 
> out.  I find myself eating more sardines the more I think about it all.
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Some original quotes by G. K. Chesterton:
> > > > > 
> > > > > "A man who refuses to have his own philosophy will only
> > > > > have the used-up scraps of somebody else's
> > > > > philosophy;
> > > 
> > > This is one of my complaints against religious beliefs, it is adapting a 
> > > pre-fab perspective from an agrarian culture.  I am not advocating being 
> > > intolerant.  But that doesn't mean that we can't challenge the assumptive 
> > > claims of religions that they are absolutely right because God told them 
> > > that putting some bacon in your BLT pisses him off.
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  which the beasts do not
> > > > > have to inherit; hence their happiness. Men have always
> > > > > one of two things: either a complete and conscious 
> > > > > philosophy or the unconscious acceptance of the broken
> > > > > bits of some incomplete and  shattered and often
> > > > > discredited philosophy" ["The Revival of
> > > > > Philosophy,Why?]
> > > 
> > > A false alternative, but I get the point. Most people 9myself included) 
> > > have a bit of both.  But the idea that philosophers are discredited is 
> > > not how I view the history of philosophy, that is more of a religious 
> > > take on philosophy.  For me each important philosopher adds a piece to a 
> > > continuing dialectic process for discovering truth.  Not und

[FairfieldLife] Re: WillyTex: Proud to Live in the Great State of Texas!

[Buck]

Jefferson Removed.

"Could Dunbar's problem be that Jefferson was a Deist? The board approves the 
amendment, taking Thomas Jefferson OUT of the world history standards.

We're just picking ourselves up off the floor. The board's far-right faction 
has spent months now proclaiming the importance of emphasizing America's 
exceptionalism in social studies classrooms. But today they voted to remove one 
of the greatest of America's Founders, Thomas Jefferson, from a standard about 
the influence of great political philosophers on political revolutions from 
1750 to today." 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe"  wrote:
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/13/texas-textbook-massacre-u_n_498003.html
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Umpires needed: Does this answer Shemp's questions?

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> Your link says nothing about which punishment he would give to doctors
> or women, but in an interview he said he would not punish them.
> 
> Case closed.
> 



This is getting ridiculous.

Of course he said they should be punished.  Didn't you read the link?

>From the link:

"Q: If abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway, what 
should she be charged with? What about the doctor who performs the abortion?
"A: The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We 
don't need a federal abortion police. That's the last thing that we need. There 
has to be a criminal penalty for the person that's committing that crime. And I 
think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don't think that should 
be up to the president to decide." 








> He is pro-choice and he doesn't even know it. This is where he is weak,
> and has not thought this issue through, although he is right on many
> other issues, and on the one he holds most dear - anti-war.
> 
> OffWorld
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "ShempMcGurk" 
> wrote:
> >
> > If you are going to misrepresent Ron Paul's position on issues, such
> as you do below with the abortion issue, AND AT THE SAME TIME CUT OUT
> THE LINK I PROVIDED IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE THAT YOU MISREPRESENTED HIS
> POSITION, I cannot continue this exercise:
> >
> > http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm
> 
> >
> > Not only is your blatant misrepresentation dishonest, your elimination
> of the link is, I believe, completely deceitful and lacking in
> integrity.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- 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
> 
> > >   > , off_world_beings no_reply@
> > > > > 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
> > > > 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count

[Bhairitu]

Bhairitu wrote:
> Alex Stanley wrote:
>   
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>>   
>> 
>>> authfriend wrote:
>>> 
>>>   
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
  , Bhairitu  wrote:
   
   
 
> Most likely there was a delay in delivering the emails
> to Alex's server until after Sunday's count.  YG has been
> flakey that way lately.
> 
> 
>   
 No, if you look at the Post Counts for Saturday and
 Sunday, you'll see that the Sunday count (as I keep
 saying!) was made only a little over four hours after
 the Saturday count, so it picked up only the 12 posts
 made during those hours.

 Saturday's count (posted at 7:15 pm EST):
 67 messages as of (UTC) Sun Mar 14 00:14:36 2010 <

 Sunday's count (posted at 8:21 pm EST):
 79 messages as of (UTC) Sun Mar 14 04:28:33 2010 <

 Sunday's count should have been as of 00:-something
 UTC Monday, March 15. There should have been
 approximately 24 hours between the two counts. They
 were posted to FFL about 25 hours apart, but the
 times the counts actually took place are only a little
 over 4 hours apart. The Sunday count was made around
 4:30 a.m. UTC on Sunday; it should have been made
 shortly after midnight UTC, i.e., on Monday.

 Usually the glitches are Yahoo's, but this time it
 looks as if it's the Post Count's glitch.

 Does Alex tell the program when it should stop counting
 each time, or is that built in? Because if it's Alex,
 it looks like he may have told it to stop counting
 around midnight CST instead of midnight UTC.
   
 
>>> It is set as an automated task that is supposed to go off at about 15 
>>> minutes after midnight UTC to account for any  latency in delivery.   
>>> The time stamp of the post count shows it was sent at 00:15 UTC (5:15 
>>> PDT)  but I don't know why the script ran at an earlier time.  Perhaps 
>>> the computer Alex was running it got flummoxed over the DST change.  But 
>>> sometimes there are delays and message still has the correct time stamp 
>>> regardless of when it comes in.
>>> 
>>>   
>> The computer running the script is set to UTC so that I don't have to mess 
>> with the computer clock or the automated event scheduler. 
>> 
>
> And the log file was probably nuked so we can't see what happened.  Next 
> time save it off somewhere and maybe there was an error in it.  But then 
> why it would run at 10:15 PM CST on Saturday and then send it out at 
> 7:15 PM  CDT Sunday is a bit strange.  Basically the script runs only 
> once when it sends the count out:  downloads headers and writes them to 
> a file -> opens that file and counts the posts -> emails the count.  If 
> anything goes wrong it writes that error up in the log file.

Actually that "messages as of.." time is the time of the last email not 
when the script is run.  So between 4:15 UTC and when the script ran at 
the right time no emails were delivered to the email service that Alex 
is using.   They caught up afterwards.  Mystery solved.

[FairfieldLife] UAE

[off_world_beings]

United Arab Enslavement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaVSATNfWuQ


OffWorld

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count

[Bhairitu]

Alex Stanley wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>   
>> authfriend wrote:
>> 
>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>>>  , Bhairitu  wrote:
>>>   
>>>   
 Most likely there was a delay in delivering the emails
 to Alex's server until after Sunday's count.  YG has been
 flakey that way lately.
 
 
>>> No, if you look at the Post Counts for Saturday and
>>> Sunday, you'll see that the Sunday count (as I keep
>>> saying!) was made only a little over four hours after
>>> the Saturday count, so it picked up only the 12 posts
>>> made during those hours.
>>>
>>> Saturday's count (posted at 7:15 pm EST):
>>> 67 messages as of (UTC) Sun Mar 14 00:14:36 2010 <
>>>
>>> Sunday's count (posted at 8:21 pm EST):
>>> 79 messages as of (UTC) Sun Mar 14 04:28:33 2010 <
>>>
>>> Sunday's count should have been as of 00:-something
>>> UTC Monday, March 15. There should have been
>>> approximately 24 hours between the two counts. They
>>> were posted to FFL about 25 hours apart, but the
>>> times the counts actually took place are only a little
>>> over 4 hours apart. The Sunday count was made around
>>> 4:30 a.m. UTC on Sunday; it should have been made
>>> shortly after midnight UTC, i.e., on Monday.
>>>
>>> Usually the glitches are Yahoo's, but this time it
>>> looks as if it's the Post Count's glitch.
>>>
>>> Does Alex tell the program when it should stop counting
>>> each time, or is that built in? Because if it's Alex,
>>> it looks like he may have told it to stop counting
>>> around midnight CST instead of midnight UTC.
>>>   
>> It is set as an automated task that is supposed to go off at about 15 
>> minutes after midnight UTC to account for any  latency in delivery.   
>> The time stamp of the post count shows it was sent at 00:15 UTC (5:15 
>> PDT)  but I don't know why the script ran at an earlier time.  Perhaps 
>> the computer Alex was running it got flummoxed over the DST change.  But 
>> sometimes there are delays and message still has the correct time stamp 
>> regardless of when it comes in.
>> 
>
> The computer running the script is set to UTC so that I don't have to mess 
> with the computer clock or the automated event scheduler. 

And the log file was probably nuked so we can't see what happened.  Next 
time save it off somewhere and maybe there was an error in it.  But then 
why it would run at 10:15 PM CST on Saturday and then send it out at 
7:15 PM  CDT Sunday is a bit strange.  Basically the script runs only 
once when it sends the count out:  downloads headers and writes them to 
a file -> opens that file and counts the posts -> emails the count.  If 
anything goes wrong it writes that error up in the log file.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> authfriend wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> >  , Bhairitu  wrote:
> >   
> >> Most likely there was a delay in delivering the emails
> >> to Alex's server until after Sunday's count.  YG has been
> >> flakey that way lately.
> >> 
> >
> > No, if you look at the Post Counts for Saturday and
> > Sunday, you'll see that the Sunday count (as I keep
> > saying!) was made only a little over four hours after
> > the Saturday count, so it picked up only the 12 posts
> > made during those hours.
> >
> > Saturday's count (posted at 7:15 pm EST):
> > 67 messages as of (UTC) Sun Mar 14 00:14:36 2010 <
> >
> > Sunday's count (posted at 8:21 pm EST):
> > 79 messages as of (UTC) Sun Mar 14 04:28:33 2010 <
> >
> > Sunday's count should have been as of 00:-something
> > UTC Monday, March 15. There should have been
> > approximately 24 hours between the two counts. They
> > were posted to FFL about 25 hours apart, but the
> > times the counts actually took place are only a little
> > over 4 hours apart. The Sunday count was made around
> > 4:30 a.m. UTC on Sunday; it should have been made
> > shortly after midnight UTC, i.e., on Monday.
> >
> > Usually the glitches are Yahoo's, but this time it
> > looks as if it's the Post Count's glitch.
> >
> > Does Alex tell the program when it should stop counting
> > each time, or is that built in? Because if it's Alex,
> > it looks like he may have told it to stop counting
> > around midnight CST instead of midnight UTC.
> 
> It is set as an automated task that is supposed to go off at about 15 
> minutes after midnight UTC to account for any  latency in delivery.   
> The time stamp of the post count shows it was sent at 00:15 UTC (5:15 
> PDT)  but I don't know why the script ran at an earlier time.  Perhaps 
> the computer Alex was running it got flummoxed over the DST change.  But 
> sometimes there are delays and message still has the correct time stamp 
> regardless of when it comes in.

The computer running the script is set to UTC so that I don't have to mess with 
the computer clock or the automated event scheduler. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count

[Bhairitu]

authfriend wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , Bhairitu  wrote:
>   
>> Most likely there was a delay in delivering the emails
>> to Alex's server until after Sunday's count.  YG has been
>> flakey that way lately.
>> 
>
> No, if you look at the Post Counts for Saturday and
> Sunday, you'll see that the Sunday count (as I keep
> saying!) was made only a little over four hours after
> the Saturday count, so it picked up only the 12 posts
> made during those hours.
>
> Saturday's count (posted at 7:15 pm EST):
> 67 messages as of (UTC) Sun Mar 14 00:14:36 2010 <
>
> Sunday's count (posted at 8:21 pm EST):
> 79 messages as of (UTC) Sun Mar 14 04:28:33 2010 <
>
> Sunday's count should have been as of 00:-something
> UTC Monday, March 15. There should have been
> approximately 24 hours between the two counts. They
> were posted to FFL about 25 hours apart, but the
> times the counts actually took place are only a little
> over 4 hours apart. The Sunday count was made around
> 4:30 a.m. UTC on Sunday; it should have been made
> shortly after midnight UTC, i.e., on Monday.
>
> Usually the glitches are Yahoo's, but this time it
> looks as if it's the Post Count's glitch.
>
> Does Alex tell the program when it should stop counting
> each time, or is that built in? Because if it's Alex,
> it looks like he may have told it to stop counting
> around midnight CST instead of midnight UTC.

It is set as an automated task that is supposed to go off at about 15 
minutes after midnight UTC to account for any  latency in delivery.   
The time stamp of the post count shows it was sent at 00:15 UTC (5:15 
PDT)  but I don't know why the script ran at an earlier time.  Perhaps 
the computer Alex was running it got flummoxed over the DST change.  But 
sometimes there are delays and message still has the correct time stamp 
regardless of when it comes in.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> Most likely there was a delay in delivering the emails
> to Alex's server until after Sunday's count.  YG has been
> flakey that way lately.

No, if you look at the Post Counts for Saturday and
Sunday, you'll see that the Sunday count (as I keep
saying!) was made only a little over four hours after
the Saturday count, so it picked up only the 12 posts
made during those hours.

Saturday's count (posted at 7:15 pm EST):
67 messages as of (UTC) Sun Mar 14 00:14:36 2010 <

Sunday's count (posted at 8:21 pm EST):
79 messages as of (UTC) Sun Mar 14 04:28:33 2010 <

Sunday's count should have been as of 00:-something
UTC Monday, March 15. There should have been
approximately 24 hours between the two counts. They
were posted to FFL about 25 hours apart, but the
times the counts actually took place are only a little
over 4 hours apart. The Sunday count was made around
4:30 a.m. UTC on Sunday; it should have been made
shortly after midnight UTC, i.e., on Monday.

Usually the glitches are Yahoo's, but this time it
looks as if it's the Post Count's glitch.

Does Alex tell the program when it should stop counting
each time, or is that built in? Because if it's Alex,
it looks like he may have told it to stop counting
around midnight CST instead of midnight UTC.

[FairfieldLife] Video: Bill Moyers with William Black on Wall St. Fraud

[Bhairitu]

William Black wrote "The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz1b__MdtHY

Geithner and Paulson should be in Leavenworth.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Umpires needed: Does this answer Shemp's questions?

[off_world_beings]

Your link says nothing about which punishment he would give to doctors
or women, but in an interview he said he would not punish them.

Case closed.

He is pro-choice and he doesn't even know it. This is where he is weak,
and has not thought this issue through, although he is right on many
other issues, and on the one he holds most dear - anti-war.

OffWorld

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "ShempMcGurk" 
wrote:
>
> If you are going to misrepresent Ron Paul's position on issues, such
as you do below with the abortion issue, AND AT THE SAME TIME CUT OUT
THE LINK I PROVIDED IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE THAT YOU MISREPRESENTED HIS
POSITION, I cannot continue this exercise:
>
> http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm

>
> Not only is your blatant misrepresentation dishonest, your elimination
of the link is, I believe, completely deceitful and lacking in
integrity.
>
>
>
> --- 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

> >  > , off_world_beings no_reply@
> > > > 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.
> > > > > > > >
> > 

[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
223 messages as of (UTC) Tue Mar 16 00:13:26 2010

38 authfriend 
21 lurkernomore20002000 
19 off_world_beings 
19 ShempMcGurk 
16 tartbrain 
14 Joe 
12 curtisdeltablues 
10 WillyTex 
 9 "do.rflex" 
 7 mainstream20016 
 7 Buck 
 5 yifuxero 
 5 TurquoiseB 
 5 Bhairitu 
 4 cardemaister 
 4 Vaj 
 4 Sal Sunshine 
 4 Rick Archer 
 3 Mike Dixon 
 3 BillyG 
 3 Alex Stanley 
 2 shukra69 
 2 merlin 
 2 guyfawkes91 
 2 It's just a ride 
 1 sgrayatlarge 
 1 wle...@aol.com
 1 John 

Posters: 28
Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
=
Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
Standard Time (Winter):
US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Umpires needed: Does this answer Shemp's questions?

[ShempMcGurk]

If you are going to misrepresent Ron Paul's position on issues, such as you do 
below with the abortion issue, AND AT THE SAME TIME CUT OUT THE LINK I PROVIDED 
IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE THAT YOU MISREPRESENTED HIS POSITION, I cannot continue 
this exercise:

http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm

Not only is your blatant misrepresentation dishonest, your elimination of the 
link is, I believe, completely deceitful and lacking in integrity.



--- 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
>  , off_world_beings no_reply@
> > > 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?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Umpires needed. Shemp has completely gone off the

[FairfieldLife] Re: Umpires needed: Does this answer Shemp's questions?

[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
 , off_world_beings no_reply@
> > 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?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Umpires needed. Shemp has completely gone off the rails. Does this
below
> > answer Shemp's questions?
> >
> > In answer to your poorly argued attention seeking BS, I already
answered
> > them in these posts. You may not LIKE the answers (you NEVER will),
but
> > I DID answer your dumbass questions.
> >
> > Post 243282 - embryonic research
> >
> > ""Wrong. He is against government funding of it. ""

> ...BUT THAT IS THE NEOCON'S POSITION!!>>

No they want it outlawed. Ron Paul is all for the scientific research.

> LOOK, THE WHOLE ISSUE ON EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH VIS A VIS THE
GOVERNMENT IS WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT SUPPORTS PROVIDING GOVERNMENT
FUNDS.  OBAMA IS FOR GIVING FUNDS FOR IT; THE NEOCONS AND RON PAUL ARE
AGAINST IT.
>
>
> > Post 243271 - Scientific evidence
> >
> > ""They (he and Obama) are both for science over religious Neocon
> > fanaticism.""
> 

[FairfieldLife] Anatidaephobia

[do.rflex]

 
Farside Cartoon: 
http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/7823/anatidaephobiaviadoctorih0.png

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chesterton & the intolerance of religion

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge  wrote:
>
> Please Curtis, challenge away, in fact speaking for Judaism, if you don't 
> challenge, it's a sign that you aren't trying hard enough. Btw, the bacon and 
> BLT thing, first you need to do a little research yourself young man and you 
> will know why that statement is well, silly and not even decent mockery.

Try putting it on your Muslim friend's sandwich.  And the idea that God gets 
pissed off at dietary things is kind of well established in many scriptures.  
The fact that we are even discussing some rule and whether it applies to me 
kind of is my point.

 

Is this a reformed Jewish perspective?

I would suggest not taking flesh form an animal while it it alive and I am not 
close to being Godlike except to my cat who considers the thing I do with the 
opposable thumb and his food can to be absolutely miraculous.  They are pretty 
cavalier in most parts of Asia about all this.  I don't see that improving 
anytime soon. Although I have heard that the growing Chinese affluence is 
leading to pet ownership which is leading to a counter force against cat and 
dog eating so I guess there is hope.  But back to God, he is really the last 
being I would trust on this issue of compassion to animals considering the 
instincts he put in animals to eat each other alive.  That is so unnecessary if 
he wanted to give us a good example in nature.  So if there is a God he doesn't 
give a shit about animal's suffering, that is completely obvious. 

> 
> Yes I'm aware of the some of the horrendous practices done in the name of 
> Kosher butchering in Iowa, again you find human failings, but still we have 
> standards. They should throw the book at them, I won't defend them.
> 
> The Laws of Kashrut (mixing meat and dairy, shellfish restrictions, eat fish 
> with scales only, not bottom feeders, boil a kid in it's mothers milk, etc) 
> only applies to Jews anyway, there is a reason why the word Israel means to 
> struggle.
> 
> So you like bacon on your blt, go for it, God won't be pissed, just don't 
> slaughter the pig while it's alive!

I was thinking we probably don't need a God idea to figure this one out.  Last 
time I hung out next to a pig pen they seem pretty vocal about what was working 
for them and especially what was NOT working.  I'm pretty sure he would let us 
know as long as we were not complete psychopaths. 

Speaking of which the whole animal farm factory system has me plenty bummed 
out.  I find myself eating more sardines the more I think about it all.



> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  
> > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Some original quotes by G. K. Chesterton:
> > > > 
> > > > "A man who refuses to have his own philosophy will only
> > > > have the used-up scraps of somebody else's
> > > > philosophy;
> > 
> > This is one of my complaints against religious beliefs, it is adapting a 
> > pre-fab perspective from an agrarian culture.  I am not advocating being 
> > intolerant.  But that doesn't mean that we can't challenge the assumptive 
> > claims of religions that they are absolutely right because God told them 
> > that putting some bacon in your BLT pisses him off.
> > 
> > 
> >  which the beasts do not
> > > > have to inherit; hence their happiness. Men have always
> > > > one of two things: either a complete and conscious 
> > > > philosophy or the unconscious acceptance of the broken
> > > > bits of some incomplete and  shattered and often
> > > > discredited philosophy" ["The Revival of
> > > > Philosophy,Why?]
> > 
> > A false alternative, but I get the point. Most people 9myself included) 
> > have a bit of both.  But the idea that philosophers are discredited is not 
> > how I view the history of philosophy, that is more of a religious take on 
> > philosophy.  For me each important philosopher adds a piece to a continuing 
> > dialectic process for discovering truth.  Not understanding what has been 
> > thought out before leaves modern society recreating thought flows made 
> > clearer by more brilliant people.  It keeps us at philosophical square one 
> > by not understanding how to think about ideas better.  A lot of these 
> > techniques have been worked out. But our school systems have abandoned 
> > teaching critical thinking because if you use it too rigorously you might 
> > discover that some of the goals of multiculturalism are bullshit. (All 
> > religious beliefs should be respected equally even though in some religions 
> > killing non believers is considered a bad thing and in some it is the 
> > greatest thing you can do for your future beyond the grave.) 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Thanks Merudanda. I enjoyed Chesterton's short essay:
> > > http://chesterton.org/gkc/philosopher/revivalpPhilosophy.htm
> > > 
> > > I wonder if the following is at all relevant

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count

[Bhairitu]

Most likely there was a delay in delivering the emails to Alex's server 
until after Sunday's count.  YG has been flakey that way lately.

authfriend wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" 
>  wrote:
>   
>> I just ran the script manually, and this time, it appears
>> to have the correct count.
>> 
>
> It had the "correct count" on Sunday too, except it was
> somehow set to count only a little over four hours' worth
> of posts.
>
>
>   
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, FFL PostCount  wrote:
>> 
>>> Fairfield Life Post Counter
>>> ===
>>> Start Date (UTC): Sat Mar 13 00:00:00 2010
>>> End Date (UTC): Sat Mar 20 00:00:00 2010
>>> 201 messages as of (UTC) Mon Mar 15 17:51:57 2010
>>>
>>> 36 authfriend 
>>> 21 lurkernomore20002000 
>>> 16 tartbrain 
>>> 16 ShempMcGurk 
>>> 13 Joe 
>>> 12 off_world_beings 
>>> 11 curtisdeltablues 
>>> 10 WillyTex 
>>>  7 mainstream20016 
>>>  7 Buck 
>>>  7 "do.rflex" 
>>>  5 yifuxero 
>>>  5 TurquoiseB 
>>>  4 cardemaister 
>>>  4 Vaj 
>>>  4 Sal Sunshine 
>>>  4 Bhairitu 
>>>  3 Rick Archer 
>>>  3 Mike Dixon 
>>>  3 BillyG 
>>>  2 shukra69 
>>>  2 guyfawkes91 
>>>  2 It's just a ride 
>>>  2 Alex Stanley 
>>>  1 merlin 
>>>  1 John 
>>>
>>> Posters: 26
>>> Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
>>> =
>>> Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
>>> US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
>>> Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
>>> Standard Time (Winter):
>>> US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
>>> Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
>>> For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com
>>>
>>>   
>
>
>
>   

[FairfieldLife] Re: Umpires needed: Does this answer Shemp's questions?

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@
> 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?
> >
> 
> 
> Umpires needed. Shemp has completely gone off the rails. Does this below
> answer Shemp's questions?
> 
> In answer to your poorly argued attention seeking BS, I already answered
> them in these posts. You may not LIKE the answers (you NEVER will), but
> I DID answer your dumbass questions.
> 
> Post 243282 - embryonic research
> 
> ""Wrong. He is against government funding of it. ""
> 



...BUT THAT IS THE NEOCON'S POSITION!!

LOOK, THE WHOLE ISSUE ON EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH VIS A VIS THE GOVERNMENT 
IS WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT SUPPORTS PROVIDING GOVERNMENT FUNDS.  OBAMA IS FOR 
GIVING FUNDS FOR IT; THE NEOCONS AND RON PAUL ARE AGAINST IT.


> Post 243271 - Scientific evidence
> 
> ""They (he and Obama) are both for science over religious Neocon
> fanaticism.""
> 



EVERYONE IS AGAINST FANATICISM BUT RON PAUL IS ON THE SAME SIDE AS THE NEOCONS 
IN THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.



> Post 243233 - Support for socialist healthcare:
> 
> ""Ron Paul is all about charities too. ie. Giving. He believes that
> helping others comes naturally. He just doesn't understand that in an
> age of ignorance, with ignoramouses such as you, there needs to be an
> organized effort to help others in a way that the consensus in society
> feels is best (rather than your ignorant inefficient ideas) --  and that
> is called socialism. Socialism is the wave of the future.""
> 



AND RON PAUL IS AGAINST SOCIALIZED MEDICINE AND OBAMA IS FOR IT.

AND RON PAUL IS THE ANTITHESIS OF SOCIALISM.






> Post 243241 - Ron Paul more like O

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ron Paul on Global Warming - Trying this again - stuff got cut off.

[ShempMcGurk]

Check the dates of my Ron Paul quotes and YOUR Ron Paul quotes and you'll see 
that mine are more recent than ALL of your's.

And yet my Ron Paul quote -- in which he says it appears to all be a fraud -- 
was said BEFORE you said that he believed in AGW.

Again, you stand corrected.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> Ron Paul on Global Warming A Plug for the Candidate by Sterling D. Allan
> 
> Pure Energy Systems News: The "fringe" candidate that has been taking
> the Internet by storm measures his stance on global warming the same he
> does most all issues -- by the U.S. Constitution. Ron Paul on Global
> Warming: ""Global temperatures have been warming since the Little Ice
> Age.  Studies within the respectable scientific community have shown
> that human beings are most likely a part of this process.""  snip> ""I
> strongly oppose the Kyoto treaty.  Providing for a clean environment is
> an excellent goal, but the Kyoto treaty doesn't do that. Also, the
> regulations are harmful for American workers, because it encourages
> corporations to move their business overseas to countries where the
> regulations don't apply I am more than willing to work cooperatively
> with other nations to come up with policies that will safeguard the
> environment, but I oppose all nonbinding resolutions that place an
> unnecessary burden on the United States.""
> When asked by Bill Maher if he thinks the Federal Government should be
> involved in stopping Global Warming, Ron Paul replied:
> "Then you have to deal with the volcanoes, and you have to deal with
> China... so what are you going to do, invade China so they don't
> pollute?  ... But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't do what we can to
> slow up the emissions and stop subsidizing big oil companies.  I don't
> like subsidizing oil companies.  They've been doing that for years.  We
> go to war to protect oil, so that we can buy more oil, and burn more
> oil.  So I say our foreign policy contributes to global warming -- by
> subsidizing a policy that is deeply flawed.  And that's why we're in the
> Middle East, to protect oil interests."
> When asked if efforts to slow down Global Warming should be increased,
> Dr. Paul replied:
> 
> "Yes."
> 
> Because he does not support any piece of legislation not specifically
> authorized by the Constitution, Paul votes against most bills that
> involve government spending or expanded government initiatives; thus he
> does not seek legislation to combat the global warming.  Instead, he
> advocates reducing emissions, halting subsidies to oil companies, and
> altering a war-for-oil foreign policy that in itself contributes to
> global warming.
> 
> http://pesn.com/2007/11/05/9500456_RonPaul_on_GlobalWarming/
> 
> 
> OffWorld
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Ron Paul on Global Warming - Trying this again - stuff go

[WLeed3]

Correct in all U R Ron Paul;
 
 
In a message dated 3/15/2010 4:25:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
no_re...@yahoogroups.com writes:



Ron Paul on Global Warming   
A Plug for  the Candidate by _Sterling  D. Allan_ 
(http://pureenergysystems.com/about/personnel/SterlingDAllan/index.html) 
Pure Energy Systems  News:
The "fringe" candidate that  has been taking the Internet by storm measures 
his stance on global warming  the same he does most all issues -- by the 
U.S.  Constitution.
Ron Paul on Global Warming:

""Global temperatures have been warming since the Little Ice Age.   Studies 
within the respectable scientific community have shown that human  beings 
are most likely a part of this process."" 

snip>

""I strongly oppose the Kyoto  treaty.  Providing for a clean environment 
is an excellent goal, but  the Kyoto treaty doesn't do that. Also, the 
regulations are harmful for American  workers, because it encourages 
corporations to move their business overseas  to countries where the 
regulations 
don't apply I am more than willing to  work cooperatively with other 
nations 
to come up with policies that will  safeguard the environment, but I oppose 
all nonbinding resolutions that  place an unnecessary burden on the United 
States.""
When asked by Bill Maher if he thinks the  Federal Government should be 
involved in stopping Global Warming, Ron Paul  replied:  
"Then you have to deal with the volcanoes, and you have to deal with  
China... so what are you going to do, invade China so they don't  pollute?  ... 
But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't do what we can to slow up  the 
emissions and stop subsidizing big oil  companies.  I don't like  subsidizing 
oil 
companies.  They've been doing that for years.  We  go to war to protect 
oil, so that we can buy more oil, and burn more  oil.  So I say our foreign 
policy contributes to global warming -- by  subsidizing a policy that is 
deeply flawed.  And that's why we're in  the Middle East, to prote ct oil 
interests."
When asked if efforts to slow down Global  Warming should be increased, Dr. 
Paul replied:  
"Yes." 
Because he does not support any piece of  legislation not specifically 
authorized by the Constitution, Paul votes  against most bills that involve 
government spending or expanded government  initiatives; thus he does not seek 
legislation to combat the global  warming.  Instead, he advocates reducing 
emissions, halting subsidies to  oil companies, and altering a war-for-oil 
foreign policy that in itself  contributes to global warming. 
_http://pesn.com/2007/11/05/9500456_RonPaul_on_GlobalWarming/_ 
(http://pesn.com/2007/11/05/9500456_RonPaul_on_GlobalWarming/)  
OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Ron Paul on Global Warming - Trying this again - stuff got cut off.

[off_world_beings]

Ron Paul on Global Warming A Plug for the Candidate by Sterling D. Allan

Pure Energy Systems News: The "fringe" candidate that has been taking
the Internet by storm measures his stance on global warming the same he
does most all issues -- by the U.S. Constitution. Ron Paul on Global
Warming: ""Global temperatures have been warming since the Little Ice
Age.  Studies within the respectable scientific community have shown
that human beings are most likely a part of this process.""  snip> ""I
strongly oppose the Kyoto treaty.  Providing for a clean environment is
an excellent goal, but the Kyoto treaty doesn't do that. Also, the
regulations are harmful for American workers, because it encourages
corporations to move their business overseas to countries where the
regulations don't apply I am more than willing to work cooperatively
with other nations to come up with policies that will safeguard the
environment, but I oppose all nonbinding resolutions that place an
unnecessary burden on the United States.""
When asked by Bill Maher if he thinks the Federal Government should be
involved in stopping Global Warming, Ron Paul replied:
"Then you have to deal with the volcanoes, and you have to deal with
China... so what are you going to do, invade China so they don't
pollute?  ... But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't do what we can to
slow up the emissions and stop subsidizing big oil companies.  I don't
like subsidizing oil companies.  They've been doing that for years.  We
go to war to protect oil, so that we can buy more oil, and burn more
oil.  So I say our foreign policy contributes to global warming -- by
subsidizing a policy that is deeply flawed.  And that's why we're in the
Middle East, to protect oil interests."
When asked if efforts to slow down Global Warming should be increased,
Dr. Paul replied:

"Yes."

Because he does not support any piece of legislation not specifically
authorized by the Constitution, Paul votes against most bills that
involve government spending or expanded government initiatives; thus he
does not seek legislation to combat the global warming.  Instead, he
advocates reducing emissions, halting subsidies to oil companies, and
altering a war-for-oil foreign policy that in itself contributes to
global warming.

http://pesn.com/2007/11/05/9500456_RonPaul_on_GlobalWarming/


OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Ron Paul on Global Warming - repost with text this time

[off_world_beings]

It didn't show up, nor your reply Rick:
Repost below: If you don't see several paragraphs below, I will try
again:

Main Point: When asked if efforts to slow down Global Warming should be
increased, Dr. Paul replied:  "Yes."

Ron Paul on Global Warming
The "fringe" candidate that has been taking the Internet by storm
measures his stance on global warming the same he does most all issues
-- by the U.S. Constitution.

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

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "WillyTex" 
wrote:
>
>
>
> off:
> > The Financial Crimes of GW Bush...
> >
> Has George W. Bush been charged with any crimes?
> None that I know of >>

Actually yes. If he, or Dick Cheney come to certain towns in Vemont, the
police are under orders to arrest them.

Also, some countries abroad will be required by their constitution and
legal structure to arrest them.

- was Bush in charge of the
> U.S. economy?
>
> So, how many years has it been since the United
> States experienced a terrorist attack on it's
> own soil? >

Less than a month.

>
> If the war cost us a trillion dollars, then I'd
> say it is worth it.
>
> But, I don't think that the President is very
> much responsible for state of the economy or the
> national debt. We live in a representative republic
> and it is our elected leaders that pass the laws
> and spend the money.
>
> You need to get some smarts:
> We want to bring down the national debt, but we
> must win the war before we can do that.>>

You can't win the war. It is un-winnable. Go and watch the British TV
version (6 parts) of what was later made into a very good, but inferior
version, in the Hollywood movie "Traffic"

The British version, also called "Traffic" will enlighten you as to the
nature of Afghanisthan. Available on Netflix. I highly recommend this
version to anyone reading this. It goes into much more of the opium
trade in Afghanisthan in the 1980's, and how the corruption runs deep to
turn that into money made from selling heroine to Western addicts (opium
in itself is really not so harmful.) You cannot stop it, unless you stop
the demand in your country. All of this is bound up with Taliban
financing, Al Quada control of the biggest source of income in the
middle east, and other mafia-like pseudo-muslim gangs in Pakistan.
(Opium biggest earner, outside of oil, and various countries getting
each 30 billion of dollars every year in military subsidies from USA)

As for Iraq, you merely helped to empower the Iranians, and cause the
Israelis to act irrationally by Condi Rice kicking the Syrians out of
Lebanon. They were keeping the lid on the violence in Lebanon. Israel
was then attacked by the emboldened Hezbolah (who were kept in check by
the Syrians), and Israel attacked back, weakening the region and setting
the peace prcess back decades.

You lost the region. But the 21st century will reclaim it, as well as
Texas for the future, not the neandhertals that have run those places
lately.

OffWorld

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

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "mainstream20016"
 wrote:
>
>
>
> --- 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.
>

That is correct.

OffWorld

RE: [FairfieldLife] Ron Paul on Global Warming

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of off_world_beings
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 2:52 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Ron Paul on Global Warming
 
  


Ron Paul on Global Warming

The "fringe" candidate that has been taking the Internet by storm measures
his stance on global warming the same he does most all issues -- by the U.S.
Constitution.

[FairfieldLife] Ron Paul on Global Warming

[off_world_beings]

Ron Paul on Global Warming
The "fringe" candidate that has been taking the Internet by storm
measures his stance on global warming the same he does most all issues
-- by the U.S. Constitution.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
wrote:
>
> I just ran the script manually, and this time, it appears
> to have the correct count.

It had the "correct count" on Sunday too, except it was
somehow set to count only a little over four hours' worth
of posts.


> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, FFL PostCount  wrote:
> >
> > Fairfield Life Post Counter
> > ===
> > Start Date (UTC): Sat Mar 13 00:00:00 2010
> > End Date (UTC): Sat Mar 20 00:00:00 2010
> > 201 messages as of (UTC) Mon Mar 15 17:51:57 2010
> > 
> > 36 authfriend 
> > 21 lurkernomore20002000 
> > 16 tartbrain 
> > 16 ShempMcGurk 
> > 13 Joe 
> > 12 off_world_beings 
> > 11 curtisdeltablues 
> > 10 WillyTex 
> >  7 mainstream20016 
> >  7 Buck 
> >  7 "do.rflex" 
> >  5 yifuxero 
> >  5 TurquoiseB 
> >  4 cardemaister 
> >  4 Vaj 
> >  4 Sal Sunshine 
> >  4 Bhairitu 
> >  3 Rick Archer 
> >  3 Mike Dixon 
> >  3 BillyG 
> >  2 shukra69 
> >  2 guyfawkes91 
> >  2 It's just a ride 
> >  2 Alex Stanley 
> >  1 merlin 
> >  1 John 
> > 
> > Posters: 26
> > Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
> > =
> > Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
> > US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
> > Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
> > Standard Time (Winter):
> > US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
> > Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
> > For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Racism is linked to Religious dogmatism

[authfriend]

This is kind of sloppily written, in that the findings
are stated as if they were absolutes when they surely
had to do with statistically significant tendencies
among all groups. It's not the case, for example, that
racial tolerance was found only among agnostics, but
rather that agnostics were the only group that were
found to be *preponderantly* racially tolerant compared
to "devout" groups.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
>
> 
> Racism is linked to Religious dogmatismJohn Shook - February 16, 2010
> 
> Religious congregations generally express
> more prejudiced views towards other races.
> Furthermore, the more devout the
> community, the greater the racism.
> 
> 
>  Religious people can be racist, and that's not news.  But are
> they more likely to be racist than non-religious people?  A new study
> now confirms this hypothesis.
> 
> The February issue of Personality and Social Psychology Review
> has published
> a meta-analysis of 55 independent studies conducted in the United States
> which considers surveys of over 20,000 mostly Christian participants.
> Religious congregations generally express more prejudiced views towards
> other races. Furthermore, the more devout the community, the greater the
> racism.
> 
> We also read this additional fascinating conclusion from the authors'
> summary:
> 
> "The authors failed to find that racial tolerance arises from
> humanitarian values, consistent with the idea that religious
> humanitarianism is largely expressed to in-group members. Only
> religious agnostics were racially tolerant."
> 
> Is this a surprising result? Humanistic values, such as equal dignity
> and rights for all humanity, are often professed by many Christian
> denominations. But does this preaching make any difference to their
> members' actual prejudices? Apparently not!
> 
> This study finds that a denomination's demand for devout allegiance to
> its Christian creed overrides any humanistic message. By demanding such
> devotion to one specific and dogmatic Christianity, a denomination only
> encourages its members to view outsiders as less worthy.
> 
> --- Let's read that conclusion again: "Only religious agnostics were
> racially tolerant." Why would religious agnostics be more humanistic and
> less racist?
> 
> Religious agnostics would be people who combine a religious/spiritual
> attitude in living life with a humble admission that they don't know if
> their approach is the only right way. Religious agnostics are
> pluralistic -- they have no problem admiring how different people can
> enjoy different religious paths. And it is precisely this lack of
> dogmatism which permits humanistic values to shine through. Religious
> exclusivism defeats humanistic universalism, but religious pluralism
> enhances humanistic universalism.
> 
> The message to humanists? It's not enough to ask religious people to be
> more humanistic. Humanists must ask for less dogmatism across the board
> -- if Christians would be more humanistic, they must surrender their
> conviction that their way is the only way. Humanism does not eliminate
> reverence, but it asks for a higher perspective -- something like
> "reverence for reverence." Revere your own religious path, but also
> respect and revere others' ability to devote themselves to a higher good
> in their own way. It is precisely that kind of universal respect for all
> paths which can reduce prejudice.
> 
> As for the nonreligious, this "reverence for reverence" is essential to
> humanism in the first place. We should all be able to create our own way
> of relating to the wide universe as we learn to understand it. And the
> humanistic ideal is that everyone can do this together in mutual respect
> and peace.
> 
> 
> http://snipurl.com/uut84   [www_centerforinquiry_net]
>

[FairfieldLife] Umpires needed: Does this answer Shemp's questions?

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@
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?
>


Umpires needed. Shemp has completely gone off the rails. Does this below
answer Shemp's questions?

In answer to your poorly argued attention seeking BS, I already answered
them in these posts. You may not LIKE the answers (you NEVER will), but
I DID answer your dumbass questions.

Post 243282 - embryonic research

""Wrong. He is against government funding of it. ""

Post 243271 - Scientific evidence

""They (he and Obama) are both for science over religious Neocon
fanaticism.""

Post 243233 - Support for socialist healthcare:

""Ron Paul is all about charities too. ie. Giving. He believes that
helping others comes naturally. He just doesn't understand that in an
age of ignorance, with ignoramouses such as you, there needs to be an
organized effort to help others in a way that the consensus in society
feels is best (rather than your ignorant inefficient ideas) --  and that
is called socialism. Socialism is the wave of the future.""

Post 243241 - Ron Paul more like Obama than anybody (Like I explained to
you in the past Shemp, Ron Paul just doesn't KNOW that he is pretty much
the same. That is where Ron Paul fails. He, like Sarah Palin, DOESN'T
EVEN REALISE THAT HE IS PRO-CHOICE !He said it in interviews. He wants
no punishment for the woman or doctor. THAT IS PRO-CHOICE you MORON! )

""Ron Paul was still in the running at the time. I supported Ron Paul
for leader of the Republican party because he was far better than all
those idiots and criminals that you supported Shemp. But you warmongers
pushed him out and smeared him, so that an old idiot warmonger could
shuffle around with some bimbo ,making complete fools of you and your
warmongering hateful ant-social archaic neandhethal friends Shemp. I was
the first on FFL life to support Obama for President. (and that fact
just makes you so mad doesn't it S

[FairfieldLife] album of events 2010

[merlin]

album of events 2010
 
http://www.pictures.globalgoodnews.com/index.html

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen 
Massenmails. 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

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

[Joe]

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

> You really put these two trolls in their place, Judy.
> Lurk and Sal got waxed, real good, this time. Who
> saidkarma doesn't work?
> 
> Good job!

> You really put these two trolls in their place, Judy.
> Lurk and Sal got waxed, real good, this time.

Judy: No, Lurk had it right. I confirmed what he said and
DISconfirmed what Sal said.

Sound's like you, as you like to say, need to "get some smarts" Tex.
Are you "really really stoopid"?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chesterton & the intolerance of religion

[sgrayatlarge]

Please Curtis, challenge away, in fact speaking for Judaism, if you don't 
challenge, it's a sign that you aren't trying hard enough. Btw, the bacon and 
BLT thing, first you need to do a little research yourself young man and you 
will know why that statement is well, silly and not even decent mockery. Dig a 
little deeper to know why the laws of Kashrut would even apply today. Why would 
a God who expects man to be good, decent, ethical, in a word a Mensch even 
forbid us from eating everything moving or not moving? Did you know that their 
is a universal commandment not to eat flesh taken from an animal while it is 
still alive? That was common back in the day, what a stupid silly God to even 
suggest we practice any kind of restraint?

Yes I'm aware of the some of the horrendous practices done in the name of 
Kosher butchering in Iowa, again you find human failings, but still we have 
standards. They should throw the book at them, I won't defend them.

The Laws of Kashrut (mixing meat and dairy, shellfish restrictions, eat fish 
with scales only, not bottom feeders, boil a kid in it's mothers milk, etc) 
only applies to Jews anyway, there is a reason why the word Israel means to 
struggle.

So you like bacon on your blt, go for it, God won't be pissed, just don't 
slaughter the pig while it's alive!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > Some original quotes by G. K. Chesterton:
> > > 
> > > "A man who refuses to have his own philosophy will only
> > > have the used-up scraps of somebody else's
> > > philosophy;
> 
> This is one of my complaints against religious beliefs, it is adapting a 
> pre-fab perspective from an agrarian culture.  I am not advocating being 
> intolerant.  But that doesn't mean that we can't challenge the assumptive 
> claims of religions that they are absolutely right because God told them that 
> putting some bacon in your BLT pisses him off.
> 
> 
>  which the beasts do not
> > > have to inherit; hence their happiness. Men have always
> > > one of two things: either a complete and conscious 
> > > philosophy or the unconscious acceptance of the broken
> > > bits of some incomplete and  shattered and often
> > > discredited philosophy" ["The Revival of
> > > Philosophy,Why?]
> 
> A false alternative, but I get the point. Most people 9myself included) have 
> a bit of both.  But the idea that philosophers are discredited is not how I 
> view the history of philosophy, that is more of a religious take on 
> philosophy.  For me each important philosopher adds a piece to a continuing 
> dialectic process for discovering truth.  Not understanding what has been 
> thought out before leaves modern society recreating thought flows made 
> clearer by more brilliant people.  It keeps us at philosophical square one by 
> not understanding how to think about ideas better.  A lot of these techniques 
> have been worked out. But our school systems have abandoned teaching critical 
> thinking because if you use it too rigorously you might discover that some of 
> the goals of multiculturalism are bullshit. (All religious beliefs should be 
> respected equally even though in some religions killing non believers is 
> considered a bad thing and in some it is the greatest thing you can do for 
> your future beyond the grave.) 
> 
> > 
> > Thanks Merudanda. I enjoyed Chesterton's short essay:
> > http://chesterton.org/gkc/philosopher/revivalpPhilosophy.htm
> > 
> > I wonder if the following is at all relevant to the recent 
> > Curtis::Judy religion debate? (I'm not sure because I'm not 
> > clear as to how far Curtis wants his views about myths, 
> > superstitions and fairy tales to be enshrined, "hard-wired" as 
> > it were into *modern society*):
> 
> I missed this when you posted it.  I enjoyed the piece as philosophy poetry.  
> An enjoyable romp though word salad with a purpose.  I don't want my views 
> about myths to become enshrined anywhere.  I am just noticing that this has 
> already taken place with most of the religious ideas man has created and am 
> anxious to see the process complete itself with the remaining ones.  This 
> doesn't take away the value of studying the ideas, it just knocks them off 
> the throne of absolute certainty so it can enter the scrum of all of our 
> other man-made ideas.  I am advocating taking away the preface "God wants" 
> from any proposal about society.  Change "Gods wants gay people to stop being 
> gay"  and it becomes "I and a bunch of my friends who agree with me want gay 
> people to stop being gay."  The first ends the discussion, the second starts 
> it.
> > 
> > << Thus, when so brilliant a man as Mr. H. G. Wells-Delta-
> > Blues
> 
> That was funny.
> 
>  says that such supernatural ideas have become impossible 
> > "for intelligent people", he is (for that instant) not tal

[FairfieldLife] Racism is linked to Religious dogmatism

[do.rflex]

Racism is linked to Religious dogmatismJohn Shook - February 16, 2010

Religious congregations generally express
more prejudiced views towards other races.
Furthermore, the more devout the
community, the greater the racism.


 Religious people can be racist, and that's not news.  But are
they more likely to be racist than non-religious people?  A new study
now confirms this hypothesis.

The February issue of Personality and Social Psychology Review
has published
a meta-analysis of 55 independent studies conducted in the United States
which considers surveys of over 20,000 mostly Christian participants.
Religious congregations generally express more prejudiced views towards
other races. Furthermore, the more devout the community, the greater the
racism.

We also read this additional fascinating conclusion from the authors'
summary:

"The authors failed to find that racial tolerance arises from
humanitarian values, consistent with the idea that religious
humanitarianism is largely expressed to in-group members. Only
religious agnostics were racially tolerant."

Is this a surprising result? Humanistic values, such as equal dignity
and rights for all humanity, are often professed by many Christian
denominations. But does this preaching make any difference to their
members' actual prejudices? Apparently not!

This study finds that a denomination's demand for devout allegiance to
its Christian creed overrides any humanistic message. By demanding such
devotion to one specific and dogmatic Christianity, a denomination only
encourages its members to view outsiders as less worthy.

--- Let's read that conclusion again: "Only religious agnostics were
racially tolerant." Why would religious agnostics be more humanistic and
less racist?

Religious agnostics would be people who combine a religious/spiritual
attitude in living life with a humble admission that they don't know if
their approach is the only right way. Religious agnostics are
pluralistic -- they have no problem admiring how different people can
enjoy different religious paths. And it is precisely this lack of
dogmatism which permits humanistic values to shine through. Religious
exclusivism defeats humanistic universalism, but religious pluralism
enhances humanistic universalism.

The message to humanists? It's not enough to ask religious people to be
more humanistic. Humanists must ask for less dogmatism across the board
-- if Christians would be more humanistic, they must surrender their
conviction that their way is the only way. Humanism does not eliminate
reverence, but it asks for a higher perspective -- something like
"reverence for reverence." Revere your own religious path, but also
respect and revere others' ability to devote themselves to a higher good
in their own way. It is precisely that kind of universal respect for all
paths which can reduce prejudice.

As for the nonreligious, this "reverence for reverence" is essential to
humanism in the first place. We should all be able to create our own way
of relating to the wide universe as we learn to understand it. And the
humanistic ideal is that everyone can do this together in mutual respect
and peace.


http://snipurl.com/uut84   [www_centerforinquiry_net]

[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count

[Alex Stanley]

I just ran the script manually, and this time, it appears to have the correct 
count.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, FFL PostCount  wrote:
>
> Fairfield Life Post Counter
> ===
> Start Date (UTC): Sat Mar 13 00:00:00 2010
> End Date (UTC): Sat Mar 20 00:00:00 2010
> 201 messages as of (UTC) Mon Mar 15 17:51:57 2010
> 
> 36 authfriend 
> 21 lurkernomore20002000 
> 16 tartbrain 
> 16 ShempMcGurk 
> 13 Joe 
> 12 off_world_beings 
> 11 curtisdeltablues 
> 10 WillyTex 
>  7 mainstream20016 
>  7 Buck 
>  7 "do.rflex" 
>  5 yifuxero 
>  5 TurquoiseB 
>  4 cardemaister 
>  4 Vaj 
>  4 Sal Sunshine 
>  4 Bhairitu 
>  3 Rick Archer 
>  3 Mike Dixon 
>  3 BillyG 
>  2 shukra69 
>  2 guyfawkes91 
>  2 It's just a ride 
>  2 Alex Stanley 
>  1 merlin 
>  1 John 
> 
> Posters: 26
> 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] 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
201 messages as of (UTC) Mon Mar 15 17:51:57 2010

36 authfriend 
21 lurkernomore20002000 
16 tartbrain 
16 ShempMcGurk 
13 Joe 
12 off_world_beings 
11 curtisdeltablues 
10 WillyTex 
 7 mainstream20016 
 7 Buck 
 7 "do.rflex" 
 5 yifuxero 
 5 TurquoiseB 
 4 cardemaister 
 4 Vaj 
 4 Sal Sunshine 
 4 Bhairitu 
 3 Rick Archer 
 3 Mike Dixon 
 3 BillyG 
 2 shukra69 
 2 guyfawkes91 
 2 It's just a ride 
 2 Alex Stanley 
 1 merlin 
 1 John 

Posters: 26
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] After row Sec. of State Clinton presents Israel with List of Demands

[do.rflex]

Israel envoy: U.S. ties at their lowest ebb in 35 years  By
Barak Ravid  , Haaretz Correspondent and
Haaretz Service
 Israel's ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, has told
the country's diplomats there that U.S.-Israeli relations face their
worst crisis in 35 years, despite attempts by Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu's office to project a sense of "business as usual."

Oren was speaking to the Israeli consuls general in a conference call on
Saturday night.

On Sunday, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee condemned recent
statements by the U.S. government regarding its ties with Israel, amid
tensions over Israel's recent announcement of its plan to build 1,600
new housing units in East Jerusalem.

"The Obama Administration's recent statements regarding the U.S.
relationship with Israel are a matter of serious concern," said AIPAC in
a statement issued on Sunday.

AIPAC is considered the most influential pro-Israel pressure group in
the United States.

"AIPAC calls on the administration to take immediate steps to defuse the
tension with the Jewish State," the statement said.

The pro-Israel group urged the U.S. government to move past the recent
diplomatic upheaval between Washington and Jerusalem.

"The Administration should make a conscious effort to move away from
public demands and unilateral deadlines directed at Israel, with whom
the United States shares basic, fundamental, and strategic interests,"
the AIPAC statement said.

The leftist pro-Israel group J Street released a statement Monday
supporting the Obama administration's recent actions.

"As Vice President Biden said, 'Sometimes only a friend can deliver the
hardest truth.' That is what he, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and
White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod have done in recent days - and
J Street, along with many friends of Israel, stands solidly behind
them," said J Street executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami.

"Bold American leadership is needed now to turn this crisis into a real
opportunity to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is a
fundamental American national security interest."

The Republican Jewish Coalition said Monday that it was deeply upset by
the tone and actions of the Obama administration regarding Israel in
recent days.

"The strident and unwarranted escalation of tension, which has turned a
minor diplomatic embarrassment into a major international incident, has
raised serious concerns about the administration's Israel policy from a
variety of mainstream voices," RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks said.
"We believe the administration's actions are disproportionate and
one-sided."

Netanyahu consulted Sunday with the forum of seven senior cabinet
ministers over a list of demands that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton made in a telephone conversation Friday.

Clinton harshly criticized the announcement last week of plans to expand
the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood in East Jerusalem while U.S. Vice
President Joe Biden was visiting Israel.

Haaretz has learned that Clinton's list includes at least four steps the
United States expects Netanyahu to carry out to restore confidence in
bilateral relations and permit the resumption of peace talks with the
Palestinians.

1. Investigate the process that led to the announcement of the Ramat
Shlomo construction plans in the middle of Biden's visit. The Americans
seek an official response from Israel on whether this was a bureaucratic
mistake or a deliberate act carried out for political reasons. Already
on Saturday night, Netanyahu announced the convening of a committee to
look into the issue.

2. Reverse the decision by the Jerusalem District Planning and Building
Committee to approve construction of 1,600 new housing units in Ramat
Shlomo.

3. Make a substantial gesture toward the Palestinians enabling the
renewal of peace talks. The Americans suggested that hundreds of
Palestinian prisoners be released, that the Israel Defense Forces
withdraw from additional areas of the West Bank and transfer them to
Palestinian control, that the siege of the Gaza Strip be eased and
further roadblocks in the West Bank be removed.

4. Issue an official declaration that the talks with the Palestinians,
even indirect talks, will deal with all the conflict's core issues -
borders, refugees, Jerusalem, security arrangements, water and
settlements.

Two advisers of the prime minister, Yitzhak Molcho and Ron Dermer, held
marathon talks Sunday with senior White House officials in Washington
and U.S. Mideast envoy George Mitchell and his staff to try to calm the
situation. Mitchell will return to Israel Tuesday and expects to hear if
Netanyahu intends to take the proposed steps.

At the beginning of Sunday's cabinet meeting, Netanyahu tried to convey
a message that there was no crisis in relations with the United States.
But he sent precisely the opposite message to Oren in Washington.

In Oren's Saturday conference call wit

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

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> 
> On Mar 14, 2010, at 4:57 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:

Actually, I wrote this, not Lurk:

> > > Perhaps she carefully avoided reading my posts. If so, it
> > > would be a kindness for someone to clue her in.
> 
> It would actually be even kinder if someone clued AuthFiend
> in and told her to "grown the fuck up"

I know, having ethical principles is just so childish,
isn't it? It'll be so nice when I can "grown the fuck up"
and forget all about ethics. I can hardly wait till I no
longer feel the need to tell the truth and stand up for
folks who have been unfairly attacked by grown-up liars.

Sorry I felt compelled to take down one of those wise
and mature adults after she had falsely accused another 
childishly honest person here of lying.

 and to "get a life".
> Just because she lives vicariously through her internet
> connection doesn't mean other adults do.

LOL. You should only know how I get my kicks other than
through the Internet.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chesterton & the intolerance of religion

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Curtis:
> > Chesterton & the intolerance of religion...
> >
> So, you're intolerant of religious beliefs but you're at 
> the same time, on a spiritual path.

Chesterton's phrase not mine. I am a fan and student of religious and spiritual 
beliefs.  Always have been despite a dramatic shift in my relationship with 
them through the years.  But like an ex-girlfriend who was completely crazy but 
the sex was fantastic, I remember my own spiritual/religious beliefs with 
fondness and am not above the occasional drunk dial conversation late at night, 
even if we usually end up fighting and then hanging up on each other. 

> 
> > This is one of my complaints against religious beliefs...
> >
> From what I've read on FFL, over a period of ten years, 
> is that the majority of respondents here are not very 
> religious, so I doubt they would have much to say about 
> religious ideas, Curtis. And metaphysics is probably way
> over their heads.

Some people find the distinction between religious ideas and spiritual ideas 
important.  Usually I do not since they often share the same epistemological 
model with "spiritual" skewing more towards mystical revelation as a source of 
knowledge and many religions saying this guy a long time ago had a direct 
mystical revelation so you should believe it due to their assumed authority.

> 
> Delia was the only scholar of merit around here - she 
> claimed to be a student of comparative religions at UCLA. 
> 
> She also claimed to be a member in good standing with a 
> 'Craft' out in Los Angeles. Judy had a great debate with
> Delia, where John and Barry got waxed real good, in a
> religious debate about Paganism and Witchcraft!

Sorry I missed it.  I don't think we do much real debating here, it is more 
like an idea and perspective scrum. So I am not inclined to view any of us as 
winners in the end except that we got our own POV across.  Winning debates 
requires more structure and the outcome is often pointless.  I believe in the 
noble attempt to persuade as plenty good enough.  

WICCA gets such a bad rap from other religionists.  I am sympathetic the their 
cause of equal rights to practice their version of groundless assertions about 
life.

> 
> Apparently the only informants to admit to being really
> religious are Barry1, a Simpsonite; Barry2, a Left-Handed 
> Tantric; Vaj is devoted to Nathism; Judy is 'not a 
> Christian'; and you're singing the Devil's music.

Well the thing about the devil is that he is the king of this world and pays 
out in cash right now, whereas the other team pays in future credit default 
swaps and we both know where they have lead the US economy, straight to hell. I 
am not inclined to take any deal offered to me in this form: "I will gladly pay 
you Tuesday for a hamburger today." 




>

[FairfieldLife] Great 60 Minutes on the crimes of Wall St.

[Bhairitu]

This was on "60 Minutes" last night and really makes clear what a bunch 
of hoods run Wall St.  and why we are so screwed:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/12/60minutes/main6292458.shtml

[FairfieldLife] Global Good News!

[authfriend]

UN agencies say open defecation on the decline

Associated Press
 
GENEVA – Almost 170 million people have moved from
the outdoors to at least the outhouse to defecate 
in what the United Nations is calling a major 
advance in global sanitation over the last two 
decades.

The U.N. health and children's agencies say open 
defecation is the riskiest sanitation practice.

Nearly a quarter of the world practiced it in 1990, 
but that figure has dropped to 17 percent. They say 
rates remain high in India.

Open defecation can lead to deadly diarrhea, worms 
that enter food sources and the spread of lethal 
diseases such as cholera and polio.

The agencies said Monday that 2.6 billion people 
are still without decent sanitation.

But the situation is better with safe drinking 
water, which 87 percent of the world now enjoys.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100315/ap_on_re_eu/un_un_global_sanitation

http://tinyurl.com/ya368xn

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

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
>
> > > > > I remember when the John Edwards mistress,
> > > > > love child story broke...
> > > > >
> > > > Sounds *very* unlikely, lurk, as I've said here,
> > > > more than once, that the NI usually gets its
> > > > stories right...
> > > >
> Judy:
> > ...Palin's husband's business partner) was unlikely
> > to have been Trig's father.
> >
> 
> 
> > And BTW, the Enquirer is up for a Pulitzer for the
> > Edwards story.
> >
> You really put these two trolls in their place, Judy.
> Lurk and Sal got waxed, real good, this time.

No, Lurk had it right. I confirmed what he said and
DISconfirmed what Sal said.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chesterton & the intolerance of religion

[WillyTex]

Curtis:
> Chesterton & the intolerance of religion...
>
So, you're intolerant of religious beliefs but you're at 
the same time, on a spiritual path.

> This is one of my complaints against religious beliefs...
>
>From what I've read on FFL, over a period of ten years, 
is that the majority of respondents here are not very 
religious, so I doubt they would have much to say about 
religious ideas, Curtis. And metaphysics is probably way
over their heads.

Delia was the only scholar of merit around here - she 
claimed to be a student of comparative religions at UCLA. 

She also claimed to be a member in good standing with a 
'Craft' out in Los Angeles. Judy had a great debate with
Delia, where John and Barry got waxed real good, in a
religious debate about Paganism and Witchcraft!

Apparently the only informants to admit to being really
religious are Barry1, a Simpsonite; Barry2, a Left-Handed 
Tantric; Vaj is devoted to Nathism; Judy is 'not a 
Christian'; and you're singing the Devil's music.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
> wrote:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mar 14, 2010, at 7:21 PM, FFL PostCount wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 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 
> [snip]
> > > This is a bit off, methinks.
> > 
> > How so?
> 
> Ok, I see it. By my count, on my Gmail feed, Judy is at 32
> posts as of right now, Monday morning.

For some reason it had the same count for quite a few
of us--not just me--on Saturday as on Sunday.

Look at this:

Saturday's count (7:15 pm EST)
67 messages as of (UTC) Sun Mar 14 00:14:36 2010
16 authfriend
...
1 curtisdeltablues

Sunday's count (8:21 pm EST):
79 messages as of (UTC) Sun Mar 14 04:28:33 2010
16 authfriend
...
1 curtisdeltablues

Shouldn't Sunday's count have been as of 00:-something
Monday March 15? Looks as if the Sunday count was made
only 4:14 hours after Saturday's, which is why it didn't
pick up any of my or Curtis's Sunday posts.

I haven't checked, but it appears that the only people
whose counts went up between Saturday's and Sunday's
count may have been those who posted between 00:14:36
and 04:28:33 (neither Curtis nor I did).

[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Judy

[WillyTex]

tartbrain:
> Some further thoughts and questions...
>


> Lets say God did talk to someone...
>
If God, the Transcendental Person, were 
to talk to someone, 'God' would probably
explain how things really are. 

You are already enlightened.
 
All you have to do is dispel the 
illusion that there is time and duration. 
There is no coming to be; no dissolution; 
no moving about; no change; no staying 
the same.

> And that person was Clear enough to 
> get it.
>
That's the way things really are.

In order to dispel the illusion all you 
need to do is realize that you are not 
going to get any more enlightenment than 
you are going to get.

> Would our interpretation of those 
> persons words reflect what God meant? 
> No. Tragedy of Knowledge and all. 

When you realize that, that you are not 
going to get any more enlightenment than 
you are going to get, you can stop all 
your striving. Just work out your own
samskaras with awareness and compassion.

The question is - is God a Transcendental 
Person (Samkhya Purusha)?

> So, the very concept of man sitting 
> down, opening the Bible, and reading 
> the Word of God - is kind of crazy IMO 
> -- even if God exists in his full 
> alleged Glory.
>
According to the Maharishi, every time
you practice TM, you can see and talk
with the Transcendental Person, and 
dispel the illusion (alatasanti).

Read more:

'Dispelling Illusion'
Gaudapada's Alatasanti
Douglas A. Fox
State University of New York Press, 1993 

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

[WillyTex]

off:
> The Financial Crimes of GW Bush...
> 
Has George W. Bush been charged with any crimes?
None that I know of - was Bush in charge of the 
U.S. economy? 

So, how many years has it been since the United
States experienced a terrorist attack on it's 
own soil? 

If the war cost us a trillion dollars, then I'd 
say it is worth it. 

But, I don't think that the President is very 
much responsible for state of the economy or the
national debt. We live in a representative republic 
and it is our elected leaders that pass the laws 
and spend the money. 

You need to get some smarts: 

We want to bring down the national debt, but we 
must win the war before we can do that. It does
NOT improve the economy when world trade centers
are brought down. 

My plan is to win the war, and then create jobs
so everyone makes good money. 

My plan makes sense, you're does not.

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

[WillyTex]

> > > > I remember when the John Edwards mistress,
> > > > love child story broke...
> > > >
> > > Sounds *very* unlikely, lurk, as I've said here,
> > > more than once, that the NI usually gets its
> > > stories right...
> > >
Judy:
> ...Palin's husband's business partner) was unlikely
> to have been Trig's father.
>


> And BTW, the Enquirer is up for a Pulitzer for the
> Edwards story.
>
You really put these two trolls in their place, Judy.
Lurk and Sal got waxed, real good, this time. Who
saidkarma doesn't work?

Good job!

I gave them the perfect 'set-up' to post comments,
but they just had to open their big pie holes about
Sarah Palin, and try to hijack the thread again.

And, I've noticed that they're even stooping to
posting threads with your name right in the subject
line.

Now,  it IS all about Judy!

You finally did what I could not do for ten years: get
the informants of FFL to discuss the religious and
spiritual life of TMers based on readings from the
National Enquirer and the Globe & Mail.

You brought out the truth: Barry has a religion; Curtis
is on a spiritual path; Vaj is a Baul; and Lurk and Sal
are really, really stoopid.

LOL!

"Judy and I had been having a discussion about
religious beliefs and the various ways to deal with
it in society..."

'Response to Judy'
/FairfieldLife/message/243754

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chesterton & the intolerance of religion

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  
> wrote:
> > 
> > Some original quotes by G. K. Chesterton:
> > 
> > "A man who refuses to have his own philosophy will only
> > have the used-up scraps of somebody else's
> > philosophy;

This is one of my complaints against religious beliefs, it is adapting a 
pre-fab perspective from an agrarian culture.  I am not advocating being 
intolerant.  But that doesn't mean that we can't challenge the assumptive 
claims of religions that they are absolutely right because God told them that 
putting some bacon in your BLT pisses him off.


 which the beasts do not
> > have to inherit; hence their happiness. Men have always
> > one of two things: either a complete and conscious 
> > philosophy or the unconscious acceptance of the broken
> > bits of some incomplete and  shattered and often
> > discredited philosophy" ["The Revival of
> > Philosophy,Why?]

A false alternative, but I get the point. Most people 9myself included) have a 
bit of both.  But the idea that philosophers are discredited is not how I view 
the history of philosophy, that is more of a religious take on philosophy.  For 
me each important philosopher adds a piece to a continuing dialectic process 
for discovering truth.  Not understanding what has been thought out before 
leaves modern society recreating thought flows made clearer by more brilliant 
people.  It keeps us at philosophical square one by not understanding how to 
think about ideas better.  A lot of these techniques have been worked out. But 
our school systems have abandoned teaching critical thinking because if you use 
it too rigorously you might discover that some of the goals of multiculturalism 
are bullshit. (All religious beliefs should be respected equally even though in 
some religions killing non believers is considered a bad thing and in some it 
is the greatest thing you can do for your future beyond the grave.) 

> 
> Thanks Merudanda. I enjoyed Chesterton's short essay:
> http://chesterton.org/gkc/philosopher/revivalpPhilosophy.htm
> 
> I wonder if the following is at all relevant to the recent 
> Curtis::Judy religion debate? (I'm not sure because I'm not 
> clear as to how far Curtis wants his views about myths, 
> superstitions and fairy tales to be enshrined, "hard-wired" as 
> it were into *modern society*):

I missed this when you posted it.  I enjoyed the piece as philosophy poetry.  
An enjoyable romp though word salad with a purpose.  I don't want my views 
about myths to become enshrined anywhere.  I am just noticing that this has 
already taken place with most of the religious ideas man has created and am 
anxious to see the process complete itself with the remaining ones.  This 
doesn't take away the value of studying the ideas, it just knocks them off the 
throne of absolute certainty so it can enter the scrum of all of our other 
man-made ideas.  I am advocating taking away the preface "God wants" from any 
proposal about society.  Change "Gods wants gay people to stop being gay"  and 
it becomes "I and a bunch of my friends who agree with me want gay people to 
stop being gay."  The first ends the discussion, the second starts it.
> 
> << Thus, when so brilliant a man as Mr. H. G. Wells-Delta-
> Blues

That was funny.

 says that such supernatural ideas have become impossible 
> "for intelligent people", he is (for that instant) not talking 
> like an intelligent person.

Wouldn't be the first time, thanks for taking the time to notice.

 In other words, he is not talking 
> like a philosopher; because he is not even saying what he 
> means. What he means is, not "impossible for intelligent men", 
> but, "impossible for intelligent monists", or, "impossible for 
> intelligent determinists". But it is not a negation of 
>  to hold any coherent and logical conception of 
> so mysterious a world.

Here I disagree. Although I fully accept chastisement if I used the phrase 
"impossible for intelligent people" (I'll take your word that I did) it is both 
obnoxious and wrong.  People who would be rated on every measurable scale of 
intelligence above me believe in all sorts of things that I do not.  So using 
intelligence this way is ridiculous since no one knows better than I do the 
limited number of cylinders under my hood.  However,this does not mean that 
super bright people can't be wrong or that they may have missed the 
philosophical training needed to notice their unsupported assertions.  This 
happens all the time and can even be caused by a super bright man noticing a 
short skirted woman crossing the street while he is talking, leading to the 
conclusion that man has blood enough for his two heads, but only one at a time.

I am attempting to restore the humble mystery of "we don't know" to people who 
claim to know such things such as what happens when we die.  We would have to 
take each belief case by case but if you start with ones that

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

[Mike Dixon]

Congratulations on creating world peace through a diet! Wow, I never would have 
guessed! However, I love fresh duck, killed by my Peregrine falcon!





From: Rick Archer 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, March 14, 2010 4:22:35 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] The World Peace Diet hits #1 on Amazon.com! [1 
Attachment]

  
[Attachment(s) from Rick Archer included below] 
- 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...@earthlin k.net
800-697-6614 - voice mail

You are all the BEST!!!





  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
> >
> > 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 
[snip]
> > This is a bit off, methinks.
> 
> How so?

Ok, I see it. By my count, on my Gmail feed, Judy is at 32 posts as of right 
now, Monday morning.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
>
> 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.

How so?

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

[BillyG]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yifuxero"  wrote:
>
> Tolle looks like a troll from the Black Forest.


Maybe he fell into the gap!!  :-)

 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 t

[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Judy

[mainstream20016]

Imagine the horror of Judy's distorted personality at the time her father 
considered his daughter an insufferable aging 30+ year-old wench before Judy 
learned TM in 1976.  It's 34 years later…..and Judy's now 65+.  Perhaps her dad 
embellished his take on TM's positive effect on his spinsterish daughter 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: Stages of the fourth praaNaayaama?

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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!
>

There are seven stages or whatever in YS before samaadhi.
Despite that samaadhi is "divided" into savitarka, etc.

Cheers,
cardemaister(att)yahoo.com  ('maister' deliberately "misspelled"...)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of the fourth praaNaayaama?

[cardemaister]

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

> 
> 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..
>

I just found out that 'nirvikalpa-samaadhi' appears at least in
Viveka-cuuDaa-maNi. Does it appear in any "authoritative"
Vedic text, such as an upaniSat or a suutra? 

(According to
CDSL, it appears in Vedaanta-suutra - unless 'Veda7ntas.'[sic!]
 refers to some other text - but I could find only this:

bhAvaM jaiminirvikalpAmnAnAt.h OM || 4\.4\.11||

Without sandhi that would prolly be:

bhaavam; jaiminiH; vikalpa + aamnaanaat.)