[FairfieldLife] Dominant seventh?

[cardemaister]

I'm not absolutely sure about that, but I guess I finally
figgered out why e.g. C7 is called a *dominant* seventh chord
(of the C major scale?).

As most of us might know, the 7 in C7 is B-flat, which
doesn't belong to the C major scale.

But if you form a similar seventh chord starting (as the root) from
the *dominant* of C major scale, which is G, the diminished
seventh is F, which is the fourth (subdominant) of the
*C major* scale. :o

[FairfieldLife] Re: 100 Purusha leaving MUM, going to NC?

[cardemaister]

FWIW, I'm afraid the 13th baktun, or stuff, of Maya-indians, is
approaching its end... :0


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> The immediate urgent priority for national invincibility and world peace is 
> to join the Invincible America Course at MUM. Only 2000 Flyers, rising to 
> 2500, in Fairfield/Maharishi Vedic City will bring security to America and 
> defuse the precarious escalation of conflict in the world.
> 
> 
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall  wrote:
> > >
> > > This is from a faculty member at MUM.   100 Purusha are leaving VC next
> > > month to go to North Carolina.   Is there a new place for Purusha in NC?
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > There go the Dome Numbers, again.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Greatest mystery known to man?

[cardemaister]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082440/Women-universal-mystery-claims-Stephen-Hawking.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: Greatest mystery known to man?

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
>
>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082440/Women-universal-mystery-\
claims-Stephen-Hawking.html


 [Men are from Earth, women are from Earth. Deal with it.
Black Letters by Lisa Jones Caldwell]  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Durga

[nablusoss1008]

Nice, thanks for posting this. I suppose what you describe will have paralells 
to the other senses also.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
>
> There is a third eye portal, through which the celestial worlds can be 
> glimpsed. Like any other activity, it takes attention if nothing more (35 yr. 
> TM/13 yr. TMSP), to see the middle sight and, pop, in you go! The ablity to 
> have celestial perception must operate at a higher frequency than physical 
> sight because it can be seen with the eyes open, almost as an overlay of 
> physical sight, although not really an overlay because there is no image 
> conflict. I see what I shift my attention to. Not hallucinations, but rather 
> as if a middle sight opens up between what is obviously seen, and what is 
> simply thought or imagined. This space is in between those two. A higher 
> frequency sight, through which can be seen the angels that we draw near, and 
> many, many other wonders. 
> 
> The language sounds metaphysical and arcane, but the experience is one that 
> is very familiar when it occurs. Very natural and familiar.:-)
> 
> That is 50 according to the list bot. See you Saturday!
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
> > >
> > > I did not mean to go so deeply into intention, making it seem less 
> > > wonderful than it is, although *any* visit takes a relationship, whether 
> > > it is from my Aunt or Durga.:-)
> > 
> > 
> > That's right :-)
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[zarzari_786]

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

> You're all getting really close to
> being in big trouble with Judy and 
> Emily and Raunchy.

I don't mind trouble with Judy. I am done with her. She should learn to control 
her anger before she makes spiritual discussions.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[Emily Reyn]

 From: zarzari_786 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 6:56 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love 
bombing..)
 

  

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

> You're all getting really close to
> being in big trouble with Judy and 
> Emily and Raunchy.

I don't mind trouble with Judy. I am done with her. She should learn to control 
her anger before she makes spiritual discussions.


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[richardatrwilliamsdotus]

> > You're all getting really close to
> > being in big trouble with Judy and 
> > Emily and Raunchy.
> >
zarzari:
> I don't mind trouble with Judy. I am 
> done with her...
>
She may not be done with you. Where I
come from, silence usually indicates 
agreement.

> She should learn to control her anger 
> before she makes spiritual discussions.
>
So, I wonder where are the FFL Moderators?

FFL Guidelines File - Updated 6/13/09:

8) Posting of "adult" material, either 
text or photos, or links to such materials, 
is prohibited. Violation of this guideline 
may result in expulsion from the group.

> > > Just reintroducing the concept of reality to
> > > all of this fantasizing that's been going on.
> > > In his head the Ravster seems to believe he's
> > > a real rock star, but in reality his biggest
> > > groupie probably has to remove her false teeth 
> > > before giving him a blowjob.  :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[Emily Reyn]

 From: richardatrwilliamsdotus 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 7:36 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love 
bombing..)
 

  


> > You're all getting really close to
> > being in big trouble with Judy and 
> > Emily and Raunchy.
> >
zarzari:
> I don't mind trouble with Judy. I am 
> done with her...
>
She may not be done with you. Where I
come from, silence usually indicates 
agreement.

> She should learn to control her anger 
> before she makes spiritual discussions.
>
So, I wonder where are the FFL Moderators?

FFL Guidelines File - Updated 6/13/09:

8) Posting of "adult" material, either 
text or photos, or links to such materials, 
is prohibited. Violation of this guideline 
may result in expulsion from the group.

> > > Just reintroducing the concept of reality to
> > > all of this fantasizing that's been going on.
> > > In his head the Ravster seems to believe he's
> > > a real rock star, but in reality his biggest
> > > groupie probably has to remove her false teeth 
> > > before giving him a blowjob.  :-)


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 100 Purusha leaving MUM, going to NC?

[Buck]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
> 
> FWIW, I'm afraid the 13th baktun, or stuff, of Maya-indians, is
> approaching its end... :0
>

Maya- or Mayan-Indians, it don't matter which.  
This is really bad for the Dome numbers, Fairfield, and the World.
 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
> >
> > The immediate urgent priority for national invincibility and world peace is 
> > to join the Invincible America Course at MUM. Only 2000 Flyers, rising to 
> > 2500, in Fairfield/Maharishi Vedic City will bring security to America and 
> > defuse the precarious escalation of conflict in the world.
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This is from a faculty member at MUM.   100 Purusha are leaving VC next
> > > > month to go to North Carolina.   Is there a new place for Purusha in NC?
> > > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > There go the Dome Numbers, again.
> > >
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[Emily Reyn]

You are sounding angry.  You are using the word "should", which is a term rife 
with judgment.  I seriously don't get this.  Where are all these absolutisms 
coming from? Is this the product of years of meditation?  Why is it that the 
entire exchange that involved numerous people has now simply been reduced to 
"Judy." Seriously?  And, no, don't assume that I am just blindly standing up 
for Judy because I am on her "side."  How completely neanderthal is that?  I am 
making a different point.  

The way I see it, there was an exchange.  It involved many points of view, many 
of which were conflicting.  This is good.  Are we all now going to descend into 
fear in expressing ourselves because the forum can't handle the conflict?  

Maybe try and "I" statement, such as..."I" am uncomfortable conversing with 
Judy because I perceive her as angry and that triggers emotions in me that I 
don't have the wherewithal to manage.  

Judy has engaged you in discussions that you appreciated a few weeks ago and 
now you simply dismiss her summarily with this kind of a judgment that 
indicates the exact position you "are done with?"  Do you not see the irony in 
this?  Do you not do any introspection?  Do you hold Judy to a different 
standard than you hold yourself to?  Are you familiar with the concept of 
forgiveness?  Do you consider yourself enlightened?  I seriously don't get it.


 From: zarzari_786 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 6:56 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love 
bombing..)
 

  

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

> You're all getting really close to
> being in big trouble with Judy and 
> Emily and Raunchy.

I don't mind trouble with Judy. I am done with her. She should learn to control 
her anger before she makes spiritual discussions.


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[Emily Reyn]

If this forum wants to set a new rule...perhaps that should be "Using words or 
pictures to indicate a direct sexual act between two forum members without 
their stated consent is not allowed and will result in dismissal for a week's 
time."



 From: richardatrwilliamsdotus 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 7:36 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love 
bombing..)
 

  


> > You're all getting really close to
> > being in big trouble with Judy and 
> > Emily and Raunchy.
> >
zarzari:
> I don't mind trouble with Judy. I am 
> done with her...
>
She may not be done with you. Where I
come from, silence usually indicates 
agreement.

> She should learn to control her anger 
> before she makes spiritual discussions.
>
So, I wonder where are the FFL Moderators?

FFL Guidelines File - Updated 6/13/09:

8) Posting of "adult" material, either 
text or photos, or links to such materials, 
is prohibited. Violation of this guideline 
may result in expulsion from the group.

> > > Just reintroducing the concept of reality to
> > > all of this fantasizing that's been going on.
> > > In his head the Ravster seems to believe he's
> > > a real rock star, but in reality his biggest
> > > groupie probably has to remove her false teeth 
> > > before giving him a blowjob.  :-)


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 100 Purusha leaving MUM, going to NC?

[curtisdeltablues]

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

Doug, 

Hasn't it occurred to you that if this isn't a priority for the movement,and at 
many times during its history it has acted in such a way to prove this, that 
they really don't believe in this Vedic "non flying" group magic the way you do?

They give it lip-service, especially when it is useful to manipulate people 
into attending courses, but they have never acted in a way consistent with a 
firm conviction that this principle is true.  They don't put their money where 
their mouth is to make it happen.

Is there a higher reason than world peace to put the Purusha elsewhere? If all 
the catastrophic phobia inducing beliefs were close to true, wouldn't that be 
the highest priority? And wouldn't the Rajas, hand picked by Maharishi for 
being in tune with his own priorities, be the guys upholding this key 
principle?  They spent more time around the guy than any of us, they probably 
know his mind at least as well as anyone.

The biggest problem I have with your analysis of Fairfield is the same one I 
saw again and again in the movement, not believing that the people charged with 
doing what Maharishi wants are actually doing that.  Maharishi would make a 
money-centric decision that screwed people, it would come right from him, then 
people in charge would implement it and the ones affected would blame it on the 
messengers. Anything to preserve the illusion of Maharishi's benevolence. 

The Rajas are all in, they are as believer-er as anyone could be. They believe 
as much as you do and are as sincere in trying to do what they imagine 
Maharishi wants from them.  That is my POV.  They are ME back in the day, with 
more money so their suits are nicer.

My take is that Maharishi used the idea of group flying as a convenience to 
rally his group.  It was either carrot or stick depending on circumstances. But 
if he really believed that the world might blow up without some magic number of 
people "not flying" together, he would have ponyed up after one of his real 
estate windfall sales (College of Natural Law in DC for example) and made it 
happen.

Instead what he did was to spend that money in a manor more consistent with 
being a real estate speculator with a team of slave labor renovators (Oh those 
special Purushas are so handy!)buying properties all over the place and then 
flipping them when the price went up.  Having lived in many of them I can tell 
you no dime was spent to actually fix them up, we hung sheets instead of 
putting up sheetrock walls.

The movement is moving a bunch of Puruahas because it suits some renovation 
need or they just ran out of space and are sick of hearing people bitch, or too 
many of them are ending up with girlfriends (bonerific!), or it is time to 
shake them all up so they feel like they are on some new special project 
instead of pissing their lives away with their eyes closed most of the time 
without proper health insurance unless their parents are part of the 1%.(you 
know, good karma and all)

The world peace through flying together idea is one of convenience, pulled out 
when the movement wants people to rally in one convenient group to pitch the 
new shit to. (the human body in Christmas lights!)

The dome policy is an exclusionary one and punishes people for even thinking 
about spending time with the competition (think about that concept in a 
"spiritual" context) because Maharishi himself was the king of the exclusionary 
bastards. It was always his way or the highway.

The Rajas are sincere in doing whatever it is they think Maharishi wanted and 
that includes not really acting as if the Maharishi effect is real outside its 
usefulness to motivate the group and punishing people who don't tow a very 
narrow mental focus on Maharishi alone.  They act like self serving buttholes 
because that is not only what Maharishi would have wanted, it was who Maharishi 
was.

Sorry to break all this so close to the season when you figured out there is no 
Santa Claus, but it will save you a lot of frustration in the long run believe 
me.

The movement is acting exactly as Maharishi would have wanted, as it always 
has.  Love it or leave it, but you are not going to change it.

So there you are the last guy to get the memo. dutifully loading animals onto 
the ark while inside the carnivores are all sitting around picking their teeth 
waiting for the next exotic animal Dominoes' deliver, "Zebra! Yum, so nice of 
you to bring us a pair of them!"  You are the last Japanese soldier holding 
vigil on the Pacific island of Leyte raising and saluting the  red circle flag 
each morning, while all his battalion are either dead or sitting with their 
great-grandchildren on their knees.  Not knowing that the war has been over 
longer than you and I have been alive. 

World peace is a platitude like live forever.  It is a feel good mantra that 
distracts from the specific issues that keep the world from getting more 
pea

[FairfieldLife] Re: 100 Purusha leaving MUM, going to NC?

[Duveyoung]

Heh, I'm reading this post and going, "Hey, this guy's nailing it down."  Then 
I notice it's Curtis the writer.ah.

Gotta love that kind of authenticity.

Edg

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> 
> Doug, 
> 
> Hasn't it occurred to you that if this isn't a priority for the movement,and 
> at many times during its history it has acted in such a way to prove this, 
> that they really don't believe in this Vedic "non flying" group magic the way 
> you do?
> 
> They give it lip-service, especially when it is useful to manipulate people 
> into attending courses, but they have never acted in a way consistent with a 
> firm conviction that this principle is true.  They don't put their money 
> where their mouth is to make it happen.
> 
> Is there a higher reason than world peace to put the Purusha elsewhere? If 
> all the catastrophic phobia inducing beliefs were close to true, wouldn't 
> that be the highest priority? And wouldn't the Rajas, hand picked by 
> Maharishi for being in tune with his own priorities, be the guys upholding 
> this key principle?  They spent more time around the guy than any of us, they 
> probably know his mind at least as well as anyone.
> 
> The biggest problem I have with your analysis of Fairfield is the same one I 
> saw again and again in the movement, not believing that the people charged 
> with doing what Maharishi wants are actually doing that.  Maharishi would 
> make a money-centric decision that screwed people, it would come right from 
> him, then people in charge would implement it and the ones affected would 
> blame it on the messengers. Anything to preserve the illusion of Maharishi's 
> benevolence. 
> 
> The Rajas are all in, they are as believer-er as anyone could be. They 
> believe as much as you do and are as sincere in trying to do what they 
> imagine Maharishi wants from them.  That is my POV.  They are ME back in the 
> day, with more money so their suits are nicer.
> 
> My take is that Maharishi used the idea of group flying as a convenience to 
> rally his group.  It was either carrot or stick depending on circumstances. 
> But if he really believed that the world might blow up without some magic 
> number of people "not flying" together, he would have ponyed up after one of 
> his real estate windfall sales (College of Natural Law in DC for example) and 
> made it happen.
> 
> Instead what he did was to spend that money in a manor more consistent with 
> being a real estate speculator with a team of slave labor renovators (Oh 
> those special Purushas are so handy!)buying properties all over the place and 
> then flipping them when the price went up.  Having lived in many of them I 
> can tell you no dime was spent to actually fix them up, we hung sheets 
> instead of putting up sheetrock walls.
> 
> The movement is moving a bunch of Puruahas because it suits some renovation 
> need or they just ran out of space and are sick of hearing people bitch, or 
> too many of them are ending up with girlfriends (bonerific!), or it is time 
> to shake them all up so they feel like they are on some new special project 
> instead of pissing their lives away with their eyes closed most of the time 
> without proper health insurance unless their parents are part of the 1%.(you 
> know, good karma and all)
> 
> The world peace through flying together idea is one of convenience, pulled 
> out when the movement wants people to rally in one convenient group to pitch 
> the new shit to. (the human body in Christmas lights!)
> 
> The dome policy is an exclusionary one and punishes people for even thinking 
> about spending time with the competition (think about that concept in a 
> "spiritual" context) because Maharishi himself was the king of the 
> exclusionary bastards. It was always his way or the highway.
> 
> The Rajas are sincere in doing whatever it is they think Maharishi wanted and 
> that includes not really acting as if the Maharishi effect is real outside 
> its usefulness to motivate the group and punishing people who don't tow a 
> very narrow mental focus on Maharishi alone.  They act like self serving 
> buttholes because that is not only what Maharishi would have wanted, it was 
> who Maharishi was.
> 
> Sorry to break all this so close to the season when you figured out there is 
> no Santa Claus, but it will save you a lot of frustration in the long run 
> believe me.
> 
> The movement is acting exactly as Maharishi would have wanted, as it always 
> has.  Love it or leave it, but you are not going to change it.
> 
> So there you are the last guy to get the memo. dutifully loading animals onto 
> the ark while inside the carnivores are all sitting around picking their 
> teeth waiting for the next exotic animal Dominoes' deliver, "Zebra! Yum, so 
> nice of you to bring us a pair of them!"  You are the last Japanese soldier 
> holding vigil on the Pacific is

Re: [FairfieldLife] Dominant seventh?

[Bhairitu]

On 01/05/2012 12:56 AM, cardemaister wrote:
> I'm not absolutely sure about that, but I guess I finally
> figgered out why e.g. C7 is called a *dominant* seventh chord
> (of the C major scale?).
>
> As most of us might know, the 7 in C7 is B-flat, which
> doesn't belong to the C major scale.
>
> But if you form a similar seventh chord starting (as the root) from
> the *dominant* of C major scale, which is G, the diminished
> seventh is F, which is the fourth (subdominant) of the
> *C major* scale. :o

A dominant chord is one based on the 5th step of a major scale.  Hence 
the dominant 7th chord for C is G7.  C7 is the dominant 7th chord for 
the F major scale.  A little music theory goes a long ways.

[FairfieldLife] Time Cloak Created

[John]

It works like an invisibility cloak.  Next thing you know, we'll have an 
invisible war plane, or soldiers.

http://news.yahoo.com/now-see-now-dont-time-cloak-created-184955175.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: The problem Atheists have

[Buck]

Dear FFL Owner, Moderators and Members in good standing;

For a sake of a more unified discussion here on FairfieldLife@yahoo I wish to 
make a motion that we adopt a resolution of the definition of 'sin' as is 
proffered by Paramahansa Yogananda, "That here at FFL hence forth 'sin' shall 
be known spiritually, as that which compromises self-mastery.  That sin has its 
automatic negative effect to the degree of the influence of delusion with in it 
-involving no condemnation of an irate God.  Man's free-will actions simply 
harmonize and strengthen the expressed essence of his soul perfection or weaken 
and degrade it into mortal enslavement."
-Buck in FF


> 
> 
> >
> > 
> > Yet save a trembling sinner, Unified Field
> > Whose hope still hov'ring round Thy word
> > Would light on some sweet promise there,
> > Some sure support of Nature against despair.
> > > 
> > > My crimes, though great, cannot surpass
> > > The pow'r and glory of Thy grace;
> > > Great Unifying Field, Thy nature hath no bound;
> > > So let Thy pard'ning love be found.
> > > >
> > > > Show pity, O Unified Field, forgive;
> > > > Let a repenting rebel live.
> > > > Are not Thy mercies large and free?
> > > > May not a sinner trust in Thee? 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > O Integrity, there are no sins.
> > > > > Form or formless matters not.
> > > > > Presence always, 
> > > > > Especial location no necessity.
> > > > >
> 
> " 'Sin' requires a complex definition.  It is not a transgression against an 
> arbitrary code of behavior decreed by a whimsical God.  The Unified Field 
> made human a spiritual being, a soul endowed with an individualization of its 
> own nature.  It gives to the soul, evolved from its own Self, the instruments 
> of a body and a mind with which to perceive and interact with the objects of 
> a manifested universe.  
>  
>  If man lives in perfect harmony with the machinations of these principles, 
> he remains a spiritual being in charge of his body and mind.  Sin is that 
> which compromises that perfect self-mastery.  It has its automatic negative 
> effect to the degree of the influence of delusion with in it -involving no 
> condemnation of an irate God.  Man's free-will actions simply harmonize and 
> strengthen the expressed essence of his soul perfection or weaken and degrade 
> it into mortal enslavement."
>  
> Excerpt -Discourse 27
>  Yogananda's
>  The Second Coming of Christ
>  The Resurrection of Christ Within You 
> 
> 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "O Unified Field, pardon me three sins.
> > > > > > I have in contemplation clothed in form
> > > > > > Thee who art formless.
> > > > > > I have described [in words] Thee who art ineffable.
> > > > > > And in visiting temples I have ignored
> > > > > > Thy omnipresence."
> > > > > > -Buck
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Judy, you wrote, "You do understand that Robin does not claim 
> > > > > > > to be enlightened and is not seeking enlightenment, that he 
> > > > > > > thinks it's a snare and a delusion, that he believes he was 
> > > > > > > enlightened decades ago and has made a huge effort since then to 
> > > > > > > "de-enlighten" himself."
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > After reading a lot of what Robin writes about enlightenment and 
> > > > > > > his experience being enlightened, he says he was witnessing the 
> > > > > > > whole time. That stuck out when I read it. Enlightenment as it 
> > > > > > > grows, and it always grows if it is real, eats up and integrates 
> > > > > > > witnessing.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > There is a period following waking up or the stabilizing of Self 
> > > > > > > Realization, where witnessing everything, seeing the frictionless 
> > > > > > > flow of life and your silent place in it, dominates perception. 
> > > > > > > Freedom! Absence of fear! A great influx of cosmic energy as the 
> > > > > > > Atman or Soul becomes a permanent flame within and shines forth.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > If you want to stay there for awhile, then others can see your 
> > > > > > > light and respond to it. I'll not go much further into Robin's 
> > > > > > > experience but I think this is where he was during his leading of 
> > > > > > > an alternative spiritual movement. It was 100% genuine regarding 
> > > > > > > the Soul carrying out its function of expansion.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > As the Atman continues to shine forth, extending one's 
> > > > > > > boundaries, making them less distinct, melding one's identity 
> > > > > > > with that of the Cosmos, the unity between us and others and 
> > > > > > > everything else in our experience becomes more obvious. As the 
> > > > > > > soul continues to radiate outward from deeper and deeper within 
> > > > > > > us, that cosmic energy we 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Collapse of the Wave Function

[John]

This sounds like what MMY stated in one of his books.  He stated that the 
Quantum Wave Theory is the best model for the creation of the universe.  In 
other words, the universe is a wave function from the unified field which 
collapsed into the space-time we are in today.

There's a video clip of this theory on YouTube.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shainm307"  wrote:
>
> Is anyone else interested in how this works?  Anyone else curious on how 
> reality manifests itself and what determines differnt outcomes?  This is what 
> John Hagelin told us but he made it clear that he isn't 100% certain and it's 
> more comlicated than you can imagine.  He said that it is an unnatural 
> question but reality will provide you with an answer. He also said it could 
> be an entity on the other side. also he said it's just the will of God. 
> Anyone else have their speculations on how this works.  I have my own 
> speculation but I'm probably wrong on something.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> If this forum wants to set a new rule...perhaps that 
> should be "Using words or pictures to indicate a direct 
> sexual act between two forum members without their stated 
> consent is not allowed and will result in dismissal for 
> a week's time."

You realize, do you not, that your proposed "rule"
would have banned Jim, Judy, Ravi, Nabby, and many
other posters on this forum whose bullshit you are
buying into? Literally all of them have suggested
that one or more of the people on their Enemies List 
are gay. 

Being charitable, you really haven't been here long 
enough to have figured many things out. For example,
that the person you're replying to is a troll whose
only intent here is to stir up trouble. Or that there 
is simply no possibility of Rick ever allowing such 
a dumbass rule to ever be implemented. 

My honest advice is to step back from the action for
a while and just WATCH. Especially starting Friday
evening and this coming weekend, when many of the 
people who posted out early this week by melting 
down and going manic will be back. You'll have about
a two-day window in which to watch them melt down
and go manic again, before they post out again.

WATCH to see whether they hit the ground running 
attacking others here, probably more severely than
any others have attacked them. When they do (not if), 
try to notice whether the people they DO attack happen 
to coincide with the "Enemies List" that Ravi recently 
posted. Next, try to figure out what the people on 
that Enemies List have in common.

I'll help you out with the last one. They are either
outspoken critics of TM, the TMO, and Maharishi, OR
they are other posters who have dared to agree with
people they designated as the "troika" (Vaj, Curtis,
and myself) on the Enemies List. Or who even admitted
to liking their posts.

I'm trying to do you a favor and NOT treat you as
being as naive as you're coming across. I'm trying
to suggest that you are being baffled by bullshit
and being taken in by long-term bullshitters, and 
that you don't realize it. Many of us who have been 
wading through that bullshit for years now do realize
it. You have much to learn. 

Just wait until YOU side with one of the people on 
the Enemies List. Watch what happens to you then. Ask
a poster by the name of do.rflex about this. He'll tell
you what happens to someone whom Judy has come to view
as a "traitor" to the vendetta she claims not to be
leading.

Besides, lighten up. What you've been reading are all
attempts at humor, dark though it may occasionally be. 
No one on this forum -- and quite possibly no one on 
this planet -- would ever willingly have sex with Judy 
Stein. So any suggestions to the contrary are fiction, 
and should be treated as such.

> 
>  From: richardatrwilliamsdotus 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 7:36 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love 
> bombing..)
>  
> > > You're all getting really close to
> > > being in big trouble with Judy and 
> > > Emily and Raunchy.
> > >
> zarzari:
> > I don't mind trouble with Judy. I am 
> > done with her...
> >
> She may not be done with you. Where I
> come from, silence usually indicates 
> agreement.
> 
> > She should learn to control her anger 
> > before she makes spiritual discussions.
> >
> So, I wonder where are the FFL Moderators?
> 
> FFL Guidelines File - Updated 6/13/09:
> 
> 8) Posting of "adult" material, either 
> text or photos, or links to such materials, 
> is prohibited. Violation of this guideline 
> may result in expulsion from the group.
> 
> > > > Just reintroducing the concept of reality to
> > > > all of this fantasizing that's been going on.
> > > > In his head the Ravster seems to believe he's
> > > > a real rock star, but in reality his biggest
> > > > groupie probably has to remove her false teeth 
> > > > before giving him a blowjob.  :-)
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[futur.musik]

Ha-Ha! you are such a little victim aren't you Barry? Let's remind Em that you 
have called Raunchy and Judy "dumb cunts" and you said recently you would 
rather urinate on me than respond to my posts. Or is that disgusting behavior 
justified because "someone else did it too!". I'd bet money you were the kid in 
school ratting out everyone else. Some things never change.

I've made a joke or two about your man crush on Curtis, and believe I made 
reference to you "practically wetting yourself" in anticipation of his 
postings. Nothing sexual though. I never said, "Barry should wear a condom 
before he has anal sex with Curtis", or "Barry oughta brush his teeth before 
sucking off Curtis", or "It would be tough to give Barry a blow job, not cuz 
his penis is so small, but because he never learned to wipe himself properly, 
and he stinks!".

I've never said any of those things about you. So you may want to be more 
careful how you quote Me and others. Its also kind of grown up to acknowledge 
when you say something nasty and gratuitous about someone else, instead of 
using the "you're ugly too!" defense. Of course as you mature emotionally, this 
will become clearer to you.

Last, I would praise highly your abilities to deduce all of this through 
Message View, but you even screwed that up. 

That's 51, and I'll see you in a week It has been worth *every word*! :-)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
> >
> > If this forum wants to set a new rule...perhaps that 
> > should be "Using words or pictures to indicate a direct 
> > sexual act between two forum members without their stated 
> > consent is not allowed and will result in dismissal for 
> > a week's time."
> 
> You realize, do you not, that your proposed "rule"
> would have banned Jim, Judy, Ravi, Nabby, and many
> other posters on this forum whose bullshit you are
> buying into? Literally all of them have suggested
> that one or more of the people on their Enemies List 
> are gay. 
> 
> Being charitable, you really haven't been here long 
> enough to have figured many things out. For example,
> that the person you're replying to is a troll whose
> only intent here is to stir up trouble. Or that there 
> is simply no possibility of Rick ever allowing such 
> a dumbass rule to ever be implemented. 
> 
> My honest advice is to step back from the action for
> a while and just WATCH. Especially starting Friday
> evening and this coming weekend, when many of the 
> people who posted out early this week by melting 
> down and going manic will be back. You'll have about
> a two-day window in which to watch them melt down
> and go manic again, before they post out again.
> 
> WATCH to see whether they hit the ground running 
> attacking others here, probably more severely than
> any others have attacked them. When they do (not if), 
> try to notice whether the people they DO attack happen 
> to coincide with the "Enemies List" that Ravi recently 
> posted. Next, try to figure out what the people on 
> that Enemies List have in common.
> 
> I'll help you out with the last one. They are either
> outspoken critics of TM, the TMO, and Maharishi, OR
> they are other posters who have dared to agree with
> people they designated as the "troika" (Vaj, Curtis,
> and myself) on the Enemies List. Or who even admitted
> to liking their posts.
> 
> I'm trying to do you a favor and NOT treat you as
> being as naive as you're coming across. I'm trying
> to suggest that you are being baffled by bullshit
> and being taken in by long-term bullshitters, and 
> that you don't realize it. Many of us who have been 
> wading through that bullshit for years now do realize
> it. You have much to learn. 
> 
> Just wait until YOU side with one of the people on 
> the Enemies List. Watch what happens to you then. Ask
> a poster by the name of do.rflex about this. He'll tell
> you what happens to someone whom Judy has come to view
> as a "traitor" to the vendetta she claims not to be
> leading.
> 
> Besides, lighten up. What you've been reading are all
> attempts at humor, dark though it may occasionally be. 
> No one on this forum -- and quite possibly no one on 
> this planet -- would ever willingly have sex with Judy 
> Stein. So any suggestions to the contrary are fiction, 
> and should be treated as such.
> 
> > 
> >  From: richardatrwilliamsdotus 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 7:36 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love 
> > bombing..)
> >  
> > > > You're all getting really close to
> > > > being in big trouble with Judy and 
> > > > Emily and Raunchy.
> > > >
> > zarzari:
> > > I don't mind trouble with Judy. I am 
> > > done with her...
> > >
> > She may not be done with you. Where I
> > come from, silence usually indicates 
> > agreement.
> > 
> > > She should learn to control h

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[Emily Reyn]

"I'm trying to do you a favor and NOT treat you as
being as naive as you're coming across. I'm trying
to suggest that you are being baffled by bullshit
and being taken in by long-term bullshitters, and 
that you don't realize it. Many of us who have been 
wading through that bullshit for years now do realize
it. You have much to learn." 


I hear you and no, I don't have the history, and yes, I am baffled and yes, I 
am naive and yes, will watch.  But, speaking as an individual, and with only 
two examples in hand (Ravi and you - ha, in the same sentence), I don't 
understand why the conversation can't be had without crossing the consensual 
line for sexual acts described between forum members.  This is clearly my 
gender talking and words are only words after all and I don't believe in 
censorship and I think the forum weighs in and that works for me, actually.  
After all, I said my piece and I am not completely blameless either.  And, I'm 
not proposing a "ban"; I was proposing a week off to spur personal thought on 
whether there might be a way to communicate one's position differently.    It 
just seems that the forum is struggling to some degree with where the line 
should be, so I put in my two cents on where that line might be, if one chooses 
to draw one.  I don't need a line, actually
 :)  



 From: turquoiseb 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 9:33 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And 
more love bombing..)
 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> If this forum wants to set a new rule...perhaps that 
> should be "Using words or pictures to indicate a direct 
> sexual act between two forum members without their stated 
> consent is not allowed and will result in dismissal for 
> a week's time."

You realize, do you not, that your proposed "rule"
would have banned Jim, Judy, Ravi, Nabby, and many
other posters on this forum whose bullshit you are
buying into? Literally all of them have suggested
that one or more of the people on their Enemies List 
are gay. 

Being charitable, you really haven't been here long 
enough to have figured many things out. For example,
that the person you're replying to is a troll whose
only intent here is to stir up trouble. Or that there 
is simply no possibility of Rick ever allowing such 
a dumbass rule to ever be implemented. 

My honest advice is to step back from the action for
a while and just WATCH. Especially starting Friday
evening and this coming weekend, when many of the 
people who posted out early this week by melting 
down and going manic will be back. You'll have about
a two-day window in which to watch them melt down
and go manic again, before they post out again.

WATCH to see whether they hit the ground running 
attacking others here, probably more severely than
any others have attacked them. When they do (not if), 
try to notice whether the people they DO attack happen 
to coincide with the "Enemies List" that Ravi recently 
posted. Next, try to figure out what the people on 
that Enemies List have in common.

I'll help you out with the last one. They are either
outspoken critics of TM, the TMO, and Maharishi, OR
they are other posters who have dared to agree with
people they designated as the "troika" (Vaj, Curtis,
and myself) on the Enemies List. Or who even admitted
to liking their posts.

I'm trying to do you a favor and NOT treat you as
being as naive as you're coming across. I'm trying
to suggest that you are being baffled by bullshit
and being taken in by long-term bullshitters, and 
that you don't realize it. Many of us who have been 
wading through that bullshit for years now do realize
it. You have much to learn. 

Just wait until YOU side with one of the people on 
the Enemies List. Watch what happens to you then. Ask
a poster by the name of do.rflex about this. He'll tell
you what happens to someone whom Judy has come to view
as a "traitor" to the vendetta she claims not to be
leading.

Besides, lighten up. What you've been reading are all
attempts at humor, dark though it may occasionally be. 
No one on this forum -- and quite possibly no one on 
this planet -- would ever willingly have sex with Judy 
Stein. So any suggestions to the contrary are fiction, 
and should be treated as such.

> 
>  From: richardatrwilliamsdotus 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 7:36 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love 
> bombing..)
> 
> > > You're all getting really close to
> > > being in big trouble with Judy and 
> > > Emily and Raunchy.
> > >
> zarzari:
> > I don't mind trouble with Judy. I am 
> > done with her...
> >
> She may not be done with you. Where I
> come from, silence usually indicates 
> agreement.
> 
> > She should learn to control her anger 
> > before she makes spiritual discussions.
> >
> So

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> 
> "I'm trying to do you a favor and NOT treat you as
> being as naive as you're coming across. I'm trying
> to suggest that you are being baffled by bullshit
> and being taken in by long-term bullshitters, and 
> that you don't realize it. Many of us who have been 
> wading through that bullshit for years now do realize
> it. You have much to learn."
> 
> I hear you and no, I don't have the history, and yes, I 
> am baffled and yes, I am naive and yes, will watch. But, 
> speaking as an individual, and with only two examples 
> in hand (Ravi and you - ha, in the same sentence), I 
> don't understand why the conversation can't be had 
> without crossing the consensual line for sexual acts 
> described between forum members. This is clearly my 
> gender talking and words are only words after all and 
> I don't believe in censorship and I think the forum 
> weighs in and that works for me, actually. After all, 
> I said my piece and I am not completely blameless 
> either. And, I'm not proposing a "ban"; I was proposing 
> a week off to spur personal thought on whether there 
> might be a way to communicate one's position differently. 

Might I suggest you pay attention to who just chose
to bail next week rather than even *try* to control 
himself, now that I suggested you watch more closely?

Might I further suggest that this person has claimed
to be *enlightened*? As has Ravi, and as has MZ, 
although he now claims to have "gotten over it." :-)

Just WATCH. 

Try not to allow yourself to be swayed by pretty words,
claiming innocence or pure intent. Look at the *intent*
of those posting. If they are trying to *sell you some-
thing*, meaning that they seem to have a vested interest
in you believing *their* view of things rather than those
of others, I'd consider that a big red flag if I were you.

I'm not selling you anything. I'm just suggesting that
you WATCH more closely, and make up your own mind. Once
you have, I'm also not suggesting that you DO anything
in particular. WATCH for that, too. If they're asking
you do DO something, you're being sold something, and
recruited as part of something.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[Emily Reyn]

I think I've said before that I operate as an independent and I come to my own 
conclusions.  I would be just as willing to call Ravi out or you out, if I felt 
so inclined.  I will say that as a female, I have a female perspective.  I do 
believe that men and women have very different experiences of inhabiting our 
physical form and that it is very easy for both to make gender-based 
assumptions and assume them as "truth" for the other, sometimes. I do stand up 
for my gender if I see what I think is a double standard or prejudicial 
comment.  



 From: turquoiseb 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 10:09 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And 
more love bombing..)
 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> 
> "I'm trying to do you a favor and NOT treat you as
> being as naive as you're coming across. I'm trying
> to suggest that you are being baffled by bullshit
> and being taken in by long-term bullshitters, and 
> that you don't realize it. Many of us who have been 
> wading through that bullshit for years now do realize
> it. You have much to learn."
> 
> I hear you and no, I don't have the history, and yes, I 
> am baffled and yes, I am naive and yes, will watch. But, 
> speaking as an individual, and with only two examples 
> in hand (Ravi and you - ha, in the same sentence), I 
> don't understand why the conversation can't be had 
> without crossing the consensual line for sexual acts 
> described between forum members. This is clearly my 
> gender talking and words are only words after all and 
> I don't believe in censorship and I think the forum 
> weighs in and that works for me, actually. After all, 
> I said my piece and I am not completely blameless 
> either. And, I'm not proposing a "ban"; I was proposing 
> a week off to spur personal thought on whether there 
> might be a way to communicate one's position differently. 

Might I suggest you pay attention to who just chose
to bail next week rather than even *try* to control 
himself, now that I suggested you watch more closely?

Might I further suggest that this person has claimed
to be *enlightened*? As has Ravi, and as has MZ, 
although he now claims to have "gotten over it." :-)

Just WATCH. 

Try not to allow yourself to be swayed by pretty words,
claiming innocence or pure intent. Look at the *intent*
of those posting. If they are trying to *sell you some-
thing*, meaning that they seem to have a vested interest
in you believing *their* view of things rather than those
of others, I'd consider that a big red flag if I were you.

I'm not selling you anything. I'm just suggesting that
you WATCH more closely, and make up your own mind. Once
you have, I'm also not suggesting that you DO anything
in particular. WATCH for that, too. If they're asking
you do DO something, you're being sold something, and
recruited as part of something.


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[zarzari_786]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> OR
> they are other posters who have dared to agree with
> people they designated as the "troika" (Vaj, Curtis,
> and myself) on the Enemies List. Or who even admitted
> to liking their posts.

Bingo



> Just wait until YOU side with one of the people on 
> the Enemies List. Watch what happens to you then. Ask
> a poster by the name of do.rflex about this. He'll tell
> you what happens to someone whom Judy has come to view
> as a "traitor" to the vendetta she claims not to be
> leading.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[obbajeeba]

Two people stood very close to each other. Adam and Eve. It was cold out, so to 
keep warm they stood, close to each other, facing each other, for a very long 
time. The warmth made them happy. It felt good to have warmth. The toes, 
touched on the soft moss. They smiled at each other and decided to hold hands. 
No one was watching. No one could see their arms interlocking. They were young 
and fresh as the morning dew. There was a wake up call, showing up at the right 
possible time. They looked and watched as it rose. It felt warm and the heat 
penetrated their skins. They smile even more. Then all of a sudden, they felt 
some odd material, it was wet and made their bodies shine with glistening 
delight. They screamed with happiness and hugged each other even more, a warm, 
wet embrace.  The sun has risen and the rain has stopped. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardatrwilliamsdotus"  
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> > > You're all getting really close to
> > > being in big trouble with Judy and 
> > > Emily and Raunchy.
> > >
> zarzari:
> > I don't mind trouble with Judy. I am 
> > done with her...
> >
> She may not be done with you. Where I
> come from, silence usually indicates 
> agreement.
> 
> > She should learn to control her anger 
> > before she makes spiritual discussions.
> >
> So, I wonder where are the FFL Moderators?
> 
> FFL Guidelines File - Updated 6/13/09:
> 
> 8) Posting of "adult" material, either 
> text or photos, or links to such materials, 
> is prohibited. Violation of this guideline 
> may result in expulsion from the group.
> 
> > > > Just reintroducing the concept of reality to
> > > > all of this fantasizing that's been going on.
> > > > In his head the Ravster seems to believe he's
> > > > a real rock star, but in reality his biggest
> > > > groupie probably has to remove her false teeth 
> > > > before giving him a blowjob.  :-)
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[Emily Reyn]

O.K.  I'll do that.  Judy has the right to respond to me whatever way she 
wants.  If something she said triggered something that I felt I needed to 
disagree with or question, I would do just that.  I would expect that she would 
do the same.  I am telling you, I *refuse* to base my posts to *anyone* based 
on what *list* they are supposedly on.  And, I *refuse* to let *fear of 
reprisal* affect my posts.  If you don't believe me, watch.  I have no current 
*vendettas* and I call it like I see it at the timemy perceptions change, 
so perhaps next month, I'll say something different about this.



 From: zarzari_786 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 10:39 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And 
more love bombing..)
 

  

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> OR
> they are other posters who have dared to agree with
> people they designated as the "troika" (Vaj, Curtis,
> and myself) on the Enemies List. Or who even admitted
> to liking their posts.

Bingo



> Just wait until YOU side with one of the people on 
> the Enemies List. Watch what happens to you then. Ask
> a poster by the name of do.rflex about this. He'll tell
> you what happens to someone whom Judy has come to view
> as a "traitor" to the vendetta she claims not to be
> leading.


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[zarzari_786]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> 
> "I'm trying to do you a favor and NOT treat you as
> being as naive as you're coming across. I'm trying
> to suggest that you are being baffled by bullshit
> and being taken in by long-term bullshitters, and 
> that you don't realize it. Many of us who have been 
> wading through that bullshit for years now do realize
> it. You have much to learn." 
> 
> 
> I hear you and no, I don't have the history, and yes, I am baffled and yes, I 
> am naive and yes, will watch.  But, speaking as an individual, and with only 
> two examples in hand (Ravi and you - ha, in the same sentence), I don't 
> understand why the conversation can't be had without crossing the consensual 
> line for sexual acts described between forum members.  This is clearly my 
> gender talking and words are only words after all and I don't believe in 
> censorship and I think the forum weighs in and that works for me, actually. 
>  After all, I said my piece and I am not completely blameless either.  And, 
> I'm not proposing a "ban"; I was proposing a week off to spur personal 
> thought on whether there might be a way to communicate one's position 
> differently.    It just seems that the forum is struggling to some degree 
> with where the line should be, so I put in my two cents on where that line 
> might be, if one chooses to draw one.  I don't need a line, actually
>  :)  


Emily, I very much agree with Barry on his analysis, it is spot on. There is a 
lot in the context, you don't understand, you *cannot* understand, no blame to 
you for that. The example Barry gave, I found was hilarious, and there we may 
have different perceptions, about using sexual language. But for me, devoid of 
any sexual content, this simile was symbolic, especially because of the 
'teeth'. And, you know, I fear putting out the teeth won't help in this case, 
they very much have a life of their own. And now, as I said, enough - bas - 
caalu.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 100 Purusha leaving MUM, going to NC?

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> 
> Doug, 
> 
> Hasn't it occurred to you that if this isn't a priority for the movement,and 
> at many times during its history it has acted in such a way to prove this, 
> that they really don't believe in this Vedic "non flying" group magic the way 
> you do?
> 
> They give it lip-service, especially when it is useful to manipulate people 
> into attending courses, but they have never acted in a way consistent with a 
> firm conviction that this principle is true.  They don't put their money 
> where their mouth is to make it happen.
> 
> Is there a higher reason than world peace to put the Purusha elsewhere? If 
> all the catastrophic phobia inducing beliefs were close to true, wouldn't 
> that be the highest priority? And wouldn't the Rajas, hand picked by 
> Maharishi for being in tune with his own priorities, be the guys upholding 
> this key principle?  They spent more time around the guy than any of us, they 
> probably know his mind at least as well as anyone.
> 
> The biggest problem I have with your analysis of Fairfield is the same one I 
> saw again and again in the movement, not believing that the people charged 
> with doing what Maharishi wants are actually doing that.  Maharishi would 
> make a money-centric decision that screwed people, it would come right from 
> him, then people in charge would implement it and the ones affected would 
> blame it on the messengers. Anything to preserve the illusion of Maharishi's 
> benevolence. 
> 
> The Rajas are all in, they are as believer-er as anyone could be. They 
> believe as much as you do and are as sincere in trying to do what they 
> imagine Maharishi wants from them.  That is my POV.  They are ME back in the 
> day, with more money so their suits are nicer.
> 
> My take is that Maharishi used the idea of group flying as a convenience to 
> rally his group.  It was either carrot or stick depending on circumstances. 
> But if he really believed that the world might blow up without some magic 
> number of people "not flying" together, he would have ponyed up after one of 
> his real estate windfall sales (College of Natural Law in DC for example) and 
> made it happen.
> 
> Instead what he did was to spend that money in a manor more consistent with 
> being a real estate speculator with a team of slave labor renovators (Oh 
> those special Purushas are so handy!)buying properties all over the place and 
> then flipping them when the price went up.  Having lived in many of them I 
> can tell you no dime was spent to actually fix them up, we hung sheets 
> instead of putting up sheetrock walls.
> 
> The movement is moving a bunch of Puruahas because it suits some renovation 
> need or they just ran out of space and are sick of hearing people bitch, or 
> too many of them are ending up with girlfriends (bonerific!), or it is time 
> to shake them all up so they feel like they are on some new special project 
> instead of pissing their lives away with their eyes closed most of the time 
> without proper health insurance unless their parents are part of the 1%.(you 
> know, good karma and all)
> 
> The world peace through flying together idea is one of convenience, pulled 
> out when the movement wants people to rally in one convenient group to pitch 
> the new shit to. (the human body in Christmas lights!)
> 
> The dome policy is an exclusionary one and punishes people for even thinking 
> about spending time with the competition (think about that concept in a 
> "spiritual" context) because Maharishi himself was the king of the 
> exclusionary bastards. It was always his way or the highway.
> 
> The Rajas are sincere in doing whatever it is they think Maharishi wanted and 
> that includes not really acting as if the Maharishi effect is real outside 
> its usefulness to motivate the group and punishing people who don't tow a 
> very narrow mental focus on Maharishi alone.  They act like self serving 
> buttholes because that is not only what Maharishi would have wanted, it was 
> who Maharishi was.
> 
> Sorry to break all this so close to the season when you figured out there is 
> no Santa Claus, but it will save you a lot of frustration in the long run 
> believe me.
> 
> The movement is acting exactly as Maharishi would have wanted, as it always 
> has.  Love it or leave it, but you are not going to change it.
> 
> So there you are the last guy to get the memo. dutifully loading animals onto 
> the ark while inside the carnivores are all sitting around picking their 
> teeth waiting for the next exotic animal Dominoes' deliver, "Zebra! Yum, so 
> nice of you to bring us a pair of them!"  You are the last Japanese soldier 
> holding vigil on the Pacific island of Leyte raising and saluting the  red 
> circle flag each morning, while all his battalion are either dead or sitting 
> with their great-grandchildren on their 

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
> >
> > If this forum wants to set a new rule...perhaps that 
> > should be "Using words or pictures to indicate a direct 
> > sexual act between two forum members without their stated 
> > consent is not allowed and will result in dismissal for 
> > a week's time."
> 
> You realize, do you not, that your proposed "rule"
> would have banned Jim, Judy, Ravi, Nabby, and many
> other posters on this forum whose bullshit you are
> buying into? Literally all of them have suggested
> that one or more of the people on their Enemies List 
> are gay. 


1) Unlike you I don't have an enemy list. I even sometimes read YOUR posts ! 
(Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

2) I have not suggested anyone here being gay. I don't care about the sexual 
orientation of someone on an internet forum.

3) Emily; please remember that the Turq is an habitual lier. This is a 
wellknown fact here, so don't take him too seriously.

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[zarzari_786]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786  wrote:
>

> Emily, I very much agree with Barry on his analysis, it is spot on. There is 
> a lot in the context, you don't understand, you *cannot* understand, no blame 
> to you for that. The example Barry gave, I found was hilarious, and there we 
> may have different perceptions, about using sexual language. But for me, 
> devoid of any sexual content, this simile was symbolic, especially because of 
> the 'teeth'. And, you know, I fear putting out the teeth won't help in this 
> case, they very much have a life of their own. And now, as I said, enough - 
> bas - caalu.
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg1qgCspMPI

[FairfieldLife] Re: Dominant seventh?

[John]

Dominant 7 chords are also used as passing chords to add spice into your music.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
> 
> I'm not absolutely sure about that, but I guess I finally
> figgered out why e.g. C7 is called a *dominant* seventh chord
> (of the C major scale?).
> 
> As most of us might know, the 7 in C7 is B-flat, which
> doesn't belong to the C major scale.
> 
> But if you form a similar seventh chord starting (as the root) from
> the *dominant* of C major scale, which is G, the diminished
> seventh is F, which is the fourth (subdominant) of the
> *C major* scale. :o
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[zarzari_786]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
>
> Two people stood very close to each other. Adam and Eve. It was cold out, so 
> to keep warm they stood, close to each other, facing each other, for a very 
> long time. The warmth made them happy. It felt good to have warmth. The toes, 
> touched on the soft moss. They smiled at each other and decided to hold 
> hands. No one was watching. No one could see their arms interlocking. They 
> were young and fresh as the morning dew. There was a wake up call, showing up 
> at the right possible time. They looked and watched as it rose. It felt warm 
> and the heat penetrated their skins. They smile even more. Then all of a 
> sudden, they felt some odd material, it was wet and made their bodies shine 
> with glistening delight. They screamed with happiness and hugged each other 
> even more, a warm, wet embrace.  The sun has risen and the rain has stopped. 
> 
Naughty!

[FairfieldLife] And yet another 'Green Energy' fiasco!

[wgm4u]

Does it ever end, no wonder the economy is in the toilet! Thanks, Barack, luv 
ya man!

Georgia ethanol plant sold, at taxpayers' loss
By Dan Chapman

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

The failed Range Fuels wood-to-ethanol factory in southeastern Georgia that 
sucked up $65 million in federal and state tax dollars was sold Tuesday for 
pennies on the dollar to another bio-fuel maker with equally grand plans to 
transform the alternative energy world.


http://www.ajc.com/business/georgia-ethanol-plant-sold-1289567.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[zarzari_786]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
>
>  I never said, "Barry should wear a condom before he has anal sex with 
> Curtis", or "Barry oughta brush his teeth before sucking off Curtis", or "It 
> would be tough to give Barry a blow job, not cuz his penis is so small, but 
> because he never learned to wipe himself properly, and he stinks!".
> 

Moderators! Where are the moderators?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[Emily Reyn]

I hear you and though I may not agree, I accommodate your viewpoint - I don't 
always get the subtext of everything and I also have no interest in going back 
to spend hours trying to understand past dynamics. It has no relevance to how I 
interpret, but I acknowledge that puts me at a disadvantage sometimes and 
supports the idea that I should listen more than not, and watch the play 
unfold, which is one of my goals moving forward with FFL.  

I really enjoy these videos and perhaps I will work on my interpretation of 
said "sexual" acts given also, Obba's post.  Remember, I am an American woman 
and my filters, based on my personal experiences and also my corporate 
background as a woman are likely different from yours.  Now, I am about to 
listen to that 47 minute musical piece of Jagjit Singh, et. al., you sent as I 
love his voice - as I take down my Christmas tree and get on with the daily 
appointments.  I haven't counted my posts of late, but am being quite prolific 
again and don't want to post out on a Friday.   



 From: zarzari_786 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 11:22 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And 
more love bombing..)
 

  

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786  wrote:
>

> Emily, I very much agree with Barry on his analysis, it is spot on. There is 
> a lot in the context, you don't understand, you *cannot* understand, no blame 
> to you for that. The example Barry gave, I found was hilarious, and there we 
> may have different perceptions, about using sexual language. But for me, 
> devoid of any sexual content, this simile was symbolic, especially because of 
> the 'teeth'. And, you know, I fear putting out the teeth won't help in this 
> case, they very much have a life of their own. And now, as I said, enough - 
> bas - caalu.
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg1qgCspMPI


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dominant seventh?

[Bhairitu]

Fine but you need to know "how" or "when" to use them.  Dominant 7th 
(9ths and 13th) are preparation chords to resolve to the tonic except in 
the case of a deceptive cadence.  And they are also used on the 1,4 and 
5 chords in blues to give that bluesier sound though in a blues scale 
the 7th is flat.

On 01/05/2012 11:29 AM, John wrote:
> Dominant 7 chords are also used as passing chords to add spice into your 
> music.
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>>
>> I'm not absolutely sure about that, but I guess I finally
>> figgered out why e.g. C7 is called a *dominant* seventh chord
>> (of the C major scale?).
>>
>> As most of us might know, the 7 in C7 is B-flat, which
>> doesn't belong to the C major scale.
>>
>> But if you form a similar seventh chord starting (as the root) from
>> the *dominant* of C major scale, which is G, the diminished
>> seventh is F, which is the fourth (subdominant) of the
>> *C major* scale. :o
>>
>
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[zarzari_786]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:



> I don't always get the subtext of everything and I also have no interest in 
> going back to spend hours trying to understand past dynamics.

Right, no use. MY point is, it has nothing to do with you at all, for me even 
nothing with this thread.



> Now, I am about to listen to that 47 minute musical piece of Jagjit Singh, 
> et. al., you sent as I love his voice -

I do this regularly in my car. I enjoy both, Lata and Jagjit.

> 
>  From: zarzari_786 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 11:22 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! 
> (And more love bombing..)
>  
> 
>   
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786  wrote:
> >
> 
> > Emily, I very much agree with Barry on his analysis, it is spot on. There 
> > is a lot in the context, you don't understand, you *cannot* understand, no 
> > blame to you for that. The example Barry gave, I found was hilarious, and 
> > there we may have different perceptions, about using sexual language. But 
> > for me, devoid of any sexual content, this simile was symbolic, especially 
> > because of the 'teeth'. And, you know, I fear putting out the teeth won't 
> > help in this case, they very much have a life of their own. And now, as I 
> > said, enough - bas - caalu.
> >
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg1qgCspMPI
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] And yet another 'Green Energy' fiasco!

[Bhairitu]

On 01/05/2012 11:40 AM, wgm4u wrote:
> Does it ever end, no wonder the economy is in the toilet! Thanks, Barack, luv 
> ya man!
>
> Georgia ethanol plant sold, at taxpayers' loss
> By Dan Chapman
>
> The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
>
> The failed Range Fuels wood-to-ethanol factory in southeastern Georgia that 
> sucked up $65 million in federal and state tax dollars was sold Tuesday for 
> pennies on the dollar to another bio-fuel maker with equally grand plans to 
> transform the alternative energy world.
>
>
> http://www.ajc.com/business/georgia-ethanol-plant-sold-1289567.html

Baracks fault?  Sounds more like the work of the Fascists (aka 
Republicans) to me.  Actually I have a relative in the solar industry 
and got some insight on the Solyndra thing which also wasn't Barack's 
fault.  Just suffice to say there are scam artists out the scamming the 
"green thing."

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
> >
> > I never said, "Barry should wear a condom before he has 
> > anal sex with Curtis", or "Barry oughta brush his teeth 
> > before sucking off Curtis", or "It would be tough to give 
> > Barry a blow job, not cuz his penis is so small, but 
> > because he never learned to wipe himself properly, and 
> > he stinks!".
> 
> Moderators! Where are the moderators?

LOL. 

But the issue here IMO is not the language. By now 
you've kinda gotten that I'm actually a *fan* of
salty language. I think it serves many purposes in
writing. And I love to play with words. 

Then again, I'm just a guy -- an everyday Joe -- just
posting to a tiny group on the Internet. Nothing I 
say really makes that much difference. 

It's not as if I'm enlightened or anything, or have
ever claimed that I was. If someone who *had* claimed
to be enlightened had written the above rap, that 
might raise a few eyebrows. But me? I'm just a guy
writing for fun on the Internet. I like to rap. But
the bottom line is that I'm just a guy rapping for
the fun of it. It's not as if I could make a living 
at it or anything. 

Now if you want to see a Master of the intelligent
rap at work, someone who *did* manage to make a living
at it, watch this clip. Then compare it in your mind 
to some raps you've seen in recent months on this forum, 
which have been treated as if *they* were masterpieces 
of the written or spoken word. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTayQhIkB58

[FairfieldLife] Our resident enlightened guys

[curtisdeltablues]

Imagine my surprise reading this: (actual explicit terms used will be 
substituted for non offensive ones)

Jim:

> I've made a joke or two about your man crush on Curtis, and believe I made 
> reference to you "practically wetting yourself" in anticipation of his 
> postings. Nothing sexual though. I never said, "Barry should wear a JOHNSON 
> SHAPED RAINCOAT before he has CABOOSE PLEASANTRIES with Curtis", or "Barry 
> oughta brush his teeth before ORALLY MASSAGING THE TROUSER TROUT OF Curtis", 
> or "It would be tough to give Barry a VAYU ENHANCED GENITAL CLEANING, not cuz 
> his VEDIC IMPULSE is so small, but because he never learned to wipe himself 
> properly, and he stinks!".

Why are the sexually explicit attack rant tantrums so similar between the two 
individuals most invested in selling us all on the idea that they are 
functioning from a specially enhanced state of consciousness extolled by the 
Vedas as the goal of all human development, the highest state of human 
attainment and the one where if one so chose, he could enjoy CABOOSE 
PLEASANTRIES or ORALLY MASSAGE THE TROUSER TROUT of the creator of the universe 
himself? (Or I assume if she turns out to be a chick...well you known, just 
switch some stuff around and go for it.)  And why are both so inappropriately 
homoerotic?

What was my grievous offense, that might deserve this stretching of the 
boundaries of propriety on a public board?  And why should I be the target 
since I had nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion?

With my interest in the educational development of children I have been exposed 
to some perspectives on tantrum behavior and I believe it may apply here.  Here 
is the scenario:

Let's call the kid Ravijimbo for the sake of this demonstration.

Ravimimbo:
"Can I have a lollipop?"

"This sentence, when uttered in a crowded supermarket, has the power to invoke 
a racing heart and sweating palms in many parents.

The answer is no. The child raises her voice. The answer is still no. The child 
drops to the floor. The answer turns into a discussion and the child's voice 
increases in volume. The tears flow, the shrieks begin and, after a few 
parental self-conscious glances at near by shoppers ? the answer becomes yes."  
(From an internet tantrum info site.)


So what is the lollipop being denied that in the context of this public forum 
leads to this meltdown behavior going way beyond what is necessary to make 
their point?  I believe it is that I withhold the thing they seek, going along 
with their self-perception that they are living in a superior state of mind 
than the rest of us.  I have never attacked either of these guys in this manor, 
but I am an outspoken advocate for a POV which negates the core of their claim 
to be living in a state extravagantly termed enlightenment.

So we have two similar meltdowns which escalates the behavior in public to the 
extreme in an attempt to express the rage felt at being denied the one thing 
they most covet, and which they feel entitled to: being treated as if they are 
the specialist boy in the whole wide world.  "Yes they are, yes they are, 
where's that smile, there it is, there it is."

Your outburst was childish and uncalled for Jim, as was Ravi's before you. You 
seem like a kindergartner lacking in self-awareness and self-control,(I hear TM 
is good for that.) throwing obnoxious sand into the eyes of readers here.  I 
hope you will do a little introspection during your much deserved time out.

If you really look deeply into your heart of hearts, you may find that I am not 
the only one who has doubts about your superior state of mind.  And if you can 
face that, I'm here to say that it isn't so bad seeing yourself as an ordinary 
person.  Your self-delusion sets you up for this kind of fall.  Why don't you 
orally massage THAT lolli? 

[FairfieldLife] Wind cries Mary...NOT!

[cardemaister]

http://conversations.nokia.com/2012/01/03/theres-something-about-mary/

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786  wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
> >
> >  I never said, "Barry should wear a condom before he has anal sex with 
> > Curtis", or "Barry oughta brush his teeth before sucking off Curtis", or 
> > "It would be tough to give Barry a blow job, not cuz his penis is so small, 
> > but because he never learned to wipe himself properly, and he stinks!".


Very funny :-)


> Moderators! Where are the moderators?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Our resident enlightened guys

[turquoiseb]

Brilliant. I and my stash of JOHNSON SHAPED 
RAINCOATs thank you for many chuckles. You said 
many things that I agree with, and that I could 
springboard off of, but I'll limit myself to one, 
the tantrum rap.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
> . . . 
> So what is the lollipop being denied that in the context 
> of this public forum leads to this meltdown behavior 
> going way beyond what is necessary to make their point?  
> I believe it is that I withhold the thing they seek, 
> going along with their self-perception that they are 
> living in a superior state of mind than the rest of us.  

Bingo. But I would extend this analysis of "tantrum
yoga" to more than just those who claim enlightenment.
I would say that the same dynamic is in place in those
who fly into a tantrum when you don't accept what they
say as The Truth. 

There are many more of the latter on this forum than
there are who have declared themselves enlightened. 
But the tantrum response to *not being automatically
believed, as they feel they should be* is IMO the same.

Call me crazy, but I do not hold *anyone* on this forum
to be authoritative, in that what they say can or should
be considered true, or The Truth. I don't consider any-
one on this *planet* to be worthy of that distinction. 

We're all just bozos on this bus. Not one of us "knows"
any thing for sure. We just have beliefs, and opinions.
It's called the human condition. 

Some can live with that condition, and others can't.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> Imagine my surprise reading this: (actual explicit terms used will be 
> substituted for non offensive ones)
> 
> Jim:
> 
> > I've made a joke or two about your man crush on Curtis, and believe I made 
> > reference to you "practically wetting yourself" in anticipation of his 
> > postings. Nothing sexual though. I never said, "Barry should wear a JOHNSON 
> > SHAPED RAINCOAT before he has CABOOSE PLEASANTRIES with Curtis", or "Barry 
> > oughta brush his teeth before ORALLY MASSAGING THE TROUSER TROUT OF 
> > Curtis", or "It would be tough to give Barry a VAYU ENHANCED GENITAL 
> > CLEANING, not cuz his VEDIC IMPULSE is so small, but because he never 
> > learned to wipe himself properly, and he stinks!".
> 
> Why are the sexually explicit attack rant tantrums so similar between the two 
> individuals most invested in selling us all on the idea that they are 
> functioning from a specially enhanced state of consciousness extolled by the 
> Vedas as the goal of all human development, the highest state of human 
> attainment and the one where if one so chose, he could enjoy CABOOSE 
> PLEASANTRIES or ORALLY MASSAGE THE TROUSER TROUT of the creator of the 
> universe himself? (Or I assume if she turns out to be a chick...well you 
> known, just switch some stuff around and go for it.)  And why are both so 
> inappropriately homoerotic?
> 
> What was my grievous offense, that might deserve this stretching of the 
> boundaries of propriety on a public board?  And why should I be the target 
> since I had nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion?
> 
> With my interest in the educational development of children I have been 
> exposed to some perspectives on tantrum behavior and I believe it may apply 
> here.  Here is the scenario:
> 
> Let's call the kid Ravijimbo for the sake of this demonstration.
> 
> Ravimimbo:
> "Can I have a lollipop?"
> 
> "This sentence, when uttered in a crowded supermarket, has the power to 
> invoke a racing heart and sweating palms in many parents.
> 
> The answer is no. The child raises her voice. The answer is still no. The 
> child drops to the floor. The answer turns into a discussion and the child's 
> voice increases in volume. The tears flow, the shrieks begin and, after a few 
> parental self-conscious glances at near by shoppers ? the answer becomes 
> yes."  (From an internet tantrum info site.)
> 
> 
> So what is the lollipop being denied that in the context of this public forum 
> leads to this meltdown behavior going way beyond what is necessary to make 
> their point?  I believe it is that I withhold the thing they seek, going 
> along with their self-perception that they are living in a superior state of 
> mind than the rest of us.  I have never attacked either of these guys in this 
> manor, but I am an outspoken advocate for a POV which negates the core of 
> their claim to be living in a state extravagantly termed enlightenment.
> 
> So we have two similar meltdowns which escalates the behavior in public to 
> the extreme in an attempt to express the rage felt at being denied the one 
> thing they most covet, and which they feel entitled to: being treated as if 
> they are the specialist boy in the whole wide world.  "Yes they are, yes they 
> are, where's that smile, there it is, there it is."
> 
> Your outburst was childish and uncalled for Jim, as was Ravi's before you. 
> You seem like a kindergartn

[FairfieldLife] Re: Dominant seventh?

[John]

The bottom line is that you got to have many techniques that you can access 
while playing on real time during a jam session or a gig.  It still takes 
practice to get there.

For now, I'm finding that the rootless chords on the piano are necessary to 
have that "jazz" sound while playing on a trio.  The bass player takes all of 
the bottom notes.  With the drummer, the trio synchronizes into a unique sound. 
 Thus, you have a Keith Jarrett and a Michel Petrucciani.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> Fine but you need to know "how" or "when" to use them.  Dominant 7th 
> (9ths and 13th) are preparation chords to resolve to the tonic except in 
> the case of a deceptive cadence.  And they are also used on the 1,4 and 
> 5 chords in blues to give that bluesier sound though in a blues scale 
> the 7th is flat.
> 
> On 01/05/2012 11:29 AM, John wrote:
> > Dominant 7 chords are also used as passing chords to add spice into your 
> > music.
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm not absolutely sure about that, but I guess I finally
> >> figgered out why e.g. C7 is called a *dominant* seventh chord
> >> (of the C major scale?).
> >>
> >> As most of us might know, the 7 in C7 is B-flat, which
> >> doesn't belong to the C major scale.
> >>
> >> But if you form a similar seventh chord starting (as the root) from
> >> the *dominant* of C major scale, which is G, the diminished
> >> seventh is F, which is the fourth (subdominant) of the
> >> *C major* scale. :o
> >>
> >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[raunchydog]

Hi Em,

Barry is the only person with an enemy's list, which he imagines are people who 
have an axe to grind with TM critics such as himself, Vaj and Curtis.  Barry 
will choke on this café cappuccino hearing this, but IMO Judy doesn't have an 
enemy's list, nor does she have a vendetta against Barry. She confronts issues 
in the moment. No matter how often she calls out Barry for being the master of 
unintended irony, Vaj for lying or has long winded arguments with Curtis, who 
does his best to wriggle out of owning up to whatever she has nailed him on, 
they cannot escape her quest for truth, fairness and honesty. Her sharp 
intellect makes her the most flawlessly honest person you'd ever want to meet.  
When she calls out the troika, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact 
they are TM critics. 

I get the feeling that Barry is still smarting from the experience of the 
troika getting its butt kicked by Robin and Sexy Bob.  It was the first time I 
can remember that Judy had allies that could match her ability to confront 
bullshit.  IMO Barry is floating a warning your way perhaps hoping for an ally, 
but horribly underestimating your ability to figure things out for yourself.  

Judy and I agree on many political issues and feminist, gay and TM issues.  I 
have a tendency to view politics through a conspiratorial lens, which has led 
me down a few blind alleys. Judy doesn't hesitate to call me out on it. So 
we've had a few disagreements along the way, but in the end, we agree to 
disagree or I'll admit she has made her case. I'm certain you wouldn't have a 
problem disagreeing with Judy and having a lively debate should the occasion 
arise. Barry's problem is that he won't debate, he only has "opinions" 
therefore, he remains safely unchallenged in his bubble of narcissism.  Judy 
and I have tag teamed him a few times.  It was great fun.  I wish you had been 
there. 

I lurk more than I post these days. The conversations and emotions have been 
over the top raw lately, but it gives FFLife a much needed transfusion of 
interest and excitement. I can't tell you how happy I am to see you and obba on 
this forum, women who make intelligent posts from the heart and not intimidated 
by the dick swingers. Bless you both. Stick around. 

By the way, richardwilliams, aka "willytex" gets called out for his rightwing 
political and anti abortion views quite often. As Judy recently explained in a 
beautiful post, you can't really judge whether or not a person is enlightened 
from his or her actions.
 
In my tangle with Ravi, IMO he crossed a line I consider abusive, but I would 
never have had him censored for unacceptable content on FFLife. The rule is 
basically, no porn, which is fine by me.  Your new rule is intriguing, but 
we've already the crossed line of imagining sex between posters several times 
in the past without anyone getting a timeout for bad behavior. Besides, if 
"willytex" can be accused of having sex with a prairie dog, which is a standard 
joke around here, then anything goes.

RD


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> I hear you and though I may not agree, I accommodate your viewpoint - I don't 
> always get the subtext of everything and I also have no interest in going 
> back to spend hours trying to understand past dynamics. It has no relevance 
> to how I interpret, but I acknowledge that puts me at a disadvantage 
> sometimes and supports the idea that I should listen more than not, and watch 
> the play unfold, which is one of my goals moving forward with FFL.  
> 
> I really enjoy these videos and perhaps I will work on my interpretation of 
> said "sexual" acts given also, Obba's post.  Remember, I am an American 
> woman and my filters, based on my personal experiences and also my corporate 
> background as a woman are likely different from yours.  Now, I am about to 
> listen to that 47 minute musical piece of Jagjit Singh, et. al., you sent as 
> I love his voice - as I take down my Christmas tree and get on with the daily 
> appointments.  I haven't counted my posts of late, but am being quite 
> prolific again and don't want to post out on a Friday.   
> 
> 
> 
>  From: zarzari_786 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 11:22 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! 
> (And more love bombing..)
>  
> 
>   
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786  wrote:
> >
> 
> > Emily, I very much agree with Barry on his analysis, it is spot on. There 
> > is a lot in the context, you don't understand, you *cannot* understand, no 
> > blame to you for that. The example Barry gave, I found was hilarious, and 
> > there we may have different perceptions, about using sexual language. But 
> > for me, devoid of any sexual content, this simile was symbolic, especially 
> > because of the 'teeth'. And, you know, I fear putting out the teeth won

[FairfieldLife] Re: 100 Purusha leaving MUM, going to NC?

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > 
> > Doug, 
> > 
> > Hasn't it occurred to you that if this isn't a priority for the 
> > movement,and at many times during its history it has acted in such a way to 
> > prove this, that they really don't believe in this Vedic "non flying" group 
> > magic the way you do?
> > 
> > They give it lip-service, especially when it is useful to manipulate people 
> > into attending courses, but they have never acted in a way consistent with 
> > a firm conviction that this principle is true.  They don't put their money 
> > where their mouth is to make it happen.
> > 
> > Is there a higher reason than world peace to put the Purusha elsewhere? If 
> > all the catastrophic phobia inducing beliefs were close to true, wouldn't 
> > that be the highest priority? And wouldn't the Rajas, hand picked by 
> > Maharishi for being in tune with his own priorities, be the guys upholding 
> > this key principle?  They spent more time around the guy than any of us, 
> > they probably know his mind at least as well as anyone.
> > 
> > The biggest problem I have with your analysis of Fairfield is the same one 
> > I saw again and again in the movement, not believing that the people 
> > charged with doing what Maharishi wants are actually doing that.  Maharishi 
> > would make a money-centric decision that screwed people, it would come 
> > right from him, then people in charge would implement it and the ones 
> > affected would blame it on the messengers. Anything to preserve the 
> > illusion of Maharishi's benevolence. 
> > 
> > The Rajas are all in, they are as believer-er as anyone could be. They 
> > believe as much as you do and are as sincere in trying to do what they 
> > imagine Maharishi wants from them.  That is my POV.  They are ME back in 
> > the day, with more money so their suits are nicer.
> > 
> > My take is that Maharishi used the idea of group flying as a convenience to 
> > rally his group.  It was either carrot or stick depending on circumstances. 
> > But if he really believed that the world might blow up without some magic 
> > number of people "not flying" together, he would have ponyed up after one 
> > of his real estate windfall sales (College of Natural Law in DC for 
> > example) and made it happen.
> > 
> > Instead what he did was to spend that money in a manor more consistent with 
> > being a real estate speculator with a team of slave labor renovators (Oh 
> > those special Purushas are so handy!)buying properties all over the place 
> > and then flipping them when the price went up.  Having lived in many of 
> > them I can tell you no dime was spent to actually fix them up, we hung 
> > sheets instead of putting up sheetrock walls.
> > 
> > The movement is moving a bunch of Puruahas because it suits some renovation 
> > need or they just ran out of space and are sick of hearing people bitch, or 
> > too many of them are ending up with girlfriends (bonerific!), or it is time 
> > to shake them all up so they feel like they are on some new special project 
> > instead of pissing their lives away with their eyes closed most of the time 
> > without proper health insurance unless their parents are part of the 
> > 1%.(you know, good karma and all)
> > 
> > The world peace through flying together idea is one of convenience, pulled 
> > out when the movement wants people to rally in one convenient group to 
> > pitch the new shit to. (the human body in Christmas lights!)
> > 
> > The dome policy is an exclusionary one and punishes people for even 
> > thinking about spending time with the competition (think about that concept 
> > in a "spiritual" context) because Maharishi himself was the king of the 
> > exclusionary bastards. It was always his way or the highway.
> > 
> > The Rajas are sincere in doing whatever it is they think Maharishi wanted 
> > and that includes not really acting as if the Maharishi effect is real 
> > outside its usefulness to motivate the group and punishing people who don't 
> > tow a very narrow mental focus on Maharishi alone.  They act like self 
> > serving buttholes because that is not only what Maharishi would have 
> > wanted, it was who Maharishi was.
> > 
> > Sorry to break all this so close to the season when you figured out there 
> > is no Santa Claus, but it will save you a lot of frustration in the long 
> > run believe me.
> > 
> > The movement is acting exactly as Maharishi would have wanted, as it always 
> > has.  Love it or leave it, but you are not going to change it.
> > 
> > So there you are the last guy to get the memo. dutifully loading animals 
> > onto the ark while inside the carnivores are all sitting around picking 
> > their teeth waiting for the next exotic animal Dominoes' deliver, "Zebra! 
> > Yum, so nice of you to bring us a pair of the

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[Emily Reyn]

Hi RaunchyI posted that rule in part to see the feedback, given the 
posturing, but I agree with you.   Between Jim's email and then Curtis's email, 
I retract my proposal.  I may be missing something, I admit.  I don't 
personally feel like I need a line and it raises some interesting assumptions I 
have, personally.  I actually trust that the forum manages itself, one way or 
another, and I am routinely surprised, to say the least.  I would never agree 
to censure either, which would also make my "proposed rule" extremely difficult 
to implement.

Thank you for your perspective on the rest of it.  I always watch your posts 
come through as I've never known anyone so involved in our democratic process.  
Now, I'm off to a cranial sacral appt. to try and keep the energy flowing 
through my system :)



 From: raunchydog 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 1:26 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And 
more love bombing..)
 

  
Hi Em,

Barry is the only person with an enemy's list, which he imagines are people who 
have an axe to grind with TM critics such as himself, Vaj and Curtis.  Barry 
will choke on this café cappuccino hearing this, but IMO Judy doesn't have an 
enemy's list, nor does she have a vendetta against Barry. She confronts issues 
in the moment. No matter how often she calls out Barry for being the master of 
unintended irony, Vaj for lying or has long winded arguments with Curtis, who 
does his best to wriggle out of owning up to whatever she has nailed him on, 
they cannot escape her quest for truth, fairness and honesty. Her sharp 
intellect makes her the most flawlessly honest person you'd ever want to meet.  
When she calls out the troika, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact 
they are TM critics. 

I get the feeling that Barry is still smarting from the experience of the 
troika getting its butt kicked by Robin and Sexy Bob.  It was the first time I 
can remember that Judy had allies that could match her ability to confront 
bullshit.  IMO Barry is floating a warning your way perhaps hoping for an ally, 
but horribly underestimating your ability to figure things out for yourself. 

Judy and I agree on many political issues and feminist, gay and TM issues.  I 
have a tendency to view politics through a conspiratorial lens, which has led 
me down a few blind alleys. Judy doesn't hesitate to call me out on it. So 
we've had a few disagreements along the way, but in the end, we agree to 
disagree or I'll admit she has made her case. I'm certain you wouldn't have a 
problem disagreeing with Judy and having a lively debate should the occasion 
arise. Barry's problem is that he won't debate, he only has "opinions" 
therefore, he remains safely unchallenged in his bubble of narcissism.  Judy 
and I have tag teamed him a few times.  It was great fun.  I wish you had been 
there. 

I lurk more than I post these days. The conversations and emotions have been 
over the top raw lately, but it gives FFLife a much needed transfusion of 
interest and excitement. I can't tell you how happy I am to see you and obba on 
this forum, women who make intelligent posts from the heart and not intimidated 
by the dick swingers. Bless you both. Stick around. 

By the way, richardwilliams, aka "willytex" gets called out for his rightwing 
political and anti abortion views quite often. As Judy recently explained in a 
beautiful post, you can't really judge whether or not a person is enlightened 
from his or her actions.

In my tangle with Ravi, IMO he crossed a line I consider abusive, but I would 
never have had him censored for unacceptable content on FFLife. The rule is 
basically, no porn, which is fine by me.  Your new rule is intriguing, but 
we've already the crossed line of imagining sex between posters several times 
in the past without anyone getting a timeout for bad behavior. Besides, if 
"willytex" can be accused of having sex with a prairie dog, which is a standard 
joke around here, then anything goes.

RD

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> I hear you and though I may not agree, I accommodate your viewpoint - I don't 
> always get the subtext of everything and I also have no interest in going 
> back to spend hours trying to understand past dynamics. It has no relevance 
> to how I interpret, but I acknowledge that puts me at a disadvantage 
> sometimes and supports the idea that I should listen more than not, and watch 
> the play unfold, which is one of my goals moving forward with FFL.  
> 
> I really enjoy these videos and perhaps I will work on my interpretation of 
> said "sexual" acts given also, Obba's post.  Remember, I am an American 
> woman and my filters, based on my personal experiences and also my corporate 
> background as a woman are likely different from yours.  Now, I am about to 
> listen to that 47 minute musical piece of Jagjit S

[FairfieldLife] Re: Our resident enlightened guys

[futur.musik]

I have no delusions about enlightenment, Curtis, mine or anyone else's. Nor do 
I believe in it. Sometimes stuff just happens. Nonetheless, if you must judge 
me, judge me as ME, not some bullshit excuse to put down enlightenment. And 
while you're at it, please remove your false teeth. :-)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> Imagine my surprise reading this: (actual explicit terms used will be 
> substituted for non offensive ones)
> 
> Jim:
> 
> > I've made a joke or two about your man crush on Curtis, and believe I made 
> > reference to you "practically wetting yourself" in anticipation of his 
> > postings. Nothing sexual though. I never said, "Barry should wear a JOHNSON 
> > SHAPED RAINCOAT before he has CABOOSE PLEASANTRIES with Curtis", or "Barry 
> > oughta brush his teeth before ORALLY MASSAGING THE TROUSER TROUT OF 
> > Curtis", or "It would be tough to give Barry a VAYU ENHANCED GENITAL 
> > CLEANING, not cuz his VEDIC IMPULSE is so small, but because he never 
> > learned to wipe himself properly, and he stinks!".
> 
> Why are the sexually explicit attack rant tantrums so similar between the two 
> individuals most invested in selling us all on the idea that they are 
> functioning from a specially enhanced state of consciousness extolled by the 
> Vedas as the goal of all human development, the highest state of human 
> attainment and the one where if one so chose, he could enjoy CABOOSE 
> PLEASANTRIES or ORALLY MASSAGE THE TROUSER TROUT of the creator of the 
> universe himself? (Or I assume if she turns out to be a chick...well you 
> known, just switch some stuff around and go for it.)  And why are both so 
> inappropriately homoerotic?
> 
> What was my grievous offense, that might deserve this stretching of the 
> boundaries of propriety on a public board?  And why should I be the target 
> since I had nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion?
> 
> With my interest in the educational development of children I have been 
> exposed to some perspectives on tantrum behavior and I believe it may apply 
> here.  Here is the scenario:
> 
> Let's call the kid Ravijimbo for the sake of this demonstration.
> 
> Ravimimbo:
> "Can I have a lollipop?"
> 
> "This sentence, when uttered in a crowded supermarket, has the power to 
> invoke a racing heart and sweating palms in many parents.
> 
> The answer is no. The child raises her voice. The answer is still no. The 
> child drops to the floor. The answer turns into a discussion and the child's 
> voice increases in volume. The tears flow, the shrieks begin and, after a few 
> parental self-conscious glances at near by shoppers ? the answer becomes 
> yes."  (From an internet tantrum info site.)
> 
> 
> So what is the lollipop being denied that in the context of this public forum 
> leads to this meltdown behavior going way beyond what is necessary to make 
> their point?  I believe it is that I withhold the thing they seek, going 
> along with their self-perception that they are living in a superior state of 
> mind than the rest of us.  I have never attacked either of these guys in this 
> manor, but I am an outspoken advocate for a POV which negates the core of 
> their claim to be living in a state extravagantly termed enlightenment.
> 
> So we have two similar meltdowns which escalates the behavior in public to 
> the extreme in an attempt to express the rage felt at being denied the one 
> thing they most covet, and which they feel entitled to: being treated as if 
> they are the specialist boy in the whole wide world.  "Yes they are, yes they 
> are, where's that smile, there it is, there it is."
> 
> Your outburst was childish and uncalled for Jim, as was Ravi's before you. 
> You seem like a kindergartner lacking in self-awareness and self-control,(I 
> hear TM is good for that.) throwing obnoxious sand into the eyes of readers 
> here.  I hope you will do a little introspection during your much deserved 
> time out.
> 
> If you really look deeply into your heart of hearts, you may find that I am 
> not the only one who has doubts about your superior state of mind.  And if 
> you can face that, I'm here to say that it isn't so bad seeing yourself as an 
> ordinary person.  Your self-delusion sets you up for this kind of fall.  Why 
> don't you orally massage THAT lolli?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[Susan]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
> > >
> > > I never said, "Barry should wear a condom before he has 
> > > anal sex with Curtis", or "Barry oughta brush his teeth 
> > > before sucking off Curtis", or "It would be tough to give 
> > > Barry a blow job, not cuz his penis is so small, but 
> > > because he never learned to wipe himself properly, and 
> > > he stinks!".
> > 
> > Moderators! Where are the moderators?
> 
> LOL. 
> 
> But the issue here IMO is not the language. By now 
> you've kinda gotten that I'm actually a *fan* of
> salty language. I think it serves many purposes in
> writing. And I love to play with words. 
> 
> Then again, I'm just a guy -- an everyday Joe -- just
> posting to a tiny group on the Internet. Nothing I 
> say really makes that much difference. 
> 
> It's not as if I'm enlightened or anything, or have
> ever claimed that I was. If someone who *had* claimed
> to be enlightened had written the above rap, that 
> might raise a few eyebrows. But me? I'm just a guy
> writing for fun on the Internet. I like to rap. But
> the bottom line is that I'm just a guy rapping for
> the fun of it. It's not as if I could make a living 
> at it or anything. 
> 
> Now if you want to see a Master of the intelligent
> rap at work, someone who *did* manage to make a living
> at it, watch this clip. Then compare it in your mind 
> to some raps you've seen in recent months on this forum, 
> which have been treated as if *they* were masterpieces 
> of the written or spoken word. 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTayQhIkB58
>

Thanks for that.  I loved his shows- he was wicked about religion and God.  
Brilliant man.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dominant seventh?

[Bhairitu]

Depends on how you are comping the chords since there are many different 
styles of comping.  Usually you are just playing some open chords in the 
left hand no root if you have a bass player.  By yourself you can get 
away with things like just playing the sevenths in the left hand or 
alternating sevenths with thirds.  Many of these different styles were 
elucidated in John Mehegan's books back in the 1960s.  Mehegan taught at 
Juilliard.  You also had people like Errol Garner (I saw his World's 
Fair Concert in 1962) pounding block chords 4 to the bar in the left hand.

On 01/05/2012 01:13 PM, John wrote:
> The bottom line is that you got to have many techniques that you can access 
> while playing on real time during a jam session or a gig.  It still takes 
> practice to get there.
>
> For now, I'm finding that the rootless chords on the piano are necessary to 
> have that "jazz" sound while playing on a trio.  The bass player takes all of 
> the bottom notes.  With the drummer, the trio synchronizes into a unique 
> sound.  Thus, you have a Keith Jarrett and a Michel Petrucciani.
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>> Fine but you need to know "how" or "when" to use them.  Dominant 7th
>> (9ths and 13th) are preparation chords to resolve to the tonic except in
>> the case of a deceptive cadence.  And they are also used on the 1,4 and
>> 5 chords in blues to give that bluesier sound though in a blues scale
>> the 7th is flat.
>>
>> On 01/05/2012 11:29 AM, John wrote:
>>> Dominant 7 chords are also used as passing chords to add spice into your 
>>> music.
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister   wrote:
 I'm not absolutely sure about that, but I guess I finally
 figgered out why e.g. C7 is called a *dominant* seventh chord
 (of the C major scale?).

 As most of us might know, the 7 in C7 is B-flat, which
 doesn't belong to the C major scale.

 But if you form a similar seventh chord starting (as the root) from
 the *dominant* of C major scale, which is G, the diminished
 seventh is F, which is the fourth (subdominant) of the
 *C major* scale. :o

>>>
>
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Our resident enlightened guys

[Vaj]

On Jan 5, 2012, at 3:08 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote:

> Imagine my surprise reading this: (actual explicit terms used will be 
> substituted for non offensive ones)
> 
> Jim:
> 
> > I've made a joke or two about your man crush on Curtis, and believe I made 
> > reference to you "practically wetting yourself" in anticipation of his 
> > postings. Nothing sexual though. I never said, "Barry should wear a JOHNSON 
> > SHAPED RAINCOAT before he has CABOOSE PLEASANTRIES with Curtis", or "Barry 
> > oughta brush his teeth before ORALLY MASSAGING THE TROUSER TROUT OF 
> > Curtis", or "It would be tough to give Barry a VAYU ENHANCED GENITAL 
> > CLEANING, not cuz his VEDIC IMPULSE is so small, but because he never 
> > learned to wipe himself properly, and he stinks!".
> 
> Why are the sexually explicit attack rant tantrums so similar between the two 
> individuals most invested in selling us all on the idea that they are 
> functioning from a specially enhanced state of consciousness extolled by the 
> Vedas as the goal of all human development, the highest state of human 
> attainment and the one where if one so chose, he could enjoy CABOOSE 
> PLEASANTRIES or ORALLY MASSAGE THE TROUSER TROUT of the creator of the 
> universe himself? (Or I assume if she turns out to be a chick...well you 
> known, just switch some stuff around and go for it.) And why are both so 
> inappropriately homoerotic?
> 
> What was my grievous offense, that might deserve this stretching of the 
> boundaries of propriety on a public board? And why should I be the target 
> since I had nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion?
> 
> With my interest in the educational development of children I have been 
> exposed to some perspectives on tantrum behavior and I believe it may apply 
> here. Here is the scenario:
> 
> Let's call the kid Ravijimbo for the sake of this demonstration.
> 
> Ravimimbo:
> "Can I have a lollipop?"
> 
> "This sentence, when uttered in a crowded supermarket, has the power to 
> invoke a racing heart and sweating palms in many parents.
> 
> The answer is no. The child raises her voice. The answer is still no. The 
> child drops to the floor. The answer turns into a discussion and the child's 
> voice increases in volume. The tears flow, the shrieks begin and, after a few 
> parental self-conscious glances at near by shoppers ? the answer becomes 
> yes." (From an internet tantrum info site.)
> 
> So what is the lollipop being denied that in the context of this public forum 
> leads to this meltdown behavior going way beyond what is necessary to make 
> their point? I believe it is that I withhold the thing they seek, going along 
> with their self-perception that they are living in a superior state of mind 
> than the rest of us. I have never attacked either of these guys in this 
> manor, but I am an outspoken advocate for a POV which negates the core of 
> their claim to be living in a state extravagantly termed enlightenment.
> 
> So we have two similar meltdowns which escalates the behavior in public to 
> the extreme in an attempt to express the rage felt at being denied the one 
> thing they most covet, and which they feel entitled to: being treated as if 
> they are the specialist boy in the whole wide world. "Yes they are, yes they 
> are, where's that smile, there it is, there it is."
> 
> Your outburst was childish and uncalled for Jim, as was Ravi's before you. 
> You seem like a kindergartner lacking in self-awareness and self-control,(I 
> hear TM is good for that.) throwing obnoxious sand into the eyes of readers 
> here. I hope you will do a little introspection during your much deserved 
> time out.
> 
> If you really look deeply into your heart of hearts, you may find that I am 
> not the only one who has doubts about your superior state of mind. And if you 
> can face that, I'm here to say that it isn't so bad seeing yourself as an 
> ordinary person. Your self-delusion sets you up for this kind of fall. Why 
> don't you orally massage THAT lolli? 

Robindra is going to be crushed when he reads this. You don't even mention him 
or when you'll publish your "Open Response to the Encyclicals of Robin in Five 
Volumes, in light of Maharishi Vedic Science and Modern Depth Psychology (with 
appendices)"! How could you leave his name out, is not he "resident" and 
"enlightened"? 

Perhaps you should include Enlightened but in recovery next time, just to be 
more appropriately sensitive to Carlsen, et al. Thanks in advance.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 100 Purusha leaving MUM, going to NC?

[Susan]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> 
> Doug, 
> 
> Hasn't it occurred to you that if this isn't a priority for the movement,and 
> at many times during its history it has acted in such a way to prove this, 
> that they really don't believe in this Vedic "non flying" group magic the way 
> you do?
> 
> They give it lip-service, especially when it is useful to manipulate people 
> into attending courses, but they have never acted in a way consistent with a 
> firm conviction that this principle is true.  They don't put their money 
> where their mouth is to make it happen.
> 
> Is there a higher reason than world peace to put the Purusha elsewhere? If 
> all the catastrophic phobia inducing beliefs were close to true, wouldn't 
> that be the highest priority? And wouldn't the Rajas, hand picked by 
> Maharishi for being in tune with his own priorities, be the guys upholding 
> this key principle?  They spent more time around the guy than any of us, they 
> probably know his mind at least as well as anyone.
> 
> The biggest problem I have with your analysis of Fairfield is the same one I 
> saw again and again in the movement, not believing that the people charged 
> with doing what Maharishi wants are actually doing that.  Maharishi would 
> make a money-centric decision that screwed people, it would come right from 
> him, then people in charge would implement it and the ones affected would 
> blame it on the messengers. Anything to preserve the illusion of Maharishi's 
> benevolence. 
> 
> The Rajas are all in, they are as believer-er as anyone could be. They 
> believe as much as you do and are as sincere in trying to do what they 
> imagine Maharishi wants from them.  That is my POV.  They are ME back in the 
> day, with more money so their suits are nicer.
> 
> My take is that Maharishi used the idea of group flying as a convenience to 
> rally his group.  It was either carrot or stick depending on circumstances. 
> But if he really believed that the world might blow up without some magic 
> number of people "not flying" together, he would have ponyed up after one of 
> his real estate windfall sales (College of Natural Law in DC for example) and 
> made it happen.
> 
> Instead what he did was to spend that money in a manor more consistent with 
> being a real estate speculator with a team of slave labor renovators (Oh 
> those special Purushas are so handy!)buying properties all over the place and 
> then flipping them when the price went up.  Having lived in many of them I 
> can tell you no dime was spent to actually fix them up, we hung sheets 
> instead of putting up sheetrock walls.
> 
> The movement is moving a bunch of Puruahas because it suits some renovation 
> need or they just ran out of space and are sick of hearing people bitch, or 
> too many of them are ending up with girlfriends (bonerific!), or it is time 
> to shake them all up so they feel like they are on some new special project 
> instead of pissing their lives away with their eyes closed most of the time 
> without proper health insurance unless their parents are part of the 1%.(you 
> know, good karma and all)
> 
> The world peace through flying together idea is one of convenience, pulled 
> out when the movement wants people to rally in one convenient group to pitch 
> the new shit to. (the human body in Christmas lights!)
> 
> The dome policy is an exclusionary one and punishes people for even thinking 
> about spending time with the competition (think about that concept in a 
> "spiritual" context) because Maharishi himself was the king of the 
> exclusionary bastards. It was always his way or the highway.
> 
> The Rajas are sincere in doing whatever it is they think Maharishi wanted and 
> that includes not really acting as if the Maharishi effect is real outside 
> its usefulness to motivate the group and punishing people who don't tow a 
> very narrow mental focus on Maharishi alone.  They act like self serving 
> buttholes because that is not only what Maharishi would have wanted, it was 
> who Maharishi was.
> 
> Sorry to break all this so close to the season when you figured out there is 
> no Santa Claus, but it will save you a lot of frustration in the long run 
> believe me.
> 
> The movement is acting exactly as Maharishi would have wanted, as it always 
> has.  Love it or leave it, but you are not going to change it.

Doug, Cutis says it better, but this is exactly what I have told you time and 
time again.  Forget blaming the Rajas.  These policies of Dome exclusion come 
directly from MMY.  He  had that same policy about his competition (never see 
another saint) ever since I got involved back around 1970.  The Rajas are 
merely continuing MMY's policies.  he Rajas are not to blame - they are 
devotees who want to do exactly as Maharishi himself would.  They are doing a 
good job of following in MMY's footsteps.  They love 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The problem Atheists have

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

Buck, there is disagreement here on the following terms. God, free-will, soul. 
Best of luck!

Praying is like a rocking chair - it'll give you something to do, but it won't 
get you anywhere. - Gypsy Rose Lee

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> Dear FFL Owner, Moderators and Members in good standing;
> 
> For a sake of a more unified discussion here on FairfieldLife@yahoo I wish to 
> make a motion that we adopt a resolution of the definition of 'sin' as is 
> proffered by Paramahansa Yogananda, "That here at FFL hence forth 'sin' shall 
> be known spiritually, as that which compromises self-mastery.  That sin has 
> its automatic negative effect to the degree of the influence of delusion with 
> in it -involving no condemnation of an irate God.  Man's free-will actions 
> simply harmonize and strengthen the expressed essence of his soul perfection 
> or weaken and degrade it into mortal enslavement."
> -Buck in FF
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > > 
> > > Yet save a trembling sinner, Unified Field
> > > Whose hope still hov'ring round Thy word
> > > Would light on some sweet promise there,
> > > Some sure support of Nature against despair.
> > > > 
> > > > My crimes, though great, cannot surpass
> > > > The pow'r and glory of Thy grace;
> > > > Great Unifying Field, Thy nature hath no bound;
> > > > So let Thy pard'ning love be found.
> > > > >
> > > > > Show pity, O Unified Field, forgive;
> > > > > Let a repenting rebel live.
> > > > > Are not Thy mercies large and free?
> > > > > May not a sinner trust in Thee?�
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > O Integrity, there are no sins.
> > > > > > Form or formless matters not.
> > > > > > Presence always, 
> > > > > > Especial location no necessity.
> > > > > >
> > 
> > " 'Sin' requires a complex definition.  It is not a transgression against 
> > an arbitrary code of behavior decreed by a whimsical God.  The Unified 
> > Field made human a spiritual being, a soul endowed with an 
> > individualization of its own nature.  It gives to the soul, evolved from 
> > its own Self, the instruments of a body and a mind with which to perceive 
> > and interact with the objects of a manifested universe.  
> >  
> >  If man lives in perfect harmony with the machinations of these principles, 
> > he remains a spiritual being in charge of his body and mind.  Sin is that 
> > which compromises that perfect self-mastery.  It has its automatic negative 
> > effect to the degree of the influence of delusion with in it -involving no 
> > condemnation of an irate God.  Man's free-will actions simply harmonize and 
> > strengthen the expressed essence of his soul perfection or weaken and 
> > degrade it into mortal enslavement."
> >  
> > Excerpt -Discourse 27
> >  Yogananda's
> >  The Second Coming of Christ
> >  The Resurrection of Christ Within You 
> > 
> > 
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "O Unified Field, pardon me three sins.
> > > > > > > I have in contemplation clothed in form
> > > > > > > Thee who art formless.
> > > > > > > I have described [in words] Thee who art ineffable.
> > > > > > > And in visiting temples I have ignored
> > > > > > > Thy omnipresence."
> > > > > > > -Buck
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik" 
> > > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Judy, you wrote, "You do understand that Robin does not 
> > > > > > > > claim to be enlightened and is not seeking enlightenment, that 
> > > > > > > > he thinks it's a snare and a delusion, that he believes he was 
> > > > > > > > enlightened decades ago and has made a huge effort since then 
> > > > > > > > to "de-enlighten" himself."
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > After reading a lot of what Robin writes about enlightenment 
> > > > > > > > and his experience being enlightened, he says he was witnessing 
> > > > > > > > the whole time. That stuck out when I read it. Enlightenment as 
> > > > > > > > it grows, and it always grows if it is real, eats up and 
> > > > > > > > integrates witnessing.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > There is a period following waking up or the stabilizing of 
> > > > > > > > Self Realization, where witnessing everything, seeing the 
> > > > > > > > frictionless flow of life and your silent place in it, 
> > > > > > > > dominates perception. Freedom! Absence of fear! A great influx 
> > > > > > > > of cosmic energy as the Atman or Soul becomes a permanent flame 
> > > > > > > > within and shines forth.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > If you want to stay there for awhile, then others can see your 
> > > > > > > > light and respond to it. I'll not go much further into Robin's 
> > > > > > > > experience but I think this is where he was during his leading 
> > > > > > > > of an alternative spiritual movement. It was 100% genuine 
> > > > > > > > regarding the

[FairfieldLife] Re: And yet another 'Green Energy' fiasco!

[wgm4u]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> On 01/05/2012 11:40 AM, wgm4u wrote:
> > Does it ever end, no wonder the economy is in the toilet! Thanks, Barack, 
> > luv ya man!


> 
> Baracks fault? 


Yep-The economy is in the toilet because of Barack Obama and the misguided 
fools surrounding him in the green energy business and environmental extremism 
camp! Including the BIG GOVERNMENT lobbyists high speed rail, what a joke).

[FairfieldLife] Re: 100 Purusha leaving MUM, going to NC?

[wgm4u]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wgm4u"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
> > >
> > > The immediate urgent priority for national invincibility and world peace 
> > > is to join the Invincible America Course at MUM. Only 2000 Flyers, rising 
> > > to 2500, in Fairfield/Maharishi Vedic City will bring security to America 
> > > and defuse the precarious escalation of conflict in the world.
> > 
> > "Earl, if we created the group then we don't know if it would create World 
> > Peace or not",  MMY via Earl Kaplan from his letter, "The Truth".
> >
> 
> Bull shit, that is old but the science is pretty evident now.  All we are 
> saying is, 'give peace a chance'. Looks like the TM Rajas have sold the 
> Fairfield meditating community down the river with this.

Buck-What MMY really envisioned is 8000 Guru Dev's in Unity Consciousness, 
that's not what we have here, come on, really! I meditated (did program) in the 
domes and I certainly WASN'T functioning from the home of all the laws of 
nature, you'd have to be enlightened for that.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Dominant seventh?

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> On 01/05/2012 12:56 AM, cardemaister wrote:
> > I'm not absolutely sure about that, but I guess I finally
> > figgered out why e.g. C7 is called a *dominant* seventh chord
> > (of the C major scale?).
> >
> > As most of us might know, the 7 in C7 is B-flat, which
> > doesn't belong to the C major scale.
> >
> > But if you form a similar seventh chord starting (as the root) from
> > the *dominant* of C major scale, which is G, the diminished
> > seventh is F, which is the fourth (subdominant) of the
> > *C major* scale. :o
> 
> A dominant chord is one based on the 5th step of a major scale.  Hence 
> the dominant 7th chord for C is G7.  C7 is the dominant 7th chord for 
> the F major scale.  A little music theory goes a long ways.
>

That sure would make more sense, but the first figure on this
Wiki article:

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

...sez: dominant seventh chord on C: C7 [not G7]

[FairfieldLife] Re: Dominant seventh?

[John]

This player, by the name of Alfonso Gugliucci, has a unique style.  He uses 
variations of rootless chords and chord shells to mix his magic.  Put on your 
earphone and take a listen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZsWhR2Dxr4



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> Depends on how you are comping the chords since there are many different 
> styles of comping.  Usually you are just playing some open chords in the 
> left hand no root if you have a bass player.  By yourself you can get 
> away with things like just playing the sevenths in the left hand or 
> alternating sevenths with thirds.  Many of these different styles were 
> elucidated in John Mehegan's books back in the 1960s.  Mehegan taught at 
> Juilliard.  You also had people like Errol Garner (I saw his World's 
> Fair Concert in 1962) pounding block chords 4 to the bar in the left hand.
> 
> On 01/05/2012 01:13 PM, John wrote:
> > The bottom line is that you got to have many techniques that you can access 
> > while playing on real time during a jam session or a gig.  It still takes 
> > practice to get there.
> >
> > For now, I'm finding that the rootless chords on the piano are necessary to 
> > have that "jazz" sound while playing on a trio.  The bass player takes all 
> > of the bottom notes.  With the drummer, the trio synchronizes into a unique 
> > sound.  Thus, you have a Keith Jarrett and a Michel Petrucciani.
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> >> Fine but you need to know "how" or "when" to use them.  Dominant 7th
> >> (9ths and 13th) are preparation chords to resolve to the tonic except in
> >> the case of a deceptive cadence.  And they are also used on the 1,4 and
> >> 5 chords in blues to give that bluesier sound though in a blues scale
> >> the 7th is flat.
> >>
> >> On 01/05/2012 11:29 AM, John wrote:
> >>> Dominant 7 chords are also used as passing chords to add spice into your 
> >>> music.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister   wrote:
>  I'm not absolutely sure about that, but I guess I finally
>  figgered out why e.g. C7 is called a *dominant* seventh chord
>  (of the C major scale?).
> 
>  As most of us might know, the 7 in C7 is B-flat, which
>  doesn't belong to the C major scale.
> 
>  But if you form a similar seventh chord starting (as the root) from
>  the *dominant* of C major scale, which is G, the diminished
>  seventh is F, which is the fourth (subdominant) of the
>  *C major* scale. :o
> 
> >>>
> >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: 100 Purusha leaving MUM, going to NC?

[Buck]

Boots on the ground, this is a serious draw-down of peace-keepers here.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > FWIW, I'm afraid the 13th baktun, or stuff, of Maya-indians, is
> > approaching its end... :0
> >
> 
> Maya- or Mayan-Indians, it don't matter which.  
> This is really bad for the Dome numbers, Fairfield, and the World.
>  
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
> > >
> > > The immediate urgent priority for national invincibility and world peace 
> > > is to join the Invincible America Course at MUM. Only 2000 Flyers, rising 
> > > to 2500, in Fairfield/Maharishi Vedic City will bring security to America 
> > > and defuse the precarious escalation of conflict in the world.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > This is from a faculty member at MUM.   100 Purusha are leaving VC 
> > > > > next
> > > > > month to go to North Carolina.   Is there a new place for Purusha in 
> > > > > NC?
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > There go the Dome Numbers, again.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: 100 Purusha leaving MUM, going to NC?

[Buck]

Everyone who lives in Fairfield should be concerned about this.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> Boots on the ground, this is a serious draw-down of peace-keepers here.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > FWIW, I'm afraid the 13th baktun, or stuff, of Maya-indians, is
> > > approaching its end... :0
> > >
> > 
> > Maya- or Mayan-Indians, it don't matter which.  
> > This is really bad for the Dome numbers, Fairfield, and the World.
> >  
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The immediate urgent priority for national invincibility and world 
> > > > peace is to join the Invincible America Course at MUM. Only 2000 
> > > > Flyers, rising to 2500, in Fairfield/Maharishi Vedic City will bring 
> > > > security to America and defuse the precarious escalation of conflict in 
> > > > the world.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is from a faculty member at MUM.   100 Purusha are leaving VC 
> > > > > > next
> > > > > > month to go to North Carolina.   Is there a new place for Purusha 
> > > > > > in NC?
> > > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > There go the Dome Numbers, again.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat Dec 31 00:00:00 2011
End Date (UTC): Sat Jan 07 00:00:00 2012
688 messages as of (UTC) Fri Jan 06 00:06:05 2012

52 "futur.musik" 
50 authfriend 
50 Ravi Chivukula 
49 Yifu 
47 obbajeeba 
45 turquoiseb 
45 Emily Reyn 
44 curtisdeltablues 
33 nablusoss1008 
28 seventhray1 
25 Bhairitu 
24 Buck 
21 Susan 
19 richardatrwilliamsdotus 
18 John 
16 zarzari_786 
13 cardemaister 
12 raunchydog 
12 merudanda 
10 marekreavis 
 9 feste37 
 9 Duveyoung 
 8 Vaj 
 7 Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
 7 Jason 
 5 wgm4u 
 4 shukra69 
 4 maskedzebra 
 3 merlin 
 2 shainm307 
 2 jpgillam 
 2 azgrey 
 2 Tom Pall 
 2 Rick Archer 
 2 Mike Dixon 
 2 Alex Stanley 
 1 ynorthr 
 1 sittingduck165203 
 1 shanti2218411 
 1 Bill Coop 
 1 "kc...@epix.net" 

Posters: 41
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: 100 Purusha leaving MUM, going to NC?

[Buck]

Oh son we have to suffer this post, from a quitter?
Son, you obvious don't live here.  You quit when?
You got not perspective on this now.  
You got not dog in the fight either.
You got neither too Wayback.
Just bunch of quitters.

Text msg fra de saddle,
-Buck

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Hasn't it occurred to you that if this isn't a priority for the 
> > movement,and at many times during its history it has acted in such a way to 
> > prove this, that they really don't believe in this Vedic "non flying" group 
> > magic the way you do?
> > 
> > They give it lip-service, especially when it is useful to manipulate people 
> > into attending courses, but they have never acted in a way consistent with 
> > a firm conviction that this principle is true.  They don't put their money 
> > where their mouth is to make it happen.
> > 
> > Is there a higher reason than world peace to put the Purusha elsewhere? If 
> > all the catastrophic phobia inducing beliefs were close to true, wouldn't 
> > that be the highest priority? And wouldn't the Rajas, hand picked by 
> > Maharishi for being in tune with his own priorities, be the guys upholding 
> > this key principle?  They spent more time around the guy than any of us, 
> > they probably know his mind at least as well as anyone.
> > 
> > The biggest problem I have with your analysis of Fairfield is the same one 
> > I saw again and again in the movement, not believing that the people 
> > charged with doing what Maharishi wants are actually doing that.  Maharishi 
> > would make a money-centric decision that screwed people, it would come 
> > right from him, then people in charge would implement it and the ones 
> > affected would blame it on the messengers. Anything to preserve the 
> > illusion of Maharishi's benevolence. 
> > 
> > The Rajas are all in, they are as believer-er as anyone could be. They 
> > believe as much as you do and are as sincere in trying to do what they 
> > imagine Maharishi wants from them.  That is my POV.  They are ME back in 
> > the day, with more money so their suits are nicer.
> > 
> > My take is that Maharishi used the idea of group flying as a convenience to 
> > rally his group.  It was either carrot or stick depending on circumstances. 
> > But if he really believed that the world might blow up without some magic 
> > number of people "not flying" together, he would have ponyed up after one 
> > of his real estate windfall sales (College of Natural Law in DC for 
> > example) and made it happen.
> > 
> > Instead what he did was to spend that money in a manor more consistent with 
> > being a real estate speculator with a team of slave labor renovators (Oh 
> > those special Purushas are so handy!)buying properties all over the place 
> > and then flipping them when the price went up.  Having lived in many of 
> > them I can tell you no dime was spent to actually fix them up, we hung 
> > sheets instead of putting up sheetrock walls.
> > 
> > The movement is moving a bunch of Puruahas because it suits some renovation 
> > need or they just ran out of space and are sick of hearing people bitch, or 
> > too many of them are ending up with girlfriends (bonerific!), or it is time 
> > to shake them all up so they feel like they are on some new special project 
> > instead of pissing their lives away with their eyes closed most of the time 
> > without proper health insurance unless their parents are part of the 
> > 1%.(you know, good karma and all)
> > 
> > The world peace through flying together idea is one of convenience, pulled 
> > out when the movement wants people to rally in one convenient group to 
> > pitch the new shit to. (the human body in Christmas lights!)
> > 
> > The dome policy is an exclusionary one and punishes people for even 
> > thinking about spending time with the competition (think about that concept 
> > in a "spiritual" context) because Maharishi himself was the king of the 
> > exclusionary bastards. It was always his way or the highway.
> > 
> > The Rajas are sincere in doing whatever it is they think Maharishi wanted 
> > and that includes not really acting as if the Maharishi effect is real 
> > outside its usefulness to motivate the group and punishing people who don't 
> > tow a very narrow mental focus on Maharishi alone.  They act like self 
> > serving buttholes because that is not only what Maharishi would have 
> > wanted, it was who Maharishi was.
> > 
> > Sorry to break all this so close to the season when you figured out there 
> > is no Santa Claus, but it will save you a lot of frustration in the long 
> > run believe me.
> > 
> > The movement is acting exactly as Maharishi would have wanted, as it always 
> > has.  Love it or leave it, but you are not going to change it.
> 
> Doug, Cutis says it better, but t

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[zarzari_786]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> No matter how often she calls out Barry for being the master of unintended 
> irony, Vaj for lying or has long winded arguments with Curtis, who does his 
> best to wriggle out of owning up to whatever she has nailed him on, they 
> cannot escape her quest for truth, fairness and honesty. Her sharp intellect 
> makes her the most flawlessly honest person you'd ever want to meet.  

Except of course, when she gets angry, which is most of the time.

> When she calls out the troika, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact 
> they are TM critics. 
> 

I don't know which forum you are referring to, but it must be  different from 
the one than the one I am reading. Maybe its time to put off your glasses, or 
simply are honest about reality.

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786  wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> >
> > No matter how often she calls out Barry for being the master of unintended 
> > irony, Vaj for lying or has long winded arguments with Curtis, who does his 
> > best to wriggle out of owning up to whatever she has nailed him on, they 
> > cannot escape her quest for truth, fairness and honesty. Her sharp 
> > intellect makes her the most flawlessly honest person you'd ever want to 
> > meet.  
> 
> Except of course, when she gets angry, which is most of the time.
> 
> > When she calls out the troika, it has absolutely nothing to do with the 
> > fact they are TM critics. 
> > 
> 
> I don't know which forum you are referring to, but it must be  different from 
> the one than the one I am reading. Maybe its time to put off your glasses, or 
> simply are honest about reality.
>

O.K. then. Show us one post where Judy has ever pointed out an unintended 
irony, a lie or a wiggle from owning up to an error because and only because 
the person she confronted is a TM critic. Bet you a buck you can't and I'll bet 
you another buck Judy would be the first to dig up such a post if it existed.

[FairfieldLife] Secrets and Confession

[Yifu]

by Alexandra Manukyan

http://www.laluzdejesus.com/shows/2012/Manukyan/Manukyan_LG_Secrets-and-Confession.jpg

[FairfieldLife] Re: The problem Atheists have

[Buck]

Xeno, I am in favor of 'sin' as it is delineated in the resolution,  that is my 
experience and I see that Paramahansa Yogananda has it right. 

Note that God is run out as the resolution reads.  Sit and meditate more on the 
soul and free-will with this.  However, I would urge you to not split over the 
soul and free-will but concur with the resolution on sin for what it is.  Don't 
let theisms withhold your support on the sin resolution.
As you may feel more in to this, I look to your support of the FFL resolution 
on sin. 
With Best Regards,
 -Buck in FF

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> Buck, there is disagreement here on the following terms. God, free-will, 
> soul. Best of luck!
> 
> Praying is like a rocking chair - it'll give you something to do, but it 
> won't get you anywhere. - Gypsy Rose Lee
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> >
> > Dear FFL Owner, Moderators and Members in good standing;
> > 
> > For a sake of a more unified discussion here on FairfieldLife@yahoo I wish 
> > to make a motion that we adopt a resolution of the definition of 'sin' as 
> > is proffered by Paramahansa Yogananda, "That here at FFL hence forth 'sin' 
> > shall be known spiritually, as that which compromises self-mastery.  That 
> > sin has its automatic negative effect to the degree of the influence of 
> > delusion with in it -involving no condemnation of an irate God.  Man's 
> > free-will actions simply harmonize and strengthen the expressed essence of 
> > his soul perfection or weaken and degrade it into mortal enslavement."
> > -Buck in FF
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > Yet save a trembling sinner, Unified Field
> > > > Whose hope still hov'ring round Thy word
> > > > Would light on some sweet promise there,
> > > > Some sure support of Nature against despair.
> > > > > 
> > > > > My crimes, though great, cannot surpass
> > > > > The pow'r and glory of Thy grace;
> > > > > Great Unifying Field, Thy nature hath no bound;
> > > > > So let Thy pard'ning love be found.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Show pity, O Unified Field, forgive;
> > > > > > Let a repenting rebel live.
> > > > > > Are not Thy mercies large and free?
> > > > > > May not a sinner trust in Thee?�
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
> > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > O Integrity, there are no sins.
> > > > > > > Form or formless matters not.
> > > > > > > Presence always, 
> > > > > > > Especial location no necessity.
> > > > > > >
> > > 
> > > " 'Sin' requires a complex definition.  It is not a transgression against 
> > > an arbitrary code of behavior decreed by a whimsical God.  The Unified 
> > > Field made human a spiritual being, a soul endowed with an 
> > > individualization of its own nature.  It gives to the soul, evolved from 
> > > its own Self, the instruments of a body and a mind with which to perceive 
> > > and interact with the objects of a manifested universe.  
> > >  
> > >  If man lives in perfect harmony with the machinations of these 
> > > principles, he remains a spiritual being in charge of his body and mind.  
> > > Sin is that which compromises that perfect self-mastery.  It has its 
> > > automatic negative effect to the degree of the influence of delusion with 
> > > in it -involving no condemnation of an irate God.  Man's free-will 
> > > actions simply harmonize and strengthen the expressed essence of his soul 
> > > perfection or weaken and degrade it into mortal enslavement."
> > >  
> > > Excerpt -Discourse 27
> > >  Yogananda's
> > >  The Second Coming of Christ
> > >  The Resurrection of Christ Within You 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "O Unified Field, pardon me three sins.
> > > > > > > > I have in contemplation clothed in form
> > > > > > > > Thee who art formless.
> > > > > > > > I have described [in words] Thee who art ineffable.
> > > > > > > > And in visiting temples I have ignored
> > > > > > > > Thy omnipresence."
> > > > > > > > -Buck
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik" 
> > > > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Judy, you wrote, "You do understand that Robin does not 
> > > > > > > > > claim to be enlightened and is not seeking enlightenment, 
> > > > > > > > > that he thinks it's a snare and a delusion, that he believes 
> > > > > > > > > he was enlightened decades ago and has made a huge effort 
> > > > > > > > > since then to "de-enlighten" himself."
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > After reading a lot of what Robin writes about enlightenment 
> > > > > > > > > and his experience being enlightened, he says he was 
> > > > > > > > > witnessing the whole time. That stuck out when I read it. 
> > > > > > > > > Enlightenment as it grows, and it always grows if it is real, 
> > > > > > > > > eats up and

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dominant seventh?

[Bhairitu]

On 01/05/2012 03:19 PM, cardemaister wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>> On 01/05/2012 12:56 AM, cardemaister wrote:
>>> I'm not absolutely sure about that, but I guess I finally
>>> figgered out why e.g. C7 is called a *dominant* seventh chord
>>> (of the C major scale?).
>>>
>>> As most of us might know, the 7 in C7 is B-flat, which
>>> doesn't belong to the C major scale.
>>>
>>> But if you form a similar seventh chord starting (as the root) from
>>> the *dominant* of C major scale, which is G, the diminished
>>> seventh is F, which is the fourth (subdominant) of the
>>> *C major* scale. :o
>> A dominant chord is one based on the 5th step of a major scale.  Hence
>> the dominant 7th chord for C is G7.  C7 is the dominant 7th chord for
>> the F major scale.  A little music theory goes a long ways.
>>
> That sure would make more sense, but the first figure on this
> Wiki article:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant_seventh
>
> ...sez: dominant seventh chord on C: C7 [not G7]

That reference is for the different 7th chords on C such as C maj7 C7 
Cmi7 Cdim7 etc.  But a dominant chort is the 5 chord which would be G in 
the key of C.  Go look up "dominant chord."

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[richardatrwilliamsdotus]

> > I don't know which forum you are referring to, 
> > but it must be  different from the one than the 
> > one I am reading. Maybe its time to put off your 
> > glasses, or simply are honest about reality.
> >
raunchydog:
> O.K. then. Show us one post where Judy has ever 
> pointed out an unintended irony, a lie or a wiggle 
> from owning up to an error because and only because 
> the person she confronted is a TM critic.
>
Uh oh. Maybe it's time for Barry to keep his pie 
hole shut with the porn texts for Judy. Where's Rick 
when we need him? Go figure.

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule Against Porn Texting?

[richardatrwilliamsdotus]

raunchydog:
> ...if "willytex" can be accused of having sex with a
> prairie dog, which is a standard joke around here,
> then anything goes.
>
For the record, I DID NOT have sexual relations with
that "prairie dog"!


  [I did NOT have sex  with that prairie dog! ]

"Willy, since fucking prairie dogs or whatever you do
with your time doesn't seem to fill enough of it
lately, and you've been going out of your way to
associate me with Rama and thus with a big, bad cult
figure, I figure I should explain a couple of things..."

Subject: Open Letter To Willytex
Author: Uncle Tantra
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: August 6, 2003

[FairfieldLife] Re: Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[richardatrwilliamsdotus]

obbajeeba:
> Two people stood very close to each other...
>
"Two birds sat in a tree; one ate the fruit; 
another looked on." - Shvetashvatara (4.7)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: And yet another 'Green Energy' fiasco!

[Bhairitu]

On 01/05/2012 02:49 PM, wgm4u wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>> On 01/05/2012 11:40 AM, wgm4u wrote:
>>> Does it ever end, no wonder the economy is in the toilet! Thanks, Barack, 
>>> luv ya man!
>
>> Baracks fault?
>
> Yep-The economy is in the toilet because of Barack Obama and the misguided 
> fools surrounding him in the green energy business and environmental 
> extremism camp! Including the BIG GOVERNMENT lobbyists high speed rail, what 
> a joke).

So you want to live in a dirty, filthy, polluted world surrounded by 
robber barons?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Our resident enlightened guys

[richardatrwilliamsdotus]

curtisdeltablues:
> Imagine my surprise reading this: (actual explicit
> terms used will be substituted for non offensive
> ones)...
>
So, why would you be surprised now?

TurquoiseB:
> Like most Texans, Willy likes to imagine that he
> would never have "lost" to an intruder.
>
> Like most Texans, he probably believes that while
> going to S&M clubs, dressing in black leather tie-
> me-up-and-fuck-me outfits (complete with ball
> gag), and being whipped by Miss Kitty while
> listening to Waylon Jennings records.
>
FairfieldLife/message/246688

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: And yet another 'Green Energy' fiasco!

[Emily Reyn]

HeyNewt is all for it too  

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/us/politics/for-high-speed-rail-support-in-the-past-from-gop-presidential-hopefuls.html




 From: Bhairitu 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: And yet another 'Green Energy' fiasco!
 

  
On 01/05/2012 02:49 PM, wgm4u wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>> On 01/05/2012 11:40 AM, wgm4u wrote:
>>> Does it ever end, no wonder the economy is in the toilet! Thanks, Barack, 
>>> luv ya man!
>
>> Baracks fault?
>
> Yep-The economy is in the toilet because of Barack Obama and the misguided 
> fools surrounding him in the green energy business and environmental 
> extremism camp! Including the BIG GOVERNMENT lobbyists high speed rail, what 
> a joke).

So you want to live in a dirty, filthy, polluted world surrounded by 
robber barons?


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 100 Purusha leaving MUM, going to NC?

[Buck]

Om, this has the mark of the hand of the Prime Minister on it.  Yep, there's 
something vindictive about them doing this with-drawing of Purusha from the 
Dome numbers now. 


>
> Everyone who lives in Fairfield should be concerned about this.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> >
> > Boots on the ground, this is a serious draw-down of peace-keepers here.
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > FWIW, I'm afraid the 13th baktun, or stuff, of Maya-indians, is
> > > > approaching its end... :0
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Maya- or Mayan-Indians, it don't matter which.  
> > > This is really bad for the Dome numbers, Fairfield, and the World.
> > >  
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The immediate urgent priority for national invincibility and world 
> > > > > peace is to join the Invincible America Course at MUM. Only 2000 
> > > > > Flyers, rising to 2500, in Fairfield/Maharishi Vedic City will bring 
> > > > > security to America and defuse the precarious escalation of conflict 
> > > > > in the world.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is from a faculty member at MUM.   100 Purusha are leaving 
> > > > > > > VC next
> > > > > > > month to go to North Carolina.   Is there a new place for Purusha 
> > > > > > > in NC?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > There go the Dome Numbers, again.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: And yet another 'Green Energy' fiasco!

[wgm4u]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> HeyNewt is all for it too  
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/us/politics/for-high-speed-rail-support-in-the-past-from-gop-presidential-hopefuls.html

The midget could never beat Obama..on looks alone!  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: And yet another 'Green Energy' fiasco!

[wgm4u]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> On 01/05/2012 02:49 PM, wgm4u wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> >> On 01/05/2012 11:40 AM, wgm4u wrote:
> >>> Does it ever end, no wonder the economy is in the toilet! Thanks, Barack, 
> >>> luv ya man!
> >
> >> Baracks fault?
> >
> > Yep-The economy is in the toilet because of Barack Obama and the misguided 
> > fools surrounding him in the green energy business and environmental 
> > extremism camp! Including the BIG GOVERNMENT lobbyists high speed rail, 
> > what a joke).
> 
> So you want to live in a dirty, filthy, polluted world surrounded by 
> robber barons?

No, just common sense energy policies. 
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[seventhray1]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" 
wrote:
> O.K. then. Show us one post where Judy has ever pointed out an
unintended irony, a lie or a wiggle from owning up to an error because
and only because the person she confronted is a TM critic. Bet you a
buck you can't and I'll bet you another buck Judy would be the first to
dig up such a post if it existed.
>
Raunch,

If I had the time, I bet I could show you  plenty of instances where
something is parsed to the point where it becomes nonsensical.  You can
always find a way to have a "technical" win, at the expense of common
sense.

Have you ever observed anything along these lines?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: And yet another 'Green Energy' fiasco!

[Emily Reyn]

The 12/15 Jon Stewart show which may not interest you or maybe you saw, but the 
first part is all on the Gingrich and it is pretty humorous, given the 
statements from other Republican reps and particularly after the Iowa caucus.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-december-15-2011-matt-damon




 From: wgm4u 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 8:15 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: And yet another 'Green Energy' fiasco!
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> HeyNewt is all for it too  
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/us/politics/for-high-speed-rail-support-in-the-past-from-gop-presidential-hopefuls.html

The midget could never beat Obama..on looks alone!  :-)


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[azgrey]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> > >
> > > No matter how often she calls out Barry for being the master of 
> > > unintended irony, Vaj for lying or has long winded arguments with Curtis, 
> > > who does his best to wriggle out of owning up to whatever she has nailed 
> > > him on, they cannot escape her quest for truth, fairness and honesty. Her 
> > > sharp intellect makes her the most flawlessly honest person you'd ever 
> > > want to meet.  
> > 
> > Except of course, when she gets angry, which is most of the time.
> > 
> > > When she calls out the troika, it has absolutely nothing to do with the 
> > > fact they are TM critics. 
> > > 
> > 
> > I don't know which forum you are referring to, but it must be  different 
> > from the one than the one I am reading. Maybe its time to put off your 
> > glasses, or simply are honest about reality.
> >
> 
> O.K. then. Show us one post where Judy has ever pointed out an unintended 
> irony, a lie or a wiggle from owning up to an error because and only because 
> the person she confronted is a TM critic. Bet you a buck you can't and I'll 
> bet you another buck Judy would be the first to dig up such a post if it 
> existed.
>


Boy you sure know how to load a bet so you don't ever part
with that shiny uncirculated Susan B. Anthony dollar you have
been saving since 1979. (aka-a "Carter quarter") Ya sure the 
post doesn't have to also be made while the nasty old biach 
was chewing gum and whistling Dixie?

I'll do yas one better. I'll bet ya 2 shiny SBA dollars that you 
can't find a post of Judy's where she is not being a lying, 
hypocritical, personality disordered, nasty old coot that was
not made on a day ending in y. 

  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Our resident enlightened guys

[azgrey]

Nice graceful exit Flanigen.

Knowingly over-post and then come right back and post 
your childish "poopy pants" retort. 

How enlightened of you.

I think Curtis deserves a lot of credit for the grace, restraint,
and good humor he has displayed the last several days while 
being very personally maligned by a trio of world class nutcases.
   

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
>
> I have no delusions about enlightenment, Curtis, mine or anyone else's. Nor 
> do I believe in it. Sometimes stuff just happens. Nonetheless, if you must 
> judge me, judge me as ME, not some bullshit excuse to put down enlightenment. 
> And while you're at it, please remove your false teeth. :-)
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > Imagine my surprise reading this: (actual explicit terms used will be 
> > substituted for non offensive ones)
> > 
> > Jim:
> > 
> > > I've made a joke or two about your man crush on Curtis, and believe I 
> > > made reference to you "practically wetting yourself" in anticipation of 
> > > his postings. Nothing sexual though. I never said, "Barry should wear a 
> > > JOHNSON SHAPED RAINCOAT before he has CABOOSE PLEASANTRIES with Curtis", 
> > > or "Barry oughta brush his teeth before ORALLY MASSAGING THE TROUSER 
> > > TROUT OF Curtis", or "It would be tough to give Barry a VAYU ENHANCED 
> > > GENITAL CLEANING, not cuz his VEDIC IMPULSE is so small, but because he 
> > > never learned to wipe himself properly, and he stinks!".
> > 
> > Why are the sexually explicit attack rant tantrums so similar between the 
> > two individuals most invested in selling us all on the idea that they are 
> > functioning from a specially enhanced state of consciousness extolled by 
> > the Vedas as the goal of all human development, the highest state of human 
> > attainment and the one where if one so chose, he could enjoy CABOOSE 
> > PLEASANTRIES or ORALLY MASSAGE THE TROUSER TROUT of the creator of the 
> > universe himself? (Or I assume if she turns out to be a chick...well you 
> > known, just switch some stuff around and go for it.)  And why are both so 
> > inappropriately homoerotic?
> > 
> > What was my grievous offense, that might deserve this stretching of the 
> > boundaries of propriety on a public board?  And why should I be the target 
> > since I had nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion?
> > 
> > With my interest in the educational development of children I have been 
> > exposed to some perspectives on tantrum behavior and I believe it may apply 
> > here.  Here is the scenario:
> > 
> > Let's call the kid Ravijimbo for the sake of this demonstration.
> > 
> > Ravimimbo:
> > "Can I have a lollipop?"
> > 
> > "This sentence, when uttered in a crowded supermarket, has the power to 
> > invoke a racing heart and sweating palms in many parents.
> > 
> > The answer is no. The child raises her voice. The answer is still no. The 
> > child drops to the floor. The answer turns into a discussion and the 
> > child's voice increases in volume. The tears flow, the shrieks begin and, 
> > after a few parental self-conscious glances at near by shoppers ? the 
> > answer becomes yes."  (From an internet tantrum info site.)
> > 
> > 
> > So what is the lollipop being denied that in the context of this public 
> > forum leads to this meltdown behavior going way beyond what is necessary to 
> > make their point?  I believe it is that I withhold the thing they seek, 
> > going along with their self-perception that they are living in a superior 
> > state of mind than the rest of us.  I have never attacked either of these 
> > guys in this manor, but I am an outspoken advocate for a POV which negates 
> > the core of their claim to be living in a state extravagantly termed 
> > enlightenment.
> > 
> > So we have two similar meltdowns which escalates the behavior in public to 
> > the extreme in an attempt to express the rage felt at being denied the one 
> > thing they most covet, and which they feel entitled to: being treated as if 
> > they are the specialist boy in the whole wide world.  "Yes they are, yes 
> > they are, where's that smile, there it is, there it is."
> > 
> > Your outburst was childish and uncalled for Jim, as was Ravi's before you. 
> > You seem like a kindergartner lacking in self-awareness and self-control,(I 
> > hear TM is good for that.) throwing obnoxious sand into the eyes of readers 
> > here.  I hope you will do a little introspection during your much deserved 
> > time out.
> > 
> > If you really look deeply into your heart of hearts, you may find that I am 
> > not the only one who has doubts about your superior state of mind.  And if 
> > you can face that, I'm here to say that it isn't so bad seeing yourself as 
> > an ordinary person.  Your self-delusion sets you up for this kind of fall.  
> > Why don't you orally massage THAT lolli?
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" 
> wrote:
> > O.K. then. Show us one post where Judy has ever pointed out an
> unintended irony, a lie or a wiggle from owning up to an error because
> and only because the person she confronted is a TM critic. Bet you a
> buck you can't and I'll bet you another buck Judy would be the first to
> dig up such a post if it existed.
> >
> Raunch,
> 
> If I had the time, I bet I could show you  plenty of instances where
> something is parsed to the point where it becomes nonsensical.  You can
> always find a way to have a "technical" win, at the expense of common
> sense.
> 
> Have you ever observed anything along these lines?
>

Steve, the point is that Barry routinely claims Judy comes after him because he 
is a TM critic, which is simply not true. This is the facade he hides behind so 
he never has to confront the specific issues she raises. zarzari_786 buys into 
Barry's claim and makes the false assumption that Judy criticizes Barry because 
he is a TM critic. Good Lord, haven't you noticed there's plenty to criticize 
about Barry's posts, usually loaded with unintended irony, quite apart from the 
fact that he happens to be a TM critic? The issue you raise about parsing and a 
technical win at the expense of common sense has nothing to do with my 
challenge to zarzari_786 for putting his foot in his mouth. If you want to keep 
digging yourself a hole on this one, you can take it up with Judy.

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > No matter how often she calls out Barry for being the master of 
> > > > unintended irony, Vaj for lying or has long winded arguments with 
> > > > Curtis, who does his best to wriggle out of owning up to whatever she 
> > > > has nailed him on, they cannot escape her quest for truth, fairness and 
> > > > honesty. Her sharp intellect makes her the most flawlessly honest 
> > > > person you'd ever want to meet.  
> > > 
> > > Except of course, when she gets angry, which is most of the time.
> > > 
> > > > When she calls out the troika, it has absolutely nothing to do with the 
> > > > fact they are TM critics. 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I don't know which forum you are referring to, but it must be  different 
> > > from the one than the one I am reading. Maybe its time to put off your 
> > > glasses, or simply are honest about reality.
> > >
> > 
> > O.K. then. Show us one post where Judy has ever pointed out an unintended 
> > irony, a lie or a wiggle from owning up to an error because and only 
> > because the person she confronted is a TM critic. Bet you a buck you can't 
> > and I'll bet you another buck Judy would be the first to dig up such a post 
> > if it existed.
> >
> 
> 
> Boy you sure know how to load a bet so you don't ever part
> with that shiny uncirculated Susan B. Anthony dollar you have
> been saving since 1979. (aka-a "Carter quarter") Ya sure the 
> post doesn't have to also be made while the nasty old biach 
> was chewing gum and whistling Dixie?
> 
> I'll do yas one better. I'll bet ya 2 shiny SBA dollars that you 
> can't find a post of Judy's where she is not being a lying, 
> hypocritical, personality disordered, nasty old coot that was
> not made on a day ending in y.
>

It's a sure bet because Judy does not criticize anyone because they are a TM 
critic. Sorry, if multiple choice is too complicate for you to figure out.

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> O.K. then. Show us one post where Judy has ever pointed 
> out an unintended irony, a lie or a wiggle from owning 
> up to an error because and only because the person she 
> confronted is a TM critic. Bet you a buck you can't and 
> I'll bet you another buck Judy would be the first to dig 
> up such a post if it existed.

Raunchy, I think that what zarzari and others 
have perceived (and rightly, IMO) is that the
*particular* nitpicks that Judy comes up with
to criticize someone very often have nothing
whatsoever to do with her real reasons *for*
criticizing them. 

One of the troika will post something less 
than worshipful about Maharishi or TM or TMers
and within a few hours Judy will be all over 
that person *for some unrelated, made-up reason*.

It's like a teacher who only criticizes the
black students in the class. The individual 
criticisms may actually be valid. But if a 
case can be made that the *vast majority* of
the criticisms are of black students, and in
fact the *vast majority* of things that teacher
says *period* are negative comments about the
black students, that teacher is going to get 
fired for being a racist. 

Judy has been trying to "get" the same three
people on this forum for well over a decade 
now, one for over 17 years. I think it's 
justified to question whether the reasons 
she comes up with *for* consistently trying
to "get" them are her real reasons, or 
whether that's just the "cover story" she
trots out to hide the fact that she considers 
them the TM TB counterpart of niggers.

It's the TRENDS, Raunchy, not the particulars.

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> >
> > O.K. then. Show us one post where Judy has ever pointed 
> > out an unintended irony, a lie or a wiggle from owning 
> > up to an error because and only because the person she 
> > confronted is a TM critic. Bet you a buck you can't and 
> > I'll bet you another buck Judy would be the first to dig 
> > up such a post if it existed.
> 
> Raunchy, I think that what zarzari and others 
> have perceived (and rightly, IMO) is that the
> *particular* nitpicks that Judy comes up with
> to criticize someone very often have nothing
> whatsoever to do with her real reasons *for*
> criticizing them. 
> 
> One of the troika will post something less 
> than worshipful about Maharishi or TM or TMers
> and within a few hours Judy will be all over 
> that person *for some unrelated, made-up reason*.
> 
> It's like a teacher who only criticizes the
> black students in the class. The individual 
> criticisms may actually be valid. But if a 
> case can be made that the *vast majority* of
> the criticisms are of black students, and in
> fact the *vast majority* of things that teacher
> says *period* are negative comments about the
> black students, that teacher is going to get 
> fired for being a racist. 
> 
> Judy has been trying to "get" the same three
> people on this forum for well over a decade 
> now, one for over 17 years. I think it's 
> justified to question whether the reasons 
> she comes up with *for* consistently trying
> to "get" them are her real reasons, or 
> whether that's just the "cover story" she
> trots out to hide the fact that she considers 
> them the TM TB counterpart of niggers.
> 
> It's the TRENDS, Raunchy, not the particulars.
>

Sorry, there nothing in the FFLife budget for reparations.

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule Against Porn Texting?

[hermandan0]

Sorry, judst have to ask---no offense to anyone as I have no dogs, prairie or 
otherwise, in this fight---Is that a picture of willytex or the prairie dog?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardatrwilliamsdotus"  
wrote:
>
> raunchydog:
> > ...if "willytex" can be accused of having sex with a
> > prairie dog, which is a standard joke around here,
> > then anything goes.
> >
> For the record, I DID NOT have sexual relations with
> that "prairie dog"!
> 
> 
>   [I did NOT have sex  with that prairie dog! ]
> 
> "Willy, since fucking prairie dogs or whatever you do
> with your time doesn't seem to fill enough of it
> lately, and you've been going out of your way to
> associate me with Rama and thus with a big, bad cult
> figure, I figure I should explain a couple of things..."
> 
> Subject: Open Letter To Willytex
> Author: Uncle Tantra
> Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
> Date: August 6, 2003
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..)

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> > >
> > > O.K. then. Show us one post where Judy has ever pointed 
> > > out an unintended irony, a lie or a wiggle from owning 
> > > up to an error because and only because the person she 
> > > confronted is a TM critic. Bet you a buck you can't and 
> > > I'll bet you another buck Judy would be the first to dig 
> > > up such a post if it existed.
> > 
> > Raunchy, I think that what zarzari and others 
> > have perceived (and rightly, IMO) is that the
> > *particular* nitpicks that Judy comes up with
> > to criticize someone very often have nothing
> > whatsoever to do with her real reasons *for*
> > criticizing them. 
> > 
> > One of the troika will post something less 
> > than worshipful about Maharishi or TM or TMers
> > and within a few hours Judy will be all over 
> > that person *for some unrelated, made-up reason*.
> > 
> > It's like a teacher who only criticizes the
> > black students in the class. The individual 
> > criticisms may actually be valid. But if a 
> > case can be made that the *vast majority* of
> > the criticisms are of black students, and in
> > fact the *vast majority* of things that teacher
> > says *period* are negative comments about the
> > black students, that teacher is going to get 
> > fired for being a racist. 
> > 
> > Judy has been trying to "get" the same three
> > people on this forum for well over a decade 
> > now, one for over 17 years. I think it's 
> > justified to question whether the reasons 
> > she comes up with *for* consistently trying
> > to "get" them are her real reasons, or 
> > whether that's just the "cover story" she
> > trots out to hide the fact that she considers 
> > them the TM TB counterpart of niggers.
> > 
> > It's the TRENDS, Raunchy, not the particulars.
> 
> Sorry, there nothing in the FFLife budget for reparations.

Reparations, schmeparations. I don't think any
of the three of Judy's consistent victims give
a shit about her, or what she says about them.
I've bascially stopped reading her posts (except
where quoted by others), and haven't replied to
her directly in months. 

You're a big one for "bets," Raunchy. I dare you
to go back and find a single "posting week" in
FFL history (with the exception of the political
battles leading up to the last Presidential elec-
tion) in which 50% or more of Judy's posts were
*not* in some way ragging on one or more of the
"troika" of Vaj, Curtis and myself. 

I think that the TREND there speaks of obsession,
and not a healthy one. And I personally don't think
she can possibly stop it at this point. I honestly
believe that it may have started in each case with
a knee-jerk defense of TM and Maharishi, and a 
desire to "show up" these heretics, but by now it
has become obscenely personal, a grudge verging on
hatred. I don't think it's even *possible* for her
to spend a posting week without ragging on them.

Even YOU have to see that. I understand your desire
to "stand by your gender" and come up with some 
defense of her consistent actions. But it's the
TRENDS I'm talking about, as are most of the people
criticizing her lately. The particular nitpicks or
claims are just a manifestation of the larger
obsession. But it really IS an obsession, and 
I'd bet that if you're honest with yourself, even
YOU have to admit it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Dominant seventh?

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> On 01/05/2012 03:19 PM, cardemaister wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> >> On 01/05/2012 12:56 AM, cardemaister wrote:
> >>> I'm not absolutely sure about that, but I guess I finally
> >>> figgered out why e.g. C7 is called a *dominant* seventh chord
> >>> (of the C major scale?).
> >>>
> >>> As most of us might know, the 7 in C7 is B-flat, which
> >>> doesn't belong to the C major scale.
> >>>
> >>> But if you form a similar seventh chord starting (as the root) from
> >>> the *dominant* of C major scale, which is G, the diminished
> >>> seventh is F, which is the fourth (subdominant) of the
> >>> *C major* scale. :o
> >> A dominant chord is one based on the 5th step of a major scale.  Hence
> >> the dominant 7th chord for C is G7.  C7 is the dominant 7th chord for
> >> the F major scale.  A little music theory goes a long ways.
> >>
> > That sure would make more sense, but the first figure on this
> > Wiki article:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant_seventh
> >
> > ...sez: dominant seventh chord on C: C7 [not G7]
> 
> That reference is for the different 7th chords on C such as C maj7 C7 
> Cmi7 Cdim7 etc.  But a dominant chort is the 5 chord which would be G in 
> the key of C.  Go look up "dominant chord."
>

OK. But I think in "normal" 12 bar blues in C, the seventh chord
is (usually?) C7. Isn't that then called a dominant seventh?

BTW, listen to a genuine(?) *harmonic* seventh of blues, which,
I believe is impossible to play on a piano:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Harmonic_seventh_on_C.mid

To me, that sounds almost intoxicating.

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